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 16 Nov 2009 18:08 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:200911160720437826-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2009-11-16 06:10:36 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> > said: > >> >> "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... >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> Good guns always commanded high prices, as they do today. >>>>>> I know, my Kimber set me back $1200. >>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-LAc.jpg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Nice looking autoloader....Is it 9 mm? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That sir is a good old 1911 design 45 ACP! Not some pissy 9mm. >>>> >>>> 9mm indeed?? !!!! >>>> >>>> For doublestack I have a Glock Model 23 in 40 S&W. >>>> >>>> -- >>> 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. ;-) >> >> I've owned a lot of .45s myself, but all my automatics now (apart from >> rimfires of course) are either 9mm or 9mm short, and my revolvers are all >> .38/.357. It's just the ideal bore size. If God owned a handgun it would >> be >> in some 9mm/.38 caliber. >> >>> Generally, I preferred to carry revolvers, because I needed to know they >>> were going to go off if I ever had to fire them. Also, I wanted to walk >>> away with my empties still in the chamber and not lying someplace on the >>> ground. >> >> Yes, there are some obvious advantages to that. However, as far as >> reliability goes revolvers can have their problems too. I have a nice >> little >> S&W .38 hammerless on a light alloy frame, lovely thing to carry, almost >> brand new but it needs to see a gunsmith because it's stopped shooting -- >> something inside is cramped or binding. And I once had a brand-new Colt >> Agent that wouldn't work either. (Fortunately I'm only about 15 miles >> from >> the Colt factory, but it would've been bad luck if I'd just loaded that >> thing, put it away and some day had to use it in a hurry.) > > You might find the new Ruger LCR in 38 Special loaded with +Ps > interesting. > http://www.ruger-firearms.com/products/lcr/index.html It is interesting. I'm not much of a Ruger fan, though I've owned a few and found them serviceable enough. They do have a reputation for being strongly built. I've never owned a Ruger DA revolver, partly because the ones I've tried had a lousy DA trigger pull compared to S&Ws -- but then the same can be said of most other DA revolvers, unless they've been treated to a nice trigger job. The one Ruger I'm sorry I sold was my Bearcat. That was really a neat little piece. If they ever bring it back I'll probably buy another one. > > I too like 38/357 weapons. They are easier for those not comfortable with > heavy recoil weapons, and can be very accurate. For accuracy the .38 Special is probably impossible to beat, except by something in .22 Long Rifle of course. A properly accurized .45 can come close, but a S&W Mod. 52 could stay inside 2" at 50 yards from machine rest, and (various claims notwithstanding) I don't believe any .45 could do that. S&W revolvers in that bore size were probably just as good. I had a Mod. 28 with 6" barrel that would stay very close to 2" at 50 yds. from bench rest, and surely would have done even better from machine rest. > > As far as 9mm goes, I guess I am just prejudiced. My auto ammo preferences > are 45 ACP and 40 S&W. As a modern combat round 40 S&W outperforms both > 9mm and 45 ACP. For high capacity, my Glock Model 23 uses 13 round > magazines and performs well as a combat weapon. (I hate the trigger > though!) 40 S&W matches 45 ACP in energy output, though it is inherently > less accurate. > > Neither 9mm nor 40 S&W can match 45 ACP combined with a tuned 1911 pistol > or a Target 38 Special such as a S&W K38 Masterpiece, or Model 52. Actually, the 9mm has an undeserved reputation for inferior accuracy. I had a match .45 built for me by the late great Al Dinan, who lived only 60 or so miles from me, and when I was picking up the pistol he mentioned that he was experimenting with 9mm on a 1911-based pistol. When I mentioned that 9mm was not regarded very highly for its accuracy, he replied, "Oh, really?" and showed me a target he had shot from machine rest, a 10-shot group at 50 yards, and I'll tell you it knocked my socks off -- especially when he told me he'd shot it with surplus military (Czech or something) ammo! It's been too many years for me to tell you now what the group size was, but it sure was tight. Now that may not have been from a pistol. Dinan had his own machine-rest arrangement, based on a Springfield '03 bolt action of all things, to which he would attach a pistol barrel. Since the .30-06 and the .45 ACP have exactly the same head size, and Dinan built mostly .45s, that worked out well. Whether he used that contraption for any other caliber I don't know. But however he shot it, that 9mm group disabused me of any ideas I'd had about lack of accuracy from the 9mm P cartridge. > > ...and my Kimber CDP II in 45 ACP with a single stack magazine, great > trigger, full meltdown treatment and flat profile, is the best and most > accurate carry weapon I have ever owned. I just love that gun! It was > worth every penny and US made to boot. I do like, and have always liked, the 1911-style pistol. I'm just not crazy about the cartridge. I think I mentioned in a much earlier post that I have a Star Model BM*, pretty much a 1911 type scaled down to 9mm. People may sniff at Spanish pistols, but I've owned several of them and have found the Stars and Astras to be very well made. (Llamas are a different story.) My little Star is a just-right pistol, compact enough, shoots exactly where it looks, and has a lovely trigger. *The "BM" designation is a bit unfortunate. Talking to a friend once, I mentioned that I kept my BM in my nightstand, and he replied, "Well, you always were a little strange."
From: Neil Harrington on 16 Nov 2009 18:26 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2009111615045779149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2009-11-16 14:23:21 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> > said: > >> >> "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. > > 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.
From: Savageduck on 16 Nov 2009 18:36 On 2009-11-16 15:08:53 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> said: > > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:200911160720437826-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2009-11-16 06:10:36 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> >> said: >> >>> >>> "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... >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good guns always commanded high prices, as they do today. >>>>>>> I know, my Kimber set me back $1200. >>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-LAc.jpg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Nice looking autoloader....Is it 9 mm? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That sir is a good old 1911 design 45 ACP! Not some pissy 9mm. >>>>> >>>>> 9mm indeed?? !!!! >>>>> >>>>> For doublestack I have a Glock Model 23 in 40 S&W. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> 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. ;-) >>> >>> I've owned a lot of .45s myself, but all my automatics now (apart from >>> rimfires of course) are either 9mm or 9mm short, and my revolvers are all >>> .38/.357. It's just the ideal bore size. If God owned a handgun it would >>> be >>> in some 9mm/.38 caliber. >>> >>>> Generally, I preferred to carry revolvers, because I needed to know they >>>> were going to go off if I ever had to fire them. Also, I wanted to walk >>>> away with my empties still in the chamber and not lying someplace on the >>>> ground. >>> >>> Yes, there are some obvious advantages to that. However, as far as >>> reliability goes revolvers can have their problems too. I have a nice >>> little >>> S&W .38 hammerless on a light alloy frame, lovely thing to carry, almost >>> brand new but it needs to see a gunsmith because it's stopped shooting -- >>> something inside is cramped or binding. And I once had a brand-new Colt >>> Agent that wouldn't work either. (Fortunately I'm only about 15 miles >>> from >>> the Colt factory, but it would've been bad luck if I'd just loaded that >>> thing, put it away and some day had to use it in a hurry.) >> >> You might find the new Ruger LCR in 38 Special loaded with +Ps >> interesting. >> http://www.ruger-firearms.com/products/lcr/index.html > > It is interesting. I'm not much of a Ruger fan, though I've owned a few and > found them serviceable enough. They do have a reputation for being strongly > built. I've never owned a Ruger DA revolver, partly because the ones I've > tried had a lousy DA trigger pull compared to S&Ws -- but then the same can > be said of most other DA revolvers, unless they've been treated to a nice > trigger job. > > The one Ruger I'm sorry I sold was my Bearcat. That was really a neat little > piece. If they ever bring it back I'll probably buy another one. Yup. The Bearcat was tiny though, I have big hands. I had a Single Six with both the regular and WRM cylinders. That was a lot of fun, but I sold it in 1966. I wish I had it now, as I am not so