D:\>python
Python 2.4.2 (#67, Sep 28 2005, 12:41:11) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> from time import sleep
>>> while True:
... inspire()
... sleep(1)
... expire()
... sleep(1)
...
Now breathing automatically, problem solved.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-24 6:03
>>4
Oh wow, you just made your life miserable with that way too simple algorithm.
Now you can't do any activities that require fast heartbeat. Enjoy sitting infront of your computer and/or walking at a slow phrase like an 80 year old for the rest of your life.
The hilarious thing is that pounds is wrong. Pounds are analagous to newtons. What they should be using are slugs, which are units of mass like kilograms.
An 80kg dude on the Earth is still 80kg on the moon. A 176 pound guy on Earth isn't 176 pounds elsewhere.
pounds = english unit for weight
kilograms = french unit for mass
stop calling mass "weight", you french faggots!
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 11:04
>>18
The English already overcame legacy units. Kilograms = international unit for mass.
Kilograms can (and are also) used to measure weight. 1 Kg mass = 1 Kg weight on Earth (on standard conditions). So as long as you are on Earth, your average American both weights and "masses" 120 Kg.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 18:14
>>19
Colloquial language often abuses terminology. That doesn't make it right.
Kilograms is a measure of mass alone. Your average Joe doesn't realize this because he's never dealt with a noticeably different gravity.
Name:
Mashuu2006-09-26 22:07
>>18
"pound" comes from latin "pondo", thus it is more french than english.
From french "poids" becomes "weight",
but from english "pounds" becomes "livres".
In conclusion, most english is a bastardized french. So shut up and learn your own language before bitching others.
Thanks you.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 22:42
how do i translated 150lb to kgs
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-26 23:09
google 150lb to kgs
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 4:18
>>21
Funny enough that Spanish uses "libras" instead of the French pound root.
Pounds are _correct_ when you're talking about weight. They're incorrect when you're talking about MASS. ITT, we are talking about weight. Did anyone say they'd massed themselves?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 5:02
>>25
>Pounds are _correct_ when you're talking about weight. They're incorrect when you're talking about MASS.
Monster fail.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 5:04
Pounds are a unit of mass. And weight and occasionally force, but mostly mass. The US and (I think) UK both define the pound in terms the kg.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-27 6:58
>>25
In case you hadn't noticed, you've repeated what >>15 said. Here, let me put your post and >>15 side-by-side:
Pounds are analagous to newtons. What they should be using are slugs, which are units of mass like kilograms. Pounds are _correct_ when you're talking about weight. They're incorrect when you're talking about MASS
Now, let's get on with the real issue: colloquial use of the word "weight" is wrong. Think carefully why people weight stuff at the market and you'll soon understand why. What they're really interested in is the mass: the amount of stuff they're buying. If they bought the same shit on the moon, they're still buy the same mass, even though the weight is completely different.
>>27 did google it. The pound was redefined by the US gov't as a unit of mass equal to 1/2.2062234 kg in 1893/4. The UK might have similarly defined it earlier but I'm not sure. A corrected definition of 1 lb = 0.45359237 kg was adopted by the US, UK, AU, NZ, and ZA in 1959.
The 'pound' in the UCLA article is the pound-force (lbf) used in the foot-pound-second systems devised around the beginning of the 20th century. Both pounds are in common use but, at least IME, the unit of force is usually written 'pound-force' unless it's utterly unambiguous.
The pound was redefined by the US gov't as a unit of mass equal to 1/2.2062234 kg in 1893/4.
The pound is a unit of weight. If the US gov't decided to redefine the kilogram as a unit of length, would you say that that is the correct definition, even if more than 90% of the population of the US do not?
>>31
The pound is a unit of mass. Further googling indicates that's been a unit of mass since its initial(?) definition in the 14th century. In common usage it's also a unit of weight, most likely because common usage doesn't distinguish between weight and mass. That's part of the normal ambiguity and arbitrariness of the English/imperial/customary system of weights and measures. Remember ounces?
You don't have to like it but that's the way it is.
Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy