Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Volume versus weight in cooking (Score 1) 778

by beelsebob (#48036353) Attached to: David Cameron Says Brits Should Be Taught Imperial Measures

Metric is no more accurate than US customary units.

No, the issue is that the use of it is much more accurate, as expressed above, the americans have a deer love of using the wrong units even within their own system.

  They use volume units for compressible things
  They use volume units for undeformable things
  They use volume units for things with large air gaps between them and inconsistent shapes
They use the same words for volume and mass units (oz in the US can interchangeably mean ounces or fluid ounces for example)

In general, trying to follow a US recipe that needs some level of accuracy is basically impossible. If you're trying to bake bread, you'd better have a metric recipe, or you're screwed.

Comment: Re:Idiot (Score 4, Insightful) 778

by beelsebob (#48034211) Attached to: David Cameron Says Brits Should Be Taught Imperial Measures

The reason is, 125ml and 250ml have no practical relationship, while "1 cup" and "1/2 cup" do. So when a recipe calls for 1 cup of anything, you can measure that quickly. If it's half a cup, then you use half a cup, or if you have it calling for 1.5 cups, you use the 1/2cup 3 times.

Actually, cooking is the one place that US imperial measurement drives me up the fucking wall. 1 cup of something trivially measured by volume isn't so bad, though 100ml is just as easy to measure. The big issue is when you get to "1 cup of flour" or "1 cup of butter" - things that are much more easily measured by mass, or things like "1 cup of cherry tomatoes" where the amount you get will vary based on the size and density of the particular tomatoes you have today.

Basically, no, the kitchen is exactly the place I want metric measurement - it is if anything the best example around a house of where you need accurate scientific style measurement.

Comment: Re:1024-fold (Score 2, Insightful) 210

by beelsebob (#47893719) Attached to: SanDisk Releases 512GB SD Card

No, a "traditional" GB is the one that was defined way before computer scientists got their hands on it –1000. The 1024 "definition" is actually simply a bug. Engineers working on early machines had a choice – take a bug that pretty much no one would notice on an early machine (because files over 1kB were very rare, much less ones over 1MB), or take a massive perf hit. It takes a long time to compute the size of 20 files when a division by 1000 takes 300 odd cycles on a 10kHz machine. It doesn't take such a long time when a right shift 10 takes 1 cycle.

Bottom line, early engineers decided a known bug was better than the enormous perf hit of getting it correct. That doesn't mean that what they did is now correct. It means it remains a bug in some OSes.

Comment: Re:Numeric equality in PHP (Score 1) 729

There's no particular reason to not have comparable values of different types

Sure there is - they have different types, therefore they're not equal. It's a ridiculous, useless operation, because it doesn't actually do anything more than always return false.

That said, there's good reason to have an "isSimilarTo" function, but that's not at all the same thing as equality.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?