UK Money, again

[Luis Campos de Carvalho]

Dave Cross wrote:
A pony is 25 quid and a monkey is 500 quid.

But as I said before, you might want to avoid using them as these
terms carry a slight inference that the money is being used for
criminal purposes (for example a bribe).
  Oh, I see.
  So what is the 'banking' name of UK money?
  I mean, what is the official name for the UK money?
Yes, but it's positively simple compared with our systems of
length and weight :)
  Is there more? Cool! =-]
  Can you point me somewhere on the net where I can (read|learn) about 
this? Thank you very, very, very much!
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Luis Campos de Carvalho
  Computer Scientist,
  Unix Sys Admin & Certified Oracle DBA
  http://br.geocities.com/monsieur_champs/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

UK money, again

[Luis Campos de Carvalho]

Andrew Wilson wrote:
It was a UK system, not exclusively english. We (the UK) abandoned this
madness sometime in the 1970's I'm 37 and I barely remember it.
  So, its not in use, anymore.
  I'm quite interested about what ammounts you can use on day-by-day 
transactions, like buying some bread by the morning and an orange juice 
can by the night. What is the current monetary units on UK, today?

There were also halfpennies and farthings (which were 1/4 pennies).
Other commonly used values: Tuppence; Thrupence; sixpence; 
> florins; Guinney; crowns; half crowns;

  Really, a true nightmare...
  I'm a kind confuse, right now... but this is funny. =-]
  Thank you Andrew.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Luis Campos de Carvalho
  Computer Scientist,
  Unix Sys Admin & Certified Oracle DBA
  http://br.geocities.com/monsieur_champs/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Re: UK Money, again

[Redvers Davies]

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 13:49, Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote:
>Oh, I see.
>So what is the 'banking' name of UK money?
>I mean, what is the official name for the UK money?

Not the Euro :-D

Red

Re: UK Money, again

[Dave Cross]

From: Luis Campos de Carvalho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 6/26/03 1:49:59 PM
>
> Dave Cross wrote:
>> A pony is 25 quid and a monkey is 500 quid.
>> 
>> But as I said before, you might want to avoid using them 
>> as these terms carry a slight inference that the money is
>> being used for criminal purposes (for example a bribe).
>
>   Oh, I see.
>   So what is the 'banking' name of UK money?
>   I mean, what is the official name for the UK money?

Currently it's called "sterling". Soon it will become "the Euro".

>> Yes, but it's positively simple compared with our systems
>> of length and weight :)
>
>   Is there more? Cool! =-]
>   Can you point me somewhere on the net where I can 
>   (read|learn) about this? Thank you very, very, very 
>   much!

A Google search for "imperial units of measure" might be a good
start.

Here's a brief guide to our measures of length.

1 foot is 12 inches
1 yard is 3 feet
1 mile is 1760 yards

There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
of a cricket pitch I think) and a furlong (220 yards).

What fun!

Dave...

-- 


"Let me see you make decisions, without your television"
   - Depeche Mode (Stripped)

Re: UK money, again

[Andrew Wilson]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:56:33AM -0300, Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote:
> Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > It was a UK system, not exclusively english. We (the UK) abandoned this
> > madness sometime in the 1970's I'm 37 and I barely remember it.
> 
>So, its not in use, anymore.
>I'm quite interested about what ammounts you can use on day-by-day 
> transactions, like buying some bread by the morning and an orange juice 
> can by the night. What is the current monetary units on UK, today?
> 
> > There were also halfpennies and farthings (which were 1/4 pennies).
> > Other commonly used values: Tuppence; Thrupence; sixpence; 
>  > florins; Guinney; crowns; half crowns;
> 
>Really, a true nightmare...
>I'm a kind confuse, right now... but this is funny. =-]
>Thank you Andrew.

The current system is no where near as interesting.  The basic unit of
currency is the pound.  The currency is also called Sterling, as in five
Pounds Sterling.  We deal in 100ths of a pound called new pence (usually
just pence these days) to distinguish it from the old 240 pence (or d)
to the pound.

The old money was counted in Pounds (L), Shillings (S) and Pence (D).
So before the 1960s if you were talking about LSD you were probably
talking about british money, not mind altering chemicals.

We currenlty have the following coins:

1p  round copper 
2p  round copper
5p  round silver
10p round silver
20p hexagonal silver
50p hexagonal silver
1 pound round brass
2 pound round silver and brass



andrew
-- 
Libra: (Sept. 23 - Oct. 23)
It was nice of Utah Jazz great Karl Malone to visit you in the hospital,
though you are not sick and easily could have entertained him at home.

Re: UK Money, again

[Dave Thorn]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:10:56AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote:
> 
> Here's a brief guide to our measures of length.
> 
> 1 foot is 12 inches
> 1 yard is 3 feet
> 1 mile is 1760 yards
> 
> There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
> depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
> of a cricket pitch I think) and a furlong (220 yards).

And an acre, which is/was a measurement of the area a team of oxen could
plough in one day, or (4,840 square yards).

I wonder if they had a measure for oxen standards.

-- 
dave thorn | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: UK Money, again

[Nicholas Clark]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:10:56AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote:

> There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
> depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
> of a cricket pitch I think) and a furlong (220 yards).

And a chain is 4 rods (or poles or perches) which makes a rod (pole or
perch) 4½ yards (and a square rod pole or perch 20¼ square yards)

Alternatively a chain is 100 links, which sounds almost metric.
(Quick, wash your mouth out)(or bah, that sounds too sane to be Imperial)

Which makes a link 7.92 inches. (which restores the insanity)

Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?

Nicholas Clark

Re: UK Money, again

[Dominic Mitchell]

Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote:
Dave Cross wrote:

A pony is 25 quid and a monkey is 500 quid.

But as I said before, you might want to avoid using them as these
terms carry a slight inference that the money is being used for
criminal purposes (for example a bribe).


  Oh, I see.
  So what is the 'banking' name of UK money?
  I mean, what is the official name for the UK money?
Pounds sterling, I think.

-Dom

--
| Semantico: creators of major online resources  |
|   URL: http://www.semantico.com/   |
|   Tel: +44 (1273) 72   |
|   Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |

Re: UK Money, again

[Dominic Mitchell]

Dave Cross wrote:
Here's a brief guide to our measures of length.

1 foot is 12 inches
1 yard is 3 feet
1 mile is 1760 yards
There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
of a cricket pitch I think) and a furlong (220 yards).
What fun!
Fortune saves the day with essential facts such as:

1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's
the law!
If it comes to obscure units, I always had a great fondness for the 
nanocentury:

%% (fortunes)
How many seconds are there in a year?  If I tell you there  are
3.155  x  10^7, you won't even try to remember it.  On the other hand,
who could forget that, to within half a percent, pi seconds is a
nanocentury.
-- Tom Duff, Bell Labs
-Dom

--
| Semantico: creators of major online resources  |
|   URL: http://www.semantico.com/   |
|   Tel: +44 (1273) 72   |
|   Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |

Re: UK money, again

[Nicholas Clark]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:16:58PM +0100, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> 
> We currenlty have the following coins:
> 
> 1pround copper 
> 2pround copper

but for the past few years actually made from steel coated to give the
same colour as the old alloy, because the old alloy was becoming too
expensive

> 5pround silver
> 10p   round silver
> 20p   hexagonal silver
> 50p   hexagonal silver

Both are heptagonal - they have 7 sides. This can surprise foreigners

> 1 pound   round brass
> 2 pound   round silver and brass

Has the inscription "Standing on the shoulders of giants" around the edge.
Anyone tempted to avoid code re-use ("Not Invented Here" should obtain
a £2 coin and read it)

There are £5 coins minted for special occasions, which I believe are as legal
tender as anything else.

Nicholas Clark

Re: UK Money, again

[Ian Malpass]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:

> Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?

In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.

Ian

-
--


The soul would have no rainbows if the eyes held no tears.

Ian Malpass [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: UK money, again

[Roger Burton West]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:16:58PM +0100, Andrew Wilson wrote:

>We currenlty have the following coins:
>
>20phexagonal silver
>50phexagonal silver

s/x/pt/g

R

Re: UK Money, again

[Iain Tatch]

On Thursday, June 26, 2003, 3:18:39 PM, Dave Thorn wrote:

DT> And an acre, which is/was a measurement of the area a team of oxen could
DT> plough in one day, or (4,840 square yards).

DT> I wonder if they had a measure for oxen standards.

*.weights-and-measures, metric, imperial, american, the lot, all seem to
be discussed in depth (but from a largely British perspective) at
   http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/dictunit.htm
   
-- 
Iain | PGP mail preferred: pubkey @ www.deepsea.f9.co.uk/misc/iain.asc
($=,$,)=split m$"13/$,qq;13"13/tl\.rnh  r   HITtahkPctacriAneeeusaoJ;;
for(@[EMAIL PROTECTED] m,,,$,){$..=$$[$=];$$=$=[$=];[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]eq$$&&$=>=$?;$==$?;for(@$)[EMAIL PROTECTED] eq$_;;last if!$@;$=++}}print$..$/

Re: UK Money, again

[Ian Malpass]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:

> Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?

In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.

Ian

-
--


The soul would have no rainbows if the eyes held no tears.

Ian Malpass [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: UK Money, again

[the hatter]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Dominic Mitchell wrote:

> Fortune saves the day with essential facts such as:
>
> 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's
> the law!
>
> If it comes to obscure units, I always had a great fondness for the
> nanocentury:
>
> %% (fortunes)
>  How many seconds are there in a year?  If I tell you there  are
> 3.155  x  10^7, you won't even try to remember it.  On the other hand,
> who could forget that, to within half a percent, pi seconds is a
> nanocentury.
>  -- Tom Duff, Bell Labs

I prefer metric units, especially ones that are easy to convert to
imperial ones.  Like the attoparsec.  Which is fairly similar to an inch.

If you're measuring speeds, you obviously need a time unit to go with your
length, I propose wider adoption of the millifortnight - about 20 minutes.


the hatter

Re: UK Money, again

[muppet]

Dave Cross said:
> Currently it's called "sterling". Soon it will become "the Euro".
>
>>> Yes, but it's positively simple compared with our systems
>>> of length and weight :)
>>
>>   Is there more? Cool! =-]
>>   Can you point me somewhere on the net where I can
>>   (read|learn) about this? Thank you very, very, very
>>   much!
>
> A Google search for "imperial units of measure" might be a good
> start.
>
> Here's a brief guide to our measures of length.
>
> 1 foot is 12 inches

whose foot?  wasn't it some king?

> 1 yard is 3 feet

an american football field is 100 yards long.

> 1 mile is 1760 yards

don't forget 1 mile == 5280 feet.

and an acre is 200 feet by 200 feet.

> There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
> depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
> of a cricket pitch I think)

> and a furlong (220 yards).

furlongs are still used in horse racing.

speaking of, horses' heights are measured in hands.

there are ells, rods, and if you're in more backwoods places, pieces (e.g.,
"that's a far piece"), yonders (e.g., "way over yonder"), and yeas (e.g., "you
know, about yea high", usually accompanied by a hand gesture).

volume measures are weird, too:  ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons,
barrels, thimbles, something smaller than an ounce that i can't remember 
and tonnes and tons are different from metric tons.

plus the generic quantities:
  1 = one, a
  2 = two, couple, pair, brace
  3 = a few
  4 = some
  5 = several
  6 = a bunch
  7 = a lot

there are several (5) multipliers, usually used only on "a lot" and "a bunch":
 .5x ickle
 2x  whole
 4x  damn
 7x  bleedin'
 10x f*ckin'
plus combinations, such as "a whole, whole lot" (2x2x7=28), and "a whole damn
f*uckin bunch" (2x4x10x6=480).

however, infinity, or at least the superlative limit of something's magnitude,
is "brass monkey".


last i checked, Math::Units doesn't cover any of that.

-- 
muppet 

Re: UK Money, again

[Anders Hellström]

At 14.35 + 03-06-26, the hatter wrote:
>If you're measuring speeds, you obviously need a time unit to go with your
>length, I propose wider adoption of the millifortnight - about 20 minutes.

I prefer the microfortnight, 1.2096 seconds.


--
Anders Hellström

Re: UK Money, again

[muppet]

Ian Malpass said:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
>
> In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.

bzzt!  they always weigh the same, because the same mass experiences the same
amount of gravitational attraction.  air vs vacuum makes a difference for
falling speed, which for some reason is of incredible interest to physicists.

-- 
muppet 

Re: UK money, again

[Andrew Wilson]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:27:21PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > 5p  round silver
> > 10p round silver
> > 20p hexagonal silver
> > 50p hexagonal silver
> 
> Both are heptagonal - they have 7 sides. This can surprise foreigners

Indeed they are.  Braino on my part.  Would you believe I actually hoked
one out my pocket and counted the sides.  Doh!

andrew
-- 
Aries: (March 21 - April 19)
You have always considered yourself a belt-and-suspenders type, which
makes it all the more amusing when your pants fall down anyway.

Re: UK Money, again

[Nicholas Clark]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:27:59PM +0100, Ian Malpass wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> 
> > Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
> 
> In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.

No, because it is a different trick question

An ounce of gold, because gold is measured in Troy ounces, whereas feathers
(and just about everything else) is measured in Avoirdupois ounces.

A Troy ounce is heavier.

Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?

Nicholas Clark

Re: UK money, again

[David R. Baird]

> We currenlty have the following coins:
> 
---
> 20p   hexagonal silver
> 50p   hexagonal silver
---
> 
> andrew
> 

Um, I think septagonal is the accurate term:

http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/pics/dec20.html
http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/pics/dec50.html

Dave (Just Another Pedantic Hacker) 

Re: UK Money, again

[Joel Bernstein]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:40:09PM +0200, Anders Hellstr?m wrote:
> At 14.35 + 03-06-26, the hatter wrote:
> >If you're measuring speeds, you obviously need a time unit to go with your
> >length, I propose wider adoption of the millifortnight - about 20 minutes.
> 
> I prefer the microfortnight, 1.2096 seconds.

The best unit is the "millihelen" - which is defined as the amount of
beauty required to launch one ship.

/joel

Re: UK Money, again

[Rob Thompson]

So... what you're telling me here, is that if I take an ounce of feathers 
and place them on a set of scales, then it will weigh less than an ounce? Or 
that ounce of gold weigh will weigh more than an ounce?

From: Ian Malpass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:28:40 +0100 (BST)
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:

> Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?

In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.

Ian

-
--

The soul would have no rainbows if the eyes held no tears.

Ian Malpass [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile

Re: UK Money, again

[Joel Bernstein]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:42:11PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:27:59PM +0100, Ian Malpass wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > 
> > > Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
> > 
> > In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.
> 
> No, because it is a different trick question
> 
> An ounce of gold, because gold is measured in Troy ounces, whereas feathers
> (and just about everything else) is measured in Avoirdupois ounces.
> 
> A Troy ounce is heavier.
> 
> Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?

How many troy ounces in a troy pound again? 12oz?

/joel

Re: UK Money, again

[Paul Johnson]

muppet said:

> volume measures are weird, too:  ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons,
> barrels, thimbles, something smaller than an ounce that i can't
> remember

One of my favourite recipes calls for a scant gill of milk, which I always
found rather poetic.

-- 
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net

Re: UK Money, again

[Dave Cross]

From: Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 6/26/03 2:19:10 PM

> Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an 
> ounce of gold?

I believe they are the same. However if your question was "which
is heavier a _pound_ of feathers or a _pound_ of gold?" then
the answer (surprisingly) is "a pound of feathers" (by about
14%).

Dave...
-- 


"Let me see you make decisions, without your television"
   - Depeche Mode (Stripped)

Re: UK Money, again

[Chris Benson]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:10:56AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote:
> >   I mean, what is the official name for the UK money?
> 
> Currently it's called "sterling". Soon it will become "the Euro".

For some value of "soon".
-- 
Chris Benson

Re: UK Money, again

[Dave Cross]

From: Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 6/26/03 2:42:11 PM

> An ounce of gold, because gold is measured in Troy ounces,

> whereas feathers (and just about everything else) is 
> measured in Avoirdupois ounces.
>
> A Troy ounce is heavier.

I thought that the ounces were the same weight and the difference
only arose because a Troy pound was 14oz as opposed to an Avoirdupois
pound which is 16oz.

I could be wrong tho'. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_weight
implies that I am :(

Dave...



-- 


"Let me see you make decisions, without your television"
   - Depeche Mode (Stripped)

Re: UK Money, again

[Andrew Wilson]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:50:04PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
> 
> muppet said:
> 
> > volume measures are weird, too:  ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons,
> > barrels, thimbles, something smaller than an ounce that i can't
> > remember
> 
> One of my favourite recipes calls for a scant gill of milk, which I always
> found rather poetic.

>From what I remember, sprits are sold in fractions of a gill. The
Northern Irish measure is 1/4 gill, the rest of the UK uses 1/6 gill.
Which makes an Irish double about the size of an English tripple (ish).
I say ish because they've both gone metric to 35ml and 25ml
respectively.


andrew
-- 
Gemini: (May 21 - June 21)
Once again, it's a bad week for romance in the workplace, but romance has
nothing to do with your coworkers taking you from behind while you're
Xeroxing.

Re: UK Money, again

[David Wright]

> > muppet said:
> >
> > > volume measures are weird, too:  ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons,
> > > barrels, thimbles, something smaller than an ounce that i can't
> > > remember
> >
> > One of my favourite recipes calls for a scant gill of milk, which I always
> > found rather poetic.
>
> From what I remember, sprits are sold in fractions of a gill. The
> Northern Irish measure is 1/4 gill, the rest of the UK uses 1/6 gill.
> Which makes an Irish double about the size of an English tripple (ish).
> I say ish because they've both gone metric to 35ml and 25ml
> respectively.

Scottish measures are bigger too (from fond memory), I think they might be
1/5 gill.

Ooh, and whilst searching for the correct fraction, I found some other
curious Scots quantities:

4 gills = 1 mutchkin
2 mutchkins = 1 chopin

dave

Re: UK Money, again

[alex]

>
> there are several (5) multipliers, usually used only on "a lot" and "a bunch":
>  .5x ickle
>  2x  whole
>  4x  damn
>  7x  bleedin'
>  10x f*ckin'
> plus combinations, such as "a whole, whole lot" (2x2x7=28), and "a whole damn
> f*uckin bunch" (2x4x10x6=480).
>
> however, infinity, or at least the superlative limit of something's magnitude,
> is "brass monkey".
>

actually that's a measure of cold.

there is 1 SI unit used as well - the sh*tload

as in "1 SI sh*tload of X"

al

>
> last i checked, Math::Units doesn't cover any of that.
>
> --
> muppet 
>
>
>

Re: UK Money, again

[Nicholas Clark]

[OK mariachi, how you gonna thread this?]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:45:30PM +0100, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:42:11PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:

> > A Troy ounce is heavier.
> > 
> > Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?
> 
> How many troy ounces in a troy pound again? 12oz?


On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:00:13AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote:

> I thought that the ounces were the same weight and the difference
> only arose because a Troy pound was 14oz as opposed to an Avoirdupois
> pound which is 16oz.
> 
> I could be wrong tho'. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_weight
> implies that I am :(

Yes, it's 12 Troy ounces in a Troy pound, which makes the pound of
feathers heavier.

Metric is /so/ boring.

Nicholas Clark

Re: UK Money, again

[Paul Johnson]

David Wright said:

> Scottish measures are bigger too (from fond memory), I think they might be
> 1/5 gill.
>
> Ooh, and whilst searching for the correct fraction, I found some other
> curious Scots quantities:
>
> 4 gills = 1 mutchkin
> 2 mutchkins = 1 chopin

Which is well on the way to Brahms and Liszt.

-- 
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net

Re: UK Money, again

[Joel Bernstein]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:20:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > however, infinity, or at least the superlative limit of something's magnitude,
> > is "brass monkey".
> actually that's a measure of cold.
> 
> there is 1 SI unit used as well - the sh*tload
> 
> as in "1 SI sh*tload of X"

I think you'll find that it's a "metric f*cktonne".

/joel

Re: UK Money, again

[the hatter]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Joel Bernstein wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:40:09PM +0200, Anders Hellstr?m wrote:
> > At 14.35 + 03-06-26, the hatter wrote:
> > >If you're measuring speeds, you obviously need a time unit to go with your
> > >length, I propose wider adoption of the millifortnight - about 20 minutes.
> >
> > I prefer the microfortnight, 1.2096 seconds.
>
> The best unit is the "millihelen" - which is defined as the amount of
> beauty required to launch one ship.

Now you're just making things up.  c.f. the MARS Book of Standards Weights
and Measures, a publication well-known in rocketry circles consisting
largely of measures and non-dimensioned units for in related applications.

