Re: Now the UK Has it's own date in the history of al quiada attacks

From: John Smith (a_at_nonymous.com)
Date: 07/19/05 

Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:18:14 -0400

AEF wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>> Bill Todd wrote:
>>> AEF wrote:
>>>>
>>>> John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Who said I wanted good mileage? I have customers with lots of
>>>>> money :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This just supports my statement that it is odd to have higher
>>>> mileage-optimal speeds as a technological goal.
>>>
>>> Anecdotal evidence seldom supports anything all that much. Of
>>> course, since John did not actually say that he was *not*
>>> interested in good gas mileage (just observed that no statement one
>>> way or the other had yet been made about that point - including
>>> what I interpreted as an ironic smiley), it wouldn't support that
>>> thesis anyway.
>>>
>>> Optimal mileage at the speeds their cars are typically driven at is
>>> almost certainly a goal at BMW: they can pass pretty well for
>>> perfectionists in most aspects of vehicle performance, not just the
>>> screechy-tires kinds. Back in the automotive Iron Age they had to
>>> compromise a lot between power at full throttle and efficiency at
>>> part throttle, but with modern feedback-controlled
>>> carefully-metered engine components such compromise is no longer
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> And if you don't care
>>>> about mileage, why have you bothered to measure it?
>>>
>>> Even if he doesn't actually care, techies are often into such things
>>> simply as a matter of technical curiosity.
>>>
>>> And how did you
>>>> measure it? Are you sure you took all influencing factors into
>>>> account? Changes in wind, grade, steadiness of your foot(!)?
>>>> Personal bias?
>>>
>>> That's a better question, but still omits the crucial one: whether
>>> he made equally-careful measurements at a range of speeds under
>>> identical conditions so that legitimate comparisons could be drawn.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm almost surprised that these luxury/power cars even have mileage
>>>> meters. Those who are interested in mileage wouldn't even be
>>>> shopping for such cars.
>>>
>>> You really need to learn to speak only for yourself when talking
>>> about personal preferences: I'm interested in mileage (along with
>>> most other aspects of vehicle performance), my interest in it is not
>>> primarily financial (but rather one of social responsibility), and I
>>> would very definitely be interested in BMWs if they weren't such a
>>> conspicuous extravagance in other ways (which have less to do with
>>> social responsibility than with personal inclinations: we native
>>> New Englanders often don't cotton to conspicuous extravagance all
>>> that much).
>>>
>>> And I can't see a luxury car shopper saying, "Well, this
>>>> one has a mileage meter! I'll get it!" I guess it's just part of
>>>> the total "lots of bells and whistles" bit.
>>>
>>> Somehow I get the feeling that you're not a car enthusiast, in which
>>> case your complete lack of comprehension of the species is
>>> understandable.
>>>
>>> Of course, not all BMW buyers are car enthusiasts, either. And I
>>> don't even know whether John falls into that category, though from
>>> his statements I suspect he has at least a toe in that camp.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> The 540 has a pretty good Cd (coefficient of drag), somewhere
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> 0.30 IIRC, where a 1.0 represents something akin to a 4'x8'
>>>>>>> *** of plywood face to the wind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That helps overall mileage, but I doubt it changes the fact that
>>>>>> drag increases with speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Physics is physics, at least at the Newtonian scale of things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At least? Are you saying that non-Newtowian physics isn't or
>>>> somehow might not be physics? That doesn't make any sense.
>>>
>>> Without wishing to put words into John's mouth, my reading is that
>>> he's referring to the unpredictability of individual events at the
>>> quantum level and/or the incestuous interaction of measurements with
>>> what one is measuring there.
>>
>>
>> Bingo.
>>
>> Yes to auto enthusiast. No to having time to worry about whether the
>> ignition point is 3 or 4 degress before TDC or whether Bilsteins or
>> Koni's are better than the other.
>>
>> Heisenberg doesn't really apply on the scale of measurements being
>> done to quantify gas mileage or Cd at 70 vs. 71 mph. We're not
>> talking nuclear cross-sections of 1EE-29 and c here....it's more
>> like 1/4 mile in 12.5 seconds.
>
> "Heisenberg" is still physics. Measurements in the macrosopic realm
> are STILL subject to errors. Even the measuring process can produce
> error. Measure the voltage between two points in a circuit and you
> draw some current. That will affect the measurement. But, in
> classical physics you can in principle measure things as precisely as
> you wish. Things have real properties independent of the measurement
> process.
>
> The difference in the quantum mechanics is that EVEN IN PRINCIPLE you
> cannot measure something as precisely as you wish without creating
> uncertainty in a conjugate variable. Experiments support the notion
> that a particle doesn't even have a complete definite set of
> properties. There are wave functions for which some of the properties
> aren't even "real" until a measurement is done (or something happens
> that can, in principle, be used to make a measurement -- there is no
> need for an actual experimenter to be present or the cause of the
> thing that happens). Look up the GHZ paradox in quantum mechanics for
> a good example.
>
> Getting back to classical physics (Newtonian, if you wish): There can
> still be errors. Also, digital readouts are not necessarily accurate
> to the precision indicated. If it says 23.4 MPG, due to measurement
> error it may be a little higher or lower. Of course one can build a
> display that only shows properly to the correct significant figures
> that the device can measure down to, but I wouldn't be the least bit
> surprised if these digitial readouts aren't so accurate. Precision
> and accuracy are not the same thing. Accuracy is how close you get to
> the correct value. Precision is how well specified the value is
> without any reference to the actual value. As a crude example, if you
> had a scale that reads down to 0.1 pound increments, but tended to
> read 10% to high, your precision is to the nearest 0.1 pounds, but
> your accuracy is considerably less. Also, the readings must be
> consistent, though I suspect that's not a big worry in this case.

As an engineer by training I have come to appreciate the usefullness of
approximations......

An engineer and a mathematician (or physicist if you prefer) were chatting
one day.

The mathematician said, "If a beautiful woman was standing across the room,
naked, and you walked 1/2 the distance between you and her with each step
you took across the room, mathematically you'd never reach her."

The engineer quickly replied, "It wouldn't matter. I'd be close enough for
all practical purposes."

>
>> Besides, I'm more interested in getting VMS advertised and marketed
>> - that's what would allow me to afford a new M5-series w/ 500 bhp
>> and a V-10 engine.
>
> And if you don't get this car it will be the end of the
world?

I'd be p*ssed, but no it isn't the end of the world....I'd just switch to
promoting Sun or IBM to get my new Bimmer. 

--
OpenVMS - The never-advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV
base.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----