ATC Altimeter Settings

One is subjective, the other is objective. What some people think is
long, others would say is short. Longer or longest can be measured,
howeever.

Some people would say this thread is long. Some would even say too
long.

It is certainly longer than it needs to be, and a shorter thread would
have been bettter.

But it's not the longest thread I've ever seen, nor is it certainly
the shortest.

But then, my memory is short. I often wish it were longer.




On 11 Apr 2005 06:15:53 GMT, Stan Gosnell wrote:

"Chris" wrote in
:


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

Incorrect, that's longer, i.e. there are two long runways but
one is longer than the other, or two short runways with one longer.


Wouldn't the longer of the two be the long one?

Nope the longer of the two would be the longer one. They could both be
long ones, but only one can be longer.

The longer of the two could still be short. If the longer was only 500',
I would still call that short. It's longer, but short. Or you could say
the other one was the shorter one. But you don't have to call me Ray.

wrote in message
...
Some people would say this thread is long. Some would even say too
long.

It is certainly longer than it needs to be, and a shorter thread would
have been bettter.

But it's not the longest thread I've ever seen, nor is it certainly
the shortest.

But then, my memory is short. I often wish it were longer.


Your memory is neither long nor short. Memory has no length. It simply has
purpose, the operation of remembering.

Time, arguably, has length. It is true that memory may be able to operate
only on the recent past time-span, and not on the long past time-span as
well ....but what is worse: even if it can operate on a long past time-span,
that operation may be innacurate.

:-)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:27:37 -0400, "Icebound"
wrote:

Time, arguably, has length. It is true that memory may be able to operate
only on the recent past time-span, and not on the long past time-span as
well ....but what is worse: even if it can operate on a long past time-span,
that operation may be innacurate.


There is no time in a any sense that can be expressed in length.
Time is only a word we use for measuring change.

Things just exist. Just becaause a rock in space has spun around
another rock n times does not imply some "length".

You are not older than you were 30 years ago. Your cellular structure
has simply changed.

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:27:37 -0400, "Icebound"
wrote:

Time, arguably, has length. It is true that memory may be able to operate
only on the recent past time-span, and not on the long past time-span as
well ....but what is worse: even if it can operate on a long past
time-span,
that operation may be innacurate.


There is no time in a any sense that can be expressed in length.
Time is only a word we use for measuring change.

Things just exist. Just becaause a rock in space has spun around
another rock n times does not imply some "length".

You are not older than you were 30 years ago. Your cellular structure
has simply changed.

Time (sic) to re-requote one of the more astute observations in this
sub-thread:

"It is certainly longer than it needs to be, and a shorter thread would
have been better."

:-)