On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:13:05 AM UTC-4, Pamela wrote:
> On 16:05 10 Apr 2020, graham said:
>
> > On 2020-04-10 5:42 a.m., Gary wrote:
> >> Bruce wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 07:28:34 -0400, Gary > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Bruce wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gary wrote:
> >>>>>> BTW: Americans *always* drive on the right side of the road.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know. So do most Europeans.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know the UK doesn't but how about Australia?
> >>>
> >>> Also on the left side. I nearly killed myself a few times after
> >>> emigrating.
> >>
> >> Yep, if I took a real vacation to the UK (or Australia) I'd
> >> really have to think hard before entering an intersection if
> >> I planned to turn left or right.
> >>
> > Every tourist stop in New Zealand has arrows painted in the road to
> > remind people which is the correct side. It's absolutely necessary for
> > Chinese tourists, many of whom have licences but have *never* driven
> > before!
>
> Nearly as bad are American drivers in the UK who have never used a stick
> shift but think they will learn while driving on the opposite side of
> narrower roads to what they are used to.

Having driven a stick most of my life, I almost think it would be worse
to reverse those reflexes.

Cindy Hamilton

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:01:24 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

Snippage
>I am starting to appreciate a lot of this new stuff. We took our tax
>paperwork to the accountant a couple weeks ago. They called up yesterday
>to say that our taxes are done but we can't get them at the office until
>this nonsense is over. She sent me an email with our tax returns in pdf
>format. I printed off the two pages that needed signatures. I then put
>those four pages into my scanner, created a single pdf and emailed it
>back to her.

Great software for Canadians.
https://www.studiotax.com/en/
Free, but it's worth making donation.
Certified for on-line filing. Instant receipt number from CRA.
I've used it since 2013.

Ross

Gary wrote:

> I'll bet car manufacturers would love all to drive on one side
> or the other. Then they wouldn't have to make 2 versions of
> the same cars.
>
> I remember when Ophy posted a pic of the inside of her
> nice car a few years ago. I was ready to repond that it
> looked very nice but they put the steering wheel on the
> wrong side. heh heh
>
> I don't remember if I actually did send that.


Until the mid - late 60's US automakers offered a RHD option for some vehicles, some for export, some for domestic use, e.g. for mail carriers...

Growing up, I remember that several of our rural mail carriers had RHD vehicles, including a Jeep and a Ford Falcon...

At one time there was a certain market for US cars in the UK, they were exported with RHD, often from their Canadian - based plants. This was done because auto imports from Commonwealth nations, e.g. Canada, were taxed at a much lower tariff than direct imports...

US carmakers also had manufacturing facilities in South Africa, Australia, and other RHD markets. At one time this included smaller manufactures such as American Motors, Studebaker, even Kaiser; these were all RHD. In the early 60's the Swedish Police ordered a large number of Plymouth Valiants as police cars, these were produced at Chrysler's assembly plant in IIRC Antwerp, and they were RHD...

Full - size Pontiacs and Chevrolets were somewhat popular in Australia, these were produced with RHD in Canada (or as CKD knock - down kits for local assembly), then exported in order to allow lower Commonwealth tariffs...

Here's a link to scads of Oz auto sales brochures, fun to peruse!

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Australia/index.html

Here is a '66 Oz Pontiac brochure (these had the Canadian model names, e.g. Parisienne, Laurentian, etc):

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Austr...lia/index.html

'65 Ford Galaxie 500 brochu

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Austr...ure/index.html

'66 Chevy Impala/Bel Air:

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Austr...ure/index.html

'70 Rambler Hornet - "A New Breed of American Car!" [lol...]

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Austr...ure/index.html


Now cars are exactly the same all over the world, these US exports have ceased...

--
Best
Greg

Gary wrote:

> I'll bet car manufacturers would love all to drive on one side
> or the other. Then they wouldn't have to make 2 versions of
> the same cars.
>
> I remember when Ophy posted a pic of the inside of her
> nice car a few years ago. I was ready to repond that it
> looked very nice but they put the steering wheel on the
> wrong side. heh heh
>
> I don't remember if I actually did send that.


Until the mid - late 60's US automakers offered a RHD option for some vehicles, some for export, some for domestic use, e.g. for mail carriers...

Growing up, I remember that several of our rural mail carriers had RHD vehicles, including a Jeep and a Ford Falcon...

At one time there was a certain market for US cars in the UK, they were exported with RHD, often from their Canadian - based plants. This was done because auto imports from Commonwealth nations, e.g. Canada, were taxed at a much lower tariff than direct imports...

US carmakers also had manufacturing facilities in South Africa, Australia, and other RHD markets. At one time this included smaller manufactures such as American Motors, Studebaker, even Kaiser; these were all RHD. In the early 60's the Swedish Police ordered a large number of Plymouth Valiants as police cars, these were produced at Chrysler's assembly plant in IIRC Antwerp, and they were RHD...

Full - size Pontiacs and Chevrolets were somewhat popular in Australia, these were produced with RHD in Canada (or as CKD knock - down kits for local assembly), then exported in order to allow lower Commonwealth tariffs...

Here's a link to scads of Oz auto sales brochures, fun to peruse!

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Australia/index.html

Here is a '66 Oz Pontiac brochure (these had the Canadian model names, e.g. Parisienne, Laurentian, etc):

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Austr...lia/index.html

'65 Ford Galaxie 500 brochu

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Austr...ure/index.html

'66 Chevy Impala/Bel Air:

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Austr...ure/index.html

'70 Rambler Hornet - "A New Breed of American Car!" [lol...]

http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Austr...ure/index.html


Now cars are exactly the same all over the world, these US exports have ceased...

--
Best
Greg

In article >, says...
>
> Bruce wrote:
> >
> > Gary wrote:
> > >BTW: Americans *always* drive on the right side of the road.
> >
> > I know. So do most Europeans.
>
> I know the UK doesn't but how about Australia?

armchair travel didn't tell you?

Australia, South Africa. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh New Zealand and
Japan all drive on the left.



Janet UK

On 2020-04-10 12:18 p.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:13:05 AM UTC-4, Pamela wrote:
>before!
>>
>> Nearly as bad are American drivers in the UK who have never used a stick
>> shift but think they will learn while driving on the opposite side of
>> narrower roads to what they are used to.
>
> Having driven a stick most of my life, I almost think it would be worse
> to reverse those reflexes.

People can usually adapt pretty quickly to things like that. I will
compare my ability to use a manual transmission with anyone from
Europe. I have been using them since I was 14. We have always had at
least one car with a manual.... 3 on the tree, three on the floor, 4 on
the floor, five on the floor. I was an equipment operator for close to
12 years. I drove trucks with 5 speed with axle splitters, 10, 13 and
18 speed transmissions and, one of my favourites, two stick
transmissions.... 4 ranges and 5 gears.

The equipment operator part of the job had me working with graders,
front end loaders and back hoes. You quickly learn to use your left
hand to use the hydraulic controls, using two or more controls
simultaneously. I think that it would be pretty easy to switch to
shifting with my left hand. I might be more worried about watching
which lane I am turning into.

On 4/10/2020 10:38 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary wrote:
>>>> BTW: Americans *always* drive on the right side of the road.
>>>
>>> I know. So do most Europeans.
>>
>> I know the UK doesn't but how about Australia?
>
> armchair travel didn't tell you?
>
> Australia, South Africa. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh New Zealand and
> Japan all drive on the left.
>
>
>
> Janet UK
>

Don't forget Malta.

"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...

On 4/10/2020 10:38 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary wrote:
>>>> BTW: Americans *always* drive on the right side of the road.
>>>
>>> I know. So do most Europeans.
>>
>> I know the UK doesn't but how about Australia?
>
> armchair travel didn't tell you?
>
> Australia, South Africa. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh New Zealand and
> Japan all drive on the left.
>
>
>
> Janet UK
>

Don't forget Malta.

====

lol i lived in Malta for 4 years))


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:41:20 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2020-04-10 6:08 a.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:46:08 PM UTC-10, Pamela wrote:
> >
> > >> It's not just weight and measures but also design and engineering
> > >> where working in sixteenths, standard guage and thou is far more
> > >> awkard than in decimals.
> > >
> > > My guess is that a base ten system is not intrinsically easier to
> > > work with than any other system. A base 16 system would easily work.
> > > The trouble comes from making calculations using only 9 numbers and
> > > zero in other base systems.
> >
> > It could be pretty simple using a base of 16. Let's suppose that it
> > takes 16/16ths to make one unit and call it a toe. Then it takes 16 toes
> > to make a shin, 16 shins to make a thigh, 16 thighs to make a shin.
> > However, if we do the same with this 16 base that they did with Imperial
> > they would screw it all up. It would be more like 16/16ths for a toe, 12
> > toes to a shin, 3 shins to a thigh, 5280 shins to a thigh....
>
> It's much easier to work in twelves than sixteens. 16 doesn't divide nicely
> into thirds, whereas 12 does.
>
> > >
> > > I started using metric measurements when I found it a daunting task
> > > to divide an 11" sheet of paper into 3 equal parts.
>
> How precise did you need to be, dsi1? 11/3 is approximately 3 and 11/16 inches. Off by about 0.0625 inch.
>
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Why do you want to mix up base numbers and fractions? That's just asking for trouble and the reason why calculating with inches is so difficult. What the heck is 15 11/16" divided by 3? Beats the crap out of me.

It's good to go for precision when laying out pages. Otherwise, I suppose one could just eyeball it. That wouldn't be very professional, would it?

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 5:05:30 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
> On 2020-04-10 5:42 a.m., Gary wrote:
> > Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 07:28:34 -0400, Gary > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bruce wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Gary wrote:
> >>>>> BTW: Americans *always* drive on the right side of the road.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know. So do most Europeans.
> >>>
> >>> I know the UK doesn't but how about Australia?
> >>
> >> Also on the left side. I nearly killed myself a few times after
> >> emigrating.
> >
> > Yep, if I took a real vacation to the UK (or Australia) I'd
> > really have to think hard before entering an intersection if
> > I planned to turn left or right.
> >
> Every tourist stop in New Zealand has arrows painted in the road to
> remind people which is the correct side. It's absolutely necessary for
> Chinese tourists, many of whom have licences but have *never* driven before!

I'm amazed that Japanese tourists are able to handle our roads. They have to drive on the wrong side of the road with left hand steering wheels in bigger, heavier, more powerful cars, than in Japan. I always see them driving around in white Mustang convertibles.

On 4/10/2020 6:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:50:17 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:36:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/9/2020 7:04 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Mostly, inches and feet are used by the construction industry. They seem quite happy with the system and it serves them well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Construction will probably be last to change but some plywood is already
>>>>>> metric. If you make a product in the US and want to sell it world wide,
>>>>>> metric is good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next up: Military time. Avoide the confusion of AM/PM
>>>>>
>>>>> And after that, date format. Americans use Month/Day. Europe/Australia
>>>>> etc use Day/Month (or day-month etc). Can be tricky.
>>>>
>>>> I favor ISO format: year-month-day Today is 2020-04-10
>>>
>>> It's confusing. Is that the 4th of October or the 10th of April?
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
>
> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
> misunderstanding.
>

I did enough international to understand incoming stuff but when
sending, to be sure, I tended to spell the month to avoid potential
confusion.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/10/2020 6:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:50:17 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:36:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/9/2020 7:04 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mostly, inches and feet are used by the construction
>>>>>>>> industry. They seem quite happy with the system and it
>>>>>>>> serves them well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Construction will probably be last to change but some
>>>>>>> plywood is already
>>>>>>> metric.* If you make a product in the US and want to sell it
>>>>>>> world wide,
>>>>>>> metric is good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Next up:* Military time.* Avoide the confusion of AM/PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And after that, date format. Americans use Month/Day.
>>>>>> Europe/Australia
>>>>>> etc use Day/Month (or day-month etc). Can be tricky.
>>>>>
>>>>> I favor ISO format:* year-month-day* Today is 2020-04-10
>>>>
>>>> It's confusing. Is that the 4th of October or the 10th of April?
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
>>
>> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
>> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>
> I did enough international to understand incoming stuff but when
> sending, to be sure, I tended to spell the month to avoid potential
> confusion.

In the past, I sold lots of electronic stuff international, and
most all customers had enough sense to convert units. Even the
circuit boards were laid out in mils (.001 inch)

Even australians and canadians seemed to understand the concept.
None of them ever whined. Druce was not a customer, thankfully.

I don't recall a single person ever whining about the units of my
circuit boards. I used australian software to lay out the boards,
BTW. It was imperial measures ... mils, .001 INCH.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/10/2020 6:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:50:17 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:36:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/9/2020 7:04 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mostly, inches and feet are used by the construction
>>>>>>>> industry. They seem quite happy with the system and it
>>>>>>>> serves them well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Construction will probably be last to change but some
>>>>>>> plywood is already
>>>>>>> metric.* If you make a product in the US and want to sell it
>>>>>>> world wide,
>>>>>>> metric is good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Next up:* Military time.* Avoide the confusion of AM/PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And after that, date format. Americans use Month/Day.
>>>>>> Europe/Australia
>>>>>> etc use Day/Month (or day-month etc). Can be tricky.
>>>>>
>>>>> I favor ISO format:* year-month-day* Today is 2020-04-10
>>>>
>>>> It's confusing. Is that the 4th of October or the 10th of April?
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
>>
>> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
>> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>
> I did enough international to understand incoming stuff but when
> sending, to be sure, I tended to spell the month to avoid potential
> confusion.

You failed ED. You will never satisfy Gruce.

Nothing you do will come near the dutch or australian stringent
standards.

Face it, man, they are the superior race.

On 4/10/2020 7:34 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/10/2020 6:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:50:17 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:36:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2020 7:04 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mostly, inches and feet are used by the construction industry.
>>>>>>>>> They seem quite happy with the system and it serves them well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Construction will probably be last to change but some plywood is
>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> metric.Â* If you make a product in the US and want to sell it
>>>>>>>> world wide,
>>>>>>>> metric is good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Next up:Â* Military time.Â* Avoide the confusion of AM/PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And after that, date format. Americans use Month/Day.
>>>>>>> Europe/Australia
>>>>>>> etc use Day/Month (or day-month etc). Can be tricky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I favor ISO format:Â* year-month-dayÂ* Today is 2020-04-10
>>>>>
>>>>> It's confusing. Is that the 4th of October or the 10th of April?
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
>>>
>>> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
>>> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
>>> misunderstanding.
>>>
>>
>> I did enough international to understand incoming stuff but when
>> sending, to be sure, I tended to spell the month to avoid potential
>> confusion.
>
> You failed ED. You will never satisfy Gruce.
>
> Nothing you do will come near the dutch or australian stringent standards.
>
> Face it, man, they are the superior race.
>

You have a point. A lot of what I did was with people in Austria. I'm
pretty sure Austria and Australia are the same place but some people
speak German so you can tell them apart.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/10/2020 7:34 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2020 6:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:50:17 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:36:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2020 7:04 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mostly, inches and feet are used by the construction
>>>>>>>>>> industry. They seem quite happy with the system and it
>>>>>>>>>> serves them well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Construction will probably be last to change but some
>>>>>>>>> plywood is already
>>>>>>>>> metric.Â* If you make a product in the US and want to sell
>>>>>>>>> it world wide,
>>>>>>>>> metric is good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Next up:Â* Military time.Â* Avoide the confusion of AM/PM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And after that, date format. Americans use Month/Day.
>>>>>>>> Europe/Australia
>>>>>>>> etc use Day/Month (or day-month etc). Can be tricky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I favor ISO format:Â* year-month-dayÂ* Today is 2020-04-10
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's confusing. Is that the 4th of October or the 10th of April?
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
>>>>
>>>> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
>>>> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did enough international to understand incoming stuff but when
>>> sending, to be sure, I tended to spell the month to avoid
>>> potential confusion.
>>
>> You failed ED. You will never satisfy Gruce.
>>
>> Nothing you do will come near the dutch or australian stringent
>> standards.
>>
>> Face it, man, they are the superior race.
>>
>
> You have a point. A lot of what I did was with people in Austria.
> I'm pretty sure Austria and Australia are the same place but some
> people speak German so you can tell them apart.

Hahahah.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 22:36:04 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 4/10/2020 7:34 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2020 6:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:50:17 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:36:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2020 7:04 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mostly, inches and feet are used by the construction industry.
>>>>>>>>>> They seem quite happy with the system and it serves them well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Construction will probably be last to change but some plywood is
>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>> metric.Â* If you make a product in the US and want to sell it
>>>>>>>>> world wide,
>>>>>>>>> metric is good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Next up:Â* Military time.Â* Avoide the confusion of AM/PM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And after that, date format. Americans use Month/Day.
>>>>>>>> Europe/Australia
>>>>>>>> etc use Day/Month (or day-month etc). Can be tricky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I favor ISO format:Â* year-month-dayÂ* Today is 2020-04-10
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's confusing. Is that the 4th of October or the 10th of April?
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
>>>>
>>>> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
>>>> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did enough international to understand incoming stuff but when
>>> sending, to be sure, I tended to spell the month to avoid potential
>>> confusion.
>>
>> You failed ED. You will never satisfy Gruce.
>>
>> Nothing you do will come near the dutch or australian stringent standards.
>>
>> Face it, man, they are the superior race.
>>
>
>You have a point. A lot of what I did was with people in Austria. I'm
>pretty sure Austria and Australia are the same place but some people
>speak German so you can tell them apart.

Whoosh.

