From: George Kerby on



On 11/14/09 9:31 AM, in article
2009111407313133169-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2009-11-14 06:58:27 -0800, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/14/09 4:55 AM, in article
>> 2009111402550242612-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-11-14 02:53:09 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-11-14 02:30:45 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> 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.pn
>> >>
>> g
>>>
>>> Sorry, that was the right, the shot gun was on the left.
>>> Now I don't know my left from my right!
>> The negative was flopped...?
>
> Aah! The Billy The Kid, left hand gun paradox.
>
<BFG!>

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:O8CdnSZf6IiwXGPXnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "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.
>
Sounds like a good system to me. I think I'll write a letter to my friends
at Stanford and see if they want to adopt it.....

From: George Kerby on



On 11/14/09 12:03 PM, in article
-4adndaSj_OZbGPXnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com, "Neil Harrington"
<secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009111407313133169-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2009-11-14 06:58:27 -0800, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>
>> said:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/14/09 4:55 AM, in article
>>> 2009111402550242612-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-11-14 02:53:09 -0800, Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-11-14 02:30:45 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au>
>>>>> 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.p
>>> n>>
>>> g
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, that was the right, the shot gun was on the left.
>>>> Now I don't know my left from my right!
>>> The negative was flopped...?
>>
>> Aah! The Billy The Kid, left hand gun paradox.
>
> Yep. To this day, many (probably most) people still believe that Henry
> "Billy the Kid" McCarty was left-handed. One of the movies about him, "The
> Left Handed Gun," has surely contributed to that falsehood.
>
>
Duly noted...

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:-4adndaSj_OZbGPXnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009111407313133169-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2009-11-14 06:58:27 -0800, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>
>> said:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/14/09 4:55 AM, in article
>>> 2009111402550242612-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-11-14 02:53:09 -0800, Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-11-14 02:30:45 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au>
>>>>> 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.pn>>
>>> g
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, that was the right, the shot gun was on the left.
>>>> Now I don't know my left from my right!
>>> The negative was flopped...?
>>
>> Aah! The Billy The Kid, left hand gun paradox.
>
> Yep. To this day, many (probably most) people still believe that Henry
> "Billy the Kid" McCarty was left-handed. One of the movies about him, "The
> Left Handed Gun," has surely contributed to that falsehood.
>
>
Maybe they printed some of his earlier photos backwards.....:^)

From: Wilba on
Savageduck wrote:
> Wilba 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. ;-)

As so many things do, I bet if you dug deep enough you could trace it back
to ancient Rome, and chariots. :- )