|
|
Post by siegeshot on Oct 27, 2004 11:19:03 GMT -5
“Well, it looks like a giant laser some space bored all the way through this ice last night without us noticing”, “Well, lets just go down there shall we?” – It’s around about this point that I would be RUNNING back to the ship to escape. i had to read this over and over. somethin wasnt quite right. if you look at the "some" up there. it some how makes a lot more sense if you change the s to an f and say "from"  |
|
|
|
Post by Magill on Oct 27, 2004 12:41:11 GMT -5
This is really nitpicky (but that's me), but the second is a metric unit. The SI unit of time is a second (it's defined as so many wavelengths of a certain level of radiation).
It's just not base 10, like the rest of the units. Well, I suppose it is in terms of kiloseconds and the like, but the 60 second minute and sixty minute hour aren't base ten. But they're not SI units, anyway.
Man, I'm a dork.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Oct 27, 2004 14:11:39 GMT -5
Skinner from Simpsons: "Not only are the trains now running on time, they're running on metric time! Remember this time people, 80 past 2 on April 47th, it's the dawn of a new enlightenment."
(From TV Tome: Skinner put Springfield on "Metric Time", a fictional base-10 temporal system. There is no such thing although the idea is tempting.)
|
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Oct 27, 2004 14:17:43 GMT -5
Oh yeah, just what we need: another set of units for the engineering crowd to memorize how to convert to something people would actually use.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Oct 27, 2004 14:42:12 GMT -5
Well, actually, if you want to get all technical about it, the way we keep time IS base 10, in the literal sense. You count from 0 to 9 and then add another digit, that's what defines base 10. Like in binary (or base 2), you count from 0 to 1 and then add another digit. Or in hexidecimal (base 16) you count from 0 to F and then add another digit. In other words, base 10 refers to the method of counting, not the number of counts in a given unit of measure. You guys are getting all caught up in the fact that there's sixty seconds in a minute. The counting system is still base 10. ... What?  |
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Oct 27, 2004 15:45:51 GMT -5
Ah, yeah... well, anytime you notice something like that, a wizard did it.
-D
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Oct 27, 2004 16:16:45 GMT -5
But in episode 2F0G...
|
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Oct 27, 2004 16:22:44 GMT -5
Wizard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magill on Oct 27, 2004 16:26:51 GMT -5
Oh yeah, just what we need: another set of units for the engineering crowd to memorize how to convert to something people would actually use. As a member of the engineering crowd, I actually think better on the small scale in terms of centimeters and grams, just from chemistry and physics labs. At my company, we measure things in inches, centimeters, and (get ready for it) French. Which is really is in terms of the metric system, because 1 French = 3 millimeters. What? We never get measurements mixed up.  Well, actually, if you want to get all technical about it, the way we keep time IS base 10, in the literal sense. Ah, I've been out-nitpicked. |
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Oct 27, 2004 21:07:53 GMT -5
I'm not really going to put a lot of thought into this (I filled my quota of thinking for the day, thank you), but doesn't "base ten counting system" kinda imply that the pattern holds for any period consisting of an integer multiple of that base? For time, there is a break at 60, but there is no such break anywhere in the natural numbers. To use Pooly's method of thinking about it: for time, you count from 0 - 59 on the base 10 system, but then you delete the digits and start over. Seconds are base 10 but minutes are not, and since no one really can make real world sense of 455987 seconds without converting it to a non-base 10 system I think we can say time is not base 10 in any way that matters.
I'm in ocean engineering, and by default "ton" means 2240 pounds (long ton) because everything was derived for that measure back when "ton" was a barrel of wine. The problem being, of course, that every other engineering discipline uses the short ton (2000 pounds), the kip (1000 lbs), or the tonne, which only OEs bother to pronounce differently from "ton."
