Dear Metoos

On Mar 30, 3:19*pm, "janus...@hotmail.com" <janus...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Mike, as we're (at least should be) divers here it's necessary to add
> conversion between kilos and pounds, bars ans psi and that terribly
> complicated math for conversion between liters and cubic feet

All I need to know is if there's more than 500 psi left, it's too
early to hit the bars.

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rZWdnZMVTLo4iXLanZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@whidbeytel.c om...
> "John R. Macdonald" <scubajohn@remove.claranet.fr> wrote in message
> news:upatu3ldge0imgsfn6bnt33i56o95qtj5m@4ax.com...
>
>> You mean like the French did in 1778 for the Thirteen Colonies?
>> Thus allowing you some 200 something years later to spew forth your
>> mindless ignorant drivel
>
> Yeah, you can take credit for a few overt acts, but it was colonization,
> not
> pure human freedom that the French gave.
>
> We, meaning the US and it's youth and best, had to pick up the chunks of
> what you punks left in Viet Nam.

You do realise that there other countries fighting in Vietnam don't you?

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:19:52 -0700, janusz_w@hotmail.com wrote:

> Mike, as we're (at least should be) divers here it's necessary to add
> conversion between kilos and pounds, bars ans psi and that terribly
> complicated math for conversion between liters and cubic feet

Like I said, I probably skipped a couple that needed to be there... With
regards to bars to psi, we should also include ATMs...

1 bar = approx 14.5 psi
1 atm = approx 14.7 psi

1 lb = approx 454 grams

Might as well add an odd ball one in there for our Brit acquaintences...

1 stone = 14 lbs

Now, if you really want to confuse some people, start looking at the
length of a nautical mile and how it has varied over the years... The US
Navy used 6000 ft for it... There was also the admiralty mile version of
it... These days, the nautical mile is basically a metric unit in that it
is defined as:

1 nautical mile = *exactly* 1852 meters

Which seems a bit perverse to me since I remember it being defined in
relation to 1 minute of 1 degree along the equator... Leave it to
politicians and bureaucrats to take a natural number and redefine it for
their convenience... Seems kind of like someone deciding that pi should be
redefined to be 3.14 because it was more convenient for them...

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

"Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6403$47f04763$4c49ae41$23718@KNOLOGY.NET...
> <janusz_w@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3685a25a-3c6e-4cac-a207-9ccb8510d704@c26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 30 Mar, 15:35, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <ala_dir_di...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >
> news:d06c26fa-68f5-41a8-a295-4059466d8bc5@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...>
> On
> 30 Mar, 07:19, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > "John R. Macdonald" <scubaj...@remove.claranet.fr> wrote in
>> >
>> > messagenews:upatu3ldge0imgsfn6bnt33i56o95qtj5m@4ax .com...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > > You mean like the French did in 1778 for the Thirteen Colonies?
>> > > > > Thus allowing you some 200 something years later to spew forth
> your
>> > > > > mindless ignorant drivel
>> >
>> > > > Yeah, you can take credit for a few overt acts, but it was
> colonization,
>> > not
>> > > > pure human freedom that the French gave.
>> >
>> > > As you are typical byproduct of failing American educational system
>> > > it is not possible to shame you on your lack of elementary
>> > > historical
>> > > knowledge. If not the French there is good chance that America would
>> > > be still part of the British empire.
>> >
>> > Like India? Pakistan? Canada? Australia?
>>
>> No. Rather like Northern Ireland.
>
> Feel free to explain why you think there's a good chance that we'd be one
> fo
> the few overseas colonies they'd try to keep.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > One of the things we've covered in history was the de-colonization of
> the
>> > British
> empire.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...ion_and_declin
> ...
>>
>> Of course, but as you probably know (I'm not so sure) winning the
>> revolutionary war (subsiding rebellion) by the Brits would mean for
>> example - no big pressure for Africa colonization, penal colonies in
>
> Africa colonization would still have occurred - land & power.
> Australia colonization would still have occurred - land & power.

Probably not by the British.

"Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ae4e2$47f04f36$4c49ae41$15995@KNOLOGY.NET...
> "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47f04ca2$0$13271$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:6403$47f04763$4c49ae41$23718@KNOLOGY.NET...
> <snip>
>> >
>> > Africa colonization would still have occurred - land & power.
>> > Australia colonization would still have occurred - land & power.
>>
>> Probably not by the British.
>>
>>
>
> Why?

The British didn't have great interest it seems in the Southern Asia region
they were more interested in Indian/ China etc. Indonesia was controlled by
the Dutch and the French and Germans also had interests in the region. The
Dutch had mapped some of the coast in the C17 calling the Country New
Holland. The poms showed little interest in Australia till the American War
and lost a place for their convicts which was the reason behind the First
fleet leaving for Aus. It may be strongly suggested that the American War of
Independence was the imputes behind the Australians white colonisation

<janusz_w@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3685a25a-3c6e-4cac-a207-9ccb8510d704@c26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 Mar, 15:35, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <ala_dir_di...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
news:d06c26fa-68f5-41a8-a295-4059466d8bc5@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On
30 Mar, 07:19, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "John R. Macdonald" <scubaj...@remove.claranet.fr> wrote in
> >
> > messagenews:upatu3ldge0imgsfn6bnt33i56o95qtj5m@4ax .com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > You mean like the French did in 1778 for the Thirteen Colonies?
> > > > > Thus allowing you some 200 something years later to spew forth
your
> > > > > mindless ignorant drivel
> >
> > > > Yeah, you can take credit for a few overt acts, but it was
colonization,
> > not
> > > > pure human freedom that the French gave.
> >
> > > As you are typical byproduct of failing American educational system
> > > it is not possible to shame you on your lack of elementary historical
> > > knowledge. If not the French there is good chance that America would
> > > be still part of the British empire.
> >
> > Like India? Pakistan? Canada? Australia?
>
> No. Rather like Northern Ireland.

Feel free to explain why you think there's a good chance that we'd be one fo
the few overseas colonies they'd try to keep.


>
>
> > One of the things we've covered in history was the de-colonization of
the
> > British
empire.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...ion_and_declin
....
>
> Of course, but as you probably know (I'm not so sure) winning the
> revolutionary war (subsiding rebellion) by the Brits would mean for
> example - no big pressure for Africa colonization, penal colonies in

Africa colonization would still have occurred - land & power.
Australia colonization would still have occurred - land & power.

> America - so no need for Australia colonization etc. etc. - different
> history.
>
> >
> > Anticipating your response, the commonwealth of nations is not the
British
> > Empire.
>
> As usual you "anticipated" wrongly.

riiiighhhhttt.

Dennis

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47f04ca2$0$13271$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6403$47f04763$4c49ae41$23718@KNOLOGY.NET...
<snip>
> >
> > Africa colonization would still have occurred - land & power.
> > Australia colonization would still have occurred - land & power.
>
> Probably not by the British.
>
>

Why?

Dennis

"Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7f1ea$47f05e93$4c49ae41$24558@KNOLOGY.NET...
> "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47f055e4$0$13297$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ae4e2$47f04f36$4c49ae41$15995@KNOLOGY.NET...
>> > "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:47f04ca2$0$13271$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> >>
>> >> "Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:6403$47f04763$4c49ae41$23718@KNOLOGY.NET...
>> > <snip>
>> >> >
>> >> > Africa colonization would still have occurred - land & power.
>> >> > Australia colonization would still have occurred - land & power.
>> >>
>> >> Probably not by the British.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> The British didn't have great interest it seems in the Southern Asia
> region
>> they were more interested in Indian/ China etc. Indonesia was controlled
> by
>> the Dutch and the French and Germans also had interests in the region.
>> The
>> Dutch had mapped some of the coast in the C17 calling the Country New
>> Holland. The poms showed little interest in Australia till the American
> War
>> and lost a place for their convicts which was the reason behind the First
>> fleet leaving for Aus. It may be strongly suggested that the American War
> of
>> Independence was the imputes behind the Australians white colonisation
>>
>>
>
> They still had Canada, and recall that much of the area beyond the
> colonies
> wwas held by the French.

and didn't the French have a strong presence on the East coast of Canada

> This would limit the expansion of the colonies into the interior.

Maybe I have misunderstood your point

>
> Even if they showed little interest, if another nation had started sttling
> there, Britian would have established a presence.

Maybe, remember the French were wandering around Australia at the same time
as Cook

> If they didn't then they'd be...well..left out.

I'm not sure to many people were impressed by what they saw in Australia, no
obvious wealth the West and North which was what most saw (after forgetting
to turn left from the roaring 40's to the spice Islands and beyond ) was
extremely inhospitable. Remember the 1st Fleet nearly perished in the first
couple of years of the colony. If the French or Dutch had settled maybe the
British would have reacted but the reason they did what they did was mainly
about a place to dump convicts. In saying this there was the Matra ( an
American who suggested that it was a good place for Americans who had stayed
loyal to Britian) proposal to colinise NSWs as a trading post to China and a
place to grow flax but this was rejected.

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47f055e4$0$13297$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ae4e2$47f04f36$4c49ae41$15995@KNOLOGY.NET...
> > "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:47f04ca2$0$13271$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>
> >> "Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:6403$47f04763$4c49ae41$23718@KNOLOGY.NET...
> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > Africa colonization would still have occurred - land & power.
> >> > Australia colonization would still have occurred - land & power.
> >>
> >> Probably not by the British.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Why?
>
> The British didn't have great interest it seems in the Southern Asia
region
> they were more interested in Indian/ China etc. Indonesia was controlled
by
> the Dutch and the French and Germans also had interests in the region. The
> Dutch had mapped some of the coast in the C17 calling the Country New
> Holland. The poms showed little interest in Australia till the American
War
> and lost a place for their convicts which was the reason behind the First
> fleet leaving for Aus. It may be strongly suggested that the American War
of
> Independence was the imputes behind the Australians white colonisation
>
>

They still had Canada, and recall that much of the area beyond the colonies
wwas held by the French.
This would limit the expansion of the colonies into the interior.

Even if they showed little interest, if another nation had started sttling
there, Britian would have established a presence.
If they didn't then they'd be...well..left out.

Dennis

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:93e704d1-ac5b-4f9b-a7ac-48621c0a99a8@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 3:40 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.net> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a464d234-5af5-493e-87b5-1a3192b568c4@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 29, 1:55 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <janus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:320219c3-c495-49ca-aeb1-c02cf7ee5139@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Have a nice reading
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/books/14dumb.html
>
> > > I really enjoyed the comments
>
> > > Janusz
>
> > Well, that was interesting, I guess. Mostly, it just strikes me as more
> > American bashing, only this time it seems to be coming from within. I
lose
> > how they use a segment from "Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader" to prove
> > their point when, I'd wager, most countrtries probably have similar
> > "stupid
> > people" shows.
>
> > Personally, I was always taught that the facts only matter in so far as
> > they
> > can be used for the problem at hand. What that means is that while I was
> > in
> > school, I was basically instructed in how to digest facts to regurgitate
> > on
> > the exams I would need but not to be concerned about remembering all of
> > those facts after they were no longer useful (for my grade). Facts can
be
> > looked up. There's no real reason to fill up valuable memory space with
> > stuff that you can easily find like what country Budapest is the capitol
> > of.
> > I was taught that it is much more important to think for yourself than
it
> > is
> > to be able to spew useless facts. Of course, I didn't listen to that
> > teaching very well and can still spew any number of useless facts, but
the
> > sentiment remains the same. Also, I've sincec learned that, without
regard
> > to nationality, race, color, creed, sex, etc..., only about 2% of the
> > population ever reaches the stage of development where they actually
*do*
> > think for themselves. Empirical evidence tends to make me believe that
the
> > percentage is much lower than that, but I'll defer to the people who did
> > the
> > studies.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> It's too bad that your education was only centred around what you
> needed to know for the exams rather than actually preparing you for a
> career and life generally. Sounds like you attended a diploma mill.
> Seems to me that's exactly what the article was about. Hopefully your
> doctors and other professionals who provide services for you got a
> more retention based education.
>
> And I'm pretty sure there are more than a few of your fellows here
> who'd argue with you relegating Pearl Harbor to "useless fact".
> Admittedly the compendium of wolrd knowledge has grown too large for
> any one person to know it all, but surely there are some moments in
> history that should stick, if only out of national pride and loyalty.
> I think the point of the article is that there's something inherently
> lacking in the education or at least the knowledge of presumably
> intelligent Americans who aren't even aware of the significance of
> Pearl Harbor. That's the "solipsism" thing in microcosm.
>
> I'm not suggesting that America's alone in that failing. We have our
> share of self-absorbed empty-headed clowns up here in the frozen north
> who are like the human baby mentioned.
>
> JF
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> I think that I was not clear in expressing my point.
>
> The circumstances surrounding "Pearl Harbor" are obviously not "useless
> fact". The fact that it happened on December 7, 1941 *is* useless fact.
>
> How often do you imagine that, while I'm diagnosing a network
communication
> error, I'll be like "Hey, this would sure be a lot easier if I could only
> remember the exact date of the attack on Pearl Harbor"?
>
> In history, many schools tend to focus on the dates, but I find it much
more
> interesting (as well as important) to focus on the circumstances,
including,
> but not limited to, causal effect. The dates, at least in my opinion, are
> mostly irrelevant.
>
> The same thing si true for just about every field. There are important
> concepts that should be learned and remembered, but there are also useless
> pieces of information that can be easily found if they are needed. For
> instance, is it really that important from a general standpoint to
remember
> that Pi can be represented by 22/7? Obviously, if it's something that you
> work with on a regualr basis, it is, but generally, do you really think it
> is? How important is it from a general standpoint to remember that the
> conversion from degrees F to Degrees C is (f-32)*5/9? For those people who
> do this conversion on a regular basis, they will remember it. Those of us
> who only do it occasionally, can look it up just as easily (if not more
so)
> than remembering it.
>
> That's what I'm talking about in regards to "useless facts". I'd also like
> to point out that there are a lot of people who will find many facts to be
> very important that I tend to view as useless. I'm sure that the facts
are,
> in fact, usefull to those people, but they (the facts) are still useless
to
> me.-

So it doesn't matter to you that modern Americans might think it was
part of the war in Viet Nam?

JF

-----------------------------------------------------
I think it's pretty pathetic that they don't know the difference, but I
don't really think that, for the most part, it's really all that important
that they know that Pearl Harbor was part of WWII instead of Vietnam.

Also, I'd be willing to wager that there are modern Canadians who might say
the same thing; although, I will admit that I don't really think that the
attack on Pearl Harbor is nearly as important to their history as it is to
ours.

What concerns me more than whether the people know the difference between
WWII and Vietnam is whether people can read and write. I *do* think that we
in America often fail the students (particularly student athletes) in that
regard.