Page 2235 of 2256

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:45 am UTC
by Sableagle
New User wrote:Where I work, everyone reads measurements in thousands of an inch. But literally every spec has a zero in the thousandths place, so really all the specs are rounded to the nearest hundredth of an inch. So, for example, if I measure .430 on my calipers, I hear people every day saying the dimensions are "four hundred and thirty thousandths," or that the spec for a given part is, "four hundred to five hundred" (meaning if the actual size is anywhere in between .4 and .5 inches, it's okay to pass inspection). I do it also, just because it's how they do it in the workplace, but it's interesting that nobody ever says "forty-three hundredths," and I'm pretty sure that if I were to start saying that then I would hear a lot of, "huh?" "What do you mean, four thirty?" and so forth.
Just call it a four-three calibre. If you want a longer sheet, ask for a four-three Magnum.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:39 am UTC
by HES
slinches wrote:most dimensions are listed in decimal notation with tight tolerances often referred to in mils or "thou"

New User wrote:Where I work, everyone reads measurements in thousands of an inch.


In which case, there is a huge market for calculators that default to decimal results. Just make it a setting!

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:09 pm UTC
by New User
Have you tried shopping around for another calculator?

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:46 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
As an engineer/surveyor, we work in decimal feet and meters. And that's US survey feet, not international feet.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:06 pm UTC
by e^iπ+1=0
...why the fuck do we have two different feet that differ by less than a micrometer?

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:27 pm UTC
by Thesh
e^iπ+1=0 wrote:...why the fuck do we have two different feet that differ by less than a micrometer?


When the international foot was defined in 1959, a great deal of survey data was already available based on the former definitions, especially in the United States and in India. The small difference between the survey and the international foot would not be detectable on a survey of a small parcel, but becomes significant for mapping, or when the state plane coordinate system (SPCS) is used in the US, because the origin of the system may be hundreds of thousands of feet (hundreds of miles) from the point of interest. Hence the previous definitions continued to be used for surveying in the United States and India for many years, and are denoted survey feet to distinguish them from the international foot. The United Kingdom was unaffected by this problem, as the retriangulation of Great Britain (1936–62) had been done in metres.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(unit)#Survey_foot

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:57 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
e^iπ+1=0 wrote:...why the fuck do we have two different feet that differ by less than a micrometer?


what Thesh said, and we have better measurements/definitions of what a meter really is now.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:01 pm UTC
by Whizbang
Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases!

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:01 pm UTC
by poxic
standards = standards + 1

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:17 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
Whizbang wrote:Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases!



like getting the US to finally go to metric? Good luck with that. :wink:

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:19 pm UTC
by Flumble
Whizbang wrote:Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases!

If you just don't consider americans, myanma and liberians 'people', we already have that universal standard: SI.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:31 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
Flumble wrote:
Whizbang wrote:Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases!

If you just don't consider americans, myanma and liberians 'people', we already have that universal standard: SI.


I'm still hoping Canada pulls a Russia and annexes New England. We'd be happier there... well, except Boston, but they won't be happy regardless.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:57 pm UTC
by poxic
Then we'd have AAALLLLLLLLLLLL the maple syrup.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:12 pm UTC
by somitomi
New User wrote:Have you tried shopping around for another calculator?

Have you seen how much a scientific calculator costs these days? I'm intending to use mine 'till the day I die.
Flumble wrote:Are you 'murricans still using 400nm resolution chips? :shock:
Clix wrote:Nanometers? Since we were talking 'Murricans' I thought nm=Nautical Miles... :oops:

Uhm, a chip so vast nautical miles are a practical unit1 to describe something about it would be a sight to behold. Reminds me of those stupid jokes about Soviet microchips2.

1: Are nautical miles "practical" for anything really?
2:See this spoiler (I mean if you have a desire to see lame jokes I'm not standing in your way):
Spoiler:
Q: Why did they stop making the Soviet microchip?
A: Because it didn't fit through the factory gate.

Q: How can you recognise a Soviet microchip?
A: From really far away.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:36 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
somitomi wrote:Have you seen how much a scientific calculator costs these days? I'm intending to use mine 'till the day I die.



relevant:
Image



+1 internets for lame jokes.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:45 pm UTC
by Flumble
The only advantage the 'scientific calculator' still has is a battery life of weeks... and possibly being the only device dedicated to entering formulas (and therefore being less prone to crashing than e.g. android devices).

I challenge you to develop an ARM-based graphing calculator for about 100 <currency>. A quick look indicates you can get a good SoC for less than 20, a fucking touch screen for about 25 (note that's a 3.5 inch screen, so you have physical keys below), a decent lithium battery with controller for about 20 (you're not going to power it with a couple of AAA batteries*). So there's a bit of room for the buttons, casing and assembly.


