Subject: Re: "Carboniferous fossil human bones" -- new data available
From: email@example.com (Mark O'Leary)
Date: 12 Jun 1996 12:08:37 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Ben Waggoner wrote:
> what looks to Ed like eight inches, for
>instance, might only look like three or four to me.
Now *that* is a horrific mental image. 8}
Back on the subject, it is patently obvious that an image with a scale bar
included supplys all the data neccessary to calculate scale of the image
whilst allowing for the fact that web viewers vary the absolute scale
unpredictably. I have made exactly the same argument recently whilst
advising an academic department in setting up its web pages, and my own
scientiofic publications have included both the magnification at which the
image was taken (as a methodological note relating to the equipment used)
and a scale bar in the images themselves, as a means to determine the scale
of the image and the size of the features it included.
Ed must be aware of this, and it is highly dishonest to raise this
non-existant objection as a reason for rejecting the unfavourable data. From
what anyone can see on the WWW, *they aren't bone*.
-=-=-=-=-=- -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -- . -.-. --- --- ... .-.-.- -=-=-=-=-
Mark O'Leary, Voice: Extn. 6201
Network & Communications Group. Email: email@example.com
De Montfort University, UK.