|
Or one of those "1+1+1+1*0" things that 99% of the people on social media gets wrong.
If a programmer gets it wrong, they are beyond help.
modified 4-Jan-15 10:15am.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think we should tell them there are bots that can get that right? 
Sometimes I think you should have to pass a captcha in order to breed...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I think you've just solved the overpopulation problem.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: "These are pseudo science: nobody with any form of rational thought believes in it."
I consider myself a rational person and have no problems believing in black magic (or white) or astrology. You may think that's really weird, but it doesn't cause any conflict for me. Now, mind you, I try to be discerning -- there's a lot of new age noise out there that sadly has risen to the level of a shriek in the last 20 years.
Anyways, I just thought I'd speak up here, as a person of "rational thought." 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
You believe in astrology? Really?
Do you mind if I ask why? Isn't it all predicting a person's future from lumps of rock and gas following Newtonian laws a seriously long way away?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Isn't it all predicting a person's future from lumps of rock and gas following Newtonian laws a seriously long way away?
Personally, the "predicting the future" part is where I feel the layman's understanding of astrology has taken a wrong turn because of all the charlatans out there. I like wikipedia's definition:
To ancient astrologers, the planets represented the will of the gods and their direct influence upon human affairs. To modern astrologers the planets represent basic drives or urges in the unconscious,[
(planets, of course, including the sun and moon in addition to the 5 visible planets in ancient times -- yet another interesting discussion.)
A good astrologer can be very insightful (and cost a lot less than a shrink) into "forces" that potentially are behind your personality. And yes, I do believe there are things we don't understand, know about, or can measure (yet) that can affect personality and therefore, "destiny" (in broad brush strokes) as well. It's sometimes useful to get insights in these things, and if you accept those insights, you can work on improving them, becoming more "conscious", so those forces aren't just "unconscious drives/urges" as the wikipedia quote states.
OriginalGriff wrote: ollowing Newtonian laws a seriously long way away?
Heck, even the planets and gasses don't follow Newtonian laws -- you need a sprinkling of relativity to actually get everything right -- Newtonian laws are just a decent approximation when velocity and mass are in some sort of a "normal" range 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Newtonian laws are more than a decent approximation, if you use telescopes on earth to do your astrology, you cannot see or account for the small discrepancies introduced by relativity. Besides, when astrologers begun their "art" there was no real understanding of the motions of the planets or the laws governing such motions. Astrology, puff!  
programmer, astronomer, reader, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
Luis M Cabrera wrote: if you use telescopes on earth to do your astrology, you cannot see or account for the small discrepancies introduced by relativity.
Sure you can. Gravitational lensing, red/blue shifting, both are examples of relativity in action. Einstein's theory that gravity bends light was proven with terrestrial telescopes.
Luis M Cabrera wrote: Besides, when astrologers begun their "art" there was no real understanding of the motions of the planets or the laws governing such motions.
True indeed! But I don't need to understand my mother-in-law to know that I want to move as far away from her as possible!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Sure you can. Gravitational lensing, red/blue shifting, both are examples of relativity in action. Einstein's theory that gravity bends light was proven with terrestrial telescopes.
Exactly, but astrologers have failed to update their craft to include those observations, besides, they don't use the motions of the stars, only the "planets", relative to the background stars, so gravitational lensing induced changes on apparent position will not change the odds of a baby born in January to be a great ruler, or astrologer.
|
|
|
|
|
Ghosts, vampires, fairies and little people that live at the bottom of the garden as well or is it just the pseudo sciences that you cannot refute one way or the other?
I am constantly astonished by the things rational, sensible people can believe in, this includes all religions of course.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
It is great hubris to think there are not vast areas of knowledge yet to be understood or discovered or that if it can't be proven, it can't be. Scientists are often so smug.
As far as pseudo-sciences, I am reminded of economics. Here, two "experts" can argue about some economic principle and throngs will line up behind each expert fully convinced their side is correct. One side, if proven wrong, would be denied acquiescence by their ego and\or their vested professional interest in their conceptual framework.
Astrology has a batting average on par with economics.
I used to think I knew it all. The older I get, the more I realize I don't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
MKJCP wrote: two "experts" can argue about some economic principle
I work in a bank and KNOW these guys make it up as they go along, comparing the track record of astrology and economic theory does a disservice to astrology practitioners.
I do like something more substantial than "faith" or "belief" before I put any credence in something.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: this includes all religions of course.
I make a distinction between religion and spirituality.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I make a distinction between religion and spirituality
Absolutely.
[slap] do not get started on religion.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: [slap] do not get started on religion.
Amen!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
As someone who once wrote a program that helps people pick numbers for the UK National Lottery, I feel that I have a vested interest in this discussion, so should not take part.
(I won't mention the small fact that if you read the code of that prog, you'd instantly see that I was taking the piss out of the nutters)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
For a few months I've been enjoying a bathroom floor that feels like a Greek beach in summer, you practically had to run across it. The joy ended abruptly on the arrival of my electricity bill however. (£550 for the quarter)
So, I'm trying to find the sweet spot. Electric under floor heating appears to be eye-wateringly expensive. It currently tells me its 22 degrees Celsius, but actually feels pretty toasty.
I'd have thought that anything less than 37 degrees (depending on its thermal conductivity) would likely feel cold, and anything higher than that warm. The tiles are some sort of ceramic typical of bathrooms so I would think that has a high thermal conductivity.
22 degrees air temperature is pretty pleasant, but that has low thermal conductivity.
So my question, is 22 degrees actually warm, or is the thermostat knackered? How hot is the average bath?
Happy new year btw!
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on how you dressed at home - if you are walk around like on the beach you will need a much higher temperature than with more clothes on...
We have an under-floor heating system (working on hot-water pipes) and we set it to 18 Celsius (except on really cold days when we may put it up to 21) and feel very good...
As I understand the thermostat I have measures the temperature of the floor itself and not the air, but as hot air tends to rise...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
These are low temperatures - 17c from Dave below, 18c here. Don't get how that can feel warm, but I'm going to give it a go!
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
It really depends on what your aim is. If you want it to be really warm and toasty on the bottom of your feet then set it high; my wife likes to set ours at 32C (thermostat has a probe in the floor). If you just want to take the chill out of the floor so your bare feet do not freeze when you step on it first thing in the morning then a lower temp will suffice. Also look into programmable thermostats that will warm the floor just before you get up in the morning, no need to keep it hot 24 hours a day.
Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.floorheatingsystems.co.uk/questions-about-underfloor-heating.htm[^]
Look at the running cost estimates in that link......maybe the heat loss in your room is too high. make sure you are filling the gaps between floor and skirting etc to stop draughts.
It is not just the temperature, it is the time it is on. You need to work out when you actually need the temperature, maybe you are unnecessarily heating the room when you are not there. I would start with 17'C and edge it up 1'c every couple of days until you find that point that feels comfortable, but not too warm, you only want to take the chill out of the air.
|
|
|
|
|
£3-4/square metre?! My bathroom can only be about 6 square metres in total. Mind you, the kitchen has it as well and that's much larger. Watching my electricity meter spinning round, I estimated it at 1.5KW. Other literature says 150W/m2 is typical.
I will do as you say, but 17c sounds decidedly chilly. It comes on at 5.30 in the morning, so as about an hour to get up to temperature.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
You can also turn it off early.
For example, I turn my central heating off 30 minutes before we leave the house in the morning as there is still sufficient heat in the system to continue keeping the rads warm until we leave.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't trust their running costs: their rate of £4/m²/year seems much too low. The Energy Saving Trust calculator http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/domestic/content/home-energy-check[^] suggests nearly £2k to heat a new, well-insulated 4-bed detached house (150m²) with electricity (underfloor), ie £13/m². reducing to £1340 (8.9/m²) with mains gas.
Note that the Handy Heat page itself says the system is designed to run the floor at 25-28C.
Fed up with the slow heating rate (and high cost) of the electric underfloor heating in our bathroom, I fitted a £23 2kW fan heater which does the job (warm the air) in no time, and only runs when required. I can cope with cold feet for a few seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
you should post that on first world problems
Amr Abdel Majeed
Senior Software Developer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
