Also, I noticed you said that the 5.25" held 720KB. I don’t recall any 5.25 holding 720KB.
5.25s either held 180KB (single sided?) 360KB (double density), or 1200KB(high density).
3.5s held 720KB (double density) and 1440(high density)
I stand corrected on the 720 k disks; I was working from memory. What I meant, of course, was “dem things dat came just before dem other things dat we use nowadays”.
As to 3*(1/3) = 1, of course it is, but most computer programs aren’t smart enough to realize that. If the programmer doesn’t realize that the program doesn’t realize it, then problems will ensue.
The problem here is not in the calculations, but in the comparison. You’re comparing an integer with a floating point number, which computers can’t do. The compiler/translator realizes this and generates the code to convert one to the other before doing the compare. The thing is that different languages do this conversion differently.
If you do the same comparison in C/C++, the 1 will be converted to a double and the comparison will be unequal. (You will also probably get a warning about comparing two different types.)
I’m not that up on what BASIC does, but apparently, it converts the double (the result of x+x+x) to an integer by rounding it. So what you have to do is to force the comparison to be done in floats. Possibly changing the 1 to 1.0 will do it. If not, then putting the 1.0 in a double variable will do it. (I have a vague memory that there may be a way to force a floating point comparison by using a different symbol for the equals, but I don’t remember the specifics.)
Oh, so it’s not math, it’s computer science, is it? Oh, well, that’s okay then, I guess my head isn’t really about to explode, I must be imagining it… :rolleyes:
[crawls feebly back to MPSIMS, leaving Pocket Protectors to their fun]
Well, I’ll admit I’ve never tried to compare a sales brochure with the actual storage capacity. Any discrepancies that occurred were assumed by me to represent the difference by disk space lost due to directory information or disk drivers or whatnot. But at the OS level, on Windows or UNIX or VMS or MacOS or any of the other operating systems with which I am familiar, 1KB = 1024 bytes and 1MB = 1024 KB.
(edited to add missing 0)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 02-08-2001 at 11:06 AM]
The later PS/2’s had 3.5" 2.88MB drives, but stores never stocked the appropriate diskettes, and IBM eventually gave up on it.
I believe that GW-Basic uses BCD math, so 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 could = 1 for some values of 1/3.
Here is a quote from “The Devil’s DP Dictionary” by Stan Kelly-Bootle:
K (prefix: Kilo-) 1. Science. Thousandfold as: “40K brothers/Could not, with all their quantity of love,/Make up my sum.” - Hamlet 2. Finance 2^10 fold, providing a hidden 2.4% hedge against impoverishment.
Note: Computer sales proposals tend to operate in both environments and tend to fluctuate between the 2 K modes without warning. When in doubt you should assume the worst case, e.g. “Each additional 8K of memory will cost you $1K,” means that you get 8000 bits for $1024, whereas “We offer to buy back each surplus 8K memory board for $1K” should be taken as an offer of $1000 for 8192 words.
[Just for the record, this was copyrighted in 1981. I believe he has an updated one out that is more PC oriented.]
Just to add my 2p (in honor of the UK’s metric currency system, which shows that even the most Byzantine systems can be reformed).
The US is, for all intents and purposes, metric. All of the scientific fields I can name are metric, same with most professional fields. Your pharmacy measures grams of product and your nurse takes ccs of your fluids. Metric measurements at the garage are very common, with all of the parts being made abroad. We might not have sodas measured in ml or distances between towns in kilometers, but anyone can convert with a minimum of effort (a wallet card with multiplication factors plus a pocket calculator is all you need). We might change those small remnants of our US Standard past eventually, but there is absolutely no pressure and less reason to.
Not without rounding or some more advanced scheme like that Exact mode on the TI calculator.
[trying to get thread back to issues of language and away from the Pocket Protectors]
We’ve been using metric in Canada for about 24 years now, and you rarely hear either “kil-o-meter” or “kill-AW-meter.”
Instead, the common term is “klaw-metre,” pronounced with two syllables. “klics” and “k” are also used colloquially.
[Duck Duck Goose - come back now, dear - there’s other innumerates here - it’s okay…]
[hesitantly peering around edge of door]
Sorry, Derleth, but the Cult of the Automobile being so fundamental to American culture, IMO the U.S. cannot be considered “to all intents and purposes, [be] truly metric” as long as we’re still measuring gas mileage as miles per gallon.
Klawmetres per liter?
Eh, jti no matter how I twist it in my usual damyankee fashion, I can’t get only two syllables out of “klawmetre”. Maybe there’s a French sort of “metrrr” sound on the end there?
If it is a 3-syllable “klawmeter”, isn’t that the same thing as “kill-AW-meter”, only with one less syllable? As opposed to “KILL-oh-meter”.
But I like the way “klawmetre” looks. Heinlein would be pleased. 
Derleth said:
Actually, sodas are measured in liters, so they are metric.
Regarding conversion, the whole point is to move where we don’t have to do the conversion to get the metric. However, the mangled way the U.S. did it so far, for instance with food labeling, is to use even sized packages in U.S. customary units and then put the metric conversions after it. That hardly provides incentive for the average consumer to get comfortable with the metric sizes. Whereas if you were to package the products in even sizes of metric units, then apply the U.S. customary conversions as the added info in parentheses, the country would quickly learn to think in grams/kg and in liters/mL.
I think some of the more traditional units will be with us for a long time, holding out in vestiges of usage. But certainly a bit more effort taken to push the conversion would quickly make most people familiar with the new system.
Have you ever seen the European show “World’s strongest Man contest” on ESPN? They often measure weight in stones. I’ll have to check, but I don’t think Stones are metric. People in “metric” countries still use the familiar terms when they are convenient. They still drink pints of beer in England. This notion that the whole world is Metricized to the core is assuming too much.
It seems to me that sometimes the English system is more convenient and natural. If you cut a pizza into eighths, you don’t say that one slice is “.125 of the pizza,” it is an eighth. In some ways measuring an eighth of an inch is more convenient than “.125 of a centimeter” or “1.25 centimeters.” Granted, money works just fine being metric, and for scientific purposes the metric system is a must, but for everyday use it can be inconvenient.
Soda pop, by the way, is sold in both metric (1 liter, 2 liter) and English (12 oz, 16 oz [pint]). They also sell 40 oz bottles of beer.
As for teaching the metric system in the US, I think that it should be taught earlier with less emphasis on conversion. It really isn’t difficult to learn, but it is difficult to convert. Who has trouble learning the money system? I think that this is what turns so many people off. Conversion. Start the kids thinking in metric terms early and they’ll learn.
Duck Duck Goose, you know, I thought about that afterwards, and was standing in the shower, trying different variants to figure out how I would pronounce it without trying to think about it. As a psychological exercise, it wasn’t easy. How 'bout 2 1/2 syllables?
You’re right - it’s like “kill-AW-meter,” but with the “kill-AW” collapsed into one syllable. The “metre” part isn’t pronounced “meet-er” - more like “m’tre” - if you get my drift.
(Bear in mind that where I live, people can make “milk” and “film” into bisyllabics, and shorten other words down, so it may just be a regional idiosyncracy.)
I’m glad Heinlein would be pleased. 
jti, the best way to represent that is probably “klom ter”. 
And I think it is fairly regional.
LateComer, I agree, conversion is the hard part. That’s why sizing containers in even metric sizes is so important. I have a honey container that is labeled “454 g (16 oz)”. Now which of those is easier to remember? But if I had one that was “500 g (17.6 oz)”, then it would be easier to think grams. Note that measuring honey in weight is curious anyway, since as a liquid it seems more intuitive to measure in volume.
But yeah, teach both systems early on, getting used to each as needed.
I’m Canadian, and I always say "kill-o-metre’. I wonder whether the varying pronunciations are regionalisms?
In Canada, we’re about halfway between the US and Australia in terms of metric. People regularly use km for distances, litres for gas, and Celsius degrees for temperature. Signs by the road, even crufty home-made ones, give distance in km. Except for McDonalds, who use miles, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. (%$$##@*& corporate imperialists <mutter><snarl>)
But heights and weights are still often given in feet and inches… and then converted to centimetres for official uses, as on my driver’s licence.
The whole field of real-estate and construction, including construction materials, remains stubbornly in acres and square feet, although when I was in architecture school (1981-2), we dimensioned our plans in millimetres (!). For things the size of houses…
We get natural gas by the cubic metre (I think). Actually, kilograms would make greater sense there–how do I know what pressure the gas company is using to fill each cubic metre?
Packages are labeled mostly in metric, but the actual sizes are a strange mix of Imperial, US, and metric… for instance, milk in litre containers, but paint in 3.78-L containers (one US gallon). Pop cans are 355 mL, but the plastic bottles are a range of even sizes (600 mL, 1 L, 2L, etc). I think a lot of items come form the States and are simply relabeled to conform to Canadian bilingual labeling rquirements, at which point the metric labeling goes on.
When I was in the UK last year, I was startled to see road signs in miles…
For a look at a fully-metric car culture, read http://www.drive.com.au which is an Australian car site. Fully metric-- engine powers are in kilowatts, for instance.
In Canada, we measure gas mileage in litres consumed per 100 km travelled. Again, the litre took over relatively quickly IMHO because the Canadian gallon was different from (larger than) the US gallon…
Canadian metric advocacy site:
http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/gregtami/metric.html
A British anti-metric advocacy site
http://members.aol.com/footrule/index.html
mentions Canada:
http://members.aol.com/footrule/canada.htm
An Australian’s reaction to the USA and its units: “Toxic Custard Hits the States”
http://www.toxiccustard.com/usa/
…especially “No Metric”:
http://www.toxiccustard.com/usa/metric.html
Sunspace, I’ll add that Canadian Saturday-morning-mechanics had better have a toolbox full of Imperial tools if they own a North American car. I’m not sure what happens with imports, but I know that when I work on my vehicle, which was designed and built in North America, I’ll need tools measured in Imperial sizes.
I think sports has also had a lot to do with keeping Imperial alive in Canada. Canadian football fields have always been measured in yards, although this may have something to do with the fact that many of the players in the CFL are American. The same applies to professional baseball–when the Blue Jays started, the outfield wall showed distances in meters. This was changed to include measurements in feet so that the American players (not to mention Canadian fans who were trying to cope with the introduction of the metric system and the Blue Jays at the same time) knew how far the wall was from home plate.
Certainly, all Canadian horse racing still uses furlongs and miles for distance, and weights are in pounds. Again, though, Canadian and American horse racing are closely allied, and it may be easier to keep statistics on all North American race horses in one measurement system.
I think a lot of the confusion stems from the ways that metric forced us to look at things differently. Growing up with the Imperial system, I find miles per gallon an easy concept for me to understand. I still don’t get litres per 100 kilometres–why couldn’t it be kilometres per litre? Sure it would be a smaller number than the MPG equivalent, but the concept of “distance per liquid unit” would still be there and understandable.
I won’t even touch on things like wind power measured in watts-per-square-metre, which I occasionally hear on the weather channel. I just tell myself that the wind is strong, and wear a hat. 
You’re kidding, right? They actually tell you the wind flux on the weather? Why on Earth would anyone be interested in that? The only use I can see would be if a person had a windmill, and they could measure it themselves just as easily. The logical way to measure the wind is its speed, which has implications immediately understandable to anyone hearing the number. See that leaf blowing along there? It’s moving at 20 km/h.
Sure, the wind flux would depend on the pressure as well as the speed, but wind speeds are a lot more variable.
I think Spoons was referring to “wind chill”, not actual pressure. We get wind speeds in nice, easy-to understand kilometres per hour.
We get the “it’s -10 out there but with a 30-km/h wind it feels like -30” thing every winter. I gather that the math behind it involves an extra amount of heat being sucked out of your body at a rate of so many watts per square metre of skin, increasing with the speed and coldness of the passing wind (vague memories of heat-flow calculations from architecture school are surfacing here), but they never mention that on the news. Much easier just to give an equivalent still-air temperature.
For an example, see the Weather Network’s report for Toronto. Nothing more copmplex there than a kilopascal for reporting air pressure, and that’s the most-ignored number as far as most people are concerned. The only thing that people are even slightly interested regarding air pressure is whether it’s going up or down.
I think you have to go to the technical bulletinns from Environment Canada to get actual wind-related thermal power drain.
Well, Chronos and Sunspace, we don’t get the watts-per-square-metre thing much anymore. Used to hear it a lot in the winter, but I don’t recall hearing it once this winter. I think it was just too confusing for most people.
As for kilopascals, that’s another confusing thing. Inches of mercury are easy to understand–we had a homemade barometer in our high school chem lab, but pictures in a book would work just as well, I guess. Knowing that, millimetres of mercury would seem to be just as easy. But how does one relate a kilopascal to something just as demonstrable and understandable?