This group seems to be sufferring...
in [ASM]
|
Next: stricmp
From: John Smith on 28 Feb 2005 22:04 BTW English people don't spell things wrong. Canada, Australia, etc...spell the same way as Britan. It is the Americans that change things only slightly, and pretend they invented it. We are fully metric, but if you asked me my height, I would say 6' 2", not 188cm, though I can accurately conceptualize both...same with miles/kilometers...but lonely C vs F, I only know Celcius. I don't think Kalven is as purely proportional to Celcius as you think...I may be wrong, but think it was just a fortunate coincidence that it aligns at around 0 and 100, given an offset of approx 272 (segment 0 I guess <grin>), but not 100% precisely....I will have to look it up to be 100%. I heard about the change in UK currency that occured in the 70's. However, it was a brutal hack to make the pound decimalized. It's like measuring the parts of inches in decimal instead of fractions...it doesn't sound right to say 1.125" intead of 1-1/8". Though I once worked a summer at a steel mill, and they measured steel thinkness in decimal thousandths of an inch upto only 2 years ago, when they switched to metric. So while metric's been around since before I was born, imperial is still lingering around here in Canada, too. JS
From: Evenbit on 1 Mar 2005 00:53 Beth wrote: > > PC> > > Pah, some of us are happy at (checks thermometer) -8 C. > > > > EB> > > Converting that for us civilized folk who use meaningful measurements, > > I get +17.6 F -- that's not too bad...let me know when it gets to about > > -23 C. > > Fahrenheit "meaningful"? I think you've confused the two... I obviously have NOT! > > Celsius (or "centigrade") is based on making the freezing point of water > zero degrees and boiling point 100 degrees (at sea-level, at normal > atmospheric pressure ;)... And that relates to typical weather and cooking temperatures? I think not! > > Fahrenheit is completely arbitrary and is unrelated in value to anything > "meaningful"... Certainly not arbitrary! The Fahrenheit scale more closely matches the range of weather temperatures in a way that makes sense. Freezing temps are normal (and expected) for Winter weather and so there is no need for an alarming negative sign until it gets REALLY cold. > > But, of course, the _REAL_ way to measure temperature is in Kelvin...based > on "absolute zero" - the lowest temperature that can possibly be - but, > otherwise, is completely "compatible" with Celsius (literally, add 272 to > "convert" from Kelvin to Celsius :)...always a positive too ("absolute > zero" is technically unachievable because tiny "fluctuations" at the atomic > level keep it from ever being _exactly_ "absolute zero" :)... Kelvin doesn't relate AT ALL to typical temps that humans encounter on a daily basis. If you want to have a number that suggests 0% for a typical cold winter night {and conversly, a number suggesting roughly 100% for a typical hot summer day}, then you don't want to anchor the scale at 272 K near the bottom end. > _meaningful_ and _practical_...if you have some "paddling pool" with water I take it this is a puddle of water where you paddle but go nowhere? ;-) > tonight"...this has _meaning_ in suggesting things will _freeze_ (and that > it may _snow_ :) and allows you to make this point without actually having > to really specifically know which "minus figure" in particular you're > talking about...it doesn't quite work the other way around, though, does > it? "It's going to be less than 32 tonight!"...huh?!? ;)... No, we don't indulge in any pretentious beating around the bush. We just come out and say: "It's going to be f**king freezing tonight!" ;-) > Okay, let's make a "test" to demonstrate this...setting a thermostat, I > heat up some water in a water heater and fill up a bath to a specific > temperature...would it really be "safe" to get into the water? Well, that depends... Are there lots of bubbles? Did you remember to insert my rubber ducky? Is Hilary Swank already in there waiting for me? ;-) > > Right, it's set to "180 Fahrenheit"...without looking that up, would it be > "safe" just to dive head first into this bath water at that temperature? > Okay, you might personally know where "boiling point" is on the Fahrenheit > scale to be able to roughly "judge" that temperature...but how many > people - even those who _only_ know Fahrenheit - would pass this simple > little "test"? Well, that is WAY above what we consider 100% on our internal scale (which would be place at about 90 F to 120 F). Considering that we feel comfortable at around 60 F {or a little less} to 70 F {or a little more} and that we all absolutely HATE 90 degree weather, then 180 F is a dead giveaway as being dangerous. > And before you think "bloody Europeans!", Britain was NOT invaded by > Napolean...that "foot" in "feet and inches" was the length of one of _our_ > King's feet (and we still use "feet and inches" for heights and > things)..."miles" and "miles per hour" are ours too (the word "milestone" > in the English language, for example, is a _literal_ stone with the names > of places and their mileages that you can _still_ see dotted around Britain > :)...we not only use all the non-metric measurements too, in many cases, we > _invented_ them...in fact, did you know that Britain only went "decimal" > with money ("100 pence in a pound") in the '70s? I remember my first grade teacher giving us a glance at the metric system and telling us that we would have to learn it in later years because the U.S. had decided to completely convert over from the British system to the metric system by 1980. Well, guess what? It never happened. We still have Fahrenheit, pints, miles, galons, bushels, and foots. Metric only makes an appearance as the S.I. system in our science fields. Although, we *do* buy our Coca-cola and Pepsi in 2-liters. Go figure... > you know, all the "non-metric" units are typically called "English" > measurements, yes? Well, we say "British" because *we* are the "English" and many folk around the world speak "our" language... :) Nathan.
From: arargh502NOSPAM on 1 Mar 2005 00:59 On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:04:40 GMT, "Beth" <BethStone21(a)hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote: <snip> >But, of course, the _REAL_ way to measure temperature is in Kelvin...based >on "absolute zero" - the lowest temperature that can possibly be - but, >otherwise, is completely "compatible" with Celsius (literally, add 272 to >"convert" from Kelvin to Celsius :)...always a positive too ("absolute >zero" is technically unachievable because tiny "fluctuations" at the atomic >level keep it from ever being _exactly_ "absolute zero" :)... 273.15 according to http://www.ph.rhbnc.ac.uk/schools/ZeroT/Absolute.html Also, http://www.pa.msu.edu/~sciencet/ask_st/012992.html shows a nice little chart. <snip> -- Arargh502 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
From: wolfgang kern on 1 Mar 2005 15:31 John Smith asked: | Could one achieve absolute zero inside an absolute vacuum? With no matter, | there would be no atomic fluctuations. Though in practise, I suppose it | would be useless...and you could never knw for sure you achieved it...but | you seem to like to think. To reach 0ýK you must totally empty the whole universe ... somehow close to it is possible, but an absolute zero wont. __ wolfgang
From: John Smith on 3 Mar 2005 15:11
Well, I get cold around 15 C, so I'll keep the universe filled. :p JS "wolfgang kern" <nowhere(a)nevernet.at> wrote in message news:d02mre$h66$1(a)newsreader1.utanet.at... > > John Smith asked: > > | Could one achieve absolute zero inside an absolute vacuum? With no matter, > | there would be no atomic fluctuations. Though in practise, I suppose it > | would be useless...and you could never knw for sure you achieved it...but > | you seem to like to think. > > To reach 0ýK you must totally empty the whole universe ... > somehow close to it is possible, but an absolute zero wont. > > __ > wolfgang > > > |