If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Aww crap, we're not gonna have to switch to metric time now are we?   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, Atomic Clock, optical lattices, International System of Units, Paris Observatory, microwaves, metric time  
•       •       •

21683 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jul 2013 at 11:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-10 10:33:50 PM

Hollie Maea:

GeneralJim: You're not getting this, are you?

There are like 5 or 6 of them in this thread making the same braindead argument.
Welcome to Fark?
 
2013-07-10 10:44:12 PM

Hollie Maea:

GeneralJim: Also, global warming alarmists will count that change as proof of disastrous warming, and send trillions of dollars to India and China.

Doesn't that strawman belong in the "Global warming in 1913 LOL" thread?  Or did they scare you away by turning it into a boobies thread?

Boobies don't frighten me...   EIP

topcultured.com
Neener, neener.
 
2013-07-10 10:50:02 PM

SewerSquirrels:

Current GPS is theoretically accurate to about 14 ft. if I did my math right. Most receivers are accurate down to about 100 ft. (again my math). Would the new clock reduce the theoretical down to under 5 ft.?
It's not linear.  There are orbital inaccuracies, too, and those would NOT be helped by better accuracy in the time standard.  My guess would be it would increase the accuracy potential from 14 ft to perhaps 9 ft.   Just a spitball number, though.
 
2013-07-10 10:59:24 PM

Bacontastesgood:

Not even close to being true. I just got a new rack, and like all others it's for 19" wide equipment.

images.sodahead.com
What a new rack might look like

Congratulations on your new rack.   Good luck on finding someone with 19" equipment...

 
2013-07-10 11:12:07 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Does anybody really know what time it is?


Does anybody really care?
 
2013-07-11 02:03:17 AM

Teaser: [i41.tinypic.com image 700x662]


Rest of the world looks too stupid to understand how do divide by anything other than 10.
 
2013-07-11 02:31:56 AM

Korzine: Every speed limit sign, mile marker, interstate exit sign would have to be replaced


[imOKwiththis.jpg]

They're supposed to be working on resigning I-19 and converting it into non-metric. They replaced all the non-distance signage last year, plus a few signs that were already in non-metric at the north end. Most other distance-indicating signage hasn't been replaced yet, although there are several between Tucson and Green Valley that were replaced recently enough that they're in ClearView (and reflect headlights). That said, the exit numbers haven't changed (yet), even though their numbers were based off km posts.

/ I'd like to think that they're stalling for time
// I don't, but I'd like to
 
2013-07-11 05:33:40 AM
The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years -


There is no way they could possibly  know this.  I get that they are extrapolating, but there is no way they can predict what would happen with the physics of the clock into the future..

here, my new "calculator watch" only loses 1 second every 800 million years.  prove me wrong.  you cant?  then I want an article saying how awesome this thing is so I can sell my make believe technology.

/"science" is dead, make believe is all that remains.
 
2013-07-11 07:12:31 AM

I sound fat:

The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years -


There is no way they could possibly  know this.  I get that they are extrapolating, but there is no way they can predict what would happen with the physics of the clock into the future..

here, my new "calculator watch" only loses 1 second every 800 million years.  prove me wrong.  you cant?  then I want an article saying how awesome this thing is so I can sell my make believe technology.

/"science" is dead, make believe is all that remains.

Not true.  Stability can be measured.  With great stability, the drift over long periods of time can be calculated by extrapolating from the drift for much shorter times.  Unless you expect the laws of physics to change in the areas involved, you CAN know how much will be lost/gained over time.  And, yes, the laws of physics HAVE changed over time, but generally just a tad, and over multiple billions of years.
 
2013-07-11 09:03:46 AM

I sound fat: The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years -


There is no way they could possibly  know this.  I get that they are extrapolating, but there is no way they can predict what would happen with the physics of the clock into the future..

here, my new "calculator watch" only loses 1 second every 800 million years.  prove me wrong.  you cant?  then I want an article saying how awesome this thing is so I can sell my make believe technology.

/"science" is dead, make believe is all that remains.


With respect to Hollie Maea's point; Nobody gives a crap if their watch is off by even a minute over the course of a year, but if you want to know for certain if a neutrino is breaking the speed limit as it passes through the Earth, then you're going to need a pretty accurate clock. This clock may not be relevant to you, but it is relevant.


And also, what GeneralJim said.


"Science" is only "dead" to the people who have been deprived of an education effective enough to allow them to understand it. So basically I'm calling you stupid, but at least I imply it's not entirely your fault.
 
2013-07-11 10:54:30 AM

Mikey1969: I would have no problem with metric time. It would make more sense than this 60/60/24 thing. Of course, current timekeeping makes far more sense than 8 oz in a cup, 2 cups in a quart, 4 quarts in a gallon... 12 inches in a foot, 5,280 feet in a mile, what the FARK is up with that? I think even metric sex would help, a base-10 number of thrusts before you're done... ;-P


Acutally our whole numeric foundation is flawed.  We should start with a base 8 number system(Octal).
 
2013-07-11 07:22:42 PM

pdee:

Acutally our whole numeric foundation is flawed.  We should start with a base 8 number system(Octal).
WTF does that even mean?   Any radix notation works the same, irrespective of the radix involved.  The number ten happens to have quite a few natural connections, and is a very reasonable choice.   Outside of not needing the "8" and "9" characters, what do you see as advantages of octal, or disadvantages of decimal?
 
2013-07-11 07:52:49 PM

GeneralJim: pdee: Acutally our whole numeric foundation is flawed.  We should start with a base 8 number system(Octal).WTF does that even mean?   Any radix notation works the same, irrespective of the radix involved.  The number ten happens to have quite a few natural connections, and is a very reasonable choice.   Outside of not needing the "8" and "9" characters, what do you see as advantages of octal, or disadvantages of decimal?


And why would octal be better than base-12, which is superior to decimal?
 
2013-07-11 08:33:36 PM

AverageAmericanGuy:

And why would octal be better than base-12, which is superior to decimal?


i44.tinypic.com
That's radixist!
 
Displayed 14 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report