bytes?
David
Dave.
--
David
friends dont tell friends use windows
Alex Macfarlane Smith
> How many bytes make a bit or ? kilo, mega, ?
>
> Dave.
>
>
8 bits in a byte (b).
1024 bytes in a kilobyte (KB).
1024 kilobytes in a megabyte (MB).
1024 bits in a kilobit (Kb).
1024 kilobits in a megabit (Mb).
or something.
Alex.
Vince M Hudd
> How many bytes make a bit or ? kilo, mega, ?
As far as bits are concerned, it's the other way around - there are 8 bits
in a byte.
With the rest you have to think in powers of two, and the answers are the
nearest figure to the 1,000 for kilobyte (1,024) and to the 1,000,000 for
megabyte (1,048,576). There are none in trilobites, of course, because they
didn't have teeth.
<And inevitably, I'll now discover I'm wrong about trilobites...>
--
Vince M Hudd - Soft Rock Software
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://misc.vinceh.com
John
<8df678d350.d...@mail.daveandsylvia.plus.com>,
David <ma...@daveandsylvia.plus.com> wrote:
> How many bytes make a bit
One eighth.
> or ? kilo, mega, ?
Despite the slightly confusing way in which you have asked
your question, I think you'll find the answer here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte
--
John
new...@blueyonder.co.uk
j dot mccartney atte blueyonder dot co dot uk
T M Smith
Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> David <ma...@daveandsylvia.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> How many bytes make a bit or ? kilo, mega, ?
>
> As far as bits are concerned, it's the other way around - there are 8 bits
> in a byte.
>
> With the rest you have to think in powers of two, and the answers are the
> nearest figure to the 1,000 for kilobyte (1,024) and to the 1,000,000 for
> megabyte (1,048,576). There are none in trilobites, of course, because they
> didn't have teeth.
>
> <And inevitably, I'll now discover I'm wrong about trilobites...>
What about nibbles!
Malcolm
--
T M Smith
Using an Iyonix and RISC OS 5.13 in the North Riding of Yorkshire
Alan Griffin
T M Smith <thomas....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > <And inevitably, I'll now discover I'm wrong about trilobites...>
> What about nibbles!
Don't you mean nybbles?
Alan Griffin
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> 8 bits in a byte (b).
> 1024 bytes in a kilobyte (KB).
> 1024 kilobytes in a megabyte (MB).
>
> 1024 bits in a kilobit (Kb).
> 1024 kilobits in a megabit (Mb).
>
> or something.
There's also
2 bytes in a word (on most PCs anyway, 4 on some mainframes)
Long ago as a student I thought it better to think of
4 shits in a drybble
8 shits in a shyte
2 shytes in a turd
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsre...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "nnn" by "284".
Vince M Hudd
> > There are none in trilobites, of course, because they didn't have teeth.
> > <And inevitably, I'll now discover I'm wrong about trilobites...>
> What about nibbles!
I've no idea if they made good nibbles. I wasn't around at the time.
Rob Kendrick
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
wrote:
> There's also
>
> 2 bytes in a word (on most PCs anyway, 4 on some mainframes)
Word size varies between architectures. A word is 16 bits on x86
because it was originally a 16 bit architecture. Words on ARM systems
are 32 bits.
And for extra head-scratching, bytes aren't always 8 bits. (Some DSPs
have 16 bit bytes.)
B.
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 23:16:26 +0000
> Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > There's also
> >
> > 2 bytes in a word (on most PCs anyway, 4 on some mainframes)
>
> Word size varies between architectures.
> A word is 16 bits on x86 because it was originally a 16 bit architecture.
> Words on ARM systems are 32 bits.
Aye, I know, but I thought I'd limit the description to the likely
experience of most of the readers. I forgot about ARM though because I've
never written any ARM assembler, just read the books for fun and forgotten
it all again...
> And for extra head-scratching, bytes aren't always 8 bits. (Some DSPs
> have 16 bit bytes.)
I'm sure some early machines had 6-bit bytes, too.
Getting back on- 'topic' (nuts could be bad for the digestion), I think it
would be sensible to expect a line-printer to be fed from a toilet roll
(like the laser printers at work [a bank] were fed from enormous rolls of
paper several feet in diameter)... The printers were a lot more like
printing presses than what most people would recognise as a laser printer.
Jonathan Graham Harston
> or ? kilo,
A kilo-what? A kilobyte? 1024.
> mega, ?
A mega-what? A megabyte? 1048576.
--
J.G.Harston - j...@arcade.demon.co.uk - mdfs.net/User/JGH
Taxation is like dairy farming. You have to extract the maximum
amount of milk with the minimum amount of moo.
Martin Bazley
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 23:16:26 +0000
> > Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There's also
> > >
> > > 2 bytes in a word (on most PCs anyway, 4 on some mainframes)
> >
> > Words on ARM systems are 32 bits. [snip]
>
> Aye, I know, but I thought I'd limit the description to the likely
> experience of most of the readers...
>
WTF?
[snip]
> Getting back on- 'topic' (nuts could be bad for the digestion), I think it
> would be sensible to expect a line-printer to be fed from a toilet roll
> (like the laser printers at work [a bank] were fed from enormous rolls of
> paper several feet in diameter)... The printers were a lot more like
> printing presses than what most people would recognise as a laser printer.
>
Huh?
Sorry, that was one of the most nonsensical posts I have read in a long
time.
--
__<^>__
/ _ _ \ I don't have a problem with God; it's his fan club I can't stand.
( ( |_| ) )
\_> <_/ ======================= Martin Bazley ==========================
Rob Kendrick
Martin Bazley <martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Sorry, that was one of the most nonsensical posts I have read in a
> long time.
I can't help but agree. If anybody can shed any light on Jeremy's
muttering, I'd be interested :)
B.
Ben Crick
Nicoll - news posts
<jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.u<gemini.kvnev...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> I'm sure some early machines had 6-bit bytes, too.
The Creed 5B (five bit) Teleprinter had just that - 5 bit bytes. So you
only had BLOCK CAPS and very limited punctuation, plus Carriage Return
and Line Feed (CR and LF). The local record was one keystroke behind,
so you had to do an extra CR at the end to see your last printable
character. (1LF+2CR).
The code was also punched onto ticker tape, for feeding into automatic
reading and transmitting devices. The code used was called the Murray
Code as no doubt those with a Post Office Telephones or Royal Signals
background will remember.
The system was not electronic, but electro-mechanical. The baud speed was
limited to 50 baud IIRC.
Ben
--
_ __________________________________________
/ \._._ |_ _ _ /' Orpheus Internet Services
\_/| |_)| |(/_|_|_> / 'Internet for Everyone'
_______ | ___________./ http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk
Revd Ben Crick BA CF <ben.crick[at]argonet.co.uk> ZFC Os
232 Canterbury Road, Birchington on sea, Kent CT7 9TD (UK)
Acorn RPC700 Kinetic RO 4.03 with Castle Iyonix RO 5.13 Ethernet
* Having truth decay? Brush up on your Bible.
Steffen Huber
> How many bytes make a bit or ? kilo, mega, ?
After the surprising amount of wrongs and half-truths in this
thread, I am aiming for the correct and final answer.
How many bytes make a bit? Not a sensible thing to ask, because
a byte is defined as a group of bits. Usually, today a byte is
almost always a group of 8 bits. But historically, there were
4-bit-bytes as well as 9-bit-bytes. The French got it right and
called 8-bit-bytes "octet".
A kilobyte is 1000 bytes. Don't let anyone tell you that it is
1024 bytes. "kilo" is an SI prefix and always means 1000, no
matter in which context it is used. For binary stuff, IEC has
defined the Ki prefix, called "kibi". So 1000 bytes are 1 kByte,
and 1024 bytes are 1 KiByte.
The same for mega. The binary prefix for 1024*1024 bytes is Mi
("mebi").
However, be prepared to receive suprised looks when using the
correct form - acceptance is generally low.
