HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barth@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barth.richards)
Subject: Re: Metrication and "normal usage"
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:50:29 GMT


In article <1992Oct6.093032.13671@infodev.cam.ac.uk> rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct5.191730.18345@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>,
>comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen) writes:
>|> [...]
>|> Of course non-standard metric culture is growing independently of the
>|> official rules.  Everyone but me says 'kiLOMiter' --- I, of course,
>pronounce
>|> it correctly as "KILLomeet'er", as the rules say --- and then have to
>|> explain what I mean half the time!  "KEE-LOH" universally means kilogram,
>|> leading some people to say "KEElogram".  And so forth.  Takes three
>|> generations to settle down, I reckon.  NZ has been metricating for only
>|> about twenty years now.
>
>I've taken to making a point of pronouncing the other measure
>`milLIMiter' to appropriate loons, in response to this odd piece of
>practice.  Where does it come from?  (I hope it's not the USA, in view
>of what I've said above and the overwhelmingly US readership of this
>group ;-)



'Fraid so.  The pronounciation I have heard most often in the US is
"kuh-LOM-meh-ter," though "KIL-o-mee-ter" is sometimes heard.  (I also
think that the second, and more internationally-accepted pronunciation is
beginning to work its way into the US, though I'm not holding out much hope
for "cel-LEEK-ah.")

-- 
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
88  Barth Richards                   "Language is a virus from outer space."  88
88  att!ihlpf!barth                            - William S. Burroughs         88
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: kabreuer@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Klaus Breuer)
Subject: Re: Phony SCIFI on TV and in Movies
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:35:07 GMT

jma@reef.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes:

>   > One of the worst uses of Science knowledge is the visible 
>   > phasor beams. We shouldn't be able to see it if its some 
>   > kind of directed energy beam.  Yes-No?
>No.  You can see laser beams that radiate in the visible spectrum, no?
>I would create a phaser beam with visible spectrum to aid the human
>in spotting a hit on the target.
NO! You can see a laser in our atmosphere because part of the beam is
scattered by the air, reaching your eyes.
In space (if we're not in dust or anything), the beam travels straight
towards the target, not reaching your eyes at all - you wouldn't be able
to see it.
You _would_ be able to see the point of impact, though.

Ciao,
Klaus
---
Klaus Breuer, Rudelsweiher Str. 6b, 8520 Erlangen, Germany
** "Geez, I need a _reason_ for everything?" --Calvin 
** "Should I or shouldn't I? -- Too late, I did!" --Hobbes 
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.science:3556 alt.folklore.urban:24399
From: macon@gallifry.Berkeley.EDU (Glen Macon)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: "Normal" body temperature
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:28:33 GMT
Reply-To: macon@cbmvax.commodore.com (Glen Macon)
Organization: COMMODORE West Cester PA

one for your fact bag

hmmm, i learned that when the first thermometers were built
and calibrated, they wanted to have 'normal' body temp as 
100 degrees F...  unfortunatly the thermometers were big... 
very big... so instead of a human body, they used a
cow.  it was inserted in, well, you know, and a reading
was taken.  later it was learned that a cow has a slightly
higher temp then a human.


\_  \_  \_  \_  \_  \_  \_  \_ 

    \_\_\_      \_      \_                  Glen Macon 
   \_            \_\_  \_\_     any-net: macon@cbmvax.commodore.com
   \_             \_ \_\_ \_            Standard disclaimer...    
    \_   \_\_\_    \_  \_  \_   Commodore doesn't endorse what I say, I do
     \_       \_    \_      \_           Who wants to know...
       \_     \_     \_      \_           Robot roll call...  
	 \_\_\_       \_      \_   Cambot!  Gypsy!  Tom Servo!  Croooooow!
	                                           (__)              
 \_  \_  \_  \_  \_  \_  \_  \_  \_  \_            (..)
					    /-------\/  moo
   All those moments will be lost in time, / |     ||
   like tears in the rain.		  *  ||----|| 
					     ^^    ^^
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: using green marker on CDs
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:30:27 GMT

In article <6226@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> ross-c@scs.leeds.ac.uk (R Clement) writes:
>
>Rubbish! I have a CD which I painted green that was a live recording with
>a fair number of playing errors (wrong notes played by the musicians). Not
>only did painting the CD fix all those wrong notes, but the songs that
>were previously sung by Brian May (it was a Queen CD) were now sung by
>Freddie Mercury.
>
>Let's see you explain THAT as a placebo effect!
>
>I assure you that I am being very serious, you just wouldn't believe
>how serious I'm being.
>
>Ross-c (very serious)

Yes, I'm sure you are correct.  This is also the way Ted Turner
colorizes movies.  He gets a LaserVision disk of the black & white
film, runs a green marking pen around the edge and Presto! Color.
Stereo Sound, too.  It even converts some films to Cinerama.  
Serious.  No Foolin'.

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      |  "Nylok lock nuts lose their  |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: 75760,1232    | binding strength after 1 use!"|
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.science:3550 alt.folklore.urban:24366
From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: "Normal" body temperature
Keywords: Great 98.6 it's good to have you back again, Keith
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:58:54 GMT
Reply-To: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Organization: U of Cambridge, England


In article <1992Sep25.214704.5476@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
lls@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lori Smallwood) writes:
|> >In the US it's 98.6, and is so indicated on all thermometers you might buy
|> >here.  There are even some thermometers that are marked in both F and C,
|> >which indicate normal temperature as 98.6F/37.0C.
|> >
|> >I wonder how many different "standards" there are out there?  Anyone
|> >care to post what the "standard" marked on thermometers in your country
|> >is?
|> 
|> I just heard on the news that the "standard" has been lowered to something
|> like 98.2.  Hmmm... I wonder if they miscalculated in the first place, or
|> if we've just gotten colder?  :)

We've got colder, of course.  We're warm-blooded creatures, which is
not to say that we necessarily have hotter blood than our
surroundings, just that we regulate our temperature so that our
metabolism works right.

Now recall that (as everyone knows) global temperatures are rising...
It stands to reason that we need to reduce our body temperatures to
match.  Doesn't it.
--
Robin (dump Brian Kay) Fairbairns                    rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
Claimer: You read it here first.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller)
Subject: Re: Speed of gravity
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:17:20 GMT
Organization: Right Bleedin' Church of Libertine Obfuscatology

In <1992Oct1.114518.16629@infodev.cam.ac.uk> rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:


>However, suppose that all the mass at the centre of the black hole
>were to disappear down some wormhole (NB - I don't even know if I'm
>talking sense here), or suppose that someone drops the sun onto the
>even horizon.  Now there's some dynamic information to be got out.
>_That's_ where you question about the propagation of gravity waves
>over the event horizon arises.  I don't have the faintest idea what GR
>has to say about that.

It's way simpler than that.  

What happens when a massive body MOVES?

Obviously its affect on nearby masses is felt.  But how soon?
-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"
From: enw2049@rigel.tamu.edu (WALKE, ERIK N)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Metal Foil and Fillings
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:37:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep28.144503.5377@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, rf@cl.cam.ac.uk 
(Robin Fairbairns) writes...

       (several threads elided) 

>|> Ever hear of the term "amalgam filling"? They are still commonly used. They
>|> are a mixture of mercury and some other metal. Most of the mercury is
>|> removed from the mixture before the filling material is put in the tooth.
> 
>No.  Amalgams are _alloys_ (i.e., chemical compounds) of mercury and
>the other metal involved.  The dentist has the components in sealed
>containers, where they're held apart.  Once the partition is broken,
>the jolly old dentist with all his tools of torture has a short time
>to stuff the amalgam into his nice newly-created hole in your agony
>before it `sets'.  The setting process does _not_ (as Carl Lydick
>suggests in aanother article) involve evaporation of excess Hg - and a
>jolly good thing too, if you ask me (I don't want my teeth falling out
>as a result of a visit to the dentist).

       It is one hell of a jolly good thing that no excess mercury 
       evaporates inside your mouth-because mercury vapor is INCREDIBLY 
       more toxic and dangerous than even the liquid metal.  Breathing 
       even a small amount of mercury vapor is very bad for your health.

***************************************************************************
  All opinions expressed by this user are well-reasoned and insightful. 
  Needless to say, they are not those of his advisor or university.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Diamonds in my floor wax
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:59:23 GMT

craig@cs.washington.edu (Craig Anderson) writes:
: In article <BvIt5w.AJp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ccuppern@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Cyndi Cuppernell) writes:
: >How many different ways are there to distinguish a real diamond
: >from a fake, acrylic or glass? -- 
: 
: 1.) See if the unknown item scratches glass.  If it doesn't, it's not
: a diamond.  Note that cubic zirconium is hard enough to scratch glass.

So are a number of other diamond substitutes.

: 2.) Examine the item under a 10x jeweler's loupe.
: A diamond will show triangular patterns on the surface.
: (I'm not positive about this)

I doubt if you would see such patterns under 10x magnification. That
is the magnification used to look for internal flaws, such as inclusions.

There are other methods.  Check the refractive index. Check the thermal
conductivity. Check for single or double refraction. Check the light
dispersion. Look at the characteristics of the internal flaws and/or
fractures. See if it melts easily. Check chemical stability. I am sure
there are others that I am not recalling at the moment.

