On Fri 2006-10-27T01:37:16 +, Michael Sokolov hath writ:
> Would you or anyone else on the list be so kind as to provide an ASCII
> translation of that application/msword attachment for those of us who
> have absolutely no ability to read proprietary formats?
Some of the punctuation and URLs h
Daniel R. Tobias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why people always feel compelled to use proprietary Microsoftism file
> formats for things that could be epressed perfectly fine in plain
> ASCII text I have no idea.
Would you or anyone else on the list be so kind as to provide an ASCII
translation o
On 26 Oct 2006 at 16:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> FYI - this was written for distribution to all interested parties.
Why people always feel compelled to use proprietary Microsoftism file
formats for things that could be epressed perfectly fine in plain
ASCII text I have no idea.
--
== Dan ==
D
On Thu 2006-10-26T16:01:55 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath
forwarded:
After the introduction of the document the WP-7A counsellor
informed WP-7A that a preliminary document i.e. the PDRR, could
not be circulated beyond WP-7A according to ITU-R resolutions nor
could the currently in
Zefram said:
>> There's nothing at all wrong with the radian - but there is a reason
>> calculators let you switch between degrees and radians. Each is best
>> for particular purposes,
> Certainly the radian is best for some purposes. But the degree? Is there
> some inherent feature of the circl
FYI – this was written for
distribution to all interested parties.
WP 7A meeting in Geneva August 28, 2006.doc
Description: MS-Word document
Rob Seaman wrote:
>There's nothing at all wrong with the radian - but there is a reason
>calculators let you switch between degrees and radians. Each is best
>for particular purposes,
Certainly the radian is best for some purposes. But the degree? Is there
some inherent feature of the circle th
Zefram wrote:
the radian is not a very practical unit.
There's nothing at all wrong with the radian - but there is a reason
calculators let you switch between degrees and radians. Each is best
for particular purposes, just as interval time and time-of-day are
best for different uses. See als
Rob Seaman wrote:
>Presumably folks who dismiss sexagesimal Sumerian units for clocks
>would also welcome the deprecation of degrees for measuring angles.
Oh yes. But the radian is not a very practical unit. I prefer to use
the circle: 1 cr = 2 _pi rad. Similarly, for solid angle, the sphere:
1
John Cowan wrote:
MAPS: In general the flybys around T20 are relatively similar. They
approach over 35degrees latitude, ~135degrees west longitude
(moving from north to south) and local time is around 2 am.
Bizarre. So each Titan local day is 24 local hours long, where an
hour
is about 57.4 k
Peter Bunclark scripsit:
> MAPS: In general the flybys around T20 are relatively similar. They
> approach over 35degrees latitude, ~135degrees west longitude (moving from
> north to south) and local time is around 2 am.
Bizarre. So each Titan local day is 24 local hours long, where an hour
is ab
I rather like this, it's a quote from the most recent Cassini fly-by of
Titan; another example of the ingrained assumption that "local time" is
equivalent to rotation angle (because illumination incidence is important
to these guys).
MAPS: In general the flybys around T20 are relatively similar.
12 matches
Mail list logo
