From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:29:40 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>>>
>>> They do know what happened. The problem was due to standards.

That's an outright lie.

>>> The US
>>> military used a different time to the rest of us (ie the UK which is
>>> where he flew from) . There was a 1 hour difference. This was not
>>> realised in the initial investigations.

Not true.

>>
>>But what on earth does any of that have to do with metric vs. English units
>>of measure?
>
>The US were using a different time system to everyone else they were
>working with... When the US uses different standards there will ALWAYS
>errors in conversion. This will cost time, money and in some cases
>lives. This why the rest of the world is standardising.
>

Number One, that theory has been discredited. Nesbitt based the one
hour time difference on the fact that the crew used local time instead
of GMT. However, local time at RAF Twinwood *was* GMT. Nesbitt
didn't know that.

Number Two. There was no US time system involved anyway. More
bullshit from you. Miller's plane took off from an RAF base where GMT
was used.

The US doesn't have different time system. The US standard is GMT
just like the UK's standard. Local time is adjusted by time zones, if
applicable, but the base system is GMT. Look up a time in the US, and
it will be zone, and the zone will be UTC minus an adjustment for
zone. UTC is "Coordinated Universal Time" and that is the same as
GMT.

You are *so* full of bullshit, Chris.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:Av92NaDi3tALFAV0(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <d1bc5075-0b95-4aa3-92b9-a99e2782a57b(a)j9g2000prh.googlegroups
> .com>, Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> writes
>>On Nov 16, 9:14 pm, J�rgen Exner <jurge...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Er, 1948 was *61* years ago the way the rest of us count things.
>>
>>Perhaps this explains why your numerical arguments are gaining so
>>little traction.
>
> There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand
> binary......

<guffaw!>

Good one.


From: J�rgen Exner on
tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Same happened to me yesterday in the supermarket. Two products, for one
>>the price given in $/pound, for the other in $/ounce. How do you compare
>>them on the spot? No, I cannot do a multiplication by 16 in my mind on
>>the spot in front of the shelf, I do need paper and pencil.
>>
>>Using the metric system it would have been trivial, even if they had
>>used different sizes, e.g. $/kg and $/100g. Just shift the comma and you
>>are done.
>>
>>Not so with the US units. There a pocket calculator seems to be
>>mandatory for grocery shopping.
>>
>You think?

No, I don't think, I know. It happened yesterday while I was looking for
fresh steaks in the meat aisle in a Safeway store.

>Every supermarket in this area has a shelf tag that gives
>the price per common unit on comparable items. In other words, in the
>cereal aisle, the tags will all show the price per ounce for the
>cereal even if the box is labeled by units other than just ounces.

And yes, I am talking about the price on the label on the shelf (which
happened to match the pricing unit on the individual article, too).

jue
From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:Mf41R7Q2DZALFAXl(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <2009111608013713512-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>On 2009-11-16 07:31:45 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said:
>>
>>> In message <2009111606474899097-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>>> On 2009-11-16 06:07:32 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <2009111605502095335-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>>>>Savageduck
>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> I would be interested too... though it sounds plausible. Napoleon
>>>>> was
>>>>> into Standards and making France the Centre Of The World.
>>>> Napoleon might have set the French standard just to be different to
>>>>the
>>>> English.
>>> Shirley not? :-)
>>
>>Don't call me Shirley!
>>
>>> Mind you The US did it just to be different to Europe. It was all
>>> political
>>
>>If that were true we would all be riding pogo sticks, and who knows we
>>might be soon enough.
>
> It was true. When the US got going it used different standards to help
> the indigenous industry and confuse importers as the US had zero
> industry when it started.

You have some very strange notions, Chris, I'll say that for you.

In the U.S. we used (and still use) the standard units of measure we
inherited from the English. American inches, feet, yards and miles are
exactly the same as English inches, feet, yards and miles. Some changes were
made in liquid measure because the English system was extremely confused.
For example, I believe they had at least three different sizes of barrel
according to what liquid was involved, and this confused state of affairs
was reflected in some smaller units of liquid measure. When they finally
settled on the Imperial gallon if I recall correctly it was a new unit, a
compromise between various older units. Very screwed up. The U.S. units of
liquid measure on the other hand were established in a sensible way and have
never changed.

How on earth do you think "different standards [would] help the indigenous
industry and confuse importers"? What reason could there possibly be to
"confuse importers" in the first place? If imports needed to be controlled
or limited, that could and would be done via tariffs.


From: Eric Stevens on
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:37:15 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
<secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:40:29 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Note that the same reason has been suggested for the fact that
>>> British .303 service rifle ammunition was made with bullets having
>>> an aluminum nose cone under the jacket, making the bullet somewhat
>>> tail-end-heavy. Thus the ammunition met the Geneva Conventions
>>> requirements for full jacketed (theoretically "humane") bullets, but
>>> because it was somewhat likely to topple passing through the target
>>> it could actually be more destructive than if it had been soft-nosed.
>>
>> Many years ago I was involved in military target shooting with the
>> British No4 rifle and also Bren guns using the more powereful Mk VIII
>> amunition. We were shooting at ranges between 100 and 800 yards at
>> 6'x6' targets. I saw the holes left by many thousands of 303 ounds and
>> as far as I know they all went straight through the target unless they
>> had first clipped the top of the butt. I never saw any other evidence
>> of a tumbling round.
>
>There wouldn't have been any tumbling *in flight*, only after striking and
>entering some substantial target such as a body. Assuming your targets were
>heavy paper (as ours were in the U.S. Army), the bullets would have passed
>straight through leaving only a neat round hole.

I didn't realise you meant tumbling after impact as I know some
weapons suffer(?) from tumbling in flight and I thought that was what
you meant.
>
>Also, the .303 ammunition made that way was the Mark VII if I recall
>correctly. I have no idea whether that method of manufacturer was still used
>with the Mark VIII type.
>
Google is our friend. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British
for the full story. It confirms that you are right about what the
bullet does after impact.



Eric Stevens