From: J. Clarke on
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-11-13 19:28:38 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
> That would explain a pinch of salt.

A pinch is 1/16 of a teaspoon.

As for the benefit of having that unit "cup" instead of "1/4 liter", "1c"
can be scribbled more quickly than "1/4l" and with its two distinct
characters is far less likely to be misintepreted than "1/4l" with its three
more or less vertical strokes. "250ml" is harder to misinterpret than
"1/4l" but it's also longer to write and confers no practical benefit over
the much more succinct "1c".

In any case, a "standard" cup of coffee is 3/4 of a measuring cup, oddly
that's the same amount as the rice cup provided with Japanese rice cookers.



From: Neil Harrington on

"RustY �" <No.Mail(a)All.Thanks> wrote in message
news:LdvLm.38226$uf7.23976(a)newsfe12.ams2...
>
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
> news:eZedndgR_YxY1WPXnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
>> Government overspending is a huge part of the problem, that's true. Also
>> the fact that as we live longer but in most cases still start drawing
>> Social Security at somewhere between 62 and 65, there are fewer and fewer
>> workers supporting each retiree through that system.
>
> So, you need to vote for more taxes - or less social services - simple.

Great solution! Except I never saw that one on the ballot.


From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-14 04:27:19 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> said:

> Savageduck wrote:
>> Savageduck said:
>>> Wilba said:
>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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. If at the time they are steering a car on the left of the
>>>>>> road, 9 out of 10 will therefore sverve into oncoming traffic.
>>>>>> Apparently the effect is statistically significant.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems we left our history far behind. Have you ever noticed where
>>>>> the
>>>>> good old Wells Fargo stage coach driver sat, ...on the right, shotgun
>>>>> on
>>>>> the left.
>>>>
>>>> Don't see many of them 'round these here parts. :- )
>>>
>>> Note the driver on the left.
>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Concord_stagecoach_1869.png
>>
>> Sorry, that was the right, the shot gun was on the left.
>> Now I don't know my left from my right!
>
> I worked that out. :- )
>
> I wonder why they did it that way, since the driver is on the ejector
> side...? Maybe the convention pre-dates the widespread use of repeating
> rifles.

I think it was a case of right handed shotgun shooters out numbering
left handed shooters. That way they wouldn't have to replace a driver
every time a left handed guard blew the driver away. Maybe a
qualification for shotgun guards was to be right handed.

Maybe there was a rule of the road that stagecoach robbers had a "rob
from left side" only sense of etiquette. ;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Neil Harrington on

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ibtsf5dl23b750ri1n7ad4vn3s0lnujme7(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:18:29 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
> <secret(a)illumnati.net> 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?
>>
>>Cups (and mugs) come in a wide range of sizes. It's convenient to have a
>>specific unit of measure, and there is one, called a cup, regardless of
>>its
>>relationship or non-relationship to any real-world cups. If your complaint
>>that it shouldn't in that case be called a cup, very well, but most words
>>in
>>the English language have more than one meaning and this is just such a
>>case. I'm sure most housewives understand that when a recipe or whatever
>>calls for an amount like 1/2 cup, it's the standard measure that's
>>referred
>>to and not half of an actual cup. Context is everything in the language.
>>
>
> The problem is there is no such thing as a 'standard measure'. If you
> don't believe me you should try making a recipe with the units of
> measure different from the country it was written in. One of the
> advantages of the SI 250 ml cup is that adopting it means that
> everyone has to abondon their old units of measure. There is no longer
> any arguing over which one is the right one.

Not a problem here, as far as I know.

Googling it I find the following (from Wikipedia):

There is no internationally-agreed standard definition of the cup, whose
modern volume ranges between 200 and 284 millilitres.[1] The cup sizes
generally used in the many Commonwealth countries and the United States
differ by up to 44 mL (1.5 fl oz).

No matter what size cup is used, all the ingredients measured with the same
size cup will be in the same proportion to one another, although not to
ingredients measured differently (by weight, teaspoons, etc.).

Commonwealth of Nations
Imperial cup
The imperial cup is unofficially defined as half an imperial pint.
1 imperial cup = 0.5 imperial pints
= 2 imperial gills
= 10 imperial fluid ounces
= 284 millilitres
? 19 international tablespoons[2][3]
? 14� Australian tablespoons[4]
? 1.20 U.S. customary cups
? 9.61 U.S. customary fluid ounces

Metric cup
In Australia, Canada, New Zealand one cup is commonly defined as 250
millilitres.
1 metric cup = 250 millilitres
= 16? international tablespoons (15 mL each)
= 12� Australian tablespoons
? 8.80 imperial fluid ounces
? 8.45 U.S. customary fluid ounces

United States
United States customary cup
United States customary cup is defined as half a U.S. pint.
1 U.S. customary cup = 0.5 U.S. customary pints
= 2 U.S. customary gills
= 8 U.S. customary fluid ounces
= 16 U.S. customary tablespoons
= 237 millilitres
? 15? international tablespoons[5]
? 11� Australian tablespoons
? 0.833 imperial cups
? 8.33 imperial fluid ounces

United States "legal" cup
The cup currently used in the United States for nutrition labelling is
defined in United States law as 240 mL.[6][7][8]
1 U.S. "legal" cup = 240 millilitres
= 16 international tablespoons
= 12 Australian tablespoons
? 8.12 U.S. customary fluid ounces
? 8.45 imperial fluid ounces

Japan
Japanese cup
The Japanese cup is currently defined as 200 mL.
1 Japanese cup = 200 millilitres
? 7.04 imperial fluid ounces
? 6.76 U.S. customary fluid ounces

Go
The traditional Japanese cup, the go, is approximately 180 mL. 10 go make
one sho, the traditional flask size, approximately 1.8 litres. Go cups are
typically used for measuring rice, and sake is typically sold by both the
cup (180 mL) and flask (1.8 litre) sizes.

1 go = 2401?13310 litres[9]
? 180 millilitres
? 6.35 imperial fluid ounces
? 6.10 U.S. customary fluid ounces


I hope the formating of that doesn't screw up too badly when posting.


From: Neil Harrington on

"Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
news:030e53a4$0$1273$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> Savageduck wrote:


>>
>> The critical factor in maintaining safety in the left/right hand drive
>> issue, is to be consistent with having a left hand drive when driving on
>> the right, and right hand drive when driving on the left side of the
>> road. This positions the driver along the center line on the road and
>> away from the edge of the road in the direction of travel. I believe this
>> was one of the major factors in banning left hand drive vehicles in many
>> countries with driving on the left rules of the road.
>>
>> Those unfamiliar with local conditions have reflexive behavior which is
>> difficult to over come. I have investigated accidents where a driver from
>> a "left hand side of the road" country driving on the right in the US,
>> has made a left turn at an intersection, the tendency is to turn sharp
>> left, turning directly into oncoming traffic on the right. The same would
>> be true when driving on the left and making a right turn, ending up in
>> the left lane facing oncoming traffic.
>>
>> Still there are many right hand drive vehicles used for rural mail
>> delivery in the US, and those drivers seem to do fine hugging the right
>> edge of the road without turning into oncoming traffic.
>
> 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.

> If at the time they are steering a car on the left of the road, 9 out of
> 10 will therefore sverve into oncoming traffic. Apparently the effect is
> statistically significant.