[I] What the heck are "real fake christian shoes"?
Mr Angel
my eye in the list. I got a couple of hundred today - seems the spammers
have a new product in their lineup
Fake christian shoes
Makes you wonder. Are they fake shoes for christians? Fake shoes that
are christian? Shoes for fake christians? Is it the shoes, or the
christianity that's fake? What's a christian shoe anyway?
Then I got another one, advertising "real fake christian shoes"
Does that mean they're really fake, rather than the real thing trying to
pass off as a fake? Or that they're real shoes that are faking christianity?
I just can't help wondering what's the point. I'd have to assume that
someone somewhere in the spam industry thinks that sending out this crap
will make them a profit. And therefore someone, somewhere thinks that
someone will actually be interested by an advert for "real fake
christian shoes". Is this even remotely believable?
Or is it the rebels from the future who have come back to fill our
modern day internets with junk, so that when they plug Skynet in to
amass the sum of all human knowledge, it'll just sit in the corner and cry?
--
Mr Angel, indentured slave of Mistress Goddess
For address, see headers. No munging required
Elliott Grasett
one Christian Louboutin. Yeah, I'm having another sleepless night!
--
Cheers,
Elliott
John Wilkins
Follow the Sandal! The Holy Sandal!
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
GaryN
news:Vc-dnS8EtuiGyojV...@wightman.ca:
If I thought it was worth the effort I'd worry....
gary
(.sig not available due to either me or Whinedoze Fester (piece of shit
insists that it can't save the bloody file in the XNews folder, or
anywhere else) being crap.)
Weatherlawyer
wrote:
>
> Fake christian shoes
>
> Makes you wonder. Are they fake shoes for christians? Fake shoes that
> are christian? Shoes for fake christians? Is it the shoes, or the
> christianity that's fake? What's a christian shoe anyway?
>
> Then I got another one, advertising "real fake christian shoes"
>
> Does that mean they're really fake, rather than the real thing trying to
> pass off as a fake? Or that they're real shoes that are faking christianity?
Well perhaps his mum sent his sandals off to be repaired after he died
and they copied them for the tourist trade and either kept the holes
in the soles
or not.
I'm not sure about that one.
Sean Cleary
check out kitten's killfile solution on alt.Callahans which references
another on alt.heinlein.
Sean
OG
"Elliott Grasett" <egra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vc-dnS8EtuiGyojV...@wightman.ca...
> Mr Angel wrote:
>> OK ... I thought I'd got used to the spam harvest. But this one caught my
>> eye in the list. I got a couple of hundred today - seems the spammers
>> have a new product in their lineup
>>
>> Fake christian shoes
>>
>> Makes you wonder. Are they fake shoes for christians? Fake shoes that are
>> christian? Shoes for fake christians? Is it the shoes, or the
>> christianity that's fake? What's a christian shoe anyway?
Dunno, but I bet it's got an immortal sole
Arthur Hagen
That sounds fishy to me.
Regards,
--
*Art
OG
"Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:fvarfc$4mb$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>>>> Makes you wonder. Are they fake shoes for christians? Fake shoes
>>>> that are christian? Shoes for fake christians? Is it the shoes, or
>>>> the christianity that's fake? What's a christian shoe anyway?
>>
>> Dunno, but I bet it's got an immortal sole
>
> That sounds fishy to me.
Oh for cod's hake, no fish puns please!
8'FED
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>>> Makes you wonder. Are they fake shoes for christians? Fake shoes
>>>>> that are christian? Shoes for fake christians? Is it the shoes, or
>>>>> the christianity that's fake? What's a christian shoe anyway?
>>>
>>> Dunno, but I bet it's got an immortal sole
>>
>> That sounds fishy to me.
>
> Oh for cod's hake, no fish puns please!
The tuna we put an end to this thread, the tuna the fish puns will stop.
Adrian.
John Wilkins
Len Oil
Depends if they're loafers... (2.5 pairs.)
8'FED
> 8'FED wrote:
>> OG wrote:
>>> Oh for cod's hake, no fish puns please!
>>
>> The tuna we put an end to this thread, the tuna the fish puns will stop.
>>
> Damn you! Damn you all to hake!
I expect we'll be whiting a long time.
Adrian.
John Wilkins
> Scríobh "8'FED" <dra...@netyp.com.au>:
> Pollocks!
Crappie! While he flounders about, we can carp on his lack of a perch to
molly coddle his ego. To be candiru, as the Japaense say, I expect he'll
pike. I don't mean to be roughy, but ths sucker needs to be shown the
dory.
Len Oil
8'FED
> Féachadóir wrote:
>>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>>> 8'FED wrote:
>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>> Oh for cod's hake, no fish puns please!
>>>>> The tuna we put an end to this thread, the tuna the fish puns will stop.
>>>> Damn you! Damn you all to hake!
>>> I expect we'll be whiting a long time.
>> Pollocks!
> You mackerel-y good point.
to bear things like that in mind.)
Adrian.
Bri Tze
> "Elliott Grasett" <egras...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Some of these dace he'll show a clean pair of eels, just for the
halibut!
Bri Tze
Nigel Stapley
Richard Corfield
>
> Some of these dace he'll show a clean pair of eels, just for the
> halibut!
Doesn't help if you want to snapper up some of these fake christian
shoes though.
Maybe they prey on cod every day.
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone
Bonzai Kitten
<Richard.Corfi...@REVERSE.uk.me.littondale> wrote:
> On 2008-05-01, Bri Tze <bethbr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Some of these dace he'll show a clean pair of eels, just for the
> > halibut!
>
> Doesn't help if you want to snapper up some of these fake christian
> shoes though.
>
> Maybe they prey on cod every day.
Salmon should do something about it. And if don't, a resounding FuGu
to them all!
8'FED
> Len Oil wrote:
>> You mackerel-y good point.
>
> Well ... barramundi's probably just being contrary. (It's always wise
> to bear things like that in mind.)
I'm disappointed the punning didn't continue while I was in Melbourne!
To me punning cascades are partly a competitive activity, and when Len
posted a *three* syllable pun I had to try to outdo it by coming up
with a *four* syllable pun. However, it's no fun to win too easily, so
I'm disappointed that nobody tried to outdo (or at least equal) my
four-syllable contribution. Surely there are more 4-5 syllable fish
puns out there if you look hard enough...
BTW, I'd like to experiment with the signature below, not necessarily
on every post. (Yes, I know it has an OE broken divider; no, I don't
believe this matters no matter how strongly some people think it does;
yes, I do hope people can refrain from obsessing over such trivia, and
no, I'm not interested in Quotefix.)
--
Recent blog posts: <http://outerhoard.wordpress.com/>. A post randomly
selected from the archives: <http://outerhoard.wordpress.com/?random>.
Jonathan Ellis
"8'FED" <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:fvs15a$124f$1...@mud.stack.nl...
>I wrote:
> no, I'm not interested in Quotefix.)
What about qutefisk?
Jonathan.
Larry Moore
> I wrote:
> BTW, I'd like to experiment with the signature below, not necessarily
> on every post. (Yes, I know it has an OE broken divider; no, I don't
> believe this matters no matter how strongly some people think it does;
> yes, I do hope people can refrain from obsessing over such trivia, and
> no, I'm not interested in Quotefix.)
>
What is your sig supposed to do and how many lines of text does it
generate if it works?i The standard says five lines is acceptable
and more than five sometimes offends (especially dial-up customers.)
--
Writing, to me, is simply thinking through my fingers.
Isaac Asimov
Richard Bos
> On 2008-05-07, 8'FED <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > BTW, I'd like to experiment with the signature below, not necessarily
> > on every post. (Yes, I know it has an OE broken divider;
That one hadn't, actually. The required space was there.
> What is your sig supposed to do and how many lines of text does it
> generate if it works?i The standard says five lines is acceptable
Four. McQuarry is four by eighty.
Richard
8'FED
>> 8'FED wrote:
>> > BTW, I'd like to experiment with the signature below, not necessarily
>> > on every post. (Yes, I know it has an OE broken divider;
>
> That one hadn't, actually. The required space was there.
Which is good. Microsoft must have fixed that at some point.
