Posts Made By: James C Chandler Jr

George Andrew said:

Just to clarify my views, once again, I’m a registered republican, but I vote my conscience not my party. I voted for Bill Clinton twice. But over the past several years I can now admit how bad my choice of president was. Hind site being what it is I would have voted for Gore, not Bush. When it comes to Kerry verses Bush, I would have flipped a coin using hindsight. As I have stated, I think we were on the wrong road. And as someone that voted for change. My vision is quite clear at the moment. Only time will tell if we made the right choice as a country. But I think we have a good man in the White House, even is some of you don’t.

There is only so much one can do, with the choices available.

Candidate selection at the primary level, at least for the two major parties, has been seriously broken for a very long time. Haven't the foggiest idea how it can be fixed. What we get to vote for-- These guys just can't be the best available from a 300 million person talent pool.

Tis a shame that the major parties + state election authorities + mass media are so effective at freezing out third parties from public attention. At the very least, the televised debates would be more interesting with greens and libertarians, in comparison perhaps making major-party candidates look like TweedleDee/TweedleDum fools.

Re true confessions, I'm a registered democrat and voted McGovern, Carter, Carter, Mondale, (couldn't stomach either GHW or Dukakis), Perot, Clinton, Browne, W, Barr. Some votes are obviously dubious in hindsight. A favorite saying, "it seemed like a good idea at the time."

If you are not a South Park fan, incisive analysis of this issue (better than any PBS political commentary) is here [strong language warning]:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/

Go to Season 8, Episode 808.

I don't know enough to have an opinion, but since 2008, some leaders have claimed that much of the banking crisis could be eased by suspending mark to market requirements.

If that is true, the advantage of this action is that it would not cost the govt any money. It has been said that since banks can only loan a certain multiplier of their asset value-- Then when the assets fall, it restricts the amount of money that can be loaned. So if a bank owns mortgages or derivatives which may still be 'paying off', but the market price of the paper has fallen, then the lower mark-to-market value of those assets puts the bank in a pinch.

Perhaps that theory is BS, and mark to market is so essential that its absence would weaken the strong force and cause all the atoms in the universe to fly apart . Dunno. Just interesting trivia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_to_market

"Former FDIC Chair William Isaac placed much of the blame for the subprime mortgage crisis on the Securities and Exchange Commission and its fair-value accounting rules, especially the requirement for banks to "mark-to-market" their assets, particularly the mortgage backed securities. Whether this is true or not was subject to an ongoing debate during 2008."

Thanks Rod

The deep-sea clathrates have been mentioned for awhile as possible future positive feedback mechanisms.

Given an economical way to harvest the clathrates, we could burn them as fuel, thereby reducing the forcing effect to <= 5 percent of the methane? Assuming the article's statement, "Methane (CH4) has at least 20 times the heat-trapping effect of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (CO2)."

A greener tundra would provide a new carbon sink, which would affect the equation to some degree?

Tony Aguire said:

8 track....casette tape....CDs.....Now I have moved onto MP3 player for my music....What do I do with (several hundred) CDs?
Sun catchers? Coasters? Barbells? I like the flexability of the MP3, I can even play my music via bluetooth on my trucks system.

I put all my CD's in cardboard boxes and stashed em in the attic. Who knows, one day there may be an EMP from nuclear discharge or large space rock, and the CD's may be useful to our children's children when they re-acquire sufficient technology to play them...

An EMP would supposedly wipe the MP3 data on hard drive or static-RAM, but the CD's should be fine if they avoid getting vaporized. Unfortunately, it has been estimated that commercial CD's may only have an optimistic max data-read lifetime around 100 years, so in that case our children's children would need to work very quick reinventing the technology, or they might miss out on Maceo Parker and Koko Taylor.

High-bit-rate data-compressed audio has pretty good fidelity for final distribution media-- Final mixes. Trained ears listening on very good equipment, I'd wager could reliably tell a difference between compressed and the original.

Since the data compression takes advantage of human perceptual mechanism-- It discards details the algorithm does not think you will notice-- Strangely enough, one is more likely to notice compression-fidelity-degradation on clean-recorded rock or other genres with prominent drums/percussion. The noise-content in the percussion, and 'spiky content' makes it more difficult to throw away the majority of original information and successfully hide its absence.

Smooth material such as symphonic music, can often deliver higher perceived fidelity at a given bit-rate, compared to Rock or other percussive music.

Compressed formats are not good to store music which is not in its final form. Original tracks, noisy tape dubs, high-samplerate captures from ancient degraded 78's, whatever. Since the compression discards information which the algorithm assumes you will not notice-- If you want to signal-process music to 'bring out' details which were obscured in the original-- The compression algorithm may have removed those details of interest. Possibly permanently stymying any effort to polish the audio into a better 'final' form.

Signal processing gets better with progress. So if you for instance have a high-samplerate dub of a worn-out 78, it is worth keeping an uncompressed file copy in addition to a compressed listening copy, because in the future it may be possible to digitally repair the recording better than is possible right now. Though processing is already a well-advanced art.

I think the logic became somewhat tortured near the end of the article.

The definition (IMO) of post-racial is that race is no longer an interesting topic and there are much better things to think about. Folks who keep bringing up tiresome topics eventually become tiresome themselves, especially if they are 'in yer face' about it.

There are situations such as the witch hunts, Red Guard Cultural Revolution, or McCarthy Unamerican Activity hearings, where once one gets branded a witch, there is no conceivable way to prove complete absence of guilt.

I wish folks would let it go, as it is very difficult to constantly tread on eggs to avoid offense, or alternately get branded as a witch if one accepts a challenge to be 'open' and then accidentally says the politically incorrect thing-- A thought not allowed in the 'open debate'. It is a mistake to ask someone what they think, if you are unprepared to hear an honest answer. Like the boss asking the employee what the employee thinks of the boss. Bad move for the boss, and bad move for the employee (usually) if the employee is dumb enough to give an honest answer . Or wife asking hubbie, "Does this dress make me look fat?"

The witch trials may have ground to an end about the time everyone in the village was in danger of conviction for witchcraft. The McCarthy hearings may have tailed out as soon as it became apparent that the majority of Americans could eventually be revealed as having communist sympathies of some remote kind.

As Michael Steele takes more prominence on the political stage, one can only hope he is severely criticized, and the critics are branded racist. Perhaps branding JUST ABOUT EVERYONE as racist will be the thing which eventually brings this witch trial to an end?

Tony Aguire said:

I am willing to make sacrifices for my country. I would gladdly pay higher taxes if it means the future generations (including your children) will not be saddled by the debt left to them by Bush, Bush, and Reagan.

I would probably go along with that too, Tony, if there were any credibility that higher taxes would make any difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment#Clinton_and_a_budget_surplus

About the time the budget was ALMOST BALANCED, Gore ran by proposing a new spending programs virtually every day of his campaign. It was amazing. An entirely new program almost every day. Gore swore that the budget would be balanced and the debt would be paid off along with all his new spending plans, but it was difficult to swallow. When we ALMOST had reached the point of paying on the credit card NEARLY the same amount we were charging to the credit card, irresistible visions of sugar plums were dancing in their heads.

Since the budget was only ALMOST BALANCED, and there had not been any recessions or wars for 'longer than usual'-- In 1999 the sugar plums didn't seem as likely as a new recession or a new war. No wisdom to such a guess, just playing the odds.

Of course W and the Republicans blew the budget as bad or worse, all the while swearing to eventually pay off the credit card in the future, though unfortunately we must charge double on the credit card right now.

It just seems impossible for the govt to reduce spending. Even with a tax rate of 100 percent, it wouldn't be enough.

Tax cut advocates pushed tax cuts ahead of spending cuts-- On the theory that if congress gets starved of revenue, then eventually congress would be forced to curtail spending.

In retrospect, this was extremely naive thinking. Tax cut advocates assumed that congress is capable of rational behavior. Tax cut advocates did not realize that congress will spend all taxes, then it will spend all it can borrow, and when no one will loan us money, it will just print more money. Govt the counterfeiter!

I imagine eventually cashing in the I bonds, and the cheerful clerk says, "Sure, wait just a minute while I change toner in the xerox machine, and I'll print you a big stack of fresh 100 dollar bills. You were very wise to buy I bonds, because the govt is a rock-solid investment which always pays its debts!"

Apologies being such a nattering nabob of negativism, but can you really imagine any scenario of congress finding sufficient discipline to live within its means more than perhaps one year out of ten?

It is not a prediction, but since Roosevelt is one of O's heroes-- One of the cost-cutting moves early into the depression was to cut veterans benefits and to cut federal employee salary.

One might argue that some federal employees are paid too much for what they do, but many earn their keep excellently. Ain't saying it would be a good or bad thing. Just a potential future development, depending on the level of O's determination to emulate his hero.

Federal employees, at least the unionized ones, might be safe from salary cuts since O can't get on unions' bad side.

Can military and veterans organize under the AFL-CIO? Maybe J.J. Sweeney or J.P. Hoffa could protect the benefits?

Michael Koons said:

Heard a lot of good stuff, health care, corporate and personal responsibility, cuting tax breaks for foreign subsidiaries and the ethanol debacle. Didn't like the adding Iraq to the budget.....sets up for spending and saying the budget is cut when the operating expense excluding the war isn't. But if we overall spend less signifigantly and invest in ourselves responsibly, I'm still in. 8)

If they actually do reduce spending, I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Every new administration for as long as I can remember, promised to free up big money for pet projects AND balance the budget-- By cutting government waste. Even if Nixon, Carter, Reagan and GWB were too incompetent to finish the job, it is a true wonder that any waste remained after the inventor of the internet spent 8 years at the task.

Maybe this time the check really is in the mail. Time will tell. It is hardly a new idea. If Washington was an oldies radio station, then the song "Cut Government Waste" would have got more airtime than Creedence Clearwater's "Proud Mary". Both tunes have been played so often, it is a wonder that the records still have grooves.

Politician: "Cut the deficit in half by the end of the term."

Physician: "The patient is bleeding 4 pints per hour, but by next month I'll make sure the patient will only be bleeding 2 pints per hour."

Being arguably the most ignorant responder, please take with a shaker of salt:

As tested in F10 Celestron CPC 1100 and F6.5, F4, F3.75 cheap achromats, nearly-elderly eye with no eyeglasses:

=== Good Luck ===

Judging by the 18mm Meade 5000 UW, if the entire line has similar performance, the Meade 5000 UW may be very similar to Nagler.

Judging by 7mm, 10mm, 15mm Celestron Axiom LX, if the entire line has similar performance, Axiom LX may be very similar to Nagler.

Though tis said the Expanse is only really good at 9mm, to my old eye the 6mm and 20mm Expanse are hardly useless. Have not tried the 15mm. Expanse stars on the periphery get blobby at F4, but at least the periphery stars are round blobs rather than streaks or crosses. Perhaps fast reflectors would deliver streaks or crosses, but haven't seen such in cheap fast refractors.

== Bad Luck ==

-- Mid-price 8mm - 24mm zooms? Unless one has urgent need for a fully-adjustable AFOV ranging from narrow all the way down to claustrophobic?

-- Sub-$100 80 degree eyepieces? Some folks like the 30mm and 20mm 2" inexpensive 80 degree EP's. Haven't tried those.

The 2" 15mm, and 1.25" 16mm and 11mm cheap 80 degree EPs-- A pure waste of money. Strange back-focus, not especially sharp and not especially bright, with near-nil eye relief. The eye relief may even be a negative number if you expect to see the entire 80 degrees you paid for. Expanses are wider, sharper, and brighter in actual use.

-- Many like BO/TMB. Maybe I got two duds. No malice against BO, but my 2.5mm and 5mm BO/TMB do not seem good. The 5mm is a little better than the 2.5mm. Maybe my eyes are to blame.

For instance, Jon says the Expanse 6mm is not fantastic. A/B compare Expanse 6mm against BO/TMB 5mm, Expanse 6mm works 'acceptable' and BO/TMB 5mm is too fuzzy.

Compare Expanse 6mm+ShortyPlusBarlow against BO/TMB 2.5mm-- ShortyPlus usually has > 2X mag, so Barlowed Expanse may be VERY close FL to BO/TMB 2.5mm. One expects a wavy/fuzzy image viewing Saturn at high mag and small exit pupil. BarlowedExpanse 6mm is wavy/fuzzy with SOME discernable detail, but BO/TMB 2.5mm is just a wavy/fuzzy blob.

=== Unadulterated Speculation ===

Below 7 mm, maybe it would be impossible not to break the rule and use a Televue 3-6mm zoom? I don't have that EP, but if reviews are to be believed, if I just can't stand it without getting another short EP, then the TV zoom may be better bang-for-the-buck than throwing more money at multiple brands/models in that focal range?

If the requirement is equivalent performance at a significantly lower price, does there exist a replacement for the Pan24? EP's most often recommended competitive to Pan24 are bigger, heavier, and about equally expensive?

Jack Day said:

First, is it real?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

Likely to pass, no. But I suspect there will be similar efforts that will.

What do you all think?

If they try this, it will be very politically foolish. Unfortunately it wouldn't be the first time politicians have been foolish.

Congress seems incapable of rational behavior. Witness the spending since, well, the last time we had a tiny budget surplus was under Johnson. That was only because he had a special tax surcharge to save face.

That last feeble surplus, more than 40 years ago, was not gained from responsible spending. It was just a panic tax surcharge to enable continued outrageous spending under the illusion of financial responsibility. Even with the surcharge, the meager surplus was only possible because they were spending every penny of our social security tax. After that last attempted pretension to sanity, washington just embraced the psychosis.

If our congress was sane enough to desire a reality check, they could look northward.

I work with liberal Canucks, for 15 years. They are great guys, but a tiny bit on the liberal side... My Canadian friends think the Canadian gun registration was an stupid expensive boondoggle which should never have been begun.

Considering that some of my Canuck pals hate guns and think Michael Moore is a genius saint, and they STILL hated the registration-- Am guessing that the Canadian registration was not politically popular . There were entire provinces in open rebellion against the Canadian Feds about enforcing that registration, and the program had about a 10X cost overrun last time I looked. Canada is practically disarmed compared to the USA. In the USA the political trouble would be the sum of Prohibition, a cigarette ban, a Big Mac ban, on top of starting maybe 20 new Wars on Drugs