 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006Marks and Sparks-Helen Choice of Stores
Surely Helen loves Marks and Sparks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1888977,00.html . She's a grammar maven.  SignatureGator Bait > Surely Helen loves Marks and Sparks. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1888977,00.html . She's a grammar > maven. Sure, like many women here in the UK I swear by M&S for my undies; (I buy my giraffe's at another outlet). Some of M&S' food is pretty damned good too, but I'm quite disappointed to see what Bill has drawn our attention to. (I bet RichA can't see what the fuss is about. He doesn't understand the difference between it's and its.) A friend of mine emailed me today about an advertisement he saw in our foremost weekly scientific journal, for a certain Swedish vehicle: it speaks of a load space of 1273 cubic litres. Think about it. H > > Surely Helen loves Marks and Sparks. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1888977,00.html . She's a grammar [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bet RichA can't see what the fuss is about. He doesn't understand the > difference between it's and its.) Either way the knights that say nee don't like it. Scott >> Surely Helen loves Marks and Sparks. >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1888977,00.html . She's a grammar [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >foremost weekly scientific journal, for a certain Swedish vehicle: it speaks >of a load space of 1273 cubic litres. Think about it. Since some of the current theories require up to eleven dimensions "cubic litres" could make sense, especially as it is a scientific journal. I am aware that they have a wall between editorial and advertising, and that it is not the responsibility of advertising staff to query anything that is legal, but to for someone to make such a mistake on page 45! SignatureIan G8ILZ : >> Surely Helen loves Marks and Sparks. : >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1888977,00.html . She's a grammar [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] : to query anything that is legal, but to for someone to make such a : mistake on page 45! sorry but a scientific journal won't have cubic litres. If it is measuring capacity you can have litres, or cubic inches, a litre is a litre regardless of the shape. >: >A friend of mine emailed me today about an advertisement he saw in our >: >foremost weekly scientific journal, for a certain Swedish vehicle: it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >capacity you can have litres, or cubic inches, a litre is a litre regardless >of the shape. See tesseract. SignatureIan G8ILZ Helen skrev: > A friend of mine emailed me today about an advertisement he saw in our > foremost weekly scientific journal, for a certain Swedish vehicle: it speaks > of a load space of 1273 cubic litres. Think about it. Well of course. The number of spherical litres going into the load space would be considerably smaller, wouldn't it? Jan Böhme >Helen skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Well of course. The number of spherical litres going into the load >space would be considerably smaller, wouldn't it? But the number of one yotta litre spheres would not be much less than the capacity, and the number of one litre cubes you could fit in to a cube of 0.999 litre would be much less; good job that we have better ways of measuring size. SignatureIan G8ILZ >>Helen skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >cube of 0.999 litre would be much less; good job that we have better >ways of measuring size. Ignoring edge effects, the packing fraction of spheres (or any other shape) does not depend on the actual size of the shapes. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>>Helen skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >David Yawn. A cube having a volume of one litre will not hold any spheres having an individual volume of one litre. A cube having a volume of one litre will hold only one sphere having an individual volume of one half of a litre. . . . A cube having a volume of one litre will hold nearly 10^100 spheres having an individual volume of 10^-100 of a litre. SignatureIan G8ILZ >>>>Well of course. The number of spherical litres going into the load >>>>space would be considerably smaller, wouldn't it? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Yawn. Yes, you must be tired to miss the point. >A cube having a volume of one litre will not hold any spheres having an >individual volume of one litre. I said "ignoring edge effects", i.e. the space to be filled is assumed to be very large compared with the size of the spheres. >A cube having a volume of one litre will hold only one sphere having an >individual volume of one half of a litre. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >A cube having a volume of one litre will hold nearly 10^100 spheres >having an individual volume of 10^-100 of a litre. Obvious, but not relevant to the point. BTW, I don't get the point about the "one yotta-litre spheres". Yotta is 10^24, so these would be mighty big spheres. Did you mean yocta (10^-24)? David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>>>>Well of course. The number of spherical litres going into the load >>>>>space would be considerably smaller, wouldn't it? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Obvious, but not relevant to the point. Actually, my mistake (not concentrating!) - not at all obvious. The closest you can get for packing spheres into space is much less than 1 - haven't time to look up the packing fraction for hexagonal close packing right now, but it's about 0.7 or so. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>>>>Well of course. The number of spherical litres going into the load >>>>>space would be considerably smaller, wouldn't it? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >I said "ignoring edge effects", i.e. the space to be filled is assumed >to be very large compared with the size of the spheres. We were not talking abut indefinitely large volumes, hence the edge effect can not be ignored. You also can not ignore the shape of the volume. >>A cube having a volume of one litre will hold only one sphere having >>an individual volume of one half of a litre. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Obvious, but not relevant to the point. Completely relevant, to the real world, that is the world in which cars and water tanks exist, perhaps it is not your world. >BTW, I don't get the point about the "one yotta-litre spheres". Yotta >is 10^24, so these would be mighty big spheres. Did you mean yocta >(10^-24)? Thank you, indeed it should have been. SignatureIan G8ILZ : >>>>>Well of course. The number of spherical litres going into the load : >>>>>space would be considerably smaller, wouldn't it? [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] : >is 10^24, so these would be mighty big spheres. Did you mean yocta : >(10^-24)? The whole point of measuring capacity in litres is that water being a fluid will fit the shape of the container so 1 litre volume can be compared with any other shape/container. >: >>. >: >>. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >will fit the shape of the container so 1 litre volume can be compared with >any other shape/container. Ian, the point being discussed was how many spheres of a given size could be packed in a given car boot space. Water was not mentioned. Of course, if you want to fill your car with water, feel free.... David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>>A cube having a volume of one litre will not hold any spheres having >>>an individual volume of one litre. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >effect can not be ignored. You also can not ignore the shape of the >volume. I think, from the POV of a "one yocta-litre sphere" (10^-24 litres) a one litre cube could be considered to be "very large". And, recall, you were the one who raised the spectre of 10^-24 litre spheres. >>>A cube having a volume of one litre will hold only one sphere having >>>an individual volume of one half of a litre. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Completely relevant, to the real world, that is the world in which cars >and water tanks exist, perhaps it is not your world. I think it's a bit rich for a person to put forward an example involving 10^-24 litre spheres and then turn round and accuse *me* of not discussing the real world.... And you are still letting this irrelevant issue distract you from the point I made, that the volume of spheres you can pack into a cube will have a much smaller volume than that of the cube. The edge effects you chide me for ignoring will simply make the fraction *smaller*. >>BTW, I don't get the point about the "one yotta-litre spheres". Yotta >>is 10^24, so these would be mighty big spheres. Did you mean yocta >>(10^-24)? > >Thank you, indeed it should have been. Noted; not a problem, we all make finger-slips! Enough, if you haven't got my point yet I'm done pounding it. David SignatureDavid Littlewood Helen skrev: > A friend of mine emailed me today about an advertisement he saw in our > foremost weekly scientific journal, for a certain Swedish vehicle: it > speaks > of a load space of 1273 cubic litres. Think about it. Well of course. The number of spherical litres going into the load space would be considerably smaller, wouldn't it? That was sarcasm wasn't it? Jan Böhme > > Surely Helen loves Marks and Sparks. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1888977,00.html . She's a grammar [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > H I had assumed that you were a Victoria's Secret lady. Well, you know what happens when one assumes. SignatureBill >>> Surely Helen loves Marks and Sparks. >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1888977,00.html . She's a grammar [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> foremost weekly scientific journal, for a certain Swedish vehicle: it speaks >> of a load space of 1273 cubic litres. Think about it. I did. It hurts my head to think how large that is. Although smaller than the same number of "cubic gallons." > I had assumed that you were a Victoria's Secret lady. Well, you know > what happens when one assumes. That'd be Helen's secret..... Signaturejohn mcwilliams > > Surely Helen loves Marks and Sparks. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1888977,00.html . She's a grammar [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > foremost weekly scientific journal, for a certain Swedish vehicle: it speaks > of a load space of 1273 cubic litres. Think about it. Your undergarments, whether they come from M&S or Walmart are likely the same boxer shorts made by the same Bangladesh sweat shop. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.