On 22/09/2022 17:38, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 22/09/2022 13:20, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
The word already exists, it is "Milliard".Which I have only ever seen "in the wild" in French.
It's in the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
No doubt, but, as well as many other words found there, I've never seen
it used in day to day English script. I have, though, often come across
it in French,
...as well as the Term "Pouce" which translates as "inch" or
"thumb" to describe screen sizes. I have also bought "Un livre de
fromage" in French Markets and got half a kilogramme, but that's going
well off topic.
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 22/09/2022 17:38, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:No doubt, but, as well as many other words found there, I've never seen
On 22/09/2022 13:20, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
The word already exists, it is "Milliard".Which I have only ever seen "in the wild" in French.
It's in the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
it used in day to day English script. I have, though, often come across
it in French,
Do they use it specifically to mean 10^9 or is it just a more general
term for a large number?
...as well as the Term "Pouce" which translates as "inch" or
"thumb" to describe screen sizes. I have also bought "Un livre de
fromage" in French Markets and got half a kilogramme, but that's going
well off topic.
Have you come across "pipe" as a measure of distance? Apparently it was
the distance a French peasant could walk whilst smoking one pipefull of tobacco.
Have you come across "pipe" as a measure of distance? Apparently it was
the distance a French peasant could walk whilst smoking one pipefull of tobacco.
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1pypce2.13oc5q21s3d5rwN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
Have you come across "pipe" as a measure of distance? Apparently it
was the distance a French peasant could walk whilst smoking one
pipefull of tobacco.
I'm glad the French have/had "loony units" like we did
The UK's metrication process is just a bit slower than in most other countries, that's the only real difference.
Yes, my preference is for the imperial system to gradually become obsolete
as older "speakers" of it die out, rather than making it illegal to use it. >Let it continue as a funny "folk unit" system, with metric used for >measurement and unit-pricing.
On 01/10/2022 07:40, wolfgang s wrote:
The UK's metrication process is just a bit slower than in most other
countries, that's the only real difference.
Some years ago there were fanatic proponents of metric units who wanted people imprisoned for daring to sell a bag of apples using Imperial units.
It was pointed out at the time that many places in Europe seemed to manage
to have local units in use alongside metric but they were very reminscent
of the Taliban with their obsession to eliminate any non-metric units.
I remember one of the UK supermarkets putting up signs some time in the
1990s saying that people could no longer ask for loose-weight items in imperial units (eg "three ounces of sliced ham") and could only ask for
it in grammes, and gave conversion tables for 1, 2, 3, etc ounces. As I understand it, this was an over-reaction: whilst scales must show
grammes, I don't thing it's illegal for them to *also* show ounces, nor
is it illegal to ask in ounces: the assistant just has to convert (using
the same look-up table) to grammes.
The imperial system was in use when I went to school. It resulted in a generation that understood multi-base arithmetic. I remember once
boasting to my mother that I could do calculations in base 7
arithmetic.
I remember once
boasting to my mother that I could do calculations in base 7
arithmetic.
On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:36:17 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Yes, my preference is for the imperial system to gradually become obsolete >>as older "speakers" of it die out, rather than making it illegal to use
it.
Let it continue as a funny "folk unit" system, with metric used for >>measurement and unit-pricing.
The imperial system was in use when I went to school. It resulted in a generation that understood multi-base arithmetic. I remember once
boasting to my mother that I could do calculations in base 7
arithmetic.
The problem with imperial is that successive units for a given measurement type (eg length) use different bases: 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard. Likewise for base 12 and 20 for ÂŁsd.
"Stephen Wolstenholme" <steve@easynn.com> wrote in message news:vb7gjhtrdbbn49ib5v6tf45labbrmif092@4ax.com...
On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:36:17 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Yes, my preference is for the imperial system to gradually become obsolete >>> as older "speakers" of it die out, rather than making it illegal to use
it.
Let it continue as a funny "folk unit" system, with metric used for
measurement and unit-pricing.
The imperial system was in use when I went to school. It resulted in a
generation that understood multi-base arithmetic. I remember once
boasting to my mother that I could do calculations in base 7
arithmetic.
The problem with imperial is that successive units for a given measurement type (eg length) use different bases: 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard. Likewise for base 12 and 20 for ÂŁsd.
I can think *fairly* well in binary and hex, less well in octal because that has gone out of fashion in computing. Hex has the advantage that it invents digits (letters) for 10-15, so you always have a single character in each column: none of the problem with 10 or 11 old pence occupying two digits in
a pennies column which was mostly single-digit.
Nowadays I'd expect at least *some* of the population to be familiar with
the non-10 bases that are still used: binary and hex.
On Saturday, 1 October 2022 at 12:07:28 UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
I remember once
boasting to my mother that I could do calculations in base 7
arithmetic.
Did she say, "Fuck off you clever little twat?"
Bill
Meanwhile Germany has an engineering industry that substantially outclasses ours. The lack of calculating in weird bases hasn’t held them back.
On 02/10/2022 13:02, Tweed wrote:
Meanwhile Germany has an engineering industry that substantially outclasses >> ours. The lack of calculating in weird bases hasn’t held them back.
The Americans don't seem to suffer from their use of non-metric units?
"Stephen Wolstenholme" <steve@easynn.com> wrote in message >news:vb7gjhtrdbbn49ib5v6tf45labbrmif092@4ax.com...
On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:36:17 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Yes, my preference is for the imperial system to gradually become obsolete >>>as older "speakers" of it die out, rather than making it illegal to use >>>it.
Let it continue as a funny "folk unit" system, with metric used for >>>measurement and unit-pricing.
The imperial system was in use when I went to school. It resulted in a
generation that understood multi-base arithmetic. I remember once
boasting to my mother that I could do calculations in base 7
arithmetic.
The problem with imperial is that successive units for a given measurement >type (eg length) use different bases: 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard. >Likewise for base 12 and 20 for Łsd.
I can think *fairly* well in binary and hex, less well in octal because that >has gone out of fashion in computing. Hex has the advantage that it invents >digits (letters) for 10-15, so you always have a single character in each >column: none of the problem with 10 or 11 old pence occupying two digits in
a pennies column which was mostly single-digit.
Nowadays I'd expect at least *some* of the population to be familiar with
the non-10 bases that are still used: binary and hex.
On 01/10/2022 12:07, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
The imperial system was in use when I went to school. It resulted in a
generation that understood multi-base arithmetic. I remember once
boasting to my mother that I could do calculations in base 7
arithmetic.
There does seem a decline in arithmetic skills but probably as much caused
by the use of calculators.
On 01/10/2022 11:36, NY wrote:
I remember one of the UK supermarkets putting up signs some time in the
1990s saying that people could no longer ask for loose-weight items in
imperial units (eg "three ounces of sliced ham") and could only ask for
it in grammes, and gave conversion tables for 1, 2, 3, etc ounces. As I
understand it, this was an over-reaction: whilst scales must show
grammes, I don't thing it's illegal for them to *also* show ounces, nor
is it illegal to ask in ounces: the assistant just has to convert (using
the same look-up table) to grammes.
Young lady asks market trader for a "pound of apples". Trader replies
"paand of apples? Over or under?" (Grabs bruised ones from the back of the stall.) Hands them over, looking at the chest area of his customer: "You won't get many of those for a paand!"
I would always use a calculator for a non-trivial (eg multiply by 10 or add two single-digit numbers) calculations because my mental arithmetic is spectacularly bad - always has been. I'm fine with a pen and paper (though
it is laborious), but when doing mental arithmetic I very quickly lose track of all the digits in the running total and all those in each number to be added to it. I think a lot of the problem stems from being taught at primary school how to do addition, subtraction, long multiplication and long
division on paper, but I never being taught all the little short-cuts for mental arithmetic.
On 02/10/2022 13:39, NY wrote:
I would always use a calculator for a non-trivial (eg multiply by 10 or
add
two single-digit numbers) calculations because my mental arithmetic is
spectacularly bad - always has been. I'm fine with a pen and paper
(though
it is laborious), but when doing mental arithmetic I very quickly lose
track
of all the digits in the running total and all those in each number to be
added to it. I think a lot of the problem stems from being taught at
primary
school how to do addition, subtraction, long multiplication and long
division on paper, but I never being taught all the little short-cuts for
mental arithmetic.
Some friends' kids used to oftey stay with me in the holidays. I often noticed how they were completely unaware of some of the short-cuts when
doing arithmetic in your head - like testing whether a number is divisibly
by three, even multiplying by five. In the days before Sat Nav I would estimate journey time based on 40 mph in my head, it was usually a good estimate and fascinated them when I explained how to do it in your head.
I still think in imperial units. I
describe distances in miles. My height in feet and inches, my weight
in stones etc.
On 02/10/2022 13:02, Tweed wrote:
Meanwhile Germany has an engineering industry that substantially outclasses >> ours. The lack of calculating in weird bases hasn’t held them back.
The Americans don't seem to suffer from their use of non-metric units?
My wife worked in a bakery as a Saturday job when she was at school and became adept at mental arithmetic: "three doughnuts at 17 p each and
five buns at 13 p each" so she would only enter the final total into the
cash register, not using it as a calculator 3x17+5*13. I wish I could do that.
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:thc1co$1mq56$3@dont-email.me...
Some friends' kids used to oftey stay with me in the holidays. I
often noticed how they were completely unaware of some of the
short-cuts when doing arithmetic in your head - like testing whether a
number is divisibly by three, even multiplying by five. In the days
before Sat Nav I would estimate journey time based on 40 mph in my
head, it was usually a good estimate and fascinated them when I
explained how to do it in your head.
I might estimate the journey time that way, but I'd need a pen and paper
to keep track of all the digits as I was multiplying by 4.
On 02/10/2022 13:02, Tweed wrote:
Meanwhile Germany has an engineering industry that substantially
outclasses
ours. The lack of calculating in weird bases hasn’t held them back.
The Americans don't seem to suffer from their use of non-metric units?
You don't remember this? https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/
On 02/10/2022 14:28, BrightsideS9 wrote:
You don't remember this?
https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/
Yes
It was a metric problem, not an Imperial one.
On 02/10/2022 18:12, MB wrote:
On 02/10/2022 14:28, BrightsideS9 wrote:It was a problem caused by one group in the project using metric,
You don't remember this?
https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/
Yes
It was a metric problem, not an Imperial one.
another using imperial, and not only were they using different units,
they forgot to tell the others they were and they hadn't converted the
data to the same units as the rest if the organisation.
The problem wasn't the units, it was the lack of communication inside
the organisation.
On 02/10/2022 20:08, Tweed wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:Nor would it have happened if everyone had been using Imperial or if
On 02/10/2022 18:12, MB wrote:
On 02/10/2022 14:28, BrightsideS9 wrote:It was a problem caused by one group in the project using metric,
You don't remember this?
https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/
Yes
It was a metric problem, not an Imperial one.
another using imperial, and not only were they using different units,
they forgot to tell the others they were and they hadn't converted the
data to the same units as the rest if the organisation.
The problem wasn't the units, it was the lack of communication inside
the organisation.
But wouldn’t have happened if everyone was using metric.
internal communication had been better.
Either system can and does produce good results, as has been proven repeatedly since the earliest days of space travel, when the Russians were using metres and the Americans were using yards.
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 02/10/2022 18:12, MB wrote:
On 02/10/2022 14:28, BrightsideS9 wrote:It was a problem caused by one group in the project using metric,
You don't remember this?
https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/
Yes
It was a metric problem, not an Imperial one.
another using imperial, and not only were they using different units,
they forgot to tell the others they were and they hadn't converted the
data to the same units as the rest if the organisation.
The problem wasn't the units, it was the lack of communication inside
the organisation.
But wouldn’t have happened if everyone was using metric.
To confuse the operator, for a sale of ÂŁ1.83, give them the extra 33 pence to get a 50p coin back...
On 02/10/2022 14:06, NY wrote:
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:thc1co$1mq56$3@dont-email.me...
It is the number of miles, with half as many again added. 10 miles is 15 minutes, and 30 miles is 45 minutes.Some friends' kids used to oftey stay with me in the holidays. I
often noticed how they were completely unaware of some of the
short-cuts when doing arithmetic in your head - like testing whether a
number is divisibly by three, even multiplying by five. In the days
before Sat Nav I would estimate journey time based on 40 mph in my
head, it was usually a good estimate and fascinated them when I
explained how to do it in your head.
I might estimate the journey time that way, but I'd need a pen and paper
to keep track of all the digits as I was multiplying by 4.
Duh. My brain is very slow. I would have done it by dividing the
distance by 40 and then multiply by 60 to convert to minutes. It takes a special sort of stupid not to notice that 40 is 2/3 of 60 so, as you
say, the time in minutes will be 1.5 x the distance.
I remember the only time I drove in the Irish Republic, on a business
trip from Dublin to Wexford, being faced with a car that had its speedo
only calibrated in km/hr (or at least the equivalent mph figures were so faint as to be useless), trying to work out journey time left from road
signs that gave distances in miles. There's a nasty 5/8 fraction to deal
with in your head.
On 02/10/2022 20:08, Tweed wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:Nor would it have happened if everyone had been using Imperial or if
On 02/10/2022 18:12, MB wrote:
On 02/10/2022 14:28, BrightsideS9 wrote:It was a problem caused by one group in the project using metric,
You don't remember this?
https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/
Yes
It was a metric problem, not an Imperial one.
another using imperial, and not only were they using different units,
they forgot to tell the others they were and they hadn't converted the
data to the same units as the rest if the organisation.
The problem wasn't the units, it was the lack of communication inside
the organisation.
But wouldn’t have happened if everyone was using metric.
internal communication had been better.
Either system can and does produce good results, as has been proven repeatedly since the earliest days of space travel, when the Russians
were using metres and the Americans were using yards.
Standards standards. All use the same one and less goes wrong. Metric is
now dominant in engineering worldwide.
Yes, if*everyone* was using any set of units, everything would have been fine. But when one country doesn't use the worldwide standard for
engineering (SI) then trouble is going to happen. I would say that it was
the Americans' fault for not using SI, rather than all the other countries' fault for not using imperial.
On 02/10/2022 20:46, Tweed wrote:
Standards standards. All use the same one and less goes wrong. Metric isDon't forget, it was the imperial system users that got people to the
now dominant in engineering worldwide.
moon first.
I love standards, there are so many to choose from that one will always
suit the job you are doing.
On 02/10/2022 20:46, Tweed wrote:
Standards standards. All use the same one and less goes wrong. Metric isDon't forget, it was the imperial system users that got people to the
now dominant in engineering worldwide.
moon first.
I love standards, there are so many to choose from that one will always
suit the job you are doing.
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 02/10/2022 20:46, Tweed wrote:
Standards standards. All use the same one and less goes wrong. Metric is >>> now dominant in engineering worldwide.Don't forget, it was the imperial system users that got people to the
moon first.
I love standards, there are so many to choose from that one will always
suit the job you are doing.
They don’t like you calling it Imperial…..
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 02/10/2022 20:46, Tweed wrote:
Standards standards. All use the same one and less goes wrong. Metric is >>> now dominant in engineering worldwide.Don't forget, it was the imperial system users that got people to the
moon first.
I love standards, there are so many to choose from that one will always
suit the job you are doing.
https://ukma.org.uk/why-metric/myths/metric-internationally/the-moon-landings/
Contrary to urban myth, NASA did use the metric system for the Apollo Moon landings. SI units were used for arguably the most critical part of the missions – the calculations that were carried out by the Lunar Module’s onboard Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) during the computer-controlled
phases of the spacecraft’s descent to the surface of the Moon, and for the journey of the Ascent stage of the craft during its return to lunar orbit, where it would rendezvous with the Command and Service Module (CSM).
As is the case in the UK with road signage, the use of metric units in the USA is often hidden from public view. The Apollo Guidance Computer is a
good example of this. The computer display readouts were in units of feet, feet per second, and nautical miles – units that the Apollo astronauts, who had mostly trained as jet pilots, would have been accustomed to using. Internally, however, the computer’s software used SI units for all powered-flight navigation and guidance calculations, and values such as altitude and altitude rate were only converted to imperial units when they needed to be shown on the computer’s display.
On 02/10/2022 20:59, Tweed wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:We invented it, they nicked it. Whatever they call it, it is *our*
On 02/10/2022 20:46, Tweed wrote:
Standards standards. All use the same one and less goes wrong. Metric is >>>> now dominant in engineering worldwide.Don't forget, it was the imperial system users that got people to the
moon first.
I love standards, there are so many to choose from that one will always
suit the job you are doing.
They don’t like you calling it Imperial…..
Imperial system of weights and measures. Except pints, where they get
short measure every time they buy beer or milk.
Gallons and fluid ounces m’lud. They change as you traverse the Atlantic.
On 02/10/2022 20:59, Tweed wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:We invented it, they nicked it. Whatever they call it, it is *our*
On 02/10/2022 20:46, Tweed wrote:
Standards standards. All use the same one and less goes wrong. MetricDon't forget, it was the imperial system users that got people to the
is
now dominant in engineering worldwide.
moon first.
I love standards, there are so many to choose from that one will always
suit the job you are doing.
They don’t like you calling it Imperial…..
Imperial system of weights and measures. Except pints, where they get
short measure every time they buy beer or milk.
And further down in this article I discovered a unit of measurement I
never
knew existed:
A slug is defined as the mass that is accelerated by 1 ft/s2 when a force
of 1 pound (lbf) is exerted on it.
I love standards, there are so many to choose from that one will always
suit the job you are doing.
They don’t like you calling it Imperial…..
On 02/10/2022 13:02, Tweed wrote:
Meanwhile Germany has an engineering industry that substantially outclasses >> ours. The lack of calculating in weird bases hasn’t held them back.
The Americans don't seem to suffer from their use of non-metric units?
On 02/10/2022 21:09, Tweed wrote:
Gallons and fluid ounces m’lud. They change as you traverse the Atlantic. >>A fluid ounce is near enough the same on both sides of the Herring Pond,
the difference is they only put 16 of theirs into a pint. (They say "A
pint's a pound, the whole world round", showing their provinciality of outlook. Our pints are a pound and a quarter.
We both have eight pints in a gallon.
I've never understood why the US pint and gallon are*almost* but not quite 4/5 of a UK pint/gallon.
When I was at school in the mid 70s, it was in the days of corporal >punishment (at my public school) but one teacher had a more fiendish >punishment. He'd get the offender's classmates to call out random digits to >make up an n-digit number (n was proportional to the severity of the >offence). The offender had to go away and multiply the number by itself, >showing all the carry digits, and the multiply that number by the original >number. So you ended up with number^3. Then you had to "bring it back": >perform two stages of long-division, again showing the working. Utterly >pointless, but a great time-waster, which is what the punishment was all >about - and a marginally more useful skill than writing lines. Incidentally, >I very rarely saw anyone actually *being* hit with "a slipper", but it was >*threatened* many times and so acted as a great deterrent. Once chap had a >graded set of "slippers" (actually trainer shoes): Mini Whacker was a size
5, Tiger Whacker was a size 7 with go-faster stripes and Super Whacker was a >size 11 on which he would draw an S" (for super) in chalk and hit you until >all the chalk had ended up on the culprit's bottom. He never used them, and
I think he may have raided the lost-property store when asked to produce the >Whackers so he knew they existed. But we behaved, because of the *threat*.
John Williamson wrote:
A fluid ounce is near enough the same on both sides of the Herring Pond, the >> difference is they only put 16 of theirs into a pint. (They say "A pint's a >> pound, the whole world round", showing their provinciality of outlook. Our >> pints are a pound and a quarter.
And hence "A pint of pure water / Weighs a pound and a quarter".
We both have eight pints in a gallon.
NY wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
A fluid ounce is near enough the same on both sides of the Herring Pond, >>> the difference is they only put 16 of theirs into a pint. (They say "A
pint's a pound, the whole world round", showing their provinciality of
outlook. Our pints are a pound and a quarter.
And hence "A pint of pure water / Weighs a pound and a quarter".
We both have eight pints in a gallon.
I think they tend to think in quarts, rather than pints though?
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:jpua7gF7nqgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 02/10/2022 21:09, Tweed wrote:
Gallons and fluid ounces m'lud. They change as you traverse theA fluid ounce is near enough the same on both sides of the Herring Pond,
Atlantic.
the difference is they only put 16 of theirs into a pint. (They say "A
pint's a pound, the whole world round", showing their provinciality of
outlook. Our pints are a pound and a quarter.
And hence "A pint of pure water / Weighs a pound and a quarter".
We both have eight pints in a gallon.
Sadly there is no sensible relationship between linear measurement and volumetric measurement in the imperial system. There is not a round
integer
relationship between cubic inch and fl oz/pint/gallon. It's not even an integer for the UK system.
Consider this little story that happened to us in the mid 1970s. My dad
and
I were at our holiday cottage (no phone, no calculator, tape measure only calibrated in inches with no cm equivalent scale). We were moving the hot water cylinder to a new location and wanted to be sure that the lengths of 2x4" wood that would support the cylinder, resting on battens screwed to
the
wall, would be able to take the weight.
How heavy is a hot water cylinder? There was no label on the one we "inherited" when we bought the cottage. How many gallons will it hold? I
bet
there are standard sizes, either in gallons or litres, but we'd no idea
what
those standards might be, or which standard our tank might be.
OK, measure length and diameter in inches. V = 2 pi r^2 l. Take pi to be approximately 3 - we only want to know roughly - is is 10,100,1000 pounds?
So with a stubby pencil with a broken lead, writing on the back of a
receipt
(the only bit of paper we could find), we ended up with a volume in cubic inches. But how many cubic inches are there in a gallon? Because we knew
that a gallon weighed about 10 lb. With no phone (and a long walk to the nearest phone box) we couldn't even "phone a friend" (my mum) to get her
to
look it up - if we had a book that even gave that information.
We ended up converting the measurements to cm (using 1" approx 2.5 cm) and recalculating to get a volume in cc. From there it was trivial to convert that to a weight (OK, mass) in kg - just need to divide by 1000 to convert
cc -> litres, and then use the fact that 1 litre of water weighs 1 kg.
We came to the conclusion that a couple of pieces of 2x4 are good enough - and the tank is still in place 45 years later, having held water all that time - we can drain the header tank easily when we leave, but draining the cylinder through the little drain cock is a very tedious precaution.
On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 14:06:06 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
I very rarely saw anyone actually *being* hit with "a slipper", but it was >>*threatened* many times and so acted as a great deterrent. Once chap had a >>graded set of "slippers" (actually trainer shoes): Mini Whacker was a size >>5, Tiger Whacker was a size 7 with go-faster stripes and Super Whacker was >>a
size 11 on which he would draw an S" (for super) in chalk and hit you
until
all the chalk had ended up on the culprit's bottom. He never used them,
and
I think he may have raided the lost-property store when asked to produce >>the
Whackers so he knew they existed. But we behaved, because of the *threat*.
In Dumfries Academy in the 1950s they used a leather strap, and it
wasn't just a threat. If you were deemed to have done something wrong
you were called up to the front of the class and were obliged to hold
out your hand, palm upwards, whereupon the teacher would bring the
strap down smartly upon it, usually once but sometimes several times depending on the severity of the offence. I remember receiving this
treatment on several occasions, though I have no recollection whatever
of what any of the punishments were actually for. It did nothing to
improve my ability to do arithmetic.
Unusual for Americans to choose a *larger* unit for expressing a quantity. Normally they tend to use an absurdly small unit.
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message >news:bu1kjhhg0tdj42dua99scg1guhqbtsjusd@4ax.com...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 14:06:06 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
I very rarely saw anyone actually *being* hit with "a slipper", but it was >>>*threatened* many times and so acted as a great deterrent. Once chap had a >>>graded set of "slippers" (actually trainer shoes): Mini Whacker was a size >>>5, Tiger Whacker was a size 7 with go-faster stripes and Super Whacker was >>>aIn Dumfries Academy in the 1950s they used a leather strap, and it
size 11 on which he would draw an S" (for super) in chalk and hit you >>>until
all the chalk had ended up on the culprit's bottom. He never used them, >>>and
I think he may have raided the lost-property store when asked to produce >>>the
Whackers so he knew they existed. But we behaved, because of the *threat*. >>
wasn't just a threat. If you were deemed to have done something wrong
you were called up to the front of the class and were obliged to hold
out your hand, palm upwards, whereupon the teacher would bring the
strap down smartly upon it, usually once but sometimes several times
depending on the severity of the offence. I remember receiving this
treatment on several occasions, though I have no recollection whatever
of what any of the punishments were actually for. It did nothing to
improve my ability to do arithmetic.
At my school, corporal punishment was almost exclusively with a shoe or the >bare hand on the bottom. Teachers used to threaten the use of their own >"slipper" - with names like Red George, Mini/Tiger/Super Whacker, etc. Our >history teacher had a cane and threatened "to apply the staff of knowledge
to the seat of understanding".
I was only tanned twice.
Once by a fiery but also genial games teacher who was well known for being >quick to blow his top but just as quick to calm down. I'd been talking and >larking about in the queue as we were waiting to go into dinner, and the >teacher, red-faced and furious, pulled me out of the line and hit me with
his bare hand once. But then as he was about to give me a second blow, he >burst out laughing "Nay lad, that's enough. Can't be bothered to hit you >again."
The other time, it was the biology teacher. Everyone taunted him about his >"mechanical" voice and straight-kneed robot-like walk. We were getting >changed from swimming and the teacher walked through the changing room from >his biology lab. I called out (in "the voice") "Eek! Look! There goes Nelly >[surname]. I wonder if he's got his croc-o-dile with him." (It was part of >school legend that he kept a crocodile, always said as three exaggerated >syllables, in the school pond). I could see him stop, and think "shall I >ignore it or shall I make an issue out of it". Probably as I'd used his >surname as well as his nickname, he decided to make an issue of it. "Who - >said - that?" People turned and looked at me (thanks, mates!). "Cam >heeeeeeeere. Brrrrrrrrrrring me a slipppperrrrrrrrr. Ben dover." In the very >confined space between the changing racks and the wooden lockers round the >edge of the room, he tried to hit me (bare hand, again). But he'd got his >movements all out of sync (no surprise there - I'm sure he was a robot
rather than a human!). He grabbed hold of the lock of hair on my forehead
and pulled my head up (causing my bum to retreat) as he brought his arm
down, so he was hitting a retreating target. Then he pushed my head down as >he brought his arm up for a swing. If he'd got his arms in sync with a 180 >degree phase shift, so he hit my bum as he pushed my head down and stuck my >bum out, he could have done some damage. But as it is, he wasn't hurting.
And every time he raised his arm, he bashed his knuckles on the locker
door - I could hear him muttering and cursing under his breath. He had >utterly lost it: white face, fiery eyes, steam metaphorically coming out of >his ears. My mates told me afterwards that they were really scared for my >safety and were wondering whether they might have to intervene to pull him >off me if things got nasty. As it is, I was overacting like crazy, making it >sound as if I was in pain when in fact the only pain was from trying to >suppress uproarious laughter. Poor Nelly, he couldn't even manage to tan >anyone effectively.
Most of the time, punishments were more subtle time-wasters, rather than >being physical. The monitors and prefects, who were banned from hitting >anyone, resorted to "Page of The Times". They'd take a page of yesterday's >copy of The Times (other broadsheet newspapers are available) from the >newspaper rack in the main corridor, and tell you to fill in all the >"counters" - the enclosed spaces within letters such as b, p, e, o - for n >columns. There was a standard scale of so many column inches of the next >day's paper for every letter that you'd missed. Pointless, just "Tarthur's >Cubes" (think of a number, square it, cube it, divide by the number you
first thought of to "bring it back") but it wasted your time and so, in >theory, acted as a deterrent.
The teachers tended to give out "an impo" (imposition) which was to write >lines on special ruled paper. Each line of text had red horizontal lines top >and bottom and two green lines within that. You had to write especially
large so the tops of ascenders of b, t, d touched the top red line, the >bottom tips of descenders of p and y touched the bottom red line, and the >body of each letter was just within the green lines. So you were not only >writing out "I must not talk in class" etc, but you were having to take >elaborate care to write very large within the ruled lines. Time-wasting >deterrent, in theory.
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:jpua7gF7nqgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 02/10/2022 21:09, Tweed wrote:
Gallons and fluid ounces m’lud. They change as you traverse theA fluid ounce is near enough the same on both sides of the Herring
Atlantic.
Pond,
the difference is they only put 16 of theirs into a pint. (They say "A
pint's a pound, the whole world round", showing their provinciality of
outlook. Our pints are a pound and a quarter.
And hence "A pint of pure water / Weighs a pound and a quarter".
We both have eight pints in a gallon.
Sadly there is no sensible relationship between linear measurement and
volumetric measurement in the imperial system. There is not a round
integer relationship between cubic inch and fl oz/pint/gallon. It's not
even an integer for the UK system.
Consider this little story that happened to us in the mid 1970s. My dad
and I were at our holiday cottage (no phone, no calculator, tape
measure only calibrated in inches with no cm equivalent scale). We were
moving the hot water cylinder to a new location and wanted to be sure
that the lengths of 2x4" wood that would support the cylinder, resting
on battens screwed to
the
wall, would be able to take the weight.
How heavy is a hot water cylinder? There was no label on the one we
"inherited" when we bought the cottage. How many gallons will it hold?
I
bet
there are standard sizes, either in gallons or litres, but we'd no idea
what
those standards might be, or which standard our tank might be.
OK, measure length and diameter in inches. V = 2 pi r^2 l. Take pi to
be approximately 3 - we only want to know roughly - is is 10,100,1000
pounds?
So with a stubby pencil with a broken lead, writing on the back of a
receipt
(the only bit of paper we could find), we ended up with a volume in
cubic inches. But how many cubic inches are there in a gallon? Because
we knew that a gallon weighed about 10 lb. With no phone (and a long
walk to the nearest phone box) we couldn't even "phone a friend" (my
mum) to get her to look it up - if we had a book that even gave that
information.
We ended up converting the measurements to cm (using 1" approx 2.5 cm)
and recalculating to get a volume in cc. From there it was trivial to
convert that to a weight (OK, mass) in kg - just need to divide by 1000
to convert cc -> litres, and then use the fact that 1 litre of water
weighs 1 kg.
We came to the conclusion that a couple of pieces of 2x4 are good
enough - and the tank is still in place 45 years later, having held
water all that time - we can drain the header tank easily when we
leave, but draining the cylinder through the little drain cock is a
very tedious precaution.
On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 10:37:54 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bu1kjhhg0tdj42dua99scg1guhqbtsjusd@4ax.com...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 14:06:06 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
I very rarely saw anyone actually *being* hit with "a slipper", but it was >>>> *threatened* many times and so acted as a great deterrent. Once chap had a >>>> graded set of "slippers" (actually trainer shoes): Mini Whacker was a size >>>> 5, Tiger Whacker was a size 7 with go-faster stripes and Super Whacker was >>>> aIn Dumfries Academy in the 1950s they used a leather strap, and it
size 11 on which he would draw an S" (for super) in chalk and hit you
until
all the chalk had ended up on the culprit's bottom. He never used them, >>>> and
I think he may have raided the lost-property store when asked to produce >>>> the
Whackers so he knew they existed. But we behaved, because of the *threat*. >>>
wasn't just a threat. If you were deemed to have done something wrong
you were called up to the front of the class and were obliged to hold
out your hand, palm upwards, whereupon the teacher would bring the
strap down smartly upon it, usually once but sometimes several times
depending on the severity of the offence. I remember receiving this
treatment on several occasions, though I have no recollection whatever
of what any of the punishments were actually for. It did nothing to
improve my ability to do arithmetic.
At my school, corporal punishment was almost exclusively with a shoe or the >> bare hand on the bottom. Teachers used to threaten the use of their own
"slipper" - with names like Red George, Mini/Tiger/Super Whacker, etc. Our >> history teacher had a cane and threatened "to apply the staff of knowledge >> to the seat of understanding".
I was only tanned twice.
Once by a fiery but also genial games teacher who was well known for being >> quick to blow his top but just as quick to calm down. I'd been talking and >> larking about in the queue as we were waiting to go into dinner, and the
teacher, red-faced and furious, pulled me out of the line and hit me with
his bare hand once. But then as he was about to give me a second blow, he
burst out laughing "Nay lad, that's enough. Can't be bothered to hit you
again."
The other time, it was the biology teacher. Everyone taunted him about his >> "mechanical" voice and straight-kneed robot-like walk. We were getting
changed from swimming and the teacher walked through the changing room from >> his biology lab. I called out (in "the voice") "Eek! Look! There goes Nelly >> [surname]. I wonder if he's got his croc-o-dile with him." (It was part of >> school legend that he kept a crocodile, always said as three exaggerated
syllables, in the school pond). I could see him stop, and think "shall I
ignore it or shall I make an issue out of it". Probably as I'd used his
surname as well as his nickname, he decided to make an issue of it. "Who - >> said - that?" People turned and looked at me (thanks, mates!). "Cam
heeeeeeeere. Brrrrrrrrrrring me a slipppperrrrrrrrr. Ben dover." In the very >> confined space between the changing racks and the wooden lockers round the >> edge of the room, he tried to hit me (bare hand, again). But he'd got his
movements all out of sync (no surprise there - I'm sure he was a robot
rather than a human!). He grabbed hold of the lock of hair on my forehead
and pulled my head up (causing my bum to retreat) as he brought his arm
down, so he was hitting a retreating target. Then he pushed my head down as >> he brought his arm up for a swing. If he'd got his arms in sync with a 180 >> degree phase shift, so he hit my bum as he pushed my head down and stuck my >> bum out, he could have done some damage. But as it is, he wasn't hurting.
And every time he raised his arm, he bashed his knuckles on the locker
door - I could hear him muttering and cursing under his breath. He had
utterly lost it: white face, fiery eyes, steam metaphorically coming out of >> his ears. My mates told me afterwards that they were really scared for my
safety and were wondering whether they might have to intervene to pull him >> off me if things got nasty. As it is, I was overacting like crazy, making it >> sound as if I was in pain when in fact the only pain was from trying to
suppress uproarious laughter. Poor Nelly, he couldn't even manage to tan
anyone effectively.
Most of the time, punishments were more subtle time-wasters, rather than
being physical. The monitors and prefects, who were banned from hitting
anyone, resorted to "Page of The Times". They'd take a page of yesterday's >> copy of The Times (other broadsheet newspapers are available) from the
newspaper rack in the main corridor, and tell you to fill in all the
"counters" - the enclosed spaces within letters such as b, p, e, o - for n >> columns. There was a standard scale of so many column inches of the next
day's paper for every letter that you'd missed. Pointless, just "Tarthur's >> Cubes" (think of a number, square it, cube it, divide by the number you
first thought of to "bring it back") but it wasted your time and so, in
theory, acted as a deterrent.
The teachers tended to give out "an impo" (imposition) which was to write
lines on special ruled paper. Each line of text had red horizontal lines top >> and bottom and two green lines within that. You had to write especially
large so the tops of ascenders of b, t, d touched the top red line, the
bottom tips of descenders of p and y touched the bottom red line, and the
body of each letter was just within the green lines. So you were not only
writing out "I must not talk in class" etc, but you were having to take
elaborate care to write very large within the ruled lines. Time-wasting
deterrent, in theory.
It's astonishing to think that this sort of thing actually happened to
real people within living memory. Any teacher who behaved like that
today would lose their job and face rather nasty criminal charges.
Rod.
It's astonishing to think that this sort of thing actually happened to
real people within living memory. Any teacher who behaved like that
today would lose their job and face rather nasty criminal charges.
And quite rightly so. And of course the old guard will have predicted the
end of the world if you couldn’t beat the children. However my kids went >through a perfectly well behaved state education without institutional >violence and have prospered.
I was trying to chat to a girl in assembly rather than singing the
morning song. The headmaster saw me and I got the strap in front of
the whole school.
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message news:jpuettF8f95U1@mid.individual.net...
NY wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
A fluid ounce is near enough the same on both sides of the Herring
Pond, the difference is they only put 16 of theirs into a pint.
(They say "A pint's a pound, the whole world round", showing their
provinciality of outlook. Our pints are a pound and a quarter.
And hence "A pint of pure water / Weighs a pound and a quarter".
We both have eight pints in a gallon.
I think they tend to think in quarts, rather than pints though?
Unusual for Americans to choose a *larger* unit for expressing a
quantity. Normally they tend to use an absurdly small unit.
I was a bit baffled when I was driving in Massachusetts (about 20 years
ago - things may have changed) to see roadworks signs which said things
like "Road closed in 5000 feet", or place-of-interest signs which told
you to turn in 2500 feet. Here in the UK we are used to large distances
being specified in miles (1 mile, 1/2 mile) or smaller distances to be
given in yards.
OK, so you sometimes get very large numbers in engineering: the gauge of
UK railways is often given as 1425 mm (*) rather than 1.425 m, but that
is because the millimetre is the smallest unit of precision required on railways, and they prefer to express as an integer rather than a decimal number. Plus the fact that engineering normally uses powers of 1000:
1/1000, 1, 1000, 1000000 etc rather than intermediate units such as cm
or decimetres.
(*) Aka 4 ft 8 1/2" ;-)
On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:21:21 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
<steve@easynn.com> wrote:
I was trying to chat to a girl in assembly rather than singing the
morning song. The headmaster saw me and I got the strap in front of
the whole school.
I hope the girl was worth it.
Rod.
Tweed wrote:
They don’t like you calling it Imperial…..
The Americans have their own version of Imperial so I have avoided referring to
Imperial in the American context because someone would be sure to pick it up.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 102:38:39 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,994 |