in [Digital Cameras]

Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: Bill Graham on 15 Nov 2009 20:01 "Neil Harrington" <secret (a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:x6-dnSa8S4SdPp3WnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d (a)giganews.com...> > "Bill Graham" <weg9 (a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:neednVO9LNjsEJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d (a)giganews.com...>> >> "Neil Harrington" <secret (a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >> news:SbedneirUt0bC2LXnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d (a)giganews.com...>>> >>> "Wilba" <usenet (a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:0088dc12$0$26871$c3e8da3 (a)news.astraweb.com...>>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>> Wilba wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Years ago I read that left-hand drive is safer overall, because when >>>>>> a person is startled they tend to raise their non-dominant hand to >>>>>> protect their head. >>>>> >>>>> I question that. In the only near-head-on accident I ever had in my >>>>> life, I instinctively threw up my right hand (the dominant one) just >>>>> before impact. Broke my right wrist on the windshield. >>>> >>>> I have more faith in a statistical analysis of scientific data than in >>>> a single anecdote. :- ) >>> >>> I would too if it really were a statistical analysis of scientific data. >>> Without having seen such analysis I'm inclined to doubt it. Ask a >>> hundred people to pick something up from the table, and see which hand >>> they use. I'll bet 128,000 zorkmids most of 'em use the dominant hand, >>> unless they have a beer in it. ;-) >>> >> Yes, and I'll bet that 90% or more of the, "statistics" you hear on TV >> haven't been developed with anything like scientific methods.....I know >> this from the fact that 90% of them have changed/reversed over the years. >> I now eat exactly the opposite of what I was told to eat as a tad for my >> good health, and half of that will be changed in the next few >> years......You can usually tell by asking yourself, "How do they know >> that?" If you can't figure out any way they could know, then you should >> assume that they can't know, and the conclusions they draw are bogus..... > > And as a general rule, any assertion that begins with "Studies show . . ." > without actually identifying a source for the alleged studies, can safely > be taken as no more than someone's unsupported opinion. > Or, if you can't identify a population and a control group from which the data could be drawn, then you know it's just somebody's raw guess......
From: Neil Harrington on 15 Nov 2009 20:05 "Bill Graham" <weg9 (a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:SaadnV19A4R5A53WnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d (a)giganews.com...> > "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. Right, and that is what makes it much more difficult to do in your head, unless moving in some convenient increment. For example, every 10 degrees C = 18 degrees F, so if you start with 20 C which we know without doing the math is 68 F, moving up or down from there by 10s C is just a matter of adding or subtracting 18s F. So that's easy. Less convenient numbers in either scale are not so easy. > They both pass through -40 degrees, however...... Which is little help, as far as convenience goes.
From: Doug McDonald on 15 Nov 2009 20:06 Neil Harrington wrote: > "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. > You said "not linear" ... it most certainly **IS** linear. There are no powers of the temperature, either way, other than one. That's linear. Doug
From: Bill Graham on 15 Nov 2009 20:08 "Bill Graham" <weg9 (a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:M8GdnRU1VM7-OZ3WnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d (a)giganews.com...> > "Neil Harrington" <secret (a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:x6-dnSa8S4SdPp3WnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d (a)giganews.com...>> >> "Bill Graham" <weg9 (a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:neednVO9LNjsEJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d (a)giganews.com...>>> >>> "Neil Harrington" <secret (a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >>> news:SbedneirUt0bC2LXnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d (a)giganews.com...>>>> >>>> "Wilba" <usenet (a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:0088dc12$0$26871$c3e8da3 (a)news.astraweb.com...>>>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>>> Wilba wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Years ago I read that left-hand drive is safer overall, because when >>>>>>> a person is startled they tend to raise their non-dominant hand to >>>>>>> protect their head. >>>>>> >>>>>> I question that. In the only near-head-on accident I ever had in my >>>>>> life, I instinctively threw up my right hand (the dominant one) just >>>>>> before impact. Broke my right wrist on the windshield. >>>>> >>>>> I have more faith in a statistical analysis of scientific data than in >>>>> a single anecdote. :- ) >>>> >>>> I would too if it really were a statistical analysis of scientific >>>> data. Without having seen such analysis I'm inclined to doubt it. Ask a >>>> hundred people to pick something up from the table, and see which hand >>>> they use. I'll bet 128,000 zorkmids most of 'em use the dominant hand, >>>> unless they have a beer in it. ;-) >>>> >>> Yes, and I'll bet that 90% or more of the, "statistics" you hear on TV >>> haven't been developed with anything like scientific methods.....I know >>> this from the fact that 90% of them have changed/reversed over the >>> years. I now eat exactly the opposite of what I was told to eat as a tad >>> for my good health, and half of that will be changed in the next few >>> years......You can usually tell by asking yourself, "How do they know >>> that?" If you can't figure out any way they could know, then you should >>> assume that they can't know, and the conclusions they draw are >>> bogus..... >> >> And as a general rule, any assertion that begins with "Studies show . . >> ." without actually identifying a source for the alleged studies, can >> safely be taken as no more than someone's unsupported opinion. >> > Or, if you can't identify a population and a control group from which the > data could be drawn, then you know it's just somebody's raw guess...... For example, I remember not too long ago that the telly told me how many babies die from, "secondhand smoke" I immediately asked myself, How do they know this?. If their mothers smoked, then the babies died from first hand smoke. And, if the mothers didn't smoke, then what was the case? Did the mothers suddenly start smoking at birth? Did the fathers smoke. "And if so, how much time did the fathers spend blowing smoke in the babies faces? Anyway, I decided that it was just another bogus anti-smoking statistic, developed with no meaningful population and certainly, with no control group.
From: Bill Graham on 15 Nov 2009 20:19
"Neil Harrington" <secret (a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:obCdnVikMdzMOJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d (a)giganews.com...> > "Bill Graham" <weg9 (a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:SaadnV19A4R5A53WnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d (a)giganews.com...>> >> "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. > > Right, and that is what makes it much more difficult to do in your head, > unless moving in some convenient increment. For example, every 10 degrees > C = 18 degrees F, so if you start with 20 C which we know without doing > the math is 68 F, moving up or down from there by 10s C is just a matter > of adding or subtracting 18s F. So that's easy. Less convenient numbers in > either scale are not so easy. > >> They both pass through -40 degrees, however...... > > Which is little help, as far as convenience goes. It helps me, because I can never remember the conversion formula, so I have to develop it every time I need it.......IOW, I have to solve the two equations in two unknowns in order to come up with the A, and B in F=A x C plus B. The common -40 degree point helps me to do this more easily. |