Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On 7/2/2017 3:44 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
The advantage of being an Imperial age is multiple arithmetic
bases is not a problem. Younger metric people are base 10 only!
Not hardly, people don't think of 10 inches as 0.833 feet nor do
they think of 10 feet as 3.333 yards.
On 7/2/2017 3:44 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
The advantage of being an Imperial age is multiple arithmetic
bases is not a problem. Younger metric people are base 10 only!
Not hardly, people don't think of 10 inches as 0.833 feet nor do
they think of 10 feet as 3.333 yards.
On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 04:31:24 -0500, Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net
wrote:
On 7/2/2017 3:44 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
The advantage of being an Imperial age is multiple arithmetic
bases is not a problem. Younger metric people are base 10 only!
Not hardly, people don't think of 10 inches as 0.833 feet nor do
they think of 10 feet as 3.333 yards.
Wrong. You're creating more digits than was originally intended by
adding spurious significant figures. 10 inches has only two
significant figures. Therefore:
10 in = 0.83 ft = 0.00016 miles = 0.57 Roman cubits
and so on.
Jeff Liebermann wrote on 7/2/2017 1:19 PM:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 04:31:24 -0500, Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net
wrote:
On 7/2/2017 3:44 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
The advantage of being an Imperial age is multiple arithmetic
bases is not a problem. Younger metric people are base 10 only!
Not hardly, people don't think of 10 inches as 0.833 feet nor do
they think of 10 feet as 3.333 yards.
Wrong. You're creating more digits than was originally intended by
adding spurious significant figures. 10 inches has only two
significant figures. Therefore:
10 in = 0.83 ft = 0.00016 miles = 0.57 Roman cubits
and so on.
I see you attended the same school as my chemistry lab professor.
"Significant digits" is an idea that is very dated and was only useful when
performing the simplest calculations like the ones we did on a slide rule.
The real issue is accuracy. I can measure 10 feet with an accuracy better
than a sixteenth of an inch (yeah, I said sixteenth because that's how my
tapes are marked off) and I will still note it as 10 feet.
When I perform calculations I want to preserve the accuracy of the result,
so the calculations are done with a higher degree of accuracy than the
initial data.
How much more accuracy should be used depends on the extent
and nature of the calculations.
One subtraction of large numbers can result
in a small number which does not have nearly as much accuracy as the initial
data. Add to that lack of accuracy with limited precision intermediate
representation and you can end up with pointless data.
I would also point out that in both cases the final digits repeat. There is
no way to show a vinculum in ascii so seeing repeating digits at the end of
a fraction is a clue. There is nothing wrong with specifying the conversion
exactly. 10 inches is 0.833 (vinculum implied but not shown). Leave it off
and you *add* to the initial error.
On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 04:31:24 -0500, Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net
wrote:
On 7/2/2017 3:44 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
The advantage of being an Imperial age is multiple arithmetic
bases is not a problem. Younger metric people are base 10 only!
Not hardly, people don't think of 10 inches as 0.833 feet nor do
they think of 10 feet as 3.333 yards.
Wrong. You're creating more digits than was originally intended by
adding spurious significant figures. 10 inches has only two
significant figures. Therefore:
10 in = 0.83 ft = 0.00016 miles = 0.57 Roman cubits
and so on.
For domestic consumption, I use US units. For scientific, I use
metric units. For political discussions (i.e. AGW) or when I want to
confuse the reader, I use SI units. When dealing with government
agencies, I use the same as what they prefer, which are usually units
of measure that have been aged for at least 100 years. For Usenet
discussions, I use a wide mixture of these, to insure that my
assertions and guessing cannot be verified.
On Sunday, 2 July 2017 18:19:23 UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 04:31:24 -0500, Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net
wrote:
On 7/2/2017 3:44 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
The advantage of being an Imperial age is multiple arithmetic
bases is not a problem. Younger metric people are base 10 only!
Not hardly, people don't think of 10 inches as 0.833 feet nor do
they think of 10 feet as 3.333 yards.
Wrong. You're creating more digits than was originally intended by
adding spurious significant figures. 10 inches has only two
significant figures. Therefore:
10 in = 0.83 ft = 0.00016 miles = 0.57 Roman cubits
and so on.
For domestic consumption, I use US units. For scientific, I use
metric units. For political discussions (i.e. AGW) or when I want to
confuse the reader, I use SI units. When dealing with government
agencies, I use the same as what they prefer, which are usually units
of measure that have been aged for at least 100 years. For Usenet
discussions, I use a wide mixture of these, to insure that my
assertions and guessing cannot be verified.
Lol. Reminds me when I got criticised for mixing metric & imperial in
a technical drawing. Widget A was normally supplied in imperial
units, widget B in mm, so it was the sensible way to go. But
bigco bs ruled, causing extra work to be done.
NT
I could be wrong, but I think I read somewhere that the Brits used tooldschool@tubes.com wrote:
I needed to replace a 1/8" stereo plug on a cord. I found on ebay a pack
of three 1/8" stereo plugs from China, for about $2. I dont normally
order from China, but for the price and since I was in no hurry for
them, I bought them.
That was a mistake. They are NOT stereo, they are THREE CHANNEL. The tip
of the plug has THREE contacts, (plus the grounded base). What the heck
are they for? I have never seen any 3 prong 1/8" jacks on anything.
They are for cell phone headsets and other connections to a phone (like a
car). Left and right audio out, and microphone. Blame Apple.
Jon
I could be wrong, but I think I read somewhere that the Brits used to
use similar plugs for their (landline) phones. Think they called it,
"plug-and-jack (or -socket)?"
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 9:20:24 AM UTC-4, Madness wrote:
I could be wrong, but I think I read somewhere that the Brits used to
use similar plugs for their (landline) phones. Think they called it,
"plug-and-jack (or -socket)?"
Back in the day, Bell System phones were 4-wire, and all 4 had some function. Most of the world (back then) used 4 wires - Poland, apparently, used 5.
The Bell System used two wires for the phone line and if you had a Princess
phone the other two were used to supply power for the lighted dial.
Otherwise the other two were for your second extension line. This has
nothing to do with the four way plugs and jacks the OP is talking about.