Steffen
--
Steffen Huber
hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/
Vince M Hudd
> A kilobyte is 1000 bytes. Don't let anyone tell you that it is 1024 bytes.
> "kilo" is an SI prefix and always means 1000, no matter in which context
> it is used. For binary stuff, IEC has defined the Ki prefix, called
> "kibi". So 1000 bytes are 1 kByte, and 1024 bytes are 1 KiByte.
> The same for mega. The binary prefix for 1024*1024 bytes is Mi ("mebi").
Meh.
I'll stick with what I was taught at school, about a million years ago,
rather than this modern rubbish. :p
> However, be prepared to receive suprised looks when using the
> correct form - acceptance is generally low.
No comment. ;)
Chris
> After the surprising amount of wrongs and half-truths in this
> thread, I am aiming for the correct and final answer.
Thank you, Steffen, for clearing that one up. I've often wondered.
Chris.
--
Rob Kendrick
Steffen Huber <sp...@huber-net.de> wrote:
> A kilobyte is 1000 bytes. Don't let anyone tell you that it is
> 1024 bytes. "kilo" is an SI prefix and always means 1000, no
> matter in which context it is used. For binary stuff, IEC has
> defined the Ki prefix, called "kibi". So 1000 bytes are 1 kByte,
> and 1024 bytes are 1 KiByte.
>
> The same for mega. The binary prefix for 1024*1024 bytes is Mi
> ("mebi").
>
> However, be prepared to receive suprised looks when using the
> correct form - acceptance is generally low.
That's because the "i" prefixes are pointless and annoying, and exist
only to legitimise hard drive manufacturer's nonsense and appease
pedants. :)
If you consider the SI prefixes to be related to powers of the sensible
base, rather than some fixed multiplier, it all works just fine.
B.
Barry Gray
Alex Macfarlane Smith <nos...@archifishal.co.uk> wrote:
> or something.
> Alex.
Or for an explanation, also of binary, hexadecimal etc and bases other
than 10, why not visit my page on bases
(http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Maths/Bases.html
just updated at the end of the noughties.
I would be grateful if someone more an expert than me could check that
I have got my explanation of kibibytes etc correct.
--
Barry Gray
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
A child is a fire to be lit not a vessel to be filled
Rob Kendrick
Barry Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I would be grateful if someone more an expert than me could check
> that I have got my explanation of kibibytes etc correct.
You may have, but a bugbear of mine popped out:
"The very earliest electronic digital computers were developed during
the Second World War to help mathematicians crack the German Enigma
secret code."
The Bombe brute-forced Enigma. And that was just a whole buttload of
Enigma clones strapped together. Colossus, what many people consider
to be one of the first devices one might call an "electronic
digital computer" was used in the deciphering of the Lorenz cipher, not
Enigma.
Lorenz, incidentally, was very close to what we might call a modern
cipher. It was a stream cipher (a random number generator, if you
like) where cleartext characters where exclusive-ORed with the output
of the PRNG to create the ciphertext. Only way it was broken was
because of operator error; they transmitted the same message but with
different typos using the same key, allowing allied mathematicians to
calculate how the Lorenz machine permuted its PRNG.
B.
Russell Hafter News
Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I would be grateful if someone more an expert than me
> could check that I have got my explanation of kibibytes
> etc correct.
Not maths, but linguistic...
You say that "the French for ninety one is quatre vingt
onze".
Point 1. vingt should be plural - vingts (four twenties)
Point 2. This is strictly French French. The Swiss and the
Belgians are rather more up to date.
The Swiss count just like us, 70=septante, 80=huitante and
90=nonante, so ninety one is nonante-et-un.
The Belgians are in between the French and the Swiss. While
they say septante and nonante, for some reason they do use
quatre vingts for 80.
In a different linguistic area, what you say about base five
is possibly the origin of the (to us) strange grammar of
numbers in at least some of the Slavonic languages.
The czechs count:
one hundred (nominative singular)
two hundred (nominative plural)
:
:
five of hundreds (genetive plural)
Again,
20 -> dvacet
30 -> tricet
40 -> ctyricet
but
50 -> padesï¿œt
60 -> sededesï¿œt
and so on. (I have left out the various carons that should
be there)
--
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
Bryn Evans
> The Swiss count just like us, 70=septante, 80=huitante and
> 90=nonante, so ninety one is nonante-et-un.
...and don't forget our own Scores and Leagues, and I am not
talking Football here!
[There again, this thread is turning to a load of balls]
--
|)����[
|)ryn [vans mail to - Bryn...@bryork.freeuk.com
charles
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> In article <b6955ed450...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Barry
> Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I would be grateful if someone more an expert than me
> > could check that I have got my explanation of kibibytes
> > etc correct.
> Not maths, but linguistic...
> You say that "the French for ninety one is quatre vingt
> onze".
> Point 1. vingt should be plural - vingts (four twenties)
> Point 2. This is strictly French French. The Swiss and the
> Belgians are rather more up to date.
> The Swiss count just like us, 70=septante, 80=huitante and
> 90=nonante, so ninety one is nonante-et-un.
> The Belgians are in between the French and the Swiss. While
> they say septante and nonante, for some reason they do use
> quatre vingts for 80.
and we used to: "four score" with 90 as "four score amd ten"
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
M Harding
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > I would be grateful if someone more an expert than me
> > could check that I have got my explanation of kibibytes
> > etc correct.
> Not maths, but linguistic...
> In a different linguistic area, what you say about base five
> is possibly the origin of the (to us) strange grammar of
> numbers in at least some of the Slavonic languages.
> The czechs count:
[ . . . ]
And the Russians count:
Odin chelovyek = 1 person [-k is the singular ending]
Dva chelovyeka = 2 persons [-ka is genitive ending, for quantity]
Tri chelovyeka = 3 persons
Chetyrye chelovyeka = 4 persons
but
Pyatj lyudyei = 5 persons [lyudyei is the genitive plural, really a
different word altogether]
And thereafter everything is genitive plural, lyudyei.
Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding ris...@mdharding.org.uk
Richard Porter
<jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> decided to write:
> I'm sure some early machines had 6-bit bytes, too.
I learned to program on ICL 1900s which had 24-bit words each
containing four 6-bit characters. We didn't use the term "byte".
--
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."
Richard Porter
to write:
> How many bytes make a bit? Not a sensible thing to ask, because
> a byte is defined as a group of bits. Usually, today a byte is
> almost always a group of 8 bits. But historically, there were
> 4-bit-bytes as well as 9-bit-bytes. The French got it right and
> called 8-bit-bytes "octet".
When using serial communication (RS-232 rather than USB) you could
have a start bit, data bits, parity bit and one or two stop bits. As I
recall the most common size was 10 bits (1+7+1+1 or 1+8+0+1)).
Barry Gray
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <b6955ed450...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Barry
> Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> I would be grateful if someone more an expert than me
>> could check that I have got my explanation of kibibytes
>> etc correct.
> Not maths, but linguistic...
> You say that "the French for ninety one is quatre vingt
> onze".
> Point 1. vingt should be plural - vingts (four twenties)
> Point 2. This is strictly French French. The Swiss and the
> Belgians are rather more up to date.
> The Swiss count just like us, 70=septante, 80=huitante and
> 90=nonante, so ninety one is nonante-et-un.
> The Belgians are in between the French and the Swiss. While
> they say septante and nonante, for some reason they do use
> quatre vingts for 80.
Thanks for the correction and I have put it right, also various typos
and other errors, also incorporated changes and improvements suggested
by other kind people.
Thanks to everyone who replied by postings to this group or by e-mail.
Stefaan Claes
[snip]
>
> And the Russians count:
> Odin chelovyek = 1 person [-k is the singular ending]
> Dva chelovyeka = 2 persons [-ka is genitive ending, for quantity]
> Tri chelovyeka = 3 persons
> Chetyrye chelovyeka = 4 persons
> but
> Pyatj lyudyei = 5 persons [lyudyei is the genitive plural, really a
> different word altogether]
пять людей (множественное число, родительный падеж)
> And thereafter everything is genitive plural, lyudyei.
шесть люлей, семь людей, восемь людей, и.т.д. ...
SCNR
This is really off topic ;-) (не соответствующий по тематике)
Stefaan
ps:
you probably will need an unicode (utf-8) aware newsreader to read this
article... (and a suitable font)
Xavier
<see....@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> In article <b6955ed450.barryg...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Barry
>
> Gray <barryg...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I would be grateful if someone more an expert than me
> > could check that I have got my explanation of kibibytes
> > etc correct.
>
> Not maths, but linguistic...
>
> You say that "the French for ninety one is quatre vingt
> onze".
>
> Point 1. vingt should be plural - vingts (four twenties)
>
Vingt (20), like cent (100), will be written with an 's' at the end
only if there is no more number afterwards
(and only is there are several times these numbers in the expressed
value).
So :
20 is vingt
80 is quatre-vingts
but 81 is quatre-vingt un
100 is cent
200 is deux cents
but 201 is deux cent un
In French 1000 is always mille, you'll never find it with an 's' at
the end.
Xavier
without an 's'.
Barry Gray
ups.com>
Xavier <xlt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks - I will take the s off again.
Because of the Second World War I was sent to a little boarding
Preparatory (independent fee-paying) school a week before my sixth
birthday. (Most people think this was cruel.) The French teacher was
not French but he was a brilliant linguist and teacher and the
language of instruction was French. By the time I was 13 I was fluent
in French, and probably better at French grammar and spelling than a
13 year old French boy, although with a smaller vocabulary. I
*studied* French at my Public School but did not *learn* any more; I
passed French at O Level (in those days O Level was a simple
pass/fail) but have barely use it since (we usually go to Germany or
Austria on holiday). So I was afraid that when I was told it should be
vingts my recollection of French from fifty eight years ago was faulty
- I am pleased to find it is not!
Thanks to everyone
Barry
Alan Dawes
Barry Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Because of the Second World War I was sent to a little boarding
> Preparatory (independent fee-paying) school a week before my sixth
> birthday. (Most people think this was cruel.) The French teacher was
> not French but he was a brilliant linguist and teacher and the
> language of instruction was French.
I cann't help smiling as the thought passed though my mind of Officer
Crabtree in 'Allo 'Allo - "Good moaning". All the English people in 'Allo
'Allo think he is an excellent French linguist. :-)
Alan
--
alan....@argonet.co.uk
alan....@riscos.org
Using an Acorn RiscPC
Paul Sprangers
Stefaan Claes <scl...@aaug.net> wrote:
> > And thereafter everything is genitive plural, lyudyei.
> яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН, яПНяПНяПНяПН яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН, яПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПН яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН, яПН.яПН.яПН. ...
Not entirely true: 21, 31, 41 etc. all demand chelovek again.
22-24, 32-34, 42-44 etc. all demand cheloveka again.
So, apart from the numbers between 10 and 20, the same system gets repeated
every ten numbers over and over again.
Off topic indeed, but what a shame that we can't read the russian
characters in any news reader on RISC OS (without thoroughly reconfiguring
the entire machine), let alone type them.
Kind regards,
Paul Sprangers
Rob Kendrick
Paul Sprangers <Pa...@sprie.nl> wrote:
> Off topic indeed, but what a shame that we can't read the russian
> characters in any news reader on RISC OS (without thoroughly
> reconfiguring the entire machine), let alone type them.
Using Google Groups under NetSurf, perhaps? >:) It seems to me that a
move to UTF8 wasn't one of the incompatible changes to make system-wide
that might have been nice to have done at the same time as changing
parts of the API for 32 bit compatibility.
B.
M Harding
Paul Sprangers <Pa...@sprie.nl> wrote:
> In article <4b45354d$0$22443$ba62...@news.skynet.be>,
> Stefaan Claes <scl...@aaug.net> wrote:
> > > And thereafter everything is genitive plural, lyudyei.
> > яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН, яПНяПНяПНяПН яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН, яПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПН яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН, яПН.яПН.яПН. ...
> Not entirely true: 21, 31, 41 etc. all demand chelovek again.
> 22-24, 32-34, 42-44 etc. all demand cheloveka again. So, apart from
> the numbers between 10 and 20, the same system gets repeated every
> ten numbers over and over again.
50+ years of non-use of my studies duly acknowledged and regretted,
Paul. I really must remove the rust.
It occurred to me afterwards. You have 4 fingers, but five of them
constitute not 5 fingers but a different word, a hand.
> > яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН, яПНяПНяПНяПН яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН, яПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПН яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН, яПН.яПН.яПН. ...
Et cum spiritu tuo. (Latin 1?)
> Off topic indeed, but what a shame that we can't read the russian
> characters in any news reader on RISC OS (without thoroughly
> reconfiguring the entire machine), let alone type them.
Michael Harding
Stefaan Claes
> > > And thereafter everything is genitive plural, lyudyei.
> > шесть люлей, семь людей, восемь людей, и.т.д. ...
> Not entirely true: 21, 31, 41 etc. all demand chelovek again.
> 22-24, 32-34, 42-44 etc. all demand cheloveka again.
> So, apart from the numbers between 10 and 20, the same system gets repeated
> every ten numbers over and over again.
Конечно! Вы прав! Я зобыл об этом ... :-/
> Off topic indeed, but what a shame that we can't read the russian
> characters in any news reader on RISC OS (without thoroughly reconfiguring
> the entire machine), let alone type them.
Да, можем! (Yes, we can!)
> Kind regards,
> Paul Sprangers
привет
Stefaan
--
Stefaan Claes, Hove, Antwerpen, Belgium, Europe, <scl...@aaug.net>
Russell Hafter News
Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <9488af64-27d1-4422...@e27g2000yqd.googlegro
> ups.com> Xavier <xlt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4 jan, 16:28, Russell Hafter News
> > <see....@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> >> In article <b6955ed450.barryg...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >> Barry Gray <barryg...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> I would be grateful if someone more an expert than me
> >>> could check that I have got my explanation of
> >>> kibibytes etc correct.
> >> Not maths, but linguistic...
> >> You say that "the French for ninety one is quatre
> >> vingt onze".
> >> Point 1. vingt should be plural - vingts (four
> >> twenties)
> > Well no : check here :
> > http://www.mediadico.com/dictionnaire/definition/vingt/1
> > Vingt (20), like cent (100), will be written with an
> > 's' at the end only if there is no more number
> > afterwards (and only is there are several times these
> > numbers in the expressed value). So : 20 is vingt 80 is
> > quatre-vingts but 81 is quatre-vingt un
[Snip]
> Thanks - I will take the s off again.
Fair enough, and sorry for not understanding the finer
points!
But your example - quatre-vingt-onze still only applies in
France (and perhaps, Canada). Nonante un makes the whole
discussion moot.
Xavier
<see....@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5763d7d550.barryg...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Barry
>
>
>
> Gray <barryg...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message
> > <9488af64-27d1-4422-a0f7-bb0bde9f6...@e27g2000yqd.googlegro
> Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
> Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
Well ... not 'only' in France but in all other French speaking
countries of Africa ...
the Swiss style is not the rule.
(I agree the most logical words are the Swiss ones, however)
Christopher Bazley
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:36:53 +0100
> Steffen Huber <sp...@huber-net.de> wrote:
>> A kilobyte is 1000 bytes. Don't let anyone tell you that it is
>> 1024 bytes. "kilo" is an SI prefix and always means 1000, no
>> matter in which context it is used. For binary stuff, IEC has
>> defined the Ki prefix, called "kibi". So 1000 bytes are 1 kByte,
>> and 1024 bytes are 1 KiByte.
>>
>> The same for mega. The binary prefix for 1024*1024 bytes is Mi
>> ("mebi").
>>
>> However, be prepared to receive suprised looks when using the
>> correct form - acceptance is generally low.
> That's because the "i" prefixes are pointless and annoying, and exist
> only to legitimise hard drive manufacturer's nonsense and appease
> pedants. :)
I totally agree with Rob. I'm not going to start saying "kibibytes"
and "mebibytes" because people will
a) not understand what I am talking about
b) think that I have gone mad
The IEC can't simply redefine a well-established set of measurement
units by decree. If they wanted to invent silly new words then they
should have invented them for 1,000 bytes and 1,000,000 bytes.
--
Chris Bazley
Star Fighter 3000: http://starfighter.acornarcade.com/
Rob Kendrick
Christopher Bazley <christoph...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The IEC can't simply redefine a well-established set of measurement
> units by decree. If they wanted to invent silly new words then they
> should have invented them for 1,000 bytes and 1,000,000 bytes.
And of course, everything still works a treat of you think of the
prefixes as powers rather than something to multiply by.
B.
Russell Hafter News
Bazley <christoph...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Of course they can. That is, in part, what they do. But what
they did was not redefine, but point out a common misuage
and propose a solution.
The fact that perhaps the vast majority of users do not like
the correction is neither here nor there.
> If they wanted to invent silly new words then they should
> have invented them for 1,000 bytes and 1,000,000 bytes.
Absolutely not.
The standards are quite clear the kilo = 10^3 and Mega =
10^6. That is not and cannot be up for negotiation.
In this case it is the computer engineers who got it wrong
by misapproprating the well established kilo and misused it
for 2^10, no doubt that they could get away with being only
2.4% out, and that being an understatement of the situation.
It might be common usage, but that does not mean that it is
not misusage.
Speaking for myself, I never have the slightest idea when a
machine says that it has 256MB of memory, whether that is,
in reality, 256x10^6 or 126*2^20 bytes. Since all of the
memory is never actually available for use, it does not
really matter; I always think of 256 MB as ' a bit less than
256 million bytes'.
--
Russell
Martin Bazley
> Speaking for myself, I never have the slightest idea when a
> machine says that it has 256MB of memory, whether that is,
> in reality, 256x10^6 or 126*2^20 bytes. Since all of the
> memory is never actually available for use, it does not
> really matter; I always think of 256 MB as ' a bit less than
> 256 million bytes'.
>
A bit more, actually; specifically, 268,435,456 B.
--
__<^>__
/ _ _ \ It is written that Geeks shall inherit the Earth.
( ( |_| ) )
\_> <_/ ======================= Martin Bazley ==========================
Russell Hafter News
<Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50db1037...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
> wrote:
> > Of course they can. That is, in part, what they do. But
> > what they did was not redefine, but point out a common
> > misuage and propose a solution.
> Well, I wish they'd have a go at our TV weather
> forecasters. Over recent times they were forever harping
> on about "centimetres of snow" (Cm is a non-SI unit) now,
> as soon as it has gone it's "millimetres" of rain.
> Why can't they be consistant.
TV and radio weather forecasts use a fairly informal level
of spoken, not written, English and are aimed very heavily
at a non expert audience.
As such is is only sensible to make the description of the
amount of rain- or snow-fall using langauage for the lay
person.
Pretty much everyone these days will have a picture in their
mind of the size of a cm, and 9cm will create in their minds
an appropriate picture much more quickly than would 90mm.
I have a scientific training, worked in the sciences at a
post-doctoral level and taught them at school level for over
20 years. But I still need to convert 90mm to 9cm to have a
meaningful picture in my mind. And certainly, I am 170cm
tall, not 1700mm, though in speech I would probably say 'one
seventy'.
On the other hand, rain being much denser than snow, the mm
is not such an inappropriate unit, most of the time.
The rain that fell here in mid November and caused such
massive flooding would also have been better described in cm
rather than mm.
Just because the mm is an SI unit does not mean that it
needs to be used to the exclusion of a much more meaningful
one in everyday spoken English, though in preparing a formal
paper the situation is quite different, and of course, in
that situation, SI units would be expected without question.
M Harding
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Just because the mm is an SI unit does not mean that it
> needs to be used to the exclusion of a much more meaningful
> one in everyday spoken English, though in preparing a formal
> paper the situation is quite different, and of course, in
> that situation, SI units would be expected without question.
In 1971 I moved into a newly-built vicarage and it was the very first
designed by that architect using metric rather than imperial
measurements. He used mm instead of cm, to prevent the builder from
making the error of building a kennel for the person with a
dog-collar.
Dave Symes
> [ . . . ]
Yes It was decided early on in the conversion process to avoid confusion,
that construction would avoid cm and use only mm and Metres.
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
Dave Symes
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> Pretty much everyone these days will have a picture in their
> mind of the size of a cm, and 9cm will create in their minds
> an appropriate picture much more quickly than would 90mm.
> I have a scientific training, worked in the sciences at a
> post-doctoral level and taught them at school level for over
> 20 years. But I still need to convert 90mm to 9cm to have a
> meaningful picture in my mind. And certainly, I am 170cm
> tall, not 1700mm, though in speech I would probably say 'one
> seventy'.
On the other hand, I come from a building/construction background and we
*never* used cm only mm and Metres, so 9cm means nothing in my minds eye,
but 90mm does.
But then... I go so far back that I still think of it as (Near as dammit)
three and a half inches.
And we'd usually say 1.7 metres.
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
Christopher Bazley
<see....@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> In this case it is the computer engineers who got it wrong
> by misapproprating the well established kilo and misused it
> for 2^10, no doubt that they could get away with being only
> 2.4% out, and that being an understatement of the situation.
Those sneaky, malicious engineers! Trying to dupe their unsuspecting
customers into buying computers with 2.4% more memory than advertised.
Computers such as the BBC Micro with a 16 bit address bus (allowing up
to 2^16 bytes, or 64K, of contiguous memory) should instead have been
designed with a 15.96578429 bit address bus. That might have presented
some engineering challenges, but they would have been insignificant
compared to the benefit of strictly adhering to the metric system.
Should my preferred solution prove impractical for any reason, the BBC
Model A could have been marketed as having 16.384 KB of memory, and
the Model B as having 32.768 KB (thus avoiding any customer
confusion). I can imagine the playground arguments:
"My computer's better than yours."
"Is not."
"Is too! My computer has thirty-two point seven six eight
kilobytes." (thirty-two kay)
"Aw crap, my computer only has sixteen point three eight four
kilobytes." (sixteen kay)
Computing is not science, it is engineering. As far as I know, 'megas'
and 'gigas' simply mean 'large' and 'giant' in Greek. In my opinion,
any conclusions drawn from the fact that computing happens to use the
same set of prefixes as the metric system are specious. If the world
is big enough to accommodate both nautical miles and statute miles
then I don't see why software engineers shouldn't be allowed to use
units of measurement suited to their discipline.
--
Christopher Bazley
Brian Jordan
> Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > Of course they can. That is, in part, what they do. But what
> > they did was not redefine, but point out a common misuage
> > and propose a solution.
> Well, I wish they'd have a go at our TV weather forecasters. Over recent
> times they were forever harping on about "centimetres of snow" (Cm is a
> non-SI unit) now, as soon as it has gone it's "millimetres" of rain.
> Why can't they be consistant.
No need to worry, "spits and spots of rain" and "great lumps of nasty
cloud" seem to be the current thinking on the BBC television forcasts.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Brian Jordan
From somewhere in North Hampshire. England. UK.
______________________________________________________________________
Russell Hafter News
Bazley <martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The following bytes were arranged on 17 Jan 2010 by
> Russell Hafter News :
> > Speaking for myself, I never have the slightest idea
> > when a machine says that it has 256MB of memory,
> > whether that is, in reality, 256x10^6 or 126*2^20
> > bytes. Since all of the memory is never actually
> > available for use, it does not really matter; I always
> > think of 256 MB as ' a bit less than 256 million bytes'.
