 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just for those who never grew up around explosive barrels...
The barrels in things like HL2 are what Americans call "55 gallon drums."
It's how things like grease or oil for your automobile gets shipped to
retailers like service stations or auto dealers.
55 gallons is the amount of oil in a "barrel of oil."
So when you hear on the news that some country is exporting 2 million
barrels a day of oil or something, you have an idea what they mean. A barrel
of oil is the size of one of the barrels in HL2 (or most other games, for
that matter), aka a "55-gallon drum."
Impress your metric friends with this obscure knowledge, brought to you by
someone whose dad owned a gas station for many years.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2011 5:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Impress your metric friends with this obscure knowledge,
Impress them even more. ;-)
1 Imperial beer barrel = 240 real pints = 288 US pints.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:38:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 03/10/2011 5:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Impress your metric friends with this obscure knowledge,
>
> Impress them even more. ;-)
>
> 1 Imperial beer barrel = 240 real pints = 288 US pints.
Nah, even more impressive:
1 cup:
"Standard" in the US: 237 ml
"Nutrition Label" in the US: 240 ml
In the UK: 284 ml
Or in answer to the question: Which weighs more, an ounce of feathers or
an ounce of gold?
(Answer: an ounce of gold, because it's a troy ounce, not a 'normal'
ounce)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2011 08:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Or in answer to the question: Which weighs more, an ounce of feathers or
> an ounce of gold?
>
> (Answer: an ounce of gold, because it's a troy ounce, not a 'normal'
> ounce)
Never mind that. WTF is "a wee dram" of whiskey??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/10/03 12:13, Darren New a écrit :
> Just for those who never grew up around explosive barrels...
>
> The barrels in things like HL2 are what Americans call "55 gallon
> drums." It's how things like grease or oil for your automobile gets
> shipped to retailers like service stations or auto dealers.
>
> 55 gallons is the amount of oil in a "barrel of oil."
>
> So when you hear on the news that some country is exporting 2 million
> barrels a day of oil or something, you have an idea what they mean. A
> barrel of oil is the size of one of the barrels in HL2 (or most other
> games, for that matter), aka a "55-gallon drum."
>
> Impress your metric friends with this obscure knowledge, brought to you
> by someone whose dad owned a gas station for many years.
And, outside the USA, they are 40 /imperial/ gallons drums, not 55 /US/
gallons.
One of the reasons behind the secession was the systematic shortchanging
imposed by England.
They sold you goods using the US gallon, but bought goods using the
bigger Imperial Gallons.
The dollar is also a colonial curency. Originaly, it's value was $1 =
1£, then got depreciated down to 1£ = $2.
I always wonder WHY the USA kept that colonial mesurment system. The
metric system did exist at that time. Back then, it would have been easy
to adopt the metric system and ditch the hated imperial system.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/10/03 15:25, Orchid XP v8 a écrit :
> On 03/10/2011 08:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Or in answer to the question: Which weighs more, an ounce of feathers or
>> an ounce of gold?
>>
>> (Answer: an ounce of gold, because it's a troy ounce, not a 'normal'
>> ounce)
>
> Never mind that. WTF is "a wee dram" of whiskey??
>
Also spelled «drachm»
1 greek drachm = 4.37 g
1 Roman drachm = 3.41 g
As a mass unit:
Now, it's 1/16 ounce, or 875/32 grains or 1.771 845 195 312 5 g
BUT, for an apothecair, it's double that, or 3 scrupules.
As a volume unit:
3.696691 ml (USA) or 3.551632 ml (Commonhealth and Ireland)
In a bar, it's 330 ml of whisky...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2011 9:21 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/10/03 15:25, Orchid XP v8 a écrit :
>>
>> Never mind that. WTF is "a wee dram" of whiskey??
>>
>
> Also spelled «drachm»
>
[Snip]
>
> In a bar, it's 330 ml of whisky...
"A wee dram" is a colloquial term used in Scotland often not wee at all.
It is one of those phrases that travelled with the diaspora, like “the
wee sma’ hours”. It just means a glass of whisky. Today it is thought of
as a 1/4 of a gill (imperial) although I think of it as a 1/3. It used
to be a half gill, hence the phrase a half and a half (hauf n a hauf)
for a half pint of beer and a whisky.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 03/10/2011 22:11, Alain a écrit :
> I always wonder WHY the USA kept that colonial mesurment system. The
> metric system did exist at that time. Back then, it would have been easy
> to adopt the metric system and ditch the hated imperial system.
