On Wed, 21 May 2008 11:04:01 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>Warp wrote:
>>   Yeah, I love it that "ounce" means different things depending on whether
>> you are talking about solids or fluids,
>
>Well, there one is weight and one is volume. :-) Of course, "ounce" 
>means different things depending on whether you're talking about 
>precious metals or dry goods, too, so I can't really say you're wrong.

You forgot about ounce-force (pound-force lbf is more common in my
experience)

>> "mile" means different things on land than on sea, 
>
>This is because the "nautical mile" accounts for waves, basically.
>
LOL
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> BTW a myriad is ten thousand .

I'm told that in Old English or something, "severn" actually means 
"infinity". Or something like that.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:35:25 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> A million is a thousand times a thousand.
>> A billion is a million times a million.
>
>You still stopped before "trillion". What's a trillion in the UK, then?

So I did; a trillion is a million times a billion. Sorry see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

>> BTW a myriad is ten thousand .
>
>It's sometimes funny here. In chinese, there are distinct words (like 
>myriad or milliard) for other powers of 10 also, so she often has to 
>stop and think for some time to figure out what something like "a 
>hundred and six thousand" is in digits.

Interesting, to me a milliard is also a billion (10^9)
With any luck I'll find out more as I've just applied for a job in
China.

>I was talking more
>one, thousand, million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, ....

Again see long scales
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> So I did; a trillion is a million times a billion. Sorry see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

Cool, thanks!

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

In article <4832f58e$1@news.povray.org>, 
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid says...
> scott wrote:
> > 
> > Have different speed limits depending on how much pollution your car 
> > produces.  Allow the most fuel efficient cars to go slightly faster tha
n 
> > they can today, and make other cars go slower.  In the centre of cities
 
> 
> That would require more lanes. On a normal 2-lane (1 per direction) road
 
> different limits on same-class cars only generates angry drivers, while
 
> the traffic ain't smooth and easy anymore, but there's lots and lots of
 
> overtakes going on all the time.
> 
Its also gibberish. There is a sweet spot in which engines will run 
while burning the "maximum" amount of available fuel, without producing 
extra waste products or failing to combust it. For every car 
manufactured *ever*, this is between 50-60 miles an hour (due to what 
the RPMs are at that speed). Letting a less polluting car go faster 
won't work because them moment it goes faster it starts to burn the fuel 
less efficiently, which means pumping more in, some of which doesn't 
combust, and that means a) your producing *more* pollution, and b) using 
more fuel than before. The only sort of vehicle that "could" use such a 
rule might be a hybrid, but then *only* do to the fact that the gas 
engine is "tuned" to always run at optimal RPM when operating, and the 
question because if it can generate enough current to sustain the higher 
speed while "at" that optimal RPM. If it can't, you're still not gaining 
anything.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:05:01 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> So I did; a trillion is a million times a billion. Sorry see
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales
>
>Cool, thanks!

My pleasure/
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> Well, even if you try to be metric, the Americans have a different 
>>> idea about what constitutes a "billion"...
>>
>> Dude, you're so out of date, were you even born when the UK officially 
>> abandoned the idea that a million million is a billion?
> 
> It's new to me that it was *ever* abandoned. (Why would you do such a 
> thing?)
> 
Don't worry, at least in the Netherlands it is still used that way, so 
your claim was right, though not where you live.

> At any rate, I guess Word's "don't use that word" suggestion is the best 
> advice. [Oh, the irony of an M$ product producing good advice...]


depending on the font available?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Yeah, I love it that "ounce" means different things depending on whether
> > you are talking about solids or fluids,

> Well, there one is weight and one is volume. :-) Of course, "ounce" 
> means different things depending on whether you're talking about 
> precious metals or dry goods, too, so I can't really say you're wrong.

  One thing I like about the metric system is that terms are always
consistent and don't change meaning (and especially not amount) depending
on what you are measuring. For example, a liter is a certain volume,
period, regardless of whether you are measuring water, flour or air.
(Technically you could also have "a liter of solid rock" if you want,
and it would still mean the same volume, although that's seldom used
in practice.)

  Of course since Americans have this obsession that they can't have
*anything* the same as those pesky Europeans, they even had to change
at least *something* of the metric system: To them it's litre, not
liter (likewise metre instead of meter, etc). Something has to change,
so let's change at least the name. So even the metric system is not holy
enough. :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21 May 2008 17:29:47 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  One thing I like about the metric system is that terms are always
>consistent and don't change meaning (and especially not amount) depending
>on what you are measuring. 

How boring! There is something inherently interesting with words whose
meaning changes with the context.

>
>  Of course since Americans have this obsession that they can't have
>*anything* the same as those pesky Europeans, they even had to change
>at least *something* of the metric system: To them it's litre, not
>liter (likewise metre instead of meter, etc). Something has to change,
>so let's change at least the name. So even the metric system is not holy
>enough. :P
 Oi! You Jimmie! 
Who are you calling American? 

We spell litre, l-i-t-r-e and metre m-e-t-r-e unless it is a gas meter
then we spell it m-e-t-e-r. And that goes to the centre of the
argument :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 May 2008 08:19:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 20 May 2008 18:11:06 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Well the difference between a US and an imperial gallon is anecdotally
>>easy to explain - evaporation over long sea voyages.  How much truth
>>there is in that, though, I don't know.
>>
> LOL My pet theory is that in the US you have 16 fluid oz in a pint the
> same as 16 oz in a pound. While we have 20 fluid oz in a pint to make a
> pint of water weigh a pound.

Is that weigh a pound, or cost a pound? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message