« first day (447 days earlier)      last day (4479 days later) » 

4:00 PM
All of the above!
 
All I have is cuppas. passes cuppa
 
Oh, can I have one too?
 
user19161
An anonymous user edited Barrie's answer to include a smiley. Of course, I rejected it.
 
user19161
In the edit description, he said "only joking".
 
user19161
What kind of joke is that?
 
4:02 PM
hands Kit a cuppa
 
Thanks.
 
@MrShinyandNew安宇 Ahhh sticks face in steam and relaxes Thankye!
 
Sorry, it turns out the stoopid useless mtg was on, after all.
So I hadn't time for a witty rejoinder, @MrShiny.
 
Oh you mean our previous conversation about vagina kennels.
 
Yes.
And I will soon be off to lunch, trawling for a new job.
I haven't much hope of that, but it should be fun.
 
user19161
4:04 PM
There is also the issue of "myriad things" and "myriad of things".
 
Rejoinder is such a pretty word. It sounds joyous in and of itself.
 
user19161
19
Q: What is the correct usage of "myriad"?

jhockingThe vast majority of the time when I see the word "myriad" it is in a sentence like "He had a myriad of things." However I don't like the extraneous words so I normally use it like "He had myriad things." My boss corrected the latter usage while editing something I wrote. I averted an argument ...

 
So it seems that there are people in this world who've actually used the phrase "vagina kennel".
 
I used to, in my shamefully prescriptivist younger days, be upset about myriad of things, and I still notice it sometimes. I noticed Asmiov using myriad differently than I would when we were listening to Foundation or Foundation and Empire, and grinned to myself.
 
@aediaλ That's cuz there's joy in der
 
4:07 PM
@MrShinyandNew安宇 Duh.
 
@MrShinyandNew安宇 giggles
 
@Kitḫ Yeah, why does this sort of thing surprise me anymore
@aediaλ thanks, you're too kind
 
user19161
0
Q: What's the difference between transparent and translucent?

whoabackoffThe reason I ask, is because I'm trying to describe a record pressing that looks like this Thanks

 
user19161
This has gotten me thinking again.
 
user19161
Where do we draw the line between "transparent" and "translucent"?
 
4:09 PM
"Transparent" = you can see through it. "Translucent" = light passes through it.
 
Why do these people want to rewrite this thing more?! When I get done with it they'll have no whitespace left and the font will have to come down to, like, 10pt to cram all their "essential" verbiage in. Grr.
 
Trans = through, parere = appear, lux = light.
 
bashes wurk wif prism
 
Hey @aedia, did you see my sonnet?
 
@Kit, so technically light passes through both transparent objects and translucent objects...
 
4:13 PM
@whoabackoff yes
 
so, how do you differentiate between the 2?
 
If you can see objects through it, it is transparent.
 
"you can see through it" and "light passes through it" are equivalent
 
Obviously there is some fuzziness there.
@whoabackoff Not true.
Consider a frosted glass window.
 
a normal sheet of glass is transparent. a frosted sheet of glass is translucent.
jinx
 
4:14 PM
light would need to pass through in order to see through it...
ah, so we're talking more about distortion
 
But the light has to form an image in order to "see"
 
-of light
 
@Kitḫ No, not yet! Looking...
 
Transparent is translucent, but translucent is not necessarily transparent.
 
I would only use the word translucent for obscured partway thingies like stained or frosted glass or a shower curtain, even
 
4:15 PM
In the field of optics, transparency (also called pellucidity or diaphaneity) is the physical property of allowing light to pass through a material; translucency (also called translucence or translucidity) only allows light to pass through diffusely. The opposite property is opacity. Transparent materials appear clear, with the overall appearance of one color, or any combination leading up to a brilliant spectrum of every color. When light encounters a material, it can interact with it in several different ways. These interactions depend on the wavelength of the light and the nature ...
 
so, translucent objects distort light?
 
In normal speech I wouldn't use it for a regular ol' window
 
I have to go. Talk to you all later!
 
I would say that transparent and translucent are disjoint sets in normal speech.
 
Transparent objects distort light also (they diffract it), but they do not diffuse light.
 
4:18 PM
that wiki link looks very interesting
 
Diaphaneity. That's a good word.
 
I don't know if I would call, for example, a glass brick (which transmits light clearly, but not in a way that lets you see the image) transparent. I think in practical terms it'd be translucent but in technical terms transparent.
 
@MrShinyandNew安宇 yes.
Or maybe translucent even in technical terms.
 
@MetaEd I seem to recall hearing about a case where someone built a camera that could un-distort the image from a glass-block wall. But I can't find it now.
 
@Kitḫ Love it!
There's a camera that can take essentially multiple pictures at once so you can focus later, but I think that's a different thing
 
4:26 PM
A sonnet! A sonnet!
I want to read the sonnet.
 
if you put a piece of tape on frosted glass, you can see through it :)
 
Also if it's wet it's less frosty, like how you can't tell how frosty sea glass is when it's underwater
 
@whoabackoff yeah but you're, in essence, de-frosting it by filling the surface with glue.
you're basically repairing it. (from the point of view that glass should be clear)
 
I know, I just thought it was interesting :)
 
it is kinda neat.
 
4:31 PM
If you think that's strange, check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
The book on light.
 
Jan 20 at 18:44, by Kitḫ
http://foxfirekitty.wordpress.com/
 
For popular audiences.
 
@Kit doesn't have her blog in her profile but has posted it here at least once; I presume she didn't mind keeping the link in the transcript, or will now take charge of asking for delete-ification if she decides otherwise :)
Aug 9 '11 at 13:40, by JSBᾶngs
well, bullocks to that. mebbe everyone got a blog link, but only the ones that actually blog have a blog to be bloglinked to. blog blog blog blog blog
 
So where's YOUR blog, aedia?
 
^ also, I <3 you, @JSB even if you screw with my being able to search for anything ever
Uhh I don't actually currently maintain a personal blog, though I have had dalliances with them in the past
 
4:39 PM
I have a question =\
 
I tweet/facebook/google+ etc. under my real name a little bit
@Gigili We might have answers!
 
I caught a cold because you caught a cold, what's that called? What's the medical statement for it?
 
Plague? (just joking) ... umm, you mean one person was contagious?
Or the act of transmitting/spreading the illness?
In medicine and biology, transmission is the passing of a communicable disease from an infected host individual or group to a conspecific individual or group, regardless of whether the other individual was previously infected. Sometimes transmission can specifically mean infection of a previously uninfected host. The term usually refers to the transmission of microorganisms directly from one person to another by one or more of the following means: * droplet contact – coughing or sneezing on another person * direct physical contact – touching an infected person, including sexual contact * i...
 
contagious/transmissible/communicable
 
Very nice sonnet. I love the juxtaposition of cruelty and kindness.
Because, really, what else is there.
Shall I post mine?
 
4:47 PM
Yes, yes!
 
I wrote this for St. Valentine's Day two years ago.
 
Aw I forgot that I can't get to google docs right now. I can check later.
 
untitled (February 14, 2010)

Cats yowl, cats prowl, and those they meet injure,
nor do their chance couplings advance to love.
And – never meeting those they chance to love –
the flowers scatter seed by messenger.
Contrariwise, it is the swan’s nature
to join for life that cob which first proves love.
He has one chance – one dance to bind her love,
by one hour’s work fidelity ensure.

Is it not rare that we, who could refuse
our mate on this or any other day,
in love remain? And though we sometimes bruise
 
Awwh!
For some reason it makes me think just a little about those heartsick flowers though, imagining them lonely in a vase
 
5:14 PM
yes exactly
the poor flowers
or maybe they think of it as interspecies love ... with bees
 
giggles
But some of the sad flowers have such a brief life and then get cut up and stuck on people's tables
Hey it's 2-1-12 today (in my date-writing-order, at least)! Yay palindromes yay!
 
12.2.1 in my writing :D
 
Hi!
 
I avoid everything but 2012-02-01 or 1 Feb 2012.
 
5:28 PM
@MetaEd well, that's not palindromically conducive. I normally go with 2012.02.01 too
 
I usually say the monthname, but on a piece of notepaper to myself or in a casual context where it's not too important like a postcard, I'll write it all numbers
 
yes, saying the month name is what I would normally do
 
I still manage to confuse myself no matter what if it's all numbers. We just shouldn't have numbers for months anyway. Everyone knows colors are better, and then we could have had a use for all those in-between colors like teal
 
In fact, there are only 365 days. Why not remember what day it is, and not bother with any of the rest of it!
 
Then every day could be special!
 
5:39 PM
months schmonths. I was born on day 43
@aediaλ yeah!
 
In Toronto, the subway transfers that are printed by the machines prominently feature the day number. I always wonder if the bus drivers know what the day number is today.
 
of 1981
 
@MattЭллен wow you're practically a baby!
 
so they tell me
 
I was born in the '70s!
 
5:40 PM
but it's a medical condition. I just don't look old
 
(late 70s, true)
 
meh, you but a few years older than me
but I'll take being young :D
 
you're actually a smidge older than my brother. And I guess I can no longer think of him as a baby anymore. So... sorry. you're old.
At least GraceNote isn't here thinking that I'm a grandpa or something.
 
I feel young momentarily! I have not yet entered my third fourth decade. Also I need more coffee to count things that aren't colors
 
@aediaλ (fourth)
 
5:45 PM
(thanks)
 
(np, what are friends for?)
 
@aediaλ I'm really sorry, was on the phone.
 
What number is a smidge?
 
@Kit I've read it several times, now. I really like it :) I especially like how each time I read it I understood it a little bit more (although that could have been because I was tired this morning)
 
@aedia: What I want to say is, "existence of organisms resistant to antibiotics" which go through nurses' hands to patients' body .. Something like that. (Sorry if it sounds ridiculous.)
 
5:48 PM
@MetaEd some real value less than 1 but greater than 0 I think
 
@Gigili So, I think what you want to talk about is transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by the nurses
 
@aediaλ Exactly so, thank you very much.
 
@Gigili You might look in google scholar to find how other people use the phrase
There are studies that talk about transmission both ways: from hospital staff to patients, and from patients to hospital staff
 
Actually I did it, but the phrase I searched was wrong so there were no results. Thank you again.
 
user19161
@MattЭллен Very cryptic!
 
user19161
5:55 PM
I write it as 01 Jan 2013 for example.
 
Hi!
 
user19161
2 digits, 3 letters, 4 digits.
 
^ What science really means.
 
user19161
@Cerberus Quite true.
 
user19161
@Cerberus Yesterday I already said a lot of science is pseudoscience!
 
5:56 PM
Isn't that a contradictio in terminis?
 
user19161
Well, as long as you know what I mean. Just like my use of QED!
 
I might know, I might not know...
 
@Gigili No problem! If you look for examples like this paper you can find how the authors use phrases like counts of bacteria on the hands or talk about contamination of objects or hands, which might also be something you are looking to describe if you need to talk about transmission via gloves or hands.
 
user19161
I just realized the Olympics is this year. Yay!
 
user19161
I will be taking part in the spelling section of the Olympics, so watch out!
 
user19161
6:02 PM
@Cerberus Tautology - A or not A.
 
'Tis.
 
user19161
@Gigili Dispense with thanks. Too many thanks already!
 
@Cerberus Hahaha. But they occur together: the careful analysis of representative data chosen for study shows... = this is the prettiest graph, with the only results that make sense and didn't fall in the beer :)
 
@aediaλ Haha yes! You've captured the essence.
 
user19161
@Cerberus I know one usually says Socrates' but are there people who say Socrates's?
 
user19161
6:07 PM
-2
Q: "why are you" vs. "why you are"?

YousuiFrom this ngram, it seems that both of them are used. Which one is preferred?

 
user19161
GR
 
Damn. I already made a pretty picture.
 
@WillHunting Um I don't know, I think both forms are used.
 
@Cerberus "Correct within an order of magnitude" :D
 
That's equivalent to "within a first approximation" isn't it?
Sort of?
 
6:10 PM
@WillHunting and it was wrong yesterday when you said it.
 
@MattЭллен Hah I have seen that, but never bothered to try and understand what it meant.
@MetaEd Is it? In any case, it sucks.
 
@Cerberus What it means is, if the experiment says "the answer is 3" and you're correct within an order of magnitude, even if the answer isn't 3 you know it's definitely not as large as 10 or 30.
 
In science, engineering, and other quantitative disciplines, orders of approximation refer to formal or informal terms for how precise an approximation is, and to indicate progressively more refined approximations: in increasing order of precision, a zeroth order approximation, a first order approximation, a second order approximation, and so forth. Formally, an nth order approximation is one where the order of magnitude of the error is at most x^n, or in terms of big O notation, the error is O(x^n). In suitable circumstances, approximating a function by a Taylor polynomial of degree n y...
 
@MrShinyandNew安宇 Hmm yes, I suspected it was something like that. But why not use a more precise, less ugly term?
 
so that wise-ass table you posted, which says "correct within an order of magnitude == wrong" is only correct within an order of magnitude.
@Cerberus it IS a precise term.
 
6:14 PM
Then how is it precise?
 
Plus this is my first asterism. I'm very proud of my asterism.
 
@Cerberus this is something that bothered me for ages, then I found out "It's what engineers use" so I had to put up with it
 
I had to bend over backwards for my asterism.
 
@MetaEd Quoi?
 
It is language for scientists by scientists. If uneducated people don't understand what that means, too bad for them.
 
6:14 PM
@MattЭллен Ack, yes, that's the way the world goes round.
 
@WillHunting @Cerberus this.
 
@MrShinyandNew安宇 The way you described it, it doesn't have a very precise meaning?
 
@Cerberus How is it imprecise?
 
@MetaEd Oh, that! Pretty. I didn't know it was called that.
 
An order of magnitude is a range of values. When you do some science and get a number, which you know may not be the actual number but you know how close it is, you can say that the number you found is correct within a certain possible error. In this case, the maximum possible error is "an order of magnitude".
 
6:16 PM
@MrShinyandNew安宇 "definitely not 10 or 30"?
 
user19161
Interestingly, the dictionary has an entry for "for what it's worth" but not "for what it is worth".
 
@MrShinyandNew安宇 well, if you take it literally, and before I understood what it meant I had to, then "an order of magnitude" is very imprecise since it doesn't specify what order of magnitude
 
Why not give the limits, then?
 
@Cerberus sigh, go read that wikipedia article and then come back to me when you've learned science
2
 
@MattЭллен Exactly. Besides, the word magnitude, isn't that a bit odd there?
 
6:18 PM
@MattЭллен it's a science/math term, it doesn't mean what it might mean on the surface. within its context, it has a very precise meaning. it's completely clear and unambiguous and standard within those disciplines.
 
user19161
Magnitude, multitude, longitude, latitude.
 
@Cerberus the limit is "an order of magnitude"
 
@MrShinyandNew安宇 right but I'm talking about outside that. For laymen
 
I don't like it when words don't mean what they appear to mean for no apparent reason.
 
order of magnitude does not mean power of 10 in literal terms
 
6:18 PM
@MattЭллен it's not for laymen.
 
@MrShinyandNew安宇 it has to be interpreted by laymen
 
@MattЭллен Who suggested a power of 10?
 
user19161
ante meridiem, post meridiem, meridian, Le Meridien
 
@MattЭллен no. If a scientist uses a jargon phrase like "order of magnitude" when trying to communicate to a layperson then they have already failed.
 
If 3 cannot mean 10, as Mr H. said, then it can't be a power of 10?
 
6:21 PM
@aediaλ Thank you.
 
@Cerberus My explanation might only be correct within an order of magnitude.
 
I was just wondering why Matt was thinking of a power of ten.
Is it even supposed to be logarithmic?
 
user19161
dateline, deadline, International Date Line
 
user19161
I keep confusing these.
 
It typically does mean powers of 10.
 
6:24 PM
But not always?
 
An order of magnitude is the class of scale or magnitude of any amount, where each class contains values of a fixed ratio to the class preceding it. In its most common usage, the amount being scaled is 10 and the scale is the (base 10) exponent being applied to this amount (therefore, to be an order of magnitude greater is to be 10 times as large). Such differences in order of magnitude can be measured on the logarithmic scale in "decades" (i.e. factors of ten). It is common among scientists and technologists to say that a parameter whose value is not accurately known, or is within a ra...
 
And where does the boundary lie? At 3 or at 10?
 
@Cerberus typically, at 10.
so 1-9 are within the same order of magnitude. 100-999 are within the same order of magnitude.
 
@MrShinyandNew安宇 Huh? Then 9.9 can mean 1 but not 10.1?
Odd.
 
@Cerberus No, 9.9 doesn't mean 1.
 
6:26 PM
@MrShinyandNew安宇 But it is the same order of magnitude.
The boundaries should be at 1 and 10.
 
@Cerberus that doesn't mean that the numbers are equivalent.
 
@MrShinyandNew安宇 That first paragraph makes perfect sense, where you have fixed orders.
@MrShinyandNew安宇 I mean, if you say "it is 9.9, or something that is correct within an order of magnitude", then the boundaries should be 1 and 10, so it could be 1.1, but not 10.1.
 
Anyway, my point is, "within an order of magnitude" has a clear and precise meaning to scientists.
 
I find that odd. I would prefer using 99 and 0.99 as boundaries, if it must be based on a power of ten.
 
@Cerberus Actually I think 10.1 is within an order of magnitude from 9.9, because I think what they are referring to is the size of the ERROR
 
6:30 PM
@MrShinyandNew安宇 The the boundary is not 10.
 
> Thus 4,000,000, which has a logarithm (in base 10) of 6.602
It's 5.602. The Wiki's wrong. Someone correct it.
Wait.
 
Huh?
It has 6 zeroes.
 
No, I misread it as “400,000”. Never mind.
 
Heh.
 
6:45 PM
Just remember that 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of two, and you will be fine.
 
6:56 PM
But what if, instead of powers of ten, they use steam power?
Modern inventions mess things up.
I'm tired and bored.
 
Naptime?
 

« first day (447 days earlier)      last day (4479 days later) »