From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009111515591582327-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> 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.
>
> --
Yes. Shotguns are best for stuff in motion, whether targets or
shooters.....My dad told me that Annie Oakley used a rifle loaded with
shotgun shot for her Buffalo Bill Wild West show engagements....He
remembered when he saw the show as a kid, that he heard the lead pellets
hitting the tent over his head after she shot at moving targets.....

From: Neil Harrington on

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message
news:hdpqqa$7q1$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> WHAT??? It most certainly IS linear!

Not the conversion.

20 C is 68 F, but 10 C is *not* 34 F.

10 kg. on the other hand is about 22 lbs., therefore 5 kg is 11 lbs., 20 kg
is 44 lbs., 100 kg is 220 lbs., and so on. That's what I mean by linear.

>
> It's also easy:
>
>
>
> F = (9/5)C + 32
>
> and C = (F-32) * 5/9

I know all that. It's not easy to do in your head, as is the conversion from
lbs. to kg, which is a simple multiplication.


From: tony cooper on
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:10:36 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"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.

Not so. A team is hitched to a center bar (the tongue), and the
center bar is connected to the wagon. That bar maintains the distance
between the wagon and two rear animals no matter what the incline.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:drWdnZCm3ZhcB53WnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hdpqqa$7q1$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> WHAT??? It most certainly IS linear!
>
> Not the conversion.
>
> 20 C is 68 F, but 10 C is *not* 34 F.
>
> 10 kg. on the other hand is about 22 lbs., therefore 5 kg is 11 lbs., 20
> kg is 44 lbs., 100 kg is 220 lbs., and so on. That's what I mean by
> linear.
>
>>
>> It's also easy:
>>
>>
>>
>> F = (9/5)C + 32
>>
>> and C = (F-32) * 5/9
>
> I know all that. It's not easy to do in your head, as is the conversion
> from lbs. to kg, which is a simple multiplication.
>
The Kg to pounds conversion both pass through zero....That is, 0 pounds is
also 0 kilograms. but the temperature conversion doesn't share this feature.
They both pass through -40 degrees, however......

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YpadnXQtebCZDp3WnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "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.

Yes, they are linear in that way. What I meant was that converting one to
the other is not a simple matter of multiplication or division, as is the
case with kilograms and pounds. "Non-linear" was perhaps not the best way of
describing that.

> People learn the important conversions for the work they do. Most nurses
> know that 98.6 F is 37 C for example.

I doubt most nurses do know that, since Fahrenheit is still used for body
temp, or was the last I knew. But anyway *knowing* 98.6 F is 37 C would not
mean they could do the conversion. I've worked with a lot of nurses over a
period of 30+ years and I can tell you with confidence that most of them
couldn't do the conversion and get an accurate result.

Just *one* of my doctors' offices has switched to metric scales, and that
was only in the last year or so. The others still weigh you in good ol'
pounds. The one that did switch, after I commented that I liked the look of
my weight much better in kilograms, the nurse came back in a few minutes and
told me what it was in pounds. When I asked if she'd done that in her head
she said No, and produced a *table* showing the equivalents. I had already
done the conversion in my head, which after all is just a matter of
multiplying by 2.2. Now if a nurse can't do that in her head but needs a
printed table for it, she sure as hell can't convert C to F or vice versa.