 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A = B = C implies that B = C, no?
Then we have -340 K = 3,400 = 4.905 K^2, which I still don't know how to
solve.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> > A = B = C implies that B = C, no?
> Then we have -340 K = 3,400 = 4.905 K^2, which I still don't know how to
> solve.
That's not what you had. You had this:
-340 K + 3,400 = 4.905 K^2
which is equivalent to
4.905 K^2 + 340 K + 3400 = 0
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Then we have -340 K = 3,400 = 4.905 K^2, which I still don't know how to
>> solve.
>
> That's not what you had. You had this:
>
> -340 K + 3,400 = 4.905 K^2
Yeah, a simple typo.
> which is equivalent to
>
> 4.905 K^2 + 340 K + 3400 = 0
Mmm, I hadn't realised that.
[But... are the signs correct?]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > 4.905 K^2 + 340 K + 3400 = 0
> Mmm, I hadn't realised that.
> [But... are the signs correct?]
Probably not because that curve doesn't get even close to 0.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <48316f48$1@news.povray.org>, sco### [at] scottcom says...
> > to keep it against such small things as air friction isn't all that lar
ge.
>
> At 75 mph air friction isn't small. A lot of small cars give up not much
> faster than this because their engine cannot generate enough power to
> overcome the air friction.
>
Yep. A lot of truck companies in the US are down-tuning their trucks to
run between 60-65 now, instead of 70+, because they *save* 25% on fuel
just by doing that. The last time we had a gas crisis, the President
opted to mandate a nation wide reduction to 55MPH, to force people to
save fuel.
This one... Has increased the amount of "reserve" oil stored away for
when we run out of the real stuff, lowered environmental standards,
where possible, to help promote pumping, and a mess of other useless BS.
Somehow the things that "would" effect cost and usage... he just never
thinks of. But then, what do you expect from a guy whose campaign was,
in part, funded by the very credit people that later wrote the law to
make it harder to file bankruptcy, so you didn't have to *pay* the
credit people? Fixing the real problem isn't what he wants. He wants to
pretend that, as long as it not him whose house is in foreclosure, him
that has 90 credit cards, all maxed, or him that has to spend the babies
milk money on gas, everything is just peachy. After all, according to
him, my yearly income *must be* $100,000 a year (never mind that its not
even 1/5th of that... There simply isn't a problem from the perspective
of the people like him.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yep. A lot of truck companies in the US are down-tuning their trucks to
> run between 60-65 now, instead of 70+, because they *save* 25% on fuel
> just by doing that.
All trucks over 3500 kg in the EU are physically limited to 90 km/h (55
mph). Most countries have a limit for trucks equal or higher than that (eg
in the UK it is 60 mph, but of course no truck can go that speed), but some
have lower, eg in Germany it's 80 km/h for trucks.
> The last time we had a gas crisis, the President
> opted to mandate a nation wide reduction to 55MPH, to force people to
> save fuel.
Have different speed limits depending on how much pollution your car
produces. Allow the most fuel efficient cars to go slightly faster than
they can today, and make other cars go slower. In the centre of cities that
are prone to pollution, simply don't allow the most fuel inefficient cars to
enter. We have a system like that just starting off here in Germany.
> or him that has to spend the babies
> milk money on gas,
Sorry, I don't accept complaints about gas prices from people living in the
US :-) Your prices are ridiculously low no matter how expensive you say they
are.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> Have different speed limits depending on how much pollution your car
> produces. Allow the most fuel efficient cars to go slightly faster than
> 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.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le Sun, 18 May 2008 18:44:19 +0200, Tor Olav Kristensen a modifié des
petits morceaux de l'univers pour nous faire lire :
> Warp wrote:
> ...
>> 3500 rpm = 3500*60 rph, and in 1 hour it travels 75 miles. Thus
>> divide
>> 75 miles by 3500*60 revolutions, and you have the amount of miles per
>> one revolution, which would be approximately 0.0003571428 miles.
>>
>> Given that I'm not sure which whacky units miles are divided into,
> ...
>
> 0.0003571428 mile
> = 1 foot + 2 hands + 2.6285678 inches = 22 and 5/8 inch (and something).
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=1+foot+2+hands+2.6285678+inches+in+miles
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%2822+5/8+%29+inches+in+miles
>
> 1 mile
> = 8 furlongs
[snip]
> 1 hand
> = 4 inches
>
> 1 inch
> = 1000 mils
And you did not even talk about time & liquid & weight...
A gallon, a ton or just a fortnight ?
In Montreal or Los angeles... or Sydney!
Metrics rulez!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> And you did not even talk about time & liquid & weight...
> A gallon, a ton or just a fortnight ?
> In Montreal or Los angeles... or Sydney!
Yeah, I love it that "ounce" means different things depending on whether
you are talking about solids or fluids, "mile" means different things on
land than on sea, and "gallon" means different things depending on whether
you are in the US or the UK, not to talk that it also means different things
depending on whether we are measuring solids or liquids...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:24:17 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Le Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> And you did not even talk about time & liquid & weight... A gallon, a
>> ton or just a fortnight ?
>
>> In Montreal or Los angeles... or Sydney!
>
> Yeah, I love it that "ounce" means different things depending on
> whether
> you are talking about solids or fluids, "mile" means different things on
> land than on sea, and "gallon" means different things depending on
> whether you are in the US or the UK, not to talk that it also means
> different things depending on whether we are measuring solids or
> liquids...
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.
But a funny story - had a friend come over to the US from the UK several
years ago for a show in Atlanta. Found a nice English-style pub (at
least the closest he could find in walking distance of the conference
center) and ordered a pint of Guinness. The waitress asked him if he'd
like a "big pint or a small pint". He said, "a pint" with a look of
"what are you, crazy?" (and you'd have to know the guy to know how funny
that is). She figured out from his accent that he meant an imperial
pint. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Have different speed limits depending on how much pollution your car
>> produces. Allow the most fuel efficient cars to go slightly faster than
>> 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.
Yeh I was thinking of just on the multi-lane-per-direction roads, as they
are the ones mostly used for long distances where a higher speed limit might
be an incentive for people to buy greener cars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Yeah, I love it that "ounce" means different things depending on whether
> you are talking about solids or fluids, "mile" means different things on
> land than on sea, and "gallon" means different things depending on whether
> you are in the US or the UK, not to talk that it also means different things
> depending on whether we are measuring solids or liquids...
Well, even if you try to be metric, the Americans have a different idea
about what constitutes a "billion"...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?)
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...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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?)
To avoid confusion? IIRC back in the 80s (or maybe even earlier) the UK
officially stopped using "billion" to mean 1e12, and since then it has
always meant 1e9. Did you really think all those figures in the financial
part of the paper that say $6bn mean $6000000000000 and not $6000000000?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It's new to me that it was *ever* abandoned. (Why would you do such a
>> thing?)
>
> To avoid confusion?
You mean "because America says so"? [Why don't *they* just change to the
correct way?]
> Did you really think all those figures in the
> financial part of the paper that say $6bn mean $6000000000000 and not
> $6000000000?
Yes.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> To avoid confusion?
>
> You mean "because America says so"? [Why don't *they* just change to the
> correct way?]
I don't think either way is correct or incorrect, after all it's just
assigning a word to an amount. Does it matter who changed?
>> Did you really think all those figures in the financial part of the paper
>> that say $6bn mean $6000000000000 and not $6000000000?
>
> Yes.
And you were never curious as to why you never saw any amounts between $999m
and $999999m written anywhere? Anyway, you know now :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And you were never curious as to why you never saw any amounts between
> $999m and $999999m written anywhere? Anyway, you know now :-)
Well, actually a never read the kind of material where you might ever
see such numbers at all, so... ;-)
I think "million" and "billion" already sound way too similar for
numbers of vastly different sizes. Most people really don't notice the
difference between them.
I figure that's why nobody talks about "seventeen billion bytes". If you
said "seventeen million bytes", nobody would notice the difference very
much. That's why most people call it 17 GB and 17 MB. [Ah, but is that
2^10 or 20^3??]
I wonder what the hell people will call it when 4 terabyte drives become
common. MB => meg, GB => gig, TB => ???
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And you were never curious as to why you never saw any amounts between
>> $999m and $999999m written anywhere? Anyway, you know now :-)
>
> Well, actually a never read the kind of material where you might ever see
> such numbers at all, so... ;-)
You must of at least seen or heard the headline of MS bidding to buy Yahoo?
That involved some number of billion dollars.
BTW, what you thought a billion was, 1e12, is such a big number that you
would never really see it applied to money. The largest companies in the
world don't even sell close to $1e12 worth of stuff. Only the largest 12
countries in the world have a GDP of above $1e12.
> I think "million" and "billion" already sound way too similar for numbers
> of vastly different sizes. Most people really don't notice the difference
> between them.
What makes you think that? Not noticing the difference could lead to some
pretty embarrassing situations - I've never witnessed anything like that.
> I wonder what the hell people will call it when 4 terabyte drives become
> common. MB => meg, GB => gig, TB => ???
terra?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Well, even if you try to be metric, the Americans have a different idea
> about what constitutes a "billion"...
That's actually quite exasperating because it makes the word completely
useless. You can't use it for almost anything without the danger of
confusion.
For example if you say "this program processes 2.5 billion data units
per hour", it could well have either meaning. It's completely ambiguous.
This means that if delivering the correct meaning is important, you just
can't use the word "billion". Thus the word, which would otherwise be
quite handy, is completely useless.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, even if you try to be metric, the Americans have a different idea
>> about what constitutes a "billion"...
>
> That's actually quite exasperating because it makes the word completely
> useless. You can't use it for almost anything without the danger of
> confusion.
Indeed.
But then, where I work, you're not allowed to write "03/05/08". (Or even
"03/05/2008".) There's no way of knowing which date that actually means...
One more thing to thank America for.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 21 May 2008 10:30:14 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake, saying:
>>>> 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?)
>
> To avoid confusion?
With whom? Oh wait silly question.
> IIRC back in the 80s (or maybe even earlier)
'74 according to Wikipedia.
> the UK officially stopped using "billion" to mean 1e12, and since then
> it has always meant 1e9. Did you really think all those figures in the
> financial part of the paper that say $6bn mean $6000000000000 and not
> $6000000000?
Still amusing that a bi(mi)llion is officially a thousand million,
linguists of the future are going to have so much fun with this.
Perhaps we should just drop the names and use £6e9 or £3e12 for anything
over a million?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Then we have -340 K = 3,400 = 4.905 K^2, which I still don't know how
>>> to solve.
>>
>> That's not what you had. You had this:
>>
>> -340 K + 3,400 = 4.905 K^2
>
> Yeah, a simple typo.
>
>> which is equivalent to
>>
>> 4.905 K^2 + 340 K + 3400 = 0
>
> Mmm, I hadn't realised that.
>
> [But... are the signs correct?]
>
Nope. At least if your previous ones were correct.
-340 K + 3,400 = 4.905 K^2 |-4.905K^2
-4.905K^2 - 340K + 3,400 = 0
-- Arttu Voutilainen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
>
> Still amusing that a bi(mi)llion is officially a thousand million,
> linguists of the future are going to have so much fun with this.
In Finnish they are miljardi (1000 million) and biljoona (million
million) to add some confusement :).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> THANK GOD FOR METRIC!!! >_<
I find that metric works well for things bigger than people, but poorly
for things on a human scale. A pint or cup are both more convenient then
0.3 liters or whatever. A centimeter is too small, a meter is too big.
And of course 10 is hard to divide. I'm told that the standard size for
things like construction materials (planks, drywall, etc) is multiples
of 1.2 meters, because you can actually cut it in thirds and quarters
and such. I would have to look at a construction tape-measure in
Europe somewhere to figure that out.
Interestingly, many measurements in China are combinations of the two.
The "chinese foot" is a third of a meter. The "chinese inch" is two
centimeters. The "chinese ton" (tonne?) is 1000 Kg I think. Technically
metric, but in a convenient scale.
Oh, and for what it's worth, the measures you use in the US are the
inch, the foot, the yard, and the mile. Area is the square yard or the
acre. Volume is gallons, quarts, and ounces. (Pints and cups and all
that if you're measuring cooking ingredients.)
The only time you see hands or furlongs are in horse races; the height
of a horse is measured in hands, and the distance a horse runs is
measured in furlongs. Nobody converts miles to yards or inches, either.
Mils are only used in measuring things like the thickness of paper or
cloth; It's not an everyday sort of thing. Listing all these things and
saying imperial measurement is thus confusing is like complaining there
are fortnights *and* weeks.
More confusing than metric, I'll grant, but not more confusing than
complaining about weeks being seven days or days being 24 hours.
Personally, having grown up with it, I find it quite useful to be able
to say "my desk is 2 feet deep" rather than "my desk is 0.666666 meters
deep." :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> "mile" means different things on land than on sea,
This is because the "nautical mile" accounts for waves, basically.
> and "gallon" means different things depending on whether
> you are in the US or the UK, not to talk that it also means different things
> depending on whether we are measuring solids or liquids...
I never heard of a solid gallon meaning something different, actually.
And yes, "pint" means something different in London or the rest of
England, too, technically. And it means something different if it's beer
or some other liquid. In reality, nobody pays attention to those
distinctions. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> You mean "because America says so"? [Why don't *they* just change to the
> correct way?]
So what would a trillion be?
In the US, every third power of 10 has its own word. Makes sense to me.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> But then, where I work, you're not allowed to write "03/05/08". (Or even
> "03/05/2008".) There's no way of knowing which date that actually means...
That's why the invasion of Normandy was scheduled for November 11.
> One more thing to thank America for.
Cause date processing wasn't confusing enough already. ;-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Sorry, I don't accept complaints about gas prices from people living in
> the US :-) Your prices are ridiculously low no matter how expensive you
> say they are.
In truth, the gas prices are comparable. It's the tax on the gas that's
wildly different. We generally have <$0.50 tax on a gallon of gas.
Of course, if more US cities had public transit comparable to what I've
seen in European cities, I'd be happy to fund that with higher taxes. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> Yeh I was thinking of just on the multi-lane-per-direction roads, as
> they are the ones mostly used for long distances where a higher speed
> limit might be an incentive for people to buy greener cars.
>
Well yes, in some countries. Germany's highways are pretty great
infrastructure, for example, but ie. in Finland there's rarely over
200km of highway/multi-lane on 500km trip.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> One more thing to thank America for.
>
> Cause date processing wasn't confusing enough already. ;-)
I say there, is 2000 a leap year?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Of course, if more US cities had public transit comparable to what I've
> seen in European cities, I'd be happy to fund that with higher taxes. :-)
Now that would depend on *which* cities.
In Manchester, I was amazed to discover that if you just *stand* by a
random bus stop, it is _virtually guaranteed_ that an actual bus will
appear in LESS THAN TEN MINUTES. (!!)
In Milton Keynes, you might stand by a particular bus stop for a few
days before you see a bus. It depends on which bus stop, what day of the
week it is, when the last bank holiday was, etc.
In summary: In Manchester, you can actually *use* busses to go to
places. In Milton Keynes, while theoretically you can do the same
thing... no, seriously, you can't. Not IRL. It just doesn't work.
It also depends on which country. In the UK, it's rare for trains to be
on time, and they're 1 or maybe 2 per hour. In Switzerland, they're both
much more frequent, and [as far as I can tell] dramatically more
reliable. They also don't smell of old people inside...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> One more thing to thank America for.
>>
>> Cause date processing wasn't confusing enough already. ;-)
>
> I say there, is 2000 a leap year?
Depends if it's daylight savings time.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:41:44 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:
>>> One more thing to thank America for.
>>
>> Cause date processing wasn't confusing enough already. ;-)
>
>I say there, is 2000 a leap year?
No and its was
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 11:01:29 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
> Listing all these things and
>saying imperial measurement is thus confusing is like complaining there
>are fortnights *and* weeks.
You probably know that fortnight is a contraction of fourteen night,
and you can still find "fourteen night" in 19th cent literature. Seven
days/nights was originally a "sennight or sevennight" and a week is a
unit of time longer than a day and shorter than a month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 11:07:22 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Invisible wrote:
>> You mean "because America says so"? [Why don't *they* just change to the
>> correct way?]
>
>So what would a trillion be?
>
>In the US, every third power of 10 has its own word. Makes sense to me.
A hundred is ten times ten.
A thousand is a hundred times ten.
A million is a thousand times a thousand.
A billion is a million times a million.
Makes sense to me :)
BTW a myriad is ten thousand .
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
> 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.
I was talking more
one, thousand, million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, ....
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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...]
And why do you use M$ where the correct metric way would be µ$ or u$,
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