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:41:20 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > On 2020-04-10 6:08 a.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:46:08 PM UTC-10, Pamela wrote:
> > >
> > > >> It's not just weight and measures but also design and engineering
> > > >> where working in sixteenths, standard guage and thou is far more
> > > >> awkard than in decimals.
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that a base ten system is not intrinsically easier to
> > > > work with than any other system. A base 16 system would easily work.
> > > > The trouble comes from making calculations using only 9 numbers and
> > > > zero in other base systems.
> > >
> > > It could be pretty simple using a base of 16. Let's suppose that it
> > > takes 16/16ths to make one unit and call it a toe. Then it takes 16 toes
> > > to make a shin, 16 shins to make a thigh, 16 thighs to make a shin.
> > > However, if we do the same with this 16 base that they did with Imperial
> > > they would screw it all up. It would be more like 16/16ths for a toe, 12
> > > toes to a shin, 3 shins to a thigh, 5280 shins to a thigh....
> >
> > It's much easier to work in twelves than sixteens. 16 doesn't divide nicely
> > into thirds, whereas 12 does.
> >
> > > >
> > > > I started using metric measurements when I found it a daunting task
> > > > to divide an 11" sheet of paper into 3 equal parts.
> >
> > How precise did you need to be, dsi1? 11/3 is approximately 3 and 11/16 inches. Off by about 0.0625 inch.
> >
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Why do you want to mix up base numbers and fractions? That's just asking for trouble and the reason why calculating with inches is so difficult. What the heck is 15 11/16" divided by 3? Beats the crap out of me.
>
> It's good to go for precision when laying out pages. Otherwise, I suppose one could just eyeball it. That wouldn't be very professional, would it?

There's software for that.

Better still, measure the paper in picas.

Cindy Hamilton

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Gary" wrote:
> I remember when Ophy posted a pic of the inside of her
> nice car a few years ago. I was ready to repond that it
> looked very nice but they put the steering wheel on the
> wrong side. heh heh
>
> I don't remember if I actually did send that.
>
> ====
>
> I don't remember that) Which car was it?

No idea but I think you said that your husband had
the same except with more features (like maybe a
bigger engine?) I seem to remember that yours was a
smaller SUV type vehicle (?)

"Gary" wrote in message ...

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Gary" wrote:
> I remember when Ophy posted a pic of the inside of her
> nice car a few years ago. I was ready to repond that it
> looked very nice but they put the steering wheel on the
> wrong side. heh heh
>
> I don't remember if I actually did send that.
>
> ====
>
> I don't remember that) Which car was it?


No idea but I think you said that your husband had
the same except with more features (like maybe a
bigger engine?) I seem to remember that yours was a
smaller SUV type vehicle (?)

===

Ahhh yes We both had Mitsubishi Pajeros His was Long Wheel base and mine
was short wheel base) Apart from that, just the same, 2800cc

We have upgraded since then! Shoguns now. Similar situations though. His
LWB and mine SWB Now 2.600c

We like our SUVs


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>
> Ophelia wrote:
> >
> > "Gary" wrote:
> > I remember when Ophy posted a pic of the inside of her
> > nice car a few years ago. I was ready to repond that it
> > looked very nice but they put the steering wheel on the
> > wrong side. heh heh
> >
> > I don't remember if I actually did send that.
> >
> > ====
> >
> > I don't remember that) Which car was it?
>
> No idea but I think you said that your husband had
> the same except with more features (like maybe a
> bigger engine?) I seem to remember that yours was a
> smaller SUV type vehicle (?)
>
> ===
>
> Ahhh yes We both had Mitsubishi Pajeros His was Long Wheel base and mine
> was short wheel base) Apart from that, just the same, 2800cc
>
> We have upgraded since then! Shoguns now. Similar situations though. His
> LWB and mine SWB Now 2.600c
>
> We like our SUVs

Whew! Nice to know that my memory seems to still be functioning
fairly well.

"Gary" wrote in message ...

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>
> Ophelia wrote:
> >
> > "Gary" wrote:
> > I remember when Ophy posted a pic of the inside of her
> > nice car a few years ago. I was ready to repond that it
> > looked very nice but they put the steering wheel on the
> > wrong side. heh heh
> >
> > I don't remember if I actually did send that.
> >
> > ====
> >
> > I don't remember that) Which car was it?
>
> No idea but I think you said that your husband had
> the same except with more features (like maybe a
> bigger engine?) I seem to remember that yours was a
> smaller SUV type vehicle (?)
>
> ===
>
> Ahhh yes We both had Mitsubishi Pajeros His was Long Wheel base and
> mine
> was short wheel base) Apart from that, just the same, 2800cc
>
> We have upgraded since then! Shoguns now. Similar situations though. His
> LWB and mine SWB Now 2.600c
>
> We like our SUVs

Whew! Nice to know that my memory seems to still be functioning
fairly well.

===

Pah! There is nowt wrong with your memory, me lad <g>

I had sports cars for many years, but then along came and SUV and i was
hooked)




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:57:49 PM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:41:20 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > On 2020-04-10 6:08 a.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:46:08 PM UTC-10, Pamela wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> It's not just weight and measures but also design and engineering
> > > > >> where working in sixteenths, standard guage and thou is far more
> > > > >> awkard than in decimals.
> > > > >
> > > > > My guess is that a base ten system is not intrinsically easier to
> > > > > work with than any other system. A base 16 system would easily work.
> > > > > The trouble comes from making calculations using only 9 numbers and
> > > > > zero in other base systems.
> > > >
> > > > It could be pretty simple using a base of 16. Let's suppose that it
> > > > takes 16/16ths to make one unit and call it a toe. Then it takes 16 toes
> > > > to make a shin, 16 shins to make a thigh, 16 thighs to make a shin.
> > > > However, if we do the same with this 16 base that they did with Imperial
> > > > they would screw it all up. It would be more like 16/16ths for a toe, 12
> > > > toes to a shin, 3 shins to a thigh, 5280 shins to a thigh....
> > >
> > > It's much easier to work in twelves than sixteens. 16 doesn't divide nicely
> > > into thirds, whereas 12 does.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I started using metric measurements when I found it a daunting task
> > > > > to divide an 11" sheet of paper into 3 equal parts.
> > >
> > > How precise did you need to be, dsi1? 11/3 is approximately 3 and 11/16 inches. Off by about 0.0625 inch.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > Why do you want to mix up base numbers and fractions? That's just asking for trouble and the reason why calculating with inches is so difficult. What the heck is 15 11/16" divided by 3? Beats the crap out of me.
> >
> > It's good to go for precision when laying out pages. Otherwise, I suppose one could just eyeball it. That wouldn't be very professional, would it?
>
> There's software for that.
>
> Better still, measure the paper in picas.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Back in the early eighties, there wasn't software for that. Preparing a plate for printing involved laying out graphic elements and text on a sheet of paper and making a photographic negative of the artwork. Since I was the guy doing the layout who also made the plates, I could cheat and make a plate by using separate negatives to burn into the plates.