The "Not made here" syndrom.
USA is proud of its own system. It's not imperial (yet looks
traditional), not metric, but their very own. That's also help to be
"protective" on commerce while shouting out loud about "free commerce,
no regulation".
(when the foreign sellers of good have to waste time doing conversion or
changing measurement tools (at their own expense), it becomes also a
competitive advantage for the local sellers...))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/10/2011 10:47 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 03/10/2011 22:11, Alain a écrit :
>> I always wonder WHY the USA kept that colonial mesurment system.
>
> The "Not made here" syndrom.
> USA is proud of its own system.
Ah. Is /that/ why they're the only country on Earth who can't write the
date in any consistent order?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/10/2011 10:01 AM, Stephen wrote:
> "A wee dram" is a colloquial term used in Scotland often not wee at all.
> It is one of those phrases that travelled with the diaspora, like “the
> wee sma’ hours”. It just means a glass of whisky. Today it is thought of
> as a 1/4 of a gill (imperial) although I think of it as a 1/3. It used
> to be a half gill, hence the phrase a half and a half (hauf n a hauf)
> for a half pint of beer and a whisky.
One time I was offered a wee dram of whisky. Fortunately, it was very
small. Like, he got a glass and poured in almost enough liquid to cover
the bottom of the glass. (Apparently Glenmorangie is expensive or
something.) Which is just as well, because I couldn't even drink that
much. It tasted so disgusting...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/10/2011 10:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
> One time I was offered a wee dram of whisky. Fortunately, it was very
> small. Like, he got a glass and poured in almost enough liquid to cover
> the bottom of the glass. (Apparently Glenmorangie is expensive or
> something.) Which is just as well, because I couldn't even drink that
> much. It tasted so disgusting..
It is an acquired taste and it might have been better if you had put
some water in it. Glenmorangie is one of my favourite whiskies.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/10/2011 11:38 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/10/2011 10:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> One time I was offered a wee dram of whisky. Fortunately, it was very
>> small. Like, he got a glass and poured in almost enough liquid to cover
>> the bottom of the glass. (Apparently Glenmorangie is expensive or
>> something.) Which is just as well, because I couldn't even drink that
>> much. It tasted so disgusting..
>
> It is an acquired taste and it might have been better if you had put
> some water in it. Glenmorangie is one of my favourite whiskies.
I must admit, it did look quite impressive - all dark and mysterious in
the bottom of the glass, refracting the light and producing warm orangy
brown caustics on the table top. And it smelled interesting. I was
actually quite up for it. It's just that it tasted awful...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/10/2011 11:45 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I must admit, it did look quite impressive - all dark and mysterious in
> the bottom of the glass, refracting the light and producing warm orangy
> brown caustics on the table top. And it smelled interesting. I was
> actually quite up for it. It's just that it tasted awful...
Not many people can drink straight spirits unless they are used to it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/10/2011 12:25 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Not many people can drink straight spirits unless they are used to it.
Used to it? Heck, I don't even know what the definition of "spirit"
actually *is*...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.10.2011 11:51, schrieb Invisible:
> On 04/10/2011 10:47 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 03/10/2011 22:11, Alain a écrit :
>>> I always wonder WHY the USA kept that colonial mesurment system.
>>
>> The "Not made here" syndrom.
>> USA is proud of its own system.
>
> Ah. Is /that/ why they're the only country on Earth who can't write the
> date in any consistent order?
From a rational point of view, the widespread day-month-year ordering
is only marginally more consistent than the american month-day-year
ordering.
The only truly consistent ordering is the still uncommon ISO
year-month-date ordering ("2011-10-04"): Digits are listed in order of
descending significance (big-endian) throughout.
Little-endian throughout ("40-01-1102") would be just as consistent in
itself, but inconsistent with traditional numerical notation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 04/10/2011 13:27, Invisible a écrit :
> On 04/10/2011 12:25 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Not many people can drink straight spirits unless they are used to it.
>
> Used to it? Heck, I don't even know what the definition of "spirit"
> actually *is*...
can you trust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_beverages
spirit : no added sugar, at least 20% alcohol by volume
(that is at least 20° for the europeans, and if you want °proof... it
starts at 35°proof for UK, 40 for US )
With added suggar, it would be liqueur.
I would expect most serious spirits to start after 35°.
Casks-strength whisky (not the norm), are above 50°. (typical 60 to 65)
normal whisky is generally about 40°. (water is added when transferring
from the cask to the bottles)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Used to it? Heck, I don't even know what the definition of "spirit"
>> actually *is*...
>
> can you trust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_beverages
So... if it's distilled it's a spirit, otherwise not?
> spirit : no added sugar, at least 20% alcohol by volume
> (that is at least 20° for the europeans, and if you want °proof... it
> starts at 35°proof for UK, 40 for US )
>
> With added suggar, it would be liqueur.
>
> I would expect most serious spirits to start after 35°.
> Casks-strength whisky (not the norm), are above 50°. (typical 60 to 65)
>
> normal whisky is generally about 40°. (water is added when transferring
> from the cask to the bottles)
I'm sorry I asked...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> The "Not made here" syndrom.
>>> USA is proud of its own system.
>>
>> Ah. Is /that/ why they're the only country on Earth who can't write the
>> date in any consistent order?
>
> From a rational point of view, the widespread day-month-year ordering
> is only marginally more consistent than the american month-day-year
> ordering.
>
> The only truly consistent ordering is the still uncommon ISO
> year-month-date ordering ("2011-10-04"): Digits are listed in order of
> descending significance (big-endian) throughout.
>
> Little-endian throughout ("40-01-1102") would be just as consistent in
> itself, but inconsistent with traditional numerical notation.
Working from largest to smallest is consistent. Working from smallest to
largest is consistent (although it clashes somewhat with normal
numerical notation). Listing middle then smallest then largest is just
retarded. It makes no logical sense at all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] free fr> wrote:
> I would expect most serious spirits to start after 35°.
> Casks-strength whisky (not the norm), are above 50°. (typical 60 to 65)
I've got a lovely cask-strength Caol Ila on the go at the moment... 55%abv,
packs a punch but it's very tasty.
mmmmwhiskymmmm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.10.2011 14:11, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> Le 04/10/2011 13:27, Invisible a écrit :
>> On 04/10/2011 12:25 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Not many people can drink straight spirits unless they are used to it.
>>
>> Used to it? Heck, I don't even know what the definition of "spirit"
>> actually *is*...
>
> can you trust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_beverages
>
> spirit : no added sugar, at least 20% alcohol by volume
> (that is at least 20° for the europeans, and if you want °proof... it
Those "degrees Gay-Lussac" are not a European thing, but (from what I
gather) rather a French/Iberian (and also Latin-American) specialty; in
Germany, for instance, it's straightforward "20% Vol." (or in common
parlance just "20%"), and talking about "degrees" in conjunction with
alcoholic beverages (especially wine) would probably prompt confusion
with the Oechsle scale.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:51:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 04/10/2011 10:47 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 03/10/2011 22:11, Alain a écrit :
>>> I always wonder WHY the USA kept that colonial mesurment system.
>>
>> The "Not made here" syndrom.
>> USA is proud of its own system.
>
> Ah. Is /that/ why they're the only country on Earth who can't write the
> date in any consistent order?
Pretty consistently the format used is MM/DD/YYYY (separators might vary).
Myself, when dealing with an international audience, I'll use a format
like the one in my quote attribution line (04 Oct 2011) so there's no
ambiguity.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-10-2011 14:09, clipka wrote:
> Am 04.10.2011 11:51, schrieb Invisible:
>> On 04/10/2011 10:47 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> Le 03/10/2011 22:11, Alain a écrit :
>>>> I always wonder WHY the USA kept that colonial mesurment system.
>>>
>>> The "Not made here" syndrom.
>>> USA is proud of its own system.
>>
>> Ah. Is /that/ why they're the only country on Earth who can't write the
>> date in any consistent order?
>
> From a rational point of view, the widespread day-month-year ordering
> is only marginally more consistent than the american month-day-year
> ordering.
>
> The only truly consistent ordering is the still uncommon ISO
> year-month-date ordering ("2011-10-04"): Digits are listed in order of
> descending significance (big-endian) throughout.
correct me if I am but I seem to remember that this is japanese style.
>
> Little-endian throughout ("40-01-1102") would be just as consistent in
> itself, but inconsistent with traditional numerical notation.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.10.2011 21:18, schrieb andrel:
>> The only truly consistent ordering is the still uncommon ISO
>> year-month-date ordering ("2011-10-04"): Digits are listed in order of
>> descending significance (big-endian) throughout.
>
> correct me if I am but I seem to remember that this is japanese style.
Might be; I only know it's definitely ISO style.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> 1 Imperial beer barrel = 240 real pints = 288 US pints.
"This, my friend, is a pint."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:24:10 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> 1 Imperial beer barrel = 240 real pints = 288 US pints.
>
> "This, my friend, is a pint."
"It comes in *pints*????"
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/10/2011 9:24 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> 1 Imperial beer barrel = 240 real pints = 288 US pints.
>
> "This, my friend, is a pint."
>
Thanks!
Slurp!
"This, my friend, is a dead pint."
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The only truly consistent ordering is the still uncommon ISO
>> year-month-date ordering ("2011-10-04"): Digits are listed in order of
>> descending significance (big-endian) throughout.
>
> correct me if I am but I seem to remember that this is japanese style.
I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:54:09 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> The only truly consistent ordering is the still uncommon ISO
>>> year-month-date ordering ("2011-10-04"): Digits are listed in order of
>>> descending significance (big-endian) throughout.
>>
>> correct me if I am but I seem to remember that this is japanese style.
>
> I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
You're thinking of the Chinese calendar.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> correct me if I am but I seem to remember that this is japanese style.
>>
>> I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
>
> You're thinking of the Chinese calendar.
Oh, right...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/10/2011 3:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> > I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
> You're thinking of the Chinese calendar.
In the Century of the Anchovy.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-10-2011 18:03, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 3:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> > I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
>> You're thinking of the Chinese calendar.
>
> In the Century of the Anchovy.
Anyone knows what year this is and next will be. I though I saw it on
the calendar, but can't find it.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:39:42 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 5-10-2011 18:03, Stephen wrote:
>> On 05/10/2011 3:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> > I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
>>> You're thinking of the Chinese calendar.
>>
>> In the Century of the Anchovy.
>
> Anyone knows what year this is and next will be. I though I saw it on
> the calendar, but can't find it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calendar
Looks like this year is the rabbit, next is dragon.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-10-2011 20:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:39:42 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 5-10-2011 18:03, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2011 3:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
>>>> You're thinking of the Chinese calendar.
>>>
>>> In the Century of the Anchovy.
>>
>> Anyone knows what year this is and next will be. I though I saw it on
>> the calendar, but can't find it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calendar
>
> Looks like this year is the rabbit, next is dragon.
Sure in the Chinese calendar, but 'the Century of the Anchovy' is not a
reference to the Chinese one but to the calendar from Unseen University
in Ankh-Morpork.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:30:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 5-10-2011 20:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:39:42 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> On 5-10-2011 18:03, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 05/10/2011 3:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>> I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
>>>>> You're thinking of the Chinese calendar.
>>>>
>>>> In the Century of the Anchovy.
>>>
>>> Anyone knows what year this is and next will be. I though I saw it on
>>> the calendar, but can't find it.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calendar
>>
>> Looks like this year is the rabbit, next is dragon.
>
> Sure in the Chinese calendar, but 'the Century of the Anchovy' is not a
> reference to the Chinese one but to the calendar from Unseen University
> in Ankh-Morpork.
Oh, I see - you hadn't specified, and I thought that's what you were
asking.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-10-2011 22:52, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:30:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 5-10-2011 20:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:39:42 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5-10-2011 18:03, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 05/10/2011 3:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>>> I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
>>>>>> You're thinking of the Chinese calendar.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the Century of the Anchovy.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone knows what year this is and next will be. I though I saw it on
>>>> the calendar, but can't find it.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calendar
>>>
>>> Looks like this year is the rabbit, next is dragon.
>>
>> Sure in the Chinese calendar, but 'the Century of the Anchovy' is not a
>> reference to the Chinese one but to the calendar from Unseen University
>> in Ankh-Morpork.
>
> Oh, I see - you hadn't specified, and I thought that's what you were
> asking.
I think 'Century of the Anchovy' was a big give away. ;)
Quite unlikely that the chinese would name a century after a not so
heroic fish, don't you think.
You need to have a special (single) mind to come up with such a name, it
would not pass even through a committee of 2.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-10-2011 22:52, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:30:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 5-10-2011 20:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:39:42 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5-10-2011 18:03, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 05/10/2011 3:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>>> I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
>>>>>> You're thinking of the Chinese calendar.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the Century of the Anchovy.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone knows what year this is and next will be. I though I saw it on
>>>> the calendar, but can't find it.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calendar
>>>
>>> Looks like this year is the rabbit, next is dragon.