Larry's questions should get the answers they deserve, so here they
are. What is the signature supposed to do? Well, *obviously* it's
supposed to be a magical incantation that makes the reader lay a
golden egg, same as any other signature. How many lines of text does
it generate if it works? It doesn't *generate* text. It *is* text. It
*generates* golden eggs.
Larry Moore
> Richard Bos wrote:
>>> 8'FED wrote:
>
>>> > BTW, I'd like to experiment with the signature below, not necessarily
>>> > on every post. (Yes, I know it has an OE broken divider;
>>
>> That one hadn't, actually. The required space was there.
>
> Which is good. Microsoft must have fixed that at some point.
>
> Larry's questions should get the answers they deserve, so here they
> are. What is the signature supposed to do? Well, *obviously* it's
> supposed to be a magical incantation that makes the reader lay a
> golden egg, same as any other signature. How many lines of text does
> it generate if it works? It doesn't *generate* text. It *is* text. It
> *generates* golden eggs.
>
What particular software would I have to be running to experience this
miracle?
--
One drink is too many for me and a thousand not enough. - Brendan Behan
8'FED
> 8'FED wrote:
>> Larry's questions should get the answers they deserve, so here they
>> are. What is the signature supposed to do? Well, *obviously* it's
>> supposed to be a magical incantation that makes the reader lay a
>> golden egg, same as any other signature. How many lines of text does
>> it generate if it works? It doesn't *generate* text. It *is* text. It
>> *generates* golden eggs.
>
> What particular software would I have to be running to experience this
> miracle?
It's standard. If it doesn't work with whatever software you're using,
then that software is broken.
Adrian.
Len Oil
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> What particular software would I have to be running to experience this
>> miracle?
>
> It's standard. If it doesn't work with whatever software you're using,
> then that software is broken.
It either works very well, or not how you think it should, as far as I
can see.
It's just plain text (with URLs identified and made clickable by the
client, aided no doubt by the <>s), as follows, .sig delimiter
deconstructed and uniformly indented for illustration purposes.
<hyphen><hyphen><space>
Recent blog posts: <http://outerhoard.wordpress.com/>. A post randomly
selected from the archives: <http://outerhoard.wordpress.com/?random>.
The source of the message is exactly that text. It isn't some code that
the newsreader has had to interpret[1], as far as I can tell.
Or have I misunderstood the term "reader" as the person that reads (and
clicks onto the links), rather than shorthand for the newsreader? I
could understand how the click-throughs could be the golden eggs you
consider golden.
[1] Indeed, I wouldn't want it to interpret anything. If it is doing,
/especially/ to the extent of retrospectively making the source look
static, then I'm highly disappointed.
8'FED
> Or have I misunderstood the term "reader" as the person that reads (and clicks
> onto the links), rather than shorthand for the newsreader? I could understand
> how the click-throughs could be the golden eggs you consider golden.
Note that I said, "it's supposed to be a magical incantation that
makes the reader lay a golden egg, same as any other signature". In
other words, *ALL* signatures are supposed to do that. But not all
signatures contain links. Therefore golden eggs cannot be a metaphor
for click-throughs, because if that were so then sigs that do not
contain links would not generate golden eggs, which contradicts the
principle that all signatures do this.
And yes, it's the human reader who lays the egg. I can't imagine how
a piece of software would do so.
Adrian.
Len Oil
> And yes, it's the human reader who lays the egg. I can't imagine how
> a piece of software would do so.
I can, and I'd frankly find it scary. But that's in the particular
context of my prior understanding, with my brain being on a different
wavelength to the one I should've been on to understand your original
intended meaning. ;)
Larry Moore
> 8'FED wrote:
>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>> What particular software would I have to be running to experience this
>>> miracle?
>>
>> It's standard. If it doesn't work with whatever software you're using,
>> then that software is broken.
>
> It either works very well, or not how you think it should, as far as I
> can see.
>
> It's just plain text (with URLs identified and made clickable by the
> client, aided no doubt by the <>s), as follows, .sig delimiter
> deconstructed and uniformly indented for illustration purposes.
>
> <hyphen><hyphen><space>
> Recent blog posts: <http://outerhoard.wordpress.com/>. A post randomly
> selected from the archives: <http://outerhoard.wordpress.com/?random>.
>
> The source of the message is exactly that text. It isn't some code that
> the newsreader has had to interpret[1], as far as I can tell.
>
> Or have I misunderstood the term "reader" as the person that reads (and
> clicks onto the links), rather than shorthand for the newsreader? I
> could understand how the click-throughs could be the golden eggs you
> consider golden.
>
Ok, thanks - your explanation clarified. It seems either that outerboard
or my last software upgrade has corrected a problem & my linux/quadra
can now read a blog on that site.
>
> [1] Indeed, I wouldn't want it to interpret anything. If it is doing,
> /especially/ to the extent of retrospectively making the source look
> static, then I'm highly disappointed.
Milady's Mac mailreader will automatically fetch urls but I don't think
it will invoke/execute java code embedded in a message. I hope not, anyway.
--
"Yeah, all that emacs is missing to be counted as a full-featured
operating system is an easy-to-use text editor."
Arnold Krille on the Linux Audio Developer mailing list
8'FED
Which original intended meaning? The original intended meaning that
signatures make humans lay eggs, or the *original* intended meaning
that a silly question deserves a silly answer? :-)
As for the content of the sig, it doesn't seem to do much good.
According to the visitor statistics that come with a wordpress.com
blog, there still haven't been *any* views of my most recent post,
which is a couple of days old now.
--
Larry Moore
> Len Oil wrote:
>> 8'FED wrote:
>
>>> And yes, it's the human reader who lays the egg. I can't imagine how
>>> a piece of software would do so.
>>
>> I can, and I'd frankly find it scary. But that's in the particular context of
>> my prior understanding, with my brain being on a different wavelength to the
>> one I should've been on to understand your original intended meaning. ;)
>
> Which original intended meaning? The original intended meaning that
> signatures make humans lay eggs, or the *original* intended meaning
> that a silly question deserves a silly answer? :-)
>
> As for the content of the sig, it doesn't seem to do much good.
> According to the visitor statistics that come with a wordpress.com
> blog, there still haven't been *any* views of my most recent post,
> which is a couple of days old now.
>
Perhaps you might explain why you think people would be interested
in reading any weblog. And then why your blog in particular.
Personally I find the whole blogoshere about as interesting as watching
Super 8 home movies. Mileage varies, obviously.
--
"Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils
normal identity." - Erving Goffman
Elliott Grasett
<snip>
>
> Personally I find the whole blogoshere about as interesting as watching
> Super 8 home movies. Mileage varies, obviously.
>
Larry, you may be missing some good stuff.
Four blogs that I log onto daily are, in alphabetical order:
Arts and Letters Daily <http://www.aldaily.com/>
Butterflies and Wheels <http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/>
Evolving Thoughts <http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/>
(maintained by a certain John Wilkins, of whom you may have heard)
P.Z. Myers's Pharyngula <http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/>
--
Cheers,
Elliott
John Wilkins
> Larry Moore wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Personally I find the whole blogoshere about as interesting as watching
> > Super 8 home movies. Mileage varies, obviously.
> >
>
> Larry, you may be missing some good stuff.
>
> Four blogs that I log onto daily are, in alphabetical order:
>
>
> Arts and Letters Daily <http://www.aldaily.com/>
> Butterflies and Wheels <http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/>
> Evolving Thoughts <http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/>
> (maintained by a certain John Wilkins, of whom you may have heard)
A fan! An actual fan!
> P.Z. Myers's Pharyngula <http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/>
And then you *had* to go and spoil it. Now I can't boast to Mhaesrz that
I have a reader he doesn't.
8'FED
> Perhaps you might explain why you think people would be interested
> in reading any weblog.
I read several of them because I'm interested in people. Which is also
the main reason why I read afp.
> And then why your blog in particular.
I suppose that if my Usenet posts are interesting then it follows that
my blog posts are likely to be interesting too. My blog posts are on
average much less whimsical than my Usenet posts, as I have a higher
quality threshold on my blog than I do on Usenet.
Conversely, if my Usenet posts aren't interesting then my blog posts
won't be either.
Adrian.
Arthur Hagen
>
> I suppose that if my Usenet posts are interesting then it follows that
> my blog posts are likely to be interesting too.
Why would that follow?
> My blog posts are on
> average much less whimsical than my Usenet posts, as I have a higher
> quality threshold on my blog than I do on Usenet.
>
> Conversely, if my Usenet posts aren't interesting then my blog posts
> won't be either.
Why would that follow?
There are people here on afp that have blogs, but I have absolutely no
interest in their blogs. I may enjoy /discussing/ with them, but not read
about their personal life, which tends to be what a blog is about.
Some, unfortunately, seem to not to be able to distinguish between the two,
and drag their blog stuff here, expecting people here to be interested in
/them/ and not what they have to say.
--
*Art
8'FED
> Elliott Grasett wrote:
>> Arts and Letters Daily <http://www.aldaily.com/>
>> Butterflies and Wheels <http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/>
>> Evolving Thoughts <http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/>
>> (maintained by a certain John Wilkins, of whom you may have heard)
>
> A fan! An actual fan!
>
>> P.Z. Myers's Pharyngula <http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/>
>
> And then you *had* to go and spoil it. Now I can't boast to Mhaesrz that
> I have a reader he doesn't.
I'm quite sure you do have such readers. Probably people who find Myers's
over-the-top anti-religiousness distasteful.
Adrian.
Larry Moore
As it happens, I also am interested in people. We volunteer our spare
time helping a nursing service by transporting their clients to
appointments. Same basic drive, different expression.
Also, we find all web pages assume a larger screen than we have
and that the fonts are rendered so small as to cause eyestrain.
Yes, we could upgrade our equipment but have other budgetary
priorities.
If Locke, I F Stone or Michel de Montaigne started a blog, that
would make a difference of course. I can read first-draft rough copies
of a number of stories without using the Internet.
--
Critics are like eunuchs in a harem;
they know how it's done,
they've seen it done every day,
but they're unable to do it themselves. - Brendan Behan
John Wilkins
>
> If Locke, I F Stone or Michel de Montaigne started a blog, that
> would make a difference of course. I can read first-draft rough copies
> of a number of stories without using the Internet.
Trouble is, before they became famous, how would you know they were
worth reading?
Carol Hague
> Also, we find all web pages assume a larger screen than we have
> and that the fonts are rendered so small as to cause eyestrain.
I can't help with the screen size, but most browsers should allow you to
set the text size yourself - in Firefox you can either set the page to
"No Style" which overrides the page's display settings or just enlarge
the text size until you find it readable. Even Internet Exploder has a
text zoom function.
--
Carol
"If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put
that thing in your mouth. Particularly if the thing is
cats." - Lemony Snicket _The Wide Window_
8'FED
> Larry Moore wrote:
>
>> Personally I find the whole blogoshere about as interesting as watching
>> Super 8 home movies. Mileage varies, obviously.
>
> Larry, you may be missing some good stuff.
FWIW, at the time of writing my latest post contains the most recent
edition of my plan to metricise all units of time shorter than two
hours (a.k.a. one hectodure). The speed of light now becomes
215,850,570 metres per centidure.
If the dure replaces the minute, then instead of taking the minutes of
a meeting, people will endure it instead. Oh, wait.
Larry Moore
> Larry Moore <ljm...@tworightman.ca.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>
>> If Locke, I F Stone or Michel de Montaigne started a blog, that
>> would make a difference of course. I can read first-draft rough copies
>> of a number of stories without using the Internet.
>
> Trouble is, before they became famous, how would you know they were
> worth reading?
It made it past a gatekeeper:
a) the work was accepted, edited and published professionally.
b) the work was published in a reputable journal in the field after
a peer review.
c) the work was self-published but publicly reviewed and critiqued
by a professional critic.
d) the author has published books before that you found worthy
(this is no guarantee - famous authors can intimidate editors into
allowing inferior work through.)
Even then, there's only an increased chance of escaping Ellison's
Law. I expect four of the five books on our bookclub's list to be
unreadable (the first one certainly was.)
Publishers employ interns to read their slush pile. it is
a public service too little appreciated.
--
Mistakes are, after all, the foundations of truth, and if a man does not
know what a thing is, it is at least an increase in knowledge if he
knows what it is not.
Carl Jung
Larry Moore
> Larry Moore <ljm...@tworightman.ca.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>> Also, we find all web pages assume a larger screen than we have
>> and that the fonts are rendered so small as to cause eyestrain.
>
> I can't help with the screen size, but most browsers should allow you to
> set the text size yourself - in Firefox you can either set the page to
> "No Style" which overrides the page's display settings or just enlarge
> the text size until you find it readable. Even Internet Exploder has a
> text zoom function.
>
I found the dillo site and downloaded the manual, FAQ and
dillo_help.html files. Yes, the dillo startup has a font_factor
entry. It's not interactive but it's better than nothing.
Thanks for the push.
On the Mac, it is easier and can be changed on the fly.
--
Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you.
Carl Jung
Larry Moore
> If the dure replaces the minute, then instead of taking the minutes of
> a meeting, people will endure it instead. Oh, wait.
>
You mean like:
aging - duress
retirement - ordure
passage of time - procedure
decision time - verdure
How many centidures?
--
"C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la
guerre. C'est de la folie" - Marshal Pierre Bosquet
John Wilkins
> On 2008-05-18, 8'FED <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
> > If the dure replaces the minute, then instead of taking the minutes of
> > a meeting, people will endure it instead. Oh, wait.
> >
>
> You mean like:
> aging - duress
> retirement - ordure
> passage of time - procedure
> decision time - verdure
>
> How many centidures?
Is that about perdurance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdurantism
John Wilkins
> On 2008-05-18, John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > Larry Moore <ljm...@tworightman.ca.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If Locke, I F Stone or Michel de Montaigne started a blog, that
> >> would make a difference of course. I can read first-draft rough copies
> >> of a number of stories without using the Internet.
> >
> > Trouble is, before they became famous, how would you know they were
> > worth reading?
>
> It made it past a gatekeeper:
On a blog? The only gatekeeper I have is me. Of course, I'm a reliable
gatekeeper, but *you* don't know that (yet).
> a) the work was accepted, edited and published professionally.
> b) the work was published in a reputable journal in the field after
> a peer review.
> c) the work was self-published but publicly reviewed and critiqued
> by a professional critic.
> d) the author has published books before that you found worthy
> (this is no guarantee - famous authors can intimidate editors into
> allowing inferior work through.)
Actually I have gone the other direction. At least two of my papers
started life as drafts on the blog before they got published.
Ironically, the one of scientific blogging (for TREE) didn't. There's an
... ummm.. message or something in that.
>
> Even then, there's only an increased chance of escaping Ellison's
> Law. I expect four of the five books on our bookclub's list to be
> unreadable (the first one certainly was.)
As I always say (and wasn't allowed to in the TREE article) Sturgeon was
an optimist. 98% of everything is crap.
>
>
> Publishers employ interns to read their slush pile. it is
> a public service too little appreciated.
--
Larry Moore
> an optimist. 98% of everything is crap.
O my remaining synapse!
Ellison's Law: "The userbase for strong cryptography declines by
half with every additional keystroke or mouseclick required to make it
work."
Sturgeon's Law: "Ninety percent of science fiction is crud, but then
ninety percent of everything is crud."
You can easily understand why I would confuse these? :-)
q: what on scienceblogs.com would hang IE but not Netscape on a Mac
(MacOS 9.2) and hang dillo under debian sarge? There's a short gif file
reported being downloaded just before. I was trying to see how
much uptime I could clock and that frustrates it. Thanks.
--
Qne's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original
dimensions.
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
Larry Moore
> Larry Moore <ljm...@tworightman.ca.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-05-18, 8'FED <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
>> > If the dure replaces the minute, then instead of taking the minutes of
>> > a meeting, people will endure it instead. Oh, wait.
>> >
>>
>> You mean like:
>> aging - duress
>> retirement - ordure
>> passage of time - procedure
>> decision time - verdure
>>
>> How many centidures?
>
> Is that about perdurance?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdurantism
Not really - he's named his standard time unit a 'dure'.
IDNK why.
--
You get tragedy where the tree, instead of bending, breaks.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
8'FED
> John Wilkins wrote:
>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>> How many centidures?
That's only half a question: how many centidures in /what/?
In a dure? A hundred, I think. I could check if you want.
>> Is that about perdurance?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdurantism
>
> Not really - he's named his standard time unit a 'dure'.
> IDNK why.
That's because you don't read blogs. A three-part rationale is given
in my post:
(1) Dure is actually an antiquated word in English, meaning endure
(according to Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dure ). So
I'm giving a new meaning to an antiquated word, as has often been
done successfully in the past (c.f. science, machine, etc).
(2) It derives from French (/durer/, meaning "to last"), which is very
appropriate for a metric unit, seeing as the metric system is
French in origin and "metre" derives from French, too.
(3) It's a short word, hence practical to use even when prefixes
centi-/hecto- are tacked on.
Seems like an ideal name for it to me.
John Wilkins
> > As I always say (and wasn't allowed to in the TREE article) Sturgeon was
> > an optimist. 98% of everything is crap.
>
> O my remaining synapse!
>
> Ellison's Law: "The userbase for strong cryptography declines by
> half with every additional keystroke or mouseclick required to make it
> work."
>
> Sturgeon's Law: "Ninety percent of science fiction is crud, but then
> ninety percent of everything is crud."
>
> You can easily understand why I would confuse these? :-)
90% of cryptography is unusable?
>
>
> q: what on scienceblogs.com would hang IE but not Netscape on a Mac
> (MacOS 9.2) and hang dillo under debian sarge? There's a short gif file
> reported being downloaded just before. I was trying to see how
> much uptime I could clock and that frustrates it. Thanks.
Things that hang loading on SB tend to be blog specific - usually
something like Technorati or Sitemeter outsourced links. Which blog was
it (not mine, I hope).
Larry Moore
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>> Larry Moore wrote:
>
>>>> How many centidures?
>
> That's only half a question: how many centidures in /what/?
>
> In a dure? A hundred, I think. I could check if you want.
>
the dur ation of the wait you requested.
>>> Is that about perdurance?
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdurantism
>>
>> Not really - he's named his standard time unit a 'dure'.
>> IDNK why.
>
> That's because you don't read blogs
There are things I can't do - my software has problems handling flash
or java or poorly formed html or whatever. The first time I have to reset and
reboot, I avoid that site thereafter. Hangs while reporting a gif file
transfer - probably a pop-up add.
For example, I have managed to read at your site three times and been
frozen twice (requiring a hard reboot sequence.)
On scienceblogs.com - I freeze using the linux quadra, X & dillo.
Using Netscape on the Mac, IE freezes on that site,
I tried posting a request to subscribe to the 'evolving thought'
blog. The subscription window had three non-standard html codes
and the submit button wouldn't work.
The gods do not smile on this enterprise and the Lady was not in the
mood.
> A three-part rationale is given
> in my post:
>
> (1) Dure is actually an antiquated word in English, meaning endure
> (according to Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dure ). So
> I'm giving a new meaning to an antiquated word, as has often been
> done successfully in the past (c.f. science, machine, etc).
>
> (2) It derives from French (/durer/, meaning "to last"), which is very
> appropriate for a metric unit, seeing as the metric system is
> French in origin and "metre" derives from French, too.
>
> (3) It's a short word, hence practical to use even when prefixes
> centi-/hecto- are tacked on.
>
> Seems like an ideal name for it to me.
>
Ok.
Why a soft conversion? 200 megametres at C would seem more obvious.
--
I recommend that the Statue of Liberty be supplemented by a Statue of
Responsibility on the west coast.
Viktor E. Frankl
Larry Moore
Aye. Certainly for complete privacy purposes..
>>
>>
>> q: what on scienceblogs.com would hang IE but not Netscape on a Mac
>> (MacOS 9.2) and hang dillo under debian sarge? There's a short gif file
>> reported being downloaded just before. I was trying to see how
>> much uptime I could clock and that frustrates it. Thanks.
>
> Things that hang loading on SB tend to be blog specific - usually
> something like Technorati or Sitemeter outsourced links. Which blog was
> it (not mine, I hope).
I didn't follow the forward links about the bat wing evolution paper
but your blog is ok.
On a suggestion, I found & downloaded the dillo
documentation; it will scale_up text to a readable size.
The hangs might relate to up-time. I'll keep a log
and see if there's a pattern.
--
"Books are a hindrance to persisting stupidity."
A Spanish Proverb
8'FED
> There are things I can't do - my software has problems handling flash
> or java or poorly formed html or whatever. The first time I have to reset and
> reboot, I avoid that site thereafter. Hangs while reporting a gif file
> transfer - probably a pop-up add.
There are no pop-up ads on Wordpress blogs, but my guess is that the
problem has something to do with the visitor-tracking routines.
As the owner of the blog I have access to a page of statistics on how
many page views there've been for each post, what links people clicked
on, etc, and I suspect its the routines that gather that information
that your software doesn't like.
The process of collecting the visitor information utilises a tiny gif
image that's displayed at the bottom of the page. My guess is that's
the gif file that you see reported.
> Why a soft conversion? 200 megametres at C would seem more obvious.
I don't know what you mean by a soft conversion. I searched for "soft
conversion" in Google and found some definitions that don't seem
applicable in this context, unless you know of some way to actually
change the speed of light.
Adrian.
Larry Moore
>
>> There are things I can't do - my software has problems handling flash
>> or java or poorly formed html or whatever. The first time I have to reset and
>> reboot, I avoid that site thereafter. Hangs while reporting a gif file
>> transfer - probably a pop-up add.
>
> There are no pop-up ads on Wordpress blogs, but my guess is that the
> problem has something to do with the visitor-tracking routines.
>
> As the owner of the blog I have access to a page of statistics on how
> many page views there've been for each post, what links people clicked
> on, etc, and I suspect its the routines that gather that information
> that your software doesn't like.
>
> The process of collecting the visitor information utilises a tiny gif
> image that's displayed at the bottom of the page. My guess is that's
> the gif file that you see reported.
>
The timing would be about right but I'm not convinced that the
problem is out there instead of in here. It happens most often when
X has been up for days. I haven't tested stepping down from X and using
a text browser like lynx.
>> Why a soft conversion? 200 megametres at C would seem more obvious.
>
> I don't know what you mean by a soft conversion. I searched for "soft
> conversion" in Google and found some definitions that don't seem
> applicable in this context, unless you know of some way to actually
> change the speed of light.
>
> Adrian.
>
"A soft conversion is a direct mathematical conversion from a U.S.
measurement to its metric equivalent e.g., from 180 pounds to 81.65
kilograms. A hard conversion is the creation of a new, rounded,
rationalized number that is easy to work with and easy to remember."
www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer95/p95su14.htm
--
Philosophy is not a theory but an activity.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
8'FED
> 8'FED wrote:
>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>> Why a soft conversion? 200 megametres at C would seem more obvious.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by a soft conversion. I searched for "soft
>> conversion" in Google and found some definitions that don't seem
>> applicable in this context, unless you know of some way to actually
>> change the speed of light.
>
> "A soft conversion is a direct mathematical conversion from a U.S.
> measurement to its metric equivalent e.g., from 180 pounds to 81.65
> kilograms. A hard conversion is the creation of a new, rounded,
> rationalized number that is easy to work with and easy to remember."
> www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer95/p95su14.htm
That's not terribly helpful. As I understand it from that definition
and others, the distinction between soft and hard conversion applies
to manufacturers of products that have specified measurements. If you
sell a robot that's six feet tall, and you modify the user manual to
say that it's 182.9 centimetres tall, that's a soft conversion. But if
you actually re-build the robot so that the revised model is 180 cm
tall exactly and update the user manual to say so, that's a hard
conversion.
So, just as in the above example a hard conversion means re-designing
the robot, so in the pertinent example a hard conversion would mean
actually changing the speed of light and therefore the laws of nature
themselves.
My proposal is ambitious, but not *that* ambitious.
Adrian.
Larry Moore
have my fundamental constants mucked with. Thanks.