sure of the new version. > >> >> I too like 38/357 weapons. They are easier for those not comfortable with >> heavy recoil weapons, and can be very accurate. > > For accuracy the .38 Special is probably impossible to beat, except by > something in .22 Long Rifle of course. A properly accurized .45 can come > close, but a S&W Mod. 52 could stay inside 2" at 50 yards from machine rest, > and (various claims notwithstanding) I don't believe any .45 could do that. > S&W revolvers in that bore size were probably just as good. I had a Mod. 28 > with 6" barrel that would stay very close to 2" at 50 yds. from bench rest, > and surely would have done even better from machine rest. I still have my S&W Model 52 and a S&W K38 Masterpiece with custom Hoffman grips. They are both tack drivers. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-S%26W-M52-RAc.jpg I also still have my S&W Model 41 and Hi-Standard Supermatic Trophy . http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-HS-104-RAc.jpg This darn thing just doesn't do well after the first six shots! http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-1852Navy-Ac.jpg > >> >> As far as 9mm goes, I guess I am just prejudiced. My auto ammo preferences >> are 45 ACP and 40 S&W. As a modern combat round 40 S&W outperforms both >> 9mm and 45 ACP. For high capacity, my Glock Model 23 uses 13 round >> magazines and performs well as a combat weapon. (I hate the trigger >> though!) 40 S&W matches 45 ACP in energy output, though it is inherently >> less accurate. >> >> Neither 9mm nor 40 S&W can match 45 ACP combined with a tuned 1911 pistol >> or a Target 38 Special such as a S&W K38 Masterpiece, or Model 52. > > Actually, the 9mm has an undeserved reputation for inferior accuracy. I had > a match .45 built for me by the late great Al Dinan, who lived only 60 or so > miles from me, and when I was picking up the pistol he mentioned that he was > experimenting with 9mm on a 1911-based pistol. When I mentioned that 9mm was > not regarded very highly for its accuracy, he replied, "Oh, really?" and > showed me a target he had shot from machine rest, a 10-shot group at 50 > yards, and I'll tell you it knocked my socks off -- especially when he told > me he'd shot it with surplus military (Czech or something) ammo! It's been > too many years for me to tell you now what the group size was, but it sure > was tight. > > Now that may not have been from a pistol. Dinan had his own machine-rest > arrangement, based on a Springfield '03 bolt action of all things, to which > he would attach a pistol barrel. Since the .30-06 and the .45 ACP have > exactly the same head size, and Dinan built mostly .45s, that worked out > well. Whether he used that contraption for any other caliber I don't know. > But however he shot it, that 9mm group disabused me of any ideas I'd had > about lack of accuracy from the 9mm P cartridge. Not really a fair test. Though the 9mm will do the job. > >> >> ...and my Kimber CDP II in 45 ACP with a single stack magazine, great >> trigger, full meltdown treatment and flat profile, is the best and most >> accurate carry weapon I have ever owned. I just love that gun! It was >> worth every penny and US made to boot. > > I do like, and have always liked, the 1911-style pistol. I'm just not crazy > about the cartridge. I think I mentioned in a much earlier post that I have > a Star Model BM*, pretty much a 1911 type scaled down to 9mm. People may > sniff at Spanish pistols, but I've owned several of them and have found the > Stars and Astras to be very well made. (Llamas are a different story.) My > little Star is a just-right pistol, compact enough, shoots exactly where it > looks, and has a lovely trigger. > > *The "BM" designation is a bit unfortunate. Talking to a friend once, I > mentioned that I kept my BM in my nightstand, and he replied, "Well, you > always were a little strange." -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 16 Nov 2009 18:40 On 2009-11-16 15:26:17 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> said: > > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2009111615045779149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2009-11-16 14:23:21 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> >> said: >> >>> >>> "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. >> >> 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. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Neil Harrington on 17 Nov 2009 00:01
"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:s7c3g5d0pmou8ohv1lo5nl6tip6v0qeenk(a)4ax.com... > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> 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. |