From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1e00g51800npsuco24380ml1u76jrfa7lf(a)4ax.com...
> On 15 Nov 2009 06:48:13 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:03:59 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
>>><nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>US units are a shambolic mess, inconsistent with each other and almost
>>>>completely irrational for dealing with the real world.
>>>>
>>>And yet we manage.
>>
>>Only just.
>>
>>>The world that each of us lives in is the "real world". We, who live
>>>in the US, have no problem dealing with our system.
>>
>>"No problem"?? How many yards in a mile? How many feet in a quarter
>>mile? How many teaspoons in a cup? If you don't know those offhand
>>then you obviously have problems dealing with the system.
>
> If you have a legitimate example of how we have a problem with the
> system, then state it. Examples of computations never needed, or
> computations that can be easily performed on paper, mean nothing.
>
I generally translate these items into their metric equivalents, do the
calculation, and then translate back....Google is great for this. It has a
wonderful translation list.

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:VKqdnV9VoYc69J3WnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4aff9d4d(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4afe7080$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>> Bill Graham 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> A metric cup *is* 1/4 of a liter.
>>>>
>>> The most common coffee cup used here in the US is the Corning, "Correll
>>> Ware" cup, and it is almost exactly 250 cc's.
>>
>> Well, there you go. You're already used to one common metric measure.
>
> Most conversions are easy enough, even if pointless. Just looking at
> focusing scales makes it obvious that 10 ft. is about 3 m, and it's easy
> to remember that 1 kg is about 2.2 lbs. How many ounces in a kilogram or
> grams in a pound is more difficult, but it's hard to imagine why anyone
> would ever want to know.
>
> 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.
>
>
I can't agree that it's, "non linear". Both scales are straight lines that
happen to cross at -40 degrees. People learn the important conversions for
the work they do. Most nurses know that 98.6 F is 37 C for example.

From: tony cooper on
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>> Yes, stagecoaches and horse-drawn buggies were always driven from the
>> right. I've never seen any picture showing otherwise.
>Strange....I wonder why their replacement automobiles were developed to be
>operated from the left side?

Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to
be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most
vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses
or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by
reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip
with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have
vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on
the right.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-15 15:09:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:

>
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
> news:TumdnbSxOMgAFmLXnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:qrKdnVfcUtJk02LXnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2009111406385244303-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> Maybe it had something to do with which side the shells were ejected
>>> from when the rifle action was worked....It would be very annoying to
>>> the driver if the hot shell casings were ejected into his face while he
>>> was trying to get away from the bad guys.....
>>
>> I think most Winchester lever actions eject more or less straight up.
>> Marlins I believe have always ejected to the right, but most of the
>> rifles in stagecoach days were surely Winchesters.
>>
> Straight up wouldn't be too bad. The operator would learn to tilt the
> weapon in the right direction before working the action, so the empty
> shells would go where he wanted them to go.....Also, it would be just
> as easy to shoot for both left and right handers.....

....but remember accurate fire from a moving, rough riding stagecoach
with a rifle would be a rare thing.
There was a reason the favored weapon was a shotgun. Many of those
guards used a Greener 10 gauge, loaded with OO buck, that is a heavy
load of lead. Greener also developed the first decent choke for
shotguns and self ejector, making the lighter 12 gauge practical. It
was the most copied design for double barreled shotguns until John
Moses Browning made his innovations and introduced the Winchester 1893
pump, perfecting it with the 1897.

You might say Greener was Britain's contribution to the American West.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jq41g5tka6k3u0futaov24hrmg3tpmg2vm(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, stagecoaches and horse-drawn buggies were always driven from the
>>> right. I've never seen any picture showing otherwise.
>>Strange....I wonder why their replacement automobiles were developed to be
>>operated from the left side?
>
> Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to
> be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most
> vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses
> or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by
> reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip
> with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have
> vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on
> the right.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

OK, but I would think that brakes would be a great help....What do you do
when you are going down a steep incline? Your wagon would be pushing up
against the heels of the rear of your team. How do the Brits operate their
parking brakes? - They must use their left hands....As they did to change
gears in their sports cars......