Paris Metro question

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jeremy Henderson writes:

From which I deduce that you are a poor map reader. As am I, for that
matter.

I'm an excellent map reader, but I know better than to try to drive and
read a map at the same time.

Your method will, in the very best of cases, yield the shortest route
between two points. A map will be more likely to yield the fastest route.
Using multimap I found the fastest and shortest routes from Paris to
Berlin (the first two cities I happened to think of). The shortest route
takes 10hrs50mins. The quickest takes 8hrs40mins. That's quite a
significant difference.

The main advantage of the GPS for me is not having to look at a map,
which requires stopping the car. It also makes it unnecessary to keep
track of where I am. I've driven across France through countryside that
was completely unknown to me, and I still reached my destination in good
time. I also saw an eclipse thanks to the GPS, which was able to guide
me to the centerline of the Moon's shadow with great accuracy.

How lucky you were to use a GPS. I went to the "acropole" of Laon to
see from a high point the movement of the moon shadow. But a big cloud
came before and stopped on the sun until about 15 mn... after the
eclipse. Then the sun and sky remained clear during... hours. GRRR ! I
should go to Egypt next time !

didier Meurgues

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jeremy Henderson writes:

From which I deduce that you are a poor map reader. As am I, for that
matter.

I'm an excellent map reader, but I know better than to try to drive and
read a map at the same time.

Your method will, in the very best of cases, yield the shortest route
between two points. A map will be more likely to yield the fastest route.
Using multimap I found the fastest and shortest routes from Paris to
Berlin (the first two cities I happened to think of). The shortest route
takes 10hrs50mins. The quickest takes 8hrs40mins. That's quite a
significant difference.

The main advantage of the GPS for me is not having to look at a map,
which requires stopping the car. It also makes it unnecessary to keep
track of where I am. I've driven across France through countryside that
was completely unknown to me, and I still reached my destination in good
time. I also saw an eclipse thanks to the GPS, which was able to guide
me to the centerline of the Moon's shadow with great accuracy.

How lucky you were to use a GPS. I went to the "acropole" of Laon to
see from a high point the movement of the moon shadow. But a big cloud
came before and stopped on the sun until about 15 mn... after the
eclipse. Then the sun and sky remained clear during... hours. GRRR ! I
should go to Egypt next time !

didier Meurgues

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jeremy Henderson writes:

From which I deduce that you are a poor map reader. As am I, for that
matter.

I'm an excellent map reader, but I know better than to try to drive and
read a map at the same time.

Your method will, in the very best of cases, yield the shortest route
between two points. A map will be more likely to yield the fastest route.
Using multimap I found the fastest and shortest routes from Paris to
Berlin (the first two cities I happened to think of). The shortest route
takes 10hrs50mins. The quickest takes 8hrs40mins. That's quite a
significant difference.

The main advantage of the GPS for me is not having to look at a map,
which requires stopping the car. It also makes it unnecessary to keep
track of where I am. I've driven across France through countryside that
was completely unknown to me, and I still reached my destination in good
time. I also saw an eclipse thanks to the GPS, which was able to guide
me to the centerline of the Moon's shadow with great accuracy.

How lucky you were to use a GPS. I went to the "acropole" of Laon to
see from a high point the movement of the moon shadow. But a big cloud
came before and stopped on the sun until about 15 mn... after the TOTAL
eclipse. Then the sun and sky remained clear during... hours. GRRR ! I
should go to Egypt next time !

didier Meurgues

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jeremy Henderson writes:

That depends on what susprises you.

Logically someone who insists that it cannot work would be surprised to
discover that it does indeed work.

I think it's normal courtesy to make at least a modicum of effort to
understand the postings of a non-native speaker.

Either I understand or I don't. If I don't understand, there's nothing
I can do to change that.

Simple enough - suppose you arrive in Paris on the A1 heading south and
you arrive at the Peripherique (at the N edge of Paris). You have somehow
managed to find the lat and long of Port d'Italie (on the S edge of
Paris), your destination, so you follow your arrow and head on into Paris.
However, the better road to follow would be perpendicular to the arrow,
i.e. the Peripherique, so your method fails.

