On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:29:04 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:32:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:41:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Christian McArdle" wrote in
message
. net...

Madness!!!! I can just see a board designer,
saying "the next job is doing a bridge". get real.
Well reality passed the snots by a long time ago.

You'll find that once you get past a
certain level, there isn't actually
much difference between engineering
disciplines. It is basically
mathematics.

Many can adapt to the mathematics of different fields, but designing
an
electronic board and designing a bridge are miles apart, irrespective
of
sums.

The point is that equipped with the educational backgound, it is
possible for an individual to embark on a career doing either and to
adapt to doing completely new things.

OK, a board designer joins Ove Arup as a bridge designer. How long will
it
be before he does anything useful at all? I would say about 5 years, and
only after course on bridge building. You make sound as if all these
snotty
uni people can just flit from one field to another and mater it in weeks.
Please get real.

Nobody said weeks, or any other timescale.

Personally, I have done analogue, digital, RF, power and
microprocessor systems design - hardware, machine code, assembler, C
and other high level language development; control systems, audio and
video systems. I've then designed and used real time and other
operating systems, networking since before ethernet and IP became
commonplace and datacomms, mainframe and minicomputer
environments.....

All related in some way. Now this bridge building.

A very broad range. I'm quite certain that should I ever have an
interest in so doing that I could understand bridge building or any
other engineering discipline. The basic principles are the same, as
are the mathematics required to understand them.





---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:29:04 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:32:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:41:57 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:


"Christian McArdle" wrote in
message
. net...

Madness!!!! I can just see a board designer,
saying "the next job is doing a bridge". get real.
Well reality passed the snots by a long time ago.

You'll find that once you get past a
certain level, there isn't actually
much difference between engineering
disciplines. It is basically
mathematics.

Many can adapt to the mathematics of different fields, but
designing
an
electronic board and designing a bridge are miles apart,
irrespective
of
sums.

The point is that equipped with the educational backgound, it is
possible for an individual to embark on a career doing either and to
adapt to doing completely new things.

OK, a board designer joins Ove Arup as a bridge designer. How long
will
it
be before he does anything useful at all? I would say about 5 years,
and
only after course on bridge building. You make sound as if all these
snotty
uni people can just flit from one field to another and mater it in
weeks.
Please get real.

Nobody said weeks, or any other timescale.

Personally, I have done analogue, digital, RF, power and
microprocessor systems design - hardware, machine code, assembler, C
and other high level language development; control systems, audio and
video systems. I've then designed and used real time and other
operating systems, networking since before ethernet and IP became
commonplace and datacomms, mainframe and minicomputer
environments.....

All related in some way. Now this bridge building.

A very broad range. I'm quite certain that should I ever have an
interest in so doing that I could understand bridge building or any
other engineering discipline. The basic principles are the same, as
are the mathematics required to understand them.

Go to Ove Arup and say I want to build bridges. they will say, what, you
have an electrical degree? You want to build bridges now? The door is over
there sonny boy! As you are being carried over to the door shouting, "but
know some sums", they will look in amazement, and ring the clinic.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Go to Ove Arup and say I want to build bridges. they will say, what, you
have an electrical degree? You want to build bridges now? The door is over
there sonny boy! As you are being carried over to the door shouting, "but
know some sums", they will look in amazement, and ring the clinic.

You are arguing about a point that wasn't being made.

The discussion was about the similar nature of different branches of
engineering, especially with respect to the principles and mathematics
involved, as well as the principles of university learning and its
broad applicability.

I'm sorry if you have difficulty understanding that, but not really
surprised.

Why do you think that university degree courses allow students to
switch at different stages to other disciplines without restarting if
there weren't large common elements?






---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Go to Ove Arup and say I want to build bridges. they will say, what, you
have an electrical degree? You want to build bridges now? The door is
over
there sonny boy! As you are being carried over to the door shouting,
"but
know some sums", they will look in amazement, and ring the clinic.

You are arguing about a point that wasn't being made.

The discussion was about the similar nature of different branches of
engineering, especially with respect to the principles and mathematics
involved, as well as the principles of university learning and its
broad applicability.

You make it sound as it you can fit from bridge building to electronics at
will. Please?



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:45:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Go to Ove Arup and say I want to build bridges. they will say, what, you
have an electrical degree? You want to build bridges now? The door is
over
there sonny boy! As you are being carried over to the door shouting,
"but
know some sums", they will look in amazement, and ring the clinic.

