BigW 81" LCD HD under $2000

[DAVO]

This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.

DAVO

[DAVO]

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kjg9e.17047$5F3.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>
> DAVO

Sorry, of course it should read 81cm.

DAVO

[khangu@gmail.com]

Yeah, seems like good value.

What brand & resolution does it have, and can I plug my pc to it?

Which Big W did you see this at?

[Jim Vatunz]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:16:32 GMT, "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
>performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>
>DAVO
>
Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
FFU inch units.
I may have some idea of how big it is if you did.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Falco]

I looked at their 66cm (AWA) LCD about two or three months ago and it was
GREAT value for money and the picture wasn't too bad either.


"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Cvg9e.17058$5F3.7900@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kjg9e.17047$5F3.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
>> brilliant
>> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>>
>> DAVO
>
> Sorry, of course it should read 81cm.
>
> DAVO
>
>

[Shari]

"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:16:32 GMT, "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
>>performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>>outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>>walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>>
>>DAVO
>>
> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
> FFU inch units.
> I may have some idea of how big it is if you did.


You should have read DAVO's next post, posted thirteen minutes after his
initial post and 12 minutes before yours, where he corrects himself and
advises it is 81 cm :)

[damnfine]

"DAVO" wrote:
> Sorry, of course it should read 81cm.

Hehe... ok because an 81" LCD for under 2K sounded like the buy of the
century. :-D

If you like that sort of thing...


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"Where is Richard Nixon when we finally need him?"
- Hunter S. Thompson

[Juan Mortyme]

<khangu@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113953892.158388.13310@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Yeah, seems like good value.
>
> What brand & resolution does it have, and can I plug my pc to it?
>
> Which Big W did you see this at?
>


Taken from page 5 of Big W's latest catalogue (on sale from Thursday April
21) :

"AWA 81cm Wide-Screen LCD Television
HD TV ready, multiple aspect ratios, 176 degree viewing angle,
500 cd/m2 brightness, 500:1 contrst ratio, 1366 x 766 display resolution,
multiple video inputs and wall mountable (VESA standard)"
and perhaps most important of all "2-year warranty"

"Shari" <jedi2602@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42659f31$1@news.alphalink.com.au...
>
> "Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
> news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:16:32 GMT, "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
> >>performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
> >>outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
> >>walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
> >>
> >>DAVO
> >>
> > Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
> > size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
> > FFU inch units.
> > I may have some idea of how big it is if you did.
>
>
> You should have read DAVO's next post, posted thirteen minutes after his
> initial post and 12 minutes before yours, where he corrects himself and
> advises it is 81 cm :)
>
>

You tell him! There's always one hotshot bigmouth around.

[ant]

damnfine wrote:
> "DAVO" wrote:
>> Sorry, of course it should read 81cm.
>
> Hehe... ok because an 81" LCD for under 2K sounded like the buy of the
> century. :-D
>
> If you like that sort of thing...

Yeah, I was getting all excited there for a minute!
what's 81cm in inches? considerably smaller, I'm guessing.
I'll hang on to my crappy 68" Teac conventional for a bit longer.

ant

[Leanne]

> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.

thats because sony makes crap plasmas :-P

[The Nerk]

ant wrote:
> damnfine wrote:
> > "DAVO" wrote:
> >> Sorry, of course it should read 81cm.
> >
> > Hehe... ok because an 81" LCD for under 2K sounded like the buy of
the
> > century. :-D
> >
> > If you like that sort of thing...
>
> Yeah, I was getting all excited there for a minute!
> what's 81cm in inches? considerably smaller, I'm guessing.
> I'll hang on to my crappy 68" Teac conventional for a bit longer.
>
> ant

= 81 * 0.4

= 32"

The Nerk

[Fleeced]

"ant" wrote:
> damnfine wrote:
>> "DAVO" wrote:
>>> Sorry, of course it should read 81cm.
>>
>> Hehe... ok because an 81" LCD for under 2K sounded like the buy of the
>> century. :-D
>>
>> If you like that sort of thing...
>
> Yeah, I was getting all excited there for a minute!
> what's 81cm in inches? considerably smaller, I'm guessing.
> I'll hang on to my crappy 68" Teac conventional for a bit longer.

So... what is the height of an 81cm widescreen (compared with
68cm conventional?)

Cheers,
Fleeced

[Jim Vatunz]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:15:43 +1000, "Shari" <jedi2602@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:16:32 GMT, "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
>>>performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>>>outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>>>walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>>>
>>>DAVO
>>>
>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
>> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
>> FFU inch units.
>> I may have some idea of how big it is if you did.
>
>
>You should have read DAVO's next post, posted thirteen minutes after his
>initial post and 12 minutes before yours, where he corrects himself and
>advises it is 81 cm :)
>
Should have but didn't. 8*|
I couldn't see mention of it on their website but i'm sorely tempted
by it. I wish they'd stop putting old analogue tuners in TVs though. I
doubt if anybody who can afford a $2000 TV would still be using
analogue at all. In areas that have digital at least.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[DJ!]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:40:55 +1000, <hottie> wrote:

>You tell him! There's always one hotshot bigmouth around.

....and someone's cheergirl two posts later it seems.

DJ!
BLOG http://www.phlog.net/user/OzDJ
CAMS http://clubduh.com/cam
OzDJ@clubduh.com

[Firefly]

"Leanne" <ldss1@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:ZUi9e.17211$5F3.15619@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
>> brilliant
>> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>
> thats because sony makes crap plasmas :-P

The Sony plasma that I looked at yesterday was far better than the Hitachi,
LG or the other one (I can't remember the brand) that was displaying the
Phillips demo at Domaine yesterday, even after I re-arranged their cabling
to make sure I was seeing the best picture on each one.

[Netmask]

The contrast ratio of 500:1 is a tad disappointing - something like 2000:1
would be better.

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kjg9e.17047$5F3.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>
> DAVO
>
>

[Firefly]

"ant" <ant_kNOT@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:3clr4aF6lm6dvU1@individual.net...
> damnfine wrote:
>> "DAVO" wrote:
>>> Sorry, of course it should read 81cm.
>>
>> Hehe... ok because an 81" LCD for under 2K sounded like the buy of the
>> century. :-D
>>
>> If you like that sort of thing...
>
> Yeah, I was getting all excited there for a minute!
> what's 81cm in inches? considerably smaller, I'm guessing.
> I'll hang on to my crappy 68" Teac conventional for a bit longer.
>
68" ??

"DJ!" <derek@ausmicro.com> wrote in message news:3ojb61p692tm70uutgdni13uppdmpo6ng8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:40:55 +1000, <hottie> wrote:
>
> >You tell him! There's always one hotshot bigmouth around.
>
> ...and someone's cheergirl two posts later it seems.
>


so ?

[DJ!]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:16:32 GMT, "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
>performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.

Here is a URL to the offer as cited by DAVO:
http://www.bigw.com.au/catalogue%2021-04-05/site/pages/05/b.html

I'm told that it's basically a rebranded Dektron DL32-B00P, refer:
http://www.decktron.com/products/lcd_32.html (can anyone confirm?)

DJ!
BLOG http://www.phlog.net/user/OzDJ
CAMS http://clubduh.com/cam
OzDJ@clubduh.com

[DAVO]

"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:VCk9e.17290$5F3.10780@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Leanne" <ldss1@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:ZUi9e.17211$5F3.15619@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> >> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
> >> brilliant
> >> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
> >> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
> >> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
> >
> > thats because sony makes crap plasmas :-P
>
> The Sony plasma that I looked at yesterday was far better than the
Hitachi,
> LG or the other one (I can't remember the brand) that was displaying the
> Phillips demo at Domaine yesterday, even after I re-arranged their cabling
> to make sure I was seeing the best picture on each one.

From what I understand, Sony don't manufacture Plasmas, wait for it, if my
info is correct, Samsung make the panels for them. But I must admit, the
Sony (branded) Plasmas I have seen sure do look good.

DAVO

[DAVO]

"Netmask" <netmask56NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZCk9e.17292$5F3.5849@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> The contrast ratio of 500:1 is a tad disappointing - something like 2000:1
> would be better.


I thought the 500:1 was somewhat disappointing as well, but specs and
actuals usually differ greatly.

DAVO

[Vic]

I cant tell you about the 32" but for what I can see of the 26" ,
yes they are identical to the 26" AWA sell by Big W .
Now one thing these units are not 16:9 the 26 AWA is 15:9
the other thing I noticed from the site you refer us to , is
that the Active area on the 26" shows the same size as the 32".
So I believe it must be a mistake on the specs at the site.
Please correct me if I'm wrong , not very technically minded.
By the way I bought the 26" AWA and is excellent value for money,
very happy with it.
Regards
Vic
"DJ!" <derek@ausmicro.com> wrote in message
news:i2qb61hqtk5f32if045vrvhvfg2et71ht7@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:16:32 GMT, "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
>>performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>>outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>>walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>
> Here is a URL to the offer as cited by DAVO:
> http://www.bigw.com.au/catalogue%2021-04-05/site/pages/05/b.html
>
> I'm told that it's basically a rebranded Dektron DL32-B00P, refer:
> http://www.decktron.com/products/lcd_32.html (can anyone confirm?)
>
> DJ!
> BLOG http://www.phlog.net/user/OzDJ
> CAMS http://clubduh.com/cam
> OzDJ@clubduh.com

[Paul GoodBar]

Would rather get a 86cm Crt Widscreen for 27000 bucks.


On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:10:04 GMT, "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Netmask" <netmask56NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ZCk9e.17292$5F3.5849@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> The contrast ratio of 500:1 is a tad disappointing - something like 2000:1
>> would be better.
>
>
>I thought the 500:1 was somewhat disappointing as well, but specs and
>actuals usually differ greatly.
>
>DAVO
>

[Firefly]

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Clm9e.17362$5F3.10367@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> From what I understand, Sony don't manufacture Plasmas, wait for it, if my
> info is correct, Samsung make the panels for them.

That's entirely possible. Genuine Sony VCRs now seem to be rebadged Samsungs
so I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung does the plasmas too.

[The Masked Bandit]

I found LCD with DVD to be rather artificial, I'd stick with CRT for a
better picture
>

[georgiarose]

"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:VCk9e.17290$5F3.10780@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Leanne" <ldss1@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:ZUi9e.17211$5F3.15619@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
>>> brilliant
>>> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>>> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>>> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>>
>> thats because sony makes crap plasmas :-P
>
> The Sony plasma that I looked at yesterday was far better than the
> Hitachi, LG or the other one (I can't remember the brand) that was
> displaying the Phillips demo at Domaine yesterday, even after I
> re-arranged their cabling to make sure I was seeing the best picture on
> each one.
>

Sony plasma's as well as the others you refer to are vastly inferior to
Pioneer and NEC. You only need to browse the forums at the Digital
Broadcasting Australia website for a short time to realise they are the
industry leaders by a long shot.

[David Z]

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kjg9e.17047$5F3.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.

That doesn't tell you anything. Sony also walked away from their CRT
computer monitors and now only produce inferior LCD screens :-\

[Firefly]

"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
> FFU inch units.

For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.

[Joe]

It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would make


"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kjg9e.17047$5F3.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>
> DAVO
>
>

[David Z]

"Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would make

An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I know of (or
Windows), nor any popular games. Which means you'd have to run it at a
non-native resolution. CRT is the only way to go.

[Kwyjibo.]

"Juan Mortyme" <JuanMortyme@Who'sAsking.com> said

>
> <khangu@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113953892.158388.13310@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>> Yeah, seems like good value.
>>
>> What brand & resolution does it have, and can I plug my pc to it?
>>
>> Which Big W did you see this at?
>>
>
>
> Taken from page 5 of Big W's latest catalogue (on sale from Thursday April
> 21) :
>
> "AWA 81cm Wide-Screen LCD Television
> HD TV ready, multiple aspect ratios, 176 degree viewing angle,
> 500 cd/m2 brightness, 500:1 contrst ratio,

That's a piss-poor contrast ratio.



--


Kwyj.

(Remove your finger from that dyke to reply by email)

[Trevor Wilson]

"Paul GoodBar" <1@abc.com> wrote in message
news:o7ub611igjmsokojjuvs0h94ot6jdsov98@4ax.com...
>
>
> Would rather get a 86cm Crt Widscreen for 27000 bucks.

**27 Grand! Yikes! You really know how to blow a budget.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael]

Almost any ATI or nVidia card will do that res. with powerstrip. I use
1360x768 with my projector just fine. It depends on what the monitor will
accept more so than the vid. card.

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vup9e.17591$5F3.778@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
> news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would make
>
> An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I know of
> (or Windows), nor any popular games. Which means you'd have to run it at
> a non-native resolution. CRT is the only way to go.

[Horace VVachope]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:50:10 +1000, <hottie> wrote:

>
>"DJ!" <derek@ausmicro.com> wrote in message news:3ojb61p692tm70uutgdni13uppdmpo6ng8@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:40:55 +1000, <hottie> wrote:
>>
>> >You tell him! There's always one hotshot bigmouth around.
>>
>> ...and someone's cheergirl two posts later it seems.
>>
>
>
>so ?

Don't worry about DJ!. He's just a porky ex-banker with personal
issue with which he needs to deal.

I upset him once and he started asking people on Usenet if they knew
my tax file number or credit card number so he could teach me a
lesson.


--

My BeNcH pReSs BrInGs All ThE GirLs To ThE yArD, n ThEy'Re LiKe,
YoUr PeCs ArE LaRgE, dAmN rIgHt My PeCs ArE LaRgE, u CaN tOuCh
ThEm, bUt IlL hAv To ChArGe.

[Horace VVachope]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:00:53 +0930, Horace VVachope
<horacevvachope@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:50:10 +1000, <hottie> wrote:
>
>>
>>"DJ!" <derek@ausmicro.com> wrote in message news:3ojb61p692tm70uutgdni13uppdmpo6ng8@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:40:55 +1000, <hottie> wrote:
>>>
>>> >You tell him! There's always one hotshot bigmouth around.
>>>
>>> ...and someone's cheergirl two posts later it seems.
>>>
>>
>>
>>so ?
>
>Don't worry about DJ!. He's just a porky ex-banker with personal
>issue with which he needs to deal.
>
>I upset him once and he started asking people on Usenet if they knew
>my tax file number or credit card number so he could teach me a
>lesson.

Sorry. It was my "Australian BSB" or bank account number.


--

My BeNcH pReSs BrInGs All ThE GirLs To ThE yArD, n ThEy'Re LiKe,
YoUr PeCs ArE LaRgE, dAmN rIgHt My PeCs ArE LaRgE, u CaN tOuCh
ThEm, bUt IlL hAv To ChArGe.

[Jim Vatunz]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
wrote:

>
>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
>> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
>> FFU inch units.
>
>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>
I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
get off their arse and join the rest of the world.
When we bought our current TV it was a 122cm unit. Now it seems we
want to call it a 48". Have we gone crazy returning to what we've all
long ago forgotten?

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Martin Barr-David]

khangu@gmail.com wrote:
> Yeah, seems like good value.
>
> What brand & resolution does it have, and can I plug my pc to it?
>
> Which Big W did you see this at?
>
fell off the back of truck

[Martin Barr-David]

Jim Vatunz wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:16:32 GMT, "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
>>performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>>outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>>walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>>
>>DAVO
>>
>
> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
> FFU inch units.
> I may have some idea of how big it is if you did.
>
> To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html
I agree

[Firefly]

"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
>>> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
>>> FFU inch units.
>>
>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>>
> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.

They're not obsolete. Many countries use imperial measurements, even
Australia. Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use,
altitude is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some land
vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour). One could argue
that Australia was silly deciding to go metric because we've been lumbered
with two measurement systems while other non-metric countries have only one.

[Bernd Felsche]

"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> writes:
>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>> wrote:
>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...

>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put
>>>> the size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and
>>>> forgotten FFU inch units.

>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.

>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
>> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
>> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.

>They're not obsolete. Many countries use imperial measurements, even
>Australia.

Yeah?
http://www.measurement.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=C3CDFE95-BCD6-81AC-124CE10A492450C2

>Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use, altitude
>is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some land

That's because 'merkins built many aircraft.

Speed (velocity) of air in Australia is expressed in metres per
second or derived unit.

>vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour).
>One could argue that Australia was silly deciding to go metric
>because we've been lumbered with two measurement systems while
>other non-metric countries have only one.

Australia has one measurement system; SI.

There are exactly two "non-metric" countries: USA and Liberia

The USA adopted the "metric" system about 200 years ago.
Implementation has been slow.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Trevor Wilson]

"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:6uC9e.18231$5F3.4134@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
> news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
>>>> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
>>>> FFU inch units.
>>>
>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>>>
>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
>> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
>> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.
>
> They're not obsolete.

**Of course they're not obsolete, per se. The US, alone, still uses Imperial
measurements. They're obsolete everywhere else though.

Many countries use imperial measurements, even
> Australia.

**Nope. At least they're not in common useage. Australians, like 95% of the
planet's population, uses Metric measurements for pretty much every part of
their daily life.

Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use,
> altitude is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some
> land vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour).

**'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to the
Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an ANGULAR
measurement, not a distance one.

One could argue
> that Australia was silly deciding to go metric because we've been lumbered
> with two measurement systems while other non-metric countries have only
> one.

**Wrong. Australia has ONE measurement system. The US has two and must deal
with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is Imperial. As evidence
of this, look to the failure of one of the Mars probes, which is alleged to
smash into Mars, due to a mistake between km and Miles. Scientists in the
US, like scientists everywhere, have used Metric for decades.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[DAVO]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vup9e.17591$5F3.778@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
> news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would
make
>
> An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I know of
(or
> Windows), nor any popular games. Which means you'd have to run it at a
> non-native resolution. CRT is the only way to go.

You sound like a real whinger pal. Get off your arse, find a BigW and have a
bloody look for yourself instead of making stupid outdated crap like CRT is
better than LCD......SHEEEEESH!.

DAVO

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:29:54 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
wrote:

>
>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
>>>> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
>>>> FFU inch units.
>>>
>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>>>
>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
>> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
>> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.
>
>They're not obsolete. Many countries use imperial measurements, even
>Australia. Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use,
>altitude is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some land
>vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour). One could argue
>that Australia was silly deciding to go metric because we've been lumbered
>with two measurement systems while other non-metric countries have only one.
>
The nautical mile is an SI unit. Look up the definition, it's 1852
metres exactly. So it's use is considered a world standard.
The ffu (Fred Flintstone Unit) you used is only an approximation of
the SI unit.
Aircraft are quite a sore point to me. The yanks have held back the
world too much. It's time the rest of the world applied the blowtorch
of change to the whole industry. Light aircraft in particular are
decades behind where they should be. They're far too loud and continue
in the use of leaded fuel.
I'm not aware of Australia having 2 measuring systems, we almost
exclusively use the SI system. One particular exception (which is
universal) is wheel sizes for vehicles. There's not reason whatsoever
that we should refer to monitor sizes in anything but SI yet somehow
or other some fool years ago decided to buck the system.
Remember we went metric before computers became a toy for the masses
so they can't use the excuse of common usage for their reason for
advertising them in inches.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Beefhooked]

>>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
>>>>> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
>>>>> FFU inch units.
>>>>
>>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.


I`m metric every inch of the way... :-P

[Firefly]

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:v4bjj2xe8i.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> writes:
>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>
>>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put
>>>>> the size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and
>>>>> forgotten FFU inch units.
>
>>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>
>>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
>>> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
>>> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.
>
>>They're not obsolete. Many countries use imperial measurements, even
>>Australia.
>
> Yeah?

Yeah.

>>Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use, altitude
>>is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some land
>
> That's because 'merkins built many aircraft.

Other countries countries build aircraft too but all over the world, in the
95.7% of the world that isn't American altitude is expressed in feet and the
speed of aeroplanes is expressed in knots. Other countries build a lot more
ships than the US but the speed of ships is expressed in knots and the depth
of water is expressed in feet and fathoms.

> Speed (velocity) of air in Australia is expressed in metres per
> second or derived unit.

But the speed of aircraft is not.

> There are exactly two "non-metric" countries: USA and Liberia

You've nevber been to the UK, have you?

> The USA adopted the "metric" system about 200 years ago.
> Implementation has been slow.

Almost non-existent actually.

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:10:23 +0800, Bernd Felsche
<bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

>"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> writes:
>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>
>>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put
>>>>> the size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and
>>>>> forgotten FFU inch units.
>
>>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>
>>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
>>> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
>>> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.
>
>>They're not obsolete. Many countries use imperial measurements, even
>>Australia.
>
>Yeah?
>http://www.measurement.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=C3CDFE95-BCD6-81AC-124CE10A492450C2
>
>>Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use, altitude
>>is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some land
>
>That's because 'merkins built many aircraft.
>
>Speed (velocity) of air in Australia is expressed in metres per
>second or derived unit.
>
>>vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour).
>>One could argue that Australia was silly deciding to go metric
>>because we've been lumbered with two measurement systems while
>>other non-metric countries have only one.
>
>Australia has one measurement system; SI.
>
>There are exactly two "non-metric" countries: USA and Liberia

You'd better check that. I think that's just a commonly held belief.
I think you'll find that the USA is the only non SI holdout with some
exceptions such as Jamaica also using Fahrenheit and Britain still
hanging onto a few archaic things like pints and miles (they'll have
to drop miles in the near future as they have no sensible means of
publishing any fuel consumption figures)

>
>The USA adopted the "metric" system about 200 years ago.
>Implementation has been slow.
Because of gutless politicians and a feeling of freedom guaranteed in
their constitution. They had metric money well before us, so at least
they're not too stupid.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:17:19 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>
>"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
>news:6uC9e.18231$5F3.4134@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>> news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
>>>>> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
>>>>> FFU inch units.
>>>>
>>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>>>>
>>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
>>> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
>>> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.
>>
>> They're not obsolete.
>
>**Of course they're not obsolete, per se. The US, alone, still uses Imperial
>measurements. They're obsolete everywhere else though.
>
> Many countries use imperial measurements, even
>> Australia.
>
>**Nope. At least they're not in common useage. Australians, like 95% of the
>planet's population, uses Metric measurements for pretty much every part of
>their daily life.
>
> Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use,
>> altitude is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some
>> land vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour).
>
>**'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to the
>Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an ANGULAR
>measurement, not a distance one.
Nope. it's a distance measurement. 1852m exactly. This was done a
while back to standardise it and remove confusion.
>
> One could argue
>> that Australia was silly deciding to go metric because we've been lumbered
>> with two measurement systems while other non-metric countries have only
>> one.
>
>**Wrong. Australia has ONE measurement system. The US has two and must deal
>with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is Imperial. As evidence
>of this, look to the failure of one of the Mars probes, which is alleged to
>smash into Mars, due to a mistake between km and Miles. Scientists in the
>US, like scientists everywhere, have used Metric for decades.

Nope. it was lost due to a supplier rating the power in ffu's and NASA
not converting that figure to SI for their usage.
Luckily the Moon program in the 1960s was all done in metric (although
not SI). Only since Von Braun's retirement did everything go pear
shaped.
To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Firefly]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4266ff1f@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
> news:6uC9e.18231$5F3.4134@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>> news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
>>>>> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
>>>>> FFU inch units.
>>>>
>>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>>>>
>>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
>>> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
>>> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.
>>
>> They're not obsolete.
>
> **Of course they're not obsolete, per se. The US, alone,

The UK doesn't exist anymore?

> still uses Imperial measurements. They're obsolete everywhere else though.

Crap. They're used everywhere.

> Many countries use imperial measurements, even
>> Australia.
>
> **Nope. At least they're not in common useage.

Again crap, as I previously showed. Altitude, airspeed of aircraft and
velocity of naval vessels and depth are all commonly expressed in imperial
measurements.

> Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use,
>> altitude is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some
>> land vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour).
>
> **'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to
> the Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an
> ANGULAR measurement, not a distance one.

pedant. It's still non-metric.

> **Wrong. Australia has ONE measurement system.

Wrong. We commonly use metric and imperial. Maybe not in your school but in
the real world the use of non-metric terms is common.

[Firefly]

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VfD9e.18279$5F3.13929@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Vup9e.17591$5F3.778@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> > It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would
> make
>>
>> An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I know of
> (or
>> Windows), nor any popular games. Which means you'd have to run it at a
>> non-native resolution. CRT is the only way to go.
>
> You sound like a real whinger pal. Get off your arse, find a BigW and have
> a
> bloody look for yourself instead of making stupid outdated crap like CRT
> is
> better than LCD......SHEEEEESH!.
>
What David Z said is completely correct. Maybe it's you who should have a
look. CRT is still better than LCD.

[Firefly]

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VfD9e.18279$5F3.13929@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Vup9e.17591$5F3.778@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> > It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would
> make
>>
>> An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I know of
> (or
>> Windows), nor any popular games. Which means you'd have to run it at a
>> non-native resolution. CRT is the only way to go.
>
> You sound like a real whinger pal. Get off your arse, find a BigW and have
> a
> bloody look for yourself instead of making stupid outdated crap like CRT
> is
> better than LCD......SHEEEEESH!.
>
What he said is completely correct.

[HAIR CHEMICALS]

Jim Vatunz wrote:

> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion

So you admit to being a troll?

> as long as we pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units

Obsolete means "no longer in use; outmoded in design". Imperial is neither.
There is not one advantage that Metric has over Imperial in a mathematical
sense -- both systems can be reliably used until the end of time.

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:41:48 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
wrote:

>
>"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>news:v4bjj2xe8i.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
>> "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> writes:
>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put
>>>>>> the size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and
>>>>>> forgotten FFU inch units.
>>
>>>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>>
>>>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
>>>> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
>>>> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.
>>
>>>They're not obsolete. Many countries use imperial measurements, even
>>>Australia.
>>
>> Yeah?
>
>Yeah.
>
>>>Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use, altitude
>>>is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some land
>>
>> That's because 'merkins built many aircraft.
>
>Other countries countries build aircraft too but all over the world, in the
>95.7% of the world that isn't American altitude is expressed in feet and the
>speed of aeroplanes is expressed in knots. Other countries build a lot more
>ships than the US but the speed of ships is expressed in knots and the depth
>of water is expressed in feet and fathoms.

Russia uses metres for altitude. The rest of the world obviously
should too.
>
>> Speed (velocity) of air in Australia is expressed in metres per
>> second or derived unit.
>
>But the speed of aircraft is not.
>
>> There are exactly two "non-metric" countries: USA and Liberia
>
>You've nevber been to the UK, have you?

They are an embarrassment. I wonder how long before they realise it?
>
>> The USA adopted the "metric" system about 200 years ago.
>> Implementation has been slow.
>
>Almost non-existent actually.

They have been softened up quite a bit of late and i wouldn't be
surprised if they made another big step soon. perhaps using Celsius
temperatures or moving universally to litres. They already buy
softdrink in litre bottles and litres of fuel would at least look a
bit cheaper, but there has to be a law to force change for it to
happen. People have an extraordinary high resistance to change, though
usually shortly afterwards we wonder what the fuss was about.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:47:53 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
wrote:

>
>"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4266ff1f@news.comindico.com.au...
>>
>> "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
>> news:6uC9e.18231$5F3.4134@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>> news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
>>>>>> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
>>>>>> FFU inch units.
>>>>>
>>>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
>>>> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
>>>> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.
>>>
>>> They're not obsolete.
>>
>> **Of course they're not obsolete, per se. The US, alone,
>
>The UK doesn't exist anymore?
>
>> still uses Imperial measurements. They're obsolete everywhere else though.
>
>Crap. They're used everywhere.
>
>> Many countries use imperial measurements, even
>>> Australia.
>>
>> **Nope. At least they're not in common useage.
>
>Again crap, as I previously showed. Altitude, airspeed of aircraft and
>velocity of naval vessels and depth are all commonly expressed in imperial
>measurements.
>
>> Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use,
>>> altitude is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some
>>> land vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour).
>>
>> **'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to
>> the Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an
>> ANGULAR measurement, not a distance one.
>
>pedant. It's still non-metric.
Wrong, it is an SI unit, though one i'm not comfortable with.
>
>> **Wrong. Australia has ONE measurement system.
>
>Wrong. We commonly use metric and imperial. Maybe not in your school but in
>the real world the use of non-metric terms is common.
>
True and far too common. Even people under 45 have a habit of using
them and they would have been taught metric at school, unlike me.
I realised many years ago there was no point using or remembering
ffu's since there's no future in them.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Trevor Wilson]

"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:dDD9e.18299$5F3.15558@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4266ff1f@news.comindico.com.au...
>>
>> "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
>> news:6uC9e.18231$5F3.4134@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>> news:8ulc6157phrvagg30dsi17sr1plpimokct@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:36:35 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>>>news:156b61tvg67roiejo1odomop4ek4alfdat@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Since these are Australian groups wouldn't it be better to put the
>>>>>> size in the commonly used cm rather than the obsolete and forgotten
>>>>>> FFU inch units.
>>>>>
>>>>>For sizes above 80cm, inches is the commonly used term. Sad but true.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion, but as long as we
>>>> pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units they'll never
>>>> get off their arse and join the rest of the world.
>>>
>>> They're not obsolete.
>>
>> **Of course they're not obsolete, per se. The US, alone,
>
> The UK doesn't exist anymore?

