Slashdot Mirror


How Russia Transformed a Subtropical Beach Resort To Host the Winter Olympics

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Duncan Geere reports at The Verge that Russian resort as Sochi, on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, is humid and subtropical with temperatures averaging about 52 degrees Fahrenheit (12 C) in the winter, and 75 degrees (24 C) in the summer. "There is almost no snow here — at the moment it's raining," says Olga Mironova, a local resident. It's estimated that the cost of staging the Olympics in Sochi has been greater than the previous three Winter Games combined — ballooning to a whopping $51 billion including the cost of implementing an extensive system of safeguards to ensure there'll be sufficient snow in Sochi for the games including the cost of implementing one of the largest snowmaking systems in Europe. The system includes two huge water reservoirs that feed 400 snow cannons installed along the slopes that can generate snow in temperatures of up to 60 degrees fahrenheit (16 C). If that snow isn't enough, then the authorities will fall back on 710,000 cubic meters of snow collected during the winters of previous years leading up to the games. To keep it from melting in the region's hot summers, 10 separate stockpiles have been kept packed tight under insulating covers high up in the mountains, safe from the sun's rays. Down in Sochi itself the other half of the games will be held in five indoor arenas that will host figure skating, speed skating, hockey, and curling, and an additional outdoor area will host the opening and closing ceremonies. In each of these indoor arenas, underfloor cooling systems are installed so that the ice stays frozen above it using propylene glycol, which doesn't freeze until temperatures reach 8.6 F (-13 C). Climatologists predict that even under a best-case scenario, almost half the venues that have hosted the Winter Olympics over the last century would be unable to do so by 2080 without resorting to extensive and expensive artificial snowmaking techniques.""

359 comments

  1. Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Temperatures are usually reported in degrees Celsius. Please fix this.

    1. Re:Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would even be clearer to most people here if you did it in kelvins rather than Fahrenheit.

    2. Re:Celsius by the_cosmocat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, it's time to give up! http://imgur.com/3ZidINK and to use the metric system also : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    3. Re:Celsius by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      American website reporting largely to Americans is going to use American measures.

      You want to report in Celsius, start your own?

      Anyway, people who want a genuinely objective temperature scale use Kelvin.

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:Celsius by kbg · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Metric Conversion Act would disagree with you.

    5. Re:Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different scales for different uses. Scientific measuring? Kelvin. Cooking? Celcius. Weather? Farenheit, which is scaled such as a degree is a noticable difference but no more, a hundred degrees is a human with a slight fever, and zero feels like it can't possibly get any colder.

      Metric is digital, US is analog; it's easier to do fractions in the US system (meaning that inches and feet are obsolete, since the world id now digital).

    6. Re:Celsius by thaylin · · Score: 2

      No it doesnt. This is not trade and commerce, or I would agree with you.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    7. Re:Celsius by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      reporting largely to Americans

      Are you sure about that?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    8. Re:Celsius by T.E.D. · · Score: 0, Troll

      Temperatures are usually reported in degrees Celsius.

      Not in the USA (the country that hosts this website), they aren't. If you don't like that, I'm sure there are lots of other websites in the world hosted in Europe or Canada for you to visit. That's how you "fix" this problem.

    9. Re:Celsius by psergiu · · Score: 1

      As Slashdot is offering paying subscriptions and is geting money from the advertisers, IT IS commerce - a commecial web site.

      Can someone please find where we can file a complaint against Dice Holdings for failing to follow U.S. Executive Order 12770 ?

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    10. Re:Celsius by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Weather? Farenheit

      No. Weather? Metric.

      'Zero degrees? Uh oh, looks like it might snow.'

      'It's FORTY-FIVE degrees in Las Vegas? Holy cow! That's nearly half-way to boiling!'

    11. Re:Celsius by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      It's probably hard for people in other countries to understand, but the Metric Conversion Act merely indicated that the metric system was the PREFERRED system, not the "required" system.
      Further, Executive Order 12770 is relevant only to government agencies.

      This was back when the US government had fewer abilities to simply order its citizens (you know, the ones laughably in charge?) to do what it wants on a whim.

      --
      -Styopa
    12. Re:Celsius by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Celsius merely replaces one set of 'arbitrary' reference points (human warmest/typical =100 and coldest/typical = 0) with another (the freezing/boiling points of a hypothetically-pure water in a specific set of pressure circumstances = 0/100 respectively).

      Aside from that, it's what people grew up & are comfortable with.
      Well, the only other difference is that I don't see Americans being evangelical about trying to convince anyone to use their system. (Shrug)

      --
      -Styopa
    13. Re:Celsius by Minwee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can easily divide a foot, for example, into thirds, halves, quarters. Not so much with base 10.

      If you can't easily divide the number ten into two equal halves, then perhaps you have bigger problems than just which set of units to use.

    14. Re:Celsius by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Alexa says /. is 37% Indian-origin, 27% US - I find that hard to believe, given the amount of time they spend on bullshit US political issues. Their total % only reaches about 70-some percent.

      --
      -Styopa
    15. Re:Celsius by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Aside from that, it's what people grew up & are comfortable with.

      I'm people, I didn't grow up with it and I'm not comfortable with it.

      All that being said, there are a lot of things that are bananas in the USA compared to the rest of the world. Use of the Fahrenheit system is *way* down the list of crazy to the point where it's almost a rounding error.

    16. Re:Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can easily divide a foot, for example, into thirds, halves, quarters.

      Not sure if swooosch moment or not, but wth are you smoking, man? Or do you mean the actual, physical foot? On a person? That makes sense then!

    17. Re:Celsius by the_cosmocat · · Score: 1

      The easy division is a little advantage when you have to learn hard silly numbers like how many yards in a mile? And I don't ask you to calculate surfaces and volumes based on lengths :( When I see the mess it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

    18. Re:Celsius by westlake · · Score: 1

      Temperatures are usually reported in degrees Celsius. Please fix this.

      Not going to happen when the poster is American and temperatures are in the range of 0 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The extremes demanding extra care and protection, but nothing particularly expensive or exotic.

      100 Heat Wave
      75 Summer
      50 Autumn and Spring
      25 Winter
      0 Deep Winter

    19. Re:Celsius by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      You can easily divide a foot, for example, into thirds, halves, quarters. Not so much with base 10.

      You're right! It's much easier to divide 1"1/16 into thirds than it is to divide 27mm into thirds (they're the same length to a good approximation).

      And if you're going to complain about me cherry-picking silly values, I'll point to the 2400mm sizes that wood is sold in which is every bit as dividisible as imperial units since it's a multiple of 12.

      mass, etc came about in the same way.

      Ah yes. 16 oz to the pound, 14 pounds to the stone, 8 stone to the cwt, 20 cwt to the ton. That's long tons of course, not short ones. But you guys seem to have abandoned stones and hundredweights, leaving the ton as a nice, tractable 2240lb. That's a lovely number to do mental arithmetic with.

      Er, or are you working with short tons, where it's 100lb to the short hundredweight and 20 of them to the short ton.

      etc

      And what about volume? Do you work in cu Ft or gallons? That's a conversion factor of 6.22883288. Real easy to use. Quick: anser in two seconds or less: how many cubic inches to the cubic foot?

      Come on it's only 12x12x12. Which is uhh 144*12 which is er 1440+288... 162.. er 172... er 1728! got it! Did that really take you under 2 seconds?

      Oh yeah and BTUs. Heater at 220V, 2A is how many BTU/hr again? I have no fucking clue. Seriously. Not a clue. Not even slightly. Now try some more complex conversions like figuring out how long it would take to heat up a room's worth of air by one degree. Or if you prefer, some container of water.

      Or it it takes a turning force of 0.1 foot pounds to turn (er or is that about an inch pound or a foot ounce???) a shaft on a bearing, how much heat must the bearing be able to dissipate at 100RPM?

      See, all these calculations are really REALLY hard with imperial. The famed divisibility only helps if you happen to be working with whole feet. For everything else (mass, energy, force) and calculations involving unit conversions, it's a massive PITA.

      Nature isn't base 10, other than the number of fingers and toes we have.

      It's not base 2, 3, 4, 12 or anything else, either.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re:Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nature isn't base 10, other than the number of fingers and toes we have.
      That's true, but our number system *is* base 10 (unless you subscribe to ancient Babylonian and embrace base 60).
      To divide in base 10, shift the decimal one place, just like with computers using base 2, just shift the decimal one place (left/right depends on the architecture big endian or little endian.

    21. Re:Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, we forgot - Americans are too dumb to use negative numbers. I blame your education.

    22. Re:Celsius by MattskEE · · Score: 2

      If you can't easily divide the number ten into two equal halves, then perhaps you have bigger problems than just which set of units to use.

      GP never said it couldn't be... you're deliberately missing the obvious point that 12 can be divided into by thirds and quarters with integer results while 10 cannot.

      A base 10 unit system is better because (and only because) base 10 is our primary number system. A meter is better than a foot because (and only because) it is the more popular international standard. We could scale Imperial unis with base-10 SI prefixes if we wanted to, and some people do.

      I would tend to argue that Imperial units tend to be more natural since things like inches, feet, tablespoons, teaspoons, gallons, and miles came out of practical usage rather than a top-down choice of a base unit standard and subsequent base-10 scaling by SI prefixes. But I also readily admit that I may be wrong and merely biased since I grew up with Imperial units.

    23. Re:Celsius by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Temperatures are usually reported in degrees Celsius. Please fix this.

      This is slashdot... Write a grease monkey script to convert all imperial units to metric, and publish it! Or, in the words of foss, fix it yourself!

    24. Re:Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ignorance is astonishing. The best bit was me having a chat with Americans in the plane. Everything I said was followed by "could you, please, turn this in imperial units". I could do it, the Americans could not. They did not know even the coefficients involved [I agree not everyone can do algebra in their heads quickly but at least learn the conversion factors!]. I find all this hilariously ridiculous...

    25. Re:Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the only other difference is that I don't see Americans being evangelical about trying to convince anyone to use their system.

      You mean the British Imperial system (Well, technically Fahrenheit was invented by a German, but inches and feet are British) that the rest of the world abandoned because it was crap? We (the rest of the world) used to use that, but switched over to the Metric system, which was originated in the French revolution. Oh. Oh, I see... you guys hate it because you're currently down on France again. Well at least you could switch temperature scales to something sensible - Celsius was invented in Sweden.

      It always amuses me that, aside from four other small/minor countries, the last major country in the world that still uses the "British Imperial" measurement system is the one that violently rebelled against their rule.

    26. Re:Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, we forgot - Americans are too dumb to use negative numbers. I blame your education.

      And Europeans are too dumb to use fractions. I blame your poor genetics due to years of inbreeding.

    27. Re:Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like this comment.
      While I think the metric system is better and makes much more sense in general, Fahrenheit is a better system for measuring temperature for 'human' tasks and kelvin for engineering and physics. Celsius is arbitrary in that it takes freezing and boiling of water but you have to adjust for impurities and pressure anyway why even base the system on that?
      From the human perspective as it concerns heat as long as you are properly acclimated to environment, below 0 is COLD, and you must have covering or you will get frost damage and above 100 is HOT and you must hydrate and keep in the shade or you will heat stroke.
      In the northern US where I live many people don't even bother with putting a jacket on if it is above 0f and they are just getting the mail, grabbing something from the car, get some wood for the fireplace, etc.. But below 0 you bundle up. Heck, in the spring fat guys start wearing shorts at 30f with a light jacket. Sunny day on the ski slopes above 20f and you will see people in shirt sleeves as you get to warm from all the activity to wear a jacket.
      Same thing with the hot side, if it is below 100 you might not even think twice about mowing the lawn, but above that as it does happen up here several times a summer, you really don't do anything not needed and drink water and stay in the shade if you have to venture outside of climate controlled vehicles or buildings.

      Obviously people acclimated to Siberia or the Sahara will move their comfort levels a bit, but the human body really does have limits and the Fahrenheit temperature scale does a good job of approximating that.

    28. Re:Celsius by waimate · · Score: 1

      For length, at least, our system is more natural. [...] Nature isn't base 10, other than the number of fingers and toes we have.

      Yes, excellent point. I propose that we immediately abandon base 10 and start using base pi.

    29. Re:Celsius by waimate · · Score: 1

      So why use a decimal system for currency? Indeed, until the year 2001 US stock market operated in fractions: two and a half dollars, twelve and 17/32, etc. By your reasoning, fractions are such a wonderful notion that they should never have changed.

    30. Re:Celsius by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And when was the last time Joe Sixpack or Suzie Homemaker ever did any calculations like these?

      Physics and engineering students might care about these things, but regular people don't.

    31. Re:Celsius by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Don't know what you are talking about. To me bananas in the US look the same as bananas in Europe.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    32. Re:Celsius by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Converting between volume and mass is an everyday thing. Cooking would be one example, and there are plenty others.

    33. Re:Celsius by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Farenheit, which is scaled such as a degree is a noticable difference but no more

      I see this claim every time the topic is brought up, but it's absurd. It's barely possible to notice the difference of 1 degree Celcius in weather temperature, and you're claiming that half that is noticeable?

      As far as weather goes, wind and humidity affect perceived temperature significantly more than a one-degree difference on either scale, anyway.

      OTOH, if you live in an area where it does get below freezing, that freezing point is a very important thing that makes a pronounced difference in conditions outside, so it makes perfect sense to center the scale around it.

    34. Re:Celsius by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      American politics is sufficiently entertaining and far-reaching that a lot of people who have never even been to US have a strong opinion on it.

    35. Re:Celsius by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Celsius merely replaces one set of 'arbitrary' reference points (human warmest/typical =100 and coldest/typical = 0) with another (the freezing/boiling points of a hypothetically-pure water in a specific set of pressure circumstances = 0/100 respectively).

      The Celsius point of reference is replicable, non subjective and does not change.

      It may have been chosen, but it's not arbitrary. Two numbers weren't just plucked out of thin air, Celsius is based on a logical measurement.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    36. Re:Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water does not always boil at 100C.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg

    37. Re: Celsius by shitzu · · Score: 1

      Actually, nature is base 2. Not that this would in any way justify imperial units.

    38. Re: Celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!! Ex: The GIMLI GLIDER. If the bureaucracy had not been mucking about in their Holy Grail windmill tilting to switch to metric, that airplane would not have run out of fuel. Only Superb flying skills and the Grace of God saved the lives on that plane from the arrogant bureaucrat safely flying their desks. Same deal with English as the international language of air flights.

    39. Re:Celsius by doccus · · Score: 1

      Well it looks to me like it has both. All the changes thet were implemented in schools happened the year after I either left, or were implemented inmy grade the year aftert I graguatef to the next one, such as switching to metric, or adding a music course or changing the curriculum (OK there I lucked out), or adding sport such as track and field to the grade I just left. So I missed a lot, and still have to convert celsius to fahrenheit to be able to visualise the temp. That includes a whopping 30% of the populationm, I do believe, who were raised Fahrenheit..

    40. Re:Celsius by Optali · · Score: 1

      Right! finally someone with a bit of common sense.

      Screw Fahrenheit and Celsius!

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    41. Re:Celsius by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Fahrenheit makes no sense at all, Celsius uses the standards of when water boils and freezes for 100 and zero, and Kelvin is Celsius with the zero point moved such that there are no negative values.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  2. AGW is a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    How do warmists explain that in my air conditioned house, temperature never goes above 70 farhenheit? AGW doesn't exist. What exists is AIC (anthopological indoor cooling).

  3. 60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sort out your units, or you lose the right to use any of them.

    1. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh just wait until you come to Canada, neighboring the US especially in Southern Ontario or Alberta you have: Meat, veggies, fruit and bulk goods weighed in, grams and lbs. Lumber by the ft, and meter, road signs in various spots in mph and km/h. Liquid in containers, in fl oz, quart and ml, or liters. And to top it all off you get screwed over when buying gasoline.

      Then again, you could go to the UK and get baffled by stones.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Boronx · · Score: 2

      Indeed. What's the meaning of Stonehenge?!

    3. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Xest · · Score: 1

      To be honest even stones are dying out in the UK. I was bought up on them but if you make use of the NHS at all then you'll be given weights in kg, and you'll be told your weight in kg. The change is working well, I don't even know what I weigh in stones now even though I used to only know that. I do know what I weigh in kg though.

      As long as they don't get rid of the pint then we're all good.

    4. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish. I have a semi-successful software package which has to deal with people's weights, and I received a lot of email from brits asking specifically for the option to have their weight in stones.

      Then I had other brits asking me to make it easy to switch between units because "I like to see my weight in different units, depending on the situation".

      I wish you guys would just pick one measurement and stick with it.

    5. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in Canada and have no idea what I weigh in KG, as my doctor does all his measurements in lbs. Also my height is reported as feet and inches, not meters and centimetres.

      I also agree with GP, I hate seeing advertising for food that lists prices in $/LB and then in smaller print $/KG, but of course when you get your receipt it is in $/KG.

    6. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no relation between temperature and volume, Goofy. And a cubic meter is a little over a cubic yard.

    7. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 1

      if you make use of the NHS at all then you'll be given weights in kg, and you'll be told your weight in kg.

      That is interesting considering that kilograms isn't a unit of weight.

    8. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Then again, you could go to the UK and get baffled by stones.

      Or pints, which aren't even consistent across all Australian states, let alone the European continent. Or gallons, are we talking US or Imperial.

      But my favourite ambigous measurement comes from Jamie Oliver... Just how much is a Wine Glass?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Xest · · Score: 1

      Then just ignore them. If you're catering to the whiny few luddites then you're only exacerbating the problem.

      We have multiple measurements for historic reasons only, and just like we got over using shillings and so forth and moved to a base 10 currency system we'll get over using old measures like stones.

      Or in other words we have picked one measurement. We've opted for SI units. It's just getting some folk to stick with it that's the problem.

    10. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Xest · · Score: 1

      No, but it can be used perfectly well as one because the NHS doesn't operate in any environments where the disparity between weight and mass become clear.

      Until we open a doctors surgery in space or whatever then it's entirely irrelevant.

      Kilograms are used because they're both widely known being an SI unit, and fully functional for the purpose in question. It'd be really stupid to expect people to have any degree of knowledge of physics just to deal with healthcare issues.

    11. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 1

      "It'd be really stupid to expect people to have any degree of knowledge of physics just to deal with healthcare issues."

      I don't know about that, I kind of hope the guys that design and operate the positron emission tomography scanners at least took a basic physics class in school.

    12. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Xest · · Score: 1

      I also often hope that people who like to try and appear smart by being pedantic don't end up just making themselves look stupid, but unfortunately one of us at least has just been disappointed in our expectations.

    13. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Besides, for medical purposes the mass is what is relevant, and that is properly expressed in kg. It's just written as "weight" out of tradition. If I were to go to the Moon, my weight would drop by about 5/6, but I'd still be just as overweight, and my mass would reflect that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. by Xest · · Score: 1

      Exactly, sometimes being pragmatic about the reality of dealing with the general public is simply far more important than being a pedantic ass like the guy I was responding to.

      It's a hard enough job moving people between units, let alone also trying to have to explain the difference to mass and weight to them even though it'll never make any practical difference because if you do have to explain that to them then they're sure as hell not going to be in line for a moon trip in the first place :)

  4. Stupid by Mikkeles · · Score: 2

    Taking a semi-tropical place and turning it into an expensive, barely working winter wonderland is a very stupid idea. Implementing it is even stupider.

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Taking a semi-tropical place and turning it into an expensive, barely working winter wonderland is a very stupid idea. Implementing it is even stupider.

      Calling it semi-tropical is a bit of a stretch, as someone else pointed out it is more northerly than Buffalo, NY. But, this will be a problem for other places as well. There was just a study done for the Oslo, Norway 2022 winter olympic candidacy, that showed that with current trends there is a very high risk of not having enough snow. If even Norway can't reliably provide enough winter for future winter olympics then very few places can.

    2. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in: There is Snow Skiing in Driving Distance of Reno, NV also!!!

      http://www.skilaketahoe.com/

      Why is it news that a subtropical resort would have snow conditions in nearby mountains???

    3. Re:Stupid by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      Well if tropical is anything between the tropics, namely from -23 to 23 degrees, and the arctic is from -90 to -67 degrees and 67 to 90 degrees, Sochi sitting at 43.5 degrees is nearly right in the middle, hence semi-tropic. Of course, that would also make it semi-arctic by that logic, which sounds like a pretty good place to hold Winter Olympics.

    4. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giant fucking waste of money. Kinda like an allegory for what the olympics themselves have become...

    5. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is news when the snow requires snow-making machines.

    6. Re:Stupid by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well,at 43 degrees, it sits right about the same latitude as Toronto, a few degrees north of Salt lake City, a bit south of Vancouver, and a bit south of Turin (the last 3 of which also hosted the Olympics). Latitude really says very little about climate, especially when you are close to the ocean, or other very large bodies of water like the Black Sea. Toronto's weather is actually quite cold, and the only reason they couldn't host the winter Olympics is the lack of mountains. Vancouver, despite being north Toronto, actually has quite warmer weather.

      The next one around is in South Korea at 37 degrees latitude, and seems to be close to the ocean, although just about everything is close to the ocean in South Korea, by the standards of someone who lives in Canada. It seems their goal is to host the Winter Olympics in increasingly ridiculous climates, eventually to the point of getting the Winter Olympics in Dubai.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It seems their goal is to host the Winter Olympics in increasingly ridiculous climates, eventually to the point of getting the Winter Olympics in Dubai.

      Well, if even Norway climate is going the way of having to rely on artificial snow for future winter olympics they just as well might..

    8. Re:Stupid by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1
    9. Re:Stupid by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also worth mentioning that there probably aren't that many ski resorts out there that don't use artificial snow. Whether it's to have the hill open in November, or just to make sure the base of the mountain is well covered. Artificial snow also provides a really good, solid base that will allow the resort to stay open longer into the spring as well. Perhaps up in the Alps such measures are not needed, because the snow doesn't melt in the sumer, but most places that I've been to use snow making equipment because just getting enough snow on the hill to handle the amount of traffic (skiing on show will push it to the sides of the hill), and to cover up rocks, requires that artificial snow will be used.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:Stupid by timeOday · · Score: 2

      It is working out well for the Olympics though. I was watching it yesterday, there's plenty of snow and it was a bright, beautiful day. Didn't match the tone of all these relentlessly whiny articles at all.

    11. Re:Stupid by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The strange thing is, Russia has plenty of places with snow. Why did they go to all that expense?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Stupid by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

      They HAD to do it. After all, there is no place in Russia cold enough for it to snow.

      --

      -----

      Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

    13. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The strange thing is, Russia has plenty of places with snow. Why did they go to all that expense?

      Well, I don't even know who's in charge of that decision so I can't say, but nobody at the olympics spends all their time in the arenas. I bet today's outside high temperature of 16 C (61 F) is preferable to Moscow's (for example) -2 C (28 F) for most of the people in attendance.

    14. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps up in the Alps such measures are not needed, because the snow doesn't melt in the sumer

      That was ages ago. Can't remember a winter in Austria where our ski resorts didn't have to resort to snow cannons.

      While America is still bickering about whether global warming really exists, we are seeing the effects every winter, and it's ruining our tourism, because snow cannons are Really Darn Expensive.

    15. Re:Stupid by colenski · · Score: 2

      Putin and his cronies vacation there. Seriously.

    16. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. It is a marvellous feat of engineering to build 20 new roads, bridges, train line and station, international airport, olympic venues and a ski resort that is climate change proof in such a short time. I'd really love to see more similar stories on how it is done. So far in Canada we have learned that 60% of the opening ceremony has been built by Canadians in Canada, that a Canadian firm built the new train line and station, and that a Canadian company is responsible for a coaching program that was call "Own the Podium" when they ran it with Canadian athletes in 2010. In 2014 they are doing it for Russia. I suspect that there may be international connections in other areas as well. But Russia thought it all up and had the guts to go ahead with it, and to make it happen. They really deserve more kudos for this than we see in the press.

    17. Re:Stupid by timeOday · · Score: 1

      It is a marvellous feat of engineering to build 20 new roads, bridges, train line and station, international airport, olympic venues and a ski resort that is climate change proof in such a short time.

      And why is the coverage on the huge sum of money the spent to do it universally negative? Let them debate internally whether it was too much, or corrupt. As an outsider who does not pay Russian taxes, my response is, "thanks for the party!"

    18. Re:Stupid by Troed · · Score: 1

      with current trends there is a very high risk of not having enough snow

      Winter northern hemisphere snow cover trend is on the increase - not decrease - since decades back.

      http://climate.rutgers.edu/sno...

    19. Re:Stupid by guacamole · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand what Sochi was and what it has become now. Yes, some money got stolen, so what? This is Russia. Did you know that days ago the USA congress passed $100 billion a year farm bill that will mostly be helping well to-do farmers and corporate agribusiness? Ponder how many summer and winter Olympics you could hold with that money.

      But back to Sochi, do you think it's easy to build all the infrastructure from effectively scratch? It's relatively easy to hold Olympic games a places like Vancouver or London. Those cities got the best airports in the world, hotels, much of sports venues, and public transport infrastructure. Sochi had none of that. In the early 90s this was a crumbling summer resort that even Russians refused to visit. This place was basically a giant village and a dump. Now it has modern highways, airports, light rail, hotels, and sports venues. And now that all of those facilities are there, Russians and other tourists are going to use those facilities because the Sochi area is a spectacular location for vacations.

    20. Re:Stupid by guacamole · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand Russian geography. No, the European Russia does not have many mountains, except for the North Caucasus where Sochi is. Moreover, the rest of North Caucasus is too politically unstable to hold games over there. As for Siberian Russia, there are no large population centers near mountains there and it would have been even more expensive to build up an area for Olympics over there.

      See my detailed answer to this question below:

      http://science.slashdot.org/co...

    21. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with current trends there is a very high risk of not having enough snow

      Winter northern hemisphere snow cover trend is on the increase - not decrease - since decades back.

      http://climate.rutgers.edu/sno...

      If I understand this graph right it doesn't show amount of snow but how wide area that receive any snow at all? Anyway, the research done for Oslo 2022 olympics paint a risky picture, with emphasis on risky. The research is not saying that there won't be good winters, but that the risk of bad winters is increasing. And this winter seems to be one of them.

    22. Re:Stupid by guacamole · · Score: 2

      Most Russians vacationed there in the Soviet ear. In the 90s the infrastructure crumbled and most Russians decided its better to vacation in Egypt and Turkey in the summer. Sochi area has become a huge dump and a village. This is why it was so costly (I don't deny a lot of money got stolen too). They had to rebuild all highways, airport, hotels, public transport, and build the new Olympic village, which also will be hosting Russia's Formula 1 race.

    23. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The research is not saying that there won't be good winters, but that the risk of bad winters is increasing

      95% of all climate models agree - observations must be wrong

    24. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vancouver, despite being north Toronto.

      Giggle.

      Torontonian, I presume?

    25. Re:Stupid by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Because Sochi is where Putin likes to hang out.

    26. Re:Stupid by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It is a marvellous feat of engineering to build 20 new roads, bridges, train line and station, international airport, olympic venues and a ski resort that is climate change proof in such a short time. I'd really love to see more similar stories on how it is done.

      There are a few tricks to it. For example, you can use immigrant workers from poorer countries in massive quantities for cheap labor, and make it even cheaper by not paying them at the end of the contract.

    27. Re:Stupid by AlexSasha · · Score: 1

      There are areas near St Peterburg that have mountains and can accommodate an olympic village easily. Not to mention that they have a major airport and train infrastructure ready.

    28. Re:Stupid by guacamole · · Score: 1

      What mountains are you talking about? St Petersburg is as flat as American midwest. In Russia, St Petersburg is synonymous with "built on a swamp". It's very cold there, but there are no really mountains. Little hills don't count. For Alpine skiing competitions you need a mountain with a two to three thousand vertical drop from start to finish.

    29. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The research is not saying that there won't be good winters, but that the risk of bad winters is increasing

      95% of all climate models agree - observations must be wrong

      Did you refer to the actual observation that this is an unusually mild winter in Oslo where the little snow that came late is currently melting away (which is still not proof of anything)? Or that the snow-cover graph linked above was supposed to say anything about how much snow there is or that it is increasing or not decreasing? It is actually fitting with most climate models that more areas get some snow, while the overall trend is milder and less snow amount. More volatile weather is one of the predicted and observed consequences. But it doesn't help the winter olympics if there was some snowfall several weeks ago, if this is followed by a warm and rainy few weeks that melts all the snow away... (which is exactly the situation in Oslo now btw). This is what research on snow for the olympics need to take into account that the graph above doesn't.

    30. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps up in the Alps such measures are not needed, because the snow doesn't melt in the sumer

      That was ages ago. Can't remember a winter in Austria where our ski resorts didn't have to resort to snow cannons.

      While America is still bickering about whether global warming really exists, we are seeing the effects every winter, and it's ruining our tourism, because snow cannons are Really Darn Expensive.

      Americans are bickering about whether evolution is really a thing.. It is strange how anti-science a large and vocal part of Americans have become.

    31. Re:Stupid by strikethree · · Score: 1

      It seems their goal is to host the Winter Olympics in increasingly ridiculous climates, eventually to the point of getting the Winter Olympics in Dubai.

      erm... *cough* http://www.theplaymania.com/sk... *cough*

      Oy vey lol

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    32. Re:Stupid by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Oslo is in the south of Norway. You know why they put the capital in the south of Norway? Because it isn't as cold and because it isn't in the arctic circle.

    33. Re:Stupid by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Oslo is in the south of Norway. Ask someone in Tromso how the weather is.

    34. Re:Stupid by CmdrTamale · · Score: 1

      It seems their goal is to host the Winter Olympics in increasingly ridiculous climates, eventually to the point of getting the Winter Olympics in Dubai.

      Nah, if there were really serious, they would pick Singapore, or Darwin, Australia.

      Or Death Valley!
      --
      Real Programmers have an uncountable number of fingers.

    35. Re:Stupid by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Re the farm bill, it's from congress, of course there's pork. However, do you want to depend on poor farmers to feed you? A small farm is a million dollar investment and you're lucky to get 5% on the investment and zero for your labor and management. Why yes, I did have a third share of a million dollar farm. I only made about thirty thousand a year and when we lost out all I got was a fifty thousand dollar tax bill for capital gains on money the bank got. It took me ten years at a hourly job to pay that off. Crop insurance doesn't pay for low returns, just low yields.

    36. Re:Stupid by AlexSasha · · Score: 1

      Kavgolovo is not enough of a drop for you?

    37. Re:Stupid by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The annoying thing about creating snow in an area that isn't below freezing to begin with, is that it ends up being wet dense snow. A totally different skiing/snowboarding experience than dry fluffy snow.

      I guess in the end it is no different than tennis matches: sometimes they play on clay courts, sometimes on artificial flooring, etc..

  5. !Subtropical. by msauve · · Score: 0

    43.5 degrees N (more northerly than Buffalo, NY) is not "subtropical."

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:!Subtropical. by tgv · · Score: 2

      But 43.5 degrees C is!

    2. Re:!Subtropical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      43.5 degrees N (more northerly than Buffalo, NY) is not "subtropical."

      The word "subtropics" refers to a particular location. The word "subtropical" can refer to any area that has characteristics similar to the subtropics.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_with_a_subtropical_climate

      Hey lookie there: Eurasia -> Russia -> Sochi

    3. Re:!Subtropical. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      For the benefit of people who using non-murican units:

      52 degrees F = 12 C (approx)
      75 degrees F = 25 C (approx)

      Never mind their actual latitude, from spending most of my life within 5 degrees of the tropics, about the only time we see 75 degrees in summer is in the middle of a heavy thunderstorm. Even the lows are more likely to be in the 80s (25-30 C) during summer months.

    4. Re:!Subtropical. by Sique · · Score: 2

      Actually, "subtropical" is a description of climate, not of place on the map. And from a climate point of view, Sochi is subtropical. Yes, Sochi might lie more north than Buffalo, NY. But still, it's warmer the whole year than Buffalo, NY. Rome is north of New York City. Palermo, Sicily is about as north as Baltimore. But Sicily is definitely subtropical.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:!Subtropical. by zaxus · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but Farenheit was NEVER an American...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Gabriel_Fahrenheit

      --
      /. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
    6. Re:!Subtropical. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but Farenheit was NEVER an American...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Gabriel_Fahrenheit

      You do realize that there's a difference between unit systems used in the USA and unit systems invented by Americans (assuming that there are any)?

      The original complaints were coming from people in countries where neither of the above applied and was merely a courtesy conversion for them.

      Regardless of what units you use, however, the temperature spreads listed for Sochi don't match for sub-tropical America anywhere near sea level. And when you go to Orlando, don't expect to ski on Space Mountain.

    7. Re:!Subtropical. by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Who made that list though?

    8. Re:!Subtropical. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      But 43.5 degrees C is!

      43.5 Degrees is pushing into arid territory. Your tropical zones are around 15-35. 43 is Australia or Dubai weather.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. Sochi Project by Rob Hornstra & Arnold van Bru by thegoldenear · · Score: 2

    Not to nention that Sochi is characterised by poverty, separatism, terrorism and mass beach tourism:
    http://www.thesochiproject.org...

    Pete Boyd

  7. Re:Thinking about the Olympics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did Obama do something last night that we need to be distracted about. Usually don't pull out the Bush did it card til we need to distract from his actions.

  8. The $51 billion is nothing to do with the location by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its down to the monumental institutionalised corruption in Russia where everyone from the highest level apparatchik down to the brick layer is on the take.

  9. Putin's Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These games are also a show of the absolutely incredible depth of corruption in Russia. The initial budget of $12 billion has ballooned to over four times to some $50 billion – the most expensive winter or summer Olympics in the history. The 45-kilometre road from Sochi to the outdoor venues alone cost $8 billion, enough to pave the finished road with 5-millimetre thick gold. It was a common arrangement in the Olympic construction projects to use the money as follows: 30% for the actual construction work, 35% to the officials and 35% to the "oligarchs" who oversaw the project. And let's not forget how the Sochi locals who happened to live near the coming Olympic venues have been brutally forced on the streets without any compensation for their expropriated property, thanks to a special law that Putin had passed in Duma. You should see the documentary Putin's Games for some background on the mind-boggling amounts of corruption in these games.

    1. Re:Putin's Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      These games are also a show of the absolutely incredible depth of corruption in Russia. The initial budget of $12 billion has ballooned to over four times to some $50 billion – the most expensive winter or summer Olympics in the history. The 45-kilometre road from Sochi to the outdoor venues alone cost $8 billion, enough to pave the finished road with 5-millimetre thick gold. It was a common arrangement in the Olympic construction projects to use the money as follows: 30% for the actual construction work, 35% to the officials and 35% to the "oligarchs" who oversaw the project. And let's not forget how the Sochi locals who happened to live near the coming Olympic venues have been brutally forced on the streets without any compensation for their expropriated property, thanks to a special law that Putin had passed in Duma. You should see the documentary Putin's Games for some background on the mind-boggling amounts of corruption in these games.

      Sounds like business as usual for every modern-day Olympics in every host country. What's your point? Besides did the POTUS ever playing with a Siberian Tiger on his lap?

    2. Re:Putin's Games by m00sh · · Score: 1

      These games are also a show of the absolutely incredible depth of corruption in Russia. The initial budget of $12 billion has ballooned to over four times to some $50 billion – the most expensive winter or summer Olympics in the history. The 45-kilometre road from Sochi to the outdoor venues alone cost $8 billion, enough to pave the finished road with 5-millimetre thick gold. It was a common arrangement in the Olympic construction projects to use the money as follows: 30% for the actual construction work, 35% to the officials and 35% to the "oligarchs" who oversaw the project. And let's not forget how the Sochi locals who happened to live near the coming Olympic venues have been brutally forced on the streets without any compensation for their expropriated property, thanks to a special law that Putin had passed in Duma. You should see the documentary Putin's Games for some background on the mind-boggling amounts of corruption in these games.

      Where does corruption end and government spending begin?

    3. Re:Putin's Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does corruption begin and government spending end?

      FTFY, At the point where the actual cost plus fair margin is exceed by the total cost.

    4. Re:Putin's Games by guacamole · · Score: 1

      I don't understand all the negativity such as the above that I see all the time in the western media. Admit it, the west simply hates the greatness, success, and influence that Russia has achieved in the last 10 years. The only image of democratic Russia that the west loved was that of crumbling and chaotic Russia that was run by a drunkard Yeltsin. Back then Americans, EU, and NATO could come close to Russia's borders and take a proverbial dump with little response from Russians. Things have now changed a lot, haven't they?

      Anyways, setting politics aside, the games are incredibly well organized and are just marvelous to watch on TV. I am an avid skier and hope some day to visit the ski resort at Sochi. Wait, did I hear that someone stole something when building it? I don't know, all I can say is "thanks for the party" because there is now a great world class ski areas in Sochi.

    5. Re:Putin's Games by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      The bit about the most expensive game in history, (Beijing is no. 2 and they did a summer Olympic for goodness sakes) belies your whole everyone is equally corrupt belief.

  10. ridiculos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok. I'm frankly sick and tired of all this media campaign of discrediting the Russian olympic games. I mean, this article is completely ridiculous.

    As a comparison, the weather in Sochi is similar to the one in Grenoble (at least from a temperature point of view). Now, the thing is that I live in Grenoble, which was also the location of the olympic games in the 60's. Like in Sochi, right now it is raining in Grenoble, and the temperatures are around 10 degrees Celsius. Despite this, just yesterday I went skiing at the resort which hosted the downhill event in the 60's and guess what? Perfect skiing conditions, all slopes were open and no artificial snow has been used in the last 4 weeks. How is this possible? Well, most of the events at the winter olympic games are hosted in the mountains, which in the case of Grenoble are 2000 meters above the level of the city. I don't know about Sochi but the Caucas mountains have peaks of over 5000 meters.

    Just comparing the temperatures in the biggest city which happens to be located near the actual mountains which host the games is completely stupid!

    1. Re:ridiculos! by swb · · Score: 2

      In my experience this is true of most ski areas in the US, too.

      The "town" the ski area is located in is much lower than the ski area base. By the time you get to the top of the ski area you're 5000 or more feet above the town and the weather is much different.

      In town, it can be high 30s/low 40s (deg. F) and at the top of the ski area it's 15F.

      I think the snowmaking observation is a little overblown. I think before the widespread adoption of snowmaking, skiing was always weather dependent. You simply didn't do much downhill skiing until mid-late January until the snow depths were enough to cover the mountain hazards and if it was a year with less snowfall, the season didn't go as long because there wasn't a man-made base.

      Once skiing became a big business, snowmaking became a much bigger deal because resorts wanted to start the season in late November (American Thanksgiving holiday) and go until early April (common American 'spring break'). These goals, especially early opening, are hard to achieve without snow making.

      Even in Minnesota our biggest ski area, Lutsen, was only about half open when I was there at Christmas and this is a place that's often just too cold to ski comfortably (it was -12 F at 6 AM the day we skied, high was maybe 5 that day).

    2. Re:ridiculos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I'm an American and I think Russia is doing an awesome hosting the 2014 Olympics.

      We have a similar place in the USA but the mountains are not as high. Bar Harbor, Maine. Where mountains meet the ocean... It's a great place to go off road with my Jeep Wrangler.

      Sochi looks like a fun place to check out.

    3. Re:ridiculos! by gl4ss · · Score: 0

      ...you missed the point about the snow making machinery, about how it's not really a place where they didn't have any winter sports experience?

      anyhow, only people happy with the games arrangements are.. Russians.

      for some weird fucking it's not a problem for them - and the russian media is spinning all the discrediting about half built hotels, double decker toilets and undrinkable tap water as "the west being afraid" and SOMEHOW the fucking massive waste of money is a "Show of power"?? you know where Puting got that money from? well fuck he printed some rubles so it's out of every russians pocket - and now 70% of it is in pocket of whoever was ready to play the dirtiest to get the contracts. that is also why the economy in Russia is SO FUCKING FUCKED UP because it's so hard to do honest business with them, since you need to not only know the law(actually you don't even need to know the law) but what you really have to know is who the fuck happens to run some region and who's pockets you should line so that your investment doesn't magically turn into somebody else's investment.

      and oh yeah Putin is so fucking gay it's ridiculous, wrestles with young boys all day long.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:ridiculos! by m00sh · · Score: 1

      ...you missed the point about the snow making machinery, about how it's not really a place where they didn't have any winter sports experience?

      anyhow, only people happy with the games arrangements are.. Russians.

      for some weird fucking it's not a problem for them - and the russian media is spinning all the discrediting about half built hotels, double decker toilets and undrinkable tap water as "the west being afraid" and SOMEHOW the fucking massive waste of money is a "Show of power"?? you know where Puting got that money from? well fuck he printed some rubles so it's out of every russians pocket - and now 70% of it is in pocket of whoever was ready to play the dirtiest to get the contracts. that is also why the economy in Russia is SO FUCKING FUCKED UP because it's so hard to do honest business with them, since you need to not only know the law(actually you don't even need to know the law) but what you really have to know is who the fuck happens to run some region and who's pockets you should line so that your investment doesn't magically turn into somebody else's investment.

      and oh yeah Putin is so fucking gay it's ridiculous, wrestles with young boys all day long.

      So you don't believe in trickle down ...

    5. Re:ridiculos! by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      In my experience this is true of most ski areas in the US, too.

      The "town" the ski area is located in is much lower than the ski area base. By the time you get to the top of the ski area you're 5000 or more feet above the town and the weather is much different.

      I rather doubt that's true in more than a few special locations in the USA. First of all, there's nowhere in New England that is 5000 feet above anything in New England with the exception, more or less, of Tuckerman's Ravine. Next, since places like Aspen and Denver start out in the cities at 6 to 8 kft, if you went up 5 kft from there you'd be in darn near in oxygen tank altitudes.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    6. Re:ridiculos! by guacamole · · Score: 1

      On a bad year (for snow), sometimes you can see snowmaking operations in full force even on the big ski resorts in Colorado and California. Nothing new.

    7. Re:ridiculos! by swb · · Score: 1

      It's a generalization. Some ski towns are at about a mile elevation, some more like 3000 feet, at least in the mountains. The base at Arapahoe Basin is 10,780 feet, peak is over 13,000 feet.

      New England is a different beast and probably relies even more on snow making than mountain resorts.

    8. Re:ridiculos! by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Just comparing the temperatures in the biggest city which happens to be located near the actual mountains which host the games is completely stupid!

      Just comparing the temperatures of the city, no, but did your city have to spend $51 Billion (even adjusted for inflation) to make the location viable?

    9. Re:ridiculos! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In my experience this is true of most ski areas in the US, too. The "town" the ski area is located in is much lower than the ski area base. By the time you get to the top of the ski area you're 5000 or more feet above the town and the weather is much different.

      In most ski areas, this is true, but not in Sochi. The primary ski resort there is Rosa Khutor in Krasnaya Polyana, which is 1.1 km (3800 ft) above sea level.

      It's actually still sufficiently cold there for a ski resort, but that's also because of the surrounding landscape that effectively blocks the warm winds from the shore to the south, as much as elevation.

    10. Re:ridiculos! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Except in America our politicians occasionally lose their jobs.

    11. Re:ridiculos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you never heard of Lake Tahoe.....

  11. You have to hand it to the Russians by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Funny
    State of the art megawatt snow-making equipment, stockpiles of snow from bygone years beneath thermal blankets in the mountains, and the employment of Altai Shaman to hold a mystical snow ceremony...

    Now, doesn't the lack of shower curtains and door knobs seem a bit pedantic?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:You have to hand it to the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do they never name the hotel where these problems exist. Fact is that the hotels are all operated by International hotel chains. Those companies are the ones responsible for the room problems, not the Russian government or the Russian people.

    2. Re:You have to hand it to the Russians by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Isn't the Russian government responsible for athlete accommodations?

  12. Re:Hm From Where Did RU Copy This? by AlabamaCajun · · Score: 2

    That Q&A is a hard fact that except for some drift it comes so close to what is reality, We were driven to near austerity in the 80s with the this mentality. Here we were in the 2000s and nearly achieved it the second time around in that same geographical area. History is being denied just as AGW is now being denied. It's time to stop living the American dream which for most has been a nightmare and start living the American Reality. We have to address global warming with the same attitude as a Soviet invasion would have been that never came to be. A few more questions .
    Q. How come we can't watch the Olympics?
    A. Because we don't have a cable provider and our video stream is not a sponsor of the NBC networks.
    Q. But I thought the Olympics were for everyone including so we could support our team?
    A. They are but the sponsoring is now controlled by greedy networks that are run by exclusive clubs owned by the elite.
    Q. Do the elite believe in AGW?
    A. ...

  13. Snow in Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess they couldn't find a colder place in such a tiny territory

  14. Re:Thinking about the Olympics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    ROFLMAO You should submit this script to "Saturday Night Live" or for a more politically satirical delivery contact "The Rick Mercer Report."

  15. sounds just like Vancouver n/t by Maxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the comment I am forced to type.

    1. Re: sounds just like Vancouver n/t by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      If you had no comment to type, why did you post a comment?

      Oh, wait, there it is, in the useless subject line. I'm not sure why a threaded discussion forum like slashdot supports comment subjects, as the subject is already implied. If you're posting a comment under the Sochi story, presumably your comment's subject is... Sochi.

      Why you'd decide to put your comment in the subject, however, baffles me. Were the text fields on your web form not properly labeled "Comment Subject" and "Comment"? I'd suggest trying a different browser or submitting a bug report to slashdot.

      Also, I find your claim of being forced to type anything to be unbelievable. Who forces someone to post to slashdot, and why?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  16. Making Snow in Russia by Trachman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, making snow in Russia... Only in Russia... The cost of Olympic games is more than $50 Billion, or approximately $500 per Russian citizen, that is including babies and retired people. Had most of Russians been asked whether they agree to donate $500 per person they would have told "No". So they blew $50 billion... That is not entirely correct since this $50 billion has transformed to the salaries of the workers, organizers and security, cost of construction materials and the profits for organizers. So it is not all gone to waste. However Olympic games has always been a classic and favorite way of spreading the wealth... upwards. in 50 years we will hear about Russia's summer Olympic games in Arctic pole.

    1. Re:Making Snow in Russia by guacamole · · Score: 1

      The cost of the Farm Bill approved by the US Congress days ago, budgets about $100 billion, most of that to be spent on farm subsidies, which disproportionately favor wealthy farmers and agribusiness corporations. The cost of bill is nearly, $300 per person, including children and retired people. If surveyed everyone in the USA, asking if they would be willing to pay $300 per year out of their pocket for farm subsidies, most of them would have said no.

    2. Re:Making Snow in Russia by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The really funny part is that the snow-making equipment was sold to Russia by... Israel. It has already spawned numerous jokes in Russia about how only Jews are shrewd enough to sell snow to Russians and make a profit on that (which is a rehash of a similar old joke about Eskimo).

    3. Re:Making Snow in Russia by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      in 50 years we will hear about Russia's summer Olympic games in Arctic pole

      Not a problem with a gigantic solar mirror in orbit. Heck I remember them having proposals to do just that back when there was a Soviet Union.

  17. Very inaccurate and deceptive by GauteL · · Score: 5, Informative

    While the indoor activities may well be in the City of Sochi, the activities which actually requires a large amount of snow (alpine and nordic) are actually arranged in Rosa Khutor, which may only be 50 km away, but happens to be approximately 1000 meters above sea level, something which does have an impact on the climate.

    There may be lots of things wrong with these Olympics, but there is no need to exaggerate.

  18. That was very interesting... by Fishchip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right up until the end when GLOBAL WARMING.

    1. Re:That was very interesting... by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      Actually, IMHO the GW stuff at the end is the most interesting part. What happens to the Winter Olympics when ice and snow become rare things? Not only is finding sites going to be tough, but also finding participants.

    2. Re:That was very interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just *love* your wizardry of accurately KNOWING THE FUTURE.

    3. Re:That was very interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there any serious hypothesis out there, where snow and ice become rare things? The worst case scenarios I've heard anyone talk about, are that many formerly-snowy/icey places become less so, and some coastal cities cease becoming habitable. Both of these are work-aroundable by spending uncounted trillions of dollars to move people, either to higher elevations or closer to the poles. (Then just put that expense down as the cost of today's subsidized pollution.) But spend the money, and you'll find snow and ice again.

      Are you saying you've read someone credibly suggest "Earth becomes Venus" such that even Antarctica isn't cold anymore?

      It's hilarious that Russia, of all places, has a hard time finding a snowy place to host. That's just plain bullshit. They went out of their way to choose an inappropriate/expensive location. In America, we call that "job creation."

    4. Re:That was very interesting... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Some places that used to have snow will no longer have snow. No places that don't currently have snow will get snow. this, the total amount of snow will be reduced, making it less rare. Anywhere can have snow if you really want it to, but it gets mighty expensive mighty fast.

    5. Re:That was very interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you seem to KNOW that it will be exactly the same as now?

    6. Re:That was very interesting... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      AGW causes more snow. http://www.motherjones.com/blu... Really.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:That was very interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it was interesting until the poster started into some irrational political rant.

    8. Re:That was very interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because peer-reviewed scientific consensus is irrational and political.

      You're one of those people who think the Earth is 4000 years old, right?

    9. Re:That was very interesting... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Some places that used to have snow will no longer have snow. No places that don't currently have snow will get snow. this, the total amount of snow will be reduced, making it less rare. Anywhere can have snow if you really want it to, but it gets mighty expensive mighty fast.

      Actually, most reports I've heard say that snow should increase in some places. Hotter average temperatures in the oceans result in more moisture in the air. That's more cloud cover over mainland and will mean colder temps and more snowfall inland in some places. When talking about the giant heat sinks that are the Earth's oceans, what happens on land is largely irrelevant to the average.

  19. Why did they hold it there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely they have plenty of really cold places in the Noth of Siberia - with the added bonus that that it would be further away from the muzzy threat. Why did they hold it in Sochi?

  20. The mountains near Sochi get tons of snow... by oneiron · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Greater Caucasus Mountains where the Olympics are being held receive as much snowfall as any major ski resort in the US. It's just a bad year for them...sort of like Vancouver 4 years ago. I really don't understand the "subtropical" knock that everyone keeps repeating. This is a huge mountain range that gets tons of snow every year. Not considering climate change, the facilities they've built in the mountains will probably serve as a very nice ski resort after the olympics...

    1. Re:The mountains near Sochi get tons of snow... by guacamole · · Score: 1

      And looking at the ski events on the games on TV, there seems to be plenty of natural snow on the mountains even now. The area looks beautiful and it was known for years by some extreme skiers in the west as a "secret destination".

    2. Re:The mountains near Sochi get tons of snow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't understand the "subtropical" knock that everyone keeps repeating.

      It's geography. It seems they don't teach the subject well anymore.

  21. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Yes but in such a system, woe be to the local bureaucrat who fucks up Dear Leader's I 'r Sewious plans just to line his pockets.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  22. In Soviet Russia We Host You! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia We Host You!

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia We Host You! by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      Spasibo!

      --
      none
  23. Re:Seriously??? by geogob · · Score: 2

    Common sense I do have.

    Obviously. You have so much of it, that you can completely disregard obvious facts. That must be convenient.

    WTF does this have to do with the original article?

    It has a lot to do with the original article, which is unfortunately somewhat off track. The subject tackled are the important investments to ensure proper conditions for the winter competition. Sadly the article and the title used by slashdot are missleading, as they suggest these investements are made to transform a sub-tropical climate into a winter paradise. What so many people fail to understand is that the climate up in the mountains IS NOT the same as the one near the sea in the city of Sochi.

    So what does it have to do with it? A lot.

    What the poster of this article understood but you - and most likely the journalist behind the article - failed to understand is that the a large part of the investments are made to ensure that the proper conditions are met in the competition sites in the mountains (not in the sub-tropical paradise, mind you). The risk of having non-adequate conditions, and thus require the equipement and huge investment behind it - is obviously linked to the climate.

    I do not believe Sochi - and the sites in the mountains in the direct neighbourhood - could ever garantee the right conditions, regardless of the outcome of the winter. Hence the large investements. The interesting catch is that many of the past Winter Olympic sites, which could garantee for those conditions, fall in the same category as Sochi due to climate change. This means that these sites would also need similar investments to hold such competition in the future.

    But stick to your common sense, widely feed by ignorance and closed mindset.

  24. Re:Yawn by geogob · · Score: 1

    Have you a better source than the daily mail for that one?

  25. Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The 0-100 degreen range of Farenheit better represents the range of temperatures that humans encounter. http://imgur.com/gallery/ucOQh

    1. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      Surely that is not subjective at all.

      --
      none
    2. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Hypotensive · · Score: 2

      Also, feet and inches are clearly superior to metres since they are related to measurements of humans rather than the Earth. Or some human, probably.

      And gallons are clearly superior to litres because I know how many gallons I get to a mile, and I have no idea how many litres to the metre. QED.

    3. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      In the very scientific scale of "really"s in the cartoon that you link, I would argue that 0F is way more really cold than 100F is really hot, or, in other words, 0F is more reallys on the cold scale as opposed to 100F is reallys on the hot scale.

    4. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      As somebody who lives in Canada, I have to say that 0 Fahrenheit (-17 C) isn't that cold as long as you dress appropriately. You could argue that any temperature isn't cold depending on how you dress, but -17C is pretty arbitrary. -5C would be quite uncomfortable if you decided to go out in shorts and t-shirt. If I had to shoot for a general range that humans encounter, I'd probably put it somewhere around -40C to +50C, which puts us around -40 to 122 Fahrenheit, which is quite outside the range of 0 to 100. -17 is warm enough that you could stay outside all day and not feel cold provided you wore some decent winter clothing. -40 is so cold that you'll get quite code after a short time out even in high quality winter clothing if you aren't moving around enough.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      It's not that hard:
      0 degrees C = water freezes
      100 degrees C = water boils
      We "encounter" these temperatures all the time, and they can be reproduced easily in your own kitchen with very good accuracy compared to the subjective "really cold" or "really hot" of the F scale.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Buzer · · Score: 1

      The image isn't really true. Lots of people are regularly sitting in places in which the temperature are even over 100C and not many are dieing because of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauna

    7. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Surely that is not subjective at all.

      Isn't describing your surroundings in understandable terms supposed to be subjective? If I can't stand outside and give my honest opinion about how it feels, what the fuck is the point of the word subjective?

      Or did that just go whoosh?

    8. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Why is 0-100 a significant number instead of, say, 0-32? Instead of saying, "I'm 80% of the way to freaking hot today," you can say, "I'm 7/8 of the of way to hot today." Wouldn't that be just as nice?

      Oh wait, no one thinks of temperature in terms of relative position between some mathematically convenient minimum and maximum temperature!

      We experience temperature more like a street address that we happen to be on -- it's nice here and maybe a little less nice "further down the block." We don't mathematically weigh a 9 point temperature difference so much as recall from experience what that feels like. For telling how comfortable temperature is, the units don't matter at all so long as they can be related to past experience.

      In that respect Fahrenheit has no advantages over Celsius except the familiarity of its defenders with it.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    9. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      Why is 0-100 a significant number instead of, say, 0-32?

      0-100 allows for finer granularity of temperature representation without resorting to fractions or decimals, which, while simple enough, are more cumbersome than integers for the average person to deal with. 0-100 also is a natural measure of "low" and "high", not the least of which is because we use percentages all the time which are based on a 0-100 scale. For people who have experience rebasing their definitions of low and high (like math-oriented people), it doesn't matter. For the average person, it does.

      Instead of saying, "I'm 80% of the way to freaking hot today," you can say, "I'm 7/8 of the of way to hot today." Wouldn't that be just as nice?

      No. 8ths are harder to deal with than 100ths.

      We experience temperature more like a street address that we happen to be on -- it's nice here and maybe a little less nice "further down the block." We don't mathematically weigh a 9 point temperature difference so much as recall from experience what that feels like. For telling how comfortable temperature is, the units don't matter at all so long as they can be related to past experience.

      I definitely agree with you there. I'm used to Fahrenheit temperature so I know that 70 degrees F is comfortable and 90 degrees F is hot. If I were used to Celsius then I'd be comfortable with its numbers, sure.

      In that respect Fahrenheit has no advantages over Celsius except the familiarity of its defenders with it.

      I hope you realize that your same argument applies to Celsius as well.

    10. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by magarity · · Score: 1

      It's not that hard:
      0 degrees C = water freezes
      100 degrees C = water boils
      We "encounter" these temperatures all the time, and they can be reproduced easily in your own kitchen with very good accuracy compared to the subjective "really cold" or "really hot" of the F scale.

      Not in my kitchen, they can't. Water here boils at 94C. So much for your sea level bias.
      What boiling water has to do with the weather report, I'll never figure out but Celcius fans trot that out every time..

    11. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the problem with subjective descriptions is that they depend on the subject doing the describing. If I don't know you, then your description of it being "cold" outside doesn't really mean anything at all to me. It might be -20 C, it might be 20 C. That's the reason we have objective measures of temperature (and many other things).

      At any rate, I suspect there are few people who wouldn't describe 0 F as really cold, and 100 F as really hot. But ignoring the subjective labels, the 0-100 F range captures an awful lot of the weather related temperature variation in populated areas of Earth's surface. It may not be optimal, but it's obviously better than C or K for describing weather when you want to use whole numbers. Still, floating point numbers are pretty easy to work with these days and there's really no reason we couldn't use just about any linear (actually, affine) transformation of Kelvin to talk about weather.

    12. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my area I get temperatures that range somewhere from -10C to 35C; 45 degrees. In Fahrenheit that's 14F to 95F; 81 degrees.

      I just don't care for the sudden fluctuations in 'how it feels' temperature with Celsius if I'm off by a few degrees.

    13. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really doesn't matter which units of measure is better. Most of the world uses metric, for better or worse (including Centigrades/Celsius), and those countries that traditionally used other units are making the effort to switch to metric, to get along with the rest of the planet. Americans on the other hand, refuse to switch, which says more about their attitude towards the world outside than anything else.

    14. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      How often do you interact with water at the extremes of its liquid phase?
      How often do you interact with ambient air?

      Now you see why people really like Fahrenheit so much. Most usage of temperature measurements are in the context of ambient air temperature. Nobody measures the temperature of their ice cubes or their boiling pot of water.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    15. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      0-100 allows for finer granularity of temperature representation without resorting to fractions or decimals, which, while simple enough, are more cumbersome than integers for the average person to deal with.

      People generally can't feel temperature differences that fine over their whole bodies. For purposes of weather, Celsius units are closer to what people can actually feel.

      0-100 also is a natural measure of "low" and "high", not the least of which is because we use percentages all the time which are based on a 0-100 scale. For people who have experience rebasing their definitions of low and high (like math-oriented people), it doesn't matter. For the average person, it does.

      Only because that's what they're used to. In other measurements, what's "normal" isn't going to be 0-100, and people are used to handling them all the time. Some examples.

      - What's a fast and a slow driving speed? Is it in units of 0-100?
      - What's an average range for human height? Is it in units of 0-100?

      You don't think of any of these in terms of anything that makes a relevant percentage any more than we think of weather as a percentage for many of the same reasons. The endpoints are arbitrary, you can exceed them, and the "average" conditions cover a far smaller part of the range.

      In that respect Fahrenheit has no advantages over Celsius except the familiarity of its defenders with it.

      I hope you realize that your same argument applies to Celsius as well.

      True, but both Celsius and Fahrenheit are based on the freezing and boiling points of water. Fahrenheit was just retrofitted to it later to be defined by it based on 32 & 212 degrees to make the original, almost completely arbitrary scale have some logical basis. (It was originally based on chilled brine and human body temperature.) But if we're using the same substance to calibrate the scale, why not base the units on it?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    16. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      People generally can't feel temperature differences that fine over their whole bodies. For purposes of weather, Celsius units are closer to what people can actually feel.

      I think setting the dynamic range of 0-100 based on human extremes (see below) is fine, but I don't think this is an important point really. Both scales have to have finer granularity than "cold, medium, and hot" and they do.

      Only because that's what they're used to. In other measurements, what's "normal" isn't going to be 0-100, and people are used to handling them all the time.

      One comment on this before we get to your examples. You can't look at averages, because they aren't meaningful - you have to look at the range, so mean+variance+std deviations. Basically, you look at what the likely numbers that people are going to use.

      - What's a fast and a slow driving speed? Is it in units of 0-100?

      As a matter of fact, yes. 0 is not moving and numbers near it are slow, 100 mph is "really fast" (using the terminology from the original picture I linked). If you're measuring in km/h, you have the same problem as Celsius where the scale isn't nicely correlated to normal human activity :) I think it's merely a happy coincidence that 0-100 mph works out this way (as opposed to Fahrenheit, see below), but it sure did work out nicely.

      - What's an average range for human height? Is it in units of 0-100?

      Human height doesn't change all that much, and really only changes for about 20 years out of a lifespan of ~80. (Hey, notice how lifespans are also good with 0-100? 0 is really young, 100 is really old)

      I guess I have to concede your point though. The scale can be arbitrary and people will get used to it. That doesn't mean that one scale itself is superior or inferior.

      Fahrenheit was just retrofitted to it later to be defined by it based on 32 & 212 degrees to make the original, almost completely arbitrary scale have some logical basis. (It was originally based on chilled brine and human body temperature.)

      That's exactly my point (no one figured out why Fahrenheit works out this way until you said it just now). Human body temperature being 100 on the scale sets the scale to something that humans have intrinsic experience with. Obviously not human body temperature directly, but outside weather temperature which is related to human body temperature by virtue of evolution giving us a body temperature that tolerates those outside temperatures. On the low end, Fahrenheit used a freezing point of something lower than water, probably something he considered "really cold". My point being, he set the 0-100 range of his scale to extremes that humanes were reasonably likely to encounter. Just judging by that for human use (ignoring all the other SI benefits), I think this makes it a superior scale to Celsius.

    17. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by waimate · · Score: 1

      Temperature doesn't have the absurd issue of units that the other measurements have. If Faremheit included features like "12 degrees to a larksvomit, 3 larksvomits to a thrumblehorn", so a 75 degree day would actually be expressed as "3 thromblehorns and a larksvomit", then it would have the same issue.

      The problem isn't the magnitude of these things, the problem is the absurd units and multiples involved.

    18. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      100F is just above human body temperature. If it's that hot, it's too hot for humans to be comfortable. IIRC, that point of the Fahrenheit scale was selected because of its relation to human body temperature (obviously there was a slight inaccuracy, with it being hundreds of years ago). Yes, outside temperatures do exceed 100 in some places, but usually those are called "deserts" or "tropical", and even so, they don't typically exceed 110F too much. In the American southwest, it almost never goes above 120F, and in the middle-eastern desert, it gets up to a maximum of 135F or so IIRC. These aren't normal environments.

      It's pretty simple: if it's 100F or higher, I really don't want to be outside (and I've lived in Phoenix, so I know what that's like; there's a reason that city only became large after the invention of air conditioning). And if it's 0F or colder, I really don't want to be outside. Temperatures within this range are very common, temperatures outside are uncommon unless you live in an extreme (non-temperate) environment. It's a good scale for measuring outdoor temperatures, much better than Celcius. Yes, it sucks for unit conversions, but who cares? I haven't done those since Chemistry class in college, and it's easy to remember the conversion factors for those few times I might want to (or, you can just Google it).

    19. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      100 degrees C = water boils
      We "encounter" these temperatures all the time

      I've never heard of anyplace on Earth where the outside air temperature reaches 100C, or anywhere close to it, except maybe the mouth of a volcano.

    20. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      For a lot of people, for a good part of the year, ambient air temperature is somewhere at or below that of ice cubes, you know. Even in US - I understand that California is the most populated state of the Union, and Texas and Florida are also pretty big, but there is still plenty of people regularly affected by such weather phenomena as "snow" and "ice", as we call them.

      Boiling water as the 100 point doesn't make much sense, perhaps, but 0 at freezing point makes a great deal of sense.

    21. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 0-100 degreen range of Farenheit better represents the range of temperatures that humans encounter. http://imgur.com/gallery/ucOQh [imgur.com]
      Not where I live. Half the year I look at temperatures with a "-" in front, and turning it into Farenheit still makes it a "-" for nearly half the time, and getting rid of the "-" means its melting, otherwise its freezing. What the hell has '32' got to do with it. I can see building a gauge made of a half circle with 180 degrees, and saying one end is freezing, and the other boiling, and having 180 degrees between freezing and boiling (instead of 100, although for complex calculations 100 is easier to divide by than 180), but offsetting that 180 degrees by this magic number '32' making freezing not 0 but 32, and boiling not 180 but 212... what the hell is that ? Why not 40 or 50, some round even number. Even 20 would make freezing 20 and boiling 200, but they went for 32. Why not then 27.863? Then you could have freezing at 27.863 and boiling at 207.863. Its just as convenient as 32!

    22. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      What does the weather report have to do with any temperature scale? That's not even how Fahrenheit is defined, and saying that 100 degrees F is "Hot" may not depend on altitude but it sure depends on the person, wind chill factor, humidity, etc.

      Let's look at calibrating thermometers on both scales from 0 to 100:
      0 degrees. Celsius: freezing water. Fahrenheit: how far you can cool brine. Let's call it a tie thus far
      100 degrees. Celsius: boiling water, easy and useful: you can make tea after calibrating your thermometer. Fahrenheit: shove the thermometer up your arse for the correct 100 degree reading. I'll take Celsius, thank you very much.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    23. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Ambient air temperature doesn't frequently drop below 0 degrees Fahrenheit for a vast majority of humans. Note, water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, which means that nearly one third of the 0-100 range of the Fahrenheit scale is reserved for below-freezing temperatures. Of course, there's also the fact that Fahrenheit supports negative temperatures as well.

      Your response reads as though it is supportive of using Fahrenheit for measuring ambient air temperatures. Except for the last sentence. Now I'm confused.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    24. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I was talking about Celcius - I thought that was obvious from my reference to 0 as the freezing point. I actually don't understand why the "always positive" temperature scale even for below-freezing temperatures is touted like it's some kind of advantage of Fahrenheit. Personally, I much prefer the positive/negative distinction, because it has a convenient point of reference and the sign immediately conveys something useful in and of itself.

    25. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Ambient air temperature doesn't frequently get to 0F for a very large number of humans. 0F is a highly arbitrary number (IIRC, it was the coldest Herr Fahrenheit could get in his lab), and only for some of humanity does it get that cold, and for much of that segment it easily gets colder. Where I am, pretty much every winter it gets to about -20F. Some people think 0F is bitterly cold, and some people think 0F isn't that bad when you're dressed for it. You may think it's a nice place to zero the scale, but it's really pretty arbitrary.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      We use liters per 100 km here.

    27. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Dude. Its irrelevant. We perfectly know in here that if its 40C you are either in a desert or will be turning into a marshmallow soon. Conversely 10C is where things start to become unbearably cold. 0C is when it freezes and snow starts to fall. Also if you are cooking it is more important to know which phase of water you are in than the relation of the temperature to your body temperature. The human body has 60% water in it. So yes the water phase is important.

    28. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Both Celsius and Fahrenheit are totally arbitrary. At least Kelvin and Rankine are only half as arbitrary, if that's your primary concern.

      i'm just saying that most people use temperature scales to communicate ambient air temperatures, not water temperatures. That being said, if you're going to use an arbitrary scale, you might as well use one that's arbitrary but tied to ambient air temperatures, not water temperatures. People like 0-100 (or 0-10, or 0-1000) scales, as all the SI proponents can't stop reminding us. Fahrenheit stays in the 0-100 range for most of the people on the planet most of the time, whereas that range corresponds to -18 to 38 in Celsius. Are you now saying that powers of 10 aren't inherently awesome, and that -18 and 38 are intuitive values to people?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    29. Re:Fahrenheit is more naturally understood by Optali · · Score: 1

      Humans in the USA maybe, most humans I know use Celsius... and we perfectly understand it.
      Well, from time to time you can see somebody dressed like an eskimo when it's 12C in the middle of the winter... or the the other way around, a chick freezing in the chill with stockings and a miniskirt, but these aren't victims of misunderstanding scales but just victims of fashion :P

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  26. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YAWN...libertarians predicted we'd be in complete anarchy with the collapse of the dollar where only the buyers of guns, gold and bitcoin would survive.

    That's what happens when you follow short bus ideas and extrapolate them into the future.

  27. climatologists predict? by superwiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    2080? heh. Reminds me of Disraeli saying (and I am paraphrasing) that politicians enjoy a the privilege heretofore only afforded to whores - power without responsibility. I guess climatologists, too, now. Making predictions not verifiable until after their retirement? Check.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:climatologists predict? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Making predictions not verifiable until after their retirement?

      Maybe they are actually smarter than they look. ;-)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:climatologists predict? by Malizar · · Score: 1

      I doubt that, they seem totally unable to predict tomorrow's weather. Someone could roll dice and be more accurate.

  28. As we all know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    by 2080, we shall live in a 3D printed paradise as our children fly back and forth between the local galaxies in exotic-matter powered warp drives. Surely by 2080 the Makerbots will have snow cartridges in them?

  29. Re: Cels...FICK BETA!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently they've been around for a long time but just hiding and lurking or pretending to post intelligently.

  30. Jamaican national bobsleigh team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They might just as well aim for bringing the event to Jamaica!

  31. Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you just respond to a troll? Moron.

  32. Sounds like Stalin-style mass industrialism by swb · · Score: 0

    It sounds very much like Stalin-style mass industrialism where massive resources are thrown at something to accomplish it. Usually it's done regardless of cost and almost seems to be done to demonstrate ability and capability more than the intrinsic value of what's being done.

    1. Re:Sounds like Stalin-style mass industrialism by m00sh · · Score: 1

      It sounds very much like Stalin-style mass industrialism where massive resources are thrown at something to accomplish it. Usually it's done regardless of cost and almost seems to be done to demonstrate ability and capability more than the intrinsic value of what's being done.

      You mean sounds like the space program?

    2. Re:Sounds like Stalin-style mass industrialism by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      This is older than Stalin. Peter the Great built St. Petersburg in the middle of a swamp and made it the capital.

  33. SnowBank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Russia, the snow bank breaks you!

  34. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Climate change is bad science corrupted by money and politics. It's an embarrassment.

  35. Seriously? by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Allow me to divide one meter by the amounts you mentioned:

    3 - 0,333mm (use as much precision as you'd like)
    2 - 0,500mm
    4 - 0,250mm

    Now, allow me to do something you can't do trivially with imperial units:

    How many centimeters does a kilometer have?

    1km = 1000m = 100.000cm

    Try doing that under 5 seconds with imperial units.

    You only insult yourself by using such stupid arguments. SI is better.

    1. Re:Seriously? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SI is better, but ease of unit conversions is at best a minor advantage. You know when the last time I had to convert between centimeters and kilometers was? Probably when I was in school, learning about using metric. I don't convert between inches and miles either -- there's just no point in most people's lives.

      In fact, the only units that I have to convert between regularly are time units, and metric doesn't help you there.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Seriously? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not OP, but the US tape measures are much better than the metric equivalent. US has a large mark every half inch, a slightly smaller mark at 1/4 inch, 3/4 inch. then all the remaining marks slightly smaller at 1/8, and then smallest every 1/16". Without any numbers, you can do many many more iterations than divide by than 1/10th can do for framing, building houses, etc it is truly better. Especially that squares can skip the 1/8", and 1/16" marks that can't be so easily stamped into them for endurance, yet you can easily transfer measurements from this device with 1/4 as many marks as the tape measure back and forth, just looking for identical marks. 1/10 just doesn't scale like that, you can't skip half the decimal marks and not be lost, you can't just look at a tape, and no the difference without counting from 0.2 to 0.3.
      in your example, 0.25 your going to be approximating on a metric tape, where is half way between .2, and .3, so you will be counting each mark, 1,2,3 ok half way between the 2 and 3. With the US tape, if your a carpenter used to it, you know what a 1/4 mark looks like, so you can just see it and mark it. May not seam like much, but it truly save a second on every measurement. And it works for all the marks, what 15/32", the 1/2" mark is obvious, move up one of the smallest marks, want 9/16", go up by one of the 1/16 marks.

    3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comment reads to me as "If you use inches for everything, inches are better on a tape measure.".

    4. Re:Seriously? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      US ruler is marked in fractions of 1/32, metric in fractions of 10. So metric wins if your dividing by 5, or by 10. US standard wins if your dividing by 4,8,16,32. *they tie if dividing by 2.

      Also look at a dual ruler http://www.myonlineruler.com/ What you'll see the US one is much cleaner, this one doesn't go down to 1/16", but you can make one 2* as accurate that you can still easily transpose readings to one 2* denser. All of the lines are a different length on the US side, that is a standard, any carpenter can pick any measurement without counting each mark, despite having 1/16" marks unlabeled.
      see http://www.newwoodworker.com/basic/graphics/abttpmsrs/3mrks250.jpg
          The metric one looks ok, but try to pick 13.3cm, you will be counting each line, but also it is too busy in cm to be marked on many woodworking tools, definitely cant stamp into steel anything denser than cm, because you cant do mm, nothing in-between on the metric side.

    5. Re:Seriously? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      The advantage is not only limited to converting between units of the same dimension (for example, length to length), but between different kinds of dimensions. With metric, I can take a physics formula like
      T = (1/2)m*v^2
      put in m=10kg, v=2m/s
      And the answer is 1/2*10*2 joules = 20 joules. Try that with imperial units.
      m=20 lb, v=10 ft/s
      T = 1000 (lb ft^2/s^2). Fuck if I know how many BTUs that is, or whatever the imperial unit for energy is.

    6. Re:Seriously? by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, this feature does not work with temperatures, which require this Boltzmann's constant. We could technically do away with Boltzmann's constant and measure temperature in joules, but then we would have numbers like: The high today is 4.14 * 10^-21 joules (or 4.14 zeptojoules). I don't know any other applications where one would regularly use such small numbers.

    7. Re:Seriously? by jopsen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In fact, the only units that I have to convert between regularly are time units, and metric doesn't help you there.

      I did highschool physics in Europe with SI units...But oh, the horrors whenever, we saw a page from an American physics book :)
      More than half the book was about unit translation... it's convenient have kilograms, meters match up with the gravitational constant.

      Maybe you're right that it doesn't matter that much on a daily basis. But if you ever read the nutritional information on a product over here (I'm currently in the US) you'll see that it's per "serving" and:
      - servings are defined in cups (or something crazy)
      - fat per serving is grams, and
      - total contents of the package is defined in pounds.
      To deduce anything from the nutritional information on the product is very hard... In most other countries, it's grams of fat per 100 gram, and total contents of the package is in kg or grams... Enjoy.

    8. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is "imperial is better because the tools are less precise"?

      There are also less precise metric rulers, if that's your thing.
      In fact, you could have the metric ruler divided by 1/4 cm (just like the imperial is in 1/4 in.) getting the same benefits you see in the imperial ruler, while still being more precise -- each line would be slightly closer on the metric side.

    9. Re:Seriously? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't disagree that doing science or engineering with imperial units is a bad idea. In reality, though, even in the U.S. everyone in the sciences uses metric in that context. I studied physics in the US, and I couldn't tell you the conversions or even the names of all the imperial units -- we don't use them either.

      Apparently there are some engineering fields that actually do commonly use imperial units -- which I think is totally strange, and ought to change.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    10. Re:Seriously? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      I did highschool physics in Europe with SI units...But oh, the horrors whenever, we saw a page from an American physics book :)
      More than half the book was about unit translation... it's convenient have kilograms, meters match up with the gravitational constant.

      I studied physics in the US -- both at high school and university level -- and I can tell you that nobody actually does physics using US units. Typically an introductory course will include an early segment on converting to and from metric, but the students can generally forget all about it because the coursework will all be in SI units.

      I've seen a couple old textbooks where the authors seemed to get a kick out of forcing people to convert back and forth (exercises would include mixed units), but I've never seen a book or a class in the last 20 years that did that beyond some initial work on making sure that the students know how to convert between units.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    11. Re:Seriously? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      I am saying the US has a standard for printing measuring tools, that is more robust. Metric is actually less standardized. IE, people do make less precise, skipping marks... that requires counting marks. The US system has a standard that is more flexible. Similar is true with metric Bolts, they lack a standard. Every manufacture marks bolt hardness differently, the US standard has the marks defined. Similar for head sizes on bolts, every 7/16 bolt has a 5/8 head, and a 5/8" nut. you get a dozen 10mm bolts, it could have 4 different wrench sizes to loosen it. Believe it or not, having 1 country maintain a standard, works better than many.

    12. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U.S. everyone in the sciences uses metric

      No we do not. Anytime you are designing a piece of hardware you do it in Imperial units because that's what the tooling of your machine shop will be in.

    13. Re:Seriously? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Funny

      I always see this, and it never stops getting less stupid. I'm an American living abroad, and I switched over to the metric system about five years ago. You know the last time I needed to know how many centimeters in a kilometer? Never. It doesn't happen. This so-called advantage is nothing but. Humans respond well to whole numbers. 12 is a more round number than 10, and 60 is more round than 100.

      Use the right unit for the right job. Nobody ever has to convert units. You know how many feet in a mile? Nobody cares. One is for measuring small distances, and the other for large distances.

      Story time: after I started really using the metric system, I once met a group of Europeans on the street. Seeing that I was a fellow foreigner, they stopped to ask me directions to a nearby venue. I said, "Oh, it's about a hectometer that way," only to get blank stares. It was like I just stepped out of an alien spaceship. I had to explain to them that a hectometer was 100 meters. They had no idea despite using the metric system since birth.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    14. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's engineering, not the sciences.

    15. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I distinctly remember Tim "The Toolman" Taylor saying it means "Big heaT Unit."

    16. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Story time: after I started really using the metric system, I once met a group of Europeans on the street. Seeing that I was a fellow foreigner, they stopped to ask me directions to a nearby venue. I said, "Oh, it's about a hectometer that way," only to get blank stares. It was like I just stepped out of an alien spaceship. I had to explain to them that a hectometer was 100 meters. They had no idea despite using the metric system since birth.

      Maybe it was because you pronounced it hectometer instead of hectometre?

      Or possibly because just saying 100 metres is more common :)

    17. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's experimental science.

    18. Re:Seriously? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      It would be easier to comprehend and your case would be much stronger if you used decimal points instead of commas, and commas instead of decimal points. If we can't all agree on such a simple thing as decimal points vs commas, then we'll never get everybody aboard the SI system.

      So, your
      1km = 1000m = 100.000cm
      is always better as
      1km = 1000m = 100,000cm

      But . . . . each to his own.

    19. Re:Seriously? by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      I hear people measuring distance in feet and miles all the time. Heck, my navigator, when giving driving directions often says something like "in a quarter of a mile..." and then "in 500 feet". I still have no clue how different "quarter of a mile" and "500 feet" are. And then, when you think you almost got it, there are yards...

      P.S. I was raised with SI units and moved to US not long ago and this is my perspective.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    20. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Try doing that under 5 seconds with imperial units."

      A centimetre is 1/100 metres.
      A kilometre is 1000 metres.
      Therefore there are 100 x 1000 centimetres in a kilometre.
      Answer: 100,000.
      How long does that take you? It took me 2-3 seconds.

      How long does it take you to calculate how many inches there are in a mile?

    21. Re:Seriously? by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Hit the nail on the head there.

      I remember when we just moved here and my wife wanted to buy a sour cream. With fat-free obsession here most stuff is very low on fat, but we wanted it with "normal" percentage of fat, like we used to. Basically we were looking for the one with the highest percentage of fat and so for each can it was: take the total mass in ounces or pounds, divide by the number of servings = mass of one serving, convert to grams, divide the fat per serving in grams by the mass of the serving to get the percentage. Do the same thing for the next can and compare.

      Yes, we did get some weird looks.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    22. Re:Seriously? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Most people are not familiar with hecto-. Really, the only prefixes that are not in steps of 10^3 that are in common use are centi- and deci-, and even those are used almost exclusively for length, and very occasionally for volume. It's easier to just say "a hundred meters" etc.

      12 is a more round number than 10, and 60 is more round than 100.

      Are you smoking something, or just polydactylous?

    23. Re:Seriously? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      SI is better, but ease of unit conversions is at best a minor advantage. You know when the last time I had to convert between centimeters and kilometers was? Probably when I was in school, learning about using metric. I don't convert between inches and miles either -- there's just no point in most people's lives.

      All you've demonstrated is that you don't do anything remotely complex in your life.

      Actually a lot of people use it. Figuring out how much cable you need to lay between buildings, so yep, someone with a basic high school education has to do this on a regular basis.

      It's a lot easier to convert 2.53454 KM into 2534540 CM than it is to convert 1.5 miles into anything lower. You can change between CM and KM almost without thinking, it's just moving a decimal point.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    24. Re:Seriously? by doccus · · Score: 1

      In fact, the only units that I have to convert between regularly are time units, and metric doesn't help you there.

      Yeah.. Speaking of time units.. Why the hell are they in such a peculiar format anyways? Why not have 10 hours in a day , 10 in a night, 100 minutes in an hour 100 seconds in a minute.. and for that matter, 100 hours in a week?

    25. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nutrition information I see on packages of European origin is significantly worse than anything in the US. They list nutrition information "per 100g" of product, which is just a more confusing way of using percentage. How many crackers is 100g? How many potato chips? What fraction of a doughnut? You need to keep a scale with you in order to compare foods that have different moisture contents or typical serving sizes. In the US, you usually get a simple volume measurement (such as cups - everyone knows how big a cup is), or even a quantity: 3 cookies, 14 crackers, half a muffin.

      And all of those different measurements you list - they're not a problem at all! No conversions or calculations are ever done between the fat (per serving) and the package size, or the mass of fat and the serving volume.

      In short, in Europe you never know how much fat, calories, sodium, protein, etc. you're getting unless you have a scale and you can't easily compare different types of food. (100g of ice cream or 100g of cake for dessert? Who knows which has more calories and sugar because I don't weigh my ice cream.) The U.S. serving size system is vastly superior because of the ease of use for an end user of figuring out approximately how much nutrition is in the food being consumed.

    26. Re:Seriously? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "SI is better, but ease of unit conversions is at best a minor advantage"

      Which is why countries using imperial units still make such extensive use of rods, chains, gills, furlongs and perches.

    27. Re:Seriously? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      12 divides evenly by 2,3,4,6 and 60 is divisible by just about every integer in the book. Base 10 just because humans have 10 fingers? That's embarrassingly anthropomorphic. It's as ridiculous as setting your measurement system as a lump of metal instead of an abstract unit. Oops...

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    28. Re:Seriously? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      12 divides evenly by 2,3,4,6 and 60 is divisible by just about every integer in the book.

      In common parlance, "round" generally means divisible by 10.

      In any case, I agree with your point that 12 is a better base for a number system. But, for better or worse, we ended up using base-10 to write down our numbers. So long as we do so, it makes sense to align our units of measurement with that, so that operations on them are more naturally represented. If this is to change, we need to change both parts of it - the units and the numbering system. Even then, it would be nice to keep the entire arrangement of metric where various units are easy to convert from and to each other without weird coefficients that need to be apply when going from volume to mass etc, as it is in Imperial. Basically, it would be same as SI, but redefine centi- to be 12, kilo- to be 12^3 etc.

      It's as ridiculous as setting your measurement system as a lump of metal instead of an abstract unit.

      Well, it's not like Imperial is any better in that regard, as it defines pound in terms of kilogram. Ultimately, it boils down to having a meaningful physical definition. Which we can come up with, like setting it to be the weight of N molecules of some specific element - but we can't measure it to the same accuracy that we can measure the "lump of metal" in question (or at least we couldn't until very recently, which is why it's now being reviewed).

    29. Re:Seriously? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      ISO-31 specifically says either a decimal point or comma are acceptable.

      Just don't mix them.

    30. Re:Seriously? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      A history much older than any other quantity's unit still in use today, most likely.

    31. Re:Seriously? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Next time stick to kilo, mega, tera... and centi, milli, micro, nano...

      Your story doesn't make much sense to me, though:

      "Hey, look! That guy looks like he's not from around here! Let's ask him for directions!"

    32. Re:Seriously? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      I can think of an infinite amount of integers that most certainly do not divide 60.

      I have to say, this general fascination with integers bothers me. Did nobody fucking teach you how to do math with fractions and Real numbers?

      Oh, and here's something else you're missing: How the fuck do you suggest an "abstract" unit is to be used?

    33. Re:Seriously? by jopsen · · Score: 1

      The U.S. serving size system is vastly superior because of the ease of use for an end user of figuring out approximately how much nutrition is in the food being consumed.

      Please elaborate on how serving sizes are standardized? And who actually eats a bag of chips one serving at the time :)
      Or who opens a bottle of coke and only drinks one serving... that ridiculous...
      So nutrition information "per 100g" of a product is just percentages, so you don't need a scale. But I agree that cross product category comparison can be hard. However, adding arbitrary serving size definitions, doesn't make that any easier.
      Anyways, the thing that would in fact be useful is energy distribution, ie. how much of the energy is from fat and how much from carbohydrates. Total numbers are not super relevant.

    34. Re:Seriously? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      When you're a foreigner in a foreign place, you tend to gravitate towards other foreigners since they are likely to speak English while locals cannot.

      So, hold on. kilo, mega, tera... and centi, milli, micro, nano I should learn, but hecto, deka, deci I should not? Who teaches this stuff? The metric system is based on powers of 10 and easy convertability. You mean to tell me that you don't know them all? That's ridiculous, I was repeatedly tested on all of these prefixes and what they mean.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    35. Re:Seriously? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      What kills me about 'not understanding metric' is that it uses the same base-10 system our numbers are written in. Anyone who learned to count 0-9 knows how to use metric already; you just move the decimal up and down the line; no real math skills required at all.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    36. Re:Seriously? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Nobody measures their weight in stone in the US either, or their front yard in perches (which is obviously easier than square meters because its 1rod squared instead). Good job using a unit name that nobody really cares about in the other system too.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  36. Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why establish a unit system commensurate with human experience? Hmmm....

  37. It's degrees celsius by ericloewe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All systems of measurements are based on arbitrary references.

    The difference is that SI is a coherent system of base and derived units with very simple relationships between them, all based on the number 10 and a series of greek prefixes.

    Nobody ever asks themselves (*kids still learning the basics excepted) how many meters are in a kilometer. Knowing that, nobody is going to be left wondering how many grams there are in a kilogram or how many newtons in a kilonewton. The keyword is coherency.

    SI is coherent within itself and with the numerical system used by nearly everyone on this planet (base 10). Imperial units are neither.

    Also, SI is used in all but three countries. Don't you think those three countries might have done things wrong?

    1. Re:It's degrees celsius by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      It really depends what you're using said units for. When cooking, I find it more convenient to speak of cups than liters. When communicating ambient air temperatures, I find it more convenient to speak of degrees Fahrenheit than Celsius. You see, that's what most people use these units of measure for.

      When it comes to engineering or scientific calculations, I naturally prefer liters and Kelvin, because they make the math easier. Nobody wants to set their kitchen oven in Kelvin, though.

      Minor gripe regarding consistency: The kilogram is the base unit of mass in SI. Not very consistent, as the other base units have no prefix.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    2. Re:It's degrees celsius by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      This argument actually doesn't work for temperatures. SI units have very simple and consistent relationships with each other, but temperature is kinda left hanging and has no relation to the other units, except through the completely arbitrary Boltzmann's constant. Also, you can use metric prefixes in front of kelvin, but it doesn't make much sense to put metric prefixes in front of degrees Celcius since you can't multiply degrees. My point is, we could convert everything else to metric without converting temperatures.

      (Electromagnetic field units in SI also have some arbitrary conversion factors, which is part of the reason why cgs+Gaussian metric is superior, but SI has been pushed by some international organizations.)

    3. Re:It's degrees celsius by plover · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, SI is used in all but three countries. Don't you think those three countries might have done things wrong?

      The only thing we (I'm an American) did wrong was to not convert to metric before the world was plunged into WWII. During the war, we produced millions of fabricating tools and machines to create war materiel - tanks, planes, guns, etc. After the war, all those micrometers, calipers, lathes, grinders, mills, and drills remained in metalworking shops across America. They all still had Imperial units stamped on their scales. They were held together with screw threads based on ANSI standards and Imperial measurements. They were build around drive screws that would move the table precisely one inch of throw for every ten revolutions of the drive worm. They had cams that would move a tool precisely .001 inches per revolution. The Imperial measurement system was literally cast in steel throughout America during the war.

      These tools then fueled the expansion of the American economy throughout the postwar period. (Many of them are still working today, and still power today's machine shops -- it turns out that a 5 ton cast iron lathe bed doesn't wear out very fast.) Imperial units were then and still are deeply embedded in American manufacturing.

      Along came the 1970s, and along came a big push for metrification. Schoolchildren were taught the metric system was the Best System Ever, while their parents told them the that metric was foreign nonsense and was stealing American jobs. The Pentagon actually tried to lead the way across the country, and fully adopted the metric system in order to interoperate with NATO forces. But the rest of the US manufacturers who were not producing mil-spec parts continued to crank out Imperial based products. Why? Because conversion isn't easy or cheap. Even if they could replace the lead screw in their lathes to move a metric-friendly 1 cm for every four turns of the shaft so they could make metric parts, they still needed Imperial capabilities to make replacement parts for old machinery. That would have meant needing two lathes, two micrometers, two calipers, and two sets of tools, all increasing the cost of conversion. It also would have meant extra inventories of all kinds of materials: 50cm tubing next to 2" tubing, etc. This was at a time when machine shops across America were shutting down as production was shipped overseas to Asia, so increasing their capital investment was simply not possible. So Imperial measurements remained.

      Ironically, many of the American machine shops that managed to survive globalization did so by entering the CNC age. My old shop retrofitted their old change gear boxes with servomotor based systems. And CNC equipment can work on either metric or Imperial measurements with the flick of a configuration setting. Now that the survivors have modernized, it might be time to try again.

      --
      John
    4. Re:It's degrees celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cooking using cups doesn't work well for things like flour because it's wildly inaccurate due to compacting. For liquids it doesn't work well because you're options are typically 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 or 1 cup. For those who are comfortable baking, stuff like bread can be adjusted while kneeding. For cakes and the like, measurement by weight is much easier to repeat accurately.

    5. Re:It's degrees celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the rest of the US manufacturers who were not producing mil-spec parts continued to crank out Imperial based products.

      The mil is an imperial unit of measure. It stands for 1/1000th of an inch.

      Also would anyone replace a high precision 0.001" per revolution worm drive with an extremely low precision 2.5mm per revolution worm drive? The imperial setup is almost 100 times more precise than the metric setup.

    6. Re:It's degrees celsius by plover · · Score: 1

      "mil-spec" is the abbreviation for "military specifications", and has nothing to do with the unit of measure called the 'mil'.

      And read the comment more closely: 10 turns per inch and 1 turn per 2.5 mm are fairly close to each other.

      --
      John
    7. Re:It's degrees celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "mil-spec" is the abbreviation for "military specifications", and has nothing to do with the unit of measure called the 'mil'.

      "military specifications" has nothing to do with metric.

    8. Re:It's degrees celsius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "military specifications" are specifications given by the military. If the military specifies metric dimensions, then that's part of the specifications of the part. If the military specifies Imperial dimensions, that's part of the specifications of the part.

    9. Re:It's degrees celsius by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      First, not everyone needs or cares to convert units. If I need to know how far it is to the next town, I don't care that "miles" is hard to convert to feet or yards, because I'm not GOING to. I use the unit appropriate to the scale I'm working in, and conversions are largely irrelevant in general life.

      Second, base 10 is useful for computers and digital applications, but in fact it's a rather inconvenient number system. 10 can't be divided into integers twice, nor can it easily be divided into integers of 3 or 4. Base 12 (ala the foot-inch relationship, the one place where conversions are fairly common) can be easily fractionalized by 2, 3, 4, and 6. If the base 10 system is so universally perfect, how many hours are in your day? Minutes in your hour? Days in your year?

      Finally, your universalist argument could be applied in toto to languages. Why have all these silly little national languages, when by *far* the bulk of the world speaks English? So why don't we just universally adopt English and dispense with all that native-language particularism?

      --
      -Styopa
    10. Re:It's degrees celsius by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The difference is that SI is a coherent system of base and derived units with very simple relationships between them, all based on the number 10 and a series of greek prefixes.

      I've never heard of "megadegrees", "centidegrees", "millidegrees", etc. Nor have I ever heard of "megaseconds", "kiloseconds", etc. It doesn't seem like the SI system is quite as coherent as its proponents make it out to be.

    11. Re:It's degrees celsius by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It really depends what you're using said units for. When cooking, I find it more convenient to speak of cups than liters. When communicating ambient air temperatures, I find it more convenient to speak of degrees Fahrenheit than Celsius.

      This is solely because you were originally exposed to those units. I grew up with metric, and vastly prefer liters (and milliliters if need be - a cup is 250 ml) to cups, and Celcius to Fahrenheit in all circumstances (also indirectly in terms such as "below zero" and "above zero"). There really isn't any objective preference for either SI or Imperial going from perspective of "it's more convenient", as both systems offer units on roughly the same scale (i.e. in no case you get a difference of an order of magnitude or more when converting to the closest available unit). Any notion that inch or foot is more "natural" because it's tied to some body part, while meter and centimeter is arbitrary, is absurd - who cares what it's tied to so long as you get sufficiently small numbers for typical measures?

      OTOH, one thing that is objectively better with metric is that its base coincides with the base we use for our number system. That advantage alone is so huge (because it allows conversions simply by adding/removing zeroes, in most case) that it dwarfs any disadvantages of base-10, such as fewer number of divisors. Yes, base-12 is better in that regard, but we only reap the benefits of it if we're to convert fully to it, including the way we write down numbers. And that is not happening anytime soon. And, of course, it's not like Imperial is consistently base-12...

    12. Re:It's degrees celsius by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      It really depends what you're using said units for. When cooking, I find it more convenient to speak of cups than liters Totally not the case.

      Take rice. Rice is cooked at a ratio of 1:1.5 rice:water.

      So if you have 3/4 of a cup of rice, you have 1 1/8 cups of water, or, 1 cup, 1 ounce.

      That's confusing, no matter how you slice it.

    13. Re:It's degrees celsius by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      I suppose cooking 1 cup of rice in 1.5 cups of water would just be unreasonable?

      Moreover, how does SI make this any better. With the scenario you set forth, you'd be cooking 177.441 mL of rice in 266.1615 mL of water. Much less confusing!

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    14. Re:It's degrees celsius by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      You round it up to the nearest number. Besides there are things like measuring utensils for a kitchen you know? Have you never seen a measuring cup or a kitchen scale?

    15. Re:It's degrees celsius by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that Anglo-Saxon cuisine sucks and the rest of the world's cuisine, which is metric, is BETTER.

    16. Re:It's degrees celsius by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I find it convenient to use cups because (a) all the recipes I use use cups, and (b) all of my volume-measuring containers use cups (some of them also have metric measurements). As long as everything remains simple, cups work, but scaling can be a pain.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    17. Re:It's degrees celsius by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      EM fields problem is that Teslas are just too intense for most applications. Its like you made a weight measuring system where the basic unit is 10 tonnes. Gauss are more understandable.

    18. Re:It's degrees celsius by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      They tried a base-10 time measuring system during the French Revolution. You know, back when the French had their own calendar.

    19. Re:It's degrees celsius by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah. You know how hard it was to convince the British to adopt the Gregorian Calendar? Anyone who has worked on time measuring systems knows that the British converted from the Julian calendar a LOT later than the rest of Europe. It messes up date conversions quite nicely.

    20. Re:It's degrees celsius by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Can't you round in US Customary units too? I don't get it.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    21. Re:It's degrees celsius by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      When cooking, I find it more convenient to speak of cups than liters.

      4 cups = 1 litre, not really that hard.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    22. Re:It's degrees celsius by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Kelvin/degrees Celsius don't typically require prefixes, as numbers small enough or large enough to warrant prefixes aren't common.

      As for time, minutes and hours are not SI units, but are acceptable for use with SI. Time is probably the one thing that is too ingrained to change.

      So let's see:

      SI - one quantity that deviates from the pattern

      Imperial - there is no pattern

      SI isn't perfect - nothing is. It's still a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

    23. Re:It's degrees celsius by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      What's this generalized obsession with integers? Your life isn't simpler if you only work with integers!

      Is 2,5 really such a difficult number to work with?

      Hell, just use fractions!

  38. They could have ... by PPH · · Score: 0

    ... just taken the snow shoveled off the streets in New York City. Ship it over and spread it out. Might have to pick a few homeless people out. And illegally parked cabs.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  39. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For narrowing your argument down to labeling a combined area of two continents under a single climate type. I suppose you would then say Earth is subtropical.

  40. The USA are wrong by ericloewe · · Score: 2

    Last I checked, the US do not represent a majority of the world's population (the other two countries who do not use SI do not alter this significantly and are essentially irrelevant in industrial terms). Therefore, a majority of the world's population uses SI units (and thus degrees Celsius and Kelvin).

    Your reluctance to accept SI is baffling, moronic even.

    1. Re:The USA are wrong by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Is it really baffling to use Fahrenheit temperature units when the country one lives in and all the people in one's life use that unit and don't have a good feel for Celsius?

      If we follow your logical argument, the majority of the world should use US Dollars instead of their own money units. We should also stop with these other languages that only a small fraction of the worlds people speak.

      For Temperature, Fahrenheit is better suited for temperatures that people live in. Celsius, is fine for all scientific and other uses, but weather forecasts are better in F. It makes little difference to the rest of the SI units if temperatures are all in Fahrenheit.

    2. Re:The USA are wrong by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Tell me: what the hell is wrong with the Celsius scale?

      0 - freezing point of water - A nice indicator that "It's freezing in here." is an appropriate remark.
      10 - "Still cold in here..."
      20 - Commonly known as room temperature (definitions may vary slightly)
      30 - Average summer heat
      40 - Major summer heat
      50 - Crazy summer heat in the middle of the desert

      My climate rarely even gets to 0 degrees Celsius, so I'm not in a position to comment on negative temperatures - someone else would have to add that part for me.

    3. Re:The USA are wrong by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with it really, but unlike other measurement units, Celsius don't offer anything better than Fahrenheit. Temperature doesn't have the same peculiarities of other Imperial units like length and volume. For temperatures people are concerned with, there is a larger difference between 30C and 31C, than there is between 86F and 87F. It's a very subtle difference, but Fahrenheit has more resolution (without using decimals).

      If people are truly pushing for the world to convert to SI units they would stop using Celsius and use Kelvin, but that's not the case.

    4. Re:The USA are wrong by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Degrees Celsius are acceptable for use with SI, as it's just Kelvin + constant.

      But tell me: what's this aversion to non-integers?

    5. Re:The USA are wrong by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a weather forecast that tells the temperature with rational numbers. They don't exactly roll off the tongue. When was the last time you saw an oven that let you set the temperature to fractions of a degree? Rational numbers are great for scientific recordings, but not always for mundane numbers in life.

      I have no problem with people using Celsius. I just don't see the same compelling argument to use that unit over Fahrenheit, like say using meters over feet/yards/miles. Unless I can hear a good reason why Celsius is better, why would I throw away my lifetime of familiarity with temperature points in the Fahrenheit scale?

      Having values that make sense to someone that has been familiar with the Celsius scale their entire life is not compelling.

    6. Re:The USA are wrong by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Weather forecasts are not exact enough for 1 degree Celsius to not be enough precision.

      My oven has markings at 100, 140, 160, 200 and 250 (it may not be exactly these markings, but they illustrate well enough). I've never seen a non-industrial oven that allows you to set a temperature with a resolution of one degree Celsius or less and I doubt that most that do allow it actually keep to it.

      SI is the reason you should change. Blame your ancestors for not moving to SI if you must blame someone. The Kelvin (and thus the degree Celsius) are part of SI. SI is the standard. Not using it means having an extra two sets of tables (at least) - physical constants and conversion factors. You can't cherry pick what units you like, you have to use the whole thing.

      Allow me to illustrate with an analogy:

      Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD - you can argue which one is better (More storage, mandatory protective coating vs No region locking, no Java and associated issues), but in 2014, it boils down to this: I'm sure somewhere a factory is churning out HD-DVDs (mostly dubious clones) for niche markets (for some reason, these things tend to be in Asia, but that's a topic for a different discussion) and I'm sure those who buy them love them (as much as you can love a piece of plastic and metal that holds data). However, they are buying into something that is incompatible with the standard used by most of the world.

      It doesn't make sense (if you exclude advantages related to being able to pick up a developed format that has been abandoned for little to no cost). Just like it doesn't make sense to refuse Kelvin or the degree Celsius.

    7. Re:The USA are wrong by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      This is going no where. I understand the whole concept of the SI standard. The country I live in doesn't use it and will probably never use it in my lifetime. Standards are great, but so is a large amount of preexisting knowledge, data, and designs based on Imperial units.

      What happens if we find out we aren't alone in the universe and every other alien species uses the Universal Standard? Do we throw out all our SI knowledge because we are the minority?

    8. Re:The USA are wrong by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Yes. It will take some getting used to, but it'd be absurd not to use this universal standard.

  41. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    it's fucking ridiculous. with 51 billion dollars you could have hosted the games in Helsinki, BUILT THE FUCKING MOUNTAIN for the slope needing competitions and still have the hotels ready in time.

    but you want to know the really funny thing? Sochi has more gay clubs than Helsinki.

    it's not one or two guys who got killed over the Sochi contracts either. that's why foreign companies didn't touch the bidding for contracts... and why the companies really didn't think that they would be penalized on payments if they fail to deliver on time properly.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  42. being lazy by fluffythdestroy · · Score: 1

    calculate it . stop being lazy

    --
    PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
    1. Re:being lazy by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Talk about being "whooshed" ...

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  43. Re:Thinking about the Olympics by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    The quote down the bottom for me was something along the lines of "one of the great mercies of the human brain is its inability to compare its contents."

  44. Jamacian bobsled team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where there is a will there is a way

  45. So climate change might end the olympics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess every cloud has a silver lining.

  46. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With 51 billion dollars you could cover the US fiscal deficit for about 20 days!

  47. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    Yeah, in a proper capitalist institution, only the highest level is supposed to be on the take.

  48. Here's what I don't understand by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    With Russia having the mountain ranges and abundant amounts of cold and snow in other regions, why host the games here? I think this is just Putin waving his dick about.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Here's what I don't understand by guacamole · · Score: 1

      You clearly don't understand Russia's geopolitics. The European Russia doesn't have many mountains, except in the North Caucasus. Much of North Caucasus territory belongs to predominantly Muslim populated Republics such as Chechnya and Dagestan. Chechnya has undergone (and lost) two devastating wars with Russia. The wars started as an independence movement, but by the end, thanks to influx of foreign Arab fighters and money has taken increasingly Islamist character. Even though the war is over and Chechnya is rebuilding, the instability spread into the neighboring Russian republics. The area is relatively poor, with bad infrastructure, corrupt local governments, and political instability. Therefore, sadly, much of the North Caucasus is off the limit for Olympics. It's very unfortunate because North Caucasus mountains are incredible, basically Russian Alps. Sochi made sense because it's mostly Russian populated and located farther from unstable Muslim republics (well, a stone throw away). Sochi is near the Western tip of the Caucasus mountains and overall the surrounding area is incredibly beautiful.

      So anyways, this explains why Sochi is the only place in all of European Russia that can hold winter Olympic games right now. What about Siberia? There is little infrastructure. The entire Russia west of Ural mountains (which is like the size of USA) has something like 15 million population. The large population centers there are not necessarily close to the mountains. It would be incredibly stupid and even more expensive to build up for Olympics an area somewhere in Siberia. Well, I don't exclude the possibility of Winter Oympics held some place in Siberia in future, but Sochi was the most obvious place for this event. At least, people will continue to use the infrastructure of Sochi. It used to be a major vacation resort in the Soviet times, but kind of crumbled in the 90s. The place is worth visiting, so all those roads, airports, and hotels will see a good use. On the other hand, no one would ever visit a former olympic village in Siberia, because most European Russians think that European Russia is already cold enough for them. Most of them want to travel south, and Sochi is an obvious destination for them.

  49. Metric by sjbe · · Score: 1

    you're deliberately missing the obvious point that 12 can be divided into by thirds and quarters with integer results while 10 cannot.

    And 12 cannot be divided into fifths. So what?

    A base 10 unit system is better because (and only because) base 10 is our primary number system.

    You say that like it is a minor thing. Why would you not want your measurement system to have some some relevance to your number system?

    I would tend to argue that Imperial units tend to be more natural...

    The inch was originally the length of a barleycorn. Please explain what possible relevance that has to our modern society?

    1. Re: Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The inch was originally the length of a barleycorn.

      Crap. It's based off the length of three barleycorns.

    2. Re:Metric by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      The everyday need to divide something into fifths is less common than into thirds or fourths.

    3. Re:Metric by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Only because you are using Imperial system and your pancake recipes list crap like "one third of a cup" or something. Look up the same recipe in metric and it will just list grams or milliliters.

      The everyday need to divide integers into thirds, fourths, fifth or whatever and get an integer as a result has long gone.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    4. Re: Metric by shitzu · · Score: 1

      How is it easier to divide a foot by three than a meter? You get 1/3rd of a foot. Or you get one 1/3rd of a meter. You can't divide an inch by ten very easily - but you have millimeters and micrometers.

      Anyway, the topic wasn't meters here. It was Celsius vs Fahrenheit - and while you may be able to argue that foot is somehow more "natural", then you can't make the same argument to remain the only country dealing with F. Because Celsius is more natural (water freezing=0 and water boiling=100 AND easier to calculate.

    5. Re:Metric by sjbe · · Score: 1

      The everyday need to divide something into fifths is less common than into thirds or fourths.

      And you can do this in metric. You might not get an integer but who cares? You won't get an integer most of the time in US customary either. How is 1/3 of a quart any different in practical terms than 1/3 of a liter? It's still 1/3 of some larger integer quantity. However it is MUCH simpler to simply say 0.33 liters and have a measuring device that can deal with that.

      When it comes to lengths, frankly people are absolute CRAP at dealing with fractions. I run a manufacturing company and while we have to use inches, we switched all our measurements to decimalized inches (tenths) instead of using fractionalized sixteenths. You would be shocked how many people have no idea whether 5/16 is less than 3/8. We had to switch all our work instructions to say things like 11.4 inches because of all the screwups from using fractional inches. We actually have a simple test for employees when we hire which checks their ability to read a ruler. We have tested probably 150+ people and out of the 4 questions on the test, we have had probably 5 people get them all correct. Now we're not hiring the best and brightest but this is actually a pretty fair representation of a huge portion of the population. People are terrible at dealing with fractions when it comes to length. It might seem easy to you but it isn't to a lot of people.

    6. Re: Metric by sjbe · · Score: 1

      You can't divide an inch by ten very easily - but you have millimeters and micrometers.

      Sure you can. We do that in my shop all the time. All our rulers are decimalized (tenths) inches and we use mils (thousandths) for more precise measurements. And the reason we did it is because people are terrible at dealing with fractions. You'd be amazed how many people get stumped when you ask if 3/8ths is larger than 5/16ths. I'd rather we went metric but since most of our customer drawings come in US customary that is what we use.

      The reason to go to Celcius isn't because it is easier. The reason to go to Celcius is because 95% of the world uses it and it is expensive and wasteful to maintain two sets of standards when one will do the job just fine. We waste an outrageous amount of money and time converting between the two systems.

    7. Re: Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse: I buy a bag of dogfood by weight and it gives me a feeding guide in cups.

      You don't even use mass and volume units in a consistent and intuitive manner.

      So much easier to predict how long it will last for a given size of bag and dog if the same measure is used. Bag in kilos, kilos of dog = grams, # grams in # kilos = # days. Done.

    8. Re: Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not actually seeing the problem here.

      1/4" is really easier to work with than 6.35mm?

      Whatever.

    9. Re: Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Because Celsius is more natural (water freezing=0 and water boiling=100 AND easier to calculate.

      Ummm...

      FRESH water freezes at 32F. FRESH water freezes at 0C.
      SALT water freezes at 0F. SALT water freezes at... whatC?

      There are reasons for the Imperial system, and they are indeed based on "natural", environmental facts to some degree, because they were used by the "ancients" of our cultures, who needed and wanted to track the natural world moreso than we need or want to.

      Not that I disagree with using the Metric system... Personally, I prefer it because it's more logical, and conversions make more sense (ie: ml vs 1/3cup). But don't go spewing on the Imperial system without knowing the facts about it. It's actually an interesting topic for personal research.

    10. Re: Metric by shitzu · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that any salt water freezes at 0F!? It depends thoroughly on the salt content in water. Where i live, sea freezes at around -5C. I have been driving a car over the sea in temperatures warmer than 0F...

      The trouble with the imperial system is that people have no clue of the different units relations to each other. How many badger's kidneys are ther in a gallon? The most recent example i stumbled upon is that Runkeeper that i use to track my runs, tells me that i spend ~100 "CALORIES" per 1 km. I was about to file a bug report that they have forgotten kilo- in front of it - but after a wikipedia search it appeared that a thousandfold difference between kCal and Cal for the users of imperial system is peanuts - both are "commonly" called "calories"...

  50. Re:Sochi Project by Rob Hornstra & Arnold van by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    Not to nention that Sochi is characterised by poverty, separatism, terrorism and mass beach tourism

    So when poor beach tourists start advocating a violent separation from Russia, we should be concerned?

  51. The benefit is standardization by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Celsius merely replaces one set of 'arbitrary' reference points with another...

    No, what it does is get (almost) everyone in the world using a single consistent measurement system so that we can communicate effectively and save a lot of money by not having to maintain extra unnecessary tools and instruments and documentation and conversion charts. It means I can go anywhere in the world (except the US) and know what temperature is being referred to without doing math.

    Aside from that, it's what people grew up & are comfortable with.

    No. The main benefit is that 95% of the world uses it. The fact that you grew up with something else does not make it a good idea to use that something else out here in the real world. Standard measurement systems are a Good Thing.

    1. Re:The benefit is standardization by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      No. The main benefit is that 95% of the world uses it.

      That's the same claptrap they fed us about day-light savings time...
      I'm still pissed, and it's still wrong.

    2. Re:The benefit is standardization by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Again, that universalist argument could be applied with equal vigor to language.

      English is by FAR the most widely spoken language in the world (Chinese is of course the highest NATIVE language, but as far as people who speak *some* of it, English is nearly 3/4 of the planet).

      So as soon as the world dispenses with the silly particularism and ethocentricity of languages, I'll be on-board with dumping the US measurement system.

      I'd only also point out that 0.5% of the world states are superpowers, and 100% of them use the US measurement system. Coincidence?

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:The benefit is standardization by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I don't know what is your criteria for being a superpower. What I do know is that the major powers in this world have a seat in the UN Security Council. And most of them don't use metric.

    4. Re:The benefit is standardization by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Hah!

  52. Predications are getting smarter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who make these predications have figured out that they really shouldn't call for "the end of snow" within a 10-year time frame. Only make predictions that will be verified after you are retired (or dead). Smart...

  53. It does not depend on use by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It really depends what you're using said units for.

    Generally speaking it really doesn't. The advantages of using something you are familiar with are VASTLY outweighed by the advantages of having to only maintain one system and one set of tools and one set of gauges and one set of documentation and one set of instruments and the fact that you can communicate with others without using any conversion charts with their inevitable errors. You prefer cups over liters because you are used to it, not because it is more effective.

    1. Re:It does not depend on use by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Can't that argument be used to support universal adoption of the US Customary system of measures instead of SI? After all, you prefer liters over cups because you are used to it, not because it is more effective.

      I don't understand peoples' desire to impose a universal system of measures on everyone. It's such a tiny part of life. Wouldn't it make more sense to fight for universal adoption of Esperanto? I mean, it's sure as fuck easier to convert between SI and US Customary than it is to translate between English and Mandarin.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  54. Re:Thinking about the Olympics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's funny, because most of the actions people get enraged at Obama about were started by Bush.

    TSA? Bush.

    Middle-east clusterfuck? Bush.

    Current NSA crap? Bush.

    Drones? Bush.

    "Obamacare"? Romney. (Ah, you got me, it was a different Republican that started that particular thing the Republicans are calling Obama evil for doing...)

  55. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Fuck Beta!

  56. The town is beta. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess changing the town would be considered a beta. It seems that hasn't worked out well.

  57. Integer fetish by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The 0-100 degreen range of Farenheit better represents the range of temperatures that humans encounter.

    It is exactly the same unless you have some integer fetish. The only difference is the number used. If you need sub-integer precision with Celsius then, gasp, use a decimal. It's not hard to say 21.2 degrees.

  58. Integers are overrated by sjbe · · Score: 1

    0-100 allows for finer granularity of temperature representation without resorting to fractions or decimals, which, while simple enough, are more cumbersome than integers for the average person to deal with.

    Only if you have an integer fetish. Furthermore, somehow 95% of the world somehow seems to exist just fine without Fahrenheit so the integer granularity advantage you are touting seems to be of dubious value. You also seem to be discounting the benefit of being able to communicate with 95% of the world without using a conversion chart.

    1. Re:Integers are overrated by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      Only if you have an integer fetish.

      Most people do.

      Furthermore, somehow 95% of the world somehow seems to exist just fine without Fahrenheit so the integer granularity advantage you are touting seems to be of dubious value. You also seem to be discounting the benefit of being able to communicate with 95% of the world without using a conversion chart.

      If converting units is so trivial (as many, many people on this thread point out), you should have no trouble communicating with anyone using Fahrenheit.

  59. Six of one, half a dozen of the oth by Chirs · · Score: 1

    There are many parts of the USA where the "Deep Winter" is more like -40. So your overall range is roughly either -40-100 in F or -40-38 in C.

    1. Re:Six of one, half a dozen of the oth by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And parts where 100F is not a heat wave, but perhaps somewhat above average. Shall I come up with David's scale such that 0D = -20F and 100D = 100F? That represents the normal temperature range where I live. Anybody want to convert to that, or convert between that and Fahrenheit/Celcius/Kelvin?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  60. Awesome! by MXB2001 · · Score: 0

    Awesome stupidity!

    --
    01/01/01
  61. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by guacamole · · Score: 1

    You don't seem to appreciate what Sochi was and what it has become now. Yes, some money got stolen, so what? This is Russia.

    However, do you think it's easy to build all the infrastructure from effectively scratch? It's relatively easy to hold Olympic games a places like Vancouver or London. Those cities got the best airports in the worlds, hotels, much of sports venues, and public transport infrastructure. Sochi had none of that. In the early 90s this was a crumbling summer resort that even Russians refused to visit. This place was basically a giant village and a dump. Now it has modern highways, airports, light rail, hotels, and sports venues. And now that all of those facilities are there, Russians and other tourists are going to use those facilities because the Sochi area is a spectacular location for vacations.

  62. Re:Sochi Project by Rob Hornstra & Arnold van by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not any more. That was the old Sochi, a marginalized town in the middle of nowhere. Now it is a modern resort town with modern hotels and a nearby ski resort, ready for tourists all year round, and soon to be a stop on the trans-Asia road leading from Ukraine, through the soon-to-be new tunnel to Russia, and onwards through Georgia to the rest of Asia. If you really want to understand Sochi. then you need to learn about what Russia did in Kazan for the Universiade in the summer of 2013, and in Vladivistok with the new bridge to develop Russkiy Island. Not to mention dozens of other development projects including Skolkovo in the Moscow suburbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skolkovo_innovation_center

  63. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  64. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by guacamole · · Score: 1

    It's not ridiculous. It would have been cheaper to go to Helsinki, but Helsinki already has some transport infrastructure, probably some hotels, and some sports venues. For Zeus's sake, it's the capital of a country. Sochi had none of that. The old Soviet infrastructure that hasn't been maintained for 20 years, had to be torn down the rebuilt again. Airports, hotels, highways, light rail, etc, no to mention the sports venues. Sochi had zero previous sports infrastructure. Yes, a lot of the money got stolen, but holding such games in Sochi instead of say Moscow, has a huge investment potential because it's a great destination and people will visit after the Olympics again. Moscow is already a great city and doesn't need a spending boost from the Olympics.

  65. Re:Sochi Project by Rob Hornstra & Arnold van by guacamole · · Score: 1

    There is no separatism in Sochi. Sochi is in Krasnodar region of Russia, which is predominantly Russian populated. I think you're confusing Sochi with the neighboring predominantly Muslim populated russian republics such as Chechnya and Dagestan.

  66. But converting feet to inches.... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    ...is a pain, and not at all uncommon. Frankly, I do see advantages to using a base-12 measuring system, but sometimes metric makes more sense.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  67. Re:Thinking about the Olympics by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I would imagine that the write-up that is quoted in the comment above is from 2003-4 or thereabouts. You're welcome to extend it with modern realities if you'd like (note how it covers more than just Bush era).

  68. Re:Sochi Project by Rob Hornstra & Arnold van by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    It's funny that you should bring up Skolkovo, given how the main innovation that it produced so far is the means of funneling away the budget in highly efficient ways. Seriously, Skolkovo is entrenched as one of the symbols of government corruption of the Putin era (the Olympics will probably be that, as well, but at least they have something to show for it, unlike Skolkovo).

  69. Re:Sochi Project by Rob Hornstra & Arnold van by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Islamists in those republics lay claim to the entire southern Russia, claiming that it is historically Muslim territories occupied by infidels - and, as such, Dar al-Harb.

  70. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    Only if he does not get away in time.

  71. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    Yes, a lot of the money got stolen, but holding such games in Sochi instead of say Moscow, has a huge investment potential because it's a great destination and people will visit after the Olympics again.

    Actually, they won't, which is why several Olympic venues were intentionally constructed in such a way that they can be deconstructed later and moved to some other part of the country where they're actually useful on a more permanent basis (do you really think that the expensive snow producing will be kept on after the Olympics?). The other problem is the shoddy quality of a lot of what was built, because of endemic corruption and a rush to complete it on time.

    You could also say that it was a worthwhile state project because it put money in the pockets of all those workers that built the infrastructure, but the majority of them were immigrants from other countries...

    So, literally, these Olympics do nothing positive for Russian economy. The money that's spent on it is partly wasted on infrastructure that's going to be unused after the Olympics, partly left the country in the pockets of migrant labor, and partly left the country after being pocketed by the corrupt builders and stashed away in their Swiss accounts.

  72. Re:Sochi Project by Rob Hornstra & Arnold van by guacamole · · Score: 1

    Well, any crazy "separatist" from any region of the world could lay a claim on some piece of land where there is almost no one of their kind is living right now. And the linked map is a product of a sick imagination that can exist only inside of an Islamist mind. It's like Al Qaeda still crying over the lost muslim land in Spain. This doesn't really mean anything. Separatism is when people living on the land want to become separate. For example, you can say there exist separatism in Catalonia region of Spain. But in Krasnodar Krai region of Russia, where Sochi belongs, the population is over five million but only 1% are Muslim.

  73. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by guacamole · · Score: 1

    All venues and hotels will not be disassebled and moved. I heard a story of one stadium or so, not a big deal. The ski resort will remain, most of the Olympic village will remain (and will host the Formula 1 race), the hotels will remain, the airport, light rail, and other infrastructure will remain. When the Soviet Union existed, the Black Sea coast was the number one summer vacation destination for the Russians, and I don't see a reason why tourism won't pick up again with new infrastructure and also huge instability in places like Egypt and rest of North Africa (a lot of Russians like to take summer vacations there).

  74. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You call it corruption. In the US they call it business. Show me a military toilet that cost $350 and I'll show you apparatchik. Show me a congress with well-greased palms which stagnates political progress and I'll show you apparatchik. In Russia its all Putin's way and absolutely no one else's way. In the US its a "Block at every stage and turn any progress". In Russia the government acts like a corporation: absolute greed, no respect for people, dissenters are utterly crushed. In the US, at least there are two camps you can live in. So in Russia there is progress, but its all one sided. In the US, the President must give executive orders for there to be progress.

  75. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    All venues and hotels will not be disassebled and moved. I heard a story of one stadium or so, not a big deal.

    At least three venues will be disassembled: the "Iceberg" winter sports palace (built for figure skating and short track skating), the "Ice cube" curling center, and the "Small ice arena" for hockey.

    The ski resort will remain, most of the Olympic village will remain (and will host the Formula 1 race), the hotels will remain, the airport, light rail, and other infrastructure will remain

    That's actually part of the problem. A lot of that infrastructure is designed solely for Olympics, and will not ever again see the number of users that would justify the maintenance costs. It's not like, say, the monorail they've built in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics - that one was also expensive, but it remains in service because it is actually useful day to day to route traffic between Richmond, Vancouver and the airport. Who is going to need the huge Adler - Krasnaya Polyana road after the Olympic crowds go away? How much will it cost to maintain, given that it cost $200 million per km to build?

    The people who previously went to Egypt will go to Turkey instead. It's not like the Olympic infrastructure build-up will solve the two primary existing reasons for why Russians prefer to go abroad for vacations: crappy service at exorbitant prices. If anything, the prices will only get even higher now with all that infrastructure to maintain...

  76. Re:Sochi Project by Rob Hornstra & Arnold van by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Yes, "separatism" is not a precise description for what these guys up to, and hasn't been for a while, but it's the one that got stuck.

    FWIW, the difference between Caucasian jihadists and al-Qaeda crying about Spain is that Spain hasn't been Muslim for many centuries now, while the last time large portions of Caucasus were self-governed as an Islamic emirate was during Shamil's rebellion 140 years ago. As for the coastline, of which Sochi is a part, it was Circassian until they were ethnically cleansed in roughly the same time period. So, while history, it's not exactly ancient history.

    Also, when counting the Muslim persentage in Kradnodar krai, you have to include Adygea to get a meaningful count (since it is, essentially, an artificially segregated enclave of Muslim Circasians inside the krai). So it's closer to 2%.

  77. Re:Sochi Project by Rob Hornstra & Arnold van by guacamole · · Score: 1

    2% still quite a meaningless number, even with Adygea included, and then you have to find out how many of them are actual separatists. For all I know, the map posted above has been drawn by foreign-funded and foreign dominated Wahhabi jihadists who are predominantly based outside of Krasndar Krai, and do not even represent well the people of the Muslim republics of North Caucasus, many of whom have always been adherents of more moderate Sufi islam. The Jihadists's map even includes the territory of North Ossetia, majority Christian and one of the most pro-Russian republics in the Caucasus region. This just shows the ridiculousness of the jihadist's claims and appetites.

    I wouldn't call Adygea's creation by a harsh term of "artificial segregation". The Adygea republic and many others were created by Communists many years after Russian conquest of Caucasus, with the good intention to give all the ethnic minorities at least some kind of autonomy. Without Adygea, the local Circassians wouldn't have had any political power with such small population. Of course, later Stalin, and some subsequent rulers, including Putin, made a complete mockery of the idea of the Russian "Federation". However, the original intention to create republics for local ethnicities was not a bad one, and it wasn't a "reservation".

  78. Ridiculous amount of resources just to play... by nhat11 · · Score: 1

    some games. I understand it's a time to leisurely have fun but how much time and money before enough is enough?

  79. Environmental disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a mess! I shudder to think of the devastation caused to the environment because of this venue. I don't understand why we don't have the Olympics in the same places we've had them before so we can reuse the venues. It's such a waste.

  80. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Turkey isn't exactly stable either.

  81. Re:The $51 billion is nothing to do with the locat by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    The instability in Turkey does not translate to hassling tourists, though.

  82. Simple: They wasted billions that could have gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Olympics has devolved into just another sick, greedy, global corporapist.
    They wasted billions in Sochi that could have gone toward ending a lot of human misery.
    Pathetic.

  83. Fake snow? by vandamme · · Score: 1

    So have they been using the fake snow that the illuminati and tin hatters are complaining about on YouTube? The stuff that won't burn, and turns black when you try to light it? Laid down by Chemtrails, etc. ?

    Shoot, they didn't have to do that. I have enough in my driveway to make a decent ski jump. Just come and get it.

  84. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That.

  85. I am a 58 year old American born male by Michaelejahn · · Score: 1

    .. and I use metric because, well, it is easier for me now that I used European developed prepress and printing systems. That daung Adobe PostScript with its points messed me up a little back in the 80s, but eventually I was less an idiot than I am now. It is learn-able and logical.