What's the mater with France? Are they running out of wood to make rulers?

Cindy

Quote from: lady amarant on March 23, 2008, 04:14:16 PM
Hmmmm. Freedom Kissing sounds boring...

maybe and then again maybe not

Posted on: March 23, 2008, 05:20:53 PM

---

Quote from: Pica Pica on March 22, 2008, 11:15:18 PM
well, yeah, I've tried what you people call beer and I've never drank anything so watery and tasteless. But you do make great bourbon, so no problems there.

if it was called miller or bush . pica pica yea that stuff is water . but i will say  budwiser ice and that line.

umm it ant watered down .thats the last time i had one which was a long time ago tho

A UK tonne is bigger than a US Ton.
One of our numbers is bigger also, can't remember which one.
I like a nice microbrewery - most mass produced beer is a tad nasty I find - except Guiness which I currently have a real thing for.

We have lots of beer produced by small companies that try to make it real as opposed to the watery urine that the big companies produce.

Sam Adams has become a better known one.

Hi, I found that back when I was drinking I was rather fond of Heinekins beer, you could purchase it in both Canada and US. I just found that the taste was about as close as some of the breweries did about 48 years ago . There was a later time where I only drank home made beer fermented in a five galon crock for 4 weeks and bottled in quart bottles it was 9% alcohol. Three bottles would set you on your behind. From Cindy the bootleger.

Cindy

Quote from: lady amarant on March 23, 2008, 01:44:18 AM
You know, you guys do all make it hellishly difficult for yourselves (and the rest of us!!!) to have any clue what you are talking about when measuring stuff. Follow the French, go metric! 

In Defense of Feet

Quote
The best part is that I can see my foot. It is 4 feet away when I am sitting down and 6 feet away when I am standing up. I have a foot. I do not have a meter.

What about poor (weird) podophobes like me, who can't stand feet? (I think they got it right when they decided to measure horses in hands... ).

Well, you can always use Gaussian, or Heaviside-Lorentz, or better yet, natural units. I mean, metric? Who ever came up with a system that set the speed of light to be 299792458 and Planck's Constant 1.054571628(53)*10^-34? Just set them both equal to 1; then everything is a lot easier!

So what's the price in Euros for 10^28 inverse femtometers of premium these days?

Well, at least we don't have to deal with seven twelfths of a foot. Working in base 10 has certain advantages!

Gaussian, femtometers, podophobes and Planck's Constant.

I guess now I know how my parents felt when I had math homework.

Quote from: lady amarant on March 24, 2008, 02:59:54 AM
Well, at least we don't have to deal with seven twelfths of a foot. Working in base 10 has certain advantages!

Ah, but so does base 12! Or base 60 for that matter! From the link above:

QuoteI have always been happy with our clock, and smile at the genuises who have never figured out a base ten clock.

Of course, for hard-core computer geeks, nothing but hexadecimal will do, except perhaps binary on the rare occasion!

Quote from: Alyssa M. on March 24, 2008, 03:11:19 AM
Ah, but so does base 12! Or base 60 for that matter! From the link above:

I do not have 12 fingers. I have 10. I suppose base 5 or base 20 would've done equally well.

Ah, but 12 has more factors: 2,3,4 and 6.
10 has just 2 and 5.
20 has as many as 12 (2,4,5,10) but they're not as dense, and just not as nice -- you can't divide 20 into 3 evenly.
But 60 is very nice: 2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,30. So there are lots of ways to evenly divide an hour. You know... if you're into that sort of thing. 

(Okay, maybe I sound insane, but that's really why our clocks are like that, and why there are 360 degrees on a compass. Yup ... I'm geekin' out tonight!!!  )

Quote from: Alyssa M. on March 24, 2008, 03:25:31 AM
Yup ... I'm geekin' out tonight!!!

Aw, nothing wrong with that! Besides, 60 does have some precedent in history - the Mayans used it to create the most accurate calendar in like, ever. The reason 10 works though is because of the ease of multiplication. 60x60X60 - most people would have to whip out a calculator for that! (Which granted, is damned sad in and of itself) But 10x10x10 is easy. Blame the ancient Indians! And the Arabs for introducing 0 to Europe!

Hmmmmm what are we calculating here anyway, the new coordinates for launching a starship? Or the reconstruction of the Quantum Level Puddle Jumper.

Cindy

Quote from: lady amarant on March 24, 2008, 03:37:53 AMBut 10x10x10 is easy.

Of course. It's 0x000003d8

Or 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0011 1110 1000 for you all you binary people.

But there aren't any binary people around here, are there? <_< 

Quote from: Alyssa M. on March 24, 2008, 03:59:20 AM

Quote from: lady amarant on March 24, 2008, 03:37:53 AMBut 10x10x10 is easy.

Of course. It's 0x000003d8

Or 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0011 1110 1000 for you all you binary people.

Geekfest!!!

Seriously though, I agree, no analogue for decimal in nature really, except the arbitrary choice of the number of digits we have. Personally, I think we should only be using Primes and Fibonacci numbers supported by natural constants, but even THAT is arbitrary if the multiverse model holds out!

Try and teach two's complement subtraction to a 5-year old though... 

Quote
But there aren't any binary people around here, are there? <_< 

*gigglesnort* 

I'm an alien orphan from Beatleguise.



Cindy

may I just stop you all there to say

What 

Unfortunately, one of the coolest (and possibly most useless, in comparison to the other versions of it out there) inventions is the Binary Clock. It's brilliant!!!


               H  H     M M       S  S

8                                       

4                                

2                       

1                                  


               1  0     3  7        4  9

OK - to read this (taken straight from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_clock), add up the values in the columns (represented by the smiley faces, which would normally be blue lights) with reference to the far left-hand column, to get the numbers - and the time - at the bottom. In the second column (H for "hours"), there is a single in the 1 row and nothing in the second H column - therefore, the H total is 10 (1, 0). For the minutes, the first column has two - one in the 1 row, and one in the 2, which = 3. The next M column has a grand total of 7, taken from the in the 1, 2 and 4 rows. The seconds = 49, as there's a in the 4 row, and a 1+8=9, as represented by the last column.

The conclusion is...we should invent an androgyne clock.



Posted on: March 24, 2008, 07:02:56 AM

---

Wow! That actually worked! (Though "wow" wasn't the word I'd originally been going to use... )