That's true, but IIRC Macs weren't affected by such vulnerabilities usually. After all, Macs were different that they needed their own separate engine (Tasman) apart from Trident, which was used on MS Windows, Solaris and HP-UX. To be honest, I remember being a kid and playing in IE on a Mac at school. IE used to be cool. Now I know better. Still, IE/Mac rocked in its day!
K = C + 273.15
Ra (Rankine) = F + 459.67
0 K = 0 Ra
So if 0 is absolute zero, which scale should we use? Both the Kelvin and Rankine scales define 0 to be absolute zero. Should we go with the Celsius-based scale (Kelvin) in the countries using the Celsius scale currently, or should they adopt the Fahrenheit-based scale (Rankine) as the U.S. probably would, if they adopted any scale other than the Fahrenheit scale they currently use?
As for the time, I'd rather time zones just be gone, and I feel the same about Daylight Saving Time, Summer Time and whatever other name you call it. No more B.S. about fussing with clocks that don't automatically change! Then 23h00 in France would be 11:00 P.M. in the U.S., even though technically the "P.M." part (Post Meridiem, or "after midday") would be misleading at times since midday would occur at 1200Z (what those in Hollywood call "4 A.M." when Daylight Saving Time is not in effect). Ideally this B.S. about midday happening while many people on the west coast of the U.S. are still asleep would lead to the adoption of a 24-hour clock system outside of the U.S. military.
I love XKCD, but best art? Well, in terms of artistic ability, stick figures are far from difficult. However, this particular "strip" along with all of its geekiness—the fact that you can drag it AND a lot of the content itself—was truly amazing. I can definitely agree with this vote.
Things irl are just a collective figment of everybody's imaginations. We're all just dreaming that stuff./. is real. And it's very boring. That's why we think up this thing called "real life."
Extreme dislike for MS aside, would you rather have Granny G. launch an app from the Start screen or call you up always asking how to play some obscure media file because Windows Media Player won't play it, and she doesn't know what VLC is or where to find it?
Not only that, but consider it a marketing move. If you get there first and play a lot more media than WMP, maybe it can finally die off, and you'll increase your user base as well. While I doubt that is any of the motivation, it's a nice dream I have.
In any case, I hope this works out for the VLC team. VLC is a great application, both for regular users and power users.
Don't forget they'll need to speak "Metro" rather than "Android" too. What you're saying is true in that a lot of code could be recycled, and it probably will be. However, there's much more that can't be recycled. That's the stuff that would need refactoring and retooling.
It's just that the letter X has served as great marketing. X = unknown. Personally I'd rather see what the X factor is than the G factor. Plus G....just reminds me of grandma and grandpa, which makes me think it's for old people.
It may be a blind push to 64-bit, but when AMD and Intel debut some 128-bit CPUs for mainstream computing, which may leave some 32-bit support out just as much 16-bit stuff was left out of 64-bit, obviously there will be a need for at least a 64-bit version of the application. Then you'll see a push for a native 128-bit version. Look at what happened with the switch from Windows 9x/ME to XP. Microsoft put many 16-bit applications on life support after XP came to the desktop to replace the 9x/ME versions of Windows. Speed improvement or not, the ability to use the browser without messing with "compatibility settings" and praying it works at all is definitely a plus. Aside from that, at least there isn't a speed degradation in the 64-bit version when compared with the 32-bit version.
AWA uses Ada Server Faces for the web framework. This framework is using several patterns from the Java world such as Java Server Faces and Java Servlets.
AWA provides a set of ready to use and extendable modules that are common to many web application. This includes managing the login, authentication, users, permissions.
AWA uses an Object Relational Mapping that helps in writing Ada applications on top of MySQL or SQLite databases. The ADO framework allows to map database objects into Ada records and access them easily.
To avoid the blank page syndrome, the Dynamo application generator is provided to quickly create a new project, add a new database model or add a presentation page.
Here's another one from the AdaCore site:
What is AWS ?
First of all, AWS stands for Ada Web Server but it is more than just another Web server...
AWS is a complete framework to develop Web based applications. The main part of the framework is the embedded Web server. This small yet powerful Web server can be embedded into your application so your application will be able to talk with a standard Web browser like Microsoft Internet Explorer or Firefox for example. Around this Web server a lot of services have been developed.
Programming the subject? Of course! My teacher actually spent half of the class time on a couple of occasions just showing programs to add by hand for the midpoint/rectangle rule, the trapezoidal rule and Simpson's rule for computing the area under a curve on our TI-83+/TI-84+ graphing calculators. I already had these done, so while everybody was asking "Where's the For?" and "Why is this not working?" I was playing PuzzPack, which is still fun of course.
"well, now I have to write markup that's actually standards-compliant and that's just too hard! I want HTML that will render even if it's horribly broken!"
Of course they do. They miss the days of things like the following when they move to XML/XHTML, and I only added the doctype to get rid of "quirks mode" in IE:
<!DOCTYPE HTML "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<title>Page Title</title>
<p>Under construction!<br>(Isn't it pretty?)
For the most part, that's about as minimal as you can get in both cases while still having some content. There is no indication of language, so it could be English or Arabic or whatever. The character set and MIME type are both missing as well, so either of those documents could be a Windows-1252 document with text/html by default or perhaps a KOI8-R document with application/xhtml+xml, regardless of validity.
The point is that XHTML encourages more easily read mark-up. For example, the only way to know that a paragraph (<p> tag) ends in HTML is when a non-inline element (e.g. the DIV element or </body>) is encountered or when its end tag (</p>) is encountered.
The only point that I dislike is that you cannot have paragraphs inside paragraphs. If you have logical divisions such as a paragraph with a quote inside that contains multiple paragraphs, you must (logically) split it up into multiple paragraphs. Alternatively, the blockquote element was supposed to remedy such a situation. You'd end your paragraph and use a blockquote element after that to contain the quote.
That is the big reason why I really liked XHTML 2.0. It had some actual useful improvements. Another example is the combination of section and the generic h elements rather than people using h1 first, then h2 second, etc. Those were old concepts that differed only by presentation in rendering, which could be fixed thanks to the invention of CSS. In other words, you could use h6 first, then h3 second, then h2 third, etc. and use CSS to change how they appeared, making them less semantic because any heading element would do. Also, the "any element can be a link" idea was really nice!
One downside to XHTML 2.0 was the fact that it involved so many working groups. XForms, XFrames, XML Events, Ruby, RDFa, etc. I think XHTML should have stuck to semantics. Others could have been included using namespaces. Additionally, XFrames and XML Events had to be finished in order for XHTML 2.0 to be finished, so it was a simple case of having too much to do with so little time in which to do it. And of course there were the little things that still needed attention like how generic things ought to be. After simplifying h1, h2, etc. to combinations of section and h elements, why not do the same with lists? After all, it's a general construct, right? Why have specific things for lists when they can be used for shopping or whatever, ordered or not? In case nobody knows about it, I'm referring to this proposal, which got some official replies on IRC and resulted in this e-mail and this response to that e-mail.
The "need to discuss the principle, and the philosophy" was a big part of what made XHTML 2.0, and I think that was its real downfall. It was very slow-moving because it was to define the building blocks of the Semantic Web, and what exactly was needed t
Sure, but then it would say 0.03 GBPS for Google Fiber. I think the AC meant to ask, "Why isn't Google Fiber's speed higher?" It would be equally valid to inquire the same of Verizon's FiOS. As Xicor mentioned here, the transfer rate between upload/download is probably just limited.
This is my method. Chrome opens up on my mobile, and I open a new tab. Go to "Bookmarks > Desktop Bookmarks" et voilà! Easy peasy! Even better is the ability to open a page that you had been viewing on your phone/tablet in the desktop version of Chrome. I prefer to read with less scrolling and zooming, but that's just a personal preference, I suppose.
Debian isn't too bad, and it's what Ubuntu is based upon, though it's not as "bleeding-edge" while still being stable. Others might suggest Fedora, Arch or Slackware if you want that, and I've heard good things about Sabayon as well, especially in the eye candy department, though it has been a few years.
In all honesty, I keep going back to Debian. My needs aren't too difficult to satisfy, and I can compile something myself if I really need to. I'd recommend using virtual machines to test them first. Why overwrite a perfectly good installation just to find you don't like something?
a sign that BSD is becoming less relevant to modern computing needs
Obligatory remark about how Mac OS X and iOS are BSD and are used by tens of millions of people everyday, blah, blah, blah.
Obligatory rebuttal about how even many technical people don't really care much about the fact that an old version of FreeBSD serves as the foundation for OS X as long as they know how to administer the system and/or develop for it, blah, blah, blah.
I'm sure there's some way to contact the DOSBox developers on the site (maybe use the forums?), so maybe you should notify them of the GPL violation(s) and let them know whether they want to pursue legal action. As for the GPL violation(s) of DOSBox Turbo, there is nothing in the GPLv2 that states binaries MUST be released without a fee, and that's true for derivative works as well. Well, except for 2(b), right?
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
...
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Technically, one might interpret that to mean you still need to buy the product, but the actual cost of licensing must be 0. In other words, the cost of the Program is NOT the cost of the license, unlike Microsoft Windows 7's "Anytime Upgrade" feature where you can purchase a license key to upgrade your edition of Windows. However, the developer of DOSBox Turbo apparently used the term "license" to refer to the charge of $3.99, and the original work is under the GPLv2 which requires that modifications to the source code must be licensed at no cost. As a result, DOSBox Turbo is violating the GPLv2 if it is a derivative work of DOSBox.
Someone mentioned section 3, which states that source code must be released and distributed under the terms of sections 1 and 2 of the GPLv2 OR provide an offer to release the source code, valid for three years to any party for a fee of no more than it costs to distribute it, such as the cost of a CD-ROM and shipping. The third option available applies only to non-commercial works, so I didn't mention that. In other words, DOSBot violates section 3 by not offering the option of distributing the source code to a party upon request or making it available with the binary/executable form if it is indeed a derivative work of DOSBox.
In any case, the binary/executable form of a Program is allowed to be offered at a charge of unspecified amount without restriction. The source code must be made available or offered upon request for no more than the cost to distribute the source code, though obviously it can be made available at no charge, as per the terms in section 3. Let me repeat that: cost of the Program or a derivative work in binary/executable form can cost as much as it wants, but it must NOT be a licensing fee if it is a derivative work because the GPLv2 states that modified code must be licensed at no charge. Cost of the source code is absolutely 0 in terms of monetary value, but the cost to distribute it must not be at a profit. (Exact cost for distribution only, without licensing fees or charge for the source code itself.)
I could rant about how I favor the BSD/MIT licenses and why I think the GPL is harmful, but that would be off-topic and would serve no purpose to help the OP.
This is the first time that I've broken English hilarious. While everybody else felt it was painful, it had proper capitalization and spelling along with the relatively intelligent-sounding "argument," which means there was actually some thought behind it. Congratulations on being a REAL grammar troll.:-)
This is exactly what I was wondering. Python is nice, but I'm not sure that Google's Go programming language can't replace it. Python is far more mature, but Go just seems like a better option since it was created by Google in the first place. Additionally, I'll admit that I'm no fanatic of functional programming languages, mainly due to the syntax, but Go's take on it is rather clean in appearance to me, making it relatively easy to pick up and start using it.
Can you use a 24-hour clock system? Perhaps you can make use of the Celsius scale at least? It's not necessarily easy to learn to feel something reflexively, especially when everybody around you is used to something else.
I've been using a 24-hour clock system for the past two years, yet I still think of the time as "3 P.M." rather than 15:00 (or 15h or 15h00 or whatever notation you wish to use). That's just the way things work.
Likewise, I've preferred Celsius for little more than a year, but since everybody here in the US uses the Fahrenheit scale I am forced to convert to the Fahrenheit scale to make someone understand the temperature. After all, I know the mnemonic "30 is hot, 20 is nice, 10 is cold, 0 is ice" but when I personally think of temperature, I can't look at my phone and see 20 and know how it FEELS. I know how 70F feels. But 20C? Not sure exactly. I'm guessing that without completely thinking in terms of only Celsius and 24-hour time, I won't be able to make the switch. I think the same is true of other units of measure as well. After all, there have been 2-liter bottles of soda pop since I was a child, and I've been seeing 1-liter bottles of Coca-Cola in convenience stores as well as 20-ounce bottles. I didn't notice the difference until I held it in my hand because they appeared to be relatively the same pretty much. In actuality, the difference is nearly 12 fl. oz. more liquid in the 1-liter!
(warning: rant follows)
Oh, and I love how there are different "ounces" as well. Whereas you can compare a liter to a cubic centimeter (they're both units of volume), you can't necessarily compare an ounce (1/16 of a pound) and a fluid ounce (~29.6 milliliters) because one is used for weight while the other is used for volume. It would be like comparing kilograms to cubic centimeters. Two identical boxes, one filled with stuff while the other is completely empty, possess the same volume but different mass, which means the weight is different. Simply put, you can't trust that volume and weight are identical. As a result, there are two very different units that some can get confused. After all, an ounce is supposed to be an ounce, right?
I wish someone would remind me why the US doesn't even seem to attempt the adoption the much more convenient metric system because cost can't be the only factor. Several attempts have been made already, and it's taught in schools now. It should be put to practical use beyond the government sector.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, but IIRC Macs weren't affected by such vulnerabilities usually. After all, Macs were different that they needed their own separate engine (Tasman) apart from Trident, which was used on MS Windows, Solaris and HP-UX. To be honest, I remember being a kid and playing in IE on a Mac at school. IE used to be cool. Now I know better. Still, IE/Mac rocked in its day!
K = C + 273.15
Ra (Rankine) = F + 459.67
0 K = 0 Ra
So if 0 is absolute zero, which scale should we use? Both the Kelvin and Rankine scales define 0 to be absolute zero. Should we go with the Celsius-based scale (Kelvin) in the countries using the Celsius scale currently, or should they adopt the Fahrenheit-based scale (Rankine) as the U.S. probably would, if they adopted any scale other than the Fahrenheit scale they currently use?
As for the time, I'd rather time zones just be gone, and I feel the same about Daylight Saving Time, Summer Time and whatever other name you call it. No more B.S. about fussing with clocks that don't automatically change! Then 23h00 in France would be 11:00 P.M. in the U.S., even though technically the "P.M." part (Post Meridiem, or "after midday") would be misleading at times since midday would occur at 1200Z (what those in Hollywood call "4 A.M." when Daylight Saving Time is not in effect). Ideally this B.S. about midday happening while many people on the west coast of the U.S. are still asleep would lead to the adoption of a 24-hour clock system outside of the U.S. military.
Sadly, universities are not very good at weeding them out.
At least some universities do weeding. Here in the U.S., it's all about the money. After all, it's just a business, just like the U.S. government.
Poor Mrs. Claus... I guess she just doesn't do it for ol' Saint Nick anymore.
I love XKCD, but best art? Well, in terms of artistic ability, stick figures are far from difficult. However, this particular "strip" along with all of its geekiness—the fact that you can drag it AND a lot of the content itself—was truly amazing. I can definitely agree with this vote.
Things irl are just a collective figment of everybody's imaginations. We're all just dreaming that stuff. /. is real. And it's very boring. That's why we think up this thing called "real life."
Extreme dislike for MS aside, would you rather have Granny G. launch an app from the Start screen or call you up always asking how to play some obscure media file because Windows Media Player won't play it, and she doesn't know what VLC is or where to find it?
Not only that, but consider it a marketing move. If you get there first and play a lot more media than WMP, maybe it can finally die off, and you'll increase your user base as well. While I doubt that is any of the motivation, it's a nice dream I have.
In any case, I hope this works out for the VLC team. VLC is a great application, both for regular users and power users.
Don't forget they'll need to speak "Metro" rather than "Android" too. What you're saying is true in that a lot of code could be recycled, and it probably will be. However, there's much more that can't be recycled. That's the stuff that would need refactoring and retooling.
It's just that the letter X has served as great marketing. X = unknown. Personally I'd rather see what the X factor is than the G factor. Plus G....just reminds me of grandma and grandpa, which makes me think it's for old people.
It may be a blind push to 64-bit, but when AMD and Intel debut some 128-bit CPUs for mainstream computing, which may leave some 32-bit support out just as much 16-bit stuff was left out of 64-bit, obviously there will be a need for at least a 64-bit version of the application. Then you'll see a push for a native 128-bit version. Look at what happened with the switch from Windows 9x/ME to XP. Microsoft put many 16-bit applications on life support after XP came to the desktop to replace the 9x/ME versions of Windows. Speed improvement or not, the ability to use the browser without messing with "compatibility settings" and praying it works at all is definitely a plus. Aside from that, at least there isn't a speed degradation in the 64-bit version when compared with the 32-bit version.
One hosted using Google Code (last work appears to be have been done in May 2012):
Here's another one from the AdaCore site:
Programming the subject? Of course! My teacher actually spent half of the class time on a couple of occasions just showing programs to add by hand for the midpoint/rectangle rule, the trapezoidal rule and Simpson's rule for computing the area under a curve on our TI-83+/TI-84+ graphing calculators. I already had these done, so while everybody was asking "Where's the For?" and "Why is this not working?" I was playing PuzzPack, which is still fun of course.
"well, now I have to write markup that's actually standards-compliant and that's just too hard! I want HTML that will render even if it's horribly broken!"
Of course they do. They miss the days of things like the following when they move to XML/XHTML, and I only added the doctype to get rid of "quirks mode" in IE:
<!DOCTYPE HTML "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<title>Page Title</title>
<p>Under construction!<br>(Isn't it pretty?)
Instead, you have this with XHTML:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> />(Isn't it pretty?)</p>
<head>
<title>Page Title</title>
</head>
<body>
<p>Under construction!<br
</body>
</html>
For the most part, that's about as minimal as you can get in both cases while still having some content. There is no indication of language, so it could be English or Arabic or whatever. The character set and MIME type are both missing as well, so either of those documents could be a Windows-1252 document with text/html by default or perhaps a KOI8-R document with application/xhtml+xml, regardless of validity.
The point is that XHTML encourages more easily read mark-up. For example, the only way to know that a paragraph (<p> tag) ends in HTML is when a non-inline element (e.g. the DIV element or </body>) is encountered or when its end tag (</p>) is encountered.
The only point that I dislike is that you cannot have paragraphs inside paragraphs. If you have logical divisions such as a paragraph with a quote inside that contains multiple paragraphs, you must (logically) split it up into multiple paragraphs. Alternatively, the blockquote element was supposed to remedy such a situation. You'd end your paragraph and use a blockquote element after that to contain the quote.
That is the big reason why I really liked XHTML 2.0. It had some actual useful improvements. Another example is the combination of section and the generic h elements rather than people using h1 first, then h2 second, etc. Those were old concepts that differed only by presentation in rendering, which could be fixed thanks to the invention of CSS. In other words, you could use h6 first, then h3 second, then h2 third, etc. and use CSS to change how they appeared, making them less semantic because any heading element would do. Also, the "any element can be a link" idea was really nice!
One downside to XHTML 2.0 was the fact that it involved so many working groups. XForms, XFrames, XML Events, Ruby, RDFa, etc. I think XHTML should have stuck to semantics. Others could have been included using namespaces. Additionally, XFrames and XML Events had to be finished in order for XHTML 2.0 to be finished, so it was a simple case of having too much to do with so little time in which to do it. And of course there were the little things that still needed attention like how generic things ought to be. After simplifying h1, h2, etc. to combinations of section and h elements, why not do the same with lists? After all, it's a general construct, right? Why have specific things for lists when they can be used for shopping or whatever, ordered or not? In case nobody knows about it, I'm referring to this proposal, which got some official replies on IRC and resulted in this e-mail and this response to that e-mail.
The "need to discuss the principle, and the philosophy" was a big part of what made XHTML 2.0, and I think that was its real downfall. It was very slow-moving because it was to define the building blocks of the Semantic Web, and what exactly was needed t
Sure, but then it would say 0.03 GBPS for Google Fiber. I think the AC meant to ask, "Why isn't Google Fiber's speed higher?" It would be equally valid to inquire the same of Verizon's FiOS. As Xicor mentioned here, the transfer rate between upload/download is probably just limited.
This is my method. Chrome opens up on my mobile, and I open a new tab. Go to "Bookmarks > Desktop Bookmarks" et voilà! Easy peasy! Even better is the ability to open a page that you had been viewing on your phone/tablet in the desktop version of Chrome. I prefer to read with less scrolling and zooming, but that's just a personal preference, I suppose.
Debian isn't too bad, and it's what Ubuntu is based upon, though it's not as "bleeding-edge" while still being stable. Others might suggest Fedora, Arch or Slackware if you want that, and I've heard good things about Sabayon as well, especially in the eye candy department, though it has been a few years.
In all honesty, I keep going back to Debian. My needs aren't too difficult to satisfy, and I can compile something myself if I really need to. I'd recommend using virtual machines to test them first. Why overwrite a perfectly good installation just to find you don't like something?
a sign that BSD is becoming less relevant to modern computing needs
Obligatory remark about how Mac OS X and iOS are BSD and are used by tens of millions of people everyday, blah, blah, blah.
Obligatory rebuttal about how even many technical people don't really care much about the fact that an old version of FreeBSD serves as the foundation for OS X as long as they know how to administer the system and/or develop for it, blah, blah, blah.
I'm sure there's some way to contact the DOSBox developers on the site (maybe use the forums?), so maybe you should notify them of the GPL violation(s) and let them know whether they want to pursue legal action. As for the GPL violation(s) of DOSBox Turbo, there is nothing in the GPLv2 that states binaries MUST be released without a fee, and that's true for derivative works as well. Well, except for 2(b), right?
Technically, one might interpret that to mean you still need to buy the product, but the actual cost of licensing must be 0. In other words, the cost of the Program is NOT the cost of the license, unlike Microsoft Windows 7's "Anytime Upgrade" feature where you can purchase a license key to upgrade your edition of Windows. However, the developer of DOSBox Turbo apparently used the term "license" to refer to the charge of $3.99, and the original work is under the GPLv2 which requires that modifications to the source code must be licensed at no cost. As a result, DOSBox Turbo is violating the GPLv2 if it is a derivative work of DOSBox.
Someone mentioned section 3, which states that source code must be released and distributed under the terms of sections 1 and 2 of the GPLv2 OR provide an offer to release the source code, valid for three years to any party for a fee of no more than it costs to distribute it, such as the cost of a CD-ROM and shipping. The third option available applies only to non-commercial works, so I didn't mention that. In other words, DOSBot violates section 3 by not offering the option of distributing the source code to a party upon request or making it available with the binary/executable form if it is indeed a derivative work of DOSBox.
In any case, the binary/executable form of a Program is allowed to be offered at a charge of unspecified amount without restriction. The source code must be made available or offered upon request for no more than the cost to distribute the source code, though obviously it can be made available at no charge, as per the terms in section 3. Let me repeat that: cost of the Program or a derivative work in binary/executable form can cost as much as it wants, but it must NOT be a licensing fee if it is a derivative work because the GPLv2 states that modified code must be licensed at no charge. Cost of the source code is absolutely 0 in terms of monetary value, but the cost to distribute it must not be at a profit. (Exact cost for distribution only, without licensing fees or charge for the source code itself.)
I could rant about how I favor the BSD/MIT licenses and why I think the GPL is harmful, but that would be off-topic and would serve no purpose to help the OP.
This is the first time that I've broken English hilarious. While everybody else felt it was painful, it had proper capitalization and spelling along with the relatively intelligent-sounding "argument," which means there was actually some thought behind it. Congratulations on being a REAL grammar troll. :-)
This is exactly what I was wondering. Python is nice, but I'm not sure that Google's Go programming language can't replace it. Python is far more mature, but Go just seems like a better option since it was created by Google in the first place. Additionally, I'll admit that I'm no fanatic of functional programming languages, mainly due to the syntax, but Go's take on it is rather clean in appearance to me, making it relatively easy to pick up and start using it.
Can you use a 24-hour clock system? Perhaps you can make use of the Celsius scale at least? It's not necessarily easy to learn to feel something reflexively, especially when everybody around you is used to something else.
I've been using a 24-hour clock system for the past two years, yet I still think of the time as "3 P.M." rather than 15:00 (or 15h or 15h00 or whatever notation you wish to use). That's just the way things work.
Likewise, I've preferred Celsius for little more than a year, but since everybody here in the US uses the Fahrenheit scale I am forced to convert to the Fahrenheit scale to make someone understand the temperature. After all, I know the mnemonic "30 is hot, 20 is nice, 10 is cold, 0 is ice" but when I personally think of temperature, I can't look at my phone and see 20 and know how it FEELS. I know how 70F feels. But 20C? Not sure exactly. I'm guessing that without completely thinking in terms of only Celsius and 24-hour time, I won't be able to make the switch. I think the same is true of other units of measure as well. After all, there have been 2-liter bottles of soda pop since I was a child, and I've been seeing 1-liter bottles of Coca-Cola in convenience stores as well as 20-ounce bottles. I didn't notice the difference until I held it in my hand because they appeared to be relatively the same pretty much. In actuality, the difference is nearly 12 fl. oz. more liquid in the 1-liter!
(warning: rant follows)
Oh, and I love how there are different "ounces" as well. Whereas you can compare a liter to a cubic centimeter (they're both units of volume), you can't necessarily compare an ounce (1/16 of a pound) and a fluid ounce (~29.6 milliliters) because one is used for weight while the other is used for volume. It would be like comparing kilograms to cubic centimeters. Two identical boxes, one filled with stuff while the other is completely empty, possess the same volume but different mass, which means the weight is different. Simply put, you can't trust that volume and weight are identical. As a result, there are two very different units that some can get confused. After all, an ounce is supposed to be an ounce, right?
I wish someone would remind me why the US doesn't even seem to attempt the adoption the much more convenient metric system because cost can't be the only factor. Several attempts have been made already, and it's taught in schools now. It should be put to practical use beyond the government sector.
=~Script~=
Big Hairy Ian: WILSON!!!!
Or attach it to the thing. You double the volume that way!
I was a chocolate loving kid and still am, though I'm no longer a child. As a result, Ho-Ho's were my preferred choice.
You can have my Twinkie.
I want my chocolate!
See aitikin's comment thread, where the same question was asked, for some possible answers.