From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:kH2$3MNP2WALFADz(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...


>
> I don't know why the US still insists on being different.

We aren't. We have remained the same, with generally the same standards.
It's other countries that have changed, and for some reason you now want us
to go along with whatever the current fad is. We won't do that without
having some good reason for it, and there isn't any good reason. Why does
this bother you so?

> Over the last
> two decades for many things the rest of the world has moved to take up
> international standards except the US. In fact the US was the only
> industrial nation globally to be different on most things. Now it is
> the only nation, industrial or not that does not use the same as the
> rest of the world.

What part of "the rest of the world" uses something other than barrels as a
measure for crude oil? Barrels are not metric. Neither are knots, an
international standard unit for speed both at sea and in the air. Neither
are hours, minutes and seconds, either in time or in geometry. Neither are
astronomical units. Neither are light years. These are all important things
to measure and/or use in calculations, and none of them are or can be made
to be dependant on the everything-has-to-go-by-orders-of-ten metric system.


From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-16 12:33:46 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said:

> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:00:02 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
> wrote:
>
>>>> still drives on the left. However
>>>> it is a real mess and unlike the A4/Letter change the UK with it's
>>>> modern road systems will find it impossible to change to the right...
>>>>
>>> I see. The UK can't change their driving habits,
>>
>> Not possible now. Too many purpose designed roads
>>
>>> but you expect the
>>> US to change their measurement system to conform to yours.
>>
>> No not to mine but the whole world except the US
>
> The point is that you say it's impossible for one little island to
> change from driving on the left to driving on the right, but expect
> the entire US - which dwarfs that island in size and population - to
> change their entire system of weights and measures.
>
> Not possible now. Too many purpose-designed applications.

As a little more fuel for the Left-Right traffic flow debate, consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Driving_standards_historic.svg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Eric Stevens on
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:50:20 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-11-16 01:00:35 -0800, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> said:
>
>> 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.
>
>Cite. You authority is in as much doubt as ours.

http://users.telenet.be/worldstandards/driving%20on%20the%20left.htm

"In addition, the French Revolution of 1789 gave a huge impetus to
right-hand travel in Europe. The fact is, before the Revolution,
the aristocracy travelled on the left of the road, forcing the
peasantry over to the right, but after the storming of the
Bastille and the subsequent events, aristocrats preferred to keep
a low profile and joined the peasants on the right. An official
keep-right rule was introduced in Paris in 1794, more or less
parallel to Denmark, where driving on the right had been made
compulsory in 1793.

Later, Napoleon's conquests spread the new rightism to the Low
Countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), Switzerland,
Germany, Poland, Russia and many parts of Spain and Italy. The
states that had resisted Napoleon kept left – Britain, the
Austro-Hungarian Empire and Portugal. This European division,
between the left- and right-hand nations would remain fixed for
more than 100 years, until after the First World War."




Eric Stevens
From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:fHCx3BOf+WALFAF1(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <rs2dncQadslz9ZzWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil
> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:rWFsDoKCAWALFACL(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <e4ydnf8Ny7zCwJzWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil
>>> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:tvGdnSo6OsafMJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "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...
>>>>> Well! - Sorrrrrry. I used to have a colt auto chambered in 9 mm. It
>>>>> was
>>>>> the most reliable auto I ever had.
>>>>
>>>>You can't beat the good old 9mm, but you'll never convince .45 fanciers
>>>>of
>>>>that. They all have an abiding faith in those pumpkin rollers and are
>>>>impervious to reason. ;-)
>>>
>>> Having used both the answer is "it depends" on why you are carrying and
>>> pistol and the conditions. In the 70's when I used a pistol the .45 was
>>> a better choice for operational reasons for urban work. For battle field
>>> work a 9mm.
>>
>>If you mean because of stopping power vs. firepower, I think the
>>much-vaunted stopping power of the .45 is largely a myth.
>
> Sort of. In the 1970's body armour was not common. Certainly the
> terrorists we were up against did not have any. However there were a lot
> of civilians in the urban setting.
>
> A .45 would hit the target but not usually go through and hit anything
> else. The faster narrower 9mm tended to go through and come out the
> other side thus causing collateral damage.

This of course depends on the load used. In the case of a "Geneva
Convention-approved" full metal jacket bullet, of course that would be true.
In the case of a jacketed hollow point, I doubt it.

>
> So if we used a .45 it would stop the target without causing collateral
> (civilian ) damage. It also did have a lot of stopping power. We also
> only needed a few rounds. So 8 was usually plenty and in any even I
> carried 2 more magazines.

I'm a little confused here by your use of "we." What organization were you
with at that time? I'm not aware of any British units, military or civilian,
having used the .45 auto.

>
> In the battle filed there were not usually any civilians and the better
> penetrating power of the faster 9mm would punch through webbing and kit.
> Hitting the person behind was a bonus not a manslaughter charge :-)

Right. :-)

>
>
>>Several years ago,
>>two police officers wrote a book on the subject of stopping power (sorry I
>>can't recall either their names or the book's title), based on their
>>extensive study of actual shooting cases. What they went by, and graded
>>their results by, was the percentage of "one-shot stops" for every caliber
>>and load for which they could obtain data. Their conclusion as I recall it
>>was that stopping power was much more dependent on the specific load than
>>on
>>the caliber, and the best one turned out to be a 115-grain JHP in 9mm,
>>with
>>a roughly comparable .45 load close behind. Full-jacket loads in either
>>caliber fell far behind, not surprisingly.
>
> That would be an interesting book. See if you can remember what it was.
> (I am not doubting you or the book I just want to read it :-

I'd never have remembered it, but I just now found it via Google. The book
is "Hnadgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study," by Evan Marshall and
Edwin J. Sanow. From the description I know it to be the same book.

Checking Amazon I see it's still available new in paperback (1992 ed.) -- I
don't know when the original handcover edition was published. The same
authors have two newer books on the subject, the latest (2001) being
"Stopping Power: A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition."
There are a few reader reviews for all these on Amazon.

>
>>Now at the time of their survey the .40 S&W either didn't yet exist or
>>wasn't as popular as it has become. My guess is that that caliber would
>>outperform either the 9mm or .45 in a real-life situation, but probably
>>not
>>by very much.
>
> Also a lot bigger and less easy to handle in a fire fight (unless your
> name is Clint and the Director is a friend)

What, the .40 S&W? Pistols in that caliber are no bigger than most 9mm
pistols, and in fact most are based on the latter caliber, in some cases
slightly beefed up to handle the extra recoil. For example the Beretta Model
92 (my personal favorite, aka the M9) is practically identical to the .40
version, the Model 96.

>
>>My own belief is that it all comes down to kinetic energy, assuming a
>>bullet
>>so constructed as to efficiently transmit that energy to the target rather
>>than wasting it on the scenery beyond, and assuming optimum placement of
>>course.
>
> I agree.
>
>
>>> SO a revolver jam is usually fatal. This is why autos have a reputation
>>> for jamming, people cleared them and lived to tell the tail. When the
>>> revolver jammed no one knew.
>>
>>Heh. That could be.
>
> Just a thought... no idea if it is right just a gut feeling.
>
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
>


From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-16 14:21:31 -0800, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> said:

> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:50:20 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-11-16 01:00:35 -0800, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Cite. You authority is in as much doubt as ours.
>
> http://users.telenet.be/worldstandards/driving%20on%20the%20left.htm
>
> "In addition, the French Revolution of 1789 gave a huge impetus to
> right-hand travel in Europe. The fact is, before the Revolution,
> the aristocracy travelled on the left of the road, forcing the
> peasantry over to the right, but after the storming of the
> Bastille and the subsequent events, aristocrats preferred to keep
> a low profile and joined the peasants on the right. An official
> keep-right rule was introduced in Paris in 1794, more or less
> parallel to Denmark, where driving on the right had been made
> compulsory in 1793.
>
> Later, Napoleon's conquests spread the new rightism to the Low
> Countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), Switzerland,
> Germany, Poland, Russia and many parts of Spain and Italy. The
> states that had resisted Napoleon kept left – Britain, the
> Austro-Hungarian Empire and Portugal. This European division,
> between the left- and right-hand nations would remain fixed for
> more than 100 years, until after the First World War."
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

Thanks for that. Quite interesting.

So it seems there were a number of influences, wagons, revolutions,
Napoleon, wars and politics, not the least of them

One thing I noted was the change to driving on the right in Gibraltar
in 1929, I did not know that.

--
Regards,

Savageduck