From: Neil Harrington on

"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)> wrote in message
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote:
>>The bothersome one is Fahrenheit to Centigrade (or Celsius as they've
>>decided to call it for some silly reason),
> Actually it's quite obvious: those are not 1/100th of a degree (as the
> prefix centi implies) but honest to god, true, full degrees.

It doesn't suggest any such thing as 1/100 of a degree. (It doesn't say
"centidegree," does it?) It simply indicates each degree is 1/100 of the
original full scale from freezing to boiling.

It has nothing to do with poor old Anders Celsius. He did create a
temperature scale but this one isn't it -- in fact it's the reverse of
Celsius's scale, which had zero as the boiling point. So I suppose it could
be called the anti-Celsius scale. Let's do that. Or go back to calling it
Centigrade, which makes more sense.

From: J�rgen Exner on
"Neil Harrington" <not(a)> wrote:
>"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)> wrote in message
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote:
>>>The bothersome one is Fahrenheit to Centigrade (or Celsius as they've
>>>decided to call it for some silly reason),
>> Actually it's quite obvious: those are not 1/100th of a degree (as the
>> prefix centi implies) but honest to god, true, full degrees.
>[...]. Or go back to calling it
>Centigrade, which makes more sense.

I don't even know why I bother. Celsius replaced centigrade in 1948,
because there were too many terminology conficts even at that time. That
was over 70 years(!!!) ago.

You are so stuck in the first half of the past century, there is really
no point in discussing anything with you.
Don't worry, you won't be hearing from me again, enough is enough:


From: Bill Graham on

"MikeW" <admin(a)> wrote in message
> 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)> wrote in message
> news:fZednUem8613A53WnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d(a)
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>> news:YpadnXQtebCZDp3WnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)
>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:VKqdnV9VoYc69J3WnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d(a)
>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:4aff9d4d(a)
>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4afe7080$1(a)
>>>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:r48sf5hvnn2lu320s5prvsp7agi8aar9ff(a)
>>>>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> 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.
The ones in my doctor's office just stick a "gun" in your ear, and get your
temp in either F or C in a matter of seconds......

From: Bill Graham on

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)> wrote in message
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)>
> wrote:
>>"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>> news:2009111410440716807-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> On 2009-11-14 10:03:45 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)>
>>>> said:
>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2009111407313133169-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>>> On 2009-11-14 06:58:27 -0800, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)>
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>> On 11/14/09 4:55 AM, in article
>>>>>>> 2009111402550242612-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
>>>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2009-11-14 02:53:09 -0800, Savageduck
>>>>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}>
>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>>> On 2009-11-14 02:30:45 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> and anothers of what seems to be of great character drivers (on the
>>>> right)
>>> 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.
Did Napoleon drive a Citroen or a Peugeot?

From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> On 2009-11-16 15:26:17 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)>
> said:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>> news:2009111615045779149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2009-11-16 14:23:21 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)>
>>> said:
>>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:fHCx3BOf+WALFAF1(a)
>>>>> In message <rs2dncQadslz9ZzWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)>, Neil
>>>>> Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>>>>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:rWFsDoKCAWALFACL(a)
>>>>>>> In message <e4ydnf8Ny7zCwJzWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
>>>>>>> Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:tvGdnSo6OsafMJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:2009111517302780278-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>>>>>>> On 2009-11-15 17:24:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)>
>>>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> 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.
>>> Talking from a Law enforcement point of view, a hollow point round such
>>> as
>>> a Hydra-Shok with +P loads in 38SP, 9mm, 40 S&W or 45 ACP give an
>>> enormous
>>> transmission of energy into the target. As a double tap into that target
>>> is more likely than not, going to eliminate that particular threat.
>>> Indoors in urban situations where there might be over penetration
>>> issues,
>>> frangible ammo such as Glaser or MagSafe rounds are very effective. They
>>> actually have a far more effective energy transmission and stopping
>>> power
>>> than some hollow points, as they expend all their energy on contact,
>>> rather than using that energy to penetrate.
>>> Naturally Frangibles and hollow points are not Geneva Convention
>>> friendly.
>>> I use both Federal Premium Law Enforcement +P Tactical Hydro-Shok and
>>> COR-BON +P Glaser, in 40 S&W and 45 ACP.
>>> When just burning up brass and punching paper I go through a lot of
>>> Winchester "White box" FMJ and reloads.
>> Probably 95% of everything I've ever fired (except rimfires of course)
>> has
>> been my own handloads. I handloaded for everything I owned -- except a
>> French Model 1935A automatic that I never could figure out what to do
>> with
>> and finally sold. I even handloaded for a French Mle. 1892 8mm revolver,
>> using .32-20 cases trimmed back to suit and sized in a .30 Carbine die,
>> then
>> loaded with lubed but unsized bullets from an ancient Lyman mould made
>> for
>> the .32-44 target revolver. Now that was interesting! No loading data for
>> that round of course, and the Mle. 1892 was actually a black powder
>> cartridge (almost certainly the very last black powder round still in
>> service use in World War II), but I just winged it with about 2 gr. of
>> Bullseye and it worked fine.
>> I'm sorry I sold that Mle. 1892. Perfectly useless of course, but an
>> interesting piece. Cylinder swung out to the right. Odd people, the
>> French.
> I haven't reloaded in years, and then it was mainly 38 SP target loads. I
> am still sitting on several 100 plastic 38 boxes and 1000s of cases,
> primers, etc, etc.

I haven't done any loading for years either, chiefly because I've done very
little shooting in the last several years. I still have my Dillon press and
all components in my walk-in closet, and I'll get around to doing some
sooner or later. I still have a pretty good stock of handloads.

My problem now will probably be finding a good place to shoot. I have
"lifetime" privileges (because I was one of those who helped finance it) to
the state association's pistol range, which is next to (and on land leased
from) a commercial range which is within 10 miles of me. The problem there
is that the lease has long expired, and the last time I was out there the
commercial range owner was already getting grumpy about shooters using that
range for free instead of paying to shoot at his range. And the range was
originally intended just for competition shooters in registered matches and
tournaments, which I have not been one of since the '70s. And that range
owner is already facing legal and financial problems because of homeowners'
complaints about bullets arriving on their property, even though there's
probably at least a mile and a good-sized hill between the range and their
homes. It's hard to imagine anyone at the range shooting over the hill, but
who knows. Since I haven't been out there for a few years I don't know what
the situation is now, but my guess is my "lifetime" privileges have expired.