**The UK is Metric.

>
>> still uses Imperial measurements. They're obsolete everywhere else
>> though.
>
> Crap. They're used everywhere.

**ONLY in the US.

>
>> Many countries use imperial measurements, even
>>> Australia.
>>
>> **Nope. At least they're not in common useage.
>
> Again crap, as I previously showed. Altitude, airspeed of aircraft and
> velocity of naval vessels and depth are all commonly expressed in imperial
> measurements.

**You showed your ignorance of the term: 'Nautical Mile'. Nautical Miles are
not IMperial measurements. They're ANGULAR meaurements. They're also
universally used.

>
>> Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use,
>>> altitude is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some
>>> land vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour).
>>
>> **'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to
>> the Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an
>> ANGULAR measurement, not a distance one.
>
> pedant. It's still non-metric.

**It sure ain't Imperial.

>
>> **Wrong. Australia has ONE measurement system.
>
> Wrong. We commonly use metric and imperial. Maybe not in your school but
> in the real world the use of non-metric terms is common.

**Australia uses the Metric system. For the record: I went to school more
than 30 years ago and we used Metric back then.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Luke Webber]

Jim Vatunz wrote:

> You'd better check that. I think that's just a commonly held belief.
> I think you'll find that the USA is the only non SI holdout with some
> exceptions such as Jamaica also using Fahrenheit and Britain still
> hanging onto a few archaic things like pints and miles (they'll have
> to drop miles in the near future as they have no sensible means of
> publishing any fuel consumption figures)

What? What about the widely-accepted gills per chain measure? Not good
enough for you? And everybody I know measures speed in furlongs per
fortnight. It's the only measure that makes sense! ;^)

Luke

[Firefly]

"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
news:671e615b6hdm8fd1tkhspt7pnteat2qg62@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:17:19 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>look to the failure of one of the Mars probes, which is alleged to
>>smash into Mars, due to a mistake between km and Miles.
>
> Nope. it was lost due to a supplier rating the power in ffu's and NASA
> not converting that figure to SI for their usage.

I'm not sure what mission you're thinking of but Trevor Wilson was writing
about the Mars Climate Orbiter and he was almost correct.
ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/1999/MCO_report.pdf

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:15:46 +1000, Luke Webber <luke@webber.com.au>
wrote:

>Jim Vatunz wrote:
>
>> You'd better check that. I think that's just a commonly held belief.
>> I think you'll find that the USA is the only non SI holdout with some
>> exceptions such as Jamaica also using Fahrenheit and Britain still
>> hanging onto a few archaic things like pints and miles (they'll have
>> to drop miles in the near future as they have no sensible means of
>> publishing any fuel consumption figures)
>
>What? What about the widely-accepted gills per chain measure? Not good
>enough for you? And everybody I know measures speed in furlongs per
>fortnight. It's the only measure that makes sense! ;^)
>
>Luke
“My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I like
it!”
--Grandpa Simpson.
All those you mentioned make some sense. But my point was that they
can't use MPG since there's no such thing anymore as an imperial
gallon. They can't use the universal l/100km since they don't yet have
km (although their trucks do). If they decide to use litres per mile
or vice-versa it still makes no sense as it's a combination of SI and
non SI units. They seem to be standing on both sides of a barbed wire
fence and they haven't woken up yet to what's causing pain.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Firefly]

"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
news:fl1e61ltp41uabvh6oo355cok0pjq31ocf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:41:48 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
> wrote:
> Russia uses metres for altitude.

Only within Russia. Russian aircraft use feet once they enter foreign
airspace.

>>You've nevber been to the UK, have you?
>
> They are an embarrassment. I wonder how long before they realise it?

However the *do* use imperial measurements.

>>> The USA adopted the "metric" system about 200 years ago.
>>> Implementation has been slow.
>>
>>Almost non-existent actually.
>
> They have been softened up quite a bit of late

However they still primarily use imperial/US measurements, not metric.

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:28:39 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
wrote:

>
>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>news:671e615b6hdm8fd1tkhspt7pnteat2qg62@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:17:19 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>look to the failure of one of the Mars probes, which is alleged to
>>>smash into Mars, due to a mistake between km and Miles.
>>
>> Nope. it was lost due to a supplier rating the power in ffu's and NASA
>> not converting that figure to SI for their usage.
>
>I'm not sure what mission you're thinking of but Trevor Wilson was writing
>about the Mars Climate Orbiter and he was almost correct.
>ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/1999/MCO_report.pdf
>
this paragraph from the pdf file confirms what i stated.

The MCO MIB has determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO
spacecraft was the failure to use metric units in the coding of a
ground software file, “Small Forces,” used in trajectory models.
Specifically, thruster performance data in English units instead
of metric units was used in the software application code titled
SM_FORCES (small forces). A file called Angular Momentum Desaturation
(AMD) contained the output data from the SM_FORCES software. The data
in the AMD file was required to be in metric units per existing
software interface documentation, and the trajectory modelers assumed
the data was provided in metric units per the requirements.

the end result of that error was a much lower altitude than desired
but the altitude was caused by an earlier error.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Firefly]

"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
news:652e6118scmpd7sce595p8n5mi9h87kdrb@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:47:53 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
> wrote:
>>pedant. It's still non-metric.
> Wrong, it is an SI unit, though one i'm not comfortable with.

It might be SI but it isn't metric. The metric system is based on 10s. The
nautical mile was originally an imperial measurement (c. 1500) of 6,080 feet
and predates the metric system by about 100 years. It was amended more
recently to 6076.115 feet based on more accurate measurements. It was
adopted into the SI system because of its common usage.

[David Z]

Sorry it appears I was mistaken. Nvidia recently released a driver which
supports 1366x768. I don't know what you'd do if you had another brand, or
an integrated video card.
Secondly, with the possible exception of HL2, I don't think there'd be a
single PC game out there that supports that resolution. Certainly nothing
prior to 2004 would. Tough luck if you're a gamer.

"Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42663a9e$0$5178$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Almost any ATI or nVidia card will do that res. with powerstrip. I use
> 1360x768 with my projector just fine. It depends on what the monitor will
> accept more so than the vid. card.
>
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Vup9e.17591$5F3.778@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would
>>> make
>>
>> An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I know of
>> (or Windows), nor any popular games. Which means you'd have to run it at
>> a non-native resolution. CRT is the only way to go.
>
>

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:49:36 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
wrote:

>
>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>news:652e6118scmpd7sce595p8n5mi9h87kdrb@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:47:53 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>> wrote:
>>>pedant. It's still non-metric.
>> Wrong, it is an SI unit, though one i'm not comfortable with.
>
>It might be SI but it isn't metric. The metric system is based on 10s. The
>nautical mile was originally an imperial measurement (c. 1500) of 6,080 feet
>and predates the metric system by about 100 years. It was amended more
>recently to 6076.115 feet based on more accurate measurements. It was
>adopted into the SI system because of its common usage.
>
Nearly right. It's definition is 1852 metres, anything else is just an
approximation. There was nothing super accurate about defining it,
there was some confusing variations and 1852m was chosen as a good
compromise.
Prick of a unit though, it should be consigned to the archaic
junkyard.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Firefly]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:42670a72@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> **The UK is Metric.

And yet they use feet, miles, gallons and a host of other imperial
measurments more commonly than they do metric.

>> Crap. They're used everywhere.
>
> **ONLY in the US.

CRAP, as already stated. Imperial measurements are still in common use
throughout the world.

> **You showed your ignorance of the term: 'Nautical Mile'. Nautical Miles
> are not IMperial measurements. They're ANGULAR meaurements. They're also
> universally used.

It might be an angular measurement but the nautical mile is an imperial
system term, not a metric one. It has however been redifined and adjusted
from 6,080 feet to 6,076.115 feet.

>
>>
>>> Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use,
>>>> altitude is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even some
>>>> land vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour).
>>>
>>> **'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to
>>> the Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an
>>> ANGULAR measurement, not a distance one.
>>
>> pedant. It's still non-metric.
>
> **It sure ain't Imperial.

Proof.

> **Australia uses the Metric system. For the record: I went to school more
> than 30 years ago and we used Metric back then.

We still commonly use imperial measurements.

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:59:05 +1000, "HAIR CHEMICALS" <010@010.com>
wrote:

>Jim Vatunz wrote:
>
>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion
>
>So you admit to being a troll?
No i'm real
>
>> as long as we pander to the yanks by continuing to use obsolete units
>
>Obsolete means "no longer in use; outmoded in design". Imperial is neither.
>There is not one advantage that Metric has over Imperial in a mathematical
>sense -- both systems can be reliably used until the end of time.
>
But i think you may be somewhat a troll.
All ffu's are defined using SI units so wouldn't it make sense just to
use the SI units?

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:57:17 GMT, "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sorry it appears I was mistaken. Nvidia recently released a driver which
>supports 1366x768. I don't know what you'd do if you had another brand, or
>an integrated video card.
>Secondly, with the possible exception of HL2, I don't think there'd be a
>single PC game out there that supports that resolution. Certainly nothing
>prior to 2004 would. Tough luck if you're a gamer.

What's the problem? It's a TV. The lack of a suitable resolution for
use as a monitor would only affect a tiny percentage of potential
buyers.

>
>"Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:42663a9e$0$5178$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>> Almost any ATI or nVidia card will do that res. with powerstrip. I use
>> 1360x768 with my projector just fine. It depends on what the monitor will
>> accept more so than the vid. card.
>>
>> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Vup9e.17591$5F3.778@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would
>>>> make
>>>
>>> An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I know of
>>> (or Windows), nor any popular games. Which means you'd have to run it at
>>> a non-native resolution. CRT is the only way to go.
>>
>>
>

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Trevor Wilson]

"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:xFE9e.18349$5F3.10655@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42670a72@news.comindico.com.au...
>>
>> **The UK is Metric.
>
> And yet they use feet, miles, gallons and a host of other imperial
> measurments more commonly than they do metric.

**Prove it. And in your proof, show what the official government line is on
Metric.

>
>>> Crap. They're used everywhere.
>>
>> **ONLY in the US.
>
> CRAP, as already stated. Imperial measurements are still in common use
> throughout the world.

**ONLY in the US. Everywhere else is Metric.

>
>> **You showed your ignorance of the term: 'Nautical Mile'. Nautical Miles
>> are not IMperial measurements. They're ANGULAR meaurements. They're also
>> universally used.
>
> It might be an angular measurement but the nautical mile is an imperial
> system term, not a metric one. It has however been redifined and adjusted
> from 6,080 feet to 6,076.115 feet.

**It is NOT an Imperial form of measurement.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Worldwide the nautical mile (6,080 feet) is in common use,
>>>>> altitude is expressed in feet and the speed of air, water and even
>>>>> some land vehicles is expressed in knots (nautical miles per hour).
>>>>
>>>> **'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to
>>>> the Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an
>>>> ANGULAR measurement, not a distance one.
>>>
>>> pedant. It's still non-metric.
>>
>> **It sure ain't Imperial.
>
> Proof.

**It bears no relation to a Mile. It is an ANGULAR measurement, not
(specifically) a distance measurement. You seem to be under the illusion
that because it has the term Mile in the name that it is an Imperial form of
measurement. T'ain't so.

>
>> **Australia uses the Metric system. For the record: I went to school more
>> than 30 years ago and we used Metric back then.
>
> We still commonly use imperial measurements.

**SOME (usually, very old) people do. Nevertheless, Australia is officially
a Metric nation. When all the silly old farts are dead, no Australians will
use Imperial measurements.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Vampyre]

> > The USA adopted the "metric" system about 200 years ago.
> > Implementation has been slow.
>
> Almost non-existent actually.

Other than the 9mm bullet.
(With thanks to Dave Barry)

[Fred]

DAVO wrote:
> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the brilliant
> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>
> DAVO

Thats the way prices of LCD screens are going. Down, down ,down!
They could be half that price in a year or so.

[stronzo]

Vampyre Wrote:
> > > The USA adopted the "metric" system about 200 years ago.
> > > Implementation has been slow.
> >
> > Almost non-existent actually.
>
> Other than the 9mm bullet.
> (With thanks to Dave Barry)


Sorry, but the 9mm was invented in Europe. It was developed for the
Nato forces. They also changed the .223 cal to 5.56mm


--
stronzo

[Oldus Fartus]

Firefly wrote:

>>>>
>>>>**'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to
>>>>the Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an
>>>>ANGULAR measurement, not a distance one.
>>>
>>>pedant. It's still non-metric.
>>
>>**It sure ain't Imperial.
>
>
> Proof.
>
>


He is quite right. A nautical mile is based on the circumference of
the planet Earth. If you were to cut the Earth in half at the equator,
you could pick up one of the halves and look at the equator as a circle.
You could divide that circle into 360 degrees. You could then divide a
degree into 60 minutes. A minute of arc on the planet Earth is 1
nautical mile. This unit of measurement is used by all nations for air
and sea travel.


--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus

[Firefly]

"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
news:7t5e61p3ebnf94n5jj9ctaamfdntn6tc28@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:59:05 +1000, "HAIR CHEMICALS" <010@010.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Jim Vatunz wrote:
>>
>>> I'm glad i at least stirred up a bit of emotion
>>
>>So you admit to being a troll?
> No i'm real

So you're a real troll.

[Firefly]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:426723bf@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
> news:xFE9e.18349$5F3.10655@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:42670a72@news.comindico.com.au...
>>>
>>> **The UK is Metric.
>>
>> And yet they use feet, miles, gallons and a host of other imperial
>> measurments more commonly than they do metric.
>
> **Prove it. And in your proof, show what the official government line is
> on Metric.

Just go there and you'll see.

>
>>
>>>> Crap. They're used everywhere.
>>>
>>> **ONLY in the US.
>>
>> CRAP, as already stated. Imperial measurements are still in common use
>> throughout the world.
>
> **ONLY in the US. Everywhere else is Metric.

CRAP.


>>
>>> **You showed your ignorance of the term: 'Nautical Mile'. Nautical Miles
>>> are not IMperial measurements. They're ANGULAR meaurements. They're also
>>> universally used.
>>
>> It might be an angular measurement but the nautical mile is an imperial
>> system term, not a metric one. It has however been redifined and adjusted
>> from 6,080 feet to 6,076.115 feet.
>
> **It is NOT an Imperial form of measurement.

CRAP.

>> Proof.
>
> **It bears no relation to a Mile. It is an ANGULAR measurement, not
> (specifically) a distance measurement. You seem to be under the illusion
> that because it has the term Mile in the name that it is an Imperial form
> of measurement. T'ain't so.

Yawn. Sorry. You are wrong. I'd suyggest that you do a bit of research.

>>> **Australia uses the Metric system. For the record: I went to school
>>> more than 30 years ago and we used Metric back then.
>>
>> We still commonly use imperial measurements.
>
> **SOME (usually, very old) people do.

Absolute bullshit.

[Oldus Fartus]

Jim Vatunz wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:49:36 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>news:652e6118scmpd7sce595p8n5mi9h87kdrb@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:47:53 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>pedant. It's still non-metric.
>>>
>>>Wrong, it is an SI unit, though one i'm not comfortable with.
>>
>>It might be SI but it isn't metric. The metric system is based on 10s. The
>>nautical mile was originally an imperial measurement (c. 1500) of 6,080 feet
>>and predates the metric system by about 100 years. It was amended more
>>recently to 6076.115 feet based on more accurate measurements. It was
>>adopted into the SI system because of its common usage.
>>
>
> Nearly right. It's definition is 1852 metres, anything else is just an
> approximation. There was nothing super accurate about defining it,
> there was some confusing variations and 1852m was chosen as a good
> compromise.
> Prick of a unit though, it should be consigned to the archaic
> junkyard.
>

No, it's approximation is 1852 metres. It's definition is one minute
of arc of the great circle.

The only unfortunate thing is the name, because the unit itself is
entirely sensible when discussing navigation.

--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus

[ant]

The Nerk wrote:
> ant wrote:
>> damnfine wrote:
>>> "DAVO" wrote:
>>>> Sorry, of course it should read 81cm.
>>>
>>> Hehe... ok because an 81" LCD for under 2K sounded like the buy of
>>> the century. :-D
>>>
>>> If you like that sort of thing...
>>
>> Yeah, I was getting all excited there for a minute!
>> what's 81cm in inches? considerably smaller, I'm guessing.
>> I'll hang on to my crappy 68" Teac conventional for a bit longer.

> = 81 * 0.4
>
> = 32"

Oh. bummer. So it's sort-of computer sized. Ha!

btw, don't buy anything made by Teac.

ant

> The Nerk

[Mr.T]

"ant" <ant_kNOT@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:3clr4aF6lm6dvU1@individual.net...
> what's 81cm in inches? considerably smaller, I'm guessing.
> I'll hang on to my crappy 68" Teac conventional for a bit longer.

68 inch CRT?
I don't think so.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Vampyre" <notgotmuchspaminit@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1114057355.250916.33730@l41g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> > > The USA adopted the "metric" system about 200 years ago.
> > > Implementation has been slow.
> >
> > Almost non-existent actually.
>
> Other than the 9mm bullet.

Which of course is far less common than the .22", .32", .38" and .44".

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Leanne" <ldss1@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:ZUi9e.17211$5F3.15619@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
brilliant
> > performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
> > outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
> > walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>
> thats because sony makes crap plasmas :-P

Crap LCD's too :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Netmask" <netmask56NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZCk9e.17292$5F3.5849@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> The contrast ratio of 500:1 is a tad disappointing - something like 2000:1
> would be better.

Can you name an LCD TV with 2000:1 contrast ratio?

MrT.

[Ian Galbraith]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:25:37 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>"Netmask" <netmask56NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ZCk9e.17292$5F3.5849@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> The contrast ratio of 500:1 is a tad disappointing - something like 2000:1
>> would be better.

>Can you name an LCD TV with 2000:1 contrast ratio?

Whats the common ratio for LCD?

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:20:54 +0800, Oldus Fartus
<denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote:

>Jim Vatunz wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:49:36 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>news:652e6118scmpd7sce595p8n5mi9h87kdrb@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:47:53 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>pedant. It's still non-metric.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, it is an SI unit, though one i'm not comfortable with.
>>>
>>>It might be SI but it isn't metric. The metric system is based on 10s. The
>>>nautical mile was originally an imperial measurement (c. 1500) of 6,080 feet
>>>and predates the metric system by about 100 years. It was amended more
>>>recently to 6076.115 feet based on more accurate measurements. It was
>>>adopted into the SI system because of its common usage.
>>>
>>
>> Nearly right. It's definition is 1852 metres, anything else is just an
>> approximation. There was nothing super accurate about defining it,
>> there was some confusing variations and 1852m was chosen as a good
>> compromise.
>> Prick of a unit though, it should be consigned to the archaic
>> junkyard.
>>
>
>No, it's approximation is 1852 metres. It's definition is one minute
>of arc of the great circle.
Wrong again. since 1929 it's been defined as 1852m and it approximates
one minute of arc.
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table8.html
although i must confess to being wrong about it being an SI unit. It's
only accepted for use with the SI which of course still makes it's use
acceptable for Australia, although i don't like it.
>
>The only unfortunate thing is the name, because the unit itself is
>entirely sensible when discussing navigation.

It's certainly a crap name.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Mark Bedingfield]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Vampyre" <notgotmuchspaminit@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1114057355.250916.33730@l41g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>
>>>>The USA adopted the "metric" system about 200 years ago.
>>>>Implementation has been slow.
>>>
>>>Almost non-existent actually.
>>
>>Other than the 9mm bullet.
>
>
> Which of course is far less common than the .22", .32", .38" and .44".


Don't forget that 9mm Browning short goes by the name of .380 acp in the
US;-)

http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/p380acp.html

Mark

[Mr.T]

"Ian Galbraith" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:vdme61hajnchgn98odp2rc87gr4qdj29tk@4ax.com...
> >Can you name an LCD TV with 2000:1 contrast ratio?
>
> Whats the common ratio for LCD?

About 500.
800 is very good for LCD.

MrT.

[Netmask]

I believe there will be some interesting new models on display at CeBit next
month at Darling Harbour.

"Fred" <Fred@bedrock.com> wrote in message
news:3coq8dF6m3qa1U1@individual.net...
> DAVO wrote:
>> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
>> brilliant
>> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>>
>> DAVO
>
> Thats the way prices of LCD screens are going. Down, down ,down!
> They could be half that price in a year or so.
>
>

[Oldus Fartus]

Jim Vatunz wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:20:54 +0800, Oldus Fartus
> <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Jim Vatunz wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:49:36 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>>news:652e6118scmpd7sce595p8n5mi9h87kdrb@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:47:53 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>pedant. It's still non-metric.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong, it is an SI unit, though one i'm not comfortable with.
>>>>
>>>>It might be SI but it isn't metric. The metric system is based on 10s. The
>>>>nautical mile was originally an imperial measurement (c. 1500) of 6,080 feet
>>>>and predates the metric system by about 100 years. It was amended more
>>>>recently to 6076.115 feet based on more accurate measurements. It was
>>>>adopted into the SI system because of its common usage.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nearly right. It's definition is 1852 metres, anything else is just an
>>>approximation. There was nothing super accurate about defining it,
>>>there was some confusing variations and 1852m was chosen as a good
>>>compromise.
>>>Prick of a unit though, it should be consigned to the archaic
>>>junkyard.
>>>
>>
>>No, it's approximation is 1852 metres. It's definition is one minute
>>of arc of the great circle.
>
> Wrong again. since 1929 it's been defined as 1852m and it approximates
> one minute of arc.
> http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table8.html

It appears that both definitions are being used, and a search using our
friend Google, is showing both definitions.
http://www.telemet.com/weather_gloss_n.htm for example says
"Nautical mile
The nautical mile ....... is defined as the length of one minute of arc
on the earth's equator. By international agreement, the nautical mile is
now defined as 1852 meters."

Interested, I just phoned a friend of mine who is an ex navigator and he
pointed out that as a measurement of distance, using the arc of one
degree of a great circle was inaccurate because the earth is not a
perfect sphere. He pointed out that at the equator one minute of
latitude is about 1840m but at the poles about 1860m (his recollections
as to measurement, but probably pretty close.)

It appears that in 1929 it was redefined as 1852m, which indeed now only
makes it approximately one degree of arc.

So, bugger it, I have to defer to the facts that the older definition is
now wrong.

--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus

[Bernd Felsche]

"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> writes:
>"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>news:42670a72@news.comindico.com.au...

>> **The UK is Metric.

>And yet they use feet, miles, gallons and a host of other imperial
>measurments more commonly than they do metric.

Stupidity can't be ruled out.

>>> Crap. They're used everywhere.
>>
>> **ONLY in the US.

>CRAP, as already stated. Imperial measurements are still in common use
>throughout the world.

They're not legal for trade in Australia. And they're not legal for
trade in the EU either, AFAICT.

>> **Australia uses the Metric system. For the record: I went to
>> school more than 30 years ago and we used Metric back then.

>We still commonly use imperial measurements.

Luddites and law-breaker! :-)

http://www.measurement.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=C4E7F12C-BCD6-81AC-1F733492AF7B3121

....

1901 The first step towards metrication in Australia was taken
during the term of the first Parliament after Federation. It
was moved that Australia consider the adoption of the metric
units of weights and measures.
....

1976 By the end of 1976, all packaged goods were required to be
labelled in metric sizes, and the following were also
converted to metric: the air transport industry, food
energy, petrol pumps, machine tools, electronic and
electrical engineering appliance manufacturing.
....

1988 Withdrawal of remaining imperial units from general legal use.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Joe]

CRT might be better than LCD for some reasons, but not for use with a PC

"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:mFD9e.18302$5F3.12590@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VfD9e.18279$5F3.13929@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Vup9e.17591$5F3.778@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> > It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would
> > make
> >>
> >> An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I know
of
> > (or
> >> Windows), nor any popular games. Which means you'd have to run it at a
> >> non-native resolution. CRT is the only way to go.
> >
> > You sound like a real whinger pal. Get off your arse, find a BigW and
have
> > a
> > bloody look for yourself instead of making stupid outdated crap like CRT
> > is
> > better than LCD......SHEEEEESH!.
> >
> What David Z said is completely correct. Maybe it's you who should have a
> look. CRT is still better than LCD.
>
>

[Vic]

I think that what are we trying to say is ,
for $1998 this specific product is approximately
$990 cheaper that the closest rival.
Vic
"Fred" <Fred@bedrock.com> wrote in message
news:3coq8dF6m3qa1U1@individual.net...
> DAVO wrote:
>> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
>> brilliant
>> performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition makes this
>> outstanding value and I for one will be buying one. The fact Sony are
>> walking away from Plasma and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>>
>> DAVO
>
> Thats the way prices of LCD screens are going. Down, down ,down!
> They could be half that price in a year or so.
>
>

[Brett Mount]

And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Jim Vatunz with some words for
aus.dvd:

}On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:15:46 +1000, Luke Webber <luke@webber.com.au>
}wrote:
}
}>Jim Vatunz wrote:
}>
}>> You'd better check that. I think that's just a commonly held belief.
}>> I think you'll find that the USA is the only non SI holdout with some
}>> exceptions such as Jamaica also using Fahrenheit and Britain still
}>> hanging onto a few archaic things like pints and miles (they'll have
}>> to drop miles in the near future as they have no sensible means of
}>> publishing any fuel consumption figures)
}>
}>What? What about the widely-accepted gills per chain measure? Not good
}>enough for you? And everybody I know measures speed in furlongs per
}>fortnight. It's the only measure that makes sense! ;^)
}>
}>Luke
} “My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I like
}it!”
}--Grandpa Simpson.

ObNitpick

Monty Burns, shirley?

<snip>

--
Brett

"I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous
I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis"

[Firefly]

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:r96kj2xj0m.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> writes:
>>"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:42670a72@news.comindico.com.au...
>
>>> **The UK is Metric.
>
>>And yet they use feet, miles, gallons and a host of other imperial
>>measurments more commonly than they do metric.
>
> Stupidity can't be ruled out.
>
>>>> Crap. They're used everywhere.
>>>
>>> **ONLY in the US.
>
>>CRAP, as already stated. Imperial measurements are still in common use
>>throughout the world.
>
> They're not legal for trade in Australia. And they're not legal for
> trade in the EU either, AFAICT.

Who cares? They're still used.

[Firefly]

"Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
news:XTJ9e.18654$5F3.10726@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
> news:mFD9e.18302$5F3.12590@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:VfD9e.18279$5F3.13929@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >
>> > "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Vup9e.17591$5F3.778@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
>> >> news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >> > It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would
>> > make
>> >>
>> >> An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I know
> of
>> > (or
>> >> Windows), nor any popular games. Which means you'd have to run it at
>> >> a
>> >> non-native resolution. CRT is the only way to go.
>> >
>> > You sound like a real whinger pal. Get off your arse, find a BigW and
> have
>> > a
>> > bloody look for yourself instead of making stupid outdated crap like
>> > CRT
>> > is
>> > better than LCD......SHEEEEESH!.
>> >
>> What David Z said is completely correct. Maybe it's you who should have a
>> look. CRT is still better than LCD.
>>

> CRT might be better than LCD for some reasons, but not for use with a PC

That's true only if you're using the LCD at its native resolution. If you
need to change resolution, for example during gaming, LCDs are crap.

[Firefly]

"ant" <ant_kNOT@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:3cp16hF6oa6glU1@individual.net...
> The Nerk wrote:
>> ant wrote:
>>> damnfine wrote:
>>>> "DAVO" wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, of course it should read 81cm.
>>>>
>>>> Hehe... ok because an 81" LCD for under 2K sounded like the buy of
>>>> the century. :-D
>>>>
>>>> If you like that sort of thing...
>>>
>>> Yeah, I was getting all excited there for a minute!
>>> what's 81cm in inches? considerably smaller, I'm guessing.
>>> I'll hang on to my crappy 68" Teac conventional for a bit longer.
>
>> = 81 * 0.4
>>
>> = 32"
>
> Oh. bummer. So it's sort-of computer sized. Ha!
>
No. Most PC monitors are a lot smaller than 32". Typically 21" is the
biggest monitor in general use, although you can get bigger.

[Poxy]

Firefly wrote:
> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
> news:XTJ9e.18654$5F3.10726@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
>> news:mFD9e.18302$5F3.12590@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:VfD9e.18279$5F3.13929@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Vup9e.17591$5F3.778@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>> It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast
>>>>>> would make
>>>>>
>>>>> An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I
>>>>> know of (or Windows), nor any popular games. Which means you'd
>>>>> have to run it at a
>>>>> non-native resolution. CRT is the only way to go.
>>>>
>>>> You sound like a real whinger pal. Get off your arse, find a BigW
>>>> and have a
>>>> bloody look for yourself instead of making stupid outdated crap
>>>> like CRT
>>>> is
>>>> better than LCD......SHEEEEESH!.
>>>>
>>> What David Z said is completely correct. Maybe it's you who should
>>> have a look. CRT is still better than LCD.
>>>
>
>> CRT might be better than LCD for some reasons, but not for use with
>> a PC
>
> That's true only if you're using the LCD at its native resolution. If
> you need to change resolution, for example during gaming, LCDs are
> crap.

Also, if you are using a PC for colour critical work, such as photography or
broadcast video, LCDs simply aren't accurate enough.

[Jim Vatunz]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:43:33 +0800, Oldus Fartus
<denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote:

>Jim Vatunz wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:20:54 +0800, Oldus Fartus
>> <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jim Vatunz wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:49:36 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>>>news:652e6118scmpd7sce595p8n5mi9h87kdrb@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:47:53 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>pedant. It's still non-metric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong, it is an SI unit, though one i'm not comfortable with.
>>>>>
>>>>>It might be SI but it isn't metric. The metric system is based on 10s. The
>>>>>nautical mile was originally an imperial measurement (c. 1500) of 6,080 feet
>>>>>and predates the metric system by about 100 years. It was amended more
>>>>>recently to 6076.115 feet based on more accurate measurements. It was
>>>>>adopted into the SI system because of its common usage.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nearly right. It's definition is 1852 metres, anything else is just an
>>>>approximation. There was nothing super accurate about defining it,
>>>>there was some confusing variations and 1852m was chosen as a good
>>>>compromise.
>>>>Prick of a unit though, it should be consigned to the archaic
>>>>junkyard.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's approximation is 1852 metres. It's definition is one minute
>>>of arc of the great circle.
>>
>> Wrong again. since 1929 it's been defined as 1852m and it approximates
>> one minute of arc.
>> http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table8.html
>
>It appears that both definitions are being used, and a search using our
>friend Google, is showing both definitions.
>http://www.telemet.com/weather_gloss_n.htm for example says
>"Nautical mile
>The nautical mile ....... is defined as the length of one minute of arc
>on the earth's equator. By international agreement, the nautical mile is
>now defined as 1852 meters."
>
>Interested, I just phoned a friend of mine who is an ex navigator and he
>pointed out that as a measurement of distance, using the arc of one
>degree of a great circle was inaccurate because the earth is not a
>perfect sphere. He pointed out that at the equator one minute of
>latitude is about 1840m but at the poles about 1860m (his recollections
>as to measurement, but probably pretty close.)
>
>It appears that in 1929 it was redefined as 1852m, which indeed now only
>makes it approximately one degree of arc.
>
>So, bugger it, I have to defer to the facts that the older definition is
>now wrong.

It's still a rotten name for an irrelevant distance and should have
gone the way of the Dodo years ago. Strangely though the Water Police
still use it and i've noticed the media naively and incorrectly
converting it to units the public understand by making each "mile"
equal to 1600m.

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

[Rod Speed]

"Oldus Fartus" <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
news:42673a20$0$8097$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Firefly wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>**'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to the
>>>>>Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an ANGULAR
>>>>>measurement, not a distance one.
>>>>
>>>>pedant. It's still non-metric.
>>>
>>>**It sure ain't Imperial.

>> Proof.

> He is quite right.

Not on the "It sure ain't Imperial" bit he aint.

> A nautical mile is based on the circumference of the planet Earth. If you were
> to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of the halves
> and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that circle into 360
> degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A minute of arc on
> the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile. This unit of measurement is used by all
> nations for air and sea travel.

Separate issue entirely to whether its an imperial unit or not. Of course it is.

[Michael]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hEE9e.18348$5F3.13709@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Sorry it appears I was mistaken. Nvidia recently released a driver which
> supports 1366x768. I don't know what you'd do if you had another brand,
> or an integrated video card.

As I said, you'd just use PowerStrip to create your own custom res..

> Secondly, with the possible exception of HL2, I don't think there'd be a
> single PC game out there that supports that resolution. Certainly nothing
> prior to 2004 would. Tough luck if you're a gamer.

I use 1360x768 with Worms: Armageddon and it came out in '99. Other ones I
run at that res. include more up to date games like Doom 3, Need for Speed
Underground 1 and 2, etc.. Some need patches to run in widescreen which can
be found here: http://www.tigerdave.com/wgl/

[Firefly]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cquk5F5g8mchU1@individual.net...
>
> "Oldus Fartus" <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:42673a20$0$8097$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> He is quite right.
>
> Not on the "It sure ain't Imperial" bit he aint.
>
>> A nautical mile is based on the circumference of the planet Earth. If you
>> were to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of
>> the halves and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that
>> circle into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes.
>> A minute of arc on the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile. This unit of
>> measurement is used by all nations for air and sea travel.
>
> Separate issue entirely to whether its an imperial unit or not. Of course
> it is.

This seems to be a point that escapes some people. That it is an angular
measurement (and it isn't anymore) is irrelevant to a discussion of whether
or not it is metric or imperial.

[Oldus Fartus]

Rod Speed wrote:
> "Oldus Fartus" <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:42673a20$0$8097$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>Firefly wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>**'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to the
>>>>>>Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an ANGULAR
>>>>>>measurement, not a distance one.
>>>>>
>>>>>pedant. It's still non-metric.
>>>>
>>>>**It sure ain't Imperial.
>
>
>>>Proof.
>
>
>>He is quite right.
>
>
> Not on the "It sure ain't Imperial" bit he aint.
>
>
>>A nautical mile is based on the circumference of the planet Earth. If you were
>>to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of the halves
>>and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that circle into 360
>>degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A minute of arc on
>>the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile. This unit of measurement is used by all
>>nations for air and sea travel.
>
>
> Separate issue entirely to whether its an imperial unit or not. Of course it is.
>
>

Why do you say that Rod?

Being a pedantic old bastard I have done a few searches to see what I
could find out, and if anything the nautical mile would not seem to fall
neatly in either imperial or SI measurement camps. Certainly it's
origin was plain (arc-minute), but then the First International
Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference, Monaco, 1929 defined it to be
exactly 1852 metres, which converts to 6076.11549 international feet.
To complicate things the British Admiralty use a similar unit
'Admiralty measured mile' (exactly 6080 ft) when defining the Knot.

Having said that, there is an explanation at
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NauticalMile which probably does put the
measurement cleanly into the metric camp.

* A NauticalMile was intended to be 1 arc minute of a great circle
* A metre was defined to be one ten millionth of the distance from
the North Pole to the Equator through Paris, which is 90 degrees of
longitude, or 60*90 arc minutes.
* Hence 90 degrees is 10 million metres
* Hence 5400 arc minutes is 10 million metres
* so 1 arc minutes = 1851.851851 ... metres.

The "officially defined" figure of 1852 is pretty close.

--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus

[Oldus Fartus]

Jim Vatunz wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:43:33 +0800, Oldus Fartus
> <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote:

snipped

..... the nautical mile.....
>
> It's still a rotten name for an irrelevant distance and should have
> gone the way of the Dodo years ago. Strangely though the Water Police
> still use it and i've noticed the media naively and incorrectly
> converting it to units the public understand by making each "mile"
> equal to 1600m.
>

I will certainly agree with the rotten name, as it only tends to confuse
things, but I am not so sure about the irrelevant distance, bearing in
mind it's origin.

I would like to think that even modern day navigators (if they exist)
would still be able to use traditional methods, which of necessity would
mean the nautical mile, (or arc-minute).

--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus

[Firefly]

"Oldus Fartus" <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4268e218$0$12585$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>> Separate issue entirely to whether its an imperial unit or not. Of course
>> it is.
>
> Why do you say that Rod?
>
Quite simply because it is the case.

> Being a pedantic old bastard I have done a few searches to see what I
> could find out, and if anything the nautical mile would not seem to fall
> neatly in either imperial or SI measurement camps.

To reduce confusion, think of there are actually being 3 camps; imperial,
metric and SI. The SI system is very heavily based on metric principles but
has adopted other terms that are not metric in origin, like the nautical
mile. The "pure" metric system is based on factors of 10. Whether you define
it as 6076.111549 ft or 1,852m the nautical mile is clearly not metric. It
is an imperial term that was adopted by SI because it just won't go away. It
should also be noted that the nautical mile predates the metric system by
several hundred years.

> Certainly it's origin was plain (arc-minute), but then the First
> International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference, Monaco, 1929 defined
> it to be exactly 1852 metres, which converts to 6076.11549 international
> feet. To complicate things the British Admiralty use a similar unit
> 'Admiralty measured mile' (exactly 6080 ft) when defining the Knot.

It's not a similar unit. They are actually one and the same. A nautical mile
was defined as one arc-minute along a great circle of the Earth but because
the Earth is not a perfect sphere this meant that a nautical mile varies in
length depending on where in the world you are. To avoid confusion the
British Admiralty decided to use the great circle defined by the equator to
define the length of a standard nautical mile, since the equator is one of
the major reference points on the planet. This resulted in a length of 6,080
feet. Still, because the definition of a nautical mile did not specifically
mention the equator various nations had a slightly different length for
their nautical mile and a compromise was made at the 1929 International
Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference based on metric principles.

[Firefly]

"Oldus Fartus" <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4268f707$0$12639$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Jim Vatunz wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:43:33 +0800, Oldus Fartus
>> <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote:
>
> snipped
>
> .... the nautical mile.....
>>
>> It's still a rotten name for an irrelevant distance and should have
>> gone the way of the Dodo years ago. Strangely though the Water Police
>> still use it and i've noticed the media naively and incorrectly
>> converting it to units the public understand by making each "mile"
>> equal to 1600m.
>>
>
> I will certainly agree with the rotten name,

Why is it a rotten name? Hundreds of years ago it was defined as the "mile"
of the sea because the mile was the distance standard of the day.

> as it only tends to confuse things,

Only because people who supposedly knew better tried to redefine a term that
had been in use for hundreds of years using a newer system and adopt it into
that system.

[Oldus Fartus]

Firefly wrote:
> "Oldus Fartus" <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:4268e218$0$12585$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>>Separate issue entirely to whether its an imperial unit or not. Of course
>>>it is.
>>
>>Why do you say that Rod?
>>
>
> Quite simply because it is the case.
>
>
>>Being a pedantic old bastard I have done a few searches to see what I
>>could find out, and if anything the nautical mile would not seem to fall
>>neatly in either imperial or SI measurement camps.
>
>
> To reduce confusion, think of there are actually being 3 camps; imperial,
> metric and SI. The SI system is very heavily based on metric principles but
> has adopted other terms that are not metric in origin, like the nautical
> mile. The "pure" metric system is based on factors of 10. Whether you define
> it as 6076.111549 ft or 1,852m the nautical mile is clearly not metric. It
> is an imperial term that was adopted by SI because it just won't go away. It
> should also be noted that the nautical mile predates the metric system by
> several hundred years.
>

Yes, I am sorry. I did give the impression I was suggesting it was a
metric unit when I meant that it had been adopted in the SI system as
you quite rightly pointed out.

I also agree that the nautical mile predates the metric system by
several hundred years, but does this necessarily make it an imperial
measure? Given the original meaning, I still maintain it was neither,
any more than time and angular measurements were imperial.

>
>> Certainly it's origin was plain (arc-minute), but then the First
>>International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference, Monaco, 1929 defined
>>it to be exactly 1852 metres, which converts to 6076.11549 international
>>feet. To complicate things the British Admiralty use a similar unit
>>'Admiralty measured mile' (exactly 6080 ft) when defining the Knot.
>
>
> It's not a similar unit. They are actually one and the same. A nautical mile
> was defined as one arc-minute along a great circle of the Earth but because
> the Earth is not a perfect sphere this meant that a nautical mile varies in
> length depending on where in the world you are. To avoid confusion the
> British Admiralty decided to use the great circle defined by the equator to
> define the length of a standard nautical mile, since the equator is one of
> the major reference points on the planet. This resulted in a length of 6,080
> feet. Still, because the definition of a nautical mile did not specifically
> mention the equator various nations had a slightly different length for
> their nautical mile and a compromise was made at the 1929 International
> Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference based on metric principles.
>
>

Agreed, which ties in with the reading I have done on the subject.

Certainly been an interesting conversation though, thanks for the input.

--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus

[Peter D.]

David Z wrote in aus.audio-visual.home-cinema:

> "Joe" <hihi@hoho.com.au> wrote in message
> news:cjp9e.17580$5F3.7381@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> It has a DVI in, I wonder what sort of a PC monitor this beast would
>> make
>
> An awful one. 1366x768 is not supported by any graphics cards I know
> of

I think that it would be supported by almost any modern graphics card,
but not by much software.

> (or Windows)
[snip]

Try Linux, or even a Mac.


--
Peter D.
Sig goes here...

[Rod Speed]

"Oldus Fartus" <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4268f707$0$12639$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Jim Vatunz wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:43:33 +0800, Oldus Fartus
>> <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote:
>
> snipped
>
> .... the nautical mile.....
>>
>> It's still a rotten name for an irrelevant distance and should have
>> gone the way of the Dodo years ago. Strangely though the Water Police
>> still use it and i've noticed the media naively and incorrectly
>> converting it to units the public understand by making each "mile"
>> equal to 1600m.
>>
>
> I will certainly agree with the rotten name, as it only tends to confuse
> things, but I am not so sure about the irrelevant distance, bearing in mind
> it's origin.

> I would like to think that even modern day navigators (if they exist) would
> still be able to use traditional methods, which of necessity would mean the
> nautical mile, (or arc-minute).

It doesnt actually work that way with traditional
navigation. The fact that its an arc minute is
essentially irrelevant, its just relevant to its origins.

[Rod Speed]

Oldus Fartus <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4268e218$0$12585$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Oldus Fartus <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote
>>> Firefly wrote

>>>>>>> 'Nautical Miles' is not an Imperial measurement. It is not related to
>>>>>>> the Imperial measurement called 'the Mile'. The Nautical Mile is an
>>>>>>> ANGULAR measurement, not a distance one.

>>>>>> pedant. It's still non-metric.

>>>>> It sure ain't Imperial.

>>>> Proof.

>>> He is quite right.

>> Not on the "It sure ain't Imperial" bit he aint.

>>> A nautical mile is based on the circumference of the planet Earth. If you
>>> were to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of the
>>> halves and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that circle
>>> into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A minute
>>> of arc on the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile. This unit of measurement is
>>> used by all nations for air and sea travel.

>> Separate issue entirely to whether its an imperial unit or not. Of course it
>> is.

> Why do you say that Rod?

Because its true ? I realise that may be a rather novel concept |-)

> Being a pedantic old bastard I have done a few searches to see what I could
> find out, and if anything the nautical mile would not seem to fall neatly in
> either imperial or SI measurement camps.

Basically ALL standardised units that existed before
the metric system was invented are imperial measures.

And there is nothing 'neatly' about the imperial system and it would
be a hell of a lot more surprising if there was given its origins.

> Certainly it's origin was plain (arc-minute),

Its more complicated than that too. The word knot is significant.
It was knots quite literally, in the line that was used to measure
speed by dropping something into the water which got close to
staying in one location in the water as the boat moved away
from that, with the line running out to what was fixed in the sea.

Nothing to do with arc-minutes at all.

> but then the First International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference,
> Monaco, 1929 defined it to be exactly 1852 metres, which converts to
> 6076.11549 international feet.

Sure, but that was hundreds of years after the knot was defined.

> To complicate things the British Admiralty use a similar unit 'Admiralty
> measured mile' (exactly 6080 ft) when defining the Knot.

> Having said that, there is an explanation at
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NauticalMile which probably does put the measurement
> cleanly into the metric camp.

Corse it isnt. It was around before the metric system was even invented.

> * A NauticalMile was intended to be 1 arc minute of a great circle
> * A metre was defined to be one ten millionth of the distance from the
> North Pole to the Equator through Paris, which is 90 degrees of longitude, or
> 60*90 arc minutes.
> * Hence 90 degrees is 10 million metres
> * Hence 5400 arc minutes is 10 million metres
> * so 1 arc minutes = 1851.851851 ... metres.

> The "officially defined" figure of 1852 is pretty close.

Pity the knot was around from a lot earlier than that.
Before the metric system had even been invented.

[Rod Speed]

"Oldus Fartus" <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4269213e$0$12620$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Firefly wrote:
>> "Oldus Fartus" <denisand@iiNOSPAMnet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:4268e218$0$12585$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>>Separate issue entirely to whether its an imperial unit or not. Of course it
>>>>is.
>>>
>>>Why do you say that Rod?
>>>
>>
>> Quite simply because it is the case.
>>
>>
>>>Being a pedantic old bastard I have done a few searches to see what I could
>>>find out, and if anything the nautical mile would not seem to fall neatly in
>>>either imperial or SI measurement camps.
>>
>>
>> To reduce confusion, think of there are actually being 3 camps; imperial,
>> metric and SI. The SI system is very heavily based on metric principles but
>> has adopted other terms that are not metric in origin, like the nautical
>> mile. The "pure" metric system is based on factors of 10. Whether you define
>> it as 6076.111549 ft or 1,852m the nautical mile is clearly not metric. It is
>> an imperial term that was adopted by SI because it just won't go away. It
>> should also be noted that the nautical mile predates the metric system by
>> several hundred years.
>>
>
> Yes, I am sorry. I did give the impression I was suggesting it was a metric
> unit when I meant that it had been adopted in the SI system as you quite
> rightly pointed out.

> I also agree that the nautical mile predates the metric system by several
> hundred years, but does this necessarily make it an imperial measure?

Corse it does. That essentially covers any unit formally defined
by the poms and really only came into common use once the metric
system had been defined, as a name for what came before it.

> Given the original meaning, I still maintain it was neither,

You're wrong.

> any more than time and angular measurements were imperial.

The knot was around before the arc-minute definition.

And is just as informal and practical as say the foot or bushel.

>>> Certainly it's origin was plain (arc-minute), but then the First
>>> International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference, Monaco, 1929 defined it
>>> to be exactly 1852 metres, which converts to 6076.11549 international feet.
>>> To complicate things the British Admiralty use a similar unit 'Admiralty
>>> measured mile' (exactly 6080 ft) when defining the Knot.
>>
>>
>> It's not a similar unit. They are actually one and the same. A nautical mile
>> was defined as one arc-minute along a great circle of the Earth but because
>> the Earth is not a perfect sphere this meant that a nautical mile varies in
>> length depending on where in the world you are. To avoid confusion the
>> British Admiralty decided to use the great circle defined by the equator to
>> define the length of a standard nautical mile, since the equator is one of
>> the major reference points on the planet. This resulted in a length of 6,080
>> feet. Still, because the definition of a nautical mile did not specifically
>> mention the equator various nations had a slightly different length for their
>> nautical mile and a compromise was made at the 1929 International
>> Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference based on metric principles.
>>
>>
>
> Agreed, which ties in with the reading I have done on the subject.
>
> Certainly been an interesting conversation though, thanks for the input.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Oldus Fartus

[Firefly]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ct866F6q7ffaU1@individual.net...
>
> Its more complicated than that too. The word knot is significant.
> It was knots quite literally, in the line that was used to measure
> speed by dropping something into the water which got close to
> staying in one location in the water as the boat moved away
> from that, with the line running out to what was fixed in the sea.
>
> Nothing to do with arc-minutes at all.

Yes and No. I think the Egyptians were actually the first to use the knot to
determine the speed of their vessels but their knot was a lot different to
the current definition.Then the Romans defined the first mile, which was
1,000 double steps of a Roman soldier. It was some time after that when the
nautical mile was defined as 1/60 of a degree of the Great Circle of the
Earth. Then in about 1500 AD the Dutch invented the chip-log to determine
vessel speed and the speeds were based on the nautical mile. That's when the
modern definition of the knot came about.

[Fred At Home]

"Kwyjibo." <Kwyjibo@YourFingerFromThatDykeozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:Xns963ED3DEB23Adddddd@203.26.24.228...
> "Juan Mortyme" <JuanMortyme@Who'sAsking.com> said
>
>>
>> <khangu@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1113953892.158388.13310@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>>> Yeah, seems like good value.
>>>
>>> What brand & resolution does it have, and can I plug my pc to it?
>>>
>>> Which Big W did you see this at?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Taken from page 5 of Big W's latest catalogue (on sale from Thursday
>> April
>> 21) :
>>
>> "AWA 81cm Wide-Screen LCD Television
>> HD TV ready, multiple aspect ratios, 176 degree viewing angle,
>> 500 cd/m2 brightness, 500:1 contrst ratio,
>
> That's a piss-poor contrast ratio.

You've just showed us all that you know SFA about flat panel displays.

[Firefly]

"Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:426a2729$0$8120$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Kwyjibo." <Kwyjibo@YourFingerFromThatDykeozdebate.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns963ED3DEB23Adddddd@203.26.24.228...
>> "Juan Mortyme" <JuanMortyme@Who'sAsking.com> said
>>
>>>
>>> <khangu@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1113953892.158388.13310@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>>>> Yeah, seems like good value.
>>>>
>>>> What brand & resolution does it have, and can I plug my pc to it?
>>>>
>>>> Which Big W did you see this at?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Taken from page 5 of Big W's latest catalogue (on sale from Thursday
>>> April
>>> 21) :
>>>
>>> "AWA 81cm Wide-Screen LCD Television
>>> HD TV ready, multiple aspect ratios, 176 degree viewing angle,
>>> 500 cd/m2 brightness, 500:1 contrst ratio,
>>
>> That's a piss-poor contrast ratio.
>
> You've just showed us all that you know SFA about flat panel displays.
Indeed it does.
http://www20.graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040226/

[Bernd Felsche]

"Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> writes:
>"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3ct866F6q7ffaU1@individual.net...

>> Nothing to do with arc-minutes at all.

Dribble-brains is still at it.

>Yes and No. I think the Egyptians were actually the first to use
>the knot to determine the speed of their vessels but their knot was
>a lot different to the current definition.Then the Romans defined
>the first mile, which was 1,000 double steps of a Roman soldier. It
>was some time after that when the nautical mile was defined as 1/60
>of a degree of the Great Circle of the Earth. Then in about 1500 AD
>the Dutch invented the chip-log to determine vessel speed and the
>speeds were based on the nautical mile. That's when the modern
>definition of the knot came about.

Germans (IIRC) defined the mile as being the distance forced marched
in an hour... later standardised to 7km.
[Straight off the top of my head.]
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Kwyjibo.]

"Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> said

>
> "Kwyjibo." <Kwyjibo@YourFingerFromThatDykeozdebate.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns963ED3DEB23Adddddd@203.26.24.228...
>> "Juan Mortyme" <JuanMortyme@Who'sAsking.com> said
>>
>>>
>>> <khangu@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1113953892.158388.13310@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>>>> Yeah, seems like good value.
>>>>
>>>> What brand & resolution does it have, and can I plug my pc to it?
>>>>
>>>> Which Big W did you see this at?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Taken from page 5 of Big W's latest catalogue (on sale from Thursday
>>> April
>>> 21) :
>>>
>>> "AWA 81cm Wide-Screen LCD Television
>>> HD TV ready, multiple aspect ratios, 176 degree viewing angle,
>>> 500 cd/m2 brightness, 500:1 contrst ratio,
>>
>> That's a piss-poor contrast ratio.
>
> You've just showed us all that you know SFA about flat panel displays.
>

I was speaking generally.
500:1 *is* a piss-poor contrast ratio.


--


Kwyj.

(Remove your finger from that dyke to reply by email)

[Rod Speed]

DAVO <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kjg9e.17047$5F3.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
> brilliant performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition
> makes this outstanding value and I for one will be buying one.

It looks surprisingly small in the flesh tho.

> The fact Sony are walking away from Plasma
> and devoting to LCD says enough for me.

I couldnt care less what those clowns are doing.

[Rod Speed]

Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:whoae.20936$5F3.10646@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> Certainly it's origin was plain (arc-minute),

>> Its more complicated than that too. The word knot is significant.
>> It was knots quite literally, in the line that was used to measure
>> speed by dropping something into the water which got close to
>> staying in one location in the water as the boat moved away
>> from that, with the line running out to what was fixed in the sea.

>> Nothing to do with arc-minutes at all.

> Yes and No.

Yes and Yes, actually.

> I think the Egyptians were actually the first to use the knot to determine the
> speed of their vessels but their knot was a lot different to the current
> definition.

Irrelevant to whether arc-minutes matter.

> Then the Romans defined the first mile, which was 1,000 double steps of a
> Roman soldier.

Irrelevant to whether arc-minutes matter.

> It was some time after that when the nautical mile was defined as 1/60 of a
> degree of the Great Circle of the Earth.

Which is what I said in different words, that the arc-minute came later.

> Then in about 1500 AD the Dutch invented the chip-log to determine vessel
> speed and the speeds were based on the nautical mile. That's when the modern
> definition of the knot came about.

Thats an entirely separate issue to its ORIGIN.

[Fred]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cvn7lF6m6eooU1@individual.net...
>
> DAVO <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kjg9e.17047$5F3.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
> > brilliant performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition
> > makes this outstanding value and I for one will be buying one.
>
> It looks surprisingly small in the flesh tho.

Is that so? I went looking at my local BigW, out of interest, but they
didn't have one.

>
> > The fact Sony are walking away from Plasma
> > and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>
> I couldnt care less what those clowns are doing.

As a matter of interest, re LCD TV panels. There was something in DigiTimes
the other day about how the Japanese makers are trying to remain
competetive.
http://www.digitimes.com/index.asp
"Speaking at the Finetech Japan FPD equipment exhibition, Deutsche
Securities analyst Fumiaki Sato stated that Japan-based home appliance
makers should stop procuring LCD TV panels from Taiwan-based panel makers,
as it will result in Japan-based panel makers losing their competitive edge.

Although Taiwan-based makers are offering more attractive panel prices, over
the long-term Japanese consumer electronics makers will see their profits
erode if they choose to use Taiwan-made panels, as the trend will lead to
drastic drops in LCD TV pricing, Sato said.

Panel makers from Taiwan and South Korea have been aggressively expanding
their capacity and their production value has already exceeded that of Japan
makers. However, it is not likely that all players in the market will remain
profitable, Hidetaka Fukuda, director of the Information and Communication
Electronics Division at Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
(METI) pointed out.

According to Fukuda, Japan-based panel makers may not survive a price war.
Therefore, they should accelerate their vertical integration along the TFT
LCD supply chain and focus on protecting their intellectual property.

In fact, Japan-based panel makers have already reshuffled their
organizations to remain competitive, Fukuda stated. Fujitsu sold its LCD
division to Sharp while Sony recently acquired International Display
Technology (IDTech) from Taiwan's Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO). In
addition, Hitachi, Matsushita Electric Industrial and Toshiba have formed a
joint venture (IPS Alpha Technology) for sixth-generation (6G) panel
manufacturing, Fukuda explained.

Although Taiwan-based panel makers such as AU Optronics (AUO) and CMO are
offer a complete LCD TV panel lineup, they still mostly focus on the
under-30-inch segments. Japan- and South Korea-based panel makers are more
aggressive in offering panels for the over-40-inch segments.

Deutsche Securities Asia's Taiwan branch was not available for comment at
the time of publication."

[Rod Speed]

Fred <Fred@bedrock.com> wrote in message
news:3d0gleF6p7rt4U1@individual.net...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> DAVO <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
>>> brilliant performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition
>>> makes this outstanding value and I for one will be buying one.

>> It looks surprisingly small in the flesh tho.

> Is that so?

Yeah, looks a lot smaller than my Grudig 86cm
glass widescreen and it isnt just the surround either.

> I went looking at my local BigW, out
> of interest, but they didn't have one.

Yeah, mine had one play a DVD with a big price banner
above it, but it wasnt obvious where there were any still in
boxes with a quick look, maybe there werent any left, but
that was on the Friday, just one day after the sale started.

>>> The fact Sony are walking away from Plasma
>>> and devoting to LCD says enough for me.

>> I couldnt care less what those clowns are doing.

> As a matter of interest, re LCD TV panels. There
> was something in DigiTimes the other day about how
> the Japanese makers are trying to remain competetive.
> http://www.digitimes.com/index.asp
> "Speaking at the Finetech Japan FPD equipment exhibition, Deutsche
> Securities analyst Fumiaki Sato stated that Japan-based home appliance
> makers should stop procuring LCD TV panels from Taiwan-based panel makers,
> as it will result in Japan-based panel makers losing their competitive edge.

> Although Taiwan-based makers are offering more attractive panel
> prices, over the long-term Japanese consumer electronics makers
> will see their profits erode if they choose to use Taiwan-made panels,
> as the trend will lead to drastic drops in LCD TV pricing, Sato said.

> Panel makers from Taiwan and South Korea have been aggressively
> expanding their capacity and their production value has already
> exceeded that of Japan makers. However, it is not likely that all
> players in the market will remain profitable, Hidetaka Fukuda,
> director of the Information and Communication Electronics Division at
> Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) pointed out.

> According to Fukuda, Japan-based panel makers may not survive a price war.

Plausible.

> Therefore, they should accelerate their vertical
> integration along the TFT LCD supply chain

Thats not going to save their bacon.

> and focus on protecting their intellectual property.

That neither.

> In fact, Japan-based panel makers have already reshuffled their
> organizations to remain competitive, Fukuda stated. Fujitsu sold
> its LCD division to Sharp while Sony recently acquired International
> Display Technology (IDTech) from Taiwan's Chi Mei Optoelectronics
> (CMO). In addition, Hitachi, Matsushita Electric Industrial and Toshiba
> have formed a joint venture (IPS Alpha Technology) for sixth-generation
> (6G) panel manufacturing, Fukuda explained.

> Although Taiwan-based panel makers such as AU Optronics (AUO) and
> CMO are offer a complete LCD TV panel lineup, they still mostly focus on
> the under-30-inch segments. Japan- and South Korea-based panel makers
> are more aggressive in offering panels for the over-40-inch segments.

> Deutsche Securities Asia's Taiwan branch was not
> available for comment at the time of publication."

[Firefly]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cvnj7F6ote7mU1@individual.net...
>
> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
> news:whoae.20936$5F3.10646@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>> Certainly it's origin was plain (arc-minute),
>
>>> Its more complicated than that too. The word knot is significant.
>>> It was knots quite literally, in the line that was used to measure
>>> speed by dropping something into the water which got close to
>>> staying in one location in the water as the boat moved away
>>> from that, with the line running out to what was fixed in the sea.
>
>>> Nothing to do with arc-minutes at all.
>
>> Yes and No.
>
> Yes and Yes, actually.

No, I was right.

>
>> I think the Egyptians were actually the first to use the knot to
>> determine the speed of their vessels but their knot was a lot different
>> to the current definition.
>
> Irrelevant to whether arc-minutes matter.

Actually it is relevant. You need to understand the history of knots,
nautical miles and arc-minutes in order to see how they relate to each
other.

>> Then the Romans defined the first mile, which was 1,000 double steps of a
>> Roman soldier.
>
> Irrelevant to whether arc-minutes matter.

It is however relevant to an understanding of the history of knots, nautical
miles and arc-minutes and how they relate to each other.

>> It was some time after that when the nautical mile was defined as 1/60 of
>> a degree of the Great Circle of the Earth.
>
> Which is what I said in different words, that the arc-minute came later.

No, not quite. It came after the Egyptian version of the knot but not after
the modern version. The modern version of the nautical-mile has always been
related to the arc-minute.

>
>> Then in about 1500 AD the Dutch invented the chip-log to determine vessel
>> speed and the speeds were based on the nautical mile. That's when the
>> modern definition of the knot came about.
>
> Thats an entirely separate issue to its ORIGIN.

But still important.

[Rod Speed]

Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:LyFae.21821$5F3.11060@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>> Certainly it's origin was plain (arc-minute),

>>>> Its more complicated than that too. The word knot is significant.
>>>> It was knots quite literally, in the line that was used to measure
>>>> speed by dropping something into the water which got close to
>>>> staying in one location in the water as the boat moved away
>>>> from that, with the line running out to what was fixed in the sea.

>>>> Nothing to do with arc-minutes at all.

>>> Yes and No.

>> Yes and Yes, actually.

> No, I was right.

Nope, not on the ORIGIN being discussed you werent.

The arc-minute clearly came later.

>>> I think the Egyptians were actually the first to use the knot to determine
>>> the speed of their vessels but their knot was a lot different to the current
>>> definition.

>> Irrelevant to whether arc-minutes matter.

> Actually it is relevant.

Nope.

> You need to understand the history of knots,

Which never did involve arc minutes until much later.

> nautical miles and arc-minutes in order to see how they relate to each other.

The history is that arc minutes came later.

>>> Then the Romans defined the first mile, which was 1,000 double steps of a
>>> Roman soldier.

>> Irrelevant to whether arc-minutes matter.

> It is however relevant to an understanding of the history of knots, nautical
> miles and arc-minutes and how they relate to each other.

Nope, there were no arc minutes involved when the romans did that.

>>> It was some time after that when the nautical mile was defined as 1/60 of a
>>> degree of the Great Circle of the Earth.

>> Which is what I said in different words, that the arc-minute came later.

> No, not quite.

Fraid so.

> It came after the Egyptian version of the knot but not after the modern
> version.

Wrong. The knot was used in pomland LONG before the arc minute showed up.

> The modern version of the nautical-mile has always been related to the
> arc-minute.

Wrong.

>>> Then in about 1500 AD the Dutch invented the chip-log to determine vessel
>>> speed and the speeds were based on the nautical mile. That's when the modern
>>> definition of the knot came about.

>> Thats an entirely separate issue to its ORIGIN.

> But still important.

Not to the ORIGIN being discussed it aint.

[Firefly]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d0skbF6o6bjcU1@individual.net...
>
> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
> news:LyFae.21821$5F3.11060@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Nope, not on the ORIGIN being discussed you werent.
>
> The arc-minute clearly came later.

We were talking about the origin of the nautical mile. The nautical mile was
originally defined as 1/60th of a degree of the Great Circle of the Earth.
1/60th of a degree *IS* one arc-minute. That had to come before the nautical
mile was defined in order to define the nautical mile. There was no way that
one arc-minute/one sixtieth of a degree could come later.


>>>> I think the Egyptians were actually the first to use the knot to
>>>> determine the speed of their vessels but their knot was a lot different
>>>> to the current definition.
>
>>> Irrelevant to whether arc-minutes matter.
>
>> Actually it is relevant.
>
> Nope.

Sorry but it's actually yep. The Egyptian link shows that the knot was
originally defined, albeit in a different way, BEFORE the nautical mile.
Your earlier post implied that the nautical mile was related to the earlier
definition of the knot. It was NOT.

>> You need to understand the history of knots, nautical miles and
>> arc-minutes in order to see how they relate to each other.
>
> The history is that arc minutes came later.

Irrelevant. The history is that the modern definition of the knot, which
came about after the nautical mile was defined as being one arc-minute of
the Great Circle of the Earth, is not related to the much earlier
definition. The only relationship that the two definitions have is that they
used the same name and were used for the same purpose. The knot that we use
today is based on the arc-minute definition, not the earlier Egyptian
definition. The evolution of the name is much like the invention of the
wheel. The wheel was invented in many places in the world but the invention
of the wheel in South America wasn't related to the invention of the wheel
in Europe or Egypt.

>> It is however relevant to an understanding of the history of knots,
>> nautical miles and arc-minutes and how they relate to each other.
>
> Nope, there were no arc minutes involved when the romans did that.

That's irrelevant. There were arc-minutes when the nautical mile was
defined, which is why the history is important.

>>>> It was some time after that when the nautical mile was defined as 1/60
>>>> of a degree of the Great Circle of the Earth.
>
>>> Which is what I said in different words, that the arc-minute came later.
>
>> No, not quite.
>
> Fraid so.

Fraid not.
>
>> It came after the Egyptian version of the knot but not after the modern
>> version.
>
> Wrong. The knot was used in pomland LONG before the arc minute showed up.

Wrong. The arc-minute was in use in about 580BC. The knot used by the poms
didn't come about until after invention of the chip-log about 1,000 years
later.

>> The modern version of the nautical-mile has always been related to the
>> arc-minute.
>
> Wrong.

You can say that as much as you want but it doesn't make it right. I've
given you the history. Prove that I'm wrong with some facts or just accept
the truth.

>
>>>> Then in about 1500 AD the Dutch invented the chip-log to determine
>>>> vessel speed and the speeds were based on the nautical mile. That's
>>>> when the modern definition of the knot came about.
>
>>> Thats an entirely separate issue to its ORIGIN.
>
>> But still important.
>
> Not to the ORIGIN being discussed it aint.

Then prove it.

[Rod Speed]

Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:J7Iae.22124$5F3.11437@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>>>> Certainly it's origin was plain (arc-minute),

>>>>>> Its more complicated than that too. The word knot is significant.
>>>>>> It was knots quite literally, in the line that was used to measure
>>>>>> speed by dropping something into the water which got close to
>>>>>> staying in one location in the water as the boat moved away
>>>>>> from that, with the line running out to what was fixed in the sea.

>>>>>> Nothing to do with arc-minutes at all.

>>>>> Yes and No.

>>>> Yes and Yes, actually.

>>> No, I was right.

>> Nope, not on the ORIGIN being discussed you werent.

>> The arc-minute clearly came later.

> We were talking about the origin of the nautical mile.

Which comes from the knot, stupid.

> The nautical mile was originally defined as 1/60th of a degree of the Great
> Circle of the Earth.

Wrong.

> 1/60th of a degree *IS* one arc-minute.

Duh.

> That had to come before the nautical mile was defined in order to define the
> nautical mile. There was no way that one arc-minute/one sixtieth of a degree
> could come later.

Pity about the knot, stupid.

>>>>> I think the Egyptians were actually the first to use the knot to determine
>>>>> the speed of their vessels but their knot was a lot different to the
>>>>> current definition.

>>>> Irrelevant to whether arc-minutes matter.

>>> Actually it is relevant.

>> Nope.

> Sorry but it's actually yep.

Nope.

> The Egyptian link shows that the knot was originally defined, albeit in a
> different way, BEFORE the nautical mile.

Pity that the nautical mile was related to the
knot in pomland well before the arc minute.

> Your earlier post implied that the nautical mile was related to the earlier
> definition of the knot. It was NOT.

Corse its related in the sense that its a measure of
nautical distance that has nothing to do with arc minutes.

>>> You need to understand the history of knots, nautical miles and arc-minutes
>>> in order to see how they relate to each other.

>> The history is that arc minutes came later.

> Irrelevant.

Not when the ORIGIN was clearly being discussed.

> The history is that the modern definition of the knot,

Irrelevant to the ORIGIN of the knot and nautical mile.

> which came about after the nautical mile was defined as being one arc-minute
> of the Great Circle of the Earth, is not related to the much earlier
> definition.

Bullshit it aint. And it wasnt the egyptian knot that the
nautical mile was related to, it was the pom knot.

> The only relationship that the two definitions have is that they used the same
> name and were used for the same purpose.

Pity that was the ORIGIN of the nautical mile, well
before the change to the use of the arc minute.

And the later change again to the definition in meters.

> The knot that we use today is based on the arc-minute definition,

Only quite losely now that its defined in meters.

> not the earlier Egyptian definition.

I never said that the egyptian definition had any relevance, you did.

The nautical mile was associated with the pom knot long
before it was later redefined in terms of arc minute and then
later again in meters. Thats what the word ORIGIN means.

The definition in the middle aint the ORIGIN.

> The evolution of the name is much like the invention of the wheel.

The name didnt even evolve, the definition did.

> The wheel was invented in many places in the world but the invention of the
> wheel in South America wasn't related to the invention of the wheel in Europe
> or Egypt.

Separate issue entirely to whether the nautical mile
and knot in pomland preceeded the later definition in
pomland to arc minute and later in terms of meters.

>>> It is however relevant to an understanding of the history of knots, nautical
>>> miles and arc-minutes and how they relate to each other.

>> Nope, there were no arc minutes involved when the romans did that.

> That's irrelevant.

Not when the ORIGIN is being discussed as it clearly was.

> There were arc-minutes when the nautical mile was defined,

Nope, it was defined before that.

> which is why the history is important.

Which is actually nothing like you are claiming with the arc minute.

>>>>> It was some time after that when the nautical mile was defined as 1/60 of
>>>>> a degree of the Great Circle of the Earth.

>>>> Which is what I said in different words, that the arc-minute came later.

>>> No, not quite.

>> Fraid so.

> Fraid not.

Fraid so.

>>> It came after the Egyptian version of the knot but not after the modern
>>> version.

>> Wrong. The knot was used in pomland LONG before the arc minute showed up.

> Wrong.

Nope.

> The arc-minute was in use in about 580BC.

Not for the definition of the nautical mile it wasnt.

> The knot used by the poms didn't come about until after invention of the
> chip-log about 1,000 years later.

Which was well before it was defined in terms of arc minutes by the poms.

>>> The modern version of the nautical-mile has always been related to the
>>> arc-minute.

>> Wrong.

> You can say that as much as you want but it doesn't make it right.

True of you in spades.

> I've given you the history.

Like hell you have on the use of arc minutes in the definition of the nautical
mile being the first definition the poms used for the nautical mile.

> Prove that I'm wrong with some facts

Been there, done that.

> or just accept the truth.

No 'truth' to 'accept'

You are just plain wrong, the poms defined the nautical mile in terms
other than arc minutes before it was later defined in terms of the arc minute.

Like that or lump it.

>>>>> Then in about 1500 AD the Dutch invented the chip-log to determine vessel
>>>>> speed and the speeds were based on the nautical mile. That's when the
>>>>> modern definition of the knot came about.

>>>> Thats an entirely separate issue to its ORIGIN.

>>> But still important.

>> Not to the ORIGIN being discussed it aint.

> Then prove it.

Been there, done that.

[Fred At Home]

"Kwyjibo." <Kwyjibo@YourFingerFromThatDykeozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9641EA3C18C37dddddd@203.26.24.228...
> "Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> said
>
>>
>> "Kwyjibo." <Kwyjibo@YourFingerFromThatDykeozdebate.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns963ED3DEB23Adddddd@203.26.24.228...
>>> "Juan Mortyme" <JuanMortyme@Who'sAsking.com> said
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <khangu@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1113953892.158388.13310@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>>>>> Yeah, seems like good value.
>>>>>
>>>>> What brand & resolution does it have, and can I plug my pc to it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which Big W did you see this at?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Taken from page 5 of Big W's latest catalogue (on sale from Thursday
>>>> April
>>>> 21) :
>>>>
>>>> "AWA 81cm Wide-Screen LCD Television
>>>> HD TV ready, multiple aspect ratios, 176 degree viewing angle,
>>>> 500 cd/m2 brightness, 500:1 contrst ratio,
>>>
>>> That's a piss-poor contrast ratio.
>>
>> You've just showed us all that you know SFA about flat panel displays.
>>
>
> I was speaking generally.
> 500:1 *is* a piss-poor contrast ratio.
>

For a plasma screen or CRT, yes it is. But it is about par for a LCD
display.
But I digress. Manufacturer's specifications are absolutely meaningless. I
have seen tests on LCD monitors that claim 500:1 and only get 250:1 in real
life testing. I have a widescreen LCD PC monitor that looks like only about
100:1 in the top right hand corner but pretty good everywhere else. I have
run the THX optimiser on this panel and it passes easily when displaying
movies etc. It just looks below par when the whole screen is nearly black.

[Fred At Home]

"Fred" <Fred@bedrock.com> wrote in message
news:3d0gleF6p7rt4U1@individual.net...
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3cvn7lF6m6eooU1@individual.net...
>>
>> DAVO <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kjg9e.17047$5F3.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> > This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
>> > brilliant performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition
>> > makes this outstanding value and I for one will be buying one.
>>
>> It looks surprisingly small in the flesh tho.
>
> Is that so? I went looking at my local BigW, out of interest, but they
> didn't have one.
>
>>
>> > The fact Sony are walking away from Plasma
>> > and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>>
>> I couldnt care less what those clowns are doing.
>
> As a matter of interest, re LCD TV panels. There was something in
> DigiTimes
> the other day about how the Japanese makers are trying to remain
> competetive.
> http://www.digitimes.com/index.asp
> "Speaking at the Finetech Japan FPD equipment exhibition, Deutsche
> Securities analyst Fumiaki Sato stated that Japan-based home appliance
> makers should stop procuring LCD TV panels from Taiwan-based panel makers,
> as it will result in Japan-based panel makers losing their competitive
> edge.
>
> Although Taiwan-based makers are offering more attractive panel prices,
> over
> the long-term Japanese consumer electronics makers will see their profits
> erode if they choose to use Taiwan-made panels, as the trend will lead to
> drastic drops in LCD TV pricing, Sato said.
>
> Panel makers from Taiwan and South Korea have been aggressively expanding
> their capacity and their production value has already exceeded that of
> Japan
> makers. However, it is not likely that all players in the market will
> remain
> profitable, Hidetaka Fukuda, director of the Information and Communication
> Electronics Division at Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
> (METI) pointed out.
>
> According to Fukuda, Japan-based panel makers may not survive a price war.
> Therefore, they should accelerate their vertical integration along the TFT
> LCD supply chain and focus on protecting their intellectual property.
>
> In fact, Japan-based panel makers have already reshuffled their
> organizations to remain competitive, Fukuda stated. Fujitsu sold its LCD
> division to Sharp while Sony recently acquired International Display
> Technology (IDTech) from Taiwan's Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO). In
> addition, Hitachi, Matsushita Electric Industrial and Toshiba have formed
> a
> joint venture (IPS Alpha Technology) for sixth-generation (6G) panel
> manufacturing, Fukuda explained.
>
> Although Taiwan-based panel makers such as AU Optronics (AUO) and CMO are
> offer a complete LCD TV panel lineup, they still mostly focus on the
> under-30-inch segments. Japan- and South Korea-based panel makers are more
> aggressive in offering panels for the over-40-inch segments.
>
> Deutsche Securities Asia's Taiwan branch was not available for comment at
> the time of publication."
>
I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about. LCD panels look shit. Only
CRT rear projectors look worse. ALL other technology looks better. If you've
got the room a DLP projector is the best, next plasma, next CRT and last
choice LCD. They will have to inprove LCD heaps before I contemplate buying.
Even if that AWA 81cm was $800, I'd still have second thoughts.

[Rod Speed]

"Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:426c3bd6$0$4655$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Fred" <Fred@bedrock.com> wrote in message
> news:3d0gleF6p7rt4U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3cvn7lF6m6eooU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> DAVO <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kjg9e.17047$5F3.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> > This has to be the buy of the year. The best of both worlds, the
>>> > brilliant performance of LCD flat panel together with High Definition
>>> > makes this outstanding value and I for one will be buying one.
>>>
>>> It looks surprisingly small in the flesh tho.
>>
>> Is that so? I went looking at my local BigW, out of interest, but they
>> didn't have one.
>>
>>>
>>> > The fact Sony are walking away from Plasma
>>> > and devoting to LCD says enough for me.
>>>
>>> I couldnt care less what those clowns are doing.
>>
>> As a matter of interest, re LCD TV panels. There was something in DigiTimes
>> the other day about how the Japanese makers are trying to remain
>> competetive.
>> http://www.digitimes.com/index.asp
>> "Speaking at the Finetech Japan FPD equipment exhibition, Deutsche
>> Securities analyst Fumiaki Sato stated that Japan-based home appliance
>> makers should stop procuring LCD TV panels from Taiwan-based panel makers,
>> as it will result in Japan-based panel makers losing their competitive edge.
>>
>> Although Taiwan-based makers are offering more attractive panel prices, over
>> the long-term Japanese consumer electronics makers will see their profits
>> erode if they choose to use Taiwan-made panels, as the trend will lead to
>> drastic drops in LCD TV pricing, Sato said.
>>
>> Panel makers from Taiwan and South Korea have been aggressively expanding
>> their capacity and their production value has already exceeded that of Japan
>> makers. However, it is not likely that all players in the market will remain
>> profitable, Hidetaka Fukuda, director of the Information and Communication
>> Electronics Division at Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
>> (METI) pointed out.
>>
>> According to Fukuda, Japan-based panel makers may not survive a price war.
>> Therefore, they should accelerate their vertical integration along the TFT
>> LCD supply chain and focus on protecting their intellectual property.
>>
>> In fact, Japan-based panel makers have already reshuffled their
>> organizations to remain competitive, Fukuda stated. Fujitsu sold its LCD
>> division to Sharp while Sony recently acquired International Display
>> Technology (IDTech) from Taiwan's Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO). In
>> addition, Hitachi, Matsushita Electric Industrial and Toshiba have formed a
>> joint venture (IPS Alpha Technology) for sixth-generation (6G) panel
>> manufacturing, Fukuda explained.
>>
>> Although Taiwan-based panel makers such as AU Optronics (AUO) and CMO are
>> offer a complete LCD TV panel lineup, they still mostly focus on the
>> under-30-inch segments. Japan- and South Korea-based panel makers are more
>> aggressive in offering panels for the over-40-inch segments.
>>
>> Deutsche Securities Asia's Taiwan branch was not available for comment at
>> the time of publication."

> I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about. LCD panels look shit. Only
> CRT rear projectors look worse. ALL other technology looks better. If you've
> got the room a DLP projector is the best, next plasma, next CRT and last
> choice LCD. They will have to inprove LCD heaps before I contemplate buying.
> Even if that AWA 81cm was $800, I'd still have second thoughts.

That particular one doesnt look too bad at all in the sort of lighting
levels that are common inside Woolys if you dont mind the fact that
it looks rather smaller than I expected an 81cm display to be.

I still prefer glass tho at that size.

[Michael]

Plasma and DLP looks better than CRT? Rubbish.

"Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:426c3bd6$0$4655$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about. LCD panels look shit.
> Only CRT rear projectors look worse. ALL other technology looks better. If
> you've got the room a DLP projector is the best, next plasma, next CRT and
> last choice LCD. They will have to inprove LCD heaps before I contemplate
> buying. Even if that AWA 81cm was $800, I'd still have second thoughts.

[Firefly]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d2eteF6mfkr7U1@individual.net...
>
> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
>
>> We were talking about the origin of the nautical mile.
>
> Which comes from the knot, stupid.
>
No, stupid child. The definition of the nautical mile had nothing to do with
the knot. The modern definition of the knot came about as a result of the
definition of the nautical mile.

> Pity that the nautical mile was related to the
> knot in pomland well before the arc minute.

PROOF?

*remaining irrelevant garbage deleted*

[Rod Speed]

Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:JZ0be.23977$5F3.16720@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message

>>> We were talking about the origin of the nautical mile.

>> Which comes from the knot, stupid.

> No, stupid child.

Fraid so, fuckwit.

> The definition of the nautical mile had nothing to do with the knot.

Wrong again with the ORIGIN of the nautical mile.

> The modern definition of the knot

Completely and utterly irrelevant TO THE ORIGIN BEING DISCUSSED.

> came about as a result of the definition of the nautical mile.

Pity the ORIGIN of the knot was LONG before that modern
definition of the nautical mile in terms of the arc minute.

>> Pity that the nautical mile was related to the
>> knot in pomland well before the arc minute.

> PROOF?

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to find plenty of use of the
knot long before the nautical mile was defined in terms of the arc minute.

You in fact provided that proof yourself with your comment about
the egyptian use of the knot and the poms used the knot before
the modern definition of the nautical mile in terms of the arc minute too.

> *remaining irrelevant garbage deleted*

Pathetic, really.

[DAVO]

> What he said is completely correct.

No he is totally incorrect. How does a screen size of 82inches and a
contrast ratio of 10,000:1.

http://www.samsung.com/au/presscenter/pressrelease/australianews_20050311_0000107600.asp

Next??

DAVO

[Firefly]

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9Zjbe.24980$5F3.12995@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> What he said is completely correct.
>
> No he is totally incorrect. How does a screen size of 82inches and a
> contrast ratio of 10,000:1.

Is that a statement or an unfinished question?

[Firefly]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d5375F6pmiemU1@individual.net...
>
> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
> news:JZ0be.23977$5F3.16720@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> We were talking about the origin of the nautical mile.
>
>>> Which comes from the knot, stupid.
>
>> No, stupid child.
>
> Fraid so, fuckwit.

Typical Rood Speed tactic. Start losing an insult and you just have to start
insulting.
Fine. I can play a better game.

PLONK!

[Network Buzzard]

Teac? Why not? I have a marvelous 80cm CRT ROWA (Teac) TV. Had it for 2
years now and bought it for $650 back then. I do agree that Teac make
terrible components in some things but not all things. I would not buy Teac
Hi-Fi or PC products but their TV's are usually reasonably good. Heaps
better than some of the brands coming out like Centrex and Hyundai and the
likes...

"ant" <ant_kNOT@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:3cp16hF6oa6glU1@individual.net...
> The Nerk wrote:
> > ant wrote:
> >> damnfine wrote:
> >>> "DAVO" wrote:
> >>>> Sorry, of course it should read 81cm.
> >>>
> >>> Hehe... ok because an 81" LCD for under 2K sounded like the buy of
> >>> the century. :-D
> >>>
> >>> If you like that sort of thing...
> >>
> >> Yeah, I was getting all excited there for a minute!
> >> what's 81cm in inches? considerably smaller, I'm guessing.
> >> I'll hang on to my crappy 68" Teac conventional for a bit longer.
>
> > = 81 * 0.4
> >
> > = 32"
>
> Oh. bummer. So it's sort-of computer sized. Ha!
>
> btw, don't buy anything made by Teac.
>
> ant
>
> > The Nerk
>
>
>

[Fred At Home]

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9Zjbe.24980$5F3.12995@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> What he said is completely correct.
>
> No he is totally incorrect. How does a screen size of 82inches and a
> contrast ratio of 10,000:1.
>
> http://www.samsung.com/au/presscenter/pressrelease/australianews_20050311_0000107600.asp
>
> Next??
>
> DAVO
>
That's just the manufacturer's claim. So any reference to it is ludicrous.

[Mr.T]

> "DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9Zjbe.24980$5F3.12995@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> No he is totally incorrect. How does a screen size of 82inches and a
> contrast ratio of 10,000:1.
> >
> >
http://www.samsung.com/au/presscenter/pressrelease/australianews_20050311_00
00107600.asp


Funny that their other LCD TV's are only 600:1 contrast ratio.

I'll believe it when I see it!

MrT.

[wse]

Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
news:7vkbe.25012$5F3.22426@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Firefly <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message

>>>>> We were talking about the origin of the nautical mile.

>>>> Which comes from the knot, stupid.

>>> No, stupid child.

>> Fraid so, fuckwit.

> Typical Rood Speed tactic. Start losing an insult and you just have to start
> insulting.
> Fine. I can play a better game.

> PLONK!

Typical gutless fuckwit tactic. Ends up so far down the
hole that all it can do is that pathetically juvenile stunt now.

Taint gunna save your bacon, fuckwit.

[Richard Kelly]

> }On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:15:46 +1000, Luke Webber <luke@webber.com.au>
> }wrote:
> }
> }>Jim Vatunz wrote:
> }>
> }>> You'd better check that. I think that's just a commonly held belief.
> }>> I think you'll find that the USA is the only non SI holdout with some
> }>> exceptions such as Jamaica also using Fahrenheit and Britain still
> }>> hanging onto a few archaic things like pints and miles (they'll have
> }>> to drop miles in the near future as they have no sensible means of
> }>> publishing any fuel consumption figures)
> }>
> }>What? What about the widely-accepted gills per chain measure? Not good
> }>enough for you? And everybody I know measures speed in furlongs per
> }>fortnight. It's the only measure that makes sense! ;^)
> }>
> }>Luke
> } "My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like
> }it!"
> }--Grandpa Simpson.
>
> ObNitpick
>
> Monty Burns, shirley?
>
> <snip>

Ah, nope...

[Brett Mount]

And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Richard Kelly with some words for
aus.dvd:

}> } "My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like
}> }it!"
}> }--Grandpa Simpson.
}>
}> ObNitpick
}>
}> Monty Burns, shirley?
}>
}> <snip>
}
}Ah, nope...

Well, damn! Right you (and Jim Vatunz, also quoted above) are.

Damn faulty memory...

--
Brett

"I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous
I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis"

[tony_h]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
> news:xFE9e.18349$5F3.10655@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:42670a72@news.comindico.com.au...
>>>
>>> **The UK is Metric.
>>
>> And yet they use feet, miles, gallons and a host of other imperial
>> measurments more commonly than they do metric.
>
> **Prove it. And in your proof, show what the official government line
> is on Metric.

When I was there in 98 the hire car's speedo was in miles/hour with a very
small km/hour ring in the middle, presumably as it was a Renault which, with
heritage from France (and probably will go across the channel to there a few
times in its life) will need to indicate km/hour for the metric Europe.
I am 90% sure the speed limit signs were in miles/hour too (7 years ago, I
should remember that far back...grrr...)

Regards
Tony

--�
http://tonyspage.abock.de for some Topfield info including turning
those recordings into DVDs, adding features with the open source TAP
environment etc...

[Wayne Reid]

> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> wrote in message
> > news:xFE9e.18349$5F3.10655@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >>
> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:42670a72@news.comindico.com.au...
> >>>
> >>> **The UK is Metric.
> >>
> >> And yet they use feet, miles, gallons and a host of other imperial
> >> measurments more commonly than they do metric.
> >
> > **Prove it. And in your proof, show what the official government line
> > is on Metric.

http://www.metric.org.uk/ is a reasonable place to start.

WR