When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: Neil Harrington on 15 Nov 2009 19:20 "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message news:hdpqqa$7q1$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu... > Neil Harrington wrote: > >> >> The bothersome one is Fahrenheit to Centigrade (or Celsius as they've >> decided to call it for some silly reason), or vice versa of course. >> Probably most people who've developed B&W film know that 68 F = 20 C, but >> since the conversion is non-linear it's not something that you can >> approximate instantly in your head. >> >> > > WHAT??? It most certainly IS linear! Not the conversion. 20 C is 68 F, but 10 C is *not* 34 F. 10 kg. on the other hand is about 22 lbs., therefore 5 kg is 11 lbs., 20 kg is 44 lbs., 100 kg is 220 lbs., and so on. That's what I mean by linear. > > It's also easy: > > > > F = (9/5)C + 32 > > and C = (F-32) * 5/9 I know all that. It's not easy to do in your head, as is the conversion from lbs. to kg, which is a simple multiplication.
From: tony cooper on 15 Nov 2009 19:35 On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:10:36 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:jq41g5tka6k3u0futaov24hrmg3tpmg2vm(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>>> Yes, stagecoaches and horse-drawn buggies were always driven from the >>>> right. I've never seen any picture showing otherwise. >>>Strange....I wonder why their replacement automobiles were developed to be >>>operated from the left side? >> >> Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to >> be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most >> vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses >> or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by >> reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip >> with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have >> vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on >> the right. >> -- >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >OK, but I would think that brakes would be a great help....What do you do >when you are going down a steep incline? Your wagon would be pushing up >against the heels of the rear of your team. Not so. A team is hitched to a center bar (the tongue), and the center bar is connected to the wagon. That bar maintains the distance between the wagon and two rear animals no matter what the incline. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on 15 Nov 2009 19:37 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:drWdnZCm3ZhcB53WnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message > news:hdpqqa$7q1$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu... >> Neil Harrington wrote: >> >>> >>> The bothersome one is Fahrenheit to Centigrade (or Celsius as they've >>> decided to call it for some silly reason), or vice versa of course. >>> Probably most people who've developed B&W film know that 68 F = 20 C, >>> but since the conversion is non-linear it's not something that you can >>> approximate instantly in your head. >>> >>> >> >> WHAT??? It most certainly IS linear! > > Not the conversion. > > 20 C is 68 F, but 10 C is *not* 34 F. > > 10 kg. on the other hand is about 22 lbs., therefore 5 kg is 11 lbs., 20 > kg is 44 lbs., 100 kg is 220 lbs., and so on. That's what I mean by > linear. > >> >> It's also easy: >> >> >> >> F = (9/5)C + 32 >> >> and C = (F-32) * 5/9 > > I know all that. It's not easy to do in your head, as is the conversion > from lbs. to kg, which is a simple multiplication. > The Kg to pounds conversion both pass through zero....That is, 0 pounds is also 0 kilograms. but the temperature conversion doesn't share this feature. They both pass through -40 degrees, however......
From: Neil Harrington on 15 Nov 2009 19:37 "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:YpadnXQtebCZDp3WnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:VKqdnV9VoYc69J3WnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4aff9d4d(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>> Bill Graham wrote: >>>> >>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:4afe7080$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>>>> Bill Graham wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:r48sf5hvnn2lu320s5prvsp7agi8aar9ff(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> As a unit of liquid measure, the cup is what it is and does not >>>>>>>> have any >>>>>>>> particular relationship to the amount of coffee you're served in a >>>>>>>> cup. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then if the unit "cup" doesn't have a relationship to a cup of >>>>>>> beverage >>>>>>> then what is the specific benefit of having that unit "cup" instead >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> using e.g 1/4 liter? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> jue >>>>>> >>>>>> None. It's just a slang term. Actually, when it comes to a cup of >>>>>> coffee, it's usually closer to 1/4 liter than a cup, which is 1/4 of >>>>>> a quart. You have to remember that the world is 99% housewives, and >>>>>> only 1% engineers. >>>>> >>>>> A metric cup *is* 1/4 of a liter. >>>>> >>>> The most common coffee cup used here in the US is the Corning, "Correll >>>> Ware" cup, and it is almost exactly 250 cc's. >>> >>> Well, there you go. You're already used to one common metric measure. >> >> Most conversions are easy enough, even if pointless. Just looking at >> focusing scales makes it obvious that 10 ft. is about 3 m, and it's easy >> to remember that 1 kg is about 2.2 lbs. How many ounces in a kilogram or >> grams in a pound is more difficult, but it's hard to imagine why anyone >> would ever want to know. >> >> The bothersome one is Fahrenheit to Centigrade (or Celsius as they've >> decided to call it for some silly reason), or vice versa of course. >> Probably most people who've developed B&W film know that 68 F = 20 C, but >> since the conversion is non-linear it's not something that you can >> approximate instantly in your head. >> >> > I can't agree that it's, "non linear". Both scales are straight lines that > happen to cross at -40 degrees. Yes, they are linear in that way. What I meant was that converting one to the other is not a simple matter of multiplication or division, as is the case with kilograms and pounds. "Non-linear" was perhaps not the best way of describing that. > People learn the important conversions for the work they do. Most nurses > know that 98.6 F is 37 C for example. I doubt most nurses do know that, since Fahrenheit is still used for body temp, or was the last I knew. But anyway *knowing* 98.6 F is 37 C would not mean they could do the conversion. I've worked with a lot of nurses over a period of 30+ years and I can tell you with confidence that most of them couldn't do the conversion and get an accurate result. Just *one* of my doctors' offices has switched to metric scales, and that was only in the last year or so. The others still weigh you in good ol' pounds. The one that did switch, after I commented that I liked the look of my weight much better in kilograms, the nurse came back in a few minutes and told me what it was in pounds. When I asked if she'd done that in her head she said No, and produced a *table* showing the equivalents. I had already done the conversion in my head, which after all is just a matter of multiplying by 2.2. Now if a nurse can't do that in her head but needs a printed table for it, she sure as hell can't convert C to F or vice versa.
From: Savageduck on 15 Nov 2009 19:40
On 2009-11-15 15:53:44 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >>> Yes, stagecoaches and horse-drawn buggies were always driven from the >>> right. I've never seen any picture showing otherwise. >> Strange....I wonder why their replacement automobiles were developed to be >> operated from the left side? > > Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to > be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most > vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses > or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by > reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip > with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have > vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on > the right. Most of the ox wagons had a heavy screw which pushed a shoe against the wheel rim. It was adjusted and set when running downhill to stop the wagon from running into the team of oxen. They did not need a driver operated brake to slow the wagon down. For extreme downhill stretches such as coming down mountain passes, they would also lash brake poles or branches to the wheels to stop them from rotating. The ox wagons would literally skid down those mountains. As for the left or right side for traffic flow goes, I believe you have to look to marine rules of the road where you would leave approaching traffic on your port side and overtake to their port side. This is one of the reasons boats without a center helm are still right hand drive, or starboard today. That goes back to Viking days when the steering oar, or steorbord was mounted on right. It came to mean the side from which the ship was steered. That way you can check clearance when overtaking to the port. -- Regards, Savageduck |