PHP site update - 02-12-2007

PHP resource site update news letter 02-12-2007

- Job section is completely rewritten and now the site shows PHP
jobs
from various job portals. PHP jobs http://www.phpsplashboard.com/php_jobs.php
- New PHP5 test posted for Intermediate level users I-PHP5-Test1
http://www.phpsplashboard.com/free-php-tests.php
- News and events, PHPclasses overview, zend overview and
developer
zones review sections are added.

www.phpsplashboard.com

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

PHPSplashBoard wrote:
> PHP resource site update news letter 02-12-2007
>
> - Job section is completely rewritten and now the site shows PHP
> jobs
> from various job portals. PHP jobs http://www.phpsplashboard.com/php_jobs.php
> - New PHP5 test posted for Intermediate level users I-PHP5-Test1
> http://www.phpsplashboard.com/free-php-tests.php
> - News and events, PHPclasses overview, zend overview and
> developer
> zones review sections are added.
>
> www.phpsplashboard.com
>

Updated February 12th and you're just now getting around to spamming usenet?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:39:46 +0100, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:
> PHPSplashBoard wrote:
>> PHP resource site update news letter 02-12-2007
>
> Updated February 12th and you're just now getting around to spamming
> usenet?

He's clearly not a 'merican, hence he uses a more logical date-format
(hell, probably the metric system too unless he's UK bases, the horror of
easy calculations, dreadfull!).

Didn't you use to complain about people quoting url's from spammers BTW?
--
Rik Wasmus

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:39:46 +0100, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>> PHPSplashBoard wrote:
>>> PHP resource site update news letter 02-12-2007
>>
>> Updated February 12th and you're just now getting around to spamming
>> usenet?
>
> He's clearly not a 'merican, hence he uses a more logical date-format
> (hell, probably the metric system too unless he's UK bases, the horror
> of easy calculations, dreadfull!).
>
> Didn't you use to complain about people quoting url's from spammers BTW?

I know, Rik - it was more tongue-in-cheek. Just pointing out that the
date is ambiguous (although I do agree with you d-m-y is more logical).

And you're right - I should have clipped the URL. My only excuse is I
haven't had my first (or third) cup of joe yet this morning :-)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Rik Wasmus wrote:

> He's clearly not a 'merican, hence he uses a more logical date-format
> (hell, probably the metric system too unless he's UK bases, the horror
> of easy calculations, dreadfull!).

The UK does actually use metric for most things these days. Except beer,
which is sold in pints and road signs which are in miles and yards: speeds
being in miles per hour[1]. Milk bottles are usually labelled in litres,
but bottles tend to be multiples of 568 mL.

If you want an example of a non-US country that has not yet officially
adopted the metric system, you could choose Liberia or Myanmar.

____
1. It is noteworthy that the UK's motorway speed limit (70 miles/hour) is
almost exactly 4 millilightyears per fortnight (it's about 4.0009353).

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 10 days, 1:27.]

Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>
> ____
> 1. It is noteworthy that the UK's motorway speed limit (70 miles/hour) is
> almost exactly 4 millilightyears per fortnight (it's about 4.0009353).
>
Toby,

With a claim like that, I had to check it. I think your figures are a
bit off.

1 light year is about 5.87849981×10^12 miles. In one fortnight that
would be about 225,322,374,647 miles. 1/1000 of that would be
225,322,374 miles. I think you'd have to be going a lot faster than 70
mph to get that many miles in a fortnight. :-)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>>
>> ____
>> 1. It is noteworthy that the UK's motorway speed limit (70 miles/hour) is
>> almost exactly 4 millilightyears per fortnight (it's about 4.0009353).
>>
> Toby,
>
> With a claim like that, I had to check it. I think your figures are a
> bit off.
>
> 1 light year is about 5.87849981×10^12 miles. In one fortnight that
> would be about 225,322,374,647 miles. 1/1000 of that would be
> 225,322,374 miles. I think you'd have to be going a lot faster than 70
> mph to get that many miles in a fortnight. :-)
>
What did you calculate to get 225,322,374,647 miles? 1 light year *
26.09? If yes, why?
But Toby got it slightly wrong too. 1 light year per fortnight is
5.87849981×10^12 miles / (14 * 24 hours), about 17495535149 miles/hour,
so 70 miles/hour are about 4 nano light years per fortnight.

