- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
Here's a good example. USA against the world comments (which are supremely stupid) are great because they help you when engaged in the world against the USA sessions (also, very stupid.)
Just because a bunch of bible-thumping freaks who have a strangle-hold on our government have been conned into thinking Jesus wants tax cuts for billionaires and wants us to wage unecessary wars, doesn't mean that myself or any other specific American necessarily agrees with it.
Just because Hilter was German-Austrian doesn't mean all German-Austrians are Nazis.
I wish poeple would just stop all this stupid name calling and start talking about differences of opinion in a rational manner.
Admin
I reacted to some comments that some people, like you, thought they were good jokes. Yes, you mentioned detection of a joke when I reacted. Now you are reacting and I am mentioning detection of a joke.
I don't really have anything against americans, but I do tend to overreact when some of them make a reference to the rest of the world in an undermining way. They give me the impression of bigots and if I had my druthers, we'd tar and feather all the bigots and run them out of town on a rail. (couldn't resist :-p )
Admin
Admin
First of all I'm not sure what comments you are referring to and I don't know where you got the idea that I thought they were good jokes.
Personally, if someone made a comment about how the US is better than the rest of the world, it's only a good joke if it's a satire of people who actually believe such nonsense.
Admin
Not quite. 0°K = -273.15°C
The reason for the confusion is that:
triple point of water = 273.16°K = 0.01 °C
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius
Admin
And despite all the insults we've thrown in this flamewar, you are now one of the americans I like.
Admin
Indeed. We can at least be assured the whole west coast (except, ironically, a certain governor from Europe) and New England don't agree with it.
Admin
Actually...
The dry adiabatic lapse rate is approximately 3 degrees C/1000 feet.
The saturated adiabatic lapse rate is approximately 1.5 degrees C/1000 feet.
The ICAO standard atmosphere has a lapse rate of exactly 1.98 degrees C/1000 feet. (For practical purposes, we approximate with 2 degrees C/1000 feet). Almost everyone uses this as a more practical estimate of where the cloudbases should approximately be.
Anyhow, aviation in North America is full of mixed units, especially Canada.
Admin
I don't believe they've discovered the reason for the Beagle TWO failure (the Beagle mission was considered a great success, unless you live in Kansas).
You don't WHAT people like me? ^o)
Admin
For all those USA haters, go join MoveOn.org and MOVE ON. This is not the forum. I'm surprised the moderator has not already put an end to this.
Admin
'get'
Admin
Without using calculator:
How many pounds does one cubic mile of water weight?
How many kilos does one cubic kilometer of water weight?
How many square inches there are in one square yard? How many in square mile?
How many square centimeters there are in one square meter? How many in square kilometer?
..
You are repairing your car/bicycle, and your wife/girlfriend is helping. 11/32 wrench you have in your hand is too small, and you ask for next size. Which will it be? 12/16? 16/48?
You are repairing your car/bicycle, and your wife/girlfriend is helping. 9mm wrench you have in your hand is too small, and you ask for next size. Which will it be? 10mm? 11mm?
In imperial system, you have to remember the right value or go and compare. In metric system, you have nice and steady flow of numbers to use.
Admin
Feathers are weighed using the avoirdupois system's ounce. Gold (and other precious metals) are weighed using the Troy ounce. The Troy ounce weighs more than the avoirdupois ounce.
This is an excellent example of a question where 1) nearly everyone thinks they know the correct answer but actually do not, and 2) they will likely resist the correct answer. It comes down to unexamined assumptions.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Admin
Yeah, you are alright by me, too.
Admin
No, it's simply that I didn't realize that while a avoirdupois pound weighs more than a troy pound, there are only 12 ounces per troy pound.
I did not resist the correct answer. Perhaps you should examine your assumptions.
Admin
The unexamined assumption is that all ounces are the same. When told of the two different ounces, YOU adjusted to the new information and modified your worldview. Good on you! Some people do not. Some of them react very badly.
I have been collecting and creating questions like this. I hope to use them in teaching.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Admin
This is the wrong forum for that argument; computer geeks actually enjoy finding the least common denominator.
Admin
Yeah, I can't count the number of times something like this has come up and I have no calculator.
Like the other day, I wanted to buy a cubic mile of hummus and the guy was like "how many pounds is that?" It really sucked.
Neither. In my socket set it's 12/32 or 3/8s. What socket set uses 48's? Don't you know binary fractions?
Anyway, the easy answer is: the larger socket next to the empty spot in the set.
Admin
My uneaxmined assumption was that because troy pounds are lighter, so are troy ounces. I never assumed they were the same.
Admin
LOL. Hummus.
In my case the answer is spin the metal rotating piece slightly until the wrench is the right size, cause I'm too cheap to have a whole toolset.
Admin
A lot of frequently used customary measurements are divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. Please see my post about building materials such as plywood being sold in sheets 120cm x 240cm for an example of this being recognized as useful even in metric countries.