You are arguing about a point that wasn't being made.

The discussion was about the similar nature of different branches of
engineering, especially with respect to the principles and mathematics
involved, as well as the principles of university learning and its
broad applicability.

You make it sound as it you can fit from bridge building to electronics at
will. Please?

No I didn't.

All that I said in essence was that a large proportion of the
principles are the same and that a university education helps with
adaptability to different fields and new technologies.



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

I know a number of people who have trained in bridge building and then done
electronics, finance, computing. Do these count?
Regards
Capitol

In message , IMM
writes


Electrical and electronic are now very different fields and have been
for a
very long time.

Only in jumped up technical colleges where its not to be expected that
you will be taught to think for yourself.

********!! Snotty uni attitude again. Snotty uni's don't teach properly,
as they give all the top jobs to themselves, so why know about something
useful.

The ordinary degree at cambridge is in engineering only.

Covering everything from building bridges via heat engines to electronics.

Madness!!!! I can just see a board designer, saying "the next job is doing
a bridge". get real.

Why? we had to design a bridge in the first year engineering course.
When I look back it was more about engineering in tolerances and
producing the most cost effective solution for a given problem, which is
very important in engineering.

Real life engineering is very much about efficient solutions to
problems, the principles travel across the various disciplines


--
geoff

In message , IMM
writes

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...

Madness!!!! I can just see a board designer,
saying "the next job is doing a bridge". get real.
Well reality passed the snots by a long time ago.

You'll find that once you get past a
certain level, there isn't actually
much difference between engineering
disciplines. It is basically
mathematics.

Many can adapt to the mathematics of different fields, but designing an
electronic board and designing a bridge are miles apart, irrespective of
sums.

Obviously, there is a certain amount of specialisation into fields,
but this is only about 20-30% of the game. About 70-80% is identical
between
disciplines.

What planet are you on?

Your inability not to grasp fairly basic concepts never fails to amaze
me
--
geoff

In message , IMM
writes


Obviously, there is a certain amount of specialisation into fields,
but this is only about 20-30% of the game. About 70-80% is identical
between
disciplines.

What planet are you on?

Talking of which, while you're over there IMM, can you use your
technical prowess and give Beagle 2 a kick and see if it comes back to
life
--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes


Obviously, there is a certain amount of specialisation into fields,
but this is only about 20-30% of the game. About 70-80% is identical
between
disciplines.

What planet are you on?

Talking of which, while you're over there IMM, can you use your
technical prowess and give Beagle 2 a kick and see if it comes back to
life

LOL there Maxie. Do you post to that Yorkshire ng too?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...

Madness!!!! I can just see a board designer,
saying "the next job is doing a bridge". get real.
Well reality passed the snots by a long time ago.

You'll find that once you get past a
certain level, there isn't actually
much difference between engineering
disciplines. It is basically
mathematics.

Many can adapt to the mathematics of different fields, but designing an
electronic board and designing a bridge are miles apart, irrespective of
sums.

Obviously, there is a certain amount of specialisation into fields,
but this is only about 20-30% of the game. About 70-80% is identical
between
disciplines.

What planet are you on?

Your inability not to grasp fairly basic concepts never fails to amaze
me

Maxie, what a whopper! LOL


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes


Electrical and electronic are now very different fields and have been
for a
very long time.

Only in jumped up technical colleges where its not to be expected that
you will be taught to think for yourself.

********!! Snotty uni attitude again. Snotty uni's don't teach
properly,
as they give all the top jobs to themselves, so why know about something
useful.

The ordinary degree at cambridge is in engineering only.

Covering everything from building bridges via heat engines to
electronics.

Madness!!!! I can just see a board designer, saying "the next job is
doing
a bridge". get real.

Why? we had to design a bridge in the first year engineering course.
When I look back it was more about engineering in tolerances and
producing the most cost effective solution for a given problem, which is
very important in engineering.

Real life engineering is very much about efficient solutions to
problems, the principles travel across the various disciplines

SO was this the Humber bridge you all designed?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:45:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes


Electrical and electronic are now very different fields and have been
for a
very long time.

Only in jumped up technical colleges where its not to be expected that
you will be taught to think for yourself.

********!! Snotty uni attitude again. Snotty uni's don't teach
properly,
as they give all the top jobs to themselves, so why know about something
useful.

The ordinary degree at cambridge is in engineering only.

Covering everything from building bridges via heat engines to
electronics.

Madness!!!! I can just see a board designer, saying "the next job is
doing
a bridge". get real.

Why? we had to design a bridge in the first year engineering course.
When I look back it was more about engineering in tolerances and
producing the most cost effective solution for a given problem, which is
very important in engineering.

Real life engineering is very much about efficient solutions to
problems, the principles travel across the various disciplines

SO was this the Humber bridge you all designed?


Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.

I must admit that to me it has always been completely obvious.

I'm amazed that you can't grasp this and are being so tunnel visioned
about it. Your horizon appears to be very close by.






---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:45:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM

writes


Electrical and electronic are now very different fields and have
been
for a
very long time.

Only in jumped up technical colleges where its not to be expected
that
you will be taught to think for yourself.

********!! Snotty uni attitude again. Snotty uni's don't teach
properly,
as they give all the top jobs to themselves, so why know about
something
useful.

The ordinary degree at cambridge is in engineering only.

Covering everything from building bridges via heat engines to
electronics.

Madness!!!! I can just see a board designer, saying "the next job is
doing
a bridge". get real.

Why? we had to design a bridge in the first year engineering course.
When I look back it was more about engineering in tolerances and
producing the most cost effective solution for a given problem, which
is
very important in engineering.

Real life engineering is very much about efficient solutions to
problems, the principles travel across the various disciplines

SO was this the Humber bridge you all designed?


Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.

Your horizon appears to be very close by.

You have demonstrated that you lack basic common logic.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:08:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


all the top jobs to themselves, so why know about
something
usef"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:45:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM


Why? we had to design a bridge in the first year engineering course.
When I look back it was more about engineering in tolerances and
producing the most cost effective solution for a given problem, which
is
very important in engineering.

Real life engineering is very much about efficient solutions to
problems, the principles travel across the various disciplines

SO was this the Humber bridge you all designed?


Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.

You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , Andy Hall
writes
Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.

You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?

Of course he does, he learned how to make a fruit cake in HE
--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Hall
writes
Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is
honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.

You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?

I went to one. And I recall no course that did bridge building a
electronics all in one.

Of course he does, he learned how to make a fruit cake in HE

LOL. Very good Maxie. Yo are a one.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:35:51 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Andy Hall
writes
Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.

You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?

Of course he does, he learned how to make a fruit cake in HE

Make or be?

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:35:51 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Andy Hall
writes
Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is
honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.

You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?

Of course he does, he learned how to make a fruit cake in HE

Make or be?

LOL Great one Andy, straight from the Vicar of Dibley. You are a one.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

IMM wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , IMM
writes

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
x.net...


Madness!!!! I can just see a board designer,
saying "the next job is doing a bridge". get real.
Well reality passed the snots by a long time ago.

You'll find that once you get past a
certain level, there isn't actually
much difference between engineering
disciplines. It is basically
mathematics.

Many can adapt to the mathematics of different fields, but designing an
electronic board and designing a bridge are miles apart, irrespective of
sums.


Obviously, there is a certain amount of specialisation into fields,
but this is only about 20-30% of the game. About 70-80% is identical

between

disciplines.

What planet are you on?


Your inability not to grasp fairly basic concepts never fails to amaze
me


Maxie, what a whopper! LOL



What he meant to say was 'Whopper! Do you want fries with that?'



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , IMM
writes

"Christian McArdle" wrote in
message
x.net...


Madness!!!! I can just see a board designer,
saying "the next job is doing a bridge". get real.
Well reality passed the snots by a long time ago.

You'll find that once you get past a
certain level, there isn't actually
much difference between engineering
disciplines. It is basically
mathematics.

Many can adapt to the mathematics of different fields, but designing an
electronic board and designing a bridge are miles apart, irrespective
of
sums.


Obviously, there is a certain amount of specialisation into fields,
but this is only about 20-30% of the game. About 70-80% is identical

between

disciplines.

What planet are you on?


Your inability not to grasp fairly basic concepts never fails to amaze
me


Maxie, what a whopper! LOL

What he meant to say was 'Whopper! Do you want fries with that?'

More LOL.


---


Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:45:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.


That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.



I see., You are talking from personal experience here, not blind stupid
prejudice of course.



Your horizon appears to be very close by.


You have demonstrated that you lack basic common logic.


You have demonstrated that you are not an engineer. Or a scientist, and
can't do maths, or construct a grammatically correct and intelligble
sentence.

Yep. A computer scientist without a doubt!

Andy Hall wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:08:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.


You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?



Course not. He learn BASIC and theery of yoonix at a poly.

IMM wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , Andy Hall
writes

Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is

honed.

The snot uni did not hone it.

You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?


I went to one. And I recall no course that did bridge building a
electronics all in one.


It was a poly, not a uni, IMM.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:45:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.


That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is
honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.

LOL. Such fun.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , Andy Hall
writes

Let's see now. It seems to me that we are up to at least four people
now who know the concept that different facets of technology and
engineering have a common basis.

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is

honed.

The snot uni did not hone it.

You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?


I went to one. And I recall no course that did bridge building a
electronics all in one.

It was a poly, not a uni, IMM.

You said you went to a snotty uni! If you went to a Poly you are many points
up now.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:08:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is
honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.


You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?

Course not. He learn BASIC and theery of yoonix at a poly.

Nope. 100% incorrect.

In message , IMM
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:08:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is
honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.


You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?

Course not. He learn BASIC and theery of yoonix at a poly.

Nope. 100% incorrect.


He failed to learn BASIC and theery of yoonix at a poly then
--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:08:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

That is obvious. It is taught at base level. Then in a degree it is
honed.
The snot uni did not hone it.


You really have no idea about what happens in universities do you?

Course not. He learn BASIC and theery of yoonix at a poly.

Nope. 100% incorrect.


He failed to learn BASIC and theery of yoonix at a poly then
--
geoff

LOL there Maxie.

Can I ask a serious question regarding TFT's? I am looking to purchase one
(17") and wonder what I should be looking for in the specs, contrast ratio,
brightness cd/m2, etc, means nowt to me. Is a higher figure better than a
lower figure? Any pointers in this directoin are welcome. Incedently I am
considering either the Ilyama 430S or the Axive S730
www.avixe.com/PRODUCT_S730.ASP

Thanks in advance

John

I can't believe this thread has gone on so long - look it's simple -
maths drools - and matey who expects Unis to provide vocational training
is a complete nutter (although I guess we'll all be dumbed down
eventually) ...

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:30:00 +0000, Highplains Drifter
wrote:

I can't believe this thread has gone on so long - look it's simple -
maths drools - and matey who expects Unis to provide vocational training
is a complete nutter (although I guess we'll all be dumbed down
eventually) ...

Try starting a new thread about the merits of imperial measurements
over metric, then you'll get to see how long a thread can get.....

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

Try starting a new thread about the merits of imperial measurements
over metric, then you'll get to see how long a thread can get.....

Oh god. Don't get me started on imperial measurements. How many cubits in a
bushel? Give me a break. I can't believe I have to go to France to get a
decent tape measure without those grocer's apostrophe loving "middle
england" units getting on my tits.

Christian.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:24:03 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Oh god. Don't get me started on imperial measurements. How many cubits in a
bushel? Give me a break. I can't believe I have to go to France to get a
decent tape measure without those grocer's apostrophe loving "middle
england" units getting on my tits.

Maybe I'm an old fogey, but I prefer inches, 1/8ths and 1/16ths to
millimetres any day.

I know I'm 6 feet tall. I'm not so sure if I'm 1.72m tall though

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:07:23 +0000, PoP wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:24:03 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Oh god. Don't get me started on imperial measurements. How many cubits in a
bushel? Give me a break. I can't believe I have to go to France to get a
decent tape measure without those grocer's apostrophe loving "middle
england" units getting on my tits.

Maybe I'm an old fogey, but I prefer inches, 1/8ths and 1/16ths to
millimetres any day.

I know I'm 6 feet tall. I'm not so sure if I'm 1.72m tall though

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.


The whole British Imperial System was eminently workable.

A Rod, Pole, or Perch. was the standard width of a Victorian terraced
house in London. and equalled a standard number of bricks.

It was also equal to the length of a farm hands staff used for
"encouraging" teams of oxen pulling a plough, conveniently to hand
when measuring the amount of ploughing done.

The "old money" system conveniently divided the pound into 1/10ths, (2
shillings) and 1/8ths (half crown) 1/20th (shilling) and 1/40thcoins.
Leading to a ready made scale of inflexible price points which
discouraged inflation. Eg bananas 2'6 per pound (not 12.5p per 454
grammes), a 2oz bar of chocolate 6d.

You can't whack it.

The chocolate price stayed the same for many years 'till some stupid
government tried to put a luxury tax on it which would have made it
7 1/2 pennies so the manufacturers altered the weight and that was how
inflation started in the '60s.

DG

The whole British Imperial System was eminently workable.

A Rod, Pole, or Perch. was the standard width of a Victorian terraced
house in London. and equalled a standard number of bricks.

The problem is that whilst having 56,712 different units for length is very
convenient when those lengths are perfectly adapted to the quantity they
measure, it makes it damn near impossible to compare such lengths outside
that narrow field without having a telephone book sized book of tables to
convert them.

Christian.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:04:56 +0000, derek
wrote:

The chocolate price stayed the same for many years 'till some stupid
government tried to put a luxury tax on it which would have made it
7 1/2 pennies so the manufacturers altered the weight and that was how
inflation started in the '60s.

You know, I've never seen those arguments put before but they do seem
eminently sensible! The EU has been responsible for all sorts of
nonsense over the years.

Never really figured how 1760 yards to the mile was a good number to
come up with though - I understand 8 furlongs etc, but 1760 never did
make the maths simple

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

derek wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:07:23 +0000, PoP wrote:


On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:24:03 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:


Oh god. Don't get me started on imperial measurements. How many cubits in a
bushel? Give me a break. I can't believe I have to go to France to get a
decent tape measure without those grocer's apostrophe loving "middle
england" units getting on my tits.

Maybe I'm an old fogey, but I prefer inches, 1/8ths and 1/16ths to
millimetres any day.

I know I'm 6 feet tall. I'm not so sure if I'm 1.72m tall though

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.



The whole British Imperial System was eminently workable.

A Rod, Pole, or Perch. was the standard width of a Victorian terraced
house in London. and equalled a standard number of bricks.

It was also equal to the length of a farm hands staff used for
"encouraging" teams of oxen pulling a plough, conveniently to hand
when measuring the amount of ploughing done.

The "old money" system conveniently divided the pound into 1/10ths, (2
shillings) and 1/8ths (half crown) 1/20th (shilling) and 1/40thcoins.
Leading to a ready made scale of inflexible price points which
discouraged inflation. Eg bananas 2'6 per pound (not 12.5p per 454
grammes), a 2oz bar of chocolate 6d.

You can't whack it.

The chocolate price stayed the same for many years 'till some stupid
government tried to put a luxury tax on it which would have made it
7 1/2 pennies so the manufacturers altered the weight and that was how
inflation started in the '60s.

DG


Love it. Rose tinted spectacles.

My father used to work in forex stuff, and had many pre computer tricks
to decimalise teh pound, there being 960 farthings in one, on trick was
to count the farthings up, and add one for every 6d, so 10/6d would be
..5, for the 10 shillings, plus .024 for the 6d in farthings. Plus one
becuase it was more than thruppnece and less than a shilling, to the
requirted three decimal places

Giving .525 old pounds.

Also, you could divide the pound exactly by one (£1), 2 (10/-), 3
(6/8d), 4 (5/- or a crown, 5 (4/-), 6 (3/4d) 8, (2/6d or haf a crown)
and 10 (2/- or a florin).

This making exact distribution of the quid that granny gave the kids for
christams an exact science in all families of less than 7 children...

Christian McArdle wrote:

The whole British Imperial System was eminently workable.

A Rod, Pole, or Perch. was the standard width of a Victorian terraced
house in London. and equalled a standard number of bricks.


The problem is that whilst having 56,712 different units for length is very
convenient when those lengths are perfectly adapted to the quantity they
measure, it makes it damn near impossible to compare such lengths outside
that narrow field without having a telephone book sized book of tables to
convert them.



That's what we had brains, and education for.

Now of course no longer meeded, since the government has built a world
for morons.

Anyone who can instantly do duodecimal arihmetic in their heads isn't
going to be bilked by any mexican shop girl, as I discovered....


Christian.

You know, I've never seen those arguments put before but they do
seem eminently sensible! The EU has been responsible for all
sorts of nonsense over the years.

Decimilasation and metrication had nothing to do with the EU. They are
simply sensible and time saving changes that happen to throw out the
unworkable mishmash of Roman and medieval units used before. Imperial units
are all defined as fixed proportions of metric SI units now anyway. Why not
use the real thing?

Christian.