On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:26:57 -0800 (PST), the renowned Dave Hansen
<iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 6, 11:26 am, David Brown
><david.br...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:
>[...]
>> spiders, centipedes, and other such creatures. Lobsters and crabs are
>> also arthropods, but probably not what most people mean by "bugs".
>
>When we go out to the local Chinese place for lunch, a coworker
>refuses to order any dish containing shrimp, because (he says) he
>refuses to eat bugs.
>
>Regards,
>
> -=Dave
On 2008-03-06, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:
> I think you meant "spiders are not insects" - in general usage, even
> amongst biologists, spiders *are* bugs. Very technically, "bug" refers
> to the hemiptera insects (these are sap-sucking insects). But more
> commonly, "bug" refers to arthropods in generally - and that includes
> spiders, centipedes, and other such creatures. Lobsters and crabs are
> also arthropods, but probably not what most people mean by "bugs".
Scuba divers commonly refer to lobsters as "bugs".
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! A GRAM?? A BRAM... A
at GROOM... A BROOM... Oh,
visi.com Yeh!! Wash the ROOM!!
Reply by Mark Borgerson●March 6, 20082008-03-06
In article <12cc4dec-41d3-4e85-9338-11f8596e39a8
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, spamfree@skytex.net says...
> On Mar 6, 11:26 am, David Brown
> <david.br...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Lobsters and crabs are also arthropods, but probably not what most people mean by "bugs".
>
> Except in Louisiana!
>
And in Maine. When I took a cruise on a schooner, the
cook polled the passengers to find out how many "bugs" to
cook for dinner. The bugs in this case were lobsters.
Mark Borgerson
Reply by Dave Hansen●March 6, 20082008-03-06
On Mar 6, 11:26 am, David Brown
<david.br...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:
[...]
> spiders, centipedes, and other such creatures. Lobsters and crabs are
> also arthropods, but probably not what most people mean by "bugs".
When we go out to the local Chinese place for lunch, a coworker
refuses to order any dish containing shrimp, because (he says) he
refuses to eat bugs.
Regards,
-=Dave
Reply by John Mianowski●March 6, 20082008-03-06
On Mar 6, 11:26 am, David Brown
<david.br...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:
...
> Lobsters and crabs are also arthropods, but probably not what most people mean by "bugs".
Except in Louisiana!
JM
Reply by David Brown●March 6, 20082008-03-06
Alex Colvin wrote:
>> It is almost impossible to explain the difference to "the man in the
>> street". Also, have you ever tried to explain the difference between
>> "heat" and "temperature" to the average man in the street? Or "weight"
>> vs "mass"?
>
> This comes from the common practice of making scientific deinitions of
> common terms that turn out to me more precise than those terms. E.g.,
> spiders are not bugs, whales are not fish, Pluto is not a planet.
>
I think you meant "spiders are not insects" - in general usage, even
amongst biologists, spiders *are* bugs. Very technically, "bug" refers
to the hemiptera insects (these are sap-sucking insects). But more
commonly, "bug" refers to arthropods in generally - and that includes
spiders, centipedes, and other such creatures. Lobsters and crabs are
also arthropods, but probably not what most people mean by "bugs".
>>> unfortunately it is quite a common tendency to equate accuracy and
>>> precision.
>
> just my $0.0200 worth.
>
Reply by Alex Colvin●March 5, 20082008-03-05
>It is almost impossible to explain the difference to "the man in the
>street". Also, have you ever tried to explain the difference between
>"heat" and "temperature" to the average man in the street? Or "weight"
>vs "mass"?
This comes from the common practice of making scientific deinitions of
common terms that turn out to me more precise than those terms. E.g.,
spiders are not bugs, whales are not fish, Pluto is not a planet.
>> unfortunately it is quite a common tendency to equate accuracy and
>> precision.
just my $0.0200 worth.
--
mac the na�f
Reply by Everett M. Greene●March 4, 20082008-03-04
larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mar 3, 3:38=A0pm, Anton Erasmus <nob...@spam.prevent.net> wrote:
>
> > unfortunately it is quite a common tendency to equate accuracy and
> > precision.
>
> It is almost impossible to explain the difference to "the man in the
> street". Also, have you ever tried to explain the difference between
> "heat" and "temperature" to the average man in the street? Or "weight"
> vs "mass"?
It's not only the man in the street. Even supposedly knowledgeable
people have major disagreements as to mass vs. weight. Then you
can compound the disagreement by trying to define force and/or
impact.
> I once made the mistake of remarking casually that walking on hot
> coals is facilitated by the fact that hot charcoal, while at a high
> temperature, contains very little heat [implication: as compared to
> the specific heat capacity of water in your feet]. Everyone around me
> smirked and said "Did you hear what nonsense you just said? Very hot
> but has little heat?"
>
> I gave up after ten minutes of trying to explain the difference.
Reply by Mark Borgerson●March 3, 20082008-03-03
In article <MPG.2236516b6b6ad244989887@free.teranews.com>, sub2
@aeolusdevelopment.com says...
> In article <p2oos3p7uuaj4p9euitirdfcv6vdlb52m8@4ax.com>, Anton Erasmus
> says...
> > I did not say accuracy of 1mm. One can have an accuracy of +- 1m, and
> > still have a precision of 1mm. It is of course silly to do this, but
> > unfortunately it is quite a common tendency to equate accuracy and
> > precision.
>
> What's distressing is how many technical people don't seem to understand
> the difference.
>
A physics instructor many years ago explained it like this:
If you measure the temperature of a pan of boiling water 100 times
and the standard deviation of the readings is 0.1 degrees, your
thermometer is reasonably precise. If the mean temperature
you measured is not 212.0 deg F, the thermometer is not
very accurate. There followed a discussion of the factors
that might affect the boiling temperature of water.
In other words: Precise instruments give you
a consistent answer, accurate instruments give you the
correct answer. You can calibrate a precise instrument
at intervals to give you an accurate answer. It takes a bit more
work for each measurment to get the correct answer from an imprecise
instrument.
Mark Borgerson
Reply by Robert Adsett●March 3, 20082008-03-03
In article <p2oos3p7uuaj4p9euitirdfcv6vdlb52m8@4ax.com>, Anton Erasmus
says...
> I did not say accuracy of 1mm. One can have an accuracy of +- 1m, and
> still have a precision of 1mm. It is of course silly to do this, but
> unfortunately it is quite a common tendency to equate accuracy and
> precision.
What's distressing is how many technical people don't seem to understand
the difference.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com