What I was saying was that the dure be pegged as the time that light
takes to travel 200 000 000 km in a vacuum - abandon the arbitrary
time units of HMS and go stardate.
--
Men in great place are thrice servants: servants of the sovereign or
state; servants of fame; and servants of business. Francis Bacon
8'FED
> No No NO! I have got used to the present value of C and am too old to
> have my fundamental constants mucked with. Thanks.
> What I was saying was that the dure be pegged as the time that light
> takes to travel 200 000 000 km in a vacuum - abandon the arbitrary
> time units of HMS and go stardate.
If that's what you want, wouldn't it be better just to change the
metre?
The metricisation is just one part of my proposal. The other part is
to revise the definitions of terms such as "morning", "afternoon",
"evening", "yesterday" and "tomorrow". These terms are intrinsically
tied to HMS, so my proposal must be too, else it would be an entirely
different sort of proposal with entirely different goals.
Adrian.
Hendrik Schober
> [...]
> The hangs might relate to up-time. I'll keep a log
> and see if there's a pattern.
And if you log it On The Web[TM], you'd keep a blog.
But then perhaps you might have to explain why you
think people would be interested in reading any weblog.
And then why your blog in particular.
SCNRobi
--
Spam...@gmx.de is never read
I'm HSchober at gmx dot de
"I guess at some point idealism meets human nature and
explodes." Daniel Orner
Larry Moore
>
>> No No NO! I have got used to the present value of C and am too old to
>> have my fundamental constants mucked with. Thanks.
>> What I was saying was that the dure be pegged as the time that light
>> takes to travel 200 000 000 km in a vacuum - abandon the arbitrary
>> time units of HMS and go stardate.
>
> If that's what you want, wouldn't it be better just to change the
> metre?
Flip a coin - both our distance and time units are arbitrary.
The metre is based on the distance from the equator to the
(north?) pole; the day on the present rotation rate of this
planet and the second on our species' hearbeat.
Light is a constant velocity but in this inconstant universe
there are few distance and time constants that are location
independent.
>
> The metricisation is just one part of my proposal. The other part is
> to revise the definitions of terms such as "morning", "afternoon",
> "evening", "yesterday" and "tomorrow". These terms are intrinsically
> tied to HMS, so my proposal must be too, else it would be an entirely
> different sort of proposal with entirely different goals.
>
> Adrian.
>
>
It seemed very similar to how the Romans referred to time.
AFAIR after fifty years.
--
"It's magnificent, but it isn't war. It's madness."
Marshal Pierre Bosquet
Larry Moore
> Larry Moore <ljm...@tworightman.ca.INVALID> wrote:
>> [...]
>> The hangs might relate to up-time. I'll keep a log
>> and see if there's a pattern.
>
> And if you log it On The Web[TM], you'd keep a blog.
> But then perhaps you might have to explain why you
> think people would be interested in reading any weblog.
> And then why your blog in particular.
>
> SCNRobi
>
Which is why I wouldn't. I'd have a web log when/if I have something
to cry from a soapbox and I can't think of what it would be.
SteveD
<ljm...@tworightman.ca.INVALID> wrote:
>On 2008-05-20, 8'FED <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>
>>> No No NO! I have got used to the present value of C and am too old to
>>> have my fundamental constants mucked with. Thanks.
>>> What I was saying was that the dure be pegged as the time that light
>>> takes to travel 200 000 000 km in a vacuum - abandon the arbitrary
>>> time units of HMS and go stardate.
>>
>> If that's what you want, wouldn't it be better just to change the
>> metre?
>
>Flip a coin - both our distance and time units are arbitrary.
>The metre is based on the distance from the equator to the
>(north?) pole; the day on the present rotation rate of this
>planet and the second on our species' hearbeat.
>Light is a constant velocity but in this inconstant universe
>there are few distance and time constants that are location
>independent.
Planck units.
Planck length:
10^38 units is a mile.
10^35 is about average human height.
10^34 is about the average length of the human hand a middle finger.
10^33 is between a centimetre and an inch.
Planck time:
10^43 units is approximately the time between heartbeats for a 2-year-old.
1.6x10^48 is a day. (Almost.)
I can't see Earth-based human beings adopting a new time system for
personal everyday and social use unless it was based on the solar day and
had lots of easy divisors. Given that the current system fulfils those
criteria, there's not going to be a lot of support for a change.
Something might be cooked up if and when we have a significant presence on
at least one more planet, but even then there's going to be a strong
pressure to use the system which is already in place, which people are
familiar with, and which is pre-coded into much of the technical support
infrastructure.
-SteveD
Mary-MKS
> On 2008-05-20, 8'FED <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
>> Larry Moore wrote:
> Flip a coin - both our distance and time units are arbitrary.
> The metre is based on the distance from the equator to the
> (north?) pole; the day on the present rotation rate of this
> planet and the second on our species' hearbeat.
Used to be. Nowadays the second is defined in terms of the frequency of
light you need to cause a particular energy-level transition in a cesium
atom. You set up a laser pointed at some cesium, and if the frequency
drifts, you can tell because the cesium stops glowing. So you set up a
detector and some electronics to correct the laser every time it drifts,
and now you have a something with a constant frequency. So you define a
second in terms of that. A constant so-many oscillations per second
means you can count oscillations and be sure that one second has passed
once you've seen the right number. The counting's a little tricky, but
that's the idea.
Since the second is actually defined this way now, atomic clocks are
accurate *by definition.*
Now since we have a physical definition of a second, and we can measure
the speed of light very accurately, we can define the meter in terms of
the distance light travels in a certain fraction of a second. And that's
how it's defined, these days.
> Light is a constant velocity but in this inconstant universe
> there are few distance and time constants that are location
> independent.
None, right? That's the whole point of relativity.
-Mary
--
I'm running the Chicago marathon in October to benefit the local Boys &
Girls Clubs, who offer enrichment programs at four inner city Clubs and
a summer camp for underprivileged children. To support me, you can just
type "Mary Salit" into the box at http://www.ulbgc.org/marathon2008.php
8'FED
> I can't see Earth-based human beings adopting a new time system for
> personal everyday and social use unless it was based on the solar day and
> had lots of easy divisors. Given that the current system fulfils those
> criteria, there's not going to be a lot of support for a change.
As far as my own proposal is concerned (which *is* based on the
solar day), the underlying philosophy is that there's being practical
and realistic, and then there's having fun, and never the twain shall
meet.
Adrian.
8'FED
> 8'FED wrote:
>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>
>>> takes to travel 200 000 000 km in a vacuum - abandon the arbitrary
>>> time units of HMS and go stardate.
>>
>> If that's what you want, wouldn't it be better just to change the
>> metre?
>
> Flip a coin - both our distance and time units are arbitrary.
> The metre is based on the distance from the equator to the
> (north?) pole; the day on the present rotation rate of this
> planet and the second on our species' hearbeat.
No.
As I understand it, the metre was based on an early measurement of the
distance from the equator to the pole that turned out to have been
inaccurate, even along the line of longitude where it was made.
The second was based on what you get if you divide a day by 2x12x60x60,
and we know from everyday (literally) experience that it works. Any
approximate correlation with the human heartbeat is, I believe, a
historical coincidence.
I'd say the metre is the more arbitrary of the two.
If we changed the *second* by the amount necessary to make the speed
of light exactly 300000000 metres per second, then a 24 hour day
would get shorter by almost exactly a minute.
(1-(300000000/299792458))*60*60*24 = 59.772096
Changing the metre, on the other hand, would have few everyday
repurcussions for most people. It would only bother scientists, and
who cares about them?
Adrian.
Len Oil
> Scríobh "8'FED" <dra...@netyp.com.au>:
>> Changing the metre, on the other hand, would have few everyday
>> repurcussions for most people. It would only bother scientists, and
>> who cares about them?
>
Or at least the people who find themselves below his leaning masonry.
But I thought that he would surely measure in Stoney units..? ;)
Chris Zakes
caused "8'FED" <dra...@netyp.com.au> to write:
>Larry Moore wrote:
>> 8'FED wrote:
>>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I was saying was that the dure be pegged as the time that light
>>>> takes to travel 200 000 000 km in a vacuum - abandon the arbitrary
>>>> time units of HMS and go stardate.