Generally speaking, you are correct. Given no prior experience kg, km/h, celsius, etc all work perfectly well in our daily lives. The only place I'd disagree is in the kitchen. The typical kitchen volumn measures - Cup, Table Spoon, Tea Spoon - work extremely well in that it is very easy to modify recipes by factors of 4,3,2,1/2,1/3,1/4. It is useful to be able to take a recipe that serves two and serve zix with it, or a recipe that serves 8 and modify it to serve 2.
Admin
Wouldn't you say unexamined assumptions are quite useful most of the time, when they're as ridiculous as there being two different kinds of ounces for weighing feathers versus gold? But shouldn't you assume anyway that if the person asking the question knows what they're actually asking, they'd be using the proper 'ounce' term with respect to each and thus they really do weight the same?
Unexamined assumptions are time-savers. It sure is more efficient not having to consider that maybe Macayo's will be serving hummus instead of salsa with their chips today, which would render the trip useless.
Admin
Sure, for many things the metric system seems nice. But "forcing" a cut-over can kill people as any Canadian who has heard of Gimli, Manitoba can attest. (Google for "Air Canada Gimli". Nobody died in that incident, but only by sheer luck.)
It is official policy of the US Government to encourage the use of metric, including in all federal procurement. BUT the US Government also offers people freedom to make their own choices between metric and "imperial" measures.
Flaming Americans for not using metric is about as bigoted and generally ignorant as any other bigotry.
Now, who can tell me what envelope corresponds to a #10 Standard Envelope? I've contented myself that "A4" is slightly narrower and longer than regular paper but I can't for the life of me figure out the **** envelopes.
Admin
Not to mention that ALL of our road signs are in miles. Imagine the cost of converting all of those? Imagine the confusion if you first put up temporary signs with BOTH bits of information, etc....
yeah. It'd not be cheap. But damn if I would rather my kids learned metric.
Admin
ISO216 is a rather good standard. Read the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size .
In short, all the A paper sizes have an aspect ratio of 1:sqrt(1). A0 paper has an area of exactly one square meter. A1 is achieved by cutting a sheet of A0 in half. A2 is achieved by cutting a sheet of A1 in half, and so on. In this way, the area of each size is half the area of the preceding size and the aspect ration is constant. You can easily enlarge or reduce a document to fit another paper size without altering margins.
There is also a B series with the same aspect ratio sized at geometric mean of the A series sheet same number and the preceding A series sheet. A C series is defined as the geometric mean between the A series and B series sheet of the same number.
An A4 sheet of paper (very close equiv. to the customary 8.5x11 inch letter size) will fit into a C4 envelope. An A4 sheet folded once will fit into a C5 envelope.
Admin
And why is that a problem? Doesn't being the world's largest economy at least earn one the right to use the measument system of one's own choosing?
Metric or otherwise bad conversions are bad conversions. That is the point, and that is the issue at stake -- not US weights and measures.
Admin
Wouldn't that mean that A0 is square, A1 is rectangular, A2 is square, A3 is rectangular, etc.? Unless you mean cut in half in that other dimension, preserving the aspect ratio but making A4 paper quite dangerous to handle.
Admin
Oh I see you meant 1:sqrt(2). I thought the use of sqrt(1) seemed a bit peculiar...
Admin
Ooops, sorry.
Admin
So then if the area of A0 is 1m^2 it must have dimensions of 1/sqrt(sqrt(2)) by sqrt(sqrt(2)), as those numbers have both a product of 1 and a ratio of 1:sqrt(2). Probably not numbers easy to memorize, but the folding advantages are worth it. This reminds me of our well-tempered music scale -- the notes aren't all exact, but the advantages of sharing notes between scales of a different key is worth it. But I digress.
Admin
Exactly. An A0 sheet is 841 x 1189 mm. A1 is 594 x 891. etc, etc, etc. A little bit of rounding has to happen and I'm not sure how that is standardized.
Also note that for any paper An it's area is 1/2^n m^2. So it is easy to calculate how much postage one needs if they know the number of sheets and the weight of the paper (which is routinely provided in grams per meter square). Normal paper typically runs about 800 gms so a sheet of A4 is 50 grams.
Admin
You've never heard of a 9.5 mm Hex Key or star drive screwdriver?
Admin
There's no °. Unit is Kelvin.
So, 0K.
LP,
Dejan
Admin
Except that business correspondence is properly folded not once but twice, into thirds of a page.
Neither a C4 envelope which takes an A4 unfolded) nor a C5 (A4 folded in half) envelope corresponds to a #10 (4 1/8" x 9 1/2"), and while you've provided all the same facts as I already had available to me, you (*sigh*) haven't answered my question.
Also, to calculate postage you need more information: you also need to know the weight (not the mass, for postage) of the ink, stamp, trapped air, and anything else you might enclose in the envelope. Easier to just weigh the thing. In the US, Canada, and the UK at least, standard postage rates are not extremely fine-grained and you don't need to worry unless you've got "a lot" in the envelope.
Admin
At least, assuming an envelope with a ratio of roughly sqrt(2) : 3...
The #10 envelope is fairly close to this, so it works.
Admin
There are two envelope formats outside the "system" specifically for handling 1/3 A4. DL is is 110 x 220 mm and C6/C5 is 114 x 229 mm. DL is more common, but C6/C5 is preferred because it is handled better by automated equipment.