> A bit more, actually; specifically, 268,435,456 B.
I was thinking of the usable memory, which always seems to
be a few MB (whatever that is) less than the stated number.
druck
> Speaking for myself, I never have the slightest idea when a
> machine says that it has 256MB of memory, whether that is,
> in reality, 256x10^6 or 126*2^20 bytes. Since all of the
> memory is never actually available for use, it does not
> really matter; I always think of 256 MB as ' a bit less than
> 256 million bytes'.
Wrong in at least 3 ways, think about it some more.
---druck
Rob Kendrick
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > A bit more, actually; specifically, 268,435,456 B.
>
> I was thinking of the usable memory, which always seems to
> be a few MB (whatever that is) less than the stated number.
It certainly is for storage: they say a kilobyte is 1,000 bytes. For
memory, though, you get what you pay for (ie, a kilobyte is 1,024
bytes). But other things use memory other than your applications and
documents. Such as the OS itself, various buffers and caches, etc.
B.
Rob Kendrick
Christopher Bazley <cs9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Computing is not science, it is engineering. As far as I know, 'megas'
> and 'gigas' simply mean 'large' and 'giant' in Greek.
Does that make a terabyte terrifyingly large? :)
B.
Barry Gray
Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>> [ . . . ]
> Dave
If you actually look at building units, even on the continent, you
will find they are usually in multiples of 30 mm (that is, a foot!)
Should metres have a capital M?
Perhaps one of the earliest examples of confusion between metric and
Imperial units in the building trade (and church circles) is in
Westminster Cathedral. The very beautiful, and massive, crucifix
hanging down from the roof was made in Belgium and was *meant* to go
on the High Altar....
Ned Abell
Barry Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> If you actually look at building units, even on the
> continent, you will find they are usually in multiples of
> 30 mm (that is, a foot!)
<ahem> 300mm? (11.81") </ahem>
--
besters
Ned
(this email address is unused)
David
Ned Abell <ne...@weatherpost.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <486f7adb50...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Barry Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > If you actually look at building units, even on the
> > continent, you will find they are usually in multiples of
> > 30 mm (that is, a foot!)
> <ahem> 300mm? (11.81") </ahem>
So that's why there's quarter-inch gaps all over my house!
--
Om Namah Shivaya | Om Shula-panine Namaha
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
John
Jordan <brian....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Well, I wish they'd have a go at our TV weather
> > forecasters. Over recent times they were forever
> > harping on about "centimetres of snow" (Cm is a non-SI
> > unit) now, as soon as it has gone it's "millimetres" of
> > rain.
> > Why can't they be consistant.
> No need to worry, "spits and spots of rain" and "great
> lumps of nasty cloud" seem to be the current thinking on
> the BBC television forcasts.
What gets up my nose is the use of phrases like "cold
temperatures" and "wind from a warm direction". Highly
unscientific language from people who are supposed to have
a scientific back ground.
And don't get me started about the way some of them mangle
English. Some years ago, Dan Corbett announced that, "...
and thunderstorms will skirt through the middle of
Norfolk." I ask you!
--
John
new...@blueyonder.co.uk
j dot mccartney atte blueyonder dot co dot uk
charles
> > If you actually look at building units, even on the
> > continent, you will find they are usually in multiples of
> > 30 mm (that is, a foot!)
> <ahem> 300mm? (11.81") </ahem>
but it's known as the "metric foot". It's how timber is sold in this
country.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
David
John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50db3f1a75b...@btinternet.com>, Brian
> Jordan <brian....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > Well, I wish they'd have a go at our TV weather
> > > forecasters. Over recent times they were forever
> > > harping on about "centimetres of snow" (Cm is a non-SI
> > > unit) now, as soon as it has gone it's "millimetres" of
> > > rain.
> > > Why can't they be consistant.
> > No need to worry, "spits and spots of rain" and "great
> > lumps of nasty cloud" seem to be the current thinking on
> > the BBC television forcasts.
> What gets up my nose is the use of phrases like "cold
> temperatures" and "wind from a warm direction". Highly
> unscientific language from people who are supposed to have
> a scientific back ground.
But are speaking to folk from a non-scientific background who also use
such language to describe the world around them. Surely it makes sense
to use terms they'll understand immediately?
I for one would not generally refer to rain as precipitation.
> And don't get me started about the way some of them mangle
> English. Some years ago, Dan Corbett announced that, "...
> and thunderstorms will skirt through the middle of
> Norfolk." I ask you!
Yes but you didn't realise he'd said that until at least halfway
through his following sentence. Thinking about it, halfway is about as
far as he usually gets through any sentence before starting the next.
M Harding
> > In article <50db3135...@mdharding.org.uk>,
> > M Harding <ris...@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <50db2f42...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> >> Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> >> [ . . . ]
> >>> Just because the mm is an SI unit does not mean that it
> >>> needs to be used to the exclusion of a much more meaningful
> >>> one in everyday spoken English, though in preparing a formal
> >>> paper the situation is quite different, and of course, in
> >>> that situation, SI units would be expected without question.
> >> In 1971 I moved into a newly-built vicarage and it was the very
> >> first designed by that architect using metric rather than
> >> imperial measurements. He used mm instead of cm, to prevent the
> >> builder from making the error of building a kennel for the
> >> person with a dog-collar.
> > Yes It was decided early on in the conversion process to avoid
> > confusion, that construction would avoid cm and use only mm and
> > Metres.
[ . . ]
> Perhaps one of the earliest examples of confusion between metric
> and Imperial units in the building trade (and church circles) is
> in Westminster Cathedral. The very beautiful, and massive,
> crucifix hanging down from the roof was made in Belgium and was
> *meant* to go on the High Altar....
8-)
John
<nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> In article <50db7faa...@blueyonder.co.uk>, John
> <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> > What gets up my nose is the use of phrases like "cold
> > temperatures" and "wind from a warm direction". Highly
> > unscientific language from people who are supposed to
> > have a scientific back ground.
> But are speaking to folk from a non-scientific background
> who also use such language to describe the world around
> them. Surely it makes sense to use terms they'll
> understand immediately?
Surely you don't think that they deliberately chose that
form of words, do you? I think that it's just sloppy
thinking translating into sloppy speech.
> I for one would not generally refer to rain as
> precipitation.
In general speech, neither would I.
> > And don't get me started about the way some of them
> > mangle English. Some years ago, Dan Corbett announced
> > that, "... and thunderstorms will skirt through the
> > middle of Norfolk." I ask you!
> Yes but you didn't realise he'd said that until at least
> halfway through his following sentence. Thinking about
> it, halfway is about as far as he usually gets through
> any sentence before starting the next.
I don't believe that he hadn't thought about what he was
going to say beforehand. If that were the case, then it
would have been most unprofessional.
Russell Hafter News
> > No need to worry, "spits and spots of rain" and "great
> > lumps of nasty cloud" seem to be the current thinking
> > on the BBC television forcasts.
> What gets up my nose is the use of phrases like "cold
> temperatures" and "wind from a warm direction". Highly
> unscientific language from people who are supposed to
> have a scientific back ground.
But, they are not, by and large, addressing an audience with
even a vaguely scientific background.
Though I would dispute the idea of a 'warm direction', I
have no problem with 'cold temperatures'. The celcius scale
is defined around every day sensations of hot and cold, ie
-20 is ****!x freezing, 0 is cold, 10 is not cold, 20 is
pleasant and 30 is hot.
If you want a scientific scale, then you use Kelvins.
Russell Hafter News
> If you actually look at building units, even on the
> continent, you will find they are usually in multiples
> of 30 mm (that is, a foot!)
300mm in the UK, 30cm in much of the rest of Europe, I
suspect.
Rather along the lines of 500g = 1/2 kilo = 1 pound in much
of the rest of Europe.
My favourite being the main food market in Munich, where I
asked for two packets of 250gm of fresh asparagus (it was
the first day of the year on which it was for sale). The
stallholder checked by asking twice half-a-pound? And in
case anyone wonders, the whole converstion *was* in German.
> Should metres have a capital M?
No.
M = Mega, to go round in a big circle and get us back to
bytes.
Russell Hafter News
<nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> But are speaking to folk from a non-scientific background
> who also use such language to describe the world around
> them. Surely it makes sense to use terms they'll
> understand immediately?
> I for one would not generally refer to rain as
> precipitation.
Perhaps not in the UK, but is is a useful word in that it
covers just about everything falling from the sky - rain,
snow, hail, even maybe plagues of frogs.
Perhaps one thing that American Englisg does do better than
real English - all forecasts refer routinely to
precipitation, often ending with a percentage probability of
precipitation in the forecast area.
Grahame Parish
John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50db3f1a75b...@btinternet.com>, Brian
> Jordan <brian....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Well, I wish they'd have a go at our TV weather
>>> forecasters. Over recent times they were forever
>>> harping on about "centimetres of snow" (Cm is a non-SI
>>> unit) now, as soon as it has gone it's "millimetres" of
>>> rain.
>>> Why can't they be consistant.
>> No need to worry, "spits and spots of rain" and "great
>> lumps of nasty cloud" seem to be the current thinking on
>> the BBC television forcasts.
> What gets up my nose is the use of phrases like "cold
> temperatures" and "wind from a warm direction". Highly
> unscientific language from people who are supposed to have
> a scientific back ground.
When I was at Grammar School in the 60's our Geography Master taught
us a set of scales for temperature, rainfall, etc., that has defined
ranges for cold, warm, hot, etc. so there's nothing wrong with using
these words to describe climatic conditions. Unfortunately I can't
remember any of them now.
--
Grahame Parish
maillistDOTparishATmillersHYPHENwayDOTnet
Aylesbury, Bucks. HP19 (UK)
Chris Evans
> In article <50db3f1a75b...@btinternet.com>, Brian
> Jordan <brian....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, I wish they'd have a go at our TV weather
> > > forecasters. Over recent times they were forever
> > > harping on about "centimetres of snow" (Cm is a non-SI
> > > unit) now, as soon as it has gone it's "millimetres" of
> > > rain.
>
> > > Why can't they be consistant.
>
> > No need to worry, "spits and spots of rain" and "great
> > lumps of nasty cloud" seem to be the current thinking on
> > the BBC television forcasts.
>
> What gets up my nose is the use of phrases like "cold
> temperatures" and "wind from a warm direction". Highly
> unscientific language from people who are supposed to have
> a scientific back ground.
AIUI Most 'Weather forecast presenters' are not meteorologists and may may
little or no 'scientific back ground' they are mere presenters.
Yes they need to put the information across in a way that the nearly
everyone can understand but there does seem to go for the simplistic too
often especially on the smaller channels.
n.b. I think the BBC may use meteorologists for their national forecasts but
not regional.
> And don't get me started about the way some of them mangle
> English. Some years ago, Dan Corbett announced that, "...
> and thunderstorms will skirt through the middle of
> Norfolk." I ask you!
p.s. MacDonalds seem to think a 'bob' is a monetary Pound sterling, maybe a
should try and pay with a 5p piece for their less than a bob offer!
Chris Evans
--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!
Brian Jordan
[Snip]
> And don't get me started about the way some of them mangle
> English. Some years ago, Dan Corbett announced that, "...
> and thunderstorms will skirt through the middle of
> Norfolk." I ask you!
Last week it was a "concrete block of coldness keeping the Atlantic out."
from the same presenter.
Anyway I sense we are about to be drucked so I'll get my coat.
John
Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50db7faa...@blueyonder.co.uk>, John
> <URL:mailto:new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> > What gets up my nose is the use of phrases like "cold
> > temperatures" and "wind from a warm direction". Highly
> > unscientific language from people who are supposed to
> > have a scientific back ground.
> AIUI Most 'Weather forecast presenters' are not
> meteorologists and may may little or no 'scientific back
> ground' they are mere presenters.
I don't think that's true of the main forecasters on the
BBC. I'm willing to accept that it might be the case for
other broadcasters but, as I don't watch forecasts for
them, I couldn't comment.
> Yes they need to put the information across in a way that
> the nearly everyone can understand but there does seem to
> go for the simplistic too often especially on the smaller
> channels.
> n.b. I think the BBC may use meteorologists for their
> national forecasts but not regional.
I don't have any insight into this but I have observed that
some regional forecasters are groomed for promotion to
national forecasting - Tomasz Schafernaker is a case in
point. This page indicates that he is a professional
meteorologist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/bbcweather/forecasters/tomschafernaker.shtml
The wonderfully named Sara Blizzard (nominative determinism
isn't dead) is a counter example but I haven't been through
the entire list. If anyone is interested (which seems to
have a vanishingly small probability), delete
tomschafernaker.shtml from the link above to view the whole
list of forecasters.
<snip>
John
Grahame Parish <spam...@millers-way.net> wrote:
> In message <50db7faa...@blueyonder.co.uk> John
> <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> >> on the BBC television forcasts.
> > What gets up my nose is the use of phrases like "cold
> > temperatures" and "wind from a warm direction". Highly
> > unscientific language from people who are supposed to
> > have a scientific back ground.
> When I was at Grammar School in the 60's our Geography
> Master taught us a set of scales for temperature,
> rainfall, etc., that has defined ranges for cold, warm,
> hot, etc. so there's nothing wrong with using these
> words to describe climatic conditions...
Indeed, I wouldn't object to that. Nor would I object to
the weather being described as warm but not temperature.
John
Jordan <brian....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> [Snip]
> > And don't get me started about the way some of them
> > mangle English. Some years ago, Dan Corbett announced
> > that, "... and thunderstorms will skirt through the
> > middle of Norfolk." I ask you!
> Last week it was a "concrete block of coldness keeping
> the Atlantic out." from the same presenter.
> Anyway I sense we are about to be drucked so I'll get my
> coat.
Agreed.
John
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
wrote:
> > > No need to worry, "spits and spots of rain" and
> > > "great lumps of nasty cloud" seem to be the current
> > > thinking on the BBC television forcasts.
> > What gets up my nose is the use of phrases like "cold
> > temperatures" and "wind from a warm direction". Highly
> > unscientific language from people who are supposed to
> > have a scientific back ground.
> But, they are not, by and large, addressing an audience
> with even a vaguely scientific background.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean that they have to be wrong.
> Though I would dispute the idea of a 'warm direction', I
> have no problem with 'cold temperatures'. The celcius
> scale is defined around every day sensations of hot and
> cold, ie -20 is ****!x freezing, 0 is cold, 10 is not
> cold, 20 is pleasant and 30 is hot.
But temperature is a measurement and, of itself, cannot be
warm or cold or warrant the application of any other
subjective adjective.
> If you want a scientific scale, then you use Kelvins.
I wasn't commenting on the scale but on the incorrect
assumption that it is appropriate to apply the property of
a substance to a concept. It's no wonder that so many
youngsters leave school with confused ideas about science.
Peter Naulls
[snip]
There's far better places for discussion about the weather.
The question of units for computing was vaguely relevant, but
is now hopelessly off-topic. Please let's stick to RISC OS
discussion.
David
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> <nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> > But are speaking to folk from a non-scientific background
> > who also use such language to describe the world around
> > them. Surely it makes sense to use terms they'll
> > understand immediately?
> > I for one would not generally refer to rain as
> > precipitation.
> Perhaps not in the UK, but is is a useful word in that it
> covers just about everything falling from the sky - rain,
> snow, hail, even maybe plagues of frogs.
> Perhaps one thing that American Englisg does do better than
> real English - all forecasts refer routinely to
> precipitation, often ending with a percentage probability of
> precipitation in the forecast area.