Twenty years later there was software and printers that allowed me to put together advertising brochures and print them in full color. Amazing!

On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:57:49 PM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:41:20 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > On 2020-04-10 6:08 a.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:46:08 PM UTC-10, Pamela wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> It's not just weight and measures but also design and engineering
> > > > > >> where working in sixteenths, standard guage and thou is far more
> > > > > >> awkard than in decimals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My guess is that a base ten system is not intrinsically easier to
> > > > > > work with than any other system. A base 16 system would easily work.
> > > > > > The trouble comes from making calculations using only 9 numbers and
> > > > > > zero in other base systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > It could be pretty simple using a base of 16. Let's suppose that it
> > > > > takes 16/16ths to make one unit and call it a toe. Then it takes 16 toes
> > > > > to make a shin, 16 shins to make a thigh, 16 thighs to make a shin.
> > > > > However, if we do the same with this 16 base that they did with Imperial
> > > > > they would screw it all up. It would be more like 16/16ths for a toe, 12
> > > > > toes to a shin, 3 shins to a thigh, 5280 shins to a thigh....
> > > >
> > > > It's much easier to work in twelves than sixteens. 16 doesn't divide nicely
> > > > into thirds, whereas 12 does.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I started using metric measurements when I found it a daunting task
> > > > > > to divide an 11" sheet of paper into 3 equal parts.
> > > >
> > > > How precise did you need to be, dsi1? 11/3 is approximately 3 and 11/16 inches. Off by about 0.0625 inch.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > >
> > > Why do you want to mix up base numbers and fractions? That's just asking for trouble and the reason why calculating with inches is so difficult. What the heck is 15 11/16" divided by 3? Beats the crap out of me.
> > >
> > > It's good to go for precision when laying out pages. Otherwise, I suppose one could just eyeball it. That wouldn't be very professional, would it?
> >
> > There's software for that.
> >
> > Better still, measure the paper in picas.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Back in the early eighties, there wasn't software for that.

Sure there was. I was in publishing then, and our typesetters had
exactly that sort of software.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 11:12:39 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:57:49 PM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>> > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:41:20 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>> > > > > On 2020-04-10 6:08 a.m., dsi1 wrote:
>> > > > > > On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:46:08 PM UTC-10, Pamela wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >> It's not just weight and measures but also design and engineering
>> > > > > >> where working in sixteenths, standard guage and thou is far more
>> > > > > >> awkard than in decimals.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > My guess is that a base ten system is not intrinsically easier to
>> > > > > > work with than any other system. A base 16 system would easily work.
>> > > > > > The trouble comes from making calculations using only 9 numbers and
>> > > > > > zero in other base systems.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It could be pretty simple using a base of 16. Let's suppose that it
>> > > > > takes 16/16ths to make one unit and call it a toe. Then it takes 16 toes
>> > > > > to make a shin, 16 shins to make a thigh, 16 thighs to make a shin.
>> > > > > However, if we do the same with this 16 base that they did with Imperial
>> > > > > they would screw it all up. It would be more like 16/16ths for a toe, 12
>> > > > > toes to a shin, 3 shins to a thigh, 5280 shins to a thigh....
>> > > >
>> > > > It's much easier to work in twelves than sixteens. 16 doesn't divide nicely
>> > > > into thirds, whereas 12 does.
>> > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I started using metric measurements when I found it a daunting task
>> > > > > > to divide an 11" sheet of paper into 3 equal parts.
>> > > >
>> > > > How precise did you need to be, dsi1? 11/3 is approximately 3 and 11/16 inches. Off by about 0.0625 inch.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Cindy Hamilton
>> > >
>> > > Why do you want to mix up base numbers and fractions? That's just asking for trouble and the reason why calculating with inches is so difficult. What the heck is 15 11/16" divided by 3? Beats the crap out of me.
>> > >
>> > > It's good to go for precision when laying out pages. Otherwise, I suppose one could just eyeball it. That wouldn't be very professional, would it?
>> >
>> > There's software for that.
>> >
>> > Better still, measure the paper in picas.
>> >
>> > Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Back in the early eighties, there wasn't software for that.
>
>Sure there was. I was in publishing then, and our typesetters had
>exactly that sort of software.

Ventura.

On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 8:12:44 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:57:49 PM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:41:20 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > > On 2020-04-10 6:08 a.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:46:08 PM UTC-10, Pamela wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> It's not just weight and measures but also design and engineering
> > > > > > >> where working in sixteenths, standard guage and thou is far more
> > > > > > >> awkard than in decimals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My guess is that a base ten system is not intrinsically easier to
> > > > > > > work with than any other system. A base 16 system would easily work.
> > > > > > > The trouble comes from making calculations using only 9 numbers and
> > > > > > > zero in other base systems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It could be pretty simple using a base of 16. Let's suppose that it
> > > > > > takes 16/16ths to make one unit and call it a toe. Then it takes 16 toes
> > > > > > to make a shin, 16 shins to make a thigh, 16 thighs to make a shin.
> > > > > > However, if we do the same with this 16 base that they did with Imperial
> > > > > > they would screw it all up. It would be more like 16/16ths for a toe, 12
> > > > > > toes to a shin, 3 shins to a thigh, 5280 shins to a thigh....
> > > > >
> > > > > It's much easier to work in twelves than sixteens. 16 doesn't divide nicely
> > > > > into thirds, whereas 12 does.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I started using metric measurements when I found it a daunting task
> > > > > > > to divide an 11" sheet of paper into 3 equal parts.
> > > > >
> > > > > How precise did you need to be, dsi1? 11/3 is approximately 3 and 11/16 inches. Off by about 0.0625 inch.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > > >
> > > > Why do you want to mix up base numbers and fractions? That's just asking for trouble and the reason why calculating with inches is so difficult. What the heck is 15 11/16" divided by 3? Beats the crap out of me.
> > > >
> > > > It's good to go for precision when laying out pages. Otherwise, I suppose one could just eyeball it. That wouldn't be very professional, would it?
> > >
> > > There's software for that.
> > >
> > > Better still, measure the paper in picas.
> > >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > Back in the early eighties, there wasn't software for that.
>
> Sure there was. I was in publishing then, and our typesetters had
> exactly that sort of software.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Well I sure didn't have access to any of that stuff. What year were you using this software? There were some word processing programs before the eighties but I didn't have any of that either. Back in the early days, we uses a linotype machine or a Selectric Composer to set or create camera ready type. As far as I know, there were no publishing programs back then. Setting type is not the same thing as creating layouts for printing.

Terry Coombs wrote:

> On 4/7/2020 11:56 AM, graham wrote:
> > On 2020-04-07 10:34 a.m., Sqwertz wrote:
> > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 09:22:45 -0600, graham wrote:
> > >
> > > > The other day I made a couple of kg of bread dough from a newly
> > > > opened bag of flour.
> > >
> > > You have flour!?!?!?
> > >
> > > What a Jerk!
> > >
> > > -sw
> > >
> > What a strange and unnecessary comment!
> > I had stocked up when I needed flour, and before the mad rush that
> > cleared out the supermarkets, because I bake bread on a regular
> > basis. So, va-te-faire engrosser!
>
> Â* I buy my bread flour by the 50 lb bag , about 1 every six months .
> I'm just halfway thru the last bag ...

Nothing odd there. I generally get it in 5lb bags but have gotten as
big as 25lb bags. My normal load would make a 25lb bag last as much as
5 months. Right now, going through about 20lbs a month but I'm making
bread (free) for folks laid off to help ease the bills.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:57:55 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It's confusing. Is that the 4th of October or the 10th of April?
>> >
>> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
>>
>> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
>> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
>> misunderstanding.
>
>ISO = International Standards Organization
>
>It's intended for international use.

I know, Sherlock. But nobody would know that Cindy Hamilton from
Michigan or summin' is following an ISO code or what that ISO code is.

On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 6:36:44 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 8:12:44 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:57:49 PM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:41:20 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2020-04-10 6:08 a.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:46:08 PM UTC-10, Pamela wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> It's not just weight and measures but also design and engineering
> > > > > > > >> where working in sixteenths, standard guage and thou is far more
> > > > > > > >> awkard than in decimals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My guess is that a base ten system is not intrinsically easier to
> > > > > > > > work with than any other system. A base 16 system would easily work.
> > > > > > > > The trouble comes from making calculations using only 9 numbers and
> > > > > > > > zero in other base systems.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It could be pretty simple using a base of 16. Let's suppose that it
> > > > > > > takes 16/16ths to make one unit and call it a toe. Then it takes 16 toes
> > > > > > > to make a shin, 16 shins to make a thigh, 16 thighs to make a shin.
> > > > > > > However, if we do the same with this 16 base that they did with Imperial
> > > > > > > they would screw it all up. It would be more like 16/16ths for a toe, 12
> > > > > > > toes to a shin, 3 shins to a thigh, 5280 shins to a thigh....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's much easier to work in twelves than sixteens. 16 doesn't divide nicely
> > > > > > into thirds, whereas 12 does.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I started using metric measurements when I found it a daunting task
> > > > > > > > to divide an 11" sheet of paper into 3 equal parts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How precise did you need to be, dsi1? 11/3 is approximately 3 and 11/16 inches. Off by about 0.0625 inch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you want to mix up base numbers and fractions? That's just asking for trouble and the reason why calculating with inches is so difficult. What the heck is 15 11/16" divided by 3? Beats the crap out of me.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's good to go for precision when laying out pages. Otherwise, I suppose one could just eyeball it. That wouldn't be very professional, would it?
> > > >
> > > > There's software for that.
> > > >
> > > > Better still, measure the paper in picas.
> > > >
> > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > >
> > > Back in the early eighties, there wasn't software for that.
> >
> > Sure there was. I was in publishing then, and our typesetters had
> > exactly that sort of software.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Well I sure didn't have access to any of that stuff. What year were you using this software? There were some word processing programs before the eighties but I didn't have any of that either. Back in the early days, we uses a linotype machine or a Selectric Composer to set or create camera ready type. As far as I know, there were no publishing programs back then. Setting type is not the same thing as creating layouts for printing.

I wasn't using the software. Our outside typesetting service was. This
would have been between 1978 and 1984.

Your practical solution would have been to obtain a rule marked in picas.
There are 66 picas in 11 inches, easily divisible by three.

If I turned out every drawer in my house and workshop, I probably could
still find my pica pole:

<https://omnitopia.us/products/12-stainless-steel-pica-pole-ruler-inch-and-picas>

Cindy Hamilton

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 12:47:58 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 6:36:44 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 8:12:44 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:57:49 PM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:41:20 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2020-04-10 6:08 a.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:46:08 PM UTC-10, Pamela wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> It's not just weight and measures but also design and engineering
> > > > > > > > >> where working in sixteenths, standard guage and thou is far more
> > > > > > > > >> awkard than in decimals.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My guess is that a base ten system is not intrinsically easier to
> > > > > > > > > work with than any other system. A base 16 system would easily work.
> > > > > > > > > The trouble comes from making calculations using only 9 numbers and
> > > > > > > > > zero in other base systems.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It could be pretty simple using a base of 16. Let's suppose that it
> > > > > > > > takes 16/16ths to make one unit and call it a toe. Then it takes 16 toes
> > > > > > > > to make a shin, 16 shins to make a thigh, 16 thighs to make a shin.
> > > > > > > > However, if we do the same with this 16 base that they did with Imperial
> > > > > > > > they would screw it all up. It would be more like 16/16ths for a toe, 12
> > > > > > > > toes to a shin, 3 shins to a thigh, 5280 shins to a thigh.....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's much easier to work in twelves than sixteens. 16 doesn't divide nicely
> > > > > > > into thirds, whereas 12 does.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I started using metric measurements when I found it a daunting task
> > > > > > > > > to divide an 11" sheet of paper into 3 equal parts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How precise did you need to be, dsi1? 11/3 is approximately 3 and 11/16 inches. Off by about 0.0625 inch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why do you want to mix up base numbers and fractions? That's just asking for trouble and the reason why calculating with inches is so difficult. What the heck is 15 11/16" divided by 3? Beats the crap out of me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's good to go for precision when laying out pages. Otherwise, I suppose one could just eyeball it. That wouldn't be very professional, would it?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's software for that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Better still, measure the paper in picas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > > >
> > > > Back in the early eighties, there wasn't software for that.
> > >
> > > Sure there was. I was in publishing then, and our typesetters had
> > > exactly that sort of software.
> > >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > Well I sure didn't have access to any of that stuff. What year were you using this software? There were some word processing programs before the eighties but I didn't have any of that either. Back in the early days, we uses a linotype machine or a Selectric Composer to set or create camera ready type. As far as I know, there were no publishing programs back then. Setting type is not the same thing as creating layouts for printing.
>
> I wasn't using the software. Our outside typesetting service was. This
> would have been between 1978 and 1984.
>
> Your practical solution would have been to obtain a rule marked in picas.
> There are 66 picas in 11 inches, easily divisible by three.
>
> If I turned out every drawer in my house and workshop, I probably could
> still find my pica pole:
>
> <https://omnitopia.us/products/12-stainless-steel-pica-pole-ruler-inch-and-picas>
>
> Cindy Hamilton

My practical solution was to use metric measurements. Did you actually do any production work? My guess is that it's real easy for people that don't have to do the actual work.

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 6:59:24 AM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 12:47:58 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 6:36:44 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 8:12:44 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:57:49 PM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:41:20 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2020-04-10 6:08 a.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:46:08 PM UTC-10, Pamela wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> It's not just weight and measures but also design and engineering
> > > > > > > > > >> where working in sixteenths, standard guage and thou is far more
> > > > > > > > > >> awkard than in decimals.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My guess is that a base ten system is not intrinsically easier to
> > > > > > > > > > work with than any other system. A base 16 system would easily work.
> > > > > > > > > > The trouble comes from making calculations using only 9 numbers and
> > > > > > > > > > zero in other base systems.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It could be pretty simple using a base of 16. Let's suppose that it
> > > > > > > > > takes 16/16ths to make one unit and call it a toe. Then it takes 16 toes
> > > > > > > > > to make a shin, 16 shins to make a thigh, 16 thighs to make a shin.
> > > > > > > > > However, if we do the same with this 16 base that they did with Imperial
> > > > > > > > > they would screw it all up. It would be more like 16/16ths for a toe, 12
> > > > > > > > > toes to a shin, 3 shins to a thigh, 5280 shins to a thigh.....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's much easier to work in twelves than sixteens. 16 doesn't divide nicely
> > > > > > > > into thirds, whereas 12 does.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I started using metric measurements when I found it a daunting task
> > > > > > > > > > to divide an 11" sheet of paper into 3 equal parts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How precise did you need to be, dsi1? 11/3 is approximately 3 and 11/16 inches. Off by about 0.0625 inch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why do you want to mix up base numbers and fractions? That's just asking for trouble and the reason why calculating with inches is so difficult. What the heck is 15 11/16" divided by 3? Beats the crap out of me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's good to go for precision when laying out pages. Otherwise, I suppose one could just eyeball it. That wouldn't be very professional, would it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's software for that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Better still, measure the paper in picas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > > > >
> > > > > Back in the early eighties, there wasn't software for that.
> > > >
> > > > Sure there was. I was in publishing then, and our typesetters had
> > > > exactly that sort of software.
> > > >
> > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > >
> > > Well I sure didn't have access to any of that stuff. What year were you using this software? There were some word processing programs before the eighties but I didn't have any of that either. Back in the early days, we uses a linotype machine or a Selectric Composer to set or create camera ready type. As far as I know, there were no publishing programs back then. Setting type is not the same thing as creating layouts for printing.
> >
> > I wasn't using the software. Our outside typesetting service was. This
> > would have been between 1978 and 1984.
> >
> > Your practical solution would have been to obtain a rule marked in picas.
> > There are 66 picas in 11 inches, easily divisible by three.
> >
> > If I turned out every drawer in my house and workshop, I probably could
> > still find my pica pole:
> >
> > <https://omnitopia.us/products/12-stainless-steel-pica-pole-ruler-inch-and-picas>
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> My practical solution was to use metric measurements. Did you actually do any production work? My guess is that it's real easy for people that don't have to do the actual work.

I was, as you might suppose, a copy editor and proofreader. It was
book publishing, not advertising.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 1:02:42 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 6:59:24 AM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 12:47:58 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 6:36:44 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 8:12:44 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:57:49 PM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 4:41:20 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:32:43 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 2020-04-10 6:08 a.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 10:46:08 PM UTC-10, Pamela wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> It's not just weight and measures but also design and engineering
> > > > > > > > > > >> where working in sixteenths, standard guage and thou is far more
> > > > > > > > > > >> awkard than in decimals.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My guess is that a base ten system is not intrinsically easier to
> > > > > > > > > > > work with than any other system. A base 16 system would easily work.
> > > > > > > > > > > The trouble comes from making calculations using only 9 numbers and
> > > > > > > > > > > zero in other base systems.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It could be pretty simple using a base of 16. Let's suppose that it
> > > > > > > > > > takes 16/16ths to make one unit and call it a toe. Then it takes 16 toes
> > > > > > > > > > to make a shin, 16 shins to make a thigh, 16 thighs to make a shin.
> > > > > > > > > > However, if we do the same with this 16 base that they did with Imperial
> > > > > > > > > > they would screw it all up. It would be more like 16/16ths for a toe, 12
> > > > > > > > > > toes to a shin, 3 shins to a thigh, 5280 shins to a thigh....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's much easier to work in twelves than sixteens. 16 doesn't divide nicely
> > > > > > > > > into thirds, whereas 12 does.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I started using metric measurements when I found it a daunting task
> > > > > > > > > > > to divide an 11" sheet of paper into 3 equal parts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How precise did you need to be, dsi1? 11/3 is approximately 3 and 11/16 inches. Off by about 0.0625 inch.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why do you want to mix up base numbers and fractions? That's just asking for trouble and the reason why calculating with inches is so difficult. What the heck is 15 11/16" divided by 3? Beats the crap out of me.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's good to go for precision when laying out pages. Otherwise, I suppose one could just eyeball it. That wouldn't be very professional, would it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's software for that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Better still, measure the paper in picas.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Back in the early eighties, there wasn't software for that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure there was. I was in publishing then, and our typesetters had
> > > > > exactly that sort of software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cindy Hamilton
> > > >
> > > > Well I sure didn't have access to any of that stuff. What year were you using this software? There were some word processing programs before the eighties but I didn't have any of that either. Back in the early days, we uses a linotype machine or a Selectric Composer to set or create camera ready type. As far as I know, there were no publishing programs back then. Setting type is not the same thing as creating layouts for printing.
> > >
> > > I wasn't using the software. Our outside typesetting service was. This
> > > would have been between 1978 and 1984.
> > >
> > > Your practical solution would have been to obtain a rule marked in picas.
> > > There are 66 picas in 11 inches, easily divisible by three.
> > >
> > > If I turned out every drawer in my house and workshop, I probably could
> > > still find my pica pole:
> > >
> > > <https://omnitopia.us/products/12-stainless-steel-pica-pole-ruler-inch-and-picas>
> > >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > My practical solution was to use metric measurements. Did you actually do any production work? My guess is that it's real easy for people that don't have to do the actual work.
>
> I was, as you might suppose, a copy editor and proofreader. It was
> book publishing, not advertising.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

During your lunchtime, you went down to the print shop and told them how to do their jobs.

Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:57:55 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's confusing. Is that the 4th of October or the 10th of April?
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
>>>
>>> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
>>> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
>>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> ISO = International Standards Organization
>>
>> It's intended for international use.
>
> I know, Sherlock. But nobody would know that Cindy Hamilton from
> Michigan or summin' is following an ISO code or what that ISO code is.
>

Druce, are you following the ISO standards for ass sniffing technique ?

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 12:51:05 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> >On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:57:55 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:39:57 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> It's confusing. Is that the 4th of October or the 10th of April?
> >> >
> >> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
> >>
> >> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
> >> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
> >> misunderstanding.
> >
> >ISO = International Standards Organization
> >
> >It's intended for international use.
>
> I know, Sherlock. But nobody would know that Cindy Hamilton from
> Michigan or summin' is following an ISO code or what that ISO code is.

The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity. If people
started seeing the ISO date format in use, they'd soon consider it to
be normal.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 13:33:11 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 12:51:05 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:57:55 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
>> >> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
>> >> misunderstanding.
>> >
>> >ISO = International Standards Organization
>> >
>> >It's intended for international use.
>>
>> I know, Sherlock. But nobody would know that Cindy Hamilton from
>> Michigan or summin' is following an ISO code or what that ISO code is.
>
>The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity. If people
>started seeing the ISO date format in use, they'd soon consider it to
>be normal.

There are lots of date formats in use. That's exactly the problem.

Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 13:33:11 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 12:51:05 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:57:55 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So? What I mean is that whatever format or ISO code you use, when
>>>>> you're communicating internationally, there's a risk of
>>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>> ISO = International Standards Organization
>>>>
>>>> It's intended for international use.
>>>
>>> I know, Sherlock. But nobody would know that Cindy Hamilton from
>>> Michigan or summin' is following an ISO code or what that ISO code is.
>>
>> The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity. If people
>> started seeing the ISO date format in use, they'd soon consider it to
>> be normal.
>
> There are lots of date formats in use. That's exactly the problem.
>

Hell, we can all just use whatever format you and Popeye agree on

On 2020 Apr 12, , Cindy Hamilton wrote
(in >):

> The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity. If people
> started seeing the ISO date format in use, they'd soon consider it to
> be normal.

Back in the day, I was required to adhere to ANSI and MIL-STD-105D. Have
things changed?

leo

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 22:59:08 -0700, Leo >
wrote:

>On 2020 Apr 12, , Cindy Hamilton wrote
>(in >):
>
>> The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity. If people
>> started seeing the ISO date format in use, they'd soon consider it to
>> be normal.
>
>Back in the day, I was required to adhere to ANSI and MIL-STD-105D. Have
>things changed?

When I email with people about work, I'm not obliged to adhere to
anything and nor are they, but it would be nice if we understand each
other.

On 2020 Apr 12, , Bruce wrote
(in >):

> When I email with people about work, I'm not obliged to adhere to
> anything and nor are they, but it would be nice if we understand each
> other.

So nothing said is an obligation. Why bother to talk to them at all? Google
€œnuance€� and
€œsynonym€� to aid in your transition to passable English. Youre
getting there!

leo

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 23:40:35 -0700, Leo >
wrote:

>On 2020 Apr 12, , Bruce wrote
>(in >):
>
>> When I email with people about work, I'm not obliged to adhere to
>> anything and nor are they, but it would be nice if we understand each
>> other.
>
>So nothing said is an obligation. Why bother to talk to them at all? Google
>€œnuance€� and
>€œsynonym€� to aid in your transition to passable English. Youre
>getting there!

I don't know what you're trying to say. But if they want a delivery
date of August 9 and I think they mean September 8, we have a problem.

On Monday, April 13, 2020 at 1:59:12 AM UTC-4, Leo wrote:
> On 2020 Apr 12, , Cindy Hamilton wrote
> (in >):
>
> > The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity. If people
> > started seeing the ISO date format in use, they'd soon consider it to
> > be normal.
>
> Back in the day, I was required to adhere to ANSI and MIL-STD-105D. Have
> things changed?
>
> leo

Depends if you want to talk to anybody outside the U.S.

Cindy Hamilton