Re: anachronisms?

In article <5krto31abrdlh9mcti2o8d0u32op62gpqd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> Dead reckoning is *not* an accurate navigational technique.  Not to 
> within one percent, not even to within ten percent.  Dead reckoning is
> what you use between visual or celestial fixes, to minimize the error
> that ac***ulates between points where you actually do know where you
> are.  
> 


It was the most accurate available and using it European sailors went 
all round the world for example Drake. 

It was also used by the Dutch to go to Japan and the East Indies.

It took a lot of effort to do, required trained people and was replaced 
by better methods in the 1800s. 

Now let me read to you what mcv <mcvmcv@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote that sparked 
this debate off.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While reading Asimov's _Second Foundation_, the book proudly described
a really clever system that made it really easy for relatively untrained
people to figure out exactly where in the galaxy they are. Before the
invention of that item, figuring out your location took days or weeks,
but all I was thinking was: if this process is this simple, why the
hell isn't it automated in the first place?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now what exactly are you objecting too?