Dear Metoos

"Grumman-581" <grumman581-usenet-2008@spambob.net> wrote in message
newsan.2008.03.30.21.31.55.235000@grumman581-usenet-2008-spambob-net...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:40:07 -0500, Chris Guynn wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Which gives you a false sense of accuracy with the number of decimal
> places that it provides you... You might as well remember just 3.14 since
> it is the same number of digits and gives you as much accuracy compared to
> the 22/7 fraction... Personally, I have no problem remembering enough
> digits for my uses without having to look it up -- 3.14159... Probably
> because that is the number of digits that you can correctly represent in a
> single precision floating point number... If I need a higher precision, I
> look it up...
>
> > How important is it from a general standpoint to
> > remember that the conversion from degrees F to
> > Degrees C is (f-32)*5/9?
>
> One should know that 0C = 32F and 100C = 212F... From there, one should be
> able to derive the formulas for the conversion if needed...
>
> > 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.
>
> There are people who go through life without knowing how to convert from
> one unit to another... They figure that they can look it up if they ever
> need it or that they'll have a calculator that does then conversions... I
> have to disagree with this philosophy... There are certain conversion
> factors that one should know...
>
> 1 mile = 5280 ft
> 1 ft = 12 in
> 1 yd = 3 ft
> 1 pt = 2 cups
> 1 cup = 8 oz
> 1 qt = 2 pt
> 1 gal = 4 qts
> 1 shot = 1.5 oz
> 1 in = 2.54 cm
> 1 meter = approx 39.37 in
> 1 fathom = 6 ft
> 1 ton = 2000 lbs
> 1 cm3 of water at 4C weighs 1 gram
> 0K = -273.15C
> 1 lb = 7000 grains
> 1 sq-mile = 640 acres
> acceleration due to gravity is approx 32 ft/sec
> speed of light is approx 3E+08 meters/sec (yeah, technically it is defined
> as exactly 299,792,458 meters/sec, but it's unreasonable to expect someone
> to remember that many digits...
>
> I'm sure there are a few more that I consider that someone should know,
> but I can't think of them off the top of my head right now... From these
> basic conversion factors, you can do most conversions that people
> encounter in their day to day life...

I would happily agree with some of the basic conversions you've listed
there, but others I think are far beyond the scope of what most people would
need. For instance, while I knew that 1 fathom = 6 feet, I don't really
care. I can't recall the last time I measured something in fathoms and,
perhaps more importantly, I can't recall the last time something was
expressed to me in fathoms that I cared enough to try to convert it to feet.
If it were something that I encountered on a more regular basis, I'm sure
that I would find it considerably more important.

I don't expect the average person to be able to convert decimal to binary
even though I do it on a somewhat regular basis.Most people have no need to
understand the conversion process from binary to decimal or vice-versa, and,
if we can take people's driving habits as an idicator of their brain power,
I'm not certain that I would want many of the people cluttering up their
already overloaded brains with more information that they won't be using.

"dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47f063f6$0$13293$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "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

Not since 1764
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...4.E2.80.931867

The French still had the Louisiana territory, we bought that region in 1803.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

Now, maybe the British would have aquited it as a result of the Napoleonic
wars?

>
> > 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

The same happened to some of our early colonies as well.

> 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.
>
>

Dennis