When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: Neil Harrington on 15 Nov 2009 15:50 "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.
From: Doug McDonald on 15 Nov 2009 16:12 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! It's also easy: F = (9/5)C + 32 and C = (F-32) * 5/9 Also K = C + 273.15 That's simple! Doug McDonald
From: Bill Graham on 15 Nov 2009 17:59 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2009111420204677923-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2009-11-14 19:20:26 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > >> >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >> news:2009111418332743658-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>> On 2009-11-14 17:01:38 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> said: >>> >>>> Savageduck wrote: >>>>> Wilba 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. ;-) >>>> >>>> As so many things do, I bet if you dug deep enough you could trace it >>>> back >>>> to ancient Rome, and chariots. :- ) >>> >>> Probably even further back to Persian charioteers, driver and archer >>> teams. >>> >> Yes. A right handed archer's right elbow might be interfered with if he >> sat to the chariot driver's left, so this might have something to do with >> his sitting on the right. > > I'm not quite sure that works for right hand drive chariots. This might be > the argument for left hand drive. > A right handed archer will draw the arrow with his strong right hand, not > his weak left. He would have held the bow in his left hand. The more > dexterous right hand would also be able to pull arrows from the quiver > without fumbling. > This would mean he would be better off standing (charioteers stood) to the > driver's right, leaving his right elbow free and clear. > I don't think there was a brake issue with chariots. > > -- > Regards, > > Savageduck Yes. That's how I envisaged it too. So the driver wouldn't interfere with the bowman's right elbow.....I do believe, however, that chariots did have brakes.....Somewhere, I remember seeing a strap wrapped around the rear axel, but I don't remember exactly where.....
From: Bill Graham on 15 Nov 2009 18:06 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:DdSdnf2Io9tDF2LXnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:cZOdnaicze1S7GLXnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message >> news:0088e021$0$26848$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> R. Mark Clayton wrote: >>>> >>>> Japanese by contrast has an immensely complex verbal structure, >>> >>> Hmm, "immensely complex verbal structure" is the exact opposite of my >>> experience with Japanese. I can explain everything you need to know >>> about Japanese pronounciation in 5 minutes. As long as we're not talking >>> about kanji, if you can see a word written you can pronounce it well, >>> and if you hear a word clearly you can write it correctly, because of >>> the simple phonemic structure. >>> >>>> ... three scripts and numerous other convolutions that mean Japanese >>>> children do well to be fully conversant by the time they leave school >>>> and foreigners have negligible chance of becoming conversant even >>>> after living a year in the country. >>> >>> I guess you're talking about kanji, plus having three other mutually >>> exclusive ways of writing, but the spoken language itself is very simple >>> compared to English. >>> >> When I was in the Navy, I bought a book titled, "Japanese in 40 lessons". >> I went through 20 of the lessons before we got to Japan, and I was able >> to converse with the natives reasonably well during the three cruises we >> made to Japan in three years. It had a very simple grammatical structure, >> where the two letter endings on each word identified their grammatical >> place in the sentence.....Endings like, "wa", and "go" tacked onto the >> ends of each word. The pronunciation was very simple, and the Japanese >> had no trouble understanding me. > > How does it compare with Chinese (either form), do you know? Chinese is a > language I'm thinking of learning a little, because I think that's where > most of the world's economic growth is going to be for the remainder of > this century. > I believe that Chinese is a lot harder to pronounce......As a matter of fact, I have been told that slight changes in pronunciation will completely change the definitions of some words. The "sing-song" effect you hear in the spoken language is really a part of the meanings of the words spoken. But I haven't studied Chinese, so I don't really know.
From: Bill Graham on 15 Nov 2009 18:09
"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..... |