Vinyl to Digital
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 19 Mar 2010 01:09 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Of course the worktop was 25 *mm* thick and that I guess is the price > > > > for not working in std units (I thought you weren't supposed to use cm > > > > or something, just mm, m , km etc?). > > > > > > For scientific publication, yes. > > > > Since `cm' is perfectly standard SI from prefix to unit, I don't see > > that that can be right. > > SI guidelines say nowadays that use of non 10^3 powers > is to be discouraged. Hmm - I've not been able to find such a guideline from the SI people proper. Can you provide a link? I want to read what the SI people are actually saying in detail - your claims being unreliable, you see. Thing is, `to be discouraged', yeah, generally - that's been obvious to me ever since I first me SI prefixes, way back when. But your claim of `to be discouraged' (vague passive tense stuff like that is usually bullshit) is not the same as `these are now off-limits'. Some of the non-to-the-power-of-three multiples are very useful in a human world where human beings need to understand the numbers. > > One doesn't use `cm' in science, normally. But there's no ban on doing > > so even in publication - unless particular publications *do* set such > > rules, but I've never heard of anyone bothering to do so. > > The millibars and the hectopascals are also on the way out, Eh? What? Hectopascals? Who ever found them useful? Ah. 1 bar = 100 kilopascals, it says here. Durr. Yeah, okay[1]. Getting rid of millibars is silly. They're a very useful unit - but hardly a part of SI. And so hectopascals are also just as useful. Anyone wanting to get rid of them is making a big mistake, because they are very useful and totally standard. Rowland. [1] What this means is `1 bar = 1000 hectopascals'; or `1 millibar = 1 hectopascal'. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jim on 19 Mar 2010 02:45 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > Could be worse, they could all be fron Newcastle. > > Yers - at least ordinary human beings can understand Scottish accents. You've never been to Kilmarnock, have you? Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK Please help save Bletchley Park - sign the petition for Government funding at: (open to UK residents and ex.pats) http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BletchleyPark/ Thank you.
From: Peter Ceresole on 19 Mar 2010 03:19 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Do you understand that, Peter? As usual, long before you mentioned it. Everything I mentioned stands. But it appears quite clear that you have never had to use Imperial measurements in real life, except in a microscopic way. And that your ability to do reality checks is seriously impaired. -- Peter
From: Graeme on 19 Mar 2010 03:41 In message <1jfjsnq.6sswia67vvggN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > Graeme <Graeme(a)greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > [snip] > > > > I have nothing against the Scottish accents, in fact I rather like them, > > > but not time after time after time in every programme. > > > > Could be worse, they could all be fron Newcastle. > > Yers - at least ordinary human beings can understand Scottish accents. At TVS both the general manager and the shop steward were Glaswegians. When they were argueing with each other you needed sub-titles to follow the row. > > Drunken Geordies hitting the local dialect *hard* can end up > incomprehensible to each other. I have witnessed this - the problem is > a lot of the dialect is *very* local, you see. > Bit like Schweitzerdeutch? -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Adrian Tuddenham on 19 Mar 2010 05:34
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Adrian Tuddenham <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > It is clear that the Radio 4 audience *doesn't* like trials; when they > > were first introduced it lost something like 20% of its listeners in a > > couple of months. More complaints on the subject of trails were > > received by the "Feedback" programme than on any other subject. > > I think that's wrong. What most radio audiences don't like- and that > definitely includes R4- is *change*. There's always a vocal minority who > complain. Then after a bit they like what they hear, and then complain > about the *next* change. I believe there was quite a significant switch to the World Service, which didn't have trails. Then trails and jingles started on the World Service too - and the listening figures for that also fell. I can't give you any reference for those figures, but I do clearly remember hearing about them at the time. I don't believe this particular aversion is the result of change; the change took place many years ago, but trails still have the same effect on me now as they did then: When a trail comes on, it annoys me so much that I switch the radio off and don't bother to switch it back on again for a long while. This means that my much reduced radio listening now consists of parts of programmes, usually near the end, I rarely hear any beginnings. I have even missed hearing programmes that I took part in. During the recent bad weather, the trails disappeared for a day (presumably the morons who create them couldn't get to work) and I found I was listening to the radio for longer periods and was enjoying it more. It wasn't until the following days, when the trails gradually returned, that I realised what had happened. That is as near to a one-subject double-blind test as you can get. If the BBC really thought they could defend the use of trails on Radio 4, they would have done a survey and would be trumpeting the results in opposition to the criticism. A 20% fall in listenership has probably given them some idea of what the answer will be, so I suspect they know better than to ask. The real question is why they persist in foisting them on us. I suspect it is a combination of cheapness (the Trails Unit is probably financed out of a 'pot', so Radio 4 percieves that it is filling several minutes of air time per hour 'free' ) and a cavalier disregard for the loudly-expressed preferences of the listeners by trendy managers who think they know best. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |