| ||||||
| 2008/10/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51701 Activity:low |
10/28 Federal Judge oath of office:
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following
oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: "I,
XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice
without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the
rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform
all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws
of the United States. So help me God."
Obama, 2007:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274143.aspx
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what
it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what
it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.
And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
\_ And Bush selected judges by ...
\_ Dittohead Desperation Level: Ultraviolet
\_ Don't you mean infrared? -op
\_ This guy is going to be an awesome President.
\_ FDR would have lost WEST COAST HOTEL if ROBERTS followed the oath. |
| 2008/10/28-30 [Finance/Investment] UID:51702 Activity:nil |
10/28 Dow up 10% today. This is not healthy.
\_ now that we are healthy again Obama can tax us all
\_ You aren't taxed? How did you pull that off?
\_ No indeed. Volatility is bad.
\_ Stop whining and make some money like the rest of us. Now is a
good time to buy puts, because Thursday's GDP report has a good
chance of sending the markets back down.
\_ thanks for your advice. What stocks/indices are your personal
favorites and what do you think may go down by (5%? 10%)?
Note that I'm asking for YOUR opinion that's all.
\_ I'd buy puts on the DOW. DOW is heavy financials which
are not out of the woods yets.
\- if you were investing today, you have have implicily
(or explicitly) been betting on what the fed will do
tomorrow. |
| 2008/10/28-31 [Uncategorized] UID:51703 Activity:nil |
10/28 What are some of the most popular (HUGE) index to trade on?
I heard DIA and QQQQ, what else?
\_ SPY. What you need to lookup are ETFs. |
| 2008/10/28-31 [Uncategorized] UID:51704 Activity:nil |
10/28 I need to put money somewhere safe, what's a good CD to use now? |
| 2008/10/28-29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:51705 Activity:low |
10/28 Crap. Solar Panel manufacture releases NF3, which is 17,000 times
worse a greenhouse gas than CO2. I want my solar panels!
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2229052/solar-panels-linked-powerful
\_ Yes it sucks. Yes it needs to be fixed. However 17,000 times
doesn't mean very much if the amount is minimal. This is FUD,
pure and simple. Manufacturing makes greenhouse gases through
a variety of ways. Centralized production is a single point
for improvement and regulation. Flat panels have resonable
regulation so that those gasses aren't just released. Notice the
whole "not more than two per cent of the NF3 used in industry
escaped" quote. If that's too much I'm sure than number could
fairly cheaply be reduced by a level of magnitude or more.
\_ We need to compare the amount of NF3 released during manufacturing
vs. the amount of CO2 it reduced by producing clean energy during
lifespan of the panel. Personally I don't have any data on either. |
| 2008/10/28-29 [Recreation/Humor] UID:51706 Activity:nil |
10/28 http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2008/10/fwd-fw-plot-to-kidnap-obama-discovered.html \_ no longer there. Here: http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com \_ Change the water mellon to a basketball, and you got a funnier Saturday Night Live quality joke. \_ wait, is it funny or is it SNL-quality? The two are mutually exclusive. \_ It could be funnier than it is, and still SNL-quality. |
| 2008/10/28-31 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51707 Activity:nil |
10/28 Good news Nikonians! Remember the days when Nikon didn't release
any FX bodies and instead concentrated on expanding their shitty
DX lenses, while Canon went full steam ahead with full frame
bodies & expanded their full frame lens lines, while taking away all
the Nikon faithfuls with them? Well, I just found out that Nikon
recently introduced a brand new 50mm f/1.4G FX (not DX this time)
lens which will deprecate the old 50mm f/1.4D lens. They also
introduced a more affordable entry level FX body (D700 at only
$2700 instead of D3 $5000). This is an indication that Nikon is
doing a 180 and wants to be serious about full frame again!
old:http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1902/AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f/1.4D.html
new:http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2180/AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-f/1.4G.html
So don't lose hope! I know 2002-2005 was bleak for Nikonians when
Canon already had a 3-5 year head start, but the new 50mm f/1.4G
and D700 means that Nikon is back in the game. I bet you that in
just 2.5 years, you'll have your affordable sub $1500 FX body just
like Canon has now.
\_ first of all, the "news" you got is old.
Secondly, Personally, I think the new 50mm f/1.4 is a rip off.
There is no need to put a focus motor for short lens like that.
the old 50mm f/1.4 lens focus very fast as it is. and
instead of $270 USD new, how much they are asking for again?
\_ How old? -- !OP
\_ $439 pre-order on Adorama. You DO get USM which is much faster
than the one you're thinking of. In contrast, Canon people
have it good. They can get all of this for 1/2 the price.
\_ I am *NOT* think of. I used it before. It is a perfectly
fine lens. Adding USM and charge $200 USD for it is a
clever marketing/commerical move. I encourge people who
are stupid enough to fall for it to make the purchase, since
I am a Nikon user and I want to see that company commercially
viable.
Please don't make your decision and whine about it. You
could choose to get a 50mm f/1.8 for $110 and you only loose
2/3 of a stop.
If you are getting a 200mm (or longer) lens, I would encouge
to think about getting an USM. But for anything less than
135mm, I think USM is silly.
\_ Not that silly if you have a D40 and D60 which can't
use AF lenses (only AF-S). Nikon is slowly deprecating
their antiquated AF lines and upgrading it with AF-S
similar to Canon's lenses that they had since 1987.
There are hints that newer bodies will also stop supporting
AF lenses. Canon did the painful thing and upgraded
everything in 1987. Nikon is still holding on the legacy
even though it's already the 21st century. Yet another
example of how ass backward and behind Nikon is.
\_ I beg differ. Nikon's move of slowing destroying
backward compatibility is an stragetic error IMNSHO.
Nikon's biggest asset is their wide range of legacy
lenses. It should do everything it can to preserve it,
yet at the same time design lens good enough that
people WANT to buy the new one.
Nikon is destorying their backward compatibility
because they think old lenses is canniblizing ther new
lens sells. The reality is, most people would rather
buy the new lenses if they can. The only reason
why people were buying old lenses was because the new
lenses are not as good optically, or it simply doesn't
have the feature people prefer. My favorite example
is the 70-210mm lens. I went out of my way to get
an old, constant f/4 lenses instead of a much newer
f/4-5.6 because the old lens is 1. optically superior
2. constant aperture, making people like me who use
manual exposure all the time a god-send. The serious
down side for having such old lenses is that 1.
auto-focus is painfully slow even for Nikon standard
2. coating is not very good by modern standard. But
given the trade offs and the type of photo I do,
I made my choice.
The tragic part is, Nikon is looking at what Canon
doing and simply copying it. Canon is smart... pitch
their strength. Nikon was stupid, going to the battle
field which they are not particularlly strong.
Here are examples:
1. auto-focus speed. (Nikon's in-camera motor naturally
slower than Canon's. *BUT* this is only important
for long-focal-length lenses... Nikon should of pitch
the fact that Nikon lenses can still AF at relativly
dark condition, and unlike Canon, many lense can
auto-focus when the aperture is smaller than f/5.6)
2. number of auto-focus sensors
people care about AF effectiveness, not number of
sensors
That, and the fact that Nikon only made their
top-of-the-line camera feature complete totally
destroyed their market share from 80%+ to <40%
In the end, for new comers, it doesnt really matter.
I usually tell my friend to go to store and feel the
camera in his/her hand. if she/he prefer one over
another, i'll tell him/her to buy that one. It
can be Canon, Nikon, or in my friend's case, end up
with a Pentax.
\_ Thank you. An admission that Nikon can't keep up
with innovation. For you newbies out there who
don't have legacy lenses... GET A CANON! It's
a better choice. -Canonboi
\_ I see what you're saying. The focal length is so short
that motorized focus is already lightening fast (or at
least fast enough for normal indoor, people type of
subjects)? Whereas for longer focal lengths, the body
motor tends to "hunt" for the right focus.
\_ *YES* both USM and image stabilization become a
god-send if you are using 300mm or longer. |
| 2008/10/28-29 [Industry/Startup] UID:51708 Activity:nil |
10/28 Just had a very shady experience with my bank's Consumer Opt-Out
Department. The automated system goes something like this:
"If you would like to opt out from our promotions, affiliate programs,
blah blah blah blah (this goes on for about 30 seconds), press 1.
[pause 5 seconds]. If you would like to opt out from our 3rd party
programs, blah blah blah (this goes on for about 15 seconds),
press 2 [pause 5 seconds]. If you would like to opt out from both
options, press 3 [pause 2 seconds]. Please enter your selection
now."
It's like they really want you to not opt-out, and that even if
you DO want to opt out, they want you to opt-out of the wrong
choice so that they can share your info with 3rd parties. Isn't
there something shady and borderline illegal about this?
\_ It's dishonest, but it's not illegal. It's also typical. -tom
\_ ah yes, Shitibank (or was it Cuntrywide?). got that too.
\_ One of the institutions I use (forgot which) says it doesn't offer
an opt-out option because it simply doesn't share info with
affiliated parties. I don't remember if there's an opt-in option. |
| 2008/10/28-30 [Reference/BayArea] UID:51709 Activity:nil |
10/28 Dear poor pissed off socialist guy who missed out on the boom,
this is good news for you. I told you the free market would
fix the problem by itself!:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/28/real_estate/August_Case_Shiller
What surprised me was SF = 27% decline. I thought SF was immune
to housing bust. What's up?