Ciao
Marc

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Marc Christiansen wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>>>
>>> ____
>>> 1. It is noteworthy that the UK's motorway speed limit (70 miles/hour) is
>>> almost exactly 4 millilightyears per fortnight (it's about 4.0009353).
>>>
>> Toby,
>>
>> With a claim like that, I had to check it. I think your figures are a
>> bit off.
>>
>> 1 light year is about 5.87849981×10^12 miles. In one fortnight that
>> would be about 225,322,374,647 miles. 1/1000 of that would be
>> 225,322,374 miles. I think you'd have to be going a lot faster than 70
>> mph to get that many miles in a fortnight. :-)
>>
> What did you calculate to get 225,322,374,647 miles? 1 light year *
> 26.09? If yes, why?
> But Toby got it slightly wrong too. 1 light year per fortnight is
> 5.87849981×10^12 miles / (14 * 24 hours), about 17495535149 miles/hour,
> so 70 miles/hour are about 4 nano light years per fortnight.
>
> Ciao
> Marc
>

Either of 2 ways - 5.87849981×10^12 / 365 * 14 or 186 282.397 * 60 8 60
* 24 * 14. Both give similar answers.

But you're wrong - you need to divide 5.87849981×10^12 by 365 to get the
number of miles in a light day, then multiply by 14 days.

I have no idea where you got 5.87849981×10^12 / (14 * 24). But one
light hour is 670,616,629 miles or so.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Marc Christiansen wrote:

> But Toby got it slightly wrong too. 1 light year per fortnight is
> 5.87849981×10^12 miles / (14 * 24 hours), about 17495535149 miles/hour,
> so 70 miles/hour are about 4 nano light years per fortnight.

Yes, dammit I did. I originally had 4 microlightyears per kilofortnight
and then multiplied one side down by 1000 and the other up by 1000. D'oh!

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 10 days, 15:45.]

Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:59:24 +0100, Toby A Inkster
wrote:

> Marc Christiansen wrote:
>
>> But Toby got it slightly wrong too. 1 light year per fortnight is
>> 5.87849981×10^12 miles / (14 * 24 hours), about 17495535149 miles/hour,
>> so 70 miles/hour are about 4 nano light years per fortnight.
>
> Yes, dammit I did. I originally had 4 microlightyears per kilofortnight
> and then multiplied one side down by 1000 and the other up by 1000. D'oh!

For some weird bizarre reason, the term 'kilofortnight' is enough te keep
me grinning for an hour... Almost as good as when I calculated the fuel
efficiency of a car in acres (it was 15.4 picoacres BTW).
--
Rik Wasmus

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Rik Wasmus wrote:

> Almost as good as when I calculated the fuel efficiency of a car in
> acres (it was 15.4 picoacres BTW).

That doesn't work. The unit should have been acres^-1 (or metres^-2).

Length/Volume = Length/Length*Length*Length = 1/Length*Length = 1/Area.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 10 days, 17:43.]

Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Marc Christiansen wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>>> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ____
>>>> 1. It is noteworthy that the UK's motorway speed limit (70 miles/hour) is
>>>> almost exactly 4 millilightyears per fortnight (it's about 4.0009353).
>>>>
>>> Toby,
>>>
>>> With a claim like that, I had to check it. I think your figures are a
>>> bit off.
>>>
>>> 1 light year is about 5.87849981×10^12 miles. In one fortnight that
>>> would be about 225,322,374,647 miles. 1/1000 of that would be
>>> 225,322,374 miles. I think you'd have to be going a lot faster than 70
>>> mph to get that many miles in a fortnight. :-)
>>>
>> What did you calculate to get 225,322,374,647 miles? 1 light year *
>> 26.09? If yes, why?
>> But Toby got it slightly wrong too. 1 light year per fortnight is
>> 5.87849981×10^12 miles / (14 * 24 hours), about 17495535149 miles/hour,
>> so 70 miles/hour are about 4 nano light years per fortnight.
>>
>> Ciao
>> Marc
>>
>
> Either of 2 ways - 5.87849981×10^12 / 365 * 14 or 186 282.397 * 60 8 60
> * 24 * 14. Both give similar answers.
>
> But you're wrong - you need to divide 5.87849981×10^12 by 365 to get the
> number of miles in a light day, then multiply by 14 days.

Only if you want the length of a light fortnight in miles. Which is not
the same as lightyear / fortnight. Light fortnight is a length,
lightyear / fortnight is a velocity.

> I have no idea where you got 5.87849981×10^12 / (14 * 24). But one
> light hour is 670,616,629 miles or so.

14 * 24 is the number of hours in a fortnight, so dividing the length of
one lightyear in miles by this number gives me one lightyear / fortnight
in miles / hour.

Marc

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:58:21 +0100, Toby A Inkster =

wrote:

> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>
>> Almost as good as when I calculated the fuel efficiency of a car in
>> acres (it was 15.4 picoacres BTW).
>
> That doesn't work. The unit should have been acres^-1 (or metres^-2).
>
> Length/Volume =3D Length/Length*Length*Length =3D 1/Length*Length =3D =
1/Area.
>

Nono. Volume/length is totally valid to check for efficiency.

With 1 liter I can ride 16 kilometers, so I can ride 1 kilometer with 1/=
16 =

liter fuel... 'liter per kilometer'/'gallon to the mile' rather then the=
=

reverse.

Thats 0.001 m^3 / 16.000 m =3D 0.0000000625 m^2 =3D 15.4 picoacres
-- =

Rik Wasmus

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Rik Wasmus wrote:

> Nono. Volume/length is totally valid to check for efficiency.

I suppose so, but then the measurement goes up as efficiency decreases, so
I'd probably call it a measure of fuel *inefficiency*.

I suppose then that while one measures height in metres one could measure
"shortness" in terms of metres^-1 (i.e. how many of them fit in one
metre). :-)

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 10 days, 18:33.]

Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:46:37 +0100, Toby A Inkster
wrote:
> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>
>> Nono. Volume/length is totally valid to check for efficiency.
>
> I suppose so, but then the measurement goes up as efficiency decreases,
> so
> I'd probably call it a measure of fuel *inefficiency*.

Well, you've got a point there. If 'energy-footprint' wasn't allready
taken by those CO2 enthousiasts it would be ideal as a name.

> I suppose then that while one measures height in metres one could measure
> "shortness" in terms of metres^-1 (i.e. how many of them fit in one
> metre). :-)

