When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: (PeteCresswell) on 11 Nov 2009 20:48 Per tony cooper: >If Ford declined to retro-fit extant models, or re-fit by recall, the >cost would have been a great deal more per unit than $1.83. $1.83 (or whatever amount) would have been the difference: between making the modification and the anticipated injury/death judgments. I remember reading about it when people were actually getting burned - gory pics and all. I don't think it's urban legend. Garbled, maybe, but not completely legend. -- PeteCresswell
From: Neil Harrington on 11 Nov 2009 20:55 "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. 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. > >>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. 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. > >>> And can you tell me how many drops there are in a quart? >> >>Why would anyone care? > > Mabye because they want to know how long their bottle of eyedrops (size > 10 tablespoons just to pick a number) will last? The answer to that is "until the bottle is empty." I have never heard anyone raise that question about eye drops. The drop is a unit of liquid measure that I believe is universal even though it's not a definite volume, which I'm sure must vary slightly according to the surface tension, specific gravity and viscosity of the liequid being dispensed. > >>The point is, drops are still used as a unit of >>liquid measure and they are not metric. > > Well, and when I order a cup of coffee in a restaurant I do not expect > to be served exactly 1/4 quart of coffee. So cup is still used as unit > of liquid measure although the amount measured is not imperial, either. 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.
From: Ray Fischer on 11 Nov 2009 22:28 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > R. Mark Clayton >> Back in the early 80's IIRC Texas brought out the first hexadecimal >> calculator (also did decimal, octal and binary). Common in programming >> dept's. > >nope, the hp-16c was the first in 1982. hp also had the 15c which did >complex arithmetic and the hp-41c which could do pretty much anything. Alas, the 16c is not made anymore. I still have mine and treat it well since the price of a used one is somewhere around $400. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 11 Nov 2009 22:30 Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: > >"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:to5mf5he88r5n6j2opdj9vpcjv9j9loek0(a)4ax.com... >> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:2tlkf5dv03jmudhdl6jij705tkfoom6hj2(a)4ax.com... >>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>>And go metric, you mean? There'd be no point to it. Metric is silly for >>>>>most >>>>>ordinary purposes, >>>> >>>> Yeah, right. That's probably the reason why 200+ countries are using it >>>> where there are only 3 that don't. >>> >>>One of the three that doesn't is the world's only remaining superpower. >>>Who >>>cares what they're using in Lower Slobovia or West Bongo-Bongo? >> >> Careful, that is an argument that is backfiring on a big scale. 'The >> rest' is caring less and less about what that 'remaining superpower' is >> doing or not doing in its arrogance and are just moving forward, leaving >> that 'remaining superpower' to its own devices. > >Well, "the rest" (of the west) is mighty free with their criticism of the >U.S. -- which is why they love Obama so, the first anti-American American >president - And there is the rabid hatred of the rightard bigot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: J�rgen Exner on 11 Nov 2009 23:54
"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". >>>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'. 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. >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? >> >>>> And can you tell me how many drops there are in a quart? >>> >>>Why would anyone care? >> >> Mabye because they want to know how long their bottle of eyedrops (size >> 10 tablespoons just to pick a number) will last? > >The answer to that is "until the bottle is empty." I have never heard anyone >raise that question about eye drops. The drop is a unit of liquid measure >that I believe is universal even though it's not a definite volume, which >I'm sure must vary slightly according to the surface tension, specific >gravity and viscosity of the liequid being dispensed. > >> >>>The point is, drops are still used as a unit of >>>liquid measure and they are not metric. >> >> Well, and when I order a cup of coffee in a restaurant I do not expect >> to be served exactly 1/4 quart of coffee. So cup is still used as unit >> of liquid measure although the amount measured is not imperial, either. > >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. > |