![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:35:25 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com>
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
In article <4832f58e$1@news.povray.org>,
aer### [at] removethis zbxt net invalid 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:05:01 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com>
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 21 May 2008 17:29:47 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tag povray org> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 21 May 2008 08:19:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 20 May 2008 18:11:06 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp 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.
True. It's certainly more consistent. I just find it a touch less
convenient in some cases.
> 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).
Errrr, no, I don't think so. That's the Brits, not the Americans. :-)
And given how much longer Imperial measure has been around compared to
Metric, I'd argue that it's the Europeans trying to abandon the
Brits/Americans.
Technically, everything in the US is supposed to be on the metric
system, but the government has no right to enforce that for private
individuals, so imperial measures persist. Altho I understand that many
government contracts specify metric, so you wind up with 4.1 liters of
fluid held in a container constructed with 7.82 mm bolts. :)
--
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
> Warp 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.
> True. It's certainly more consistent. I just find it a touch less
> convenient in some cases.
I can't even begin to imagine how consistency can be less convenient
in any case.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |