Tachyons do it all the time. Literally. Just as us tardyons with real rest mass have the speed of light as the upper limit of our velocities and luxons with no rest mass are always moving at the speed of light, tachyons with imaginary rest mass have the speed of light as the lower limit to their velocities.
Nobody's found any yet, but the math says they should be there and nobody's figured out how to disprove them, either.
Yet does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. The 911 bottom line: "cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare."
They've got sources, too, by the way.
"Don't you have a police force where you live?"
From the same link:
The District of Columbia's highest court spelled out plainly the "fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
And it's far from the only example of such a ruling. In many ways the police have no greater obligation to protect you than your average passer-by. At least in the US there's a greater chance of said passer-by being able to actually do something beyond just being a spectator.
Depends on the cuteness factor. How much PETA cares is directly proportional to how cute the animal is and/or how close they are to humans species-wise (i. e. how well they can anthropomorphize the critter).
I don't see PETA protesting, say, spraying insecticide to kill off mosquitoes in rather nasty ways. They may be worried about other animals (usually mammals, but occasionally birds) that might be affected, but not the mosquitoes themselves.
"is that it requires the cost of transporting someone through space to be less than the cost of feeding and housing them."
If the premise is the overcrowding of the planet and the availability of local food and housing is nonexistent, then interstellar travel will always be cheaper.
"The nifty _definitions_(that is all thy are) of the SI base elements was made afterwards as a backup in case the retards in France loose their 1 metre top level hierarchy reference."
No, all the base units with the exception of the kilogram are based on physical constants because the artifacts change over time! If you're using a piece of metal and you give it the name "meter," what happens when the temperature changes and the metal shrinks or expands? What if it gets warped? What if it oxidizes? I mean, just look at all the hoops BIPM has to jump through just to maintain the kilogram artifact:
The unit of mass, the kilogram, is the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram kept at the BIPM. It is a cylinder made of an alloy for which the mass fraction of platinum is 90 % and the mass fraction of iridium is 10 %. The masses of 1 kg secondary standards of the same alloy or of stainless steel are compared with the mass of the international prototype by means of balances with a relative uncertainty approaching 1 part in 109.
The mass of the international prototype increases by approximately 1 part in 10^9 per year due to the inevitable acumulation of contaminants on its surface. For this reason, the CIPM declared that, pending further research, the reference mass of the international prototype is that immediately after cleaning and washing by a specified method. The reference mass thus defined is used to calibrate national standards of platinum-iridium alloy.
In the case of stainless-steel 1 kg standards, the relative uncertainty of comparisons is limited to about 1 part in 10^8 by uncertainty in the correction for air buoyancy. The results of comparisons made in vacuum, though unaffected by air buoyancy, are subject to additional corrections to account for changes in mass of the standards when cycled between vacuum and atmospheric pressure.
And it's important to do all this so that everybody agrees on exactly what a "kilogram" is.
"This should give you guys (americans) good enough security to change to the metric system."
We already have! The US went SI a long time ago, probably before your home country. Everything we do is based on the SI system. It just so happens that, just as you call 1000 kg a "ton" and 0.001 m^3 a "liter," we call 0.3048 m a "foot" and.45359237 kg a "pound." You can go back and forth between inches and milimeters with infinite precision just as you can between centimeters and milimeters because it's all based on the SI definition of the meter.
"Seems like you guys are waiting for it to be 'stable' or somthing."
The US signed on to the first so-called "Treaty of the Metre" in 1866, making trade in SI units legal in this country. The US standards for length and mass have been based on SI units since at least the 1890's. The last time those definitions changed was in the 1950's, and even then it wasn't by any meaningful amount. The only thing left to our "conversion" is for us to stop assigning special names to certain SI measurements, which in many ways is no worse than the special names used here and there in the "metric" world.
Look at yourselves! Just about everybody here nods their head in agreement when some uninformed SI proponent tells everybody that the density of liquid water at 3.98 degrees Celsius is 1 g/mL. It's not. You think water freezes at exactly 0 degrees Celsius. It doesn't, nor does it boil at exactly 100 degrees Celsius and 101,325 Pa. I've seen metric people call 0.5 kg "pound," 500 mL "pint" and 250 mL "cup," and these are people in continental Europe saying these things. Why? "Common usage" is the answer usually given, "just the way people do things, I guess." "Close enough?" "Just because?" What's the point in beating the drum about global standards when you yourselves don't use them?
You put a stamp on an envelope and it's good to send up to 30 grams. I put one on
"The kilogram is the only SI base unit that has not yet been defined in terms of a natural constant"
Look closely at the defintion of the Ampere, the mole and the candela. They're all base units and they all rely on that artifact kilogram in one way or another (though it may be hidden inside words like "Newton" and "Watt").
"(Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 58th edistion, page F11)"
Just because it's in a book doesn't make it right. At best it's out-of-date. From the horse's mouth:
The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
The kilogram is the unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram.
The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water.
The temperature in degrees Celsius is further defined as the temperature in Kelvin offset by 273.15 (putting the triple point of water at 0.01 degrees C).
And according to the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, the density of air-free water at 4.0 degrees Celsius is 0.999972 g/(cm^3), which is the same number you get at the same accuracy from 3.8 degrees C to 4.2 degrees C. 0.999972 != 1
"but the kilogram was based on the mass of 1 litre of pure water"
Yeah... until 1889 at the latest. Might want to get with the times. Oh, and we don't base the second on the length of the year 1900 any more, either.
"at ~4 degrees Celsius."
Why, look! It's our good friend Circular Logic!
The density of water varies not only with temperature but also with pressure. It's not important for most applications, but should definitely be considered when you're trying to make a standard of measurement.
Basing pressure off of local atmospheric pressure at some point on the earth's surface is unfeasable due to weather. You'll need to have a standardized pressure independent of geography and the like, based solely on some independent force per unit area.
Force is based on mass
Your mass standard is based on the mass of water at some given temperature and pressure
GOTO 10
Can you see now why we gave up on that idea and why our current practice of copies of copies of copies of an artifact is actually both more useful and more accurate?
"1000 kg in metric is also called a "tonne" or "metric ton"."
Ah, but to be a true SI proponent that believes in global standards, you shouldn't do that. The only reason a megagram is called a "ton" in common usage is that it's within 2% of the UK ton. But the One True Standard hammered out by international treaty and put out by BIPM (the Defenders of the Faith) is "Mg." And that's spelled "megagramme," because the One True Standard is only official in French.
After all, if you want to call 1000 kg "ton," why should you balk when I call 0.3048 m "foot?"
"(Pounds are a unit of force, not mass - make more sense in defing slugs in terms of kilograms)."
Unfortunately we've all been lied to by our physics teachers. Pounds have been considered mass and related to the kilogram since at least the turn of the Twentieth Century, and the "1 lb = 0.45359237 kg" is the legal definition of the pound adopted by the English-speaking world in the 1950's and 1960's (around the same time we all agreed that 1 ft = 0.3048 m). After all, how do you accurately measure the "weights" of objects back in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries? Beam balances, which means they were measuring mass as compared to their pound standards.
I swear, I don't know which was worse: learning the truth about Santa or or the truth about slugs. If it makes you feel any better, at 9.80665 m/(s^2), 1 lbf = 4.4482216152605 N exactly.
" I'm sorry, but it's easy to convert milliliters to liters, too."
This is one of my qualms with the metric system: Why would you want to? How often do people need to make conversions along an order of magnitude?
For example, no, I don't know off the top of my head how many teaspoons are in a (US) gallon, but the things I measure in teaspoons and the thigns I measure in gallons have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Why would I want to know how many gallons of sugar I put into my cup of tea in the morning, or how many teaspoons of water I use to brew it?
And because you're using such an obnoxiously large converstion as factors of 10, you end up with either decimals or multi-digit integers, which aren't as easy to remember or manipulate as much as single-digit intervals. If you're in metric land, go into your kitchen and look at your measuring spoons and cups and look at all the "?00 mL" and "?50 mL" options you have. Here in my US kitchen I have numbers like "1 tsp" and "1 tbsp (3 tsp)" and "1/4 cup" and the like. Even if you get everybody to start using centileters instead of mililiters you're still stuck with ?0 or ?5.
Alright, I admit there are times when it's useful to use decimals. But what's the advantage measuring gasoline in decimal liters over decimal gallons?
And there's one more, unrelated beef I have with metric that I've come to notice while working for a real estate abstracting company: 10 is pretty, sqrt(10) is not. 1 m^2 is a 1-meter square, and 100 m^2 is a 10-meter square, but how do you measure out a square that is exactly 10 m^2? You can start using "ares" and "hectares" if you'd like, but since they're all based on the linear meter...
You can't fit 1 acre into a square with rational sides, but nobody who buys property that small deals with squares anyway (ever lived in a square house?). However, a 660-ft square is exactly 10 acres, and you'd want to buy plots that big in squares so that it makes it easier for you to figure out what pattern to drive your tractor across it and it's cheaper than 100 acres (at which scale you'll run into geographical obstacles, anyway). And if you take 64 of these 10-acre squares and made them into a giant chess board, you have a 1-mile square.
"The cube meter is the volume of one ton of fresh water at sea level at the equator at zero degrees Celcius."
No, a meter is the distance light travels in 1/(299,792,458) second. Period. A cubic meter is nothing more than that distance cubed.
"The cube meter is the volume of one ton of fresh water at sea level at the equator at zero degrees Celcius."
How many things are wrong with this statement?
The kilogram is a unit of mass, not weight. And density is a ratio of mass per unit volume, not weight.
The accepted (i. e. legal for engineering use) average value of average gravitational acceleration on the surface of the earth is just that: average. The internationally accepted standard is 9.80665 m/(s^2). Why would you use the extreme of ~9.780327 when very few people live there? You should be avoiding extremes anyway when it comes to defining things anyway.
"Sea level?" What's that? High tide? Low tide? Ebb tide? Neap tide? (To make life easier for everybody, the standardized "accepted" answer is 101,325 Pa.)
Why would you want to use the freezing point at any given pressure, anyway? If you so much as sneeze you throw everything out of whack (energy from sneeze melts some amount of water and/or sublimates some of it to water vapor, throwing off density, local absolute pressure and a host of other factors you look like you were trying to control)
Oh, wait you're not using the freezing point, you're using 0 degrees Celsius. 0 degrees Celsius isn't the freezing point of water, it's simply 0.01 Kelvin below the triple point of water. You see, with all the difficulties of basing a temperature scale on freezing and boiling points (with all the variables involved there), the science/engingeering community said "Fuck it!" and based everything on the triple point of water (273.16 Kelvin a/k/a 0.01 degrees Celsius, 1 Kelvin = 1.8 degrees Rankine and 0 degrees Celsius = 32 degrees Farenheit, all by definition). Now, with 0 degrees Centrigrade, yes, that was (by definition) the freezing point of H20 at 101,325 Pa, and it's "close enough" to Celsius for average, everyday work, but it certainly isn't really the same thing.
The density of water ice at 0 degrees Celsius is around 918 kg/(m^3). You're off by around 10%. Better luck next time!
"1 ton is 1000 kilo gram."
Is that a US ("short") ton or a UK ("long") ton? If you choose "US," you've just introduced another 10% or so of error. Either way, as a metric proponent you should be using the word "megagram" instead.
"each kilo gram is thus 10cm*10cm*10cm, which happens to also be a liter."
No, a liter is nothing more than a fancy name for "cubic decimeter." And one liter of water at 3.98 degrees Celsius is 0.9999750 kilograms. And, for reference, at the other extreme of 374.14 degrees Celsius (a/k/a the critical point of H2O) it's down around 0.316957 kg or so (but you'll have to push 22.1 MPa for that trick).
"1 gram is 1 millionth of a ton, "
A gram is simply 1/1000 of a kilogram. A kilogram is currently defined by a sign pointing to a particular chunk of metal that says "about this much" in French. (And a pound is currently defined as 0.45359237 kg.)
"so if a bottle of water is 1000 grams (1 kilo gram), it is also 1 liter. "
According to my steam tables, saturated liquid water at 25 degrees Celsius had a density of around 0.997 kg. I figure it's probably also around that number at 101,325 Pa as well.
"So now I know the volume, the weight, and the measurement of the container. Pretty nifty no?"
Well...
"Density is expressed in a ratio from fresh water at zero degrees at sea level at the equator."
Change "density" to "specific gravity," "zero degrees Celsius" to "3.98 degreees Celsius," "sea lev
"For those who enjoy a bit of math, did you know that in the Metric paper system, the height-to-width ratio of all pages is the square root of 2?"
This is a site for geeks, and nobody has apparently caught this?
The square root of 2 is an irrational number! There is no way to get an aspect ratio of root(2) because at least one of your sides will have to be an irrational length i. e. something you will never be able to measure accurately whether you use meters, feet or light-years!
Here I thought y'all in metric-land were supposed to be real big on your system because you like moving decimal points around, but you look at me funny for basing my measurement system on 0.3048 meter and yet you can say stuff like this with a straight face?
"US Aircraft carriers of the currently used type don't use gasoline or Oil of any type for propulsion"
You mean like the USS Kitty Hawk, USS Constellation and the USS John F. Kennedy?
(For those of you who can't catch subtlety, they're all conventionally-powered supercarriers currently in the US fleet. They boil their water the old-fashioned way.)
"The National Guard is usually outfitted with relatively outdated weapons compared with what the U.S. military has,"
That may have been true 30-40 years ago, but not today. Considering that the NG comprises around one-third of US ground forces and is being called to serve abroad more and more often, it would be rather conterproductive to still have them using outdated weapons and equipment.
"The National Guard is usually outfitted with relatively outdated weapons compared with what the U.S. military has,"
The Field Artillery (FA) long has been a leader in innovation and moving the Army forward. Active Component-Reserve Component (AC-RC) integration is a premier example. Army National Guard (ARNG) and US Army Reserve (USAR) soldiers comprise more than half of the Army -- 54 percent -- the highest percentage of any military service. The percentage is even more significant in the FA. More than two-thirds of the FA is in the National Guard.
The NG makes an interesting compromise for a country with a constitutionally-mandated bias against standanding armies.
"And since the military will do whatever it's told to do, as long as it can be convinced that the people it's targeting are "the enemy", there's little hope of the military siding with the revolutionaries."
By whom? Which government? What would National Guard units do? Would they obey the federal authority or the state, especially if asked to turn on their own people?
Slashdot Mirror
"How can anything possibly go faster than c?"
Tachyons do it all the time. Literally. Just as us tardyons with real rest mass have the speed of light as the upper limit of our velocities and luxons with no rest mass are always moving at the speed of light, tachyons with imaginary rest mass have the speed of light as the lower limit to their velocities.
Nobody's found any yet, but the math says they should be there and nobody's figured out how to disprove them, either.
Or it would result in you and/or members of your family being held hostage. Maybe, maybe not, but are you willing to make that gamble?
"Last time I called the police to report a violent crime (mugging), they were at the scene within 5 minutes and managed to arrest the criminal."
It would appear that you are in the minority:They've got sources, too, by the way.
"Don't you have a police force where you live?"
From the same link:And it's far from the only example of such a ruling. In many ways the police have no greater obligation to protect you than your average passer-by. At least in the US there's a greater chance of said passer-by being able to actually do something beyond just being a spectator.
"Well I'm gonna guess PETA might care."
Depends on the cuteness factor. How much PETA cares is directly proportional to how cute the animal is and/or how close they are to humans species-wise (i. e. how well they can anthropomorphize the critter).
I don't see PETA protesting, say, spraying insecticide to kill off mosquitoes in rather nasty ways. They may be worried about other animals (usually mammals, but occasionally birds) that might be affected, but not the mosquitoes themselves.
"is that it requires the cost of transporting someone through space to be less than the cost of feeding and housing them."
If the premise is the overcrowding of the planet and the availability of local food and housing is nonexistent, then interstellar travel will always be cheaper.
"No amount of water conservation will enable us to sustain global populations of 20 billion people."
If you're immortal, taking the slow boat to Alpha Centauri doesn't sound all that bad any more.
How about NASA advertising for the motion picture industry?
"There was no third party involved here,"
Yes, there was. IIRC it's Ubisoft that will eventually publishing the console version. For profit.
"Quarters!!!!!, public phones are vailable everywhere."
Please deposit an additional ten cents.
"Too long and dense, here's a summary."
Buttercup is gonna marry Humperdink in little less than half an hour.
No, all the base units with the exception of the kilogram are based on physical constants because the artifacts change over time! If you're using a piece of metal and you give it the name "meter," what happens when the temperature changes and the metal shrinks or expands? What if it gets warped? What if it oxidizes? I mean, just look at all the hoops BIPM has to jump through just to maintain the kilogram artifact:
And it's important to do all this so that everybody agrees on exactly what a "kilogram" is.
.45359237 kg a "pound." You can go back and forth between inches and milimeters with infinite precision just as you can between centimeters and milimeters because it's all based on the SI definition of the meter.
"This should give you guys (americans) good enough security to change to the metric system."
We already have! The US went SI a long time ago, probably before your home country. Everything we do is based on the SI system. It just so happens that, just as you call 1000 kg a "ton" and 0.001 m^3 a "liter," we call 0.3048 m a "foot" and
"Seems like you guys are waiting for it to be 'stable' or somthing."
The US signed on to the first so-called "Treaty of the Metre" in 1866, making trade in SI units legal in this country. The US standards for length and mass have been based on SI units since at least the 1890's. The last time those definitions changed was in the 1950's, and even then it wasn't by any meaningful amount. The only thing left to our "conversion" is for us to stop assigning special names to certain SI measurements, which in many ways is no worse than the special names used here and there in the "metric" world.
Look at yourselves! Just about everybody here nods their head in agreement when some uninformed SI proponent tells everybody that the density of liquid water at 3.98 degrees Celsius is 1 g/mL. It's not. You think water freezes at exactly 0 degrees Celsius. It doesn't, nor does it boil at exactly 100 degrees Celsius and 101,325 Pa. I've seen metric people call 0.5 kg "pound," 500 mL "pint" and 250 mL "cup," and these are people in continental Europe saying these things. Why? "Common usage" is the answer usually given, "just the way people do things, I guess." "Close enough?" "Just because?" What's the point in beating the drum about global standards when you yourselves don't use them?
You put a stamp on an envelope and it's good to send up to 30 grams. I put one on
"The kilogram is the only SI base unit that has not yet been defined in terms of a natural constant"
Look closely at the defintion of the Ampere, the mole and the candela. They're all base units and they all rely on that artifact kilogram in one way or another (though it may be hidden inside words like "Newton" and "Watt").
Just because it's in a book doesn't make it right. At best it's out-of-date. From the horse's mouth: The temperature in degrees Celsius is further defined as the temperature in Kelvin offset by 273.15 (putting the triple point of water at 0.01 degrees C).
And according to the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, the density of air-free water at 4.0 degrees Celsius is 0.999972 g/(cm^3), which is the same number you get at the same accuracy from 3.8 degrees C to 4.2 degrees C. 0.999972 != 1
Yeah... until 1889 at the latest. Might want to get with the times. Oh, and we don't base the second on the length of the year 1900 any more, either.
"at ~4 degrees Celsius."
Why, look! It's our good friend Circular Logic!
- The density of water varies not only with temperature but also with pressure. It's not important for most applications, but should definitely be considered when you're trying to make a standard of measurement.
- Basing pressure off of local atmospheric pressure at some point on the earth's surface is unfeasable due to weather. You'll need to have a standardized pressure independent of geography and the like, based solely on some independent force per unit area.
- Force is based on mass
- Your mass standard is based on the mass of water at some given temperature and pressure
- GOTO 10
Can you see now why we gave up on that idea and why our current practice of copies of copies of copies of an artifact is actually both more useful and more accurate?"1000 kg in metric is also called a "tonne" or "metric ton"."
Ah, but to be a true SI proponent that believes in global standards, you shouldn't do that. The only reason a megagram is called a "ton" in common usage is that it's within 2% of the UK ton. But the One True Standard hammered out by international treaty and put out by BIPM (the Defenders of the Faith) is "Mg." And that's spelled "megagramme," because the One True Standard is only official in French.
After all, if you want to call 1000 kg "ton," why should you balk when I call 0.3048 m "foot?"
"(Pounds are a unit of force, not mass - make more sense in defing slugs in terms of kilograms)."
Unfortunately we've all been lied to by our physics teachers. Pounds have been considered mass and related to the kilogram since at least the turn of the Twentieth Century, and the "1 lb = 0.45359237 kg" is the legal definition of the pound adopted by the English-speaking world in the 1950's and 1960's (around the same time we all agreed that 1 ft = 0.3048 m). After all, how do you accurately measure the "weights" of objects back in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries? Beam balances, which means they were measuring mass as compared to their pound standards.
I swear, I don't know which was worse: learning the truth about Santa or or the truth about slugs. If it makes you feel any better, at 9.80665 m/(s^2), 1 lbf = 4.4482216152605 N exactly.
" I'm sorry, but it's easy to convert milliliters to liters, too."
This is one of my qualms with the metric system: Why would you want to? How often do people need to make conversions along an order of magnitude?
For example, no, I don't know off the top of my head how many teaspoons are in a (US) gallon, but the things I measure in teaspoons and the thigns I measure in gallons have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Why would I want to know how many gallons of sugar I put into my cup of tea in the morning, or how many teaspoons of water I use to brew it?
And because you're using such an obnoxiously large converstion as factors of 10, you end up with either decimals or multi-digit integers, which aren't as easy to remember or manipulate as much as single-digit intervals. If you're in metric land, go into your kitchen and look at your measuring spoons and cups and look at all the "?00 mL" and "?50 mL" options you have. Here in my US kitchen I have numbers like "1 tsp" and "1 tbsp (3 tsp)" and "1/4 cup" and the like. Even if you get everybody to start using centileters instead of mililiters you're still stuck with ?0 or ?5.
Alright, I admit there are times when it's useful to use decimals. But what's the advantage measuring gasoline in decimal liters over decimal gallons?
And there's one more, unrelated beef I have with metric that I've come to notice while working for a real estate abstracting company: 10 is pretty, sqrt(10) is not. 1 m^2 is a 1-meter square, and 100 m^2 is a 10-meter square, but how do you measure out a square that is exactly 10 m^2? You can start using "ares" and "hectares" if you'd like, but since they're all based on the linear meter...
You can't fit 1 acre into a square with rational sides, but nobody who buys property that small deals with squares anyway (ever lived in a square house?). However, a 660-ft square is exactly 10 acres, and you'd want to buy plots that big in squares so that it makes it easier for you to figure out what pattern to drive your tractor across it and it's cheaper than 100 acres (at which scale you'll run into geographical obstacles, anyway). And if you take 64 of these 10-acre squares and made them into a giant chess board, you have a 1-mile square.
I do, but you don't.
"The cube meter is the volume of one ton of fresh water at sea level at the equator at zero degrees Celcius."
No, a meter is the distance light travels in 1/(299,792,458) second. Period. A cubic meter is nothing more than that distance cubed.
"The cube meter is the volume of one ton of fresh water at sea level at the equator at zero degrees Celcius."
How many things are wrong with this statement?
"1 ton is 1000 kilo gram."
Is that a US ("short") ton or a UK ("long") ton? If you choose "US," you've just introduced another 10% or so of error. Either way, as a metric proponent you should be using the word "megagram" instead.
"each kilo gram is thus 10cm*10cm*10cm, which happens to also be a liter."
No, a liter is nothing more than a fancy name for "cubic decimeter." And one liter of water at 3.98 degrees Celsius is 0.9999750 kilograms. And, for reference, at the other extreme of 374.14 degrees Celsius (a/k/a the critical point of H2O) it's down around 0.316957 kg or so (but you'll have to push 22.1 MPa for that trick).
"1 gram is 1 millionth of a ton, "
A gram is simply 1/1000 of a kilogram. A kilogram is currently defined by a sign pointing to a particular chunk of metal that says "about this much" in French. (And a pound is currently defined as 0.45359237 kg.)
"so if a bottle of water is 1000 grams (1 kilo gram), it is also 1 liter. "
According to my steam tables, saturated liquid water at 25 degrees Celsius had a density of around 0.997 kg. I figure it's probably also around that number at 101,325 Pa as well.
"So now I know the volume, the weight, and the measurement of the container. Pretty nifty no?"
Well...
"Density is expressed in a ratio from fresh water at zero degrees at sea level at the equator."
Change "density" to "specific gravity," "zero degrees Celsius" to "3.98 degreees Celsius," "sea lev
"For those who enjoy a bit of math, did you know that in the Metric paper system, the height-to-width ratio of all pages is the square root of 2?"
This is a site for geeks, and nobody has apparently caught this?
The square root of 2 is an irrational number! There is no way to get an aspect ratio of root(2) because at least one of your sides will have to be an irrational length i. e. something you will never be able to measure accurately whether you use meters, feet or light-years!
Here I thought y'all in metric-land were supposed to be real big on your system because you like moving decimal points around, but you look at me funny for basing my measurement system on 0.3048 meter and yet you can say stuff like this with a straight face?
"US Aircraft carriers of the currently used type don't use gasoline or Oil of any type for propulsion"
You mean like the USS Kitty Hawk, USS Constellation and the USS John F. Kennedy?
(For those of you who can't catch subtlety, they're all conventionally-powered supercarriers currently in the US fleet. They boil their water the old-fashioned way.)
Ack! Here is the URL I intended! Guess I didn't cut when I thought I did...
That may have been true 30-40 years ago, but not today. Considering that the NG comprises around one-third of US ground forces and is being called to serve abroad more and more often, it would be rather conterproductive to still have them using outdated weapons and equipment.
"The National Guard is usually outfitted with relatively outdated weapons compared with what the U.S. military has,"
Actually...The NG makes an interesting compromise for a country with a constitutionally-mandated bias against standanding armies.
"And since the military will do whatever it's told to do, as long as it can be convinced that the people it's targeting are "the enemy", there's little hope of the military siding with the revolutionaries."
By whom? Which government? What would National Guard units do? Would they obey the federal authority or the state, especially if asked to turn on their own people?
"but it would be easy enough for the commander in chief to direct our own weapons against 'domestic insurgents'."
That would depend on how seriously they take their oaths to "defend and uphold the constitution of the United States."
"We can't communicate with dolphins because we didn't have the need to do so."
So long, and thanks for all the fish!