But I prefer to know what form the precipitation will take. Makes for a
more useful forecast. And anyway, as I've already argued, a weather
forecast* for hoi polloi, and not specifically for scientists or
specialists of whatever ilk, is best delivered in common terms.
* Or any information (depending on the degree of legal precision
required).
David
John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50db8124...@nomaps.amnops.invalid>, David
> <nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <50db7faa...@blueyonder.co.uk>, John
> > <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > What gets up my nose is the use of phrases like "cold
> > > temperatures" and "wind from a warm direction". Highly
> > > unscientific language from people who are supposed to
> > > have a scientific back ground.
> > But are speaking to folk from a non-scientific background
> > who also use such language to describe the world around
> > them. Surely it makes sense to use terms they'll
> > understand immediately?
> Surely you don't think that they deliberately chose that
> form of words, do you? I think that it's just sloppy
> thinking translating into sloppy speech.
What on Earth's sloppy about "cold temperatures" and "wind from a warm
direction"? Seem eminently suitable to the current weather conditions.
> > I for one would not generally refer to rain as
> > precipitation.
> In general speech, neither would I.
> > > And don't get me started about the way some of them
> > > mangle English. Some years ago, Dan Corbett announced
> > > that, "... and thunderstorms will skirt through the
> > > middle of Norfolk." I ask you!
> > Yes but you didn't realise he'd said that until at least
> > halfway through his following sentence. Thinking about
> > it, halfway is about as far as he usually gets through
> > any sentence before starting the next.
> I don't believe that he hadn't thought about what he was
> going to say beforehand. If that were the case, then it
> would have been most unprofessional.
Well, as I never seem to have the time to work out what he's said in
the first minute before the forecast ends, I do wonder if he has the
time to work out what he's saying before he says it.
David
John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50db83e9...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
> wrote:
> > Though I would dispute the idea of a 'warm direction', I
> > have no problem with 'cold temperatures'. The celcius
> > scale is defined around every day sensations of hot and
> > cold, ie -20 is ****!x freezing, 0 is cold, 10 is not
> > cold, 20 is pleasant and 30 is hot.
> But temperature is a measurement and, of itself, cannot be
> warm or cold or warrant the application of any other
> subjective adjective.
So you'd also object to such terms as "a large weight" or "a short
distance"?
David
John
> [snip]
Indeed, you are quite right. If anyone wishes to take this
further perhaps e-mail would be better. Mind you, I'm
beginning to think that the point has degenerated into
argument for argument's sake.
David
Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> On the other hand, I come from a building/construction background and we
> *never* used cm only mm and Metres, so 9cm means nothing in my minds eye,
> but 90mm does.
> But then... I go so far back that I still think of it as (Near as dammit)
> three and a half inches.
> And we'd usually say 1.7 metres.
> Dave
Same background here, building and engineering.Now I'm retired I still
think in imperial measure, but then again, if a measurement is more
accurate to the mil' then I would use that rather than try to remember
3/10 inch e.g. Money is different. You can split a pound three ways
with old money which you can't with the new. It's difficult when you
have three kids to split your million between :-
--
David
friends dont tell friends use windows
Peter Campbell-Banks
David <nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> In article <50db91b0...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <50db83e9...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
>> Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
[snipped a bit]
>
>> But temperature is a measurement and, of itself, cannot be
>> warm or cold or warrant the application of any other
>> subjective adjective.
>
> So you'd also object to such terms as "a large weight" or "a short
> distance"?
Well, as a very young Merchant seaman, I will always remember being
sent to the 2nd Engineer's cabin to collect a 'Long Weight'.
I was only kept waiting for just over an hour - got caught good and
proper!
--
Peter Campbell-Banks,
Ramsgate,
Kent.
David
The equivalent for me in the paper stores of a printing works was "a
long stand". Beat working! ;-)
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> AIUI Most 'Weather forecast presenters' are not meteorologists and may may
> little or no 'scientific back ground' they are mere presenters.
The BBC presenters who do the detailed national forecasts certainly are
meteorologists.
I've a friend who's a meteorologist who mentioned they all got screen-tested
if they were interested in doing the forecasts.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsre...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "nnn" by "284".
Kevin Wells
David <ma...@daveandsylvia.plus.com> wrote:
>
>Same background here, building and engineering.Now I'm retired I still
>think in imperial measure, but then again, if a measurement is more
>accurate to the mil' then I would use that rather than try to remember
>3/10 inch e.g. Money is different. You can split a pound three ways
>with old money which you can't with the new. It's difficult when you
>have three kids to split your million between :-
>
That's easy give it all to me. :)
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
Its nice to be important but Important to be nice.
Richard Travers
David <nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> In article <50db91b0...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <50db83e9...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> > Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
> > wrote:
> > > Though I would dispute the idea of a 'warm direction', I
> > > have no problem with 'cold temperatures'. The celcius
> > > scale is defined around every day sensations of hot and
> > > cold, ie -20 is ****!x freezing, 0 is cold, 10 is not
> > > cold, 20 is pleasant and 30 is hot.
> > But temperature is a measurement and, of itself, cannot be
> > warm or cold or warrant the application of any other
> > subjective adjective.
> So you'd also object to such terms as "a large weight" or "a short
> distance"?
Or a 'high' or a 'low' temperature (both 'subjective' adjectives)?
R.
--
Richard Travers
rich...@uwclub.net
Brian Carroll
<gemini.kwgxu...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>, Jeremy
Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
wrote:
[Snip]
> The BBC presenters who do the detailed national forecasts
> certainly are meteorologists.
> I've a friend who's a meteorologist who mentioned they all got
> screen-tested if they were interested in doing the forecasts.
For informed comment on this topic today by Philip Eden see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/7023899/Ever-wished-you-could-fire-the-Met-Office.html (All one line)
This works OK in NetSurf.
Brian.
--
______________________________________________________________
Brian Carroll, Ripon, N Yorks, UK briancarroll at f2s dot com
______________________________________________________________
Tim Hill
Though there is much pendantry hereabouts, I challenge anyone not to
admit they know what a weather forecaster means by saying 'high' 'low'
'hot' or 'cold' temperatures. If you call yourself an intelligent person
and don't know what is meant by such descriptions, which are really being
aimed at Joe Public who /does/ understand what is meant, I feel very
sorry for you.
The world is full of Heavy Boxes (it's the contents which are heavy, the
boxes are light) but two dozen on a pallet are not Heavy to a Fork Lift
Truck so why do we label them 'Heavy'? Someone who works in a -25C
freezer all day may not describe yesterday morning's 5C as 'cold' but I
thought it was; I rode a bike.
What do you think is meant by 'my PC runs at a hot temperature' or 'my
iyonix runs at a cool temperature'?
It's all because of your relatives.
--
Have an ethical share in cheaper telecoms: http://tinyurl.com/phone-coop
Genuine spam-proof addresses for Usenet: http://www.invalid.org.uk/
Email address for replies: substitute postmaster@ for tim@
... "Sleep dwell upon thy eyes, peace in thy breast" Rom & Jul, Act ii, Sc.2
Tim Hill
<martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The following bytes were arranged on 17 Jan 2010 by Russell Hafter News
> :
> > Speaking for myself, I never have the slightest idea when a machine
> > says that it has 256MB of memory, whether that is, in reality,
> > 256x10^6 or 126*2^20 bytes. Since all of the memory is never actually
> > available for use, it does not really matter; I always think of 256
> > MB as ' a bit less than 256 million bytes'.
> >
> A bit more, actually; specifically, 268,435,456 B.
Unless it's available space on a 256MB Hard Drive, then it's less.
--
Tim Hill
...................................................
tjrh.eu
... "Let never day nor night unhallowed pass, but still remember what the Lord hath done" Henry VI, Act ii, Sc.1
Tony Clayton
> In article <50db146d...@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart
> <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <50db1037...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> > Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Of course they can. That is, in part, what they do. But
> > > what they did was not redefine, but point out a common
> > > misuage and propose a solution.
