http://www.xkcd.com/1016/

Normally V-Day isn't something I'd even think twice about. But right 
now, there is a certain lady I want to make a favourable impression 
upon. And, somehow, I've got this deluded idea that if I bring her 
flowers, she's suddenly going to notice that I actually exist and start 
/liking/ me.

If you stop and think about it for a minute, that /is/ a pretty 
delusional idea. Right?

V-Day, of course, is the single most expensive day of the entire year on 
which to buy flowers. Just for giggles, I had a look at the Interflora 
website. I gasped at the price of £25 for a single red rose. Sure, that 
includes delivery, guaranteed on time too. But I saw an entire /pack/ of 
roses on sale in the local supermarket for £3. (Although I'm sure 
Interflora will claim they're not of the same superior calibre...)

I did a double-take when I saw a bunch of roses going for over £100. 
Seriously, who pays that kind of money just for flowers? Best of all, I 
couldn't actually see anything that's different about that particular 
bunch, compared to all the ones that most maybe £40 or so.

And then I saw this:

http://tinyurl.com/7dcfwa3

It's similar to the £100 bunch, but 5x more expensive. Yes, that's 
right, £500 ( ≈ $800 US) for A BUNCH OF FLOWERS! O_O

I knew flowers got expensive, but this is absurd.

Still, it did give me a giggle. :-) I'm seriously thinking I'm going 
shopping tonight just to laugh myself stupid at all the V-Day pricing. 
You know, the chocolates, cuddly toys, massage oils, soppy greetings 
cards, and other sentimental crap that people actually buy (if supply 
and demand is to be believed).

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-02-13 04:23, Invisible a écrit :
> http://www.xkcd.com/1016/
>
> I gasped at the price of £25 for a single red rose.

Let your money do the talking.  Shop somewhere else.  Encourage a local 
flower shop.  Etc...

Also, sending someone flowers hoping that she'll notice you is not the 
way to go about it.
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 13/02/2012 01:17 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:

>> I gasped at the price of £25 for a single red rose.
>
> Let your money do the talking. Shop somewhere else. Encourage a local
> flower shop. Etc...

Well, yes, I wasn't actually intending to buy from Interflora. It was 
just the most obvious place to look up prices. (Unsurprisingly, it seems 
other suppliers are comparable in price.)

> Also, sending someone flowers hoping that she'll notice you is not the
> way to go about it.

Uh, yeah, I gathered...

Post a reply to this message

Le 13/02/2012 10:23, Invisible a écrit :
> V-Day, of course, is the single most expensive day of the entire year on
> which to buy flowers. Just for giggles, I had a look at the Interflora
> website. I gasped at the price of £25 for a single red rose.


Sanity check: Northern hemisphere, V-Day is in WINTER.

Roses are not flowering naturally in winter.
Even flowers from tree waits a bit for mid-March in south of Europe.

Your single rose is going to take a plane from southern hemisphere (or
come from a dedicated greenhouse with a 6 month shift... nah!).

It will be coated in chemical for "optimal" conservation before taking
its plane and have its very own cardboard-box.

Volume in a plane are cost.

the bunch of roses @ £3 took a boat or share a box for the plane, after
an even deeper chemical bath too. They are not expected to last more
than a few days after purchase (yet, they have been cut at least a week
or two ago).

(Did you know: the tomatoes you bought, whatever the period of the year
at the grocery & supermarket are already cut from 2 to 3 weeks before
reaching the stand: they have been selected to last 4 weeks: they
travelled a lot: from producers to national-market, to central buying
supply chain... and to your shop)

(in fact, the business model is so strong that the flowers are not
expected to last past the 16 February)

Sanity check 2: V-Day is about celebrating the (delusion of) love used
by a Christian prisoner on the daughter of his keeper to escape the
Roman jail. Ergo, it's celebrating the treason of duty, familial honour
and respect of parents.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/02/2012 03:40 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Sanity check: Northern hemisphere, V-Day is in WINTER.
>
> Roses are not flowering naturally in winter.

Hmm, good point. There is currently *snow* on the ground outside.

> Your single rose is going to take a plane from southern hemisphere

Really? I thought that apart from South America, most of the southern 
hemisphere was water.

> (or come from a dedicated greenhouse with a 6 month shift... nah!).

Yeah, that's what I figured. Or just, you know, further south than old 
blighty.

> It will be coated in chemical for "optimal" conservation before taking
> its plane and have its very own cardboard-box.

Mmm, tasty. :-}

> (Did you know: the tomatoes you bought, whatever the period of the year
> at the grocery&  supermarket are already cut from 2 to 3 weeks before
> reaching the stand: they have been selected to last 4 weeks: they
> travelled a lot: from producers to national-market, to central buying
> supply chain... and to your shop)

I doubt that /all/ of the tomatoes are imported. On the other hand, 
almost nothing is /made/ in this country any more, so...

> Sanity check 2: V-Day is about celebrating the (delusion of) love used
> by a Christian prisoner on the daughter of his keeper to escape the
> Roman jail. Ergo, it's celebrating the treason of duty, familial honour
> and respect of parents.

I have no idea what it's supposedly about.

