If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
Brian C. Baird wrote:
I think you're grasping at straws. I think you're on a crusade to display your inability to discuss technical issues in a cogent manner. This is, of course, on of the perqs of Usenet. |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
McLeod wrote: Calgary, Alberta. Where the men are men and the sheep are nervous. no need to be nervous if they are white sheep! |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
on of the perqs
~~~ s.b. one of the perqs |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
on of the perks
~~~ s.b. one of the perqs (or "perks", if you insist, but I like this shortened form of "perquisites") |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry for the multiple corrections.
OE suddenly started doing something I've not seen before, substituting the "replay all" routine for "reply group" and I was receiving "File not sent" errors since the mail to by spamblocked email return addy were bounced. I didn't realize what was happening, kept rewriting the correction and resending. Either that or, as many of you have said already, I am a puswit. Could be. Maybe you have a point. ;-) |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
"replay all"
~~~~ "reply all" I'm going to bed. |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
mickey dunston wrote:
Brian C. Baird wrote: I just hope you don't treat 120.0000 inches divided by 2.0000 inches as 60.0000 inches... Another display of vast ignorance. Trailing zeroes are never counted as significant digits. Duh! They most certainly are if they're to the right of the decimal point, as any high school or college chemistry text should tell you. They're even significant to the left of the decimal point if the decimal point is expressly indicated. The number "1200." has four significant digits, while "1200" is a form which should be avoided since it's technically ambiguous; it could have two, three, or four significant digits, though two is often what is assumed. As for the division problem above, I come up with an answer of 60.000 (unitless, the inches cancel out) if I use what I recall as the basic rules of thumb for sig. figs. BJJB |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
: the fact is the world is changing to digital imaging. More and more stores will scan film and print on a digital machine, or print direct from digital files. It is becoming rarer to find wet chemistry printing services. Publications are moving to digital images and digital processes. This is a reflection of three primary things: skill, cost, and time. I might point out, neither of these reflect any degree of quality. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
: You can argue arcane numbers all you want, but SHOW ME THE IMAGES. So basically, you want to hide behind qualitative gobbeldigook instead of making repeatable, quantifiable judgements. That's not very scientific at all. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey, before vanishing, I suggest you read Brian's post a little
more carefully and try to let it sink in. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Even on one point alone, the one of common units - in the initial example, Jon Pike changed the units by a factor of 10.. The ONLY time 2 digit-after-decimal precision is worthwhile is not only with common units, but also when all the ratios and manipulations are of a similar magnitude. And as for that 25.4 vs .3937 example - you are NOT comparing commun units again!, and by definition, the 25.4 is EXACT - there is no need for any extra zeros to be included. However, if you were specifiying the dimensions of a precise object, you would either have to add the required number of zeroes, or a tolerance. Otherwise, the engineer who has to follow your instructions should come to you asking for more information. To a REAL engineer who doesn't make assumptions: - 25.4mm means anything above 25.35mm and below 25.45mm. - 0.3937" means anything above 0.39365" (9.9987mm) and below 0.39375" (10.001mm) Which is the more accurate, Mickey? (O; |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? | Chris | Digital Photography | 5 | September 25th 04 07:43 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |