Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ashersky]

So, what's the Mac keyboard command for, say, starting up Opera?

I don't think you can open an app with a keyboard command on a Mac without personally creating the shortcut.

If there are keyboard commands on my windows machine to open applications, I don't know any.

(By keyboad commands, I assume we are talking about a single-press combination to make something happen, such as CTRL-C for copy.  There is no CMD-O for Opera.  If there's a CTRL+C+H to open Chrome on Windows, someone please tell me.)

Windows key + number key opens the program pinned to your taskbar in the position indicated by the number. If the program is already open, it becomes active.

What do I hit to open an application that isn't pinned or open?

You can hit Windows key + R and type in the application.

So I did Windows key + R and then typed "calculator" and it didn't work.

[pacovf]

Fair enough. Why do you like the Imperial System then? What is so wrong with the metric system?

I think the "difficulty" issue of measurement systems is moot -- the ability to learn a system is dependent on the learner, not the system itself.  If someone is better at dividing by 12 than by 10, that's not the system of measurement's fault.  It's the same as learning languages -- I think Japanese is insanely easy as a language to learn, but found Italian very difficult; many people would disagree with me on that.  But neither of us would be wrong, we just learn differently and/or are better at different things.

So I think any argument for either system of measurement that is based on "difficulty" is irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with the relative merits of the system, just the merits of the users.

So, when you remove the users from the equation, and try to appreciate each system in a vacuum, it becomes a subjective discussion about what any one person finds pleasing, right?

I think the Imperial System is much, much more regal, for example.  Metric feels very pedestrian and bland.  If measurement systems were ice cream, Imperial is chocolate and Metric is cardboard.  Imperial presents the more interesting set of vocabulary, with words that fit oddly in the mouth like "quart" and "pint" (which, by the way, is how we measure ice cream).  Only in the imperial can you see for leagues and leagues or lose yourself in the countless fathoms of the deep ocean.  In Imperial you can have a gill of water, a rood of forestland, or drachm of poison.

Really, if King Lear had been poisoned by a daughter, would you rather hear that she had slipped a drachm of poison in his wine, or that...

As the old king clutched his chest, he looked around and saw Goneril grinning maniacally...she had slipped 3.5516328125 ml of poison in his wine...

I don't agree with some parts of your reasoning, but at least now I understand where you come from. Thanks for the explanation.

[eHalcyon]

The metric system is ghastly, confusing, obtuse, and annoying.

I'm trying to figure out how metric is more ghastly, confusing, obtuse, and annoying than imperial.

Those terms are subjective, so I cannot fault someone for saying something is ghastly, but is the implication that it's more ghastly than imperial? If so, then how?

21.4mU/l
11.2pmol/l

Can someone equate this to numbers I understand?  Remember, this is SI, not Imperial.  I have no frame of reference for this -- so what if it's base 10?  Even if I know how many milliliters are in a liter, that doesn't help me at all.

Metric is no easier than imperial.

For obscure units like those imperial is no easier than metric either.  Or can you give me imperial units for those measurements that you understand?  Is there even an Imperial unit like mol?  lbmol, apparently?

I'm also not sure what's "easier" to convert -- as you said, it's just what you are used to, right?  If duodecimal is something you are more familiar with, it'll be "easier" to convert than using the metric system.

Are there actually people who are more familiar with duodecimal?  I find it highly doubtful when most languages (including English) use a decimal numeral system.

Fair enough. Why do you like the Imperial System then? What is so wrong with the metric system?

I think the "difficulty" issue of measurement systems is moot -- the ability to learn a system is dependent on the learner, not the system itself.  If someone is better at dividing by 12 than by 10, that's not the system of measurement's fault.  It's the same as learning languages -- I think Japanese is insanely easy as a language to learn, but found Italian very difficult; many people would disagree with me on that.  But neither of us would be wrong, we just learn differently and/or are better at different things.

So I think any argument for either system of measurement that is based on "difficulty" is irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with the relative merits of the system, just the merits of the users.

So, when you remove the users from the equation, and try to appreciate each system in a vacuum, it becomes a subjective discussion about what any one person finds pleasing, right?

I think the Imperial System is much, much more regal, for example.  Metric feels very pedestrian and bland.  If measurement systems were ice cream, Imperial is chocolate and Metric is cardboard.  Imperial presents the more interesting set of vocabulary, with words that fit oddly in the mouth like "quart" and "pint" (which, by the way, is how we measure ice cream).  Only in the imperial can you see for leagues and leagues or lose yourself in the countless fathoms of the deep ocean.  In Imperial you can have a gill of water, a rood of forestland, or drachm of poison.

Really, if King Lear had been poisoned by a daughter, would you rather hear that she had slipped a drachm of poison in his wine, or that...

As the old king clutched his chest, he looked around and saw Goneril grinning maniacally...she had slipped 3.5516328125 ml of poison in his wine...

But nobody is better at dividing by 12 than by 10, unless we are using base 12.  That is a completely legitimate reason to prefer metric, and it's why the entire scientific community uses it.  It's also why your statement that metric is "confusing [and] obtuse" is itself incredibly confusing and obtuse.

And while there's no way I can argue which system sounds more regal to you, I find it an odd argument.  Dost thou wish to return to middle English?  Even if you do, I still don't see how it justifies saying that metric is an "emblem for all that is wrong in this world".  Was I correct in my first response that you were exaggerating?

[Tables]

Here Tables, this puzzle is partially dedicated to you: http://sudgylacmoe.blogspot.com/2015/06/puzzle-44-boxing-match-3.html

Solved.

I've even coloured blue when I used this rule, and numbered the order I deduced things in (note that 2 only refers to part of the line below, it got finished off by box 9). The place it has to be used is box 8, since without the rule you could just extend box 2 and have box 8 as a square as a valid alternative solution

Edit: Just noticed I repeated a number. Not going to re-upload. Small box 5 came first, big box 5 should be 6 and so on

When making it, I also used it on box 3.  I'm not sure how you figured that out without it...

Uhh maybe I did use it there.

[ashersky]

For obscure units like those imperial is no easier than metric either.  Or can you give me imperial units for those measurements that you understand?  Is there even an Imperial unit like mol?  lbmol, apparently?

I'm not arguing that imperial is easier, just that metric isn't (see above, where I say "no easier" instead of "harder").  I was just illustrating that equating "metric" with "easy" is wrong.

Are there actually people who are more familiar with duodecimal?  I find it highly doubtful when most languages (including English) use a decimal numeral system.

Maybe?  It's impossible to say with any amount of certainty.  The inventors of the current system of time seemed to prefer it.  I'd disagree with your statement that English is decimal, when it's roots are actually dozenal.  (Why do you think the teens start at 13?)

But nobody is better at dividing by 12 than by 10, unless we are using base 12.  That is a completely legitimate reason to prefer metric, and it's why the entire scientific community uses it.  It's also why your statement that metric is "confusing [and] obtuse" is itself incredibly confusing and obtuse.

And while there's no way I can argue which system sounds more regal to you, I find it an odd argument.  Dost thou wish to return to middle English?  Even if you do, I still don't see how it justifies saying that metric is an "emblem for all that is wrong in this world".  Was I correct in my first response that you were exaggerating?

At least some scientists have argued for a dozenal system, although they are in the minority.  And if you prefer dividing by 10, that IS in fact a legitimate reason to prefer metric to imperial.  Then again, I'm not arguing that anyone should change from metric to imperial.

As for my previous posts -- was I exaggerating?  It's possible that there was some hyperbole implemented in making my stance known.  But do I find the metric system despicable?  Absolutely.

[Asper]

We use 10-based numbers for 90% of everyday math. Having a 10-based measurement system seems to go nicely with that.
If we used hex-numbers in everyday live, i'd make the same point in favour of hex-based measurement and against the metric system. We don't, though. Having our standard numbers and measurement using the same base means you only have to learn one system. And i'd argue it's pretty close to trivial to show that learning one system is easier than learning two systems.

[Awaclus]

I think the "difficulty" issue of measurement systems is moot -- the ability to learn a system is dependent on the learner, not the system itself.  If someone is better at dividing by 12 than by 10, that's not the system of measurement's fault.  It's the same as learning languages -- I think Japanese is insanely easy as a language to learn, but found Italian very difficult; many people would disagree with me on that.  But neither of us would be wrong, we just learn differently and/or are better at different things.

I'm under the impression that Japanese is actually simpler than Italian, though. Japanese has less in common with English, which is why a lot of English speakers might find it more difficult to learn. It most certainly has been easier for me to learn than any Indo-European language I've tried to learn (although a part of that might be that Finnish has more in common with Japanese, but obviously a couple of coincidences between two languages can't be compared to two languages actually being in the same language family).

So I did Windows key + R and then typed "calculator" and it didn't work.

It would work with "calc.exe" instead of "calculator". If the program is in your start screen/start menu though, then you can just press the Windows key to open the start screen/start menu, type in a couple of the first letters and press Enter.

Anyway, the point is that Windows has built-in keyboard shortcuts for the programs that you're using the most. AFAIK, Mac doesn't. That's a pretty huge deal if you like using keyboard shortcuts. I also think that the keyboard shortcuts that actually exist in both operating systems are generally better in Windows, but that might be just because I'm more used to the Windows version.

[ashersky]

We use 10-based numbers for 90% of everyday math. Having a 10-based measurement system seems to go nicely with that.
If we used hex-numbers in everyday live, i'd make the same point in favour of hex-based measurement and against the metric system. We don't, though. Having our standard numbers and measurement using the same base means you only have to learn one system. And i'd argue it's pretty close to trivial to show that learning one system is easier than learning two systems.

How, exactly, would you show that?

Remember, we are talking about the diverse population of Earth, and the many languages, modes of learning, etc. that come with it.

[liopoil]

We use 10-based numbers for 90% of everyday math. Having a 10-based measurement system seems to go nicely with that.
If we used hex-numbers in everyday live, i'd make the same point in favour of hex-based measurement and against the metric system. We don't, though. Having our standard numbers and measurement using the same base means you only have to learn one system. And i'd argue it's pretty close to trivial to show that learning one system is easier than learning two systems.

How, exactly, would you show that?

Remember, we are talking about the diverse population of Earth, and the many languages, modes of learning, etc. that come with it.

What are you questioning here? His point is just that:

1) Everyone in the world uses base-10
2) Therefore a base-ten measurement system makes sense.

Why everyone in the world should use base-10, no good reason, but since we do we should make our measurement system accordingly.

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

21.4mU/l
11.2pmol/l

Can someone equate this to numbers I understand?  Remember, this is SI, not Imperial.  I have no frame of reference for this -- so what if it's base 10?  Even if I know how many milliliters are in a liter, that doesn't help me at all.

Metric is no easier than imperial.

I can't tell if your request is about the quantities themselves or the units, which is unfortunate, as the units are not metric per se, but specialized to scientific fields.  Nonetheless, here is an attempt to help you out.  Both of these are concentrations, as they are mass per volume (assuming the lowercase "l" means liters, which should actually be represented by "L").  The first, mU/l [sic] is milliunits per liter (mU/L) , and is used in the medical testing industry. Although you can visually equate the volume of a liter (a cube 10 cm, or about 4 inches, on each edge), you can't equate this mass to anything specific without more information.  The "U" here is a variable standing in for whatever the standard unit of mass would be for the specific test being conducted (e.g., Bodansky unit, Svedberg unit, Somogyi unit), and the "milli" means 1/1000th of that.  In medical terms, a "unit" is an amount of a biologically active agent (as a drug or antigen) required to produce a specific result under strictly controlled conditions.

The second example is picomoles per liter. A mole is a chemistry concept. It is that mass of a substance that contains Avagodro's number (6.02 times 10^23) of molecules or atoms. A picomole is one-trillionth of a mole.  So depending on the substance (e.g., salt vs. sugar), a picomole would vary in mass.

So neither term is likely to equate to something that is particularly obvious or helpful, but for these two examples that is more about education and field of work than any shortcoming in the measurement system.  One could provide concentrations in other specialized (and equally difficult-to-visualize) units too, like 3.6 drams/gill.  Such a number likely doesn't equate to anything that makes sense to most people (especially if you are not told whether the dram in question is avoirdupois or apothecary).

I think the folks that are arguing in favor of the metric system would agree that it is a system.  It follows the same rules for dividing units into subunits (or multiplying units into superunits).  Imperial doesn't.  It's all over the map.  We divide our volume unit (gallon) into four quarts, but divide our quarts into two pints, then our pints into two cups, but then, wait for it, our cups into 8 fluid ounces. But our unit of length, a yard, we divide by 3, then by 12, then by fractions.  Mmm, wonder what happened to the 4 and 2 and 8 system? For mass, we need a changeup.  What haven't we tried? Ah, let's divide a pound into 16 pieces. There, all nice and tidy.  And don't get me started on superunits.  1760 yards in a mile, but 2000 pounds in a ton.

[Kuildeous]

Sure, people who are used to one system of measurement will be able to work with that system more easily. I can visualize 18 inches, but I would need to convert 75 centimeters. I would feel comfortable carrying a backpack that was 10 pounds, but I'd have to think twice if the backpack was 8 kilograms. Familiarity is a big deal, and I think that's why America cannot quite fully adopt the metric system (and those countries that have took so long).

But even as someone who lives his life by the Imperial Standard, I can see how much easier metric would be to convert. If for whatever reason I need to know how many inches are in 1/4 mile, I have to pull out a calculator to divide (5280 feet to a mile; 12 inches to a foot) before coming up with 15,840. On the other hand, if I need to know how many centimeters are in 1/4 kilometer, I don't need a calculator. I know that 1000 meters are in a kilometer and that 100 centimeters are in a meter. I easily can work out that there are 100,000 centimeters in a kilometer. Therefore 1/4 km = 25,000 cm.

If people's familiarity were equal, then the metric system would be easier to use. The tricky part is that familiarity is not equal among all people. And if a society is slow to adopt change (e.g., America), then the metric system may never take hold, no matter how much easier it is to convert. Who cares that you can easily swap out 1.8 m and 180 cm in your head when you can't even visualize 1.8 m?

[Witherweaver]

I called them "American units" because it's what we used here, in America, when I was a person existing in America.  It's not the technical name, and I never said it was, and I didn't feel bothered to go look up that they're actually called "Imperial". 

And what the fuck do I care?  All that matters is that they're bad, not their formal name or country of origin.

I can refer to them

To be completely fair, you were the first one to bring nationalisms into the discussion.

To be completely unfair, you mean?  Witherweaver called them "American" units, and also mentioned "growing up with them."  Here's the quote (bold is mine):

He called them American because that's where those units are used. That's very different from tying them to nationalisms.

But that's not what those units are, specifically.  He wasn't specifying that he meant the "United States customary units" of measurement, which vary slightly from true imperial.  He was clearly (to me) talking about the imperial versus metric.  Using the word "American," then, was a statement attempting to nationalize (incorrectly) something he feels is inferior.

This is bullshit and you know it.

[Kirian]

I get the feeling that half of f.ds things I'm a moron; 99% of the other half things I'm an idiot.

You've left out the possibility of trolling.

21.4mU/l
11.2pmol/l

Can someone equate this to numbers I understand?  Remember, this is SI, not Imperial.  I have no frame of reference for this -- so what if it's base 10?  Even if I know how many milliliters are in a liter, that doesn't help me at all.

There is no SI unit with the symbol U, so I've no idea where you're getting that (do you mean u, the atomic mass unit?  I guess that makes sense in context, though it's not an SI unit).  Interestingly, the liter is also not an SI unit, though it's approved for use with SI--I guess you could call it extended SI?  Let's look at the other.

Units of pmol/L.  Let's write that out as picomoles per liter.  This is a unit of concentration that's 10^-12 moles of a substance per liter.  The mole is an odd SI unit because it's not based directly on powers of ten; it's defined naturally based on the number of formula units of a substance in one gram of the substance, which turns out to be 6.022 × 10²³ for any substance.

I've never seen anyone use units of atomic mass unit (amu for short, symbol u) per liter.  It... doesn't make any sense.  The number you give would be a literally homeopathic concentration, i.e., less than one atom per liter.

If someone is better at dividing by 12 than by 10, that's not the system of measurement's fault.

You've described exactly zero humans.  Every society now uses mathematical systems based on the number ten.  While English and other (Indo-European) languages still have words that fit with a dozenal system, and those words are sometimes used for counted objects, no one can divide by 12 faster than by 10, because the former requires math, and the latter requires only moving the decimal point.

If you want to postulate an alien society that has 12 symbols for numbers and uses dozenal math--and therefore, for whom moving their sub-fractional indicator one space to the left would be dividing by 12--then, OK, I suppose aliens are unlikely to use SI.

So, when you remove the users from the equation, and try to appreciate each system in a vacuum, it becomes a subjective discussion about what any one person finds pleasing, right?

Only if some of the users are aliens.

I think the Imperial System is much, much more regal, for example.  Metric feels very pedestrian and bland.  If measurement systems were ice cream, Imperial is chocolate and Metric is cardboard.  Imperial presents the more interesting set of vocabulary, with words that fit oddly in the mouth like "quart" and "pint" (which, by the way, is how we measure ice cream).  Only in the imperial can you see for leagues and leagues or lose yourself in the countless fathoms of the deep ocean.  In Imperial you can have a gill of water, a rood of forestland, or drachm of poison.

This isn't the most ridiculous argument I've heard for the US customary system, but only because appeals to tradition and "some people might divide by twelve more readily" are both worse.  Seriously, you're going to suggest that a system of units is better because the names sound more interesting? While there certainly have been scientists who have become poets and writers, they still kept the poetry out of their scientific papers.

This example also points up a major flaw in your reasoning; the ancient units aren't all based on division by twelve.  Consider length, because it's one I know, and one that uses 12 in exactly one conversion.

4 inches = 1 hand
3 hands = 12 inches = 1 foot
3 feet = 1 yard
22 yards = 1 chain
4 rods = 1 chain (making 1 rod... 16.5 feet, try to divide by 16.5)
10 chains = 1 furlong
8 furlongs = 1 mile
3 miles = 1 league

There are 6 different numbers you need to remember here, not counting the other conversions that you need to remember because no one uses chains or furlongs (1760 yards = 1 mile, 5280 feet = 1 mile).  And that's just for length!  Now contrast to the commonly-used metric length units:

1 micrometer = 1000 (10³) nanometers
1 millimeter = 1000 (10³) micrometers
1 centimeter = 10 millimeters
1 meter = 100 (10²) centimeters = 1000 (10³) millimeters
1 kilometer = 1000 (10³) meters

--------

Now let me blow your mind about something.  The word "mile" comes from the Latin root "mille," same as the prefix "milli-".  This is because originally, 1 mile was... 1000 paces.  Even the Romans had already figured out that powers of ten were useful.

[Witherweaver]

Fair enough. Why do you like the Imperial System then? What is so wrong with the metric system?

I think the "difficulty" issue of measurement systems is moot -- the ability to learn a system is dependent on the learner, not the system itself.  If someone is better at dividing by 12 than by 10, that's not the system of measurement's fault.  It's the same as learning languages -- I think Japanese is insanely easy as a language to learn, but found Italian very difficult; many people would disagree with me on that.  But neither of us would be wrong, we just learn differently and/or are better at different things.

So I think any argument for either system of measurement that is based on "difficulty" is irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with the relative merits of the system, just the merits of the users.

So, when you remove the users from the equation, and try to appreciate each system in a vacuum, it becomes a subjective discussion about what any one person finds pleasing, right?

I think the Imperial System is much, much more regal, for example.  Metric feels very pedestrian and bland.  If measurement systems were ice cream, Imperial is chocolate and Metric is cardboard.  Imperial presents the more interesting set of vocabulary, with words that fit oddly in the mouth like "quart" and "pint" (which, by the way, is how we measure ice cream).  Only in the imperial can you see for leagues and leagues or lose yourself in the countless fathoms of the deep ocean.  In Imperial you can have a gill of water, a rood of forestland, or drachm of poison.

Really, if King Lear had been poisoned by a daughter, would you rather hear that she had slipped a drachm of poison in his wine, or that...

As the old king clutched his chest, he looked around and saw Goneril grinning maniacally...she had slipped 3.5516328125 ml of poison in his wine...

Like I said before, when you don't actually need to measure stuff, units of measurement don't matter.

[Witherweaver]

I get the feeling that half of f.ds things I'm a moron; 99% of the other half things I'm an idiot.

You've left out the certainty of trolling.

Fixed that for you.

[Witherweaver]

(murica)

You should include a footnote there stating that

The volume of tears that the eagle is crying precisely one "fluid ounce."

[Witherweaver]

Oh!  This is relevant again!

NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = five pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:

Two farthings = one ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = one penny. Three pennies = a thrupenny. Two thrupences = a sixpence. Two sixpences = one shilling, or bob. Two bob = a florin. One florin and one sixpence = half a crown. Four half crowns = ten bob note. Two ten bob notes = one pound (or 240 pennies). One pound and one shilling = one guinea.

The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated.

[Seprix]

Oh!  This is relevant again!

NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = five pee.

So if I pee 5 times, I can trade it in for a shilling? That's not a lot. Man, I'm pretty piss poor.

[LastFootnote]

I get the feeling that half of f.ds things I'm a moron; 99% of the other half things I'm an idiot.

The remainder (whatever that may be) just doesn't understand me, but might give me the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think any of the above. By the way, is it pronounced a-SHER-skee or Asher sky?

[Kuildeous]

Aliens use base-10 too. Really, all number systems are base-10.

[Witherweaver]

Aliens use base-10 too. Really, all number systems are base-10.

Tens of Sci-Fi movies have taught me that aliens use binary.

[Jimmmmm]

Aliens use base-10 too. Really, all number systems are base-10.

Oh don't be silly. You know the 10 in base-10 means 10₁₀.

[Kirian]

Aliens use base-10 too. Really, all number systems are base-10.

Tens of Sci-Fi movies have taught me that aliens use binary.

In binary notation, base 2 is.... base 10.

[Witherweaver]

Aliens use base-10 too. Really, all number systems are base-10.

Tens of Sci-Fi movies have taught me that aliens use binary.

In binary notation, base 2 is.... base 10.

In N-ary notation, base N is... base 10.  (Which was the point.)

[Teproc]

Look, when you stop using base 10, you  get wonderful numbers such a sixty-ten-nine, or four-twenty-two and four-twenty-fifteen*, so I don't know why you would ever use base 10, it's clearly no fun at all.

*Those are the literal translations for how you'd say 79, 82 or 95 in France**. This is due to us using a base 20 system at some point, which I believe we inherited from the Celts.

** Belgium, Switzerland and Québec somehow did not keep that wonderful numbering system.