\_ That's not SF, that is the Bay Area. The declines are mostly in
places like Vallejo and San Ramon. SF proper is only down about
10%, and most of that is in the BayView/Excelsior area. My
neighborhood has not seen any decline, unfortunately. Why do
you think that SF is immune btw? Did someone tell you that?
http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay081021.aspx
\_ http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2008/10/august_spcaseshiller_san_francisco_msa_decline_accelera.html |
| 2008/10/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51710 Activity:nil |
10/27 More massive republican voter fraud
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/10/phony-flier-says-virginians-vote-different-days |
| 2008/10/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51711 Activity:nil |
10/28 http://defamer.com/5068356/ricky-gervais-and-thandie-newton-add-british-class-to-sarah-palin-porn-film |
| 2008/10/28-29 [Reference/RealEstate, Finance/Investment] UID:51712 Activity:nil |
10/28 http://tinyurl.com/6l3kpr (wsj.com) http://tinyurl.com/364bdv (boston.com) Oldies but goodies, Greenspan sez: - More H-1Bs -> Buy more overpriced homes -> Home prices stabilize -> Overpaid engineers/professionals make less -> PROFIT! |
| 2008/10/28-31 [Finance/Investment] UID:51713 Activity:low |
10/28 Biggest DJIA up days (ob past history does not guarantee future reslts)
1. March 15, 1933 15.34%
2. Oct. 6, 1931 14.87%
3. Oct. 30, 1929 12.34%
4. Sept. 21, 1932 11.36%
5. Oct. 13, 2008 11.08% <--
6. Oct. 28, 2008 10.88% <--
7. Oct. 21, 1987 10.15%
8. Aug. 3, 1932 9.52%
9. Feb. 11, 1932 9.47%
10. Nov. 14, 1929 9.36%
11. Dec. 18, 1931 9.35%
\_ Interesting, where did you get this data? I'd like to find out
how much they declined (or even rise) the next day. My feeling
is that most of the activities will be profit taking.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/682ytf
\_ Also interesting is where they went the previous day. The
stock market recently looks like a rubber ball, bouncing up
after selloffs pass a certain threshold. Then it all gets
sold off again at the next excuse. It *seems* like at some
point it should start trending up again. A lot of cash was
pulled out of the market and is apparently itching to get
back in.
\_ that's funny. my impression is that there's a lot of money
still in the market waiting to get out at higher prices.
\_ Well, you can say that about all the money in the market,
ultimately.
ultimately. If these guys are waiting to get out then
they must implicitly think that current values are ok
and stocks will go up. If they have some better place
place to put their money then they should get out now
and put it there.
and put it there. So those signs point to current
valuations being at some approximate floor.
\_ they must be thinking, "I have so much money in the
market, I can't sell it all at once. Hope I can sell
it over time at decent prices before things really go
in the crapper." Not counting pension funds.
\_ That would imply they think the market will first
go up significantly, then go down even more
significantly. That's kind of an odd scenario.
\_ but it would be the best scenario for me if I were
stuck and wanted out at good prices
\_ an ideal scenario if I were in that position
\_ I am sure the market is going to up or down and
then move the other way and then turn around and
do something else for a while.
\_ No you idiot, it is going to do the exact
opposite.
\_ Note that 30s and 87 were really ROUGH financial times.
\_ and we have FDIC-backed deposits. '87 was a one-time affair. -op
\_ If you had invested on Day #1, you would have doubled your money
in three months and tripled it in a year.
\_ super
\_ If you had invested on Day #2, you would have been down
60% within nine months.
\_ :-( |
| 2008/10/28-29 [Uncategorized] UID:51714 Activity:nil |
10/28 kat dennings, HOTTTT
http://media.katdennings.ca/play.php?vid=112
\_ check out those stretch marks
http://www.katdennings.ca/images/displayimage.php?pid=6578&fullsize=1
\_ Just in time for Halloween. |
| 2008/10/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51715 Activity:nil |
10/28 If Measure R passes, how will the bankrupt CA pay for billion $$$?
\_ Isn't that an LA measure? Why would it bankrupt CA?
\_ I'm pretty sure Measure R is going to be funded by an increase
in sales tax which is controlled by the county. |
| 2008/10/28-31 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:51716 Activity:low |
10/28 I'm reading NO ON PROP 7 web site that says Prop 7 will:
increase elec bill by ~$300/year, force consumers to pay 10% more.
Actually, I WANT everyone to pay more because electricity is still
too cheap and people should cut down. I also love bills that is
anti-growth (cheap energy, cheap food, etc). I really believe that
anti-growth will leads to higher quality of living. Is there
something wrong with me?
\_ There are many things wrong with you, but this is not one of them.
\_ I'm all for either a pollution tax or a higher gas tax. Same
reason.
\_ But the radio commercial also says Prop 7 will eliminate small
energy generators, which might not be good.
\_ Yes, there's something wrong with you: you've bought into the idea
that conservation is a model for living, not a stop-gap measure.
The true goal must remain attaining infinite, perpetually renewable
resources; once we attain this goal, we will no longer need to
conserve, and we can make the _choice_ to live ascetically if we
so desire. Forcing people to live ascetically in the face of a
lack of limits is self-defeating.
\_ Except there are no perpetual motion machines, so until we
invent one, we will always be faced with limits.
\_ Correct, and until then conservation is called for. However,
we must not allow the previous non-existence of such to
prevent our drive to create such. Conservation is a stop-
gap.
\_ Conservation is the most cost-effective and easiest
'stop gap'.
\_ In the words of Nils Bohr, you and I do not disagree
as much you seem to think. |
| 5/17 |