But here's an interesting thought: In Western culture, it is customary 
to cut off the reproductive organs of an organism of the phylum 
Magnoliophyta and present it to your loved one, often as a courtship 
gesture.

Think about that for a moment.

If you tried doing that with an /animal/, I suspect few people would be 
flattered. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 13/02/2012 4:09 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Really? I thought that apart from South America, most of the southern
> hemisphere was water.

Seventy per cent of roses sold in European supermarkets come from Kenya, 
which is on the equator.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/14/valentines-day-roses-kenya


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/02/2012 17:29, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/02/2012 4:09 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> Really? I thought that apart from South America, most of the southern
>> hemisphere was water.
>
> Seventy per cent of roses sold in European supermarkets come from Kenya,
> which is on the equator.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/14/valentines-day-roses-kenya

OK. That's interesting. I always thought the equator was all desert...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Really? I thought that apart from South America, most of the southern
> hemisphere was water.

> OK. That's interesting. I always thought the equator was all desert...

  I really think you should cut the "being deliberately ignorant of things
that would become clear with 10 seconds of googling" trait. I don't know if
you are doing it genuinely or simply to try to be amusing, but it does not
give any positive image of yourself.

  Try to make a habit of every time you have the urge of writing "I always
thought that..." or "what does this mean?" to spend 10 seconds on google or
wikipedia, and if you don't find the answer, *then* perhaps say it. (Although,
it's probably better if you spend at least a couple of minutes before doing
it.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13-2-2012 20:30, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Really? I thought that apart from South America, most of the southern
>> hemisphere was water.
>
>> OK. That's interesting. I always thought the equator was all desert...
>
>    I really think you should cut the "being deliberately ignorant of things
> that would become clear with 10 seconds of googling" trait. I don't know if
> you are doing it genuinely or simply to try to be amusing, but it does not
> give any positive image of yourself.
>
>    Try to make a habit of every time you have the urge of writing "I always
> thought that..." or "what does this mean?" to spend 10 seconds on google or
> wikipedia, and if you don't find the answer, *then* perhaps say it. (Although,
> it's probably better if you spend at least a couple of minutes before doing
> it.)
>

In general I do agree with that, however in this case...
This gave for me the impression of confusing two major events in our 
evolution, i.e. the crawling of fishes onto the land to give rise to 
land vertebrates and the out of africa theory. The image this evoked was 
of an adam and an eve crawling out of the southern hemisphere ocean onto 
the deserts of the equator (possibly mixed with a monty python intro). 
In short I found this mix-up the work of a true genius. (ok, or perhaps 
the work of a complete fool that accidentally struck gold).

-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

Le 13/02/2012 20:52, andrel nous fit lire :
> he southern hemisphere ocean onto the deserts of the equator (possibly
> mixed with a monty python intro).

Equator (as a geographical location: the central belt) is not a sahara
like desert, it's very green).

The desert part are more likely to start at 20° (or 25°) from equator on
each direction and due to the convection cells of the atmosphere (and
it's moving with seasons, it's call The Doldrums... huge vertical winds,
nearly none horizontal, nothing to move clouds into rain over land)

BTW, there is more part of Africa (continent) in the Northern hemisphere
than in Southern.
(that's not the case for South America, Australia nor Antarctica)

Also, at the exit of a glacial era, the weather might have been a lot
different than the sunny desert. (for instance, London would have been
under a lot (more!) of ice and snow by the time of the first simian
walking on only two feet and keeping tools in the savannah of Africa)

(P.S: I said Australia, I'm going to be flamed by NZ and co, as it would
be called Oceania... guess what is the biggest island ?)

Post a reply to this message

On 13-2-2012 21:16, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 13/02/2012 20:52, andrel nous fit lire :
>> he southern hemisphere ocean onto the deserts of the equator (possibly
>> mixed with a monty python intro).
>
> Equator (as a geographical location: the central belt) is not a sahara
> like desert, it's very green).

A couple of months ago I was in Arusha just over 3 degrees south of the 
equator. I would not describe the scenery as very green, but definitely 
no desert. But don't blame me, blame the other guy.

> The desert part are more likely to start at 20° (or 25°) from equator on
> each direction and due to the convection cells of the atmosphere (and
> it's moving with seasons, it's call The Doldrums... huge vertical winds,
> nearly none horizontal, nothing to move clouds into rain over land)
>
> BTW, there is more part of Africa (continent) in the Northern hemisphere
> than in Southern.
> (that's not the case for South America, Australia nor Antarctica)
>
> Also, at the exit of a glacial era, the weather might have been a lot
> different than the sunny desert. (for instance, London would have been
> under a lot (more!) of ice and snow by the time of the first simian
> walking on only two feet and keeping tools in the savannah of Africa)
>
> (P.S: I said Australia, I'm going to be flamed by NZ and co, as it would
> be called Oceania... guess what is the biggest island ?)

Much of that biggest island is desert. I have been in both and I prefer 
the nature of NZ.

-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/13/2012 12:16, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> BTW, there is more part of Africa (continent) in the Northern hemisphere
> than in Southern.


Fun fact: If you took all the sand in northern africa and spread it out 
flat, it would cover an area the size of the Sahara!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 2/13/2012 12:16, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> > BTW, there is more part of Africa (continent) in the Northern hemisphere
> > than in Southern.
>
>
> Fun fact: If you took all the sand in northern africa and spread it out
> flat, it would cover an area the size of the Sahara!

Did you know: if all the people in the world linked arms around the equator,
two-thirds of them would drown.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/02/2012 9:09 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> On 2/13/2012 12:16, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> BTW, there is more part of Africa (continent) in the Northern hemisphere
>>> than in Southern.
>>
>>
>> Fun fact: If you took all the sand in northern africa and spread it out
>> flat, it would cover an area the size of the Sahara!
>
> Did you know: if all the people in the world linked arms around the equator,
> two-thirds of them would drown.
>
>
Did you know that if you put all the students who fell asleep in 
lectures, head to toe on the ground? They would be more comfortable.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 14/02/2012 8:24 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/02/2012 9:09 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2012 12:16, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>>> BTW, there is more part of Africa (continent) in the Northern
>>>> hemisphere
>>>> than in Southern.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fun fact: If you took all the sand in northern africa and spread it out
>>> flat, it would cover an area the size of the Sahara!
>>
>> Did you know: if all the people in the world linked arms around the
>> equator,
>> two-thirds of them would drown.
>>
>>
> Did you know that if you put all the students who fell asleep in
> lectures, head to toe on the ground? They would be more comfortable.
>

Did you know that in a single trip from Sydney to London a Boeing 747 
will use approximately as much fuel as one going the other way.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/02/2012 10:46, Paul Fuller wrote:

> Did you know that in a single trip from Sydney to London a Boeing 747
> will use approximately as much fuel as one going the other way.

I'm going to contest this one. I was under the impression that the 
various jet streams make it significantly more fuel-efficient in one 
direction than the other...

Post a reply to this message

On 13/02/2012 19:30, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Really? I thought that apart from South America, most of the southern
>> hemisphere was water.
>
>> OK. That's interesting. I always thought the equator was all desert...
>
>    I really think you should cut the "being deliberately ignorant of things
> that would become clear with 10 seconds of googling" trait.

Well, clearly roses don't grow in a desert, so my information cannot be 
correct. I was merely expressing surprise at that.

The equator is the hottest place on Earth. You would logically think 
that this would be desert, and the slightly cooler lands north and south 
of it would be tropical jungle. Apparently this is not the case somehow 
- a surprising and interesting result...

Post a reply to this message

On 15/02/2012 12:49 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 14/02/2012 10:46, Paul Fuller wrote:
>
>> Did you know that in a single trip from Sydney to London a Boeing 747
>> will use approximately as much fuel as one going the other way.
>
> I'm going to contest this one. I was under the impression that the
> various jet streams make it significantly more fuel-efficient in one
> direction than the other...

Contest away.  I expected nothing less.

London to Sydney is normally going to spend a lower proportion of time 
in favourable jet streams than say New York to London where I think they 
can often take great advantage from the North Polar Jet Stream.  The 
great circle path from NY to London is pretty close to the normal jet 
stream position and they are at the right altitude.  London to Sydney on 
the other hand you cross the generally weaker Sub-Tropical Jets more 
obliquely.  They are also at an altitude generally higher than 
commercial flights.

I allowed for some slippage by using 'approximately'.  I'm guessing but 
I think the difference for Sydney-London vs. London-Sydney would be 
negligible or in the low single digit % - all other things being equal. 
  Note that it requires a re-fueling stop either way in current 
commercial airliners.  It is a damned long haul.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-2-2012 15:26, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Well, clearly roses don't grow in a desert, so my information cannot be
> correct. I was merely expressing surprise at that.
>
> The equator is the hottest place on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kilimanjaro



-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/02/2012 4:15 PM, Paul Fuller wrote:
> It is a damned long haul.

I've done it there and back twice and you are damned right.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 14/02/2012 6:14 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 14-2-2012 15:26, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> Well, clearly roses don't grow in a desert, so my information cannot be
>> correct. I was merely expressing surprise at that.
>>
>> The equator is the hottest place on Earth.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kilimanjaro
>
>
>
For completeness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremes_on_Earth#Coldest_and_hottest_inhabited_places_on_Earth

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 14-2-2012 21:02, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/02/2012 6:14 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 14-2-2012 15:26, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> Well, clearly roses don't grow in a desert, so my information cannot be
>>> correct. I was merely expressing surprise at that.
>>>
>>> The equator is the hottest place on Earth.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kilimanjaro
>>
>>
>>
> For completeness
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremes_on_Earth#Coldest_and_hottest_inhabited_places_on_Earth

The point was that the Kilimanjaro is almost on the equator but still 
has snow on top. but I guess you got that.
Indeed your link is another reason why hottest is not the right word here.



-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/02/2012 8:13 PM, andrel wrote:
> The point was that the Kilimanjaro is almost on the equator but still
> has snow on top. but I guess you got that.

I did indeed.

> Indeed your link is another reason why hottest is not the right word here.

True, maybe Andrew would like to plot the results here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Highest_temperature_ever_recorded

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message