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on Oct 28, 2004 0:06:32 GMT -5
ow ow ow ow ow
|
|
|
|
Post by FiveMileSmile on Oct 28, 2004 4:34:52 GMT -5
Just because something is in base 10 does not mean it's a metric measure. Hell, pounds and ounces are in base 10 numerically speaking, just like seconds, remember? Now, SECONDS are a metric measure in that they can be divided by ten to get 'tenths of a second' It uses the full range of numbers and follows the 1-10-100 metric pattern, so I have no problem with seconds being a metric measure. MINUTES and above are not. So to say that the aztecs were obsessed with metric and then have something take place every 600 seconds is non-sensical rubbish. I am right. You are wrong. Kneel before Zod. - Rich PS Siegeshot, however, is right in that it should be 'from'. However, nitpicking my typing and spellchecking is dirty pool. There are lots of words in my review - mistakes are inevitable. I'm not a machine, dammit  |
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Oct 28, 2004 15:56:35 GMT -5
I'm trying to decide if I really want to look like an EVEN BIGGER nerd, here. ... Yep. To use Pooly's method of thinking about it: for time, you count from 0 - 59 on the base 10 system, but then you delete the digits and start over. Okay, the problem is that you don't "start over" at 60. If you wanted to get literal about it, the time measurement of a second (which, by the way, I agree is Metric) can be counted from midnight as 0. So right now it's 49620 seconds past midnight right now. We just added the minutes and hours (and days and months, etc) because it's impractical to measure all passage of time in seconds. Just like you wouldn't measure the distance between New Jersey and Vancouver in inches... you'd do it in miles. No, as far as the counting issue goes, base 10 only - ONLY - refers to number of digits between 0 and the point where you add another digit. There are 10 digits in base 10 (decimal): 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 At which point the next notation is 10. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21... There are 8 digits in base 8 (octal): 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 At which point the next notation is 10. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 21... There are 2 digits in base 2 (binary): 0 1 At which point the next notation is 10. 10 11 100 101 110 111... There are 16 digits in base 16 (hexidecimal): 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F At which point the next notation is 10. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 20 21... Just to confuse you all just a little more, only the decimal notation of '10' means 'ten'. In binary, '10' means 'two'. In octal, '10' means 'eight'. In hex, '10' means 'sixteen'. So if the timer in AVP drops (or adds, I haven't seen this scene) a digit for every ten less significant digits that pass, it's counting in base 10. Metric/Imperial/Incan/Vulcan measurement systems have nothing to do with it. The only real question is whether the Incans used the second as a unit of measure, and how the patterns of convenience (their equivalent to minutes, hours, days, etc) were arranged. For those of you considering a future in electronics, particularly in digital circuits and the like, this is part of the mandatory education. Just thought you might like some warning. Nobody out-nitpicks the PoolMan! |
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Oct 28, 2004 17:49:29 GMT -5
I did say "seconds are base 10," meaning I know you can count beyond 60 in seconds.
Anyway, I think the problem here is that I'm referring to two completely different time counting systems and declaring one so impractical as to not matter (outside of a technical / computational / small scale setting), and you're only thinking of the one system and declaring the other as irrelevant.
From Webster's:
So, counting only seconds (or only minutes) is base 10, as we've agreed (well, I'm no expert but you could probably do it in any base you want, it's just most commonly 10). But counting with hours, minutes, and seconds isn't base 10, because you need 60 units in the "seconds" place to give the numeral 1 in the next higher place (minutes). Or, if you're going to take me to task for having two digits in each place, in the form:
ab:cd --> min:sec
You need 6 in place c to get a 1 in place b, and having anything above 5 in place c is nonsensical whereas numbers up to 9 are demanded in c for the system to be base 10.
I'm not sure "base" is even applicable to time in the minutes:seconds counting method, though both minutes and seconds--individually--are base 10. In fact I'm fairly certain it isn't, now that I've thought it over, because bases refer to a method of writing numbers whereas minutes:seconds is a method of tallying. You're basically trying to cram a number writing problem into a units conversion and notation problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Oct 28, 2004 20:27:35 GMT -5
...are you guys trying to make it so I can never use this site as a pick-up line?
"Buy you a drink? I'm a movie reviewer, you know."
"Oh, that's so cool! For a newspaper?"
"Psshh... newspapers are passe, baby. It's all on the web these days."
"So what do they do on your site?"
"Well they, uh... y'know, discuss the metric system and how it relates to Aztec culture. And how 'ton' can really mean two different weights."
"......."
"Wait, where are y- hey, call me!"
-D
|
|
