Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards?

On 9/22/2014 10:01 AM, Don Y wrote:
> On 9/22/2014 6:32 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 22/09/14 13:25, Jasen Betts wrote:
>
>>> American cup is 1/2 pint,  English is 5% smaller at 2/5 pint,
>>> metric is 10% larger at 1/4 litre.

I believe the English cup is the same size, it the pint that is 25% 
larger at 20 oz.


>> Not according to
>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_%28unit%29
>> which, incidentally, has /two/ US definitions for cup,
>> both smaller than an Imperial cup.
>
> If you asked any American who has *used* a "measuring cup", there is
> no uncertainty.  We'd not say a cup is half a pint but, rather, a
> pint is two Cups.  A quart, 2 pints.  8 oz to a Cup, Etc.
>
> At smaller quantities, most folks are uncertain:  e.g., 3t = 1T;
> 2T = 1oz; 2 oz = 1 shot.

I think you are wrong there, 1.5 oz to a shot is the "official" size.


> Even less formally:  2 smidgen = 1 pinch; 2 pinch = 1 dash; 8 dashes = 1t.
> (Most folks tend to think of these as just informal quantities:  "a little
> bit")

How do you measure a dash?  Do you have a dash spoon, a pinch spoon?


> Of course, NO ONE bakes anymore so this is quickly leaving the common
> conscience:  "Pour contents of box into bowl; add water; mix well"

Oh total bs.  Lots of people bake from scratch.  Don't be silly.  You 
sound like someone's grandmother.

-- 

Rick

On 9/22/2014 7:11 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, but one shouldn't be measuring milk and gasoline with
>>> the same measuring devices. One shouldn't store one in bottles
>>> meant for the other.
>
>> I wasn't referring to a shared measuring device.  Rather, people
>> *think* in gallons (or, eventually, liters).  Having to deal with
>> two units for liquid measure -- that don't easily relate to
>> each other -- I think is intimidating to many people.
>
> I suppose, but you don't tend to be thinking about them at the
> same time. Someone might imagine how many milk bottles it would
> take to fill the tank, but mostly only need to know if the
> number on the pump is reasonable.

I suspect it is possible in much the same way that folks care not
how many oz the package of hamburger buns weighs.  Or, how many
Cups they'll get out of a 4 lb bag of sugar instead of a 5 lb.

I just don't see the merit in a "partial" solution.  We already
HAVE that.  It doesn't really benefit anyone!

All (well, 99.9623%) roadside "speed limit" signs are owned
and maintained by governmental agencies.  Cars have had dual unit
speedometers for AGES!  The gummit could legislate AND "bear
the cost" of converting all those signs -- why not?

I.e., converting gas pumps to metric units could have an
objection from those businesses that operate the gas pumps:
"an undue burden on us!"  (yeah, right!)  Fine, what's
the argument for AGAINST the gummit unilaterally undertaking
the replacement of those roadside signs?  By now, I doubt the
number of vehicles on the road with "english only" speedometers
could be counted in some small number of epsilons!  Grant
them a waiver!

>> Pick one and be done with it.
>
> Again, as long as you don't mix them it doesn't matter much.
>
> Oil comes in quarts, antifreeze in gallons.

But people can relate qts to gallons.

Even as used in "dry measure", people expect a "5 gallon shrubery"
(sold at a nursery) to be many times larger than a "1 gallon shrub".
(I've not verified the 5:1 relationship -- though realize their
idea of a "1 gallon pot" is laughable!  (maybe *half* of a gallon,
liquid measure?)

>> Some things are just more "notable" in our units.  E.g., a "502 CID"
>> block is far more impressive (sounding) than "8.22L"
>
> At some point, some US company put the liter displacement in the
> name, and after that, people were used to it. Not to mention
> that it was common for foreign cars. People have gotten use
> to it now.

Yes.  People don't think about engine sizes.  Do you know how much
volume your engine displaces?  I know I found the adoption of
metric measures there saved me lots of frustration:  do I have
a 302 in this car or a 305?  Or, was the *last* car a 302?
Now, it's just "5 liters"  :>

>> The Rx wouldn't likely say "a bag of flour".  I *do*, however,
>> have Rx's that say "5 pounds + 2C".  But, one could readily
>> make a one-time conversion:  5 pound bag ==  XXX Cups and be
>> done with it.
>
> There is the story about medicine that says "take once a day",
> and Spanish speaking people getting it wrong. Seems that
> "once" is 11 in Spanish.

