When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: J. Clarke on 11 Nov 2009 14:21 nospam wrote: > In article <h6adnWjrlq08m2bXnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton > <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Back in the early 80's IIRC Texas brought out the first hexadecimal >> calculator (also did decimal, octal and binary). Common in >> programming dept's. > > nope, the hp-16c was the first in 1982. hp also had the 15c which did > complex arithmetic and the hp-41c which could do pretty much anything. Christ, I was using a hex calculator back in the early '70s. Of course I wrote it in APL . . .
From: nospam on 11 Nov 2009 14:44 In article <hdf3bu0m6n(a)news3.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > Christ, I was using a hex calculator back in the early '70s. Of course I > wrote it in APL . . . did it fit in your jeans pocket?
From: Neil Harrington on 11 Nov 2009 14:45 "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2tlkf5dv03jmudhdl6jij705tkfoom6hj2(a)4ax.com... > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>And go metric, you mean? There'd be no point to it. Metric is silly for >>most >>ordinary purposes, > > Yeah, right. That's probably the reason why 200+ countries are using it > where there are only 3 that don't. One of the three that doesn't is the world's only remaining superpower. Who cares what they're using in Lower Slobovia or West Bongo-Bongo? > >>and it would cost billions to change everything. > > "Those who are late will be punished by life itself." > >>Hexadecimal really makes far more sense than metric, > > You got 16 fingers? Amazing! If you really need your fingers to count on, I can understand why you think metric is great. For those of us who don't, fingers and toes don't really come into it. > And you are fluent in adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing > them, too? Like 3A4F + BE3 * 2D5? Even more amazing! Why is it amazing? You're used to thinking in the decimal system so it seems "natural" and "proper" to you. You need to get rid of the idea that a number system only makes sense if it matches how many fingers you have. The ten-based system isn't really any more logical than a six-based system or for that matter a thirty-based system. It's only comfortable for you because it's what you're used to. > > Besides, what does the radix of a numeral system have to do with metric > or not? > >>and that is closer to >>the old familiar English systems of measure. > > ??? > What? Where except for small liquid quantities? > >>You blokes should have stayed >>with what you had. (Well, except for currency I suppose. But even that had >>the advantage of being charmingly quaint.) > > How many cubic inches are in a gallon, again? Who cares? Is that a question that comes up often in your life? > How many tea spoon are in > one cubic foot of water? And how many inches are there to a mile? And > how high can I lift 1 pound with the energy provided by 1 BTU in 1 hour? > And do you even know how a furlong by a chain is commonly called today? Same answer to all those questions: Who cares? Conversely, what good does it do you to know how many millimeters there are in a kilometer? Why would you ever need to know that? Teaspoons, quarts, inches and miles are all useful units of measure, which is why they were adopted in the first place. Those that are not useful for general purposes, e.g. drams and furlongs, have dropped out of general use except for a few traditional purposes. The metric system on the other hand is loaded with *perfectly useless* units of measure, all because of the nonsensical 19th-century notion that everything should progress by orders of ten, whether it served any useful purpose or not. When's the last time you had occasion to measure anything by decameters? <snort> Or decimeters, for that matter? Don't get them confused now! Ever use drops, such as eye drops? Can you tell me how much one drop is in metric?
From: Bill Graham on 11 Nov 2009 14:54 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:111120091054385997%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <h6adnWjrlq08m2bXnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton > <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Back in the early 80's IIRC Texas brought out the first hexadecimal >> calculator (also did decimal, octal and binary). Common in programming >> dept's. > > nope, the hp-16c was the first in 1982. hp also had the 15c which did > complex arithmetic and the hp-41c which could do pretty much anything. I still have my 15C. It is a companion to my 12C, which is financial, and is still made and sold by HP. They discontinued the 15C, but it is the finest calculator for complex arithmetic I have seen to date.
From: Neil Harrington on 11 Nov 2009 17:03
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:s72dnR0m5on4k2bXnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:W8-dnQ16jqYTl2fXnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:OLmdnQWi2eLSIGTXnZ2dnUVZ7rudnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> > SNIP >>> >>> >>> Even though the Yanks left the Empire they still won't join the rest of >>> the world. >> >> And go metric, you mean? There'd be no point to it. Metric is silly for >> most ordinary purposes, and it would cost billions to change everything. > > Well what about the cost of not changing it? > > Item 1 Mars Climate Orbiter crashes and burns* > $327,600,000.00c > > So that's about one dollar per citizen - bad start! What has that to do with English vs. metric? > > (OK so in the fifties the Brits made a car engine that had metric bolts > with imperial heads... ) The Brits are funny about these things, but there's no reason the two systems can't co-exist, as in fact they did in Britain for many years. And still do in the U.S. > >> Hexadecimal really makes far more sense than metric, and that is closer >> to the old familiar English systems of measure. You blokes should have >> stayed with what you had. (Well, except for currency I suppose. But even >> that had the advantage of being charmingly quaint.) >> > > Well this only works for avoirdupois weight (16 ounces to the pound), but That, and many units of liquid measure. > for troy weight there are only 12 Other than jewelers, who cares about Troy weight? > and for fluid measure 20 fluid ounces to the pint (OK so it is 16 now in > our former colony, but what do they know about measurement or spelling?). Certainly as much as the Brits know about it, and they don't even drive on the right (i.e., correct) side of the road. > > As for the pound sterling this is the last currency in the world that has > any relation to the original pound weight of silver that the Libra (�) in > Lsd stood for in Roman times. By 1914 there were four ounces (~112g) of > 92.5% silver to the �, but now one pound will only buy you about 4 to 5g. > Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are working hard to reduce this as > rapidly as possible :-((. Cheer up, we have Obama working just as hard to the same end over here. We started debasing our own currency long before Obama of course, but he's doing what he can to accelerate the process. |