Admin
A grateful reader thanks you.
Admin
Please state, in unequivocal terms, the superiority of the metric system.
I look forward to you answer.
Hint: divides by ten does not cut the mustard
Admin
They are timewasters. When someone can not conceive that his assumption is incorrect and even denies that there is an assumption, a great deal of time can be wasted.
It is not assumptions that are bad, but examined assumptions that are bad.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Admin
I'm missing something. Why is an examined assumption bad?
Admin
>It is almost as if they MISSED having royalty.
That's the only reason I can see for giving people names like "Earl", "Duke", etc.
Admin
You mean unexamined assumptions are bad, right? All I'm saying is you should base your assumptions on what is most probable. Ordinarily you should assume that someone using the same unit (ounce) in a sentence twice is talking about the same thing in both instances. Though in this case when it's obvious that you're trying to "trick" or "educate" or whatever, we should indeed examine our assumptions a bit more. Then again, when you do that, you start to think "Nah, he's just trying to trick me into thinking they really are different, and in the end he'll reveal what I thought all along, that an ounce is an ounce unless one specifically specifies what kind of ounce."
Admin
Charles I was the last monarch to claim absolute power and lost the English Civil War. He was deposed and lost his head. Charles II was his son and was placed on the throne (albeit with more limited powers) after some vaguely unspecified (*) time during which Parliament ruled the country.
(*) well specified, but can't be bothered to look it up
Admin
Nope, you're wrong. It's 1 kg (lowercase "k"). Maybe you're confusing the "kilo" prefix with "mega" (uppercase "M"), but the "M" is because the lowercase "m" is already taken (for "milli").
Admin
I think you have this backwards. It doesn't matter for you if your speedometer has mph or kph. But in the grand scheme of things, meaning relevant for the inhabitants of the world, it is very important that we all agree to use some standard. By doing this, a huge source of errors is eliminated. (failed space mission ...) You as a programmer should know that this is A Good Thing.
The other extreme would be every country (or group of people (eg goldsmiths)) using their own system. Seeing some problems here? Like the discussion about ounces/pounds of feathers and ounces/pounds of gold? These varying definitions are a WTF, too.
As the metric system is already in use virtually all over the world, Americans should be encouraged to switch over to metric. In the long run everyone will benefit from this. Today's WTF would never have been written in the first place.
Admin
In reply to:
dubwai:
But in the sceheme of things, does it really matter if I buy fish by the pound or by the kilo? Does it matter if my speedometer has mph instead of kph (actually, all American cars have both.)
Admin
Most people in the world use it and understand it.
Admin
LOL. You are right, but sometimes it's hard to distinguish the ironic and sarcastic posters from the myopic and jingoistic "Our country is better than the rest of the world" ones.
Admin
I would tend to disagree. The English Monarchy today still claims absolute power over all matters, but only exercises that authority on the advice of the various Prime Ministers of the realm. That is, the Queen (or her representative the Governor General, in the case of such countries as Canada) only signs into law those bills which have been passed by Parliament; only appoints such government members which have been recommended by the PM; only taxes and spends according to what has been allocated (advised) by the People through the elected members of the House of Commons (and approved by the Senate).
The authority and power is diminished only in its judicious application.
Admin
It's really more an inferiority of the other one.
Yes, it does. Using the same factor to divide your units into subunits as you use for the base of your numerical system makes computations easier. Explicit division is not so much the issue (you can always choose a divisor and dividend that makes a particular factor look better) as addition and ultiplication, which require an implicit division when going to a larger subunit:
What's the combined length of 33 objects with a length of 7 in inches vs. centimeters? The numbers 7 and 33 are primes and have no common factors with 10 or 12, so both systems are penalized equally. 7*33 = 231, same for both systems. Now to go from centimeters to meters, you have to divide by 100, which is simply a matter of moving the decimal point: 2.31; but to go from inches to feet or yards, you have to divide by 12 or 36, which most people won't even be able to do without using paper or a calculator. QED.
But of course that's only the beginning. What makes the metric system much, much superior to the other one is its consistency. Powers of 10 are used for ALL subdivisions (except time, see below), whereas the other one uses powers of 2 most often, but also throws in random factors of 3, 12, 5, 20, 7000 and even 5.5.
Finally, the metric system mostly uses the same unit for the same physical property and does not have completely separate scales for weight or volume depending on the material; see the nice "once of gold vs. ounce of feathers" example above.
The only thing that's inconsistent in the metric system is time, and a few things derived from it (such as km/h vs m/s). During the French revolution, they tried to change that as well and divide a day into 10 hours of 100 minutes of 100 seconds each (resulting in a 14% shorter second), a 10-day week and a different system of months. It failed mainly because of the 10-day week, which would have meant a day off every 10 days rather than ever 7, which people were not willing to accept. If they had left weeks and months alone, it would probably have worked and our lives would be easier in a lot of little ways.
Of course, it's impossible to make time measurement really consistent, because the length of the day and the year are too important in their impact on our lives to not make them major units, and their ratio just doesn't happen to be a power of 10.