Note that prescription meds are often distributed in metric units
while OTC often in traditional ones.  No doubt, easier to ask
a mother to give her child 2 tsp of cough syrup than to expect
her to be able to determine a dosage expressed as a metric qty.

Diabetics are familiar with metric units of measure (mg/dL).
As are hypertensives (mm-Hg).  But, to these folks, those
are just "abstract numbers"... what other items do they
encounter that are expressed in those units (mg/dL, mm-Hg)?
Just as meaningless as, e.g., an A1c "number" (that only has
merit against some relative scale that their MD presents)

We've already got a shitload of "units".  ADDING more surely
isn't going to make things any easier!  Something (undoubtedly
a "monied interest") interrupted the adoption of metric
units, here.  As a *kid*, I can recall working on cars and
memorizing "near equivalents" (so I could use my traditional
wrenches instead of buying an entire set of metric ones...
12mm ~= 1/2", etc.).  That wasn't YEARS ago but SCORES of
years ago!

In comp.arch.embedded rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

> Your point about international sizes is likely valid.  I remember being 
> surprised by the 750 ml size though.  Was that an international size 
> long before the US converted to metric... in liquor sizes only of course.
 
> Are there any areas where the US uses metric by convention?

As noted before, the duty free alcohol import limit is 1L.

There might be many that have a scientific basis. Polution limits,
and other chemical quantities might be metric. (Then again, they
are othen ppm or ppb, I suppose those are metric fractions.)
 
> I really am amazed that we are still not with the program.  We tried 
> going metric over 40 years ago!  Why haven't we gotten a second wind?

-- glen 

I just read how to get the US to convert distance measurements to 
meters... rename them "Freedom Yards".  lol

-- 

Rick

On 2014-09-23 rickman wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
> On 9/22/2014 10:01 AM, Don Y wrote:
>
>> Of course, NO ONE bakes anymore so this is quickly leaving the common
>> conscience:  "Pour contents of box into bowl; add water; mix well"
>
> Oh total bs.  Lots of people bake from scratch.  Don't be silly.  You 
> sound like someone's grandmother.

It's even becoming more popular with tv programmes like this:
http://thegreatbritishbakeoff.co.uk/


-- 
Stef    (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in 
the cigarettes?"
-- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970

On 23/09/14 03:47, Don Y wrote:
> On 9/22/2014 6:05 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snip, I wrote)
>>>> When gasoline prices went over $1/gal, they were still under $1/L,
>>>> and it was easier to convert most pumps to metric than to allow
>>>> for $1.00/gal or more.   That would have been a good time for the
>>>> switch, at least for gasoline.  If the government had required
>>>> the conversion for gasoline, people would start getting used to it.
>>
>>> ... only if it also extended to other "liquid measures".
>>
>> I don't think that is needed.
> 
> Perhaps...
> 
>>> "Why is milk measured in gallons but fuel measured in liters?"
>>
>> Yes, but one shouldn't be measuring milk and gasoline with
>> the same measuring devices. One shouldn't store one in bottles
>> meant for the other.
> 
> I wasn't referring to a shared measuring device.  Rather, people
> *think* in gallons (or, eventually, liters).  Having to deal with
> two units for liquid measure -- that don't easily relate to
> each other -- I think is intimidating to many people.
> 

People don't think in those terms, and they certainly don't think in the
/same/ terms for petrol and milk.  You think of milk in terms of glasses
(whose size depends on the glasses you have in the cupboard), breakfast
cereal (depending on the size of your bowls), and recipes (in cups, dl,
ml, fl.oz., whatever - or more likely just "some").  You think of petrol
in terms of how far you can drive on a tank, and how much it costs to
refill.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether the "standard unit" used is
the same - no one /ever/ compares a quantity of milk to a quantity of
petrol.

And milk doesn't have to be accurate - you could change from quarts to
litres, and pints to half-pints, and no one will care because it is
close enough.  Petrol, on the other hand, makes people obsessive - if
you convert to litres then any cents lost in rounding errors had better
benefit the car owners or there would be riots!

David Brown wrote:
> On 23/09/14 03:47, Don Y wrote:
>> On 9/22/2014 6:05 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip, I wrote)
>>>>> When gasoline prices went over $1/gal, they were still under $1/L,
>>>>> and it was easier to convert most pumps to metric than to allow
>>>>> for $1.00/gal or more.   That would have been a good time for the
>>>>> switch, at least for gasoline.  If the government had required
>>>>> the conversion for gasoline, people would start getting used to it.
>>>
>>>> ... only if it also extended to other "liquid measures".
>>>
>>> I don't think that is needed.
>>
>> Perhaps...
>>
>>>> "Why is milk measured in gallons but fuel measured in liters?"
>>>
>>> Yes, but one shouldn't be measuring milk and gasoline with
>>> the same measuring devices. One shouldn't store one in bottles
>>> meant for the other.
>>
>> I wasn't referring to a shared measuring device.  Rather, people
>> *think* in gallons (or, eventually, liters).  Having to deal with
>> two units for liquid measure -- that don't easily relate to
>> each other -- I think is intimidating to many people.
>>
>
> People don't think in those terms, and they certainly don't think in the
> /same/ terms for petrol and milk.  You think of milk in terms of glasses
> (whose size depends on the glasses you have in the cupboard), breakfast
> cereal (depending on the size of your bowls), and recipes (in cups, dl,
> ml, fl.oz., whatever - or more likely just "some").  You think of petrol
> in terms of how far you can drive on a tank, and how much it costs to
> refill.
>
> It doesn't matter in the slightest whether the "standard unit" used is
> the same - no one /ever/ compares a quantity of milk to a quantity of
> petrol.
>
> And milk doesn't have to be accurate - you could change from quarts to
> litres, and pints to half-pints, and no one will care because it is
> close enough.  Petrol, on the other hand, makes people obsessive - if
> you convert to litres then any cents lost in rounding errors had better
> benefit the car owners or there would be riots!
>
>


Any fuel dispenser in the US is already capable of being metric
or English by changing configuration. How rounding errors
are handled is very much governed by existing weights and measures
regimes.

-- 
Les Cargill

rickman wrote:
> On 9/22/2014 10:01 AM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 9/22/2014 6:32 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 22/09/14 13:25, Jasen Betts wrote:
>>
>>>> American cup is 1/2 pint,  English is 5% smaller at 2/5 pint,
>>>> metric is 10% larger at 1/4 litre.
>
> I believe the English cup is the same size, it the pint that is 25%
> larger at 20 oz.
>

"A pint's a pound the world around."


<snip>

-- 
Les Cargill

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:12:14 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>On 9/21/2014 9:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> That would be about 20 years ago and the government war on cash, er...
>
>Yup.  I used to pay my tuition in cash.  (mid 70's a few $K per semester)
>Folks were very unhappy GIVING me the cash (bank) and ACCEPTING it!
>
>"Is there something WRONG with this money??"


Yes, there's something wrong with cash!  Handling cash is a *massive*
PITA.  Cash is detested by most businesses and organizations, although
many have practical reasons* for handling it.

Cash introduces huge security and management problems, and is actually
a direct threat to the health and lives of your employees (just ask
your insurance company**).

Most businesses would happily refuse to deal with cash if they could,
and it has nothing to do with being able to collect extra data from
electronic transactions (although that's a bonus).

All that being said, the level of law enforcement's harassment of
people using/carrying non-trivial amounts of cash, especially when
crossing borders, is absurd, as are the seizure rules that go with
that.


*They may be legally required to do so (my local electric company has
a couple of offices where you can pay your utility bill in cash,
because they're required to by the regulators), it may be a business
where cash is commonly used and expected by the customers (the local
hamburger place, for example), or they may want to avoid a paper trail
for (il)legal purposes (being able to cheat on sales tax collections,
or sales of things illegal, for example).

**You'll get hit on both your liability and workers comp policies if
you handle non-trivial amounts of cash.

On 2014-09-23, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>> On 9/22/2014 10:01 AM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2014 6:32 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>> On 22/09/14 13:25, Jasen Betts wrote:
>>>
>>>>> American cup is 1/2 pint,  English is 5% smaller at 2/5 pint,
>>>>> metric is 10% larger at 1/4 litre.
>>
>> I believe the English cup is the same size, it the pint that is 25%
>> larger at 20 oz.
>>
>
> "A pint's a pound the world around."

No, the Commonwealth standardised volume units such that a gallon
weighed 10lb, making the pint 25% larger than its US equivalent.
Britian (can't speak about the rest of the Commonwealth) then in
time redefined the measures in terms of their metric equivalents
- much as how a yard is 0.9144 metres by definition.  In the process
the precise value changed slightly, but the difference is small
enough to be an irrelevance for most purposes.

-- 
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org