1,000,000,000 IS NOT A BILLION DOLLARS

[Shai Gar]

I HATE THE GODDAMNED PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA ICKLE JONNY HOWARD!
I HATE THE GODDAMNED PRESS AND VARIOUS AUSTRALIAN MEDIA SOURCES!
I HATE THE AMERICAN NUMERICAL SYSTEM!

$1 is one dollar
$10 is ten dollars
$100 is a hundred dollars
$1,000 is a thousand dollars
$1,000,000 is a thousand thousand dollars (million)
$1,000,000,000 is a thousand million dollars (milliard)
$1,000,000,000,000 is a million million dollars (billion)
$1,000,000,000,000,000 is a thousand billion dollars (billiard)
$1,000,000,000,000,000,000 is a million billion dollars
$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is a thousand million billion dollars
$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is a billion billion dollars (trillion)

australia is only giving a thousand million dollars to indonesia in this crisis. not a billion.

sure it is more than any other nation is giving and australia is not that rich, but just because we are an american outpost does not mean we have to use their retarded counting system.

[MacGuffin]

Wait - so in Australia the toilets drain in a different direction AND you use a different numbering system?

[file cabinet]

MacGuffin, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=billion

1. The cardinal number equal to 10^9.
2. Chiefly British. The cardinal number equal to 10^12.

billion adj 1: denoting a quantity consisting of one thousand million items or units in the United States [syn: a billion] 2: denoting a quantity consisting of one million million items or units in Great Britain [syn: a billion] n 1: the number that is represented as a one followed by 12 zeros; in the United Kingdom the usage followed in the United States is frequently seen [syn: one million million, 1000000000000] 2: the number that is represented as a one followed by 9 zeros [syn: one thousand million, 1000000000]

[Shai Gar]

exactly. also i have never heard of the bullfrog plague. they must have been eaten either by the tawny frogmouth or the canetoad

the canetoad is what i thought the bullfrog was parodying

[Solo]

Maybe I'm not getting it but the number you wrote is a billion dollars.

[Claverhouse]

Shai Gar is perfectly correct.

The European/German/British system was more logical, but some time in the last 50 years the last decided ( as usual ) to knuckle under to their American masters and adopt the pretence that 1000 million equals a billion. Possibly to standardise international accounting, but whatever, it's silly.

A thousand million in English is properly a milliard.

I think the Yanks probably got confused with the French for 1000 ( a millier ). They adore the French and adapted that scatty nation's lack of logic into their own outlooks.

Here's a paper discussing this and listing really big numbers, the Yanks often being one step behind.

Names of Big Numbers (http://www.sizes.com/numbers/big_numName.htm)



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Solo]

That makes much more sense. Thanks for the link Clave.

[Dman]

That's funky, I didn't know the US system was different in that way. I thought a trillion dollars was a lot of money here, but damn, that's a lot of money in Australia! I want to be an Australian billionaire!

I do agree though that the metric system is far superior than the goofy system the US uses, metric is much more logical. 12 inches to a foot? inches made up of 1/32nds? What's up with that?

Solo - $1,000,000 is a million (US), $1,000,000,000 is a billion (US). His number has 9 zeros (a billion US).

[garak]

Billiard! it all makes sense now!

[Shai Gar]

do you know what is better than billiard?






STRIP BILLIARDS

[TraditionalNonconformist]

Fah! Imagine some Dr. Evil-like villain demanding "$1 milliard AUD!"
It sounds so stupid. Maybe if it was more consistent with the "illion" suffix, the US might be more likely to take is seriously but until then, "The Metric System is the tool of the Devil!" :D

[daughterofeve]

I do agree though that the metric system is far superior than the goofy system the US uses, metric is much more logical. 12 inches to a foot? inches made up of 1/32nds? What's up with that?
GAH!!!! another metric system fanatic!

The thing is... most of our sytems are built around the 3/6/12 idea.. like our day, 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 12 hourse is half a day..

more info:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/estatopia/inch2.htm

[Shai Gar]

the metric system is the best system.
the imperial system blows.

plus the metric is french what is cooler than french?

[coffeezombie]

If one's foot is actually a "foot" long, then the imperial system is better because I can just walk things off to measure them. :)

[Shai Gar]

the imperial was created after an english king who really had a foot that big (lucky wife eh?)

[MacGuffin]

(With apologies to TraditionalNonconformist)

"The Metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods per hogshead and that's the way I likes it!" - Grandpa Simpson.






Seriously, the metric system is superior. I just don't have any practical experience with it to have a "sense" of what Euros mean when they use it in conversation.

Except for 2 liter bottles.

[Dman]

GAH!!!! another metric system fanatic!

The thing is... most of our sytems are built around the 3/6/12 idea.. like our day, 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 12 hourse is half a day..

more info:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/estatopia/inch2.htm

I just see the metric system as more efficient. I'm all about efficiency. Is it easier to calculate and understand 1/60ths and 1/32nds and 1/16ths, as in the US system - or 1/10ths, as in the metric system?

BTW, referring to that link you provided, all the arguments against the metric system are not because they don't think it's superior, it's because of the almighty dollar. A lot of arrogance on that site. It would cost too much to switch, we are the United States! Everyone should do it our way! We are a superpower! Kneel!

God forbid we do the right thing even if it costs money. Better to remain ignorant and rich.

[Dman]

I should state that I meant no offense to you personally, daughterofeve. In fact I enjoy the dispute. I just get irritated when the US, or anyone for that matter, defends their actions due to a perception of superiority or entitlement, regardless of what may be a better solution.

[Crazy]

The imperial system is better. Why take the easy way out. 1/60ths, 1/12ths, and 1/32nds is better, because it keeps our math skills sharper.

[Dman]

The imperial system is better. Why take the easy way out. 1/60ths, 1/12ths, and 1/32nds is better, because it keeps our math skills sharper.

That's what computers and calculators are for. E-fish-un-see.

We's peoples duzn't need math skils, cuz we got gud grammir an litaruchur skils. an we no how to thienk cridicully, teecher sed so

Imperial system sucks. 32 degrees = freezing? 212 = boiling? Nonsense. Much more logical to say 0 degrees and 100 degrees. Just another example.

[Claverhouse]

her
Imperial system sucks. 32 degrees = freezing? 212 = boiling? Nonsense. Much more logical to say 0 degrees and 100 degrees. Just another example.

However water is only one compound. Other liquids have different freezing/boiling points. No reason to base your whole system on a particular matter...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Shai Gar]

the best reason there is that a lot of the stuff most people measure in temperature is the weather, and cooking. both of those are water orientated

[Dman]

her

However water is only one compound. Other liquids have different freezing/boiling points. No reason to base your whole system on a particular matter...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

Ok, then what is 0 degrees Fahrenheit measuring? Or 100 degrees F?

Like Shai Gar implied, water is the most practical liquid to measure freezing and boiling temperatures, hence a reason to base your whole temperature measuring system upon.

What the heck is Fahrenheit useful for, in terms of efficiency or practicality?

[Claverhouse]

Ok, then what is 0 degrees Fahrenheit measuring? Or 100 degrees F?

Like Shai Gar implied, water is the most practical liquid to measure freezing and boiling temperatures, hence a reason to base your whole temperature measuring system upon.

What the heck is Fahrenheit useful for, in terms of efficiency or practicality?
I can't say I've ever given this the slightest thought before not being a physicist. Still, there's an explanation here:


Did Fahrenheit Get It Right ? (http://www.shaunf.dircon.co.uk/shaun/metrology/fahrenheit.htm)


Excerpts

The standard temperature setting for the interior of domestic freezers is described as -18°C. At this temperature, bacterial activity is inhibited: life is at a standstill. It is thus the critical temperature for life at cellular level, and is (work it out!) at zero Fahrenheit: 0°F. Perhaps your friendly, local scientist should be told this fact of life!

A very brief historical sketch may be instructive. Isaac Newton, apparently, made some sort of thermometer with fixed points at the temperature of melting ice (ice point) and that of the healthy human mouth. Newton divided the range between these points into twelve equal divisions! (That, in itself, is significant: a man of great intellect, revered by scientists the world over, chose to divide a brand-new scale into twelve, not ten. Is anybody going to tell us that Newton did not understand measurement or mathematics?)
[ Actually, Newton was a raving nutter as well: but let's ignore that ]


Probably some time between 1710 and 1720, Fahrenheit, determined to design a thermometric scale suitable for atmospheric (weather) temperatures, experimented with freezing-mixtures: ice and sal-ammoniac; ice and sea-salt; etc., until he got the lowest reading (which might reasonably be expected in Polar seas, due to eutectic reactions between salt water and ice) and called it zero. There is no reason to suppose that Fahrenheit thought this to be the lowest temperature possible: this was a zero intended for practical use in Earth's environment. The range between this zero and human body temperature he then divided into two dozen equal parts (again, note the thinking) which gave the ice point for fresh water at one-third of the range, or eight degrees. However, these 'degrees' seemed rather coarse in practice, so Fahrenheit multiplied their number by four, thus making human body temperature 96°F (Note1) and the ice point 32°F. Subsequently, the temperature of boiling water (steam point) was found to be 212°F on the same scale. So, the range between ice point and steam point of fresh water is l80 Fahrenheit degrees.

Celsius, in 1742, is said to have made a "great contribution" by division of the range into l00, although his first notion was to have it upside-down: boiling water = 0°C, freezing water = 100°C! To quote the author of a schools science text: "His great contribution was division of the scale into 100 degrees, instead of some odd (sic) number of parts as Fahrenheit and Reaumur had done." It takes a really blinkered mind to assert that 100 is a more useful number than 180, and that 180 is an odd number!


A RATIONAL FAHRENHEIT SCALE
Reaumur's notion of setting a conventional zero at the freezing-point of fresh water was a useful one; Fahrenheit's range of l80° from ice to steam is excellent numerically and gives reasonably fine divisions. Let us, therefore, combine these two desirable features into one temperature scale for common use. It can be called 'Rational Fahrenheit' and use the symbol "rF". In decimal terms, our new ice point is 0rF, new steam point is 180rF and (nominal) absolute zero is -492rF. (Note that on this Scale, the hottest places on Earth approach 100rF; the British Thermal Unit, used here and in the USA, remains unchanged).

The real bonus, for me, is that this proposed scale can be converted to dozenal notation with an actual gain in simplicity: ice point = 0rF; steam point = *130rF and absolute zero = -*350rF dozenally. The absolute scale in dozenal is: zero = 0rR ; ice point = *350rR and - wait for it - the steam point = *480rR! Now, if anyone can find nicer "round" numbers than these for absolute zero and the two fixed points for water, I should like to know!

And another there writes:




Or take length. A metre, says the 'Dictionary of Scientific Units', "is defined in terms of the orange (2p10-5d5) line emitted by a krypton (Kr86/30) discharge in an Engelhard hot cathode discharge tube enclosed in a cryostat at the triple point of nitrogen (63oK); one metre is represented by 1,650,763·73 vacuum wavelengths of this light"

Now they tell us. Those Jacobin madmen in their red nightcaps who cooked up this whole metric thing in 1793 did not know about krypton, any more than the few scientists whose heads had not been cut off and who mumbled something about the unit of length being "10-7 of the earth's quadrant passing through Paris" and got this platinum bar kept in some vault which was THE metre - just because they decided to say so. Abstract, you see: whereas our yard comes from the Old English gierd or gyrd, a stick; and foot comes from, well, the length of a man's foot. What could be more physical and real than that?

Duodecimal. too. The 24-hour day. which we still have, goes back to the Babylonians and Sumerians, who saw the point of a number you can divide by 2, 3, 4 and 6 - not just 2 and 5. And even the French had twelve months in their new calendar (which Carlyle, of all people, translated so wittily: Vendemiaire, Vintagearious; Brumaire, Fogarious; Frimaire, Frostarious; Nivose, Snowous; Pluviose, Rainous; Ventose, Windous; Germinal, Buddal; Floreal, Floweral; Prairial, Meadowal; Messidor, Reapidor; Thermidor, Heatidor; and Fructidor, Fruitidor).

Before Dismalization we were always being told that we should be left behind in the international technological race if we did not adopt it. But the Americans have put men on the Moon and can hit a tin can or a missile with a three-inch nail from 3,000 miles up in space, and they still have gallons, miles, pounds and no intention of changing.

But none of these is so sadly missed as Fahrenheit. That in itself proves there is nothing insular about us, for it is clearly German, yet with an air of universality about it.


Too true: but I don't like arguing just for the sake of it...





Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dman]

Hmmm....

Kind of drives home my point about efficiency...

Appears to be a rather convoluted explanation as to why Fahrenheit is more appropriate than Celsius. I didn't get it; 0 Fahrenheit is the temp where bacteria is inactive? Bah. That's not even true, perhaps for most bacteria, but not all. Besides - basing a temperature scale on your refrigerator? No. Too limited. Plus, just because Newton chose to divide by 12 instead of 10 does not mean it is better for everyone - unless everyone was as smart as Newton. Smarter does not equal more efficient!!

Sure, a meter may be an arbitrary measurement (I wouldn't imply the metric system was perfect, but certainly superior), but you have to start somewhere. It's how you divide up that measurement that matters, and I simply believe that the metric system does a much more intuitive and efficient job at this than the imperial system. For example a kilometer = 1000 meters, a centimeter = 1/100th meter, etc., whereas a mile = 5280 feet, or 1760 yards. Huh? How many people know that off the top of their head? Whether a smart guy decided to divide by 12 or not, it sucks for the rest of us.

I'm still not convinced. I'll also throw out here that I think the English language (my native language) is one of the more esoteric, frustrating and inefficient languages as well. Not nearly as logical as some others, such as Spanish.

[cloakable]

Nah, Kelvin is the most appropriate, in my opinion.
My flat is 259 degrees K. (7 degrees F).

[Shai Gar]

celcius is tha lord of hosts