>>
>> Sure in the Chinese calendar, but 'the Century of the Anchovy' is not a
>> reference to the Chinese one but to the calendar from Unseen University
>> in Ankh-Morpork.
>
> Oh, I see - you hadn't specified, and I thought that's what you were
> asking.
PS: we try to not be too explicit in these things, otherwise Andy might
get it.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:07:01 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 5-10-2011 22:52, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:30:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> On 5-10-2011 20:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:39:42 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5-10-2011 18:03, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/10/2011 3:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I thought they just called it "the year of the cat"?
>>>>>>> You're thinking of the Chinese calendar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the Century of the Anchovy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone knows what year this is and next will be. I though I saw it
>>>>> on the calendar, but can't find it.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calendar
>>>>
>>>> Looks like this year is the rabbit, next is dragon.
>>>
>>> Sure in the Chinese calendar, but 'the Century of the Anchovy' is not
>>> a reference to the Chinese one but to the calendar from Unseen
>>> University in Ankh-Morpork.
>>
>> Oh, I see - you hadn't specified, and I thought that's what you were
>> asking.
>
> PS: we try to not be too explicit in these things, otherwise Andy might
> get it.
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:05:30 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> Oh, I see - you hadn't specified, and I thought that's what you were
>> asking.
>
> I think 'Century of the Anchovy' was a big give away. ;) Quite unlikely
> that the chinese would name a century after a not so heroic fish, don't
> you think.
> You need to have a special (single) mind to come up with such a name, it
> would not pass even through a committee of 2.
Somehow I didn't even notice what it was - I guess I thought it was some
obscure Chinese tradition I hadn't heard of. ;)
It's been a long time since I played Discworld, and I'm not as familiar
with the books as I probably should be.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/5/2011 14:05, andrel wrote:
> I think 'Century of the Anchovy' was a big give away. ;)
You missed the required adjective. "Century of the Flatulent Anchovy" or
"Year of the Confused Fruit-Bat" or something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/10/04 08:11, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
> Le 04/10/2011 13:27, Invisible a écrit :
>> On 04/10/2011 12:25 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Not many people can drink straight spirits unless they are used to it.
>>
>> Used to it? Heck, I don't even know what the definition of "spirit"
>> actually *is*...
>
> can you trust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_beverages
>
> spirit : no added sugar, at least 20% alcohol by volume
> (that is at least 20° for the europeans, and if you want °proof... it
> starts at 35°proof for UK, 40 for US )
>
> With added suggar, it would be liqueur.
>
> I would expect most serious spirits to start after 35°.
> Casks-strength whisky (not the norm), are above 50°. (typical 60 to 65)
>
> normal whisky is generally about 40°. (water is added when transferring
> from the cask to the bottles)
>
>
In some jurisdictions, as in Canada, you can't legaly sell any spirit or
liqueur with more than 40% Vol of alchool.
You can have stronger stuff if you do some small scale personal imports,
like when you come back from vacation.
You can get almost pure alchool, if it's clearly NOT intended for human
consumption, or destined to get diluted before consumption.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/10/04 05:47, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
> Le 03/10/2011 22:11, Alain a écrit :
>> I always wonder WHY the USA kept that colonial mesurment system. The
>> metric system did exist at that time. Back then, it would have been easy
>> to adopt the metric system and ditch the hated imperial system.
>
> The "Not made here" syndrom.
> USA is proud of its own system. It's not imperial (yet looks
> traditional), not metric, but their very own. That's also help to be
> "protective" on commerce while shouting out loud about "free commerce,
> no regulation".
>
> (when the foreign sellers of good have to waste time doing conversion or
> changing measurement tools (at their own expense), it becomes also a
> competitive advantage for the local sellers...))
Well, "not made here" absolutely apply to the mesurement system used in
the USA. Not only "not made here" but IMPOSED down your throat by the
Crown during the colonial days.
It not imperial, it's worst, it's Colonial! Born from the colonial abuse
that is the root of the cecession war.
Then, back then, the "not made here" syndrom was yet to apears... about
100 years later.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-10-2011 3:12, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/5/2011 14:05, andrel wrote:
>> I think 'Century of the Anchovy' was a big give away. ;)
>
> You missed the required adjective. "Century of the Flatulent Anchovy" or
> "Year of the Confused Fruit-Bat" or something.
It was the *century* of the fruitbat. As far as I can find only the
years have adjectives not the centuries. According to lspace.org the
century of the anchovy was mentioned in Carpe Jugulum. perhaps I have
to reread that one to find the reference.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