Bill
: -- 
: Craig Anderson
: craig@cs.washington.edu                              Visualize World Spam
From: scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: oversampling (was Re: using green marker on CDs)
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:56:18 GMT

In article <HOD.92Sep29175752@amazon.chem.columbia.edu>, hod@amazon.chem.columbia.edu (Hod Greeley) writes:
> In article <mmaster.2ac79753-e@parnasus.dell.com> mmaster@parnasus.dell.com (Michael Masterson) writes:
>    Oversampling raises the base frequency of the sampling to a much
>    higher level than it was before, so that more gradual filters can be
>    used to ensure that no out of band digital noise gets mixed in with
>    the analog signal.  if you only sample once, then you have to use very
>    steep filters, and they're rougher on the end signal than the more
>    gently sloped filters that are possible with oversampling.
> 
> What you're talking about is just raising the sampling frequency, not
> what I think of as oversampling.  No matter what you do with a CD, you
> can't change the original sampling rate, so you can't help out your
> filters by increasing the bandwith.

Ah, but you can!  The way oversampling works is by sending samples into
the D to A converter at a higher rate than the original sampling frequency
(hence OVERsampling).  For 8 times oversampling, you send 7 extra samples
into the converter for each original sample -- that raises the frequency
of the digital noise, moving it farther away from the analog signal and
thus making it easier to filter out.  The tricky question, of course, is
where do you get the extra samples to feed into the D to A?  There's no
way to interpolate reasonable values since you don't have sufficient
information to do so (thank you, Mr. Nyquist), so what to do?  Since the
signal could literally have done anything between samples, there's no
good reason to use any particular value as opposed to any other, so the
simplest thing to do is just use zeros.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: lawrence.jones@sdrc.com               IBMMAIL: USSDR7DR at IBMMAIL
I can feel my brain beginning to atrophy already. -- Calvin
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.science:3527 alt.folklore.urban:24309
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: "Normal" body temperature
Date: 26 Sep 1992 20:13:59 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep25.214704.5476@news.acns.nwu.edu>, lls@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lori Smallwood) writes:
>I just heard on the news that the "standard" has been lowered to something
>like 98.2.  Hmmm... I wonder if they miscalculated in the first place, or
>if we've just gotten colder?  :)

Or maybe the original standard was set in a doctor's office or a hospital? :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: craig@cs.washington.edu (Craig Anderson)
Subject: Re: Diamonds in my floor wax
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 01:49:48 GMT

In article <BvIt5w.AJp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ccuppern@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Cyndi Cuppernell) writes:
>How many different ways are there to distinguish a real diamond
>from a fake, acrylic or glass? -- 

1.) See if the unknown item scratches glass.  If it doesn't, it's not
a diamond.  Note that cubic zirconium is hard enough to scratch glass.

2.) Examine the item under a 10x jeweler's loupe.
A diamond will show triangular patterns on the surface.
(I'm not positive about this)
-- 
Craig Anderson
craig@cs.washington.edu                              Visualize World Spam
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: mmaster@parnasus.dell.com (Michael Masterson)
Subject: Re: oversampling (was Re: using green marker on CDs)
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:37:55 GMT

>This is a tangential question, but if the error rate is so low, what
>purpose does oversampling serve?  Is this more industry hype?  If,
>say, an 8x pass over the data is required to achieve this level of
>accuracy, that would suggest to me that the error rate must be much
>higher than you claim.  Am I missing something?  If the rate of
>uncorrectable errors is as low as you suggest, it would seem
>superfluous.  Is oversampling not what I think it is?

in order, no, yes, no, right.

Oversampling raises the base frequency of the sampling to a much
higher level than it was before, so that more gradual filters can be
used to ensure that no out of band digital noise gets mixed in with
the analog signal.  if you only sample once, then you have to use very
steep filters, and they're rougher on the end signal than the more
gently sloped filters that are possible with oversampling.

due to the physical layout of the cd, it'd not be possible to do what
you're suggesting, unless, maybe, you had eight laser pickups and a
lot of memory to buffer the data.
-- 
Operated by professionals, do not try at home, see your dealer for details.
Your mileage may vary. Call before digging. Best if eaten by date on package.
Apply only to affected area. Batteries not included. Member FDIC.
Michael Masterson                                   mmaster@parnasus.dell.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: ketil@svale.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: Phony SCIFI on TV and in Movies
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
	<mmaster.2ab8a05e-e@parnasus.dell.com>,<10327@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
	<19ijn7INN9l9@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:19:36

In article <19ijn7INN9l9@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

   >
   >1) Space craft that bank when making turns
   >   (Every movie except 2001)

   Well, if you don't have artificial gravity, banking during the turns will
   probably make things more comfortable for the crew.

Ever play 'Elite'?

For those who haven't, you stter a spacecraft that, basically, has no
way of turning in a vertical plane, i.e. no rudder.  So you bank and
climb instead.

   >7) Computers with huge banks of unlabeled blinking lights and meaningless
   >   printouts

   Real computers have them, too.  Ever look at the front panel of a Touchstone
   Delta?

Or a connection machine.  Great for debugging. :-)

   >8) Computers that beep too much
   >   (during computations, or on every keypress (ESPECIALLY PATRIOT GAMES!!!!))

   Quite a few computers and keyboards really DO have just that sort of annoying
   keyclack.

I've never seen a terminal that beeps every time it *prints* a
character on screen, though.  Xcept in movies, of course.  Anybody
seen, uh, To The End of the World, I think it was called?  Talk about
high-tech chrome.  And anybody notice c-code scrolling past in the
'camera' (at the bottom) *sigh* This is supposed to be a futuristic
hi-tech society, and they haven't invented 'more' yet?

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Subject: Re: Speed of gravity
Keywords: gravity
Reply-To: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:06:55 GMT


In article <BvBtuo.C4D@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jdg41088@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(Pickaxe) writes:
|> Here's something that I've been thinking about. What is the speed of
gravity?
|> Imagine a mass that causes a force on another mass somewhere else. If I were
|> to change the mass of the original mass by some means (nuclear for example),
|> how long would it take before the other mass "notices" the change?
I'm guessing
|> it would be at the speed of light, or maybe I just don't understand enough
|> general relativity to be able to answer this myself.

Yup.  GR made predictions about these things called gravity waves
which carry information about the change of mass (e.g., supernovas -
it has to be a *big* event to stand a chance of being remotely
detectable) or about the change of conformation of mass (e.g., neutron
star orbiting a black hole).

There was a reasonable article, in Scientific American (I think it
was) a few months ago, describing a proposed(?) gravity-wave
observatory.  To date, I believe the only actual evidence is the
orbiting massive object scenario: there are binary something-or-others
that are losing energy (i.e., changing their orbital parameters) in a
way consistent with its radiation away as gravity waves.

|> things that make you go hmmmm....

Fair enough.  The universe is a pretty strange place.
--
Robin (dump Brian Kay) Fairbairns                    rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.science:3558 alt.folklore.urban:24407
From: APPMS@CUNYVM.BITNET (Alexandre Pechtchanski)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: "Normal" body temperature
Date: 25 Sep 92 20:38:45 GMT
 <1992Sep23.190035.11661@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>
 <1992Sep24.112128.16933@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
 <1992Sep25.194708.11692@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Sep25.194708.11692@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, barth@cbnewsd.cb.att.com
(barth.richards) says:
>
>In article <1992Sep24.112128.16933@infodev.cam.ac.uk> rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin
>Fairbairns) writes:
>
>>Fahrenheit measurement for human temperature, believes 98.4; this also
>>appears on any Fahrenheit body-thermometer you might buy here.
>
>In the US it's 98.6, and is so indicated on all thermometers you might buy
>here.  There are even some thermometers that are marked in both F and C,
>which indicate normal temperature as 98.6F/37.0C.
>
>I wonder how many different "standards" there are out there?  Anyone
>care to post what the "standard" marked on thermometers in your country
>is?
>
In Russia (x-USSR) 36.6 C was considered normal;  it was customarily
measured under the amprit (I always considered references to anal
or oral measurements as funny -- until I get here).  Actually, "normal"
was everything between 35.5 and 37.5 - I'm not sure about lower limit,
but you couldn't get health exemption from work if your thermometer
showed <= 37.5 (as a rule).
-------

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alex Pechtchanski, GCRC System Manager   Phone: (212) 241-1804
Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York  :-------------------------
internet: desnick@msvax.mssm.edu      :#include <std.disclaimer>
bitnet:   appms@cunyvm                :
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions?  If you find one, please let me know...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: oversampling (was Re: using green marker on CDs)
Date: 3 Oct 92 19:31:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.160706.29950@panix.com>, fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller) writes:
> if the signal value drops to zero so suddenly - isn't that sticking in a
> very sharp edge?  In other words, very high frequency components.  These
> WILL show up when you convert back to analogue.  Why, because you are now
> restoring the waveform AS IF you sampled 4 or 8 times as fast.  You have to
> introduce extra samples that do not add information above the cutoff
> frequency (1/2 the sampling rate).  If it were as simple as inserting 0's,
> then there would not be nearly as much hoo-ha about it.

Yep, that's *exactly* what happens, and it's what you *want* to happen.
Very high frequency components are a lot easier to filter out than ones
that are very close to the signal of interest.  The whole point of
oversampling is just to move the reconstruction noise away from the
desired signal in order to make it easier to separate them.  It really
is as simple as inserting zeros -- remember that most of the hoo-ha
comes from marketroids.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: lawrence.jones@sdrc.com               IBMMAIL: USSDR7DR at IBMMAIL
Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend. -- Calvin