From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009111517302780278-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-11-15 17:24:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2009111517220470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2009-11-15 16:47:38 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "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
>>>>
>>>> John Mose Browning, not Moses. Probably it's a common mistake.
>>>
>>>
>>> This has got to be the first time I have heard "Mose"
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moses_Browning
>>> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbrowningJ.htm
>>> http://www.american-inventor.com/john-moses-browning.aspx
>>> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/81839/John-Moses-Browning
>>>
>>> so if you have a citation for "Mose" it would be interesting to see.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure those guards used Greeners? There were American 10-ga.
>>>> shotguns
>>>> too, and I would think that Greeners would be pretty expensive for that
>>>> purpose -- though not nearly as expensive as the "London-made" guns of
>>>> course.
>>>
>>> Greeners were first introduced in the US around 1869 and their
>>> reputation for function and reliability was so good they quickly became
>>> the favored shotgun for guards and Law enforcement. They were certainly
>>> the best of shotguns in those days.
>>>
>>> Greener also made some of the most expensive custom double rifles, but
>>> these were mainly used in Africa and the colonies.
>>>
>>> Good guns always commanded high prices, as they do today.
>>> I know, my Kimber set me back $1200.
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-LAc.jpg
>>>
>>>
>> Nice looking autoloader....Is it 9 mm?
>
>
>
> That sir is a good old 1911 design 45 ACP! Not some pissy 9mm.
>
> 9mm indeed?? !!!!
>
> For doublestack I have a Glock Model 23 in 40 S&W.
>
> --
Well! - Sorrrrrry. I used to have a colt auto chambered in 9 mm. It was the
most reliable auto I ever had. Generally, I preferred to carry revolvers,
because I needed to know they were going to go off if I ever had to fire
them. Also, I wanted to walk away with my empties still in the chamber and
not lying someplace on the ground.

From: J�rgen Exner on
"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>"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.

Of coures it is linear.
What else would it possibly be? Square? Polynomial? Exponentional?
Logarithmic? Constant?

Just another example that you have no clue what you are talking about.

>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.

Oh, right. What _YOU_ mean by linear. I see. Just like what _YOU_ meant
by metric.

If you want to call a table a john, then by all means that is your
choice. But it certainly simplifies communication a lot if all involved
parties have the same understanding of the meaning of a word. And
because when they hear "john" most people will NOT imagine something
with a flat top, often 4 legs, maybe a table cloth on top, and some nice
chairs around it, it might be easier if you stick with the established
semantic of words, too.

Otherwise your claim that you just sat down at the john for dinner might
cause some "astonishment".

jue
From: Ray Fischer on
J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>"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.
>
>Of coures it is linear.
>What else would it possibly be? Square? Polynomial? Exponentional?
>Logarithmic? Constant?
>
>Just another example that you have no clue what you are talking about.

But what else is new?

>>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.
>
>Oh, right. What _YOU_ mean by linear. I see. Just like what _YOU_ meant
>by metric.

Rightards live in their own little world where words mean whatever
they want them to mean.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: MikeW on
Degrees Celcius to degrees Fahrenheit: double C, take off a tenth of the
result, add 32. Always works.

Degrees Fahrenheit to degrees Celcius: take off 32, halve the result, add a
tenth. Certainly close enough for Government work.

MikeW

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:fZednUem8613A53WnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "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.
>
>
>


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

>
>"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>news:8fWdnZe9nMMDDGLXnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2009111410440716807-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2009-11-14 10:03:45 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "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.
>>>
>>> Well here is a photo of a stagecoach, driven from the right, and with the
>>> type on the coach correct and not mirror imaged.
>>> http://www.old-picture.com/old-west/pictures/Stagecoach-Western.jpg
>>>
>>> and anothers of what seems to be of great character drivers (on the
>>> right)
>>> http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-oldwest/Deadwood%20stagecoach.jpg
>>> http://www.owensvalleyhistory.com/cerro_gordo2/stage_coach.jpg
>>
>> 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?

I've already told you. It was Napoleon.



Eric Stevens