Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again
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
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
Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again
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
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
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
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
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
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 \Presbyte\, n. [Gr. ? an old man.]
Same as {Presbyope}.
$ dict presbyope
2 definitions found
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Presbyope \Presby*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: UK money, again (again)
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)
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)
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;1313/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)
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)
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)
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)
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;1313/tl\.rnh r HITtahkPctacriAneeeusaoJ;;
for(@[EMAIL PROTECTED] m,,,$,){$..=$$[$=];$$=$=[$=];[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]eq$$$==$?;$==$?;for(@$)[EMAIL PROTECTED] eq$_;;last if!$@;$=++}}print$..$/
Re: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again
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: UK Money, again
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: Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again
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.
UK money, again (again)
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
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
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. -- http://www.dave.org.uk Let me see you make decisions, without your television - Depeche Mode (Stripped)
Re: UK money, again (again)
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
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
Hundredweight was Re: UK Money, again
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: UK money, again
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 scott at asofyet dot org
UK Money, again
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/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: UK Money, again
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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;1313/tl\.rnh r HITtahkPctacriAneeeusaoJ;;
for(@[EMAIL PROTECTED] m,,,$,){$..=$$[$=];$$=$=[$=];[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]eq$$$==$?;$==$?;for(@$)[EMAIL PROTECTED] eq$_;;last if!$@;$=++}}print$..$/
Re: UK Money, again
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]
[Enough]: Thank you all [Was: Re: UK Money, again]
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: UK Money, again
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
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 scott at asofyet dot org
Re: [Enough]: Thank you all [Was: Re: UK Money, again]
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.
Re: UK Money, again
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
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 scott at asofyet dot org
Re: UK money, again
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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... -- http://www.dave.org.uk Let me see you make decisions, without your television - Depeche Mode (Stripped)
Re: UK Money, again
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
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[2]: UK money, again
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.
fxputs hand in pocket and pulls out selection of coinage. locates £2
coin/fx
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;1313/tl\.rnh r HITtahkPctacriAneeeusaoJ;;
for(@[EMAIL PROTECTED] m,,,$,){$..=$$[$=];$$=$=[$=];[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]eq$$$==$?;$==$?;for(@$)[EMAIL PROTECTED] eq$_;;last if!$@;$=++}}print$..$/
Re: UK Money, again
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
snip 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 scott at asofyet dot org
Re: UK Money, again
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 scott at asofyet dot org