Heading into Paris is the shorter route, and it may also be the fastest
one. I've done that before in order to save time--the Périphérique is
often a parking lot for several hours of each day. Watch the traffic
patterns during rush hour or at the start or end of vacation periods,
and you'll see.

Particularly, since Jeremy choosed to cross Paris to the South from
the A1... One day around 9PM a british guy picked me up in his car on
Bvd de Sebastopol and asked me to help him to cross Paris because he
was fearing to get lost. He was amased to see that the road was quasi
in straight line until Porte d'Orleans and the A20. So virtually all
the way through except on the little northern part of bvd Magenta. But
that's less easy in the other cases... without a GPS :+)

didier Meurgues

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jeremy Henderson writes:

That depends on what susprises you.

Logically someone who insists that it cannot work would be surprised to
discover that it does indeed work.

I think it's normal courtesy to make at least a modicum of effort to
understand the postings of a non-native speaker.

Either I understand or I don't. If I don't understand, there's nothing
I can do to change that.

Simple enough - suppose you arrive in Paris on the A1 heading south and
you arrive at the Peripherique (at the N edge of Paris). You have somehow
managed to find the lat and long of Port d'Italie (on the S edge of
Paris), your destination, so you follow your arrow and head on into Paris.
However, the better road to follow would be perpendicular to the arrow,
i.e. the Peripherique, so your method fails.

Heading into Paris is the shorter route, and it may also be the fastest
one. I've done that before in order to save time--the Périphérique is
often a parking lot for several hours of each day. Watch the traffic
patterns during rush hour or at the start or end of vacation periods,
and you'll see.

Particularly, since Jeremy choosed to cross Paris to the South from
the A1... One day around 9PM a british guy picked me up in his car on
Bvd de Sebastopol and asked me to help him to cross Paris because he
was fearing to get lost. He was amased to see that the road was quasi
in straight line until Porte d'Orleans and the A20. So virtually all
the way through except on the little northern part of bvd Magenta. But
that's less easy in the other cases... without a GPS :+)

didier Meurgues

meurgues writes:

How lucky you were to use a GPS. I went to the "acropole" of Laon to
see from a high point the movement of the moon shadow. But a big cloud
came before and stopped on the sun until about 15 mn... after the
eclipse. Then the sun and sky remained clear during... hours. GRRR ! I
should go to Egypt next time !

I saw the eclipse from beneath a cloud cover, too. But I was indeed on
the path of totality. The GPS can't say much about the weather (and
neither could Météo France).

Still, it was the most impressive natural phenomenon I've seen.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
I saw the eclipse from beneath a cloud cover, too. But I was indeed on
the path of totality. The GPS can't say much about the weather (and
neither could Météo France).

Still, it was the most impressive natural phenomenon I've seen.

You should have gone to Aruba:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/terryr999/Aruba.htm

T.

Terry Richards writes:

You should have gone to Aruba:

I don't like to travel. This one was very convenient to my location.

Why do people feel so compelled to try to take photographs of an
eclipse? There are billions of photographs of eclipses already
available, and they all look the same. And since none of them compares
to actually seeing one in person, why bother adding to the pile?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

I don't like to travel. This one was very convenient to my location.

Ahhh, so that's why you spend so much time on a travel group

Why do people feel so compelled to try to take photographs of an
eclipse? There are billions of photographs of eclipses already
available, and they all look the same.

Why indeed?

Probably for the same reason that I like to make my own furniture. There is
a sense of accomplishment even if the results aren't as good as something I
could buy.

- From an address at Rice University on the USA's Space Effort (Delivered in
person by John F. Kennedy, Houston, Texas September 12, 1962):

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and
do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,
because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our
energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to
accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win,
and the others, too. "

- And later in the same speech:

Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on
Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it
is there."

I'm not claiming that taking a picture of the eclipse in either way matched
these acomplishments but it *was* a hard thing to do, I achieved a measure
of success in doing it, and I had a lot of fun doing so. These reasons are
reason enough for me.

And since none of them compares
to actually seeing one in person, why bother adding to the pile?

I did get to see it in person. It's not an either/or situation.

T.