Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Paul Furman <paul-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:26:22 -0800
Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-02-04 17:38:06 -0800, Peter N <peter.new@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:On 2/4/2011 7:29 PM, Savageduck wrote:On 2011-02-04 15:47:36 -0800, Robert Coe <bob@xxxxxxxx> said:On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:13:30 -0500, Peter N
<peternew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
: On 2/3/2011 10:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
: > On 2011-02-03 18:50:40 -0800, Robert Coe <bob@xxxxxxxx> said:
: >
: >> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 22:48:29 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: >> <ozcvgtt02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: >> : Peter N <peternew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: >> : > If this format performs as claimed and it adapted, it could
: >> end the debate.
: >> : > Claim: lossless JPEG.
<http://www.sdtimes.com/content/resources.aspx?ShowOnlyResourceID=400&RefID=SpecialNeeds2.2>
: >> You are aware that at least Canon's RAW is already compressed
by the
: >> : lossless JPEG method?
: >> : In other news, the new century began on the first of January
1901.
: >> Indeed it did. And I won't embarrass you by suggesting that you
don't
: >> know
: >> that it wasn't *this* new century. ;^)
: >> Bob
: > Yup! That was January 1, 2001.
: January 1, 2000.
Bzzzzzzt!! 2000 was the last year of the twentieth century. You could
say it's
the year after which the twentieth century was named.
Bob
Yup! the count starts with year #1 not year #0.
Therefore year #1 of the Twentieth Century was 1901, and the Twenty
First Century 2001.
Millennia are somewhat different, but not much. For that it is a case of
window dressing, just because the numbering went from 1xxx to 2xxx, it
looks like a different st of a 1000 years, but you would actually be 1
short with 999. The best you could say, was 2000 was the last year of
the second Millennium and the last year of the Twentieth Century.
If a baby's first birthday is after he has completed one year of life,
his 100th is after he has completed 100 years of life. Thus if he is
born on 12:001 PM on 1/1/1900, he will have completed 100 years of
life at 12:001 on 1/1/2000. After the 1/10th of a second elapsed he
will commence his 101st year of life.
Agreed. However, the first year of his life is 1900, just as the first
year of the first century CE was 1 CE since there was no year 0 CE.
Neither year has to be complete for them to be that first year of life
or the century.
So what is true for the baby, is true for the century. 1900 + 100 = 2000
for the baby; 1CE + 100 = 101 CE, or to make things more current
1901(1CE +1900) + 100 = 2001.
LOL, OK here's what makes sense to me: when a baby is said to be age 1, they are living through their second year after birth. I currently fill out forms as age 47 but am into my 48th year of breathing air. I don't get to call myself 48 till I've finished the 48th year.
LOL because that's probably the first time I actually bothered to understand the whole Century thing <g>.
Little kids would probably get a kick out of that:
Man: How old are you little boy?
Boy: I'm in my 10th year!
Man: Oh, you're 9 then...
Boy: :-(
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Robert Coe
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Savageduck
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- References:
- possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Peter N
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Wolfgang Weisselberg
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Robert Coe
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Savageduck
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Peter N
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Robert Coe
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Savageduck
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Peter N
- Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- From: Savageduck
- possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- Prev by Date: Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- Next by Date: Re: Photographing glass . . .
- Previous by thread: Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- Next by thread: Re: possible end to jpeg v raw debate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|