PakledHostage

Wrong movie... "the power of lurve!" was interstellar.

Po-tay-toe, pot-ah-toe, tom-ay-toe, tom-ah-toe... Let's call the whole thing off.

At the risk of being accused of being pedantic, it is LITRE and METRE. The american spelling is liter and meter but, as we've been discussing, they don't officially use the metric system anyway.

I went to see it in the theater last fall and, at the time, I reported on these forums that I thought it was better than Gravity... I still maintain that it was better than Gravity but I also have to agree with Albert's sentiment. And while I know that people's enjoyment of movies is entirely subjective, I did see one recently that I was pleasantly surprised by: Europa Report. I was expecting it to suck royally but it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be... It was certainly better than Gravity and Interstellar. - - - Updated - - - About 6 months ago, SpaceXray found Interstellar at #13 on IMDB's list of top movies of all time. I was skeptical because it was listed among some true classics. I suspected that it had been up-voted in a campaign by fans and I posted that I would check back in a year to see where it was on the list by then. After 6 months, it has fallen to #26 on the list. Stay tuned...

Nice. Here's another one that needs to be talked up. If nothing else, for the video: Lego Particle Accelerator

People like drama. We're no different. Just look at the number of views per hour that controversial threads around here get when compared to our regular old every day conversations. There isn't much of a "hook" in a story that "the LHC was restarted today". There is more drama in footage of the LDSD supersonic parachute failure so I can understand that it got more coverage. And lets be honest: Kim Kardashian's rear end is also rather dramatic...

I did, and I found this: Fair point. Unrelated, but fair point...

But I can eyeball a shotgun shell and know if it is right for my gun, so clearly it is a natural unit... I don't need no hippies or commies tellin' me I should use a different unit.

Right, and assuming that rural Africans all live in mud huts, or wear bones through their noses, or measure in units of ouagadougous, or whatever, isn't elitist? What makes you think that they are any more "backward" than rural people anywhere? Many countries' education systems may not be up to first world standards, but one could argue that that is also true for plenty of places in the US. If a country is officially metric, then you can bet that the majority of its population has been educated to use that system and is familiar with it.

How is that different than standing beside a measuring stick that indicates you're 4 cubits tall and then stating that is how tall you are? The only reason that the imperial system is intuitive to you is because you (presumably) were raised using it. And while all measuring systems are ultimately arbitrary, the metric system at least has base 10 going for it. This makes conversions between units entirely intuitive because most cultures count in base 10.

That's not how YOUR brain works. I am 188 cm tall. I couldn't tell you how tall I am in feet, or cubits, or whatever.

No, pop and beer cans are typically 12 ounces in the US (and places where they use American canning equipment) because that is the American standard. There isn't anything magical about that quantity. Beverage cans in the rest of the world aren't 355 ml cans.

355 ml is 12 fluid ounces. 12 ounce soda and beer cans exported from the states (or canned using American canning equipment) are labeled "355 ml" in metric countries like Canada because the cans are made to an American standard, not because 355 ml is some magical quantity of soda for the average person. The cans could just as well be 300 ml, 400 ml or even (as they are in much of the world) 250 ml.

Here's a map showing metrication of countries by year (Ref: Wikipedia - The Metric system): Note 1: Black denotes countries that still don't officially use metric. Note 2: White identifies countries that already used the metric system at the time they gained their independence.

Before we get into another "entertaining discussion" with Darnok about the nature of the speed of light, I'd like to draw people's attention to the immortal words of BlueCosmology, posted during our most recent episode.

Knots - nautical miles per hour - are used in navigation because the nautical mile was defined in more convenient terms relative to the size of the Earth than the kilometer (in so far as how they were originally defined). And while the nautical mile isn't a true SI unit, it is accepted for use in the SI system. It is even currently defined as EXACTLY 1852 metres rather than some exact number of feet. And as to why feet are used for altitudes in aviation? Well... Two wrongs don't make a right.

The groan was certainly heart felt!

Why reinvent the wheel?

Kurz gesagt has now posted a Part II to their previous Fermi Paradox video:

Glad you got it sorted. Sorry I wasn't more clear in my explanation. But yeah, there is basically a "ring" of area in which the ISS can be illuminated by sunlight while it is dark on the ground beneath it. That ring extends from the terminator to roughly 20 degrees into the night side of the Earth and it moves relative to the surface as the Earth turns. The ISS is visible to viewers on the ground while it is in that region. In northern latitudes in summer, a city may remain in or close enough to that region that visible passes are possible for most if not all of the night. In winter, the same city will only be in that region for two hours or so at the beginning and end of the night. As a result, the times during which viewing is possible are longer in summer than winter, and it will make more visible passes in summer than winter.

You can see it more readily in the summer than in the winter from your location in the UK because it is illuminated by sunlight for more passes and for longer periods in summer than it is in winter. I just checked and the Sun only gets down to roughly 17 degrees below London's horizon this evening. The ISS orbits at roughly 400 km which is sufficient for it to still be in sunlight when the Sun is as much as about 20 degrees below the horizon. In other words, if the ISS was directly overhead London at 1:00 am (daylight savings time) tonight, the ISS would still be in sunlight while it was celestial midnight on the ground. That sunlight would obviously make it visible to viewers on the ground. