BigW 81" LCD HD under $2000

[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.