*unless you find that dozens of non-rechargable alkaline batteries are more environmentally friendly than a single rechargable lithium-based battery.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:55 pm UTC
by Thesh
Flumble wrote:*unless you find that dozens of non-rechargable alkaline batteries are more environmentally friendly than a single rechargable lithium-based battery.


NiMh seems like a better solution, depending on power consumption and weight requirements (I'm thinking button cell, so weight difference should be negligible).

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:54 am UTC
by Flumble
Thesh wrote:
Flumble wrote:*unless you find that dozens of non-rechargable alkaline batteries are more environmentally friendly than a single rechargable lithium-based battery.


NiMh seems like a better solution, depending on power consumption and weight requirements (I'm thinking button cell, so weight difference should be negligible).

I was just thinking of my past experience with putting rechargable batteries in the TI calculator, because they dropped below the required voltage quite quickly. :P But that is of course a problem of the TI calculator (and the choice of battery composition) and does not have to occur in our hypothetical calculator.

I guess the power draw will be about 2W. (the highest number on the LCD I could find is 3.3V * 0.15A and an efficient SoC draws about 1W tops) That sounds like a lot of cells in parallel to provide such current.
Going by the numbers on wikipedia, 100g of NiMH would give you 5 hours of continuous use, whereas 100g of Li-x would give you 12 hours.

Dammit, why does 2W sound like a small number to me? My smartphone has a ~4Wh battery and it manages to survive a whole week (provided I'm barely using it of course). That's like 25mW. The TV remote keeps working for months even! 2W is huge; it drains a pair of AA alkalines within 4 hours.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:59 am UTC
by ucim
Flumble wrote:I guess the power draw will be about 2W. (the highest number on the LCD I could find is 3.3V * 0.15A and an efficient SoC draws about 1W tops)[...]Dammit, why does 2W sound like a small number to me?
3.3v x 0.15a = .495W A factor of four off, but I was expecting a few orders of magnitude. This is of course peak power; devices last a long time when they are not used. :)

Jose

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:55 am UTC
by Thesh
Flumble wrote:I guess the power draw will be about 2W. (the highest number on the LCD I could find is 3.3V * 0.15A and an efficient SoC draws about 1W tops) That sounds like a lot of cells in parallel to provide such current.


I'm finding numbers closer to half a watt for consumption smartphone displays; for a calculator, I don't think you need a super-bright screen, and you don't need a very powerful processor. I think you could get a decent calculator with 40mAh 1.2v button batteries, but this is out of my area.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:51 am UTC
by Sableagle
somitomi wrote:Are nautical miles "practical" for anything really?
If you're still giving latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes and seconds, they do have the advantage that ...

6,371 km * tan (1') = 1.8532488 km = 1.0006743 nm.

... one nautical mile per hour will move you one minute of longitude at the Equator or one minute of latitude anywhere per hour. Given a cosine table, you can multiply your speed in knots by "one minute of longitude at the Equator" by the cosine of your latitude to get your longitudinal speed.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:52 am UTC
by Flumble
ucim wrote:
Flumble wrote:I guess the power draw will be about 2W. (the highest number on the LCD I could find is 3.3V * 0.15A and an efficient SoC draws about 1W tops)[...]Dammit, why does 2W sound like a small number to me?
3.3v x 0.15a = .495W A factor of four off, but I was expecting a few orders of magnitude. This is of course peak power; devices last a long time when they are not used. :)

Jose

2W includes peak power of the SoC and whatever other components in the calculator.
But indeed, that's peak power. When the SoC throttles down to nearly 0W, you're left with 48 hours of screen time for a 100g lithium battery (yes, still going for that battery pack rather than battery slots). That's not bad actually.


Awww, should've looked into modern graphing calculators: everyone's already offering touch screens for 100... plus margin, minus batteries, so maybe there is still something to gain. Especially with an ARM chip.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:25 pm UTC
by PhoenixEnigma
Flumble wrote:I challenge you to develop an ARM-based graphing calculator for about 100 <currency>. A quick look indicates you can get a good SoC for less than 20, a fucking touch screen for about 25 (note that's a 3.5 inch screen, so you have physical keys below), a decent lithium battery with controller for about 20 (you're not going to power it with a couple of AAA batteries*). So there's a bit of room for the buttons, casing and assembly.

The availability of new smartphones for under $100 retail suggests it's probably possible hardware wise. Does a cell radio and camera cost more than a more complicated case design and some buttons?

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:14 pm UTC
by You, sir, name?
I can only snap my fingers on my right hand, not my left. This bothers me a lot.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:22 pm UTC
by Antimon
I mostly back-read the big threads here. In this one I'm currently at April, 2014. So many things you guys don't know about yet. And I don't know what you're up to now. Not in this thread at least.

Sending this message is a bit like messaging a planet 1.5 lightyears away (if there is such a planet), I'll have to wait 3 years to read any replies you make. Or maybe no one will reply, I'll never know if the message got through. Maybe you're all dead. Maybe I'm dead before I get to February 2017.

Hm will this message update my cookie or whatever, so the browser forgets where I am now? Would it be cheating to read ahead, to see if someone responds to this message in a bottle?

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:25 pm UTC
by Antimon
I mostly back-read the big threads here. In this one I'm currently at April, 2014. So many things you guys don't know about yet. And I don't know what you're up to now. Not in this thread at least.

Sending this message is a bit like messaging a planet 1.5 lightyears away (if there is such a planet), I'll have to wait 3 years to read any replies you make. Or maybe no one will reply, I'll never know if the message got through. Maybe you're all dead. Maybe I'm dead before I get to February 2017.

Hm will this message update my cookie or whatever, so the browser forgets where I am now? Would it be cheating to read ahead, to see if someone responds to this message in a bottle?

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:26 pm UTC
by Angua
Antimon wrote:I mostly back-read the big threads here. In this one I'm currently at April, 2014. So many things you guys don't know about yet. And I don't know what you're up to now. Not in this thread at least.

Sending this message is a bit like messaging a planet 1.5 lightyears away (if there is such a planet), I'll have to wait 3 years to read any replies you make. Or maybe no one will reply, I'll never know if the message got through. Maybe you're all dead. Maybe I'm dead before I get to February 2017.

Hm will this message update my cookie or whatever, so the browser forgets where I am now? Would it be cheating to read ahead, to see if someone responds to this message in a bottle?

You're not from the Time thread, are you?

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:34 am UTC
by poxic
Quick question for folks. I was forced at gunpoint* to upgrade to the latest version of Firefox. Now whenever I highlight some text, I get this small fucklet:

fucklet.png
fucklet.png (4.18 KiB) Viewed 7245 times

What is it called? Can I disable it? How?

Thankee.

* where "gunpoint" is "a permanently crashed old version of Firefox"

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:46 am UTC
by Deva
Guesses S3.Google Translator. Look under Tools > Add-ons. Should be under Extensions or Plugins.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:49 am UTC
by Flumble
[edit]dammit Deva :P [/edit]

You seem to have installed malware the google s3 plugin. Did you leave some checkboxes checked in the installer? :?

You can disable it by either disabling or removing the plugin ("add-on" manager ->"extensions").

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:02 am UTC
by poxic
You are both genii. I had indeed just added that but didn't know it had the highlight feature. (Haven't been using FF51 long enough to have highlighted much text yet.)

fucklet_free.png
No fucklet!
fucklet_free.png (1.84 KiB) Viewed 7233 times

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:16 am UTC
by Giant Speck
Congratulations on being Fucklet Free.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:58 pm UTC
by Whizbang
It's the way to be.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:14 pm UTC
by Flumble
poxic wrote:You are both genii. I had indeed just added that but didn't know it had the highlight feature.

RTFM! Watch the pictures on the fucking add-on page! :P

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:27 pm UTC
by Carlington
Thank you for the addition of "fucklet" to my vocabulary.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:04 pm UTC
by poxic
Flumble wrote:RTFM! Watch the pictures on the fucking add-on page! :P

What, read the instructions? Like grownups are supposed to?

I should probably start doing that someday.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:12 pm UTC
by New User
About two years ago, maybe, I saw a few news stories about a large hole in the ground that was found via aerial photography, in Russia I think (maybe not, but I think it was at least in Asia or Europe). The article said that the hole was in a remote area, but a scientific expedition was planned. Quite some time later (sometime in 2016, I think), I tried to search the web for a followup story, because I'm curious as to what the expedition discovered or concluded. My search was unfruitful. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Can anyone help me find more information?

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:30 pm UTC
by addams
New User wrote:About two years ago, maybe, I saw a few news stories about a large hole in the ground that was found via aerial photography, in Russia I think (maybe not, but I think it was at least in Asia or Europe). The article said that the hole was in a remote area, but a scientific expedition was planned. Quite some time later (sometime in 2016, I think), I tried to search the web for a followup story, because I'm curious as to what the expedition discovered or concluded. My search was unfruitful. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Can anyone help me find more information?
Have you tried asking the Google Me This Thread?
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=104498

Deva hangs out there.
Deva can Google you that.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:32 pm UTC
by plytho
New User wrote:About two years ago, maybe, I saw a few news stories about a large hole in the ground that was found via aerial photography, in Russia I think (maybe not, but I think it was at least in Asia or Europe). The article said that the hole was in a remote area, but a scientific expedition was planned. Quite some time later (sometime in 2016, I think), I tried to search the web for a followup story, because I'm curious as to what the expedition discovered or concluded. My search was unfruitful. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Can anyone help me find more information?


I 'member. I've found this article from 2016. They say it's probably methane explosions after the permafrost thawed and increased pressure.

Re: Random natterings

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:04 pm UTC
by Deva
addams wrote:Have you tried asking the Google Me This Thread?
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=104498

Deva hangs out there.
Deva can Google you that.

Thought of someone else. Never joined Free as in Destitute.