From: Eric Stevens on
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:25:50 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>news:DOydnQgIzaeZCmLXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:t28uf5hjm52ous6p5d4sren7rv8k86agfo(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:03:47 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>>> <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:2009111401130782327-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Apparently that was the standard arrangement for all horse and buggy
>>>>drivers
>>>>too. (Going by the movies, anyway.)
>>>>
>>>>And it's still the standard position for whoever's steering a power boat.
>>>>
>>>>At least some of the earliest American automobiles had right-hand drive
>>>>also. Now I'm wondering where and why left-hand drive got started.
>>>>Perhaps
>>>>it was because the gearshift was centrally located, and it's more natural
>>>>to
>>>>work that with the dominant hand, which for 90% of people is the right
>>>>one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Blame Napoleon. He laid down the law for France and at the beginning
>>> of the 20th century France dominated the automobile industry.
>>
>> But sans Napoleon.
>>
>Hummmm.....I wonder if France had stagecoaches before their automobiles, and
>if so, were they operated from the left or right sides?

Where ever they were operated from, ever since Napoleon they drove on
the right.



Eric Stevens
From: Chris H on
In message <1e00g51800npsuco24380ml1u76jrfa7lf(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>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.

Interfacing with the rest of the world.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ooqdnajKn4YNNZ3WnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
> news:obCdnVikMdzMOJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:SaadnV19A4R5A53WnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "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.
>>
>> Right, and that is what makes it much more difficult to do in your head,
>> unless moving in some convenient increment. For example, every 10 degrees
>> C = 18 degrees F, so if you start with 20 C which we know without doing
>> the math is 68 F, moving up or down from there by 10s C is just a matter
>> of adding or subtracting 18s F. So that's easy. Less convenient numbers
>> in either scale are not so easy.
>>
>>> They both pass through -40 degrees, however......
>>
>> Which is little help, as far as convenience goes.
>
> It helps me, because I can never remember the conversion formula, so I
> have to develop it every time I need it.......IOW, I have to solve the two
> equations in two unknowns in order to come up with the A, and B in F=A x C
> plus B. The common -40 degree point helps me to do this more easily.

But you still have to remember also that there are 1.8 F degrees to each C
degree, or else knowing they cross at -40 doesn't really do anything for
you.

But whatever works for you, works. For me, it's easiest to just remember
that 32 F is 0 C, and each C degree is 1.8 degrees F.


From: Neil Harrington on

"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iof1g5h5b8ala4e5og9lcepm6skn3l9km7(a)4ax.com...
> "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.

"Linear" is a word that (like most words in English) has a number of
meanings, but basically it means "in a straight line." My use of it was
probably not the best, but I have explained what I meant in terms that could
probably be understood even by someone of very limited intelligence,
provided he was paying a moderate amount of attention. Again, I simply meant
that some conversions are easy in that they require only one operation of
multiplication or division, as opposed to the conversion between Fahrenheit
and Centigrade.

The point was not about the meaning of "linear," but about the relative
difficulty of that conversion as opposed to something like kilograms to
pounds which you can easily do in your head. If the F and C scales both had
the same zero that conversion would be equally easy, but they do not.

I hope this expanded explanation will help you get your panties unwadded.


From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:vhLdubL4YBALFAxO(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1e00g51800npsuco24380ml1u76jrfa7lf(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>>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.
>
> Interfacing with the rest of the world.

What specifically is the problem?