Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:18 am
LΘL◄
Since 2006
https://bestnetworx.net/
Strictly speaking, they're not: because of them wearing down or being damaged on the end, they're thought of as being inaccurate taken from there as a measure. So to be sure, as Rob had pointed out, you'd start measuring from 1 instead, then subtract 1 from the result. Although you'd tend to start from one whole unit, so one whole centimetre or one inch. Not one millimetre like that n00b Pens did. That's why most modern rulers measurements start a few millimetres in.George wrote:A steel rule like that starts at the edge
They are accurate from that point
But, you're right, it is either/or a contextually bullshit argument. Whatever one of those is.benecol wrote:Strictly speaking
Being the one model where they didn't make any glaring errors I didn't want to look at the price because I was expecting $1500+. $5200 gives it the comedy value of the rest of the new models.George wrote:Can't believe that bass is $5200. what a joke
I'm sorry, WHAT?!George wrote:Can't believe that bass is $5200.
it could be a misprint but yeah, fender online catalogue lists it for 5k. UNREAL.Thom wrote:I'm sorry, WHAT?!George wrote:Can't believe that bass is $5200.
I laughed a little harder than I should'vedaftsupernova wrote: ITT: BUTTHURT HIPSTERS AND ANTIHIPSTERS ARGUE OVER THE RIDICULOUSNESS OF FUCKING EVERYTHING FENDER DOES AND THE CRITICISMS OF THOSE THINGS FENDER DOES
Yeah knew you meant the p bass, even so....damn....George wrote:it could be a misprint but yeah, fender online catalogue lists it for 5k. UNREAL.Thom wrote:I'm sorry, WHAT?!George wrote:Can't believe that bass is $5200.
it's no doubt because of the aging.
they could release it new with no relicy bells and whistles and it would be an excellent seller
EDIT: sorry, should probably specify that's for the 50s P Bass, not the bass iv.
Actually, you don't start from any given line, you place down the rule, take the measure of the first, take the last and subtract. Starting from a line(or attempting to) biases your measure.benecol wrote:Strictly speaking, they're not: because of them wearing down or being damaged on the end, they're thought of as being inaccurate taken from there as a measure. So to be sure, as Rob had pointed out, you'd start measuring from 1 instead, then subtract 1 from the result. Although you'd tend to start from one whole unit, so one whole centimetre or one inch. Not one millimetre like that n00b Pens did. That's why most modern rulers measurements start a few millimetres in.George wrote:A steel rule like that starts at the edge
They are accurate from that point
All that being said, I've got a steel rule that starts right from the end, and it's jolly handy. I check it's undamaged and still calibrated every month. As I do my spirit levels.
I am aware that you can start from any point and subtract that from your measurement, but since the whole numbers are marked more clearly, it makes for a more accurate measurement. I went to an old fashioned grammar school dear boy; do you not think we had stuff like this drummed into us?Ankhanu wrote:Actually, you don't start from any given line, you place down the rule, take the measure of the first, take the last and subtract. Starting from a line(or attempting to) biases your measure.