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 17 Nov 2009 14:44 "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:Av92NaDi3tALFAV0(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <d1bc5075-0b95-4aa3-92b9-a99e2782a57b(a)j9g2000prh.googlegroups > .com>, Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> writes >>On Nov 16, 9:14 pm, J�rgen Exner <jurge...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I don't even know why I bother. Celsius replaced centigrade in 1948, >>> because there were too many terminology conficts even at that time. That >>> was over 70 years(!!!) ago. >> >>Er, 1948 was *61* years ago the way the rest of us count things. >> >>Perhaps this explains why your numerical arguments are gaining so >>little traction. > > There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand > binary...... <guffaw!> Good one.
From: J�rgen Exner on 17 Nov 2009 15:01 tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>Same happened to me yesterday in the supermarket. Two products, for one >>the price given in $/pound, for the other in $/ounce. How do you compare >>them on the spot? No, I cannot do a multiplication by 16 in my mind on >>the spot in front of the shelf, I do need paper and pencil. >> >>Using the metric system it would have been trivial, even if they had >>used different sizes, e.g. $/kg and $/100g. Just shift the comma and you >>are done. >> >>Not so with the US units. There a pocket calculator seems to be >>mandatory for grocery shopping. >> >You think? No, I don't think, I know. It happened yesterday while I was looking for fresh steaks in the meat aisle in a Safeway store. >Every supermarket in this area has a shelf tag that gives >the price per common unit on comparable items. In other words, in the >cereal aisle, the tags will all show the price per ounce for the >cereal even if the box is labeled by units other than just ounces. And yes, I am talking about the price on the label on the shelf (which happened to match the pricing unit on the individual article, too). jue
From: Neil Harrington on 17 Nov 2009 15:41 "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:Mf41R7Q2DZALFAXl(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <2009111608013713512-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>On 2009-11-16 07:31:45 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >> >>> In message <2009111606474899097-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>>> On 2009-11-16 06:07:32 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >>>> >>>>> In message <2009111605502095335-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, >>>>>Savageduck >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>>>>> On 2009-11-16 01:00:35 -0800, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> >>>>>> said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:25:50 -0800, "Bill Graham" >>>>>>> <weg9(a)comcast.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:DOydnQgIzaeZCmLXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>>>>>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:t28uf5hjm52ous6p5d4sren7rv8k86agfo(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:03:47 -0500, "Neil Harrington" >>>>>>>>>> <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Blame Napoleon. He laid down the law for France and at the >>>>>>>>>> beginning >>>>>>>>>> of the 20th century France dominated the automobile industry. >>>>>>>>> But sans Napoleon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hummmm.....I wonder if France had stagecoaches before their >>>>>>>> automobiles, and >>>>>>>> if so, were they operated from the left or right sides? >>>>>>> Where ever they were operated from, ever since Napoleon they drove >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> the right. >>>>>> Cite. You authority is in as much doubt as ours. >>>>> I would be interested too... though it sounds plausible. Napoleon >>>>> was >>>>> into Standards and making France the Centre Of The World. >>>> Napoleon might have set the French standard just to be different to >>>>the >>>> English. >>> Shirley not? :-) >> >>Don't call me Shirley! >> >>> Mind you The US did it just to be different to Europe. It was all >>> political >> >>If that were true we would all be riding pogo sticks, and who knows we >>might be soon enough. > > It was true. When the US got going it used different standards to help > the indigenous industry and confuse importers as the US had zero > industry when it started. You have some very strange notions, Chris, I'll say that for you. In the U.S. we used (and still use) the standard units of measure we inherited from the English. American inches, feet, yards and miles are exactly the same as English inches, feet, yards and miles. Some changes were made in liquid measure because the English system was extremely confused. For example, I believe they had at least three different sizes of barrel according to what liquid was involved, and this confused state of affairs was reflected in some smaller units of liquid measure. When they finally settled on the Imperial gallon if I recall correctly it was a new unit, a compromise between various older units. Very screwed up. The U.S. units of liquid measure on the other hand were established in a sensible way and have never changed. How on earth do you think "different standards [would] help the indigenous industry and confuse importers"? What reason could there possibly be to "confuse importers" in the first place? If imports needed to be controlled or limited, that could and would be done via tariffs.
From: Eric Stevens on 17 Nov 2009 16:21 On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:37:15 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >Eric Stevens wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:40:29 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> >> wrote: >> >>> Note that the same reason has been suggested for the fact that >>> British .303 service rifle ammunition was made with bullets having >>> an aluminum nose cone under the jacket, making the bullet somewhat >>> tail-end-heavy. Thus the ammunition met the Geneva Conventions >>> requirements for full jacketed (theoretically "humane") bullets, but >>> because it was somewhat likely to topple passing through the target >>> it could actually be more destructive than if it had been soft-nosed. >> >> Many years ago I was involved in military target shooting with the >> British No4 rifle and also Bren guns using the more powereful Mk VIII >> amunition. We were shooting at ranges between 100 and 800 yards at >> 6'x6' targets. I saw the holes left by many thousands of 303 ounds and >> as far as I know they all went straight through the target unless they >> had first clipped the top of the butt. I never saw any other evidence >> of a tumbling round. > >There wouldn't have been any tumbling *in flight*, only after striking and >entering some substantial target such as a body. Assuming your targets were >heavy paper (as ours were in the U.S. Army), the bullets would have passed >straight through leaving only a neat round hole. I didn't realise you meant tumbling after impact as I know some weapons suffer(?) from tumbling in flight and I thought that was what you meant. > >Also, the .303 ammunition made that way was the Mark VII if I recall >correctly. I have no idea whether that method of manufacturer was still used >with the Mark VIII type. > Google is our friend. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British for the full story. It confirms that you are right about what the bullet does after impact. Eric Stevens
From: tony cooper on 17 Nov 2009 17:04
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:01:52 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>Same happened to me yesterday in the supermarket. Two products, for one >>>the price given in $/pound, for the other in $/ounce. How do you compare >>>them on the spot? No, I cannot do a multiplication by 16 in my mind on >>>the spot in front of the shelf, I do need paper and pencil. >>> >>>Using the metric system it would have been trivial, even if they had >>>used different sizes, e.g. $/kg and $/100g. Just shift the comma and you >>>are done. >>> >>>Not so with the US units. There a pocket calculator seems to be >>>mandatory for grocery shopping. >>> >>You think? > >No, I don't think, I know. It happened yesterday while I was looking for >fresh steaks in the meat aisle in a Safeway store. This doesn't ring of truth. Fresh meat is priced per pound. All the steaks would be priced per pound. Packages have different prices because they contain different amounts of weight. I can't imagine you'd need a calculator to compare prices. >>Every supermarket in this area has a shelf tag that gives >>the price per common unit on comparable items. In other words, in the >>cereal aisle, the tags will all show the price per ounce for the >>cereal even if the box is labeled by units other than just ounces. > >And yes, I am talking about the price on the label on the shelf (which >happened to match the pricing unit on the individual article, too). Perhaps where you are it's different, or perhaps you didn't look at the label carefully. Canned or boxed goods, in this area, can all be compared by ounce price regardless of the weight in the can or box. Here's an example: http://www.ses.wsu.edu/Grants/StoreShelf.htm It shows that Jiffy Peanut Butter is 13.24 cents per ounce. That allows you to compare other brands, and other sizes of the same brand, by cost-per-ounce. No calculator needed. I've used this tag feature and found that the "economy" size is not always the most economical size to purchase. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |