Maker Pro
Maker Pro

[OT] EDN cover art FAIL

F

F. Bertolazzi

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sergey Kubushyn:
So what? It's not a scientific chart, it's just a graphic art.

The point is that they chose exactly the wrong value, since, for making a
quick & approximate conversion, you must remember that -40 C = -40 F
and that 1 Celsius degree is more or less 2+ 1/10 Fahrenheit.

So 100 F = -40 F + 140 F
140 F = 70 + 7 C
-40 C + 77 C = 37 C (actually 38).
 
J

josephkk

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sergey Kubushyn:
Artistic license be damned, target audience matters.
The point is that they chose exactly the wrong value, since, for making a
quick & approximate conversion, you must remember that -40 C = -40 F
and that 1 Celsius degree is more or less 2+ 1/10 Fahrenheit.

So 100 F = -40 F + 140 F
140 F = 70 + 7 C
-40 C + 77 C = 37 C (actually 38).

Ummm. 1 degree C is 1.8 degrees F instead of 2. 0 or 2.1 or 2 +/- 0.1 x.

Using 2 instead of 1.8 is mighty sloppy for an engineering discussion
group or engineering trade magazine.
 
F

F. Bertolazzi

Jan 1, 1970
0
josephkk:
Using 2 instead of 1.8 is mighty sloppy for an engineering discussion
group or engineering trade magazine.

I believe it is more than appropriate for Engineering.
Maybe not for Physics or Mathematics.

Do you know what a slide rule is?
The tailor has his scissors, the plumber has his wrench, what was the
distinctive tool of the engineering trade before pocket calculators?
 
T

TheGlimmerMan

Jan 1, 1970
0
I believe it is more than appropriate for Engineering.
Maybe not for Physics or Mathematics.

Then that means you are NOT an engineer.

A wanna be maybe. Maybe even some dope that got lucky and got a
degree. But any fucking monkey can get a degree.

That was about the most ignorant, dumb remark anyone could make,
whether an engineer or not.

You are not looking good Bert-o-loozi.
 
T

TheGlimmerMan

Jan 1, 1970
0
Do you know what a slide rule is?


Do you know that a slide rule would not be that fucking far off either,
dumbass?

Slide rules are VERY accurate if the operator actually knows how to
read it, much less use it properly.
 
T

TheGlimmerMan

Jan 1, 1970
0
The tailor has his scissors, the plumber has his wrench, what was the
distinctive tool of the engineering trade before pocket calculators?


Slide rules, but they STILL did not jump into it with the bent fucking
mindset you just spewed forth with. Nor were they EVER that fucking far
off the mark!

You are NOT "close enough" to qualify as an engineer after that dumb
remark.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
F. Bertolazzi said:
josephkk:


I believe it is more than appropriate for Engineering.
Maybe not for Physics or Mathematics.

Do you know what a slide rule is?
The tailor has his scissors, the plumber has his wrench, what was the
distinctive tool of the engineering trade before pocket calculators?

Did you hear about the constipated mathematician?

He worked it out with a pencil.

Cheers!
Rich
( ;-) <- for the humor-impaired)
 
F

F. Bertolazzi

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joel Koltner:

Slide rules are rather more accurate than the ~11% error in using 2 vs 1.8,
though!

Sure, but who's using 2?
 
F

F. Bertolazzi

Jan 1, 1970
0
VWWall:
I took the examination for Professional Engineer in 1952, using a slide
rule. This was before pocket calculators were available, but an error
of 2 for 1.8 would have flunked all of the problems.

Probably that time you were paying more attention to the numbers.
Please read again my example and wonder where that seven comes from.
 
F

F. Bertolazzi

Jan 1, 1970
0
F. Bertolazzi:
2+ 1/10 Fahrenheit.

Er, one tenth of twice, which is 2/10
So 100 F = -40 F + 140 F
140 F = 70 + 7 C

Like in the 7 above.
-40 C + 77 C = 37 C (actually 38).

If you convert 1000 F in this way you get 532 C, which is not 537.77, but
pretty close, and anyway much closer than using 2 instead of 1,8
 
F

F. Bertolazzi

Jan 1, 1970
0
TheGlimmerMan:
Then that means you are NOT an engineer.

A wanna be maybe. Maybe even some dope that got lucky and got a
degree. But any fucking monkey can get a degree.

I agree. The problem arises when someone is so stupid that not even money
was sufficient to buy him a degree, so he rants and insults to vent his
frustration.
That was about the most ignorant, dumb remark anyone could make,
whether an engineer or not.

I agree. Only you could make it.
You are not looking good Bert-o-loozi.

I'm sorry. But not too much.
Is there anybody here who cares for your opinions?
 
T

TheGlimmerMan

Jan 1, 1970
0
I agree. The problem arises when someone is so stupid that not even money
was sufficient to buy him a degree, so he rants and insults to vent his
frustration.
You should stop, then.

Give it up. The remark you made was about as dumb as it gets, AND your
subsequent remarks proves my remarks about you to be true.

Go ahead... act like it is not you that is frustrated.

I'll sit by watching and laughing.
 
T

TheGlimmerMan

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm sorry.

We know.
But not too much.

Far more than you know, dipshit.
Is there anybody here who cares for your opinions?

Do you think I give a fat flying **** what 96% percent of the people
here care about? If so, you are dumber than I previously thought.
 
T

TheGlimmerMan

Jan 1, 1970
0
Furthermore, over 90 percent of actual engineering calculations do
not need to be done with more than 2,5 significant digits; ideal for
slide rules.


A slide rule user with a brain can glean as many as three accurate
places. By adding a couple further calcs, one can resolve down even
farther.

Seeing three accurate places is done on ANY slide rule calc I ever did.

If you are too stupid to see between the graduations and fancy accurate
guesses in .2 of the increment span steps, you are too dumb to use a
slide rule.

You called it .5, when we can easily resolve accurately, by sight,
better than that as I just noted. Oh, and there is always that "when you
do, your calcs will be more accurate" thing as well.

Who ever told you to regard the cursor falling between two increments
as being only .5? It is quite easy to see four or even five breaks
accurately between two ticks on a slide rule.

Put on some glasses.
 
F

F. Bertolazzi

Jan 1, 1970
0
TheGlimmerMan:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 18:32:47 +0100, "F. Bertolazzi"


Do you think I give a fat flying **** what 96% percent of the people
here care about?

Evidently not, otherwise you would have stopped writing here long ago.
Mine is called a rhetoric question, since the answer is already known.

You are just venting the frustration that cames from the fact that you
believe you are much more intelligent than what you actually are.

And I'm reading it because I enjoy watching stupid bullies ridicule
themselves.


I see that, as usual, it took you three tries to read and partly understand
one post. Good boy, keep tryin'.
 
T

TheGlimmerMan

Jan 1, 1970
0
You are just venting the frustration that cames from the fact that you
believe you are much more intelligent than what you actually are.

I work with satellites, and smart bomb controllers.

You?

Bwuahahahahahah!
 
T

TheGlimmerMan

Jan 1, 1970
0
And I'm reading it because I enjoy watching stupid bullies ridicule
themselves.

I am a bully, because I reply to the fucktards attacking me by calling
them the retarded bastards that they are?

You have a bent perception of reality, fuckhead.
 
Furthermore, over 90 percent of actual engineering calculations do
not need to be done with more than 2,5 significant digits; ideal for
slide rules.

The other 10% only need one significant digit? ;-)
 
F

F. Bertolazzi

Jan 1, 1970
0
TheGlimmerMan:
I work with satellites, and smart bomb controllers.

I believe that you believe it.

Even a firecracker is smarter than you and louder than your mouthfarts.
That's why I believe that, from your point of view, the firecracker you lit
on 7/4 is a smart bomb. Fond memories, uh?
 
Top