Another obscure but official unit which I occassionally use in the correct
context is a jiffy, as in "just a jiffy", which is actually 1/50th (or
occassionally 1/60th of a second depending on what video standard you're
using)


the hatter

Re: UK Money, again

[Redvers Davies]

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 14:51, Chris Benson wrote:
> For some value of "soon".

Soon being defined as "If i'm here, over my dead body".

Hmm, what was I doing on Tuesday again?

Re: UK Money, again

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> there is 1 SI unit used as well - the sh*tload
>
> as in "1 SI sh*tload of X"
>

Also is the closely related 'Shed' 

/J\

Re: UK Money, again

[Stray Toaster]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:31:31PM +, the hatter wrote:
> >
> > The best unit is the "millihelen" - which is defined as the amount of
> > beauty required to launch one ship.

My favourite unit is the barn. I don't recall what it is, something like
10^(-26) at a rough guess.

Oh, the wit of pyysicists with their toys. I mean, you could hit a barn
door with that jet of elementary particles.

m.

-- 
Andrew: I don't mind cause I got titties

--
Family ties : http://www.thefamilykerr.co.uk
Playtime: http://www.stray-toaster.co.uk

Re: UK Money, again

[Peter Sergeant]

> > For some value of "soon".
> Soon being defined as "If i'm here, over my dead body".

Surely the value of 'soon' here means 'as soon as possible', and implies
that it would be an exceptionally good thing?

/me dons flame-retardant suit, runs, ducks, covers

+Pete

-- 
B:  Pinky, Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
P:  Uh, I think so, Brain, but where will we find a duck and a hose at
this hour?
 -- Pinky and Brain

Re: UK Money, again

[Redvers Davies]

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 16:00, Peter Sergeant wrote:
> > > For some value of "soon".
> > Soon being defined as "If i'm here, over my dead body".
> 
> Surely the value of 'soon' here means 'as soon as possible', and implies
> that it would be an exceptionally good thing?

So you're saying you want me dead?
Cool.

Re: UK Money, again

[Shevek]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, the hatter wrote:

> Another obscure but official unit which I occassionally use in the correct
> context is a jiffy, as in "just a jiffy", which is actually 1/50th (or
> occassionally 1/60th of a second depending on what video standard you're
> using)

A jiffy is 1/HZ of a second, where HZ depends on your architecture. On 
most x86s, it's 1/100.

S.

-- 
Shevekhttp://www.anarres.org/
I am the Borg. http://www.gothnicity.org/

Re: UK Money, again

[Ian Malpass]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, muppet wrote:

> Ian Malpass said:
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >
> >> Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
> >
> > In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.
>
> bzzt!  they always weigh the same, because the same mass experiences the same
> amount of gravitational attraction.  air vs vacuum makes a difference for
> falling speed, which for some reason is of incredible interest to physicists.


Bzzt! You're forgetting the effect of uplift in a fluid.

Now, of course, we're assuming the feathers are in an uncompressed
state

Ian

-
--


The soul would have no rainbows if the eyes held no tears.

Ian Malpass [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: UK Money, again

[Ian Malpass]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Rob Thompson top-quoted:

> >In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.

> So... what you're telling me here, is that if I take an ounce of feathers
> and place them on a set of scales, then it will weigh less than an ounce? Or
> that ounce of gold weigh will weigh more than an ounce?

No, they'll both have a mass of an ounce. Their weight - the force exerted
on them by gravity - differs, due to the different uplift by the air
around them. As I mentioned before (assuming this post doesn't beat my
last one) I'm assuming uncompressed feathers.

Ian

-
--


The soul would have no rainbows if the eyes held no tears.

Ian Malpass [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: UK Money, again

[David Cantrell]

On Thursday, June 26, 2003 15:19 +0100 Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Alternatively a chain is 100 links, which sounds almost metric.
(Quick, wash your mouth out)(or bah, that sounds too sane to be Imperial)
But we're saved by the hundredweight not being a hundred anything.

--
David Cantrell

Re: UK Money, again

[Chris Devers]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, David Cantrell wrote:

> On Thursday, June 26, 2003 15:19 +0100 Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alternatively a chain is 100 links, which sounds almost metric.
> > (Quick, wash your mouth out)(or bah, that sounds too sane to be
> > Imperial)
>
> But we're saved by the hundredweight not being a hundred anything.

Surely 100 hundreths of a hundredweight should be about right, no?



-- 
Chris Devers

Re: UK Money, again

[Chris Devers]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Shevek wrote:

> A jiffy is 1/HZ of a second, where HZ depends on your architecture. On
> most x86s, it's 1/100.

Unless you're using a Pentium, in which case it's 1/101...



-- 
Chris Devers

Re: UK Money, again

[S Watkins]

Ian Malpass wrote:
No, they'll both have a mass of an ounce. Their weight - the force exerted
on them by gravity - differs, due to the different uplift by the air
around them. As I mentioned before (assuming this post doesn't beat my
last one) I'm assuming uncompressed feathers.
Ian
..and what happens if the ounce of gold is in golf leaf form? Surely 
then, the surface area of gold would be larger than the surface area of 
the feathers and so, the uplit force due to air would be greater on the 
gold.

Re: UK Money, again

[Redvers Davies]

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 18:16, Ian Malpass wrote:
> No, they'll both have a mass of an ounce. Their weight - the force exerted
> on them by gravity - differs, due to the different uplift by the air
> around them.

No.  Their "weight - the force exerted on them by gravity" is the same. 
The force in the opposing direction is a seperate force.

Re: UK Money, again

[muppet]

Redvers Davies said:
> On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 18:16, Ian Malpass wrote:
>> No, they'll both have a mass of an ounce. Their weight - the force exerted
>> on them by gravity - differs, due to the different uplift by the air
>> around them.
>
> No.  Their "weight - the force exerted on them by gravity" is the same.  The
> force in the opposing direction is a seperate force.

you spoke the words that were in my mouth.

thus it is that falling speed is where you see the final results of the
addition of the gravity and buoyance/resistance vectors.  if you consider
weight to be how much force you have to exert to lift it (which would indeed
be affected by surrounding fluid), then you are using a different definition,
and i shall dub thee 'clin-ton'.

-- 
muppet 

Re: UK Money, again

[Philip Newton]

On 26 Jun 2003 at 17:47, David Cantrell wrote:

> But we're saved by the hundredweight not being a hundred anything.

It's not?

units(1) says:

You have: cwt
You want:
Definition: hundredweight = 100 pounds = 45.359237 kg

which sounds as if it *is* 100 somethings.

Perhaps we're talking about different hundredweights?

Cheers,
Philip
-- 
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: UK Money, again

[Jasper McCrea]

S Watkins wrote:
> 
> Ian Malpass wrote:
> > No, they'll both have a mass of an ounce. Their weight - the force exerted
> > on them by gravity - differs, due to the different uplift by the air
> > around them. As I mentioned before (assuming this post doesn't beat my
> > last one) I'm assuming uncompressed feathers.
> >
> > Ian
> 
> ..and what happens if the ounce of gold is in golf leaf form? Surely
> then, the surface area of gold would be larger than the surface area of
> the feathers and so, the uplit force due to air would be greater on the
> gold.

The uplift force due to the fluid (air) is solely dependant on the volume,
Archimedes and all that. Nothing to do with surface area. Unless it's moving. In
which case some complicated sums must be done.

Jasper

Re: UK Money, again

[Roger Horne]

On Fri 27 Jun, Philip Newton wrote:
> 
 
> You have: cwt
> You want:
> Definition: hundredweight = 100 pounds = 45.359237 kg
> 
> which sounds as if it *is* 100 somethings.

But is wrong. There are 112 pounds in a hundredweight (or were when I was at
school). 

See http://home.clara.net/brianp/weights.html

Roger
-- 
Roger Horne
11 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3QB
http://www.hrothgar.co.uk

Re: UK Money, again

[Andrew Beattie]

Roger Horne wrote:
But is wrong. There are 112 pounds in a hundredweight (or were when I was at
school). 
But that's *about* a hundred.  If it were wresting on your toe,
you wouldn't squabble over the difference.
Andrew

Re: UK Money, again

[Philip Newton]

On 27 Jun 2003 at 13:28, Roger Horne wrote:

> On Fri 27 Jun, Philip Newton wrote:
>  
> > which sounds as if it *is* 100 somethings.
> 
> But is wrong. There are 112 pounds in a hundredweight (or were when I was at
> school). 
> 
> See http://home.clara.net/brianp/weights.html

I sit corrected.

If I have an excess of CFT I may submit a correction to the maintainer 
of units.

Cheers,
Philip
-- 
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: UK Money, again

[David Cantrell]

On Friday, June 27, 2003 13:55 +0200 Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2003 at 17:47, David Cantrell wrote:
But we're saved by the hundredweight not being a hundred anything.
It's not?

units(1) says:

You have: cwt
You want:
Definition: hundredweight = 100 pounds = 45.359237 kg
The hundredweight is 112 lbs, or 8 stone, or 1/20 ton.

Perhaps we're talking about different hundredweights?
Those johnie-come-latelies in the colonies redefined the hundredweight, no 
doubt.  They probably thought it had too much to do with tea, which, due to 
their curious custom of adulterating it with brine instead of milk, would 
be quite an unpleasant association.

--
David Cantrell

Re: UK Money, again

[muppet]

David Cantrell said:
> The hundredweight is 112 lbs, or 8 stone, or 1/20 ton.

suddenly i have a new understanding of "weighin' in at nineteen stone", from
"whole lotta rosie".  indeed, that is a whole lot of woman.  wow.

-- 
muppet 

UK money, again (again)

[Paul Mison]

On 26/06/2003 at 10:19 -0300, Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote:

  This is the first time I meet a monetary system that is not based on
  the relation
  100 - 50 - 20 - 10 - 5 - 1 - 0.50 - 0.25 - 0.10 - 0.01
As other people have mentioned, although not explicitly, the British 
pound (and the Euro) have different sub-unit currency subdivisions, 
ie:

100 50 20 10 5 2 1

http://www.royalmint.com/talk/specifications.asp
http://www.eurocoins.co.uk/ireland.html
as opposed to the US model:

100 50 25 10 5 1

http://www.usmint.gov/faqs/circulating_coins/index.cfm?action=faq_circulating_coin

Of course, the US has to give their coins cutesy names, just to 
confuse people; a habit that's thankfully died out here (cf previous 
discussion of florins).

I vaguely recall seeing a survey that recommended an 18/100 unit coin 
as the optimum for currencies, but the mental arithmetic would be 
horrific. I don't know if they pronounced on whether 20 is better 
than 25 or not, but it's interesting that the US doesn't issue 25 
dollar bills.

--
:: paul
:: compiles with canadian cs1471 protocol

Re: UK money, again

[Paul Mison]

On 26/06/2003 at 15:47 +0100, Iain Tatch wrote:
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, 3:27:21 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Has the inscription "Standing on the shoulders of giants" around the edge.

I think this one's broke. It's got "Deoxyribonucleic Acid" written round
the edge. And a rather cool double helix printed on the tails side. Hmm I
quite like that. I'll try to remember to put it to one side.
It's a special commemorative edition. They come out periodically for 
high value coins (these days, that's 2 pound and 50 pence) to mark 
some anniversary. This one is for the 50th anniversary of the 
decoding of the structure of, um, well, DNA.

http://www.royalmint.com/news/pnewsitem.asp?news_id=19

Pound coins have their own rotating series of national designs, the 
newest set of which (using bridges, just like Euro notes) have been 
previewed:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-718623,00.html

http://2lmc.org/spool/id/2806 has more coin geeking and a slight jab 
at the lack of interesting bridges in Northern Ireland.

--
:: paul
:: compiles with canadian cs1471 protocol

Re: UK money, again

[Dave Cross]

From: Paul Mison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 6/30/03 1:57:25 PM

> Pound coins have their own rotating series of national 
> designs, the newest set of which (using bridges, just like
> Euro notes) have been previewed:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-718623,00.html

IIRC, one of Ian McEwan's novels (I think it was "Child in Time"[1])
features a character who sat on the board that approved these
designs.

Dave...

[1] Which I heartily recommend if you haven't already read it[2].
[2] In fact, read all[3] of McEwan's books whilst you're at it.
The man's a bloody star.
[3] Except perhaps "Atonement". Not enjoying that as much as
the others.
-- 


"Let me see you make decisions, without your television"
   - Depeche Mode (Stripped)

Re: UK money, again

[Andy Mendelsohn]

On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 03:07  pm, Dave Cross wrote:
[3] Except perhaps "Atonement". Not enjoying that as much as
the others.
--
Oh no, keep at it Dave, it has a great ending. The missus and I read it 
out loud to each other, a chapter at a time.
I think, along with a Child in Time, it's now my favourite McEwan.

andy

Re: UK money, again

[Tim Sweetman]

Dave Cross wrote:
IIRC, one of Ian McEwan's novels (I think it was "Child in Time"[1])
features a character who sat on the board that approved these
designs.
Dave...

[1] Which I heartily recommend if you haven't already read it[2]...
[2] In fact, read all[3] of McEwan's books whilst you're at it.
The man's a bloody star.
[3] Except perhaps "Atonement". Not enjoying that as much as
the others.
Presuming you like the kind of book where you just about get time to 
learn the (mostly unsympathetic) protagonists' names before ghastly 
things happen to them, yes.

(HEY! look, fiction on l.pm that's not buffy!)

--- SPOILER GAP ---











































... and where the author gradually shifts genres into "magical realism" 
to extricate his characters from the mess he's dropped them into.

ti'

Re: UK Money, again

[Piers Cawley]

"muppet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Cantrell said:
>> The hundredweight is 112 lbs, or 8 stone, or 1/20 ton.
>
> suddenly i have a new understanding of "weighin' in at nineteen stone", from
> "whole lotta rosie".  indeed, that is a whole lot of woman.  wow.

There was apparently an occasion when some eejits at MIT demanded that
all classes be taught using the furlong/stone/fortnight system of
measurements...

-- 
Piers

Re: UK money, again

[Tom Lancaster]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 04:35:54PM +0100, Andy Mendelsohn wrote:
> 
> On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 03:07  pm, Dave Cross wrote:
> >[3] Except perhaps "Atonement". Not enjoying that as much as
> >the others.
> >-- 
> >
> 
> Oh no, keep at it Dave, it has a great ending. The missus and I read it 
> out loud to each other, a chapter at a time.
> I think, along with a Child in Time, it's now my favourite McEwan.
> 

I have to agree. For me it's the most horrifying of all his books. Like a slow-mo 
plane crash.

Tom

-- 
Manly's Maxim: Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with 
confidence.

Re: UK Money, again

[Toby Corkindale]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:31:31PM +, the hatter wrote:
> Another obscure but official unit which I occassionally use in the correct
> context is a jiffy, as in "just a jiffy", which is actually 1/50th (or
> occassionally 1/60th of a second depending on what video standard you're
> using)

Hmm.. Have you checked what the Linux kernel source thinks about jiffies
recently?

tjc

-- 
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Re[2]: UK money, again

[Iain Tatch]

On Thursday, June 26, 2003, 3:27:21 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:

>> 2 pound   round silver and brass

NC> Has the inscription "Standing on the shoulders of giants" around the edge.
NC> Anyone tempted to avoid code re-use ("Not Invented Here" should obtain
NC> a £2 coin and read it)

Does it? Never noticed that.

puts hand in pocket and pulls out selection of coinage. locates £2
coin

I think this one's broke. It's got "Deoxyribonucleic Acid" written round
the edge. And a rather cool double helix printed on the tails side. Hmm I
quite like that. I'll try to remember to put it to one side.

-- 
Iain | PGP mail preferred: pubkey @ www.deepsea.f9.co.uk/misc/iain.asc
($=,$,)=split m$"13/$,qq;13"13/tl\.rnh  r   HITtahkPctacriAneeeusaoJ;;
for(@[EMAIL PROTECTED] m,,,$,){$..=$$[$=];$$=$=[$=];[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]eq$$&&$=>=$?;$==$?;for(@$)[EMAIL PROTECTED] eq$_;;last if!$@;$=++}}print$..$/

Re: UK money, again (again)

[Nicholas Clark]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote:

> As other people have mentioned, although not explicitly, the British 
> pound (and the Euro) have different sub-unit currency subdivisions, 
> ie:
> 
> 100 50 20 10 5 2 1

> as opposed to the US model:
> 
> 100 50 25 10 5 1

> horrific. I don't know if they pronounced on whether 20 is better 
> than 25 or not, but it's interesting that the US doesn't issue 25 
> dollar bills.

My experience was that 25 sucks. When calculating amounts above 10 cents
I had to keep track of both units and tens changing when I added/removed
a 25 cent coin from an amount. Adding/removing 20 only changes the tens.

Likewise I found the lack of a US 2 cent coin really really annoying,
because I had to deal with up to 4 coins just to get the last few cents
right.

Nicholas Clark

Re: UK money, again (again)

[Paul Makepeace]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote:
> Of course, the US has to give their coins cutesy names, just to 

LOL. You'll have to try harder than that.

Shilling, bob, pony, monkey, quid, godiva, ton, large one, ..

The US has nothing on the UK here.

Paul

-- 
Paul Makepeace ... http://paulm.com/

"If my brain fell out, then blue would seem more like a bus-stop in
 Florida."
   -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/

Re: UK money, again (again)

[Paul Mison]

On 02/07/2003 at 14:48 +0100, Paul Makepeace wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote:
 Of course, the US has to give their coins cutesy names, just to
LOL. You'll have to try harder than that.

Shilling, bob, pony, monkey, quid, godiva, ton, large one, ..

The US has nothing on the UK here.
None of which would be found on the Royal Mint page, whereas dimes, 
nickels and quarters are official names (they're on the Treasury page 
I linked to in the previous email).

As I said, we used to have nearly-official names (thrupenny bit) but 
we don't any more; a twenty pence piece is only known as, well, a 
twenty pence piece. Sure, there's lots of slang, but that's different.

--
:: paul
:: compiles with canadian cs1471 protocol

Re: UK money, again (again)

[Iain Tatch]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, 2:48:38 PM, Paul Makepeace wrote:

PM> On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote:
>> Of course, the US has to give their coins cutesy names, just to 

PM> LOL. You'll have to try harder than that.

PM> Shilling, bob, pony, monkey, quid, godiva, ton, large one, ..

Yeah but they're all nicknames. If you pick up a pound coin it says on it
(not unreasonably) "One Pound". If you pick up a ten pence piece it's
nicely self-explanatory and says "Ten Pence", and has a convenient "10" in
numerals, too.

Pick up a handful of Merkin change and you get things that say "Nickel",
"Dime", "Quarter" with no other clue as to their monetary value. For those
of us not brought up in the USA, even if you're aware that one's 5c and
the other 10c, there's no obvious way to get from the names nickel and
dime to their monetary values.

-- 
Iain | PGP mail preferred: pubkey @ www.deepsea.f9.co.uk/misc/iain.asc
($=,$,)=split m$"13/$,qq;13"13/tl\.rnh  r   HITtahkPctacriAneeeusaoJ;;
for(@[EMAIL PROTECTED] m,,,$,){$..=$$[$=];$$=$=[$=];[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]eq$$&&$=>=$?;$==$?;for(@$)[EMAIL PROTECTED] eq$_;;last if!$@;$=++}}print$..$/

Re: UK money, again (again)

[Mike Jarvis]

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:17:07PM +0100, Iain Tatch wrote:
> Pick up a handful of Merkin change and you get things that say "Nickel",
> "Dime", "Quarter" with no other clue as to their monetary value. For those
> of us not brought up in the USA, even if you're aware that one's 5c and
> the other 10c, there's no obvious way to get from the names nickel and
> dime to their monetary values.
> 

The quarter says "quarter dollar", which is no more slangy or less
accurate than "25 cents".  The nickle says very plainly just under the
picture of Monticello "five cents" and nowhere on it does the word
"nickle" appear.

The dime says "one dime" and nowhere gives its value in cents.  Of
course those of you up on your middle english will know that "dime"
means one tenth, and therefore isn't really a cutesy name.

Hey, I don't have a Maine quarter yet.
-- 
mike

Re: UK money, again (again)

[Paul Makepeace]

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:17:07PM +0100, Iain Tatch wrote:
> Pick up a handful of Merkin change and you get things that say "Nickel",
> "Dime", "Quarter" with no other clue as to their monetary value. For those

"Quarter Dollar". Pretty obvious. The dime only says dime and I can't
remember nickel.

> of us not brought up in the USA, even if you're aware that one's 5c and
> the other 10c, there's no obvious way to get from the names nickel and
> dime to their monetary values.

"Hi, can you tell me what these coins are worth?"

What is your point? That the US currency is failing somehow because it
doesn't explicitly put its cents value on its coinage?

I'm sure there's a million other vastly more complex culturally specific
things you'd have to learn on arrival to any new country. Compared to
learning a new language or dialect of a language criticizing a currency
for the extra load of having to learn the value of two coins seems to me
laughable.

Imagine an employer reading this thread - "this guy seems to struggle
learning; not only finding the information out, but committing that
trivial amount to memory". :-)

Paul

-- 
Paul Makepeace ... http://paulm.com/

"What is a little trim? North by north west."
   -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/

Re: UK money, again (again)

[Chris Devers]

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Iain Tatch wrote:

> Pick up a handful of Merkin change and you get things that say "Nickel",
> "Dime", "Quarter" with no other clue as to their monetary value.

You don't have any US change handy, do you? :)

  penny   ($0.01): says "ONE CENT"
  nickel  ($0.05): says "FIVE CENTS"
  dime($0.10): says "ONE DIME" (okay, you got this one)
  quarter ($0.25): says "QUARTER DOLLAR" (close, but more descriptive)

> For those of us not brought up in the USA, even if you're aware that
> one's 5c and the other 10c, there's no obvious way to get from the names
> nickel and dime to their monetary values.

But nickel is a nickname, just like "quid" or "bob", and dime, while
apparently official, does seem to imply 1/10 of a dollar -- if you're
going to be that analytical about it, deducing the value of that coin
based on the name isn't impossible.


Interestingly, the values are all noted on what I assumed was the back of
each coin, but I seem to recall a rule that the side with a value written
*is* the side with value, i.e. if you could somehow slice the coin in
half, the side without "dime" written on it (or whatever) would be without
value as currency.

This is vaguely relevant as the quarter has been having it's first
redesign in 25 years or so, with the eagle "back" (which, like the others,
has the value and so is probably actually the "front") being replaced by a
logo for each of the 50 states, with 5 states a year being put into
circulation for the next decade or so. Part of the redesign meant putting
the words "quarter dollar" on the "front", by Washington's head, instead
of the other side where it had been for decades. Apparently this was a big
deal to the treasury & numismaniacs...


-- 
Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://devers.homeip.net:8080/

nanotechnology, n.
A quark with an outboard motor.

-- from _The Computer Contradictionary_, Stan Kelly-Bootle, 1995

Re: UK money, again (again)

[Iain Tatch]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, 3:49:35 PM, Paul Makepeace wrote:

PM> What is your point? That the US currency is failing somehow because it
PM> doesn't explicitly put its cents value on its coinage?

No, the point was that although there are dozens of slang words for
various monetary amounts in British English, at least a tourist coming to
the country doesn't have to accost a local to find out what the coins in
his/her pocket actually are. "Quarter Dollar" is no more informative than
"Flurglespotch" unless your english is up to a level where you know what
the word "quarter" means -- even if they put 1/4 on it that would be an
improvement.

PM> I'm sure there's a million other vastly more complex culturally specific
PM> things you'd have to learn on arrival to any new country. Compared to
PM> learning a new language or dialect of a language criticizing a currency
PM> for the extra load of having to learn the value of two coins seems to me
PM> laughable.

Indeed, and point taken. However seeing as iirc the thread all started
with a discussion about metrication and the lack thereof, there's also a
valid point to be made that you can go to almost any other country in the
world and quite happily work out the money by looking at the numbers
printed on the notes and coins. Of course, nobody really expects the USA
to give a monkeys about the rest of the world!

PM> Imagine an employer reading this thread - "this guy seems to struggle
PM> learning; not only finding the information out, but committing that
PM> trivial amount to memory". :-)

If a future employer searches me out on the net I strongly suspect that
would be one of the least of my concerns!

-- 
Iain | PGP mail preferred: pubkey @ www.deepsea.f9.co.uk/misc/iain.asc
($=,$,)=split m$"13/$,qq;13"13/tl\.rnh  r   HITtahkPctacriAneeeusaoJ;;
for(@[EMAIL PROTECTED] m,,,$,){$..=$$[$=];$$=$=[$=];[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]eq$$&&$=>=$?;$==$?;for(@$)[EMAIL PROTECTED] eq$_;;last if!$@;$=++}}print$..$/

Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Steve Mynott]

Roger Horne wrote:

On Fri 27 Jun, Philip Newton wrote:

 

You have: cwt
You want:
   Definition: hundredweight = 100 pounds = 45.359237 kg
which sounds as if it *is* 100 somethings.


But is wrong. There are 112 pounds in a hundredweight (or were when I was at
school). 

See http://home.clara.net/brianp/weights.html
You are both right depends whether you are talking about an American or 
English hundredweight.

GNU units has 'brhundredweight' defined whereas the FreeBSD 4.5 units(1) 
doesn't (and probably should).

http://www.bartleby.com/61/55/H0325500.html

A unit of weight in the U.S. Customary System equal to 100 pounds (45.36 
kilograms). Also called cental, short hundredweight. 2. A unit of weight 
in the British Imperial System equal to 112 pounds (50.80 kilograms).

-- Steve

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Tom Hukins]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 06:44:55PM +0100, Steve Mynott wrote:
> 
> GNU units has 'brhundredweight' defined whereas the FreeBSD 4.5
> units(1) doesn't (and probably should).

You've inspired me to write this simple patch, which is now waiting
for the approval of a src committer:
http://people.freebsd.org/~tom/tmp/units/

Tom

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[muppet]

On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 05:59 AM, Tom Hukins wrote:

http://people.freebsd.org/~tom/tmp/units/


i've always loved the sound of yottabyte.  yotta yotta yotta.

anyway, i read these aloud to my wife:

" kbyte1024 byte
 megabyte   1024 kbyte
 gigabyte   1024 megabyte
+terabyte   1024 gigabyte
+petabyte   1024 terabyte
+exabyte1024 petabyte
+zettabyte  1024 exabyte
+yottabyte  1024 zettabyte"
her reply: "that bytes."

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Peter Haworth]

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:28:07 -0400, muppet wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 05:59 AM, Tom Hukins wrote:
> 
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~tom/tmp/units/
> 
> i've always loved the sound of yottabyte.  yotta yotta yotta.
> 
> anyway, i read these aloud to my wife:
> 
> " kbyte   1024 byte
>   megabyte1024 kbyte
>   gigabyte1024 megabyte
> +terabyte 1024 gigabyte
> +petabyte 1024 terabyte
> +exabyte  1024 petabyte
> +zettabyte1024 exabyte
> +yottabyte1024 zettabyte"
> 
> her reply: "that bytes."

Well, she has a point. Those multipliers should all be 1000. To use
multipliers of 1024, the units are kibibyte, mebibyte, gibibyte,
tebibyte, pebibyte, exbibyte, zebibyte and yobibyte. Surely everyone
is using these by now? :-)

See http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html for the gruesome
details. For some strange reason, there aren't binary prefixes for
submultiples. Quite apart from the rarity of use, they'd be even
sillier than the multiples I suppose: decbi, centbi, millbi,
micbi/microbi, nanbi, picbi, fembi/femtbi, attbi, zeptbi, yoctbi.

Come to think of it, why aren't zetta and yotta the other way round?
That way you'd at least get (e)x y z at the end, which would make some
kind of sense.

-- 
Peter Haworth   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Lies, damn lies, and computer documentation."

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Alex McLintock]

At 11:31 04/07/03 +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
Come to think of it, why aren't zetta and yotta the other way round?
That way you'd at least get (e)x y z at the end, which would make some
kind of sense.
Cause zetta and yotta are greek letters and that is the order they come in 
the greek alphabet?

At least that is what my greek teacher told me.

http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/alphabet.html

Alex

Egho Then Mila Ellinika

(Which means "I don't speak greek" in greek)

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Roger Burton West]

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:56:04AM +0100, Alex McLintock wrote:
>Cause zetta and yotta are greek letters and that is the order they come in 
>the greek alphabet?
>At least that is what my greek teacher told me.
>http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/alphabet.html

He was, as you see, lying.

R

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Paul Johnson]

Peter Haworth said:

> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:28:07 -0400, muppet wrote:

>> " kbyte  1024 byte
>>   megabyte   1024 kbyte
>>   gigabyte   1024 megabyte
>> +terabyte1024 gigabyte
>> +petabyte1024 terabyte
>> +exabyte 1024 petabyte
>> +zettabyte   1024 exabyte
>> +yottabyte   1024 zettabyte"

> Come to think of it, why aren't zetta and yotta the other way round?
> That way you'd at least get (e)x y z at the end, which would make some
> kind of sense.

It was supposed to be exa, yetta, zotta, but they had a German temp and no
one noticed until too late.

-- 
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Tom Hukins]

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:31:46AM +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
> >   megabyte  1024 kbyte
> >   gigabyte  1024 megabyte
> > +terabyte   1024 gigabyte
> > +petabyte   1024 terabyte
> > +exabyte1024 petabyte
> > +zettabyte  1024 exabyte
> > +yottabyte  1024 zettabyte"
> > 
> > her reply: "that bytes."
> 
> Well, she has a point. Those multipliers should all be 1000. To use
> multipliers of 1024, the units are kibibyte, mebibyte, gibibyte,
> tebibyte, pebibyte, exbibyte, zebibyte and yobibyte. Surely everyone
> is using these by now? :-)

I thought I had problems with standards and common practice differing
as a Web developer - I should know better than to get involved with
scientific things.

I realise my changes aren't officially accurate, but at least they're
consistent.  If units(1) uses a multiplier of 1024 for kilo-, mega-
and giga- bytes, it should do so for the others, rather than
inheriting the default multiplier of 1000.  I wonder what the value
should be for a trilobyte.

Hey, who locked me in this bike shed?

Tom

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Piers Cawley]

Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Roger Horne wrote:
>
>> On Fri 27 Jun, Philip Newton wrote:
>>
>>>You have: cwt
>>>You want:
>>>Definition: hundredweight = 100 pounds = 45.359237 kg
>>>
>>>which sounds as if it *is* 100 somethings.
>> But is wrong. There are 112 pounds in a hundredweight (or were when
>> I was at
>> school). See http://home.clara.net/brianp/weights.html
>
> You are both right depends whether you are talking about an American
> or English hundredweight.
>
> GNU units has 'brhundredweight' defined whereas the FreeBSD 4.5
> units(1) doesn't (and probably should).

I'm not sure which version of units one finds on Mac OS X, but its
units.lib has an entry for 'longhundredweight', which is the 'right'
hundredweight.

-- 
Piers

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Chris Devers]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Tom Hukins wrote:

> I wonder what the value should be for a trilobyte.

/me, impressed by this riff, tries to pick up from there...

$ grep 'byte$' /usr/share/dict/words
presbyte
$ dict presbyte
1 definition found

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

  Presbyte \Pres"byte\, n. [Gr. ? an old man.]
 Same as {Presbyope}.
$ dict presbyope
2 definitions found

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

  Presbyope \Pres"by*ope\, n. (Med.)
 One who has presbyopia; a farsighted person.

From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:

  presbyope
   n : a person with presbyopia; someone who is farsighted
   resulting from the progressive loss with aging of the
   elasticity of the crystalline lens
$

/me gives up


So, how 'bout them milli-Helens?



-- 
Chris Devers[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://devers.homeip.net:8080/resume/

Turing machine, n. [After Alan M. Turing (1912-1954), British
  mathematician and computer pioneer.]
The earliest but still the fastest and most reliable computing system
ever conceived. "Dis maschine vill run und run" (K. Godel).

-- from _The Computer Contradictionary_, Stan Kelly-Bootle, 1995

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Andrew Beattie]

> yobibyte.

That's a big number

To get my head round it, I recently did some math to put it in
context.  My head is too frazzled to reproduce the proof on
a Monday morning, but within reasonable tolerences:
If you were to store a yobibite of data on modern laptop drives,
(say 70Gb capacity - that divides easily into the volume of
the drive form factor), the volume of drives required would
be around 1 cubic kilometer.
On the other hand, if you were somehow able to store a byte
of information in a single molecule, then you could store
a yobibyte in a single cup of really hot tea.
Andrew

Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again

[Paul Johnson]

Andrew Beattie said:

> On the other hand, if you were somehow able to store a byte
> of information in a single molecule, then you could store
> a yobibyte in a single cup of really hot tea.

The problem would then become one of how you could use your laptop without
spilling some of your data and scalding yourself.  I would also hope that
Maxtor etc would place sufficient warnings to prevent themselves from
being sued.  I suppose you might also find yourself in the unfortunate
position of having some of your modules or ogg files evaporate.

-- 
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net

[Enough]: Thank you all [Was: Re: UK Money, again]

[Luis Campos de Carvalho]

Dave Cross wrote:
Here's a brief guide to our measures of length.

1 foot is 12 inches
1 yard is 3 feet
1 mile is 1760 yards
There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
of a cricket pitch I think) and a furlong (220 yards).
What fun!
  Dave Thorn, Nicholas Clark, Dave Cross and Andrew Wilson:
  I'm amazed with your patience.
  I earn both you a pintch of ale. (is this correct?)
  I will pay you as soon as I can trip to (UK|Australia), or you come 
to Brazil to the first YAPC::America::South::BR (I still don't know when)
  Where are you all now? Australia, UK, Deutchland, other?

  Thank you all very much. =-]
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Luis Campos de Carvalho
  Computer Scientist,
  Unix Sys Admin & Certified Oracle DBA
  http://br.geocities.com/monsieur_champs/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Re: [Enough]: Thank you all [Was: Re: UK Money, again]

[Jasper McCrea]

Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote:
> 
> Dave Cross wrote:
> > Here's a brief guide to our measures of length.
> >
> > 1 foot is 12 inches
> > 1 yard is 3 feet
> > 1 mile is 1760 yards
> >
> > There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
> > depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
> > of a cricket pitch I think) and a furlong (220 yards).
> >
> > What fun!
> 
>Dave Thorn, Nicholas Clark, Dave Cross and Andrew Wilson:
>I'm amazed with your patience.
>I earn both you a pintch of ale. (is this correct?)


That would probably be a yard of ale.