When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: Bill Graham on 15 Nov 2009 19:43 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ea71g59a28u7rn30talvgln9emia7d2clf(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:10:36 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:jq41g5tka6k3u0futaov24hrmg3tpmg2vm(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> 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? >>> >>> Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to >>> be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most >>> vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses >>> or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by >>> reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip >>> with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have >>> vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on >>> the right. >>> -- >>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> >>OK, but I would think that brakes would be a great help....What do you do >>when you are going down a steep incline? Your wagon would be pushing up >>against the heels of the rear of your team. > > Not so. A team is hitched to a center bar (the tongue), and the > center bar is connected to the wagon. That bar maintains the distance > between the wagon and two rear animals no matter what the incline. > > > -- > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida You got me there....I guess I don't understand how the tongue is connected to the horse....there must be a strap around his rear end and across his chest......
From: Bill Graham on 15 Nov 2009 19:48 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:fZednUem8613A53WnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:YpadnXQtebCZDp3WnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >> news:VKqdnV9VoYc69J3WnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "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. >>> >>> >> 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. > > > That's right.....Today, they don't even use classic thermometers....They have an electric gun with a digital readout they stick in your ear, and it reads the infra red photons emanating from your ear. It also converts from F to CO at the touch of a button.....The machines are fast taking away our ability to do simple arithmetic.
From: Neil Harrington on 15 Nov 2009 19:47 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2009111515591582327-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2009-11-15 15:09:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > >> >> "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..... > > ...but remember accurate fire from a moving, rough riding stagecoach with > a rifle would be a rare thing. > There was a reason the favored weapon was a shotgun. Many of those guards > used a Greener 10 gauge, loaded with OO buck, that is a heavy load of > lead. Greener also developed the first decent choke for shotguns and self > ejector, making the lighter 12 gauge practical. It was the most copied > design for double barreled shotguns until John Moses Browning John Mose Browning, not Moses. Probably it's a common mistake. > made his innovations and introduced the Winchester 1893 pump, perfecting > it with the 1897. > > You might say Greener was Britain's contribution to the American West. Are you sure those guards used Greeners? There were American 10-ga. shotguns too, and I would think that Greeners would be pretty expensive for that purpose -- though not nearly as expensive as the "London-made" guns of course.
From: Savageduck on 15 Nov 2009 19:51 On 2009-11-15 16:40:50 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said: > On 2009-11-15 15:53:44 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>>> 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? >> >> Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to >> be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most >> vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses >> or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by >> reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip >> with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have >> vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on >> the right. > > Most of the ox wagons had a heavy screw which pushed a shoe against the > wheel rim. It was adjusted and set when running downhill to stop the > wagon from running into the team of oxen. They did not need a driver > operated brake to slow the wagon down. > For extreme downhill stretches such as coming down mountain passes, > they would also lash brake poles or branches to the wheels to stop them > from rotating. The ox wagons would literally skid down those mountains. > > As for the left or right side for traffic flow goes, I believe you have > to look to marine rules of the road where you would leave approaching > traffic on your port side and overtake to their port side. > This is one of the reasons boats without a center helm are still right > hand drive, or starboard today. That goes back to Viking days when the > steering oar, or steorbord was mounted on right. It came to mean the > side from which the ship was steered. That way you can check clearance > when overtaking to the port. BTW Tony, note the brake shoe on this ox-wagon; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Ox_wagon_at_Aliwal_North.jpg and on this Conestoga wagon; <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Transport_Wagon_USArmyTransMuseum_DSCN7458.JPG> -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Neil Harrington on 15 Nov 2009 19:55
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:neednVO9LNjsEJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:SbedneirUt0bC2LXnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message >> news:0088dc12$0$26871$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>> Wilba wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> I question that. In the only near-head-on accident I ever had in my >>>> life, I instinctively threw up my right hand (the dominant one) just >>>> before impact. Broke my right wrist on the windshield. >>> >>> I have more faith in a statistical analysis of scientific data than in a >>> single anecdote. :- ) >> >> I would too if it really were a statistical analysis of scientific data. >> Without having seen such analysis I'm inclined to doubt it. Ask a hundred >> people to pick something up from the table, and see which hand they use. >> I'll bet 128,000 zorkmids most of 'em use the dominant hand, unless they >> have a beer in it. ;-) >> > Yes, and I'll bet that 90% or more of the, "statistics" you hear on TV > haven't been developed with anything like scientific methods.....I know > this from the fact that 90% of them have changed/reversed over the years. > I now eat exactly the opposite of what I was told to eat as a tad for my > good health, and half of that will be changed in the next few > years......You can usually tell by asking yourself, "How do they know > that?" If you can't figure out any way they could know, then you should > assume that they can't know, and the conclusions they draw are bogus..... And as a general rule, any assertion that begins with "Studies show . . ." without actually identifying a source for the alleged studies, can safely be taken as no more than someone's unsupported opinion. |