>>>
>>> If that's what you want, wouldn't it be better just to change the
>>> metre?
>>
>> Flip a coin - both our distance and time units are arbitrary.
>> The metre is based on the distance from the equator to the
>> (north?) pole; the day on the present rotation rate of this
>> planet and the second on our species' hearbeat.
>
>No.
>
>As I understand it, the metre was based on an early measurement of the
>distance from the equator to the pole that turned out to have been
>inaccurate, even along the line of longitude where it was made.
>
>The second was based on what you get if you divide a day by 2x12x60x60,
>and we know from everyday (literally) experience that it works. Any
>approximate correlation with the human heartbeat is, I believe, a
>historical coincidence.
>
>I'd say the metre is the more arbitrary of the two.
No, both were developed from Earth-based measurements, so they're
equally arbitrary. Kind of like how humans tend to think in base 10.
If we were octopi, we'd probably think base 8 was "normal."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx5KDyvlG3Q&feature=related
>If we changed the *second* by the amount necessary to make the speed
>of light exactly 300000000 metres per second, then a 24 hour day
>would get shorter by almost exactly a minute.
>
>(1-(300000000/299792458))*60*60*24 = 59.772096
>
>Changing the metre, on the other hand, would have few everyday
>repurcussions for most people. It would only bother scientists, and
>who cares about them?
It might, possibly, bother all the people who make highway signs,
maps, car speedometers and odometers, etc. (I presume you know where
the Kilometer comes from?)
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Five exclamation marks. A sure sign of a diseased mind.
-Terry Pratchett, "Maskerade"
8'FED
> an orbital mind-control laser caused 8'FED to write:
>>As I understand it, the metre was based on an early measurement of the
>>distance from the equator to the pole that turned out to have been
>>inaccurate, even along the line of longitude where it was made.
>>
>>The second was based on what you get if you divide a day by 2x12x60x60,
>>and we know from everyday (literally) experience that it works. Any
>>approximate correlation with the human heartbeat is, I believe, a
>>historical coincidence.
>>
>>I'd say the metre is the more arbitrary of the two.
>
> No, both were developed from Earth-based measurements, so they're
> equally arbitrary.
That doesn't follow. That humans would define units of time with
reference to the night/day cycle was inevitable.
>>(1-(300000000/299792458))*60*60*24 = 59.772096
Typo. (1-(299792458/300000000))*60*60*24 = 59.772096
>>Changing the metre, on the other hand, would have few everyday
>>repurcussions for most people. It would only bother scientists, and
>>who cares about them?
>
> It might, possibly, bother all the people who make highway signs,
> maps, car speedometers and odometers, etc.
Would it? Over one kilometre, the discrepency would still be only
about 69cm. Highway signs, maps, car speedometers, odometers, etc
would in general not even blink.
Of course, there might be problems for industries that make devices
with airtight or watertight seals, because a tiny discrepency in the
sizes of components might well constitute a leak. Such devices
probably include equipment used in hospitals, and so lots of people
would die needlessly. But who cares about such an insignificant
sacrifice if it means we get a more rational system of measurements?
Adrian.
Len Oil
> Chris Zakes wrote:
>> an orbital mind-control laser caused 8'FED to write:
>
>>> As I understand it, the metre was based on an early measurement of the
>>> distance from the equator to the pole that turned out to have been
>>> inaccurate, even along the line of longitude where it was made.
>>>
>>> The second was based on what you get if you divide a day by 2x12x60x60,
>>> and we know from everyday (literally) experience that it works. Any
>>> approximate correlation with the human heartbeat is, I believe, a
>>> historical coincidence.
>>>
>>> I'd say the metre is the more arbitrary of the two.
>> No, both were developed from Earth-based measurements, so they're
>> equally arbitrary.
>
> That doesn't follow. That humans would define units of time with
> reference to the night/day cycle was inevitable.
There are two types of arbitrariness being used here.
Chris means "not fundamental to the universe", which neither measure are.
The other assessment of /relative/ arbitrariness might depend on:
a) How much the standard from which it is derived has been guessed[1].
b) What you then do when you find it is incorrect[2].
c) If not making the unit the chosen standard, how the multiple is
chosen[3].
d) Probably something else... ;)
How you score a, b and c are arguable enough, let alone whether d is the
deal-breaker. But by such measure you can say that <foo> is more
arbitrary than <bar>. And that the universe won't take any notice,
either way... ;)
[1] The length of the day has been empirically measured for a long time.
The distance between pole and equator was a bit of an estimate, though
no doubt thought sufficiently correct not to delay the implementation.
[2] At some time between the imagining of both second and metre, we have
fixed that measure to something unrelated to the original metric. And
then had to redefine the metric as requires, whether by leap-seconds or
as a non-tidy number of metres.
[3] Second: Something /like/, but probably not exactly, being derived
from the division of the the length of the day and/or night into a dozen
sections each (the better to get half/third/quarter divisions of the
whole demi-day), which varied in length between themselves and
throughout the solar year, but were eventually (in one order or other)
rationalised and subdivided into 60ths (for a similar reason of
subdivision) and a further 60ths subdivision when such units of time
became important and handily-sized.
Metre: a power of ten that created a reasonably sized length for
most human-scale practical purposes.
Chris Zakes
caused "8'FED" <dra...@netyp.com.au> to write:
>Chris Zakes wrote:
>> an orbital mind-control laser caused 8'FED to write:
>
>>>As I understand it, the metre was based on an early measurement of the
>>>distance from the equator to the pole that turned out to have been
>>>inaccurate, even along the line of longitude where it was made.
>>>
>>>The second was based on what you get if you divide a day by 2x12x60x60,
>>>and we know from everyday (literally) experience that it works. Any
>>>approximate correlation with the human heartbeat is, I believe, a
>>>historical coincidence.
>>>
>>>I'd say the metre is the more arbitrary of the two.
>>
>> No, both were developed from Earth-based measurements, so they're
>> equally arbitrary.
>
>That doesn't follow. That humans would define units of time with
>reference to the night/day cycle was inevitable.
<shrug> The metre is one ten-millionth of the distance from the
equator to the north pole. That makes more sense than using the length
of three grains of barley (the inch) or the length of some king's foot
or the distance between his nose and fingertip (the yard.)
>>>(1-(300000000/299792458))*60*60*24 = 59.772096
>
>Typo. (1-(299792458/300000000))*60*60*24 = 59.772096
>
>>>Changing the metre, on the other hand, would have few everyday
>>>repurcussions for most people. It would only bother scientists, and
>>>who cares about them?
>>
>> It might, possibly, bother all the people who make highway signs,
>> maps, car speedometers and odometers, etc.
>
>Would it? Over one kilometre, the discrepency would still be only
>about 69cm. Highway signs, maps, car speedometers, odometers, etc
>would in general not even blink.
Maybe over short distances, but those discrepancies add up over longer
distances. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/POE/gold_bug.html
>Of course, there might be problems for industries that make devices
>with airtight or watertight seals, because a tiny discrepency in the
>sizes of components might well constitute a leak. Such devices
>probably include equipment used in hospitals, and so lots of people
>would die needlessly. But who cares about such an insignificant
>sacrifice if it means we get a more rational system of measurements?
Of course. And aren't things like litres based on a cubic centimeter?
I'm sure you won't mind of your litre bottle of whisky comes up a
little short.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
(Where it won't make any difference if you change the length of the
metre, since we still use feet and miles.)
ingenious paradox
wrote:
><shrug> The metre is one ten-millionth of the distance from the
>equator to the north pole. That makes more sense than using the length
>of three grains of barley (the inch) or the length of some king's foot
>or the distance between his nose and fingertip (the yard.)
Um - are you serious? More sense under what circumstances?
Roughly a thumb section; roughly a foot; roughly stretching distance.
one *ten-millionth* of a distance I have no idea of? Ha.
Julie
Larry Moore
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> 8'FED wrote:
>>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I was saying was that the dure be pegged as the time that light
>>>> takes to travel 200 000 000 km in a vacuum - abandon the arbitrary
>>>> time units of HMS and go stardate.
>>>
>>> If that's what you want, wouldn't it be better just to change the
>>> metre?
>>
>> Flip a coin - both our distance and time units are arbitrary.
>> The metre is based on the distance from the equator to the
>> (north?) pole; the day on the present rotation rate of this
>> planet and the second on our species' hearbeat.
>
> No.
>
> As I understand it, the metre was based on an early measurement of the
> distance from the equator to the pole that turned out to have been
> inaccurate, even along the line of longitude where it was made.
>
The measurement was accurate enough to start the SI bandwagon going. Now
with lasers, GPS such mod cons we can look back and scoff - they marked
lines on a block of metal and everyone agreed to use that as a standard;
as better technology came in, better ways of defining were adopted..
> The second was based on what you get if you divide a day by 2x12x60x60,
> and we know from everyday (literally) experience that it works. Any
> approximate correlation with the human heartbeat is, I believe, a
> historical coincidence.
>
The earth is not constant in its rotation; step minutes have to be
inserted and deleted (usually on New Years eve) to compensate.
You know that the Roman hour varied with the season, of course?
> I'd say the metre is the more arbitrary of the two.
>
> If we changed the *second* by the amount necessary to make the speed
> of light exactly 300000000 metres per second, then a 24 hour day
> would get shorter by almost exactly a minute.
>
> (1-(300000000/299792458))*60*60*24 = 59.772096
Wait a minute there Andy - who said anything about changing the
definition of the second? You were proposing a new time unit,
the dure?
>
> Changing the metre, on the other hand, would have few everyday
> repurcussions for most people. It would only bother scientists, and
> who cares about them?
>
> Adrian.
>
>
:-) Almost had me believing you.
--
"... we can all probably take heart from the studies that show that
an active mind can slow the development of Alzheimer's. Terry's mind's
not just active, it must be fizzing like a birthday party of
five-year-olds held in a Sunny Delight factory." a.f.p comment 2007
Chris Zakes
caused ingenious paradox <julie.w...@btinternet.com> to write:
>On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:20:35 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>><shrug> The metre is one ten-millionth of the distance from the
>>equator to the north pole. That makes more sense than using the length
>>of three grains of barley (the inch) or the length of some king's foot
>>or the distance between his nose and fingertip (the yard.)
>
>Um - are you serious? More sense under what circumstances?
Because it's based on a measurable distance that won't (under normal
circumstances) change. The length of the king's arm will probably
change every time you get a new king. The modern definition of a metre
is based on the same sort of thing. Quoting from Wikipedia:
"The metre was later redefined as the length of a particular bar of
platinum-iridium alloy; then in terms of the wavelength of light
emitted by a specified atomic transition; and now is defined as the
distance travelled by light in an absolute vacuum during 1/299,792,458
of a second."
>Roughly a thumb section; roughly a foot; roughly stretching distance.
"Roughly" is the problem. If the distance from my nose to fingertip is
a "yard" then what about my wife, whose head barely comes up to my
chin? *Her* "yard" is almost a full hand-length shorter than mine.
Which one do we use when we're measuring fabric, or building a fence?
And you can guess what happens if we get our respective "yards" mixed
up.
>one *ten-millionth* of a distance I have no idea of? Ha.
But it's easy enough to look up.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Julian Hall
> "Roughly" is the problem. If the distance from my nose to fingertip is
> a "yard" then what about my wife, whose head barely comes up to my
> chin? *Her* "yard" is almost a full hand-length shorter than mine.
> Which one do we use when we're measuring fabric, or building a fence?
> And you can guess what happens if we get our respective "yards" mixed
> up.
I think in the case of the yard the salient point is that it wasn't any
old king, but a particular king[1] who stretched out his arms, said
'Right.. measure that with a piece of string.. that's a yard'. Thereafter
you no longer need the king, just the piece of string. Same thing with
his foot I should think[2]. I have no clue where the UK weight of a
'stone'[3] came from - presumably again a specific stone.
I think there will always be arguments over Decimal v Imperial measuring
systems with advocates of each. The ones that drive me headless are the
ones with the same names and *different* sizes. For example why is a US
gallon slightly different to a UK gallon? And 'billion' afaik is defined
differently in the US v the UK. There may be others.
Kind regards,
Julian
[1] Not that I know which one.
[2] Same king? No idea. :)
[3] 14 pounds if anyone wondered.
Alec Cawley
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2008-05-20, 8'FED <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
>>> Larry Moore wrote:
>> Flip a coin - both our distance and time units are arbitrary.
>> The metre is based on the distance from the equator to the (north?)
>> pole; the day on the present rotation rate of this
>> planet and the second on our species' hearbeat.
>
> Used to be. Nowadays the second is defined in terms of the frequency of
> light you need to cause a particular energy-level transition in a cesium
> atom. You set up a laser pointed at some cesium, and if the frequency
> drifts, you can tell because the cesium stops glowing. So you set up a
> detector and some electronics to correct the laser every time it drifts,
> and now you have a something with a constant frequency. So you define a
> second in terms of that. A constant so-many oscillations per second
> means you can count oscillations and be sure that one second has passed
> once you've seen the right number. The counting's a little tricky, but
> that's the idea.
>
> Since the second is actually defined this way now, atomic clocks are
> accurate *by definition.*
>
> Now since we have a physical definition of a second, and we can measure
> the speed of light very accurately, we can define the meter in terms of
> the distance light travels in a certain fraction of a second. And that's
> how it's defined, these days.
>
You are talking at cross purposes. He said "based on", you said "defined
by". The second is based on the heartbeat. Since heartbeats are highly
variable, we need a better reference and use the caesium standard you
describe. But the number of ceasium cycles that make one time unit is
essentially arbitrary: we could have based it on the time between meals
and had a unit a few thousand times larger, but defined for scinetific
purposes with the same accuracy.
>> Light is a constant velocity but in this inconstant universe
>> there are few distance and time constants that are location independent.
>
> None, right? That's the whole point of relativity.
There is also the concept of "Doubly Special Relativity" based on the
concept that the Planck Length, being the mimimum "useful" length
defined by other fundamental constants, must be the same to all
observers; you cannot observe things below the scale of the Planck
Length just by moving them at speed. This require a physics in which
lengths change with scale, just as times change with speed.
Julian Hall
> You know that the Roman hour varied with the season, of course?
I didn't... innovative idea :) But then the Romans had lots of those -
some good, some decidly not good.
Kind regards,
Julian
Alec Cawley
I believe that there have been problems caused by precision machinery
built using the British inch (2.54 cm exactly) not fitting with parts
build using the American inch (2.539..... cm)
Julian Hall
> There is also the concept of "Doubly Special Relativity" based on the
> concept that the Planck Length, being the mimimum "useful" length
> defined by other fundamental constants, must be the same to all
> observers; you cannot observe things below the scale of the Planck
> Length just by moving them at speed. This require a physics in which
> lengths change with scale, just as times change with speed.
ISTR reading somewhere - probably Stephen Hawking - that lightspeed
actually *isn't a constant and can vary, if minutely, under certain
circumstances. Most likely to do with gravity since that is the usual
suspect in these things.
Kind regards,
Julian
Alec Cawley
> "Roughly" is the problem. If the distance from my nose to fingertip is
> a "yard" then what about my wife, whose head barely comes up to my
> chin? *Her* "yard" is almost a full hand-length shorter than mine.
> Which one do we use when we're measuring fabric, or building a fence?
> And you can guess what happens if we get our respective "yards" mixed
> up.
I remember reading some traveller in primitive parts saying that fabric
was sold in markets by what I thing it the "ell" - the length from elbow
to fingertip. And it was the customer's eelbow/fingertip that was used,
and the merchants made no complaint whn he used his much longer European
arm to make his purchase.
8'FED
> Wait a minute there Andy - who said anything about changing the
> definition of the second? You were proposing a new time unit,
> the dure?
We're talking about something radically different from my original
proposal now, so I don't feel it's appropriate to keep using the same
word.
Adrian.
Gid
decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> There is also the concept of "Doubly Special Relativity" based on the
> concept that the Planck Length, being the mimimum "useful" length
> defined by other fundamental constants, must be the same to all
> observers; you cannot observe things below the scale of the Planck
> Length just by moving them at speed. This require a physics in which
> lengths change with scale, just as times change with speed.
Find yourself enough plancks and you can build yourself a Barn..
Hence:
There was a young swordsman called Frisk
Who at fencing was terribly brisk
So fast was his action
Fitzgerald contraction
Foreshortened his foil to a disc
--
Gid
Current Project: Bragdy'r Ddraenen Wen
(if it ever stops raining for long enough)
8'FED
> Scríobh 8'FED:
>>That doesn't follow. That humans would define units of time with
>>reference to the night/day cycle was inevitable.
>
> That they'd create them by dividing by 24 and 60 wasn't.
But you can't make a _small_ adjustment to the length of the second
(to make it the time that light takes to travel 300000000m) just by
changing those factors.
Changing the factors takes us back to my original proposal: instead of
dividing by 24*60*60, to divide by 12*100*100.
Adrian.
Arthur Hagen
>
> Of course. And aren't things like litres based on a cubic centimeter?
Cubic decimeter, actually.
Makes a lot more sense to me than having a fluid ounce, as opposed to a dry
ounce, that's linked to a gallon that varies in size depending on the
continent.
Of course, we should all start using millihogsheads.
Regards,
--
*Art
Free Lunch
wrote:
Really? I've never seen the American inch defined as anything but
exactly 2.54 cm.
Elliott Grasett
> In article <69jpd8F...@mid.individual.net>, Alec Cawley generously
> decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
>> There is also the concept of "Doubly Special Relativity" based on the
>> concept that the Planck Length, being the mimimum "useful" length
>> defined by other fundamental constants, must be the same to all
>> observers; you cannot observe things below the scale of the Planck
>> Length just by moving them at speed. This require a physics in which
>> lengths change with scale, just as times change with speed.
>
> Find yourself enough plancks and you can build yourself a Barn..
>
> Hence:
>
> There was a young swordsman called Frisk
> Who at fencing was terribly brisk
> So fast was his action
> Fitzgerald contraction
> Foreshortened his foil to a disc
>
There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was much faster than light;
She set out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.
--
Cheers,
Elliott
Elliott Grasett
I've always been partial to millihelens:
That unit of feminine beauty required
to launch one ship.
--
Cheers,
Elliott
Alec Cawley
There is a theory, which is not mainstream but whose proponents are
regarded as completely respectable, that it has changed by some
relatively small amount since the Big Bang. This would be an alternative
explanation for some measurements for which the mainstream has invented
Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Alec Cawley
> I think there will always be arguments over Decimal v Imperial measuring
> systems with advocates of each. The ones that drive me headless are the
> ones with the same names and *different* sizes. For example why is a US
> gallon slightly different to a UK gallon? And 'billion' afaik is defined
> differently in the US v the UK. There may be others.
The different gallons were simply becaue towns were a long way apart and
people didn't standardise between them. When the first
weight-and-measures laws were passed, different towns would define a
standard gallon by simply making one and saying that all gallons in the
town should be the same. The next town would see no reason to make an
exact copy - heavy things like beer were rarely moved long distances,
which is why one in four houses in certain towns were brewers and public
houses. Of course, over time, different countries standardized on a
common local definitions, but they wer always ad-hoc units. I think a
gallon is basically "a reasonably easy amount to carry", which turns out
to be about eight of "a good tankard-full for a drinking man".
The billions problem is just two different sets of slightly jealous
mathematicians arguing. The British system didn't have a name for 10^9,
so the US system won. Same reason as there are two names for the
English Channel (La Manche) and London (Londres).
Alec Cawley
They may now have pulled them together, but the US was a lot later than
the UK in changing fromn the "exact" value to the "soft metric" value.
The problems which I describes, which I heard about from someone who
would have been active in the 60s and early 70s, may have pushed the
change.
Len Oil
> The earth is not constant in its rotation; step minutes have to be
> inserted and deleted (usually on New Years eve) to compensate.
"Leap seconds". I think you meant. ;)
That is because we now have more accurate measures of time than the
frankly inconstant Earth, of course. (Didn't I say something about
that? I know I meant to.)
Graycat
>Changing the metre, on the other hand, would have few everyday
>repurcussions for most people. It would only bother scientists, and
>who cares about them?
That would depend on how much you change it. changing the metre would
mean changing all other metric length measures too. And there are a
fair few of us who would in fact notice that - when suddenly our doord
don't fit our houses, our clothes don't fit our bodies and we arrive
places two hours later than we thought because the roadsigns are all
wrong...
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
8'FED
> 8'FED wrote:
>
>>Changing the metre, on the other hand, would have few everyday
>>repurcussions for most people. It would only bother scientists, and
>>who cares about them?
>
> That would depend on how much you change it.
In this context, by a factor of 1:0.999308193 in order to change the
speed of light from 299792458 metres per second to 300000000 exactly.
So a metre shrinks by about 7/10 of a millimetre and the area of
Sweden is reduced by an amount smaller than Singapore but larger than
the Isle of Man.
Changing the speed of light to a round number was Larry's idea; I'm
just arguing about the best way to achieve it, assuming we want to.
Adrian.
8'FED
> So a metre shrinks by about 7/10 of a millimetre and the area of
> Sweden is reduced by an amount smaller than Singapore but larger than
> the Isle of Man.
Or increased, rather: if you shrink the metre you can fit more of them in.
Adrian.
Julian Hall
> Scríobh "8'FED" <dra...@netyp.com.au>:
> Why 12? Why 100? Why not change a metre instead? Is this prompted by
> your need is for even numbers? Why not just use a number base that
> gives us that result? Maybe you get nice round numbers in base 17?
I have to say the 24/60 thing is puzzling when you consider that humans do
not have digits in multiples of six. In that context decimal does make
more sense as you count all fingers and thumbs of both hands to get ten,
then repeat for 20 etc. Agreed that night and day is an obvious split,
but why not ten hours either side? Then ten minutes of ten seconds each.
Or a hundred minutes.
Whatever the size of the 'major' units there will always be a need for
fractions else there would be no need for millimitres, 1/16 inch etc.
Kind regards,
Julian
Julian Hall
> The different gallons were simply becaue towns were a long way apart and
> people didn't standardise between them.
<snip>
Fair enough.. that makes sense, although with globalisation so prevalent
now, standardising them would be useful.
> The billions problem is just two different sets of slightly jealous
> mathematicians arguing. The British system didn't have a name for 10^9,
> so the US system won.
I thought it was that the UK billion was 1 million * 1 million and the US
is 1000 * 1 million? We did have a name but we used it for a different
measure. Same as the gallon problem.
> Same reason as there are two names for the English Channel (La Manche)
> and London (Londres).
Not really. English Channel/La Manche are two names for the same thing
agreed, but in different languages. The same reason the West called
Beijing Peking for years. Same place different names due to different
languages. Gallon is the *same* name in the same language for the same
entity - a fluid measure - but of different sizes.
Kind regards,
Julian
Graycat
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 10:50:18 +0100, Féachadóir wrote:
>
>> Scríobh "8'FED" <dra...@netyp.com.au>:
>>>Féachadóir wrote:
>>>> Scríobh 8'FED:
>>>
>>>>>That doesn't follow. That humans would define units of time with
>>>>>reference to the night/day cycle was inevitable.
>>>>
>>>> That they'd create them by dividing by 24 and 60 wasn't.
>>>
>>>But you can't make a _small_ adjustment to the length of the second
>>>(to make it the time that light takes to travel 300000000m) just by
>>>changing those factors.
>>>
>>>Changing the factors takes us back to my original proposal: instead of
>>>dividing by 24*60*60, to divide by 12*100*100.
>>
>> Why 12? Why 100? Why not change a metre instead? Is this prompted by
>> your need is for even numbers? Why not just use a number base that
>> gives us that result? Maybe you get nice round numbers in base 17?
>
>I have to say the 24/60 thing is puzzling when you consider that humans do
>not have digits in multiples of six.
However, numbers based on sixes are easier to divide than numbers
based on tens. With the decimal system you very soon run into
fractions that are tricky without calculators.