Hehe, I like that :). I'm 0.52 metres^-1 short!
--
Rik Wasmus

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Marc Christiansen wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Marc Christiansen wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>>>> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ____
>>>>> 1. It is noteworthy that the UK's motorway speed limit (70 miles/hour) is
>>>>> almost exactly 4 millilightyears per fortnight (it's about 4.0009353).
>>>>>
>>>> Toby,
>>>>
>>>> With a claim like that, I had to check it. I think your figures are a
>>>> bit off.
>>>>
>>>> 1 light year is about 5.87849981×10^12 miles. In one fortnight that
>>>> would be about 225,322,374,647 miles. 1/1000 of that would be
>>>> 225,322,374 miles. I think you'd have to be going a lot faster than 70
>>>> mph to get that many miles in a fortnight. :-)
>>>>
>>> What did you calculate to get 225,322,374,647 miles? 1 light year *
>>> 26.09? If yes, why?
>>> But Toby got it slightly wrong too. 1 light year per fortnight is
>>> 5.87849981×10^12 miles / (14 * 24 hours), about 17495535149 miles/hour,
>>> so 70 miles/hour are about 4 nano light years per fortnight.
>>>
>>> Ciao
>>> Marc
>>>
>> Either of 2 ways - 5.87849981×10^12 / 365 * 14 or 186 282.397 * 60 8 60
>> * 24 * 14. Both give similar answers.
>>
>> But you're wrong - you need to divide 5.87849981×10^12 by 365 to get the
>> number of miles in a light day, then multiply by 14 days.
>
> Only if you want the length of a light fortnight in miles. Which is not
> the same as lightyear / fortnight. Light fortnight is a length,
> lightyear / fortnight is a velocity.
>
>> I have no idea where you got 5.87849981×10^12 / (14 * 24). But one
>> light hour is 670,616,629 miles or so.
>
> 14 * 24 is the number of hours in a fortnight, so dividing the length of
> one lightyear in miles by this number gives me one lightyear / fortnight
> in miles / hour.
>
> Marc
>

OK, but he wasn't looking at one lightyear per fortnight (which violates
most current laws of physics). He was looking at a light fortnight -
the distance light travels in a fortnight.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Marc Christiansen wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Marc Christiansen wrote:
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____
>>>>>> 1. It is noteworthy that the UK's motorway speed limit (70
>>>>>> miles/hour) is almost exactly 4 millilightyears per fortnight
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> (it's about 4.0009353).
[...]
>>> But you're wrong - you need to divide 5.87849981×10^12 by 365 to get the
>>> number of miles in a light day, then multiply by 14 days.
>>
>> Only if you want the length of a light fortnight in miles. Which is not
>> the same as lightyear / fortnight. Light fortnight is a length,
>> lightyear / fortnight is a velocity.
>>
>>> I have no idea where you got 5.87849981×10^12 / (14 * 24). But one
>>> light hour is 670,616,629 miles or so.
>>
>> 14 * 24 is the number of hours in a fortnight, so dividing the length of
>> one lightyear in miles by this number gives me one lightyear / fortnight
>> in miles / hour.
>
> OK, but he wasn't looking at one lightyear per fortnight (which violates
> most current laws of physics). He was looking at a light fortnight -
> the distance light travels in a fortnight.

Huh? Diving a length by a time span violates laws of physics, just
because the length is expressed in lightyears or the time span in
fortnights? And he was talking about "millilightyears per fortnight" and
the speed limit on UK's motorways, so he definitely did not mean a
distance.

Marc

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:38:32 +0100, Marc Christiansen
wrote:

> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Marc Christiansen wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Marc Christiansen wrote:
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____
>>>>>>> 1. It is noteworthy that the UK's motorway speed limit (70
>>>>>>> miles/hour) is almost exactly 4 millilightyears per fortnight
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>> (it's about 4.0009353).
> [...]
>>>> But you're wrong - you need to divide 5.87849981×10^12 by 365 to get
>>>> the
>>>> number of miles in a light day, then multiply by 14 days.
>>>
>>> Only if you want the length of a light fortnight in miles. Which is not
>>> the same as lightyear / fortnight. Light fortnight is a length,
>>> lightyear / fortnight is a velocity.
>>>
>>>> I have no idea where you got 5.87849981×10^12 / (14 * 24). But one
>>>> light hour is 670,616,629 miles or so.
>>>
>>> 14 * 24 is the number of hours in a fortnight, so dividing the length
>>> of
>>> one lightyear in miles by this number gives me one lightyear /
>>> fortnight
>>> in miles / hour.
>>
>> OK, but he wasn't looking at one lightyear per fortnight (which violates
>> most current laws of physics). He was looking at a light fortnight -
>> the distance light travels in a fortnight.
>
> Huh? Diving a length by a time span violates laws of physics, just
> because the length is expressed in lightyears or the time span in
> fortnights?

Euhm, 200km / 1,5 hours = 133km/h, it's called speed, and the only law it
broke was the speedlimit...

> And he was talking about "millilightyears per fortnight" and
> the speed limit on UK's motorways, so he definitely did not mean a
> distance.

He did indeed mention a speed.
Once and for all:
70 miles / hour
23520 miles / fortnight (be very aware of DST...)
4.0010208 × 10-9 lightyear / fortnight
4.0010208 nanolightyear / fortnight

We could ofcourse just have fuckin' googled it:

--
Rik Wasmus

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

In article ,
Marc Christiansen wrote:

> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Marc Christiansen wrote:
> >> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >>> Marc Christiansen wrote:
> >>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >>>>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ____
> >>>>>> 1. It is noteworthy that the UK's motorway speed limit (70
> >>>>>> miles/hour) is almost exactly 4 millilightyears per fortnight
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>>>> (it's about 4.0009353).
> [...]
> >>> But you're wrong - you need to divide 5.87849981×10^12 by 365 to get the
> >>> number of miles in a light day, then multiply by 14 days.
> >>
> >> Only if you want the length of a light fortnight in miles. Which is not
> >> the same as lightyear / fortnight. Light fortnight is a length,
> >> lightyear / fortnight is a velocity.
> >>
> >>> I have no idea where you got 5.87849981×10^12 / (14 * 24). But one
> >>> light hour is 670,616,629 miles or so.
> >>
> >> 14 * 24 is the number of hours in a fortnight, so dividing the length of
> >> one lightyear in miles by this number gives me one lightyear / fortnight
> >> in miles / hour.
> >
> > OK, but he wasn't looking at one lightyear per fortnight (which violates
> > most current laws of physics). He was looking at a light fortnight -
> > the distance light travels in a fortnight.
>
> Huh? Diving a length by a time span violates laws of physics, just
> because the length is expressed in lightyears or the time span in
> fortnights? And he was talking about "millilightyears per fortnight" and
> the speed limit on UK's motorways, so he definitely did not mean a
> distance.
>
> Marc

One lightyear per fortnight is presumably 26 times the speed of light.

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> OK, but he wasn't looking at one lightyear per fortnight (which violates
> most current laws of physics). He was looking at a light fortnight -
> the distance light travels in a fortnight.

If I am the "he" that we're referring to, I can assure you I was talking
about lightyears per fortnight. I wouldn't concern myself with light
fortnights as they would be a ridiculously obscure way of measuring
distances.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 10 days, 22:20.]

Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:32:27 +0100, Toby A Inkster
wrote:

> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> OK, but he wasn't looking at one lightyear per fortnight (which violates
>> most current laws of physics). He was looking at a light fortnight -
>> the distance light travels in a fortnight.
>
> If I am the "he" that we're referring to, I can assure you I was talking
> about lightyears per fortnight. I wouldn't concern myself with light
> fortnights as they would be a ridiculously obscure way of measuring
> distances.

....which mili- or nanolightyears obviously aren't :P

Then again, this whole thread has been about 'obscure measurements of the
obvious' for some time now.
--
Rik Wasmus

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Tim Streater wrote:

> One lightyear per fortnight is presumably 26 times the speed of light.

Slightly faster in fact.


--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 10 days, 23:18.]

Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Tim Streater wrote:
> In article ,
> Marc Christiansen wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> > Marc Christiansen wrote:
>> >> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> >>> Marc Christiansen wrote:
>> >>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> >>>>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ____
>> >>>>>> 1. It is noteworthy that the UK's motorway speed limit (70
>> >>>>>> miles/hour) is almost exactly 4 millilightyears per fortnight
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>>>>> (it's about 4.0009353).
>> [...]
>> >>> But you're wrong - you need to divide 5.87849981Ã?10^12 by 365 to get the
>> >>> number of miles in a light day, then multiply by 14 days.
>> >>
>> >> Only if you want the length of a light fortnight in miles. Which is not
>> >> the same as lightyear / fortnight. Light fortnight is a length,
>> >> lightyear / fortnight is a velocity.
>> >>
>> >>> I have no idea where you got 5.87849981Ã?10^12 / (14 * 24). But one
>> >>> light hour is 670,616,629 miles or so.
>> >>
>> >> 14 * 24 is the number of hours in a fortnight, so dividing the length of
>> >> one lightyear in miles by this number gives me one lightyear / fortnight
>> >> in miles / hour.
>> >
>> > OK, but he wasn't looking at one lightyear per fortnight (which violates
>> > most current laws of physics). He was looking at a light fortnight -
>> > the distance light travels in a fortnight.
>>
>> Huh? Diving a length by a time span violates laws of physics, just
>> because the length is expressed in lightyears or the time span in
>> fortnights? And he was talking about "millilightyears per fortnight" and
>> the speed limit on UK's motorways, so he definitely did not mean a
>> distance.
>>
>> Marc
>
> One lightyear per fortnight is presumably 26 times the speed of light.

You're right. I was mixing up lightyears per fortnight as a unit, and
the speed one lightyear per fortnight. So, self caused confusion...

Marc

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

"Rik Wasmus" wrote in message
news:op.t2uug2pe5bnjuv@metallium.lan...
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:59:24 +0100, Toby A Inkster

>> Yes, dammit I did. I originally had 4 microlightyears per kilofortnight
>> and then multiplied one side down by 1000 and the other up by 1000. D'oh!
>
> For some weird bizarre reason, the term 'kilofortnight' is enough te keep
> me grinning for an hour... Almost as good as when I calculated the fuel
> efficiency of a car in acres (it was 15.4 picoacres BTW).

Oh, my - BTW?
That sounds like *twice* the energy of a BTU.

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:40:05 +0100, Sanders Kaufman =
=

wrote:

> "Rik Wasmus" wrote in message
> news:op.t2uug2pe5bnjuv@metallium.lan...
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:59:24 +0100, Toby A Inkster
>
>>> Yes, dammit I did. I originally had 4 microlightyears per kilofortni=
ght
>>> and then multiplied one side down by 1000 and the other up by 1000. =
=

>>> D'oh!
>>
>> For some weird bizarre reason, the term 'kilofortnight' is enough te =
=

>> keep
>> me grinning for an hour... Almost as good as when I calculated the fu=
el
>> efficiency of a car in acres (it was 15.4 picoacres BTW).
>
> Oh, my - BTW?
> That sounds like *twice* the energy of a BTU.

Hehe, never heard of BTU's, here either calories, kWh's or even joules a=
re =

more common.

Actually, to me, especially as a self-employed worker (well, I own a =

company with tree other equals..), it sounds like +20%, as BTW in dutch =
=

normally would mean 'Belasting Toegevoegde Waarde' =3D VAT.
-- =

Rik Wasmus

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Rik Wasmus wrote:
>
> Hehe, never heard of BTU's, here either calories, kWh's or even joules
> are more common.
>
> Actually, to me, especially as a self-employed worker (well, I own a
> company with tree other equals..), it sounds like +20%, as BTW in dutch
> normally would mean 'Belasting Toegevoegde Waarde' = VAT.

Rik,

BTU's (British Thermal Units) are a measure of the heating or cooling
power of furnaces or air conditioners, especially the latter. It's less
common in places other than the U.S. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_thermal_unit.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:u_6dnTdTaqj41cranZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>>
>> Hehe, never heard of BTU's, here either calories, kWh's or even joules
>> are more common.
>>
>> Actually, to me, especially as a self-employed worker (well, I own a
>> company with tree other equals..), it sounds like +20%, as BTW in dutch
>> normally would mean 'Belasting Toegevoegde Waarde' = VAT.
>
> Rik,
>
> BTU's (British Thermal Units) are a measure of the heating or cooling
> power of furnaces or air conditioners, especially the latter. It's less
> common in places other than the U.S. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_thermal_unit.

Well - it's pretty popular on Brittish ships, too.
Sailors never talk like normal pholks.

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>
> Well - it's pretty popular on Brittish ships, too.
> Sailors never talk like normal pholks.
>

Yea, they have "leftentants" :-)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Yea, they have "leftentants" :-)

Spelt "lieutenant", but pronounced "leftenant", not "leftentant".

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 11 days, 16:27.]

Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Yea, they have "leftentants" :-)
>
> Spelt "lieutenant", but pronounced "leftenant", not "leftentant".
>

Aw, what's an extra "t" between friends? :-)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

"Rik Wasmus" wrote in message
news:op.t2vurglq5bnjuv@metallium.lan...
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:40:05 +0100, Sanders Kaufman
wrote:

> "Rik Wasmus" wrote in message
> news:op.t2uug2pe5bnjuv@metallium.lan...
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:59:24 +0100, Toby A Inkster
>
>>> Yes, dammit I did. I originally had 4 microlightyears per kilofortnight
>>> and then multiplied one side down by 1000 and the other up by 1000.
>>> D'oh!
>>
>> For some weird bizarre reason, the term 'kilofortnight' is enough te
>> keep
>> me grinning for an hour... Almost as good as when I calculated the fuel
>> efficiency of a car in acres (it was 15.4 picoacres BTW).
>
> Oh, my - BTW?
> That sounds like *twice* the energy of a BTU.

Hehe, never heard of BTU's, here either calories, kWh's or even joules are
more common.

Actually, to me, especially as a self-employed worker (well, I own a
company with tree other equals..), it sounds like +20%, as BTW in dutch
normally would mean 'Belasting Toegevoegde Waarde' = VAT.
--
Rik Wasmus


Hey Rik,
BTW in Holland is still 19 % at the moment ....

Richard.

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:46:54 +0100, Richard wrote:

>>> Oh, my - BTW?
>>> That sounds like *twice* the energy of a BTU.
>> Hehe, never heard of BTU's, here either calories, kWh's or even joule=
s =

>> are
>> more common.
>> Actually, to me, especially as a self-employed worker (well, I own a
>> company with tree other equals..), it sounds like +20%, as BTW in dut=
ch
>> normally would mean 'Belasting Toegevoegde Waarde' =3D VAT.
>
> Hey Rik,
> BTW in Holland is still 19 % at the moment ....

Today, yes, as of 01-01-2008 it will offcourse be 20%, and as most =

projects I'm currently working on will probably finish some time after =

that date...

BTW Richard, please use a proper newsreader which can add quote characte=
rs =

(and doesn't quote signatures).
-- =

Rik Wasmus

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

"Rik Wasmus" wrote in message
news:op.t2xg5evm5bnjuv@metallium.lan...
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:46:54 +0100, Richard wrote:

> BTW Richard, please use a proper newsreader which can add quote
> characters (and doesn't quote signatures).

Rik,
sorry, no, I wont change newsreaders.
I tried many and they all have a different way of messing up text that
should not have been there in the first place......

And BTW, it is such a nice snob-bait... :P

Richard.

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

"Richard" wrote in message
news:47589656$0$42761$dbd4f001@news.euronet.nl...
>

> sorry, no, I wont change newsreaders.
> I tried many and they all have a different way of messing up text that
> should not have been there in the first place......

You must have changed your content-encoding or something - because it's
working fine, now.

Re: PHP site update - 02-12-2007

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:39:52 +0100, Richard wrote:
> "Rik Wasmus" wrote in message
> news:op.t2xg5evm5bnjuv@metallium.lan...
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:46:54 +0100, Richard wrote:
>
>> BTW Richard, please use a proper newsreader which can add quote
>> characters (and doesn't quote signatures).
>
> sorry, no, I wont change newsreaders.
> I tried many and they all have a different way of messing up text that
> should not have been there in the first place......

Well, this quote came in correctly, so no matter how it was achieved
(changed settings, done by hand, quotefix, other..), as long as the quotes
are well formatted, you won't hear me complain.
--
Rik Wasmus