I think Lloyd George knows my father.
Printable View
curious george?yes he would for sure know how many barrels of monkeys it would hold. witch would be half of the rating as the other half had barrels of bananas in it. unless the monkeys poop over board then they can add some more barrels to the deck.but it would be over weight till the monkeys ate&pooped over deck.or died or thrown in to feed the sharks for the monkeys entertainment...try to stay on the monkeys good side.but always remember they are swingers....:bananadance:
Ounces. Inches. Meters. Furlongs. Nautical Miles. Thousandths. MPH. Pounds. Kilo's. Grams. Grains. Hands. KPH. Stones. PSI. Nm. Troy. Avd. C°. F°. Hours...
I suspect most people comprehend reading of thermometers and odometers, less for scales and protractors, some don't get the 24 hour clock, and well known challenges facing tape measures. So then we found off-beat comparisons, that try to relate scale of one thing to others, such as football fields.
This I swear is real, someone wishing to sell a grapple. Of all things in a household, a grapple not top of many lists,
Attachment 40095
yet remotes are identical, right?
LOL, You're supposed to use a banana for scale!
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/6617...a-for-scale--4
(although, actually that particular remote is a very common model..it used to be the one that came with most Cox or Comcast cable boxes, so it's not particularly stupid to use it)
And some wag has made a standard aluminum banana for scaling purposes (this is a still from one of Hand Tool Rescue's videos on youtube ) https://i.redd.it/6688tff4tq531.png
So, to negotiate purchase I have to change cable companies? Whew, at least not a golfer.
Not sure a 'standard banana' exists; average, maybe. In a lopped-off bunch, are not bottom rows longer and straighter?
All I know is that by ANY comparator, I'm getting shorter.
I heard, yesterday, what I consider is the definitive way to measure the size of a lawn.
A freind of mine is a real estate agent and he tells me that the recognized way to determine the size of a lawn is the number of "tinnies" (cans of beer), that it takes to mow it.
He went on to say that a local builder prices all his jobs by "slabs", ie. cartons of beer. Which when you think about it is not so silly because the jobs rarely change in the amount of work to be done, but the ever increasing cost of living changes the price constantly, so a slab of beer rises consistently with the cost of living,.......no more calculating to be done.
The E.U tried to standardise Bananas by length, weight, straightness, allowable bend to length ratio and colour. This cause many plantations to be plowed under or abandoned causing an international Banana shortage and crippling a few countries economies.
The U.N.G.C. actually overruled their European branch office the E.U. on that one.
Now I have a question for everybody. How many metres in a mile?
presuming this to be the question it purports to be,
One statue mile = 1760 yards
1760 x36 statute inches 36 being the number of inches in a yard = 63360.
63360/39.2 (39.2 being the length of a metre measured in statute inches) =1616.32
So, 1616.32 metres, unless this was a trick question.
nb. I'm not aware if there may be a difference between "statute" and "American" yards.
Ultimately the answer could be "LOTS"
In the news today: “Goldfish the size of rugby balls have taken over a Minnesota lake!” I question whether many Minnesota residents can visualise the size of a rugby ball, but still.... That’s a jolly fat goldfish!
yeah they sound more like the Japanese carp or Koi or what ever they are called.
I knew a guy in college who got drunk at his girlfriend's 21st birthday party, decided he was going to impress her by drinking the entire contents of her gold fish bowl and swallow all of the gold fish alive. Needless to say she was not impressed in the least, and her dad was even less impressed when the guy puked up most of the still live gold fish on their new carpet. Pizza, cake, beer, goldfish and fish bowl water on white carpet, you get the picture I'm sure.
that depends on how many houses are on the mile long street and weather they have just 1 meter or 2( for a shop/home in the back)
We have some here...
Attachment 40122
so..how do we standardize feet?? some people have short feet some have long feet. and some have a foot long....banana, so....oh never mind,it's usualy longer than a furlong or long fur...
were not the only ones with some odd stuff.....
Why would a country so bent on the metric system use stone as a unit of weight...
WELL, I for one, am so offended that I offer the following as evidence. :)
(Not sure as evidence for what, but it is evidence for something!!!! )
https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/ar...al-gallons.php.
The History of this is here. https://marketbusinessnews.com/finan...eters%2C%20etc.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...term=Soddering
https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...?term=Aluminum
And just FYI, I am not really offended, you gotta laugh. It is fascinating how things morph as time and distance separate us. Now that most in the world are able to come back together and communicate freely via the internet, we can so easily see how the differences have evolved.
Now if we could just come together and solve the REAL problems of the world.
From Britannia:
"Stone, British unit of weight for dry products generally equivalent to 14 pounds avoirdupois (6.35 kg), though it varied from 4 to 32 pounds (1.814 to 14.515 kg) for various items over time. Originally any good-sized rock chosen as a local standard, the stone came to be widely used as a unit of weight in trade, its value fluctuating with the commodity and region. In the 14th century England’s exportation of raw wool to Florence necessitated a fixed standard. In 1389 a royal statute fixed the stone of wool at 14 pounds and the sack of wool at 26 stones. Trade stones of variant weights persist, such as the glass stone of 5 pounds. The stone is still commonly used in Britain to designate the weights of people and large animals."
I have many stones in my yard,I doubt any weigh 14 pounds or 6.35 kg's. what Im wondering is how many pounds does a stone cost over there?? and how hard can you pound on it?can you pound on it while your stoned? or do you stone it before you pound it? how many pebbles are in a stone?? how much did pebbles flint stone cost?and what about that blarney stone?? where / when does it come into the equation?? all this thinking is making my head pound:smash:
As I said in a previous post, "by any comparator, I'm getting shorter" an addendum to that is by any comparator I'm also getting heavier. the end product is likely to be a lemon on legs. How do we calculate the mass of a lemon on legs?
I always say, when life gives you lemons, put them in a pillowcase and beat the ever-loving **** out of whoever's responsible.
The description of "A lemon on legs" paints a visual alright, not disturbing, just humorous.
There is another, differently phrased but equal in humor. It describes an overweight [such as one of our politicians] retiree.
He's beach or poolside in Brazilian styled too-brief excuse for swimwear as an egg wearing a rubberband.
That IS disturbing!
My mother, being 4'10" (in any direction) was severally described as "a lemon on legs" so it's little surprise that I'm off down the same road. Mind you, she lived 'til 95 years old so that can't be bad.
For once, I am looking forward to a TV programme later this week, to do with the “internationally accepted prototype” of a kilogram. This has shed, I read, a fraction of its weight. This is described as the “equivalent of an eyelash”. Really? That seems quite a lot, and since it is locked in a vault near Paris, it’s not likely to be due to wear and tear. Hopefully the programme will explain why, although if it’s quantum physics, that will in itself be enough. The metrologists are apparently “racing” to invent a new standard kilogram. What are the likely candidates? I suggest 703 coffee beans.
According to this article...
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...ns-ncna1007731
it's lost only 50 micrograms, the weight of a few fingerprints; an eyelash would weigh much more.
Science has advanced enough that we can now define the fundamental quantities (meter, kilogram, second) of the metric system in terms of physical constants not subject to the vagaries of nature as the prototypes of the past were. The meter is already defined in terms of the speed of light in a vacuum, a universal constant. The second is defined in terms of the radiation emitted by cesium. The kilogram was the last fundamental to be defined in terms of a physical artefact.
Now the kilogram has been defined in terms of Planck's constant, h = 6.62607015E-34 kg·m²/sec so the physical standard in France is no longer needed; it can rust and abrade away as much as it wishes.
Defining in terms of universal physical constants not only removes the dependence on objects subject to change, it allows users anywhere to generate the standard rather than having to travel to a prototype, measure, and then attempt to carry that measurement back unchanged.
And it keeps pirates from stealing them, helping to cement America on the Imperial Standards swamp. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-metric-system.
Speaking of which I found this amazing graphic today, showing the relationships of liquid measure in the (US) Imperial system. See they're perfectly simple! (just don't do it wrong; I think you'll summon a demon instead of finding how many teaspoons in ⅓ cup :-)
Attachment 40437
Nice, but it doesn't show those classic, party-on, wine bottles...
Jeroboam
Salmanazar
Balthazar
Nebuchadnezzar
The inferial system, in addition to its innate idiocy, has the habit of giving units names that carry exactly no information about the unit's numerical value or relation to the base unit. Naming units for obscure biblical kings is the zenith of that nasty practice.
Well many times monks were the brewers, vinters and distillers, so maybe the names weren't so obscure to them; or originated as some sort of in-joke. some cursory googling does not turn up and definitive information on the origins...quite possibly the originators didn't remember why they called them that the next morning :-)