When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: Bill Graham on 12 Nov 2009 21:55 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:NZOdnbLHTLd7GGHXnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4d4nf59cf4ccom1duvdklblnvrl137l6to(a)4ax.com... >> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:rbmmf5pai8fmukirgppni8rhk6h8k36rvq(a)4ax.com... >>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>>Easier: 5 x 5280 / 12. Why go through all that other bullshit? >>>> >>>> Because 5280 is such a nice number in the hexadezimal system that >>>> everyone will know it. NOT. >>>> >>>>>> According to your statement above this is actually the only way >>>>>> because >>>>>> according to you you would never need to know how many feet there are >>>>>> in >>>>>> a mile. Besides, how on earth can possibly remember those odd numbers >>>>>> anyway? >>>>> >>>>>I don't think I know anyone who doesn't know there are 5280 feet in a >>>>>mile, >>>> >>>> Well, you do now. >>> >>>Okay, I should have said "any American." It's pretty basic in this >>>country. >>> >>>>>unless you're talking about nautical miles. Speaking of which, don't >>>>>you >>>>>use >>>>>knots as a measure of airspeed? They aren't metric. >>>> >>>> You seem to be somewhat confused. Nautical miles and thus knots are >>>> part >>>> of the ISO system (aka 'metric') although obviously they are not >>>> decimal >>>> based. >>> >>>Neither nautical miles nor knots have anything to do with the metric >>>system >>>as far as I can see. >> >> They are admitted in the metric system as historical and still widely >> used units. >> >>>The nautical mile is based on some angular distance, I >>>think one minute, at the earth's surface. Nothing to do with the >>>kilometer >>>or any other multiple of the meter, and I think the nautical mile existed >>>before the metric system came along anway. >> >> Of course. But they have been incorporated into the "Syst�me >> International d'Unit�s". > > That still doesn't make them metric. It only means that some existing > units of measurement are recognized and co-exist with metric -- which is > what I've been saying. > >> >>>>>Neither is time. If you really think metric is so great, why not do >>>>>something about those pesky 60-second minutes, 60-minute hours and >>>>>24-hour >>>>>days? Wouldn't you rather have *everything* go by orders of ten? Wow, >>>>>what >>>>>a >>>>>wonderful metricized world that would be! >>>> >>>> Again you are confused. The common time is part of ISO (aka 'metric') >>>> although obviously not decimal (or hexadecimal for that matter). >>> >>>Right. Not decimal and therefore not part of the metric system of >>>measurement. >> >> Then please explain _YOUR_ definition of 'metric'. > > Based on the meter, exactly as the term indicates. Units of length and > volume are metric (or not) on that basis. Units of mass are metric when > based on the mass of some metric volume of water under standard > conditions. > >> >> In normal use 'metric' refers to the 'Syst�me International d'Unit�s', >> as defined in ISO 31 and its derivatives. The nautical mile (and thus >> the knot) is recognized and admitted as a traditional unit in this >> system. As is of course the second/minute/hour/day time measurement. >> >> Therefore I can only repeat: you are confused about the relation between >> the metric system and the decimal system. > > Both are what they are. The fact that an international body "recognizes" > and "admits" non-metric units of measurement because it would be > irrational not to admit or recognize them, does not make those units > metric by any reasonable definition. The nautical mile is not based on the > meter and therefore is non-metric. Seconds, minutes, hours, etc. are > obviously not metric and cannot possibly be metric. > >> >>>The business of dividing time and other things, such as >>>circles, by 6s and 60s goes back to the Babylonians and/or Sumerians, >>>which >>>is to say, several millennia before the metric system existed. >> >> Sure, no argument. But what does that have to do with the metric system? > > Absolutely nothing, which is the point. Our system of measuring time and > angles has nothing whatever to do with the metric system. Again: the fact > that an international body "recognizes" and "admits" non-metric units for > purposes of working with metric calculations does not make the non-metric > units metric. > > What makes me wonder is why we don't have 13 months of exactly 4 weeks each? Any bridge player can tell you that 13 times 4 is 52. This would be a much better system than the stupid 12 months in a year system we have now. We would still need a leap year day once every 4 years, but otherwise, all months would be the same.
From: tony cooper on 12 Nov 2009 22:08 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:55:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >What makes me wonder is why we don't have 13 months of exactly 4 weeks each? >Any bridge player can tell you that 13 times 4 is 52. This would be a much >better system than the stupid 12 months in a year system we have now. We >would still need a leap year day once every 4 years, but otherwise, all >months would be the same. Bridge evolved out of Whist, but Whist wasn't played until sometime around the 1700s. The seven day week had already been in vogue by then. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on 12 Nov 2009 22:34 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:88jpf5pjobqgh78iij3fsad3dd40i7ra65(a)4ax.com... > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:55:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >>What makes me wonder is why we don't have 13 months of exactly 4 weeks >>each? >>Any bridge player can tell you that 13 times 4 is 52. This would be a much >>better system than the stupid 12 months in a year system we have now. We >>would still need a leap year day once every 4 years, but otherwise, all >>months would be the same. > > Bridge evolved out of Whist, but Whist wasn't played until sometime > around the 1700s. The seven day week had already been in vogue by > then. > > > -- > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida I'm not complaining about the 7 day week. I am complaining about the 12 month year. 13 months of exactly 4 weeks each is a much better solution than the 12 months of varying number of days each that we now have....And, the whole world seems to be happy with the present system......You'd think that some culture, somewhere, would have adopted a 13 month year by now. Unless fear of the number 13 is a lot more universal than I thought......
From: David on 12 Nov 2009 22:58 "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:LuWdnZMvpetETmHXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in > message news:88jpf5pjobqgh78iij3fsad3dd40i7ra65(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:55:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" >> <weg9(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>>What makes me wonder is why we don't have 13 months of >>>exactly 4 weeks each? >>>Any bridge player can tell you that 13 times 4 is 52. >>>This would be a much >>>better system than the stupid 12 months in a year system >>>we have now. We >>>would still need a leap year day once every 4 years, but >>>otherwise, all >>>months would be the same. >> >> Bridge evolved out of Whist, but Whist wasn't played >> until sometime >> around the 1700s. The seven day week had already been in >> vogue by >> then. >> >> >> -- >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > > I'm not complaining about the 7 day week. I am complaining > about the 12 month year. 13 months of exactly 4 weeks each > is a much better solution than the 12 months of varying > number of days each that we now have....And, the whole > world seems to be happy with the present system......You'd > think that some culture, somewhere, would have adopted a > 13 month year by now. Unless fear of the number 13 is a > lot more universal than I thought..... The month was originally based upon the lunar cycle which is about 29.5 days. David
From: David on 12 Nov 2009 23:05
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:LuWdnZMvpetETmHXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in > message news:88jpf5pjobqgh78iij3fsad3dd40i7ra65(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:55:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" >> <weg9(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>>What makes me wonder is why we don't have 13 months of >>>exactly 4 weeks each? >>>Any bridge player can tell you that 13 times 4 is 52. >>>This would be a much >>>better system than the stupid 12 months in a year system >>>we have now. We >>>would still need a leap year day once every 4 years, but >>>otherwise, all >>>months would be the same. >> >> Bridge evolved out of Whist, but Whist wasn't played >> until sometime >> around the 1700s. The seven day week had already been in >> vogue by >> then. >> >> >> -- >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > > I'm not complaining about the 7 day week. I am complaining > about the 12 month year. 13 months of exactly 4 weeks each > is a much better solution than the 12 months of varying > number of days each that we now have....And, the whole > world seems to be happy with the present system......You'd > think that some culture, somewhere, would have adopted a > 13 month year by now. Unless fear of the number 13 is a > lot more universal than I thought..... The month was originally based upon the lunar cycle which is about 29.5 days. David |