>
> > Well, I wish they'd have a go at our TV weather
> > forecasters. Over recent times they were forever harping
> > on about "centimetres of snow" (Cm is a non-SI unit) now,
> > as soon as it has gone it's "millimetres" of rain.
>
> > Why can't they be consistant.
>
> TV and radio weather forecasts use a fairly informal level
> of spoken, not written, English and are aimed very heavily
> at a non expert audience.
>
> As such is is only sensible to make the description of the
> amount of rain- or snow-fall using langauage for the lay
> person.
>
> Pretty much everyone these days will have a picture in their
> mind of the size of a cm, and 9cm will create in their minds
> an appropriate picture much more quickly than would 90mm.
>
> I have a scientific training, worked in the sciences at a
> post-doctoral level and taught them at school level for over
> 20 years. But I still need to convert 90mm to 9cm to have a
> meaningful picture in my mind. And certainly, I am 170cm
> tall, not 1700mm, though in speech I would probably say 'one
> seventy'.
>
I taught Physics to Cambridge Scholarship level for 27 years,
and always ensured that my pupils were familiar with both
imeperial and SI units, and with some pre-SI units such as dynes
and ergs, and their conversions.
I then taught them that in answering questions in examinations
it was most advisable to use SI units, and why they were used.
I know few people who know their height in cm
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS using VirtualAcorn-SA running on a PC
... Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Tony Clayton
> In article <50db3135...@mdharding.org.uk>,
> M Harding <ris...@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
> > In article <50db2f42...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> > Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
>
> > [ . . . ]
>
> > > Just because the mm is an SI unit does not mean that it
> > > needs to be used to the exclusion of a much more meaningful
> > > one in everyday spoken English, though in preparing a formal
> > > paper the situation is quite different, and of course, in
> > > that situation, SI units would be expected without question.
>
> > In 1971 I moved into a newly-built vicarage and it was the very first
> > designed by that architect using metric rather than imperial
> > measurements. He used mm instead of cm, to prevent the builder from
> > making the error of building a kennel for the person with a
> > dog-collar.
>
> > Michael Harding
> > Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding ris...@mdharding.org.uk
>
> Yes It was decided early on in the conversion process to avoid confusion,
> that construction would avoid cm and use only mm and Metres.
>
> Dave
There is an apochryphal story of a millionaire who had a house built
in California.
The plans were in cm and the builder thought they were inches.
Paltial is the appropriate word!
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS using VirtualAcorn-SA running on a PC
... Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!
Barry Gray
Tony Clayton <to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
> I taught Physics to Cambridge Scholarship level for 27 years,
> and always ensured that my pupils were familiar with both
> imeperial and SI units, and with some pre-SI units such as dynes
> and ergs, and their conversions.
> I then taught them that in answering questions in examinations
> it was most advisable to use SI units, and why they were used.
> I know few people who know their height in cm
I taught maths and science for thirty years, from Y4 to Y11, and
always *taught* my students about other units but always *expected*
them to use metric units, and older students SI units, and be able to
do metric/Imperial conversions. So all my students knew their height
in cm and their mass in kg.
What saddens me is that most children of junior school age are not
taught about Imperial units, but are regularly asked about them in
exams, including the 11+ (Kent and Medway retain the 11+). A recent
question in the 11+ threw almost all the children: they had to convert
lb (sic) to kilograms.
I am told that many people have found my web page
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tutoring/SI.html
helpful.
--
Barry Gray
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
A child is a fire to be lit not a vessel to be filled
Dave Higton
> I know few people who know their height in cm
I know my height in metres, centimetres, etc. and my weight in
kilos.
They are the /only/ way I ever express them them.
I was brought up in the Imperial system. I discovered the metric
system at school. I immediately realised how much easier it is.
I continued to use both for some years. When I graduated (1975)
and got a job, I abandoned the Imperial system for ever.
I don't do Fahrenheit or gallons either.
I look forward to a time when we stop using miles and change to
kilometres.
Dave
David
Dave Higton <daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> Dave
Huh! What is �100.00 divided by three, exactly?
David
> > Dave
�33.00.
(You leave the remaining �1 in the supermarket trolley to save the
bother of having to take it back. ;-)
Richard Porter
to write:
> In message <d366e9e150...@dsl.pipex.com>
> Dave Higton <daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>> In message <93c767e150%to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk>
>> Tony Clayton <to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I know few people who know their height in cm
>> I know my height in metres, centimetres, etc. and my weight in
>> kilos.
Thousands of what? Kilogrammes, please!
>> They are the /only/ way I ever express them them.
>> I was brought up in the Imperial system. I discovered the metric
>> system at school. I immediately realised how much easier it is.
>> I continued to use both for some years. When I graduated (1975)
>> and got a job, I abandoned the Imperial system for ever.
>> I don't do Fahrenheit or gallons either.
>> I look forward to a time when we stop using miles and change to
>> kilometres.
> Huh! What is �100.00 divided by three, exactly?
WTF has that got to do with it? Britain is the only country in the
world apart from USA that clings onto obsolete weighs and measures,
and some of theirs are different from ours. It's about time that we
came out of the dark ages. Irland is metric. Even Canada is, on the
US's doorstep.
I was taught c.g.s. in the late 50s/early 60s but I doubt if I'll live
to see metric speed limits and distances on our roads. They would be a
lot safer if we used the same units as the rest of Europe, and it
would be cheaper for car manufacturers not to have to provide
alternative dials or switchable electronics. Sadly Europhobia whipped
up by a few self-interested politicians overrules common sense.
I'm fed up with having to buy 1.136l of milk or 907g of frozen peas or
454g of coffee. Having metric labels and imperial quantities is surely
the worst of all possible worlds. Fortunately my local newsagent sells
milk in 2l bottles.
--
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."
charles
Richard Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
[Snip]
> I'm fed up with having to buy 1.136l of milk or 907g of frozen peas or
> 454g of coffee.
but if you buy jam in a French supermarket it is in the same size jars as
we use.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
Barry Gray
David <ma...@daveandsylvia.plus.com> wrote:
>> Dave
I think Dave has quite missed the point. We count in 10s and use base
10 because we have ten fingers. But when we are counting things
(apples, pears, sheep, pieces of pizza, one pound coins), we usually
need to divide things into three or four parts more often than we do
into into five or ten parts. A duodecimal system has a lot of
advantages over a decimal system, as the Babylonians realised 4500
years ago. Before we went decimal our currency system was, in part,
duodecimal, so one third of exactly one libra is exactly 80 denarii.
(But of course if we wanted to divide our one hundred libra into seven
parts, one for each day of the week, we would not be able to do it
exactly.)
But we were not talking about decimal currency we were talking about
the metric system, about weights and measures. The moment we stop
counting and start measuring we have entered the realm of *real*
numbers. We cannot have *exactly* one pound (weight, OK, mass if you
must) any more than we can have *exactly* one kilogram, so to talk
about *exactly* one third of a pound is quite meaningless. 1.000 kg
(that is, measured to the nearest gram, or 0.1%) divided into 3 parts
is 333 g, to the same accuracy. Many kitchen scales can measure to
this accuracy. You would I think find it hard to find kitchen scales
which can divide one pound into three parts to the same degree of
accuracy, at least without going into units such as grains.
I do not wish to get a reputation for plugging my web site so I am not
including the URL, but there is a more complete explanation on it.
Bryn Evans
> In article <a292bde...@user.minijem.plus.com>,
> Richard Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
> [Snip]
>> I'm fed up with having to buy 1.136l of milk or 907g of frozen peas or
>> 454g of coffee.
> but if you buy jam in a French supermarket it is in the same size jars as
> we use.
As a rule of thumb I always use the most convenient units to hand ;))
--
|)����[
|)ryn [vans mail to - Bryn...@bryork.freeuk.com