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
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 p
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 interes
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 -
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 ma
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 '
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 yar
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
expen
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 t
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
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 lo
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 t
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)
>
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? Tha
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
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 gravit
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
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
> 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)
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
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,
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 vac
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 PROTEC
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
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
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 an
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
> > 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.
>
>
>
> 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 lea
[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
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
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 th
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
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?
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\
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 pyys
> > 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 ponderin
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
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 sec
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 t
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 w
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 Ca
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
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
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 happ
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 t
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
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 a
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 unco
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/bri
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
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.
I
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 = 45.3592
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
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
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 Mc
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 m
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.
"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 occasi
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
> o
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.
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.
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
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 nothi
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, larg
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 1
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.
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 CENT
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 Briti
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
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.freebs
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
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
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?
A
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
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 10
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
> >
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 hund
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 Dictionar
> 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
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
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 yar
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 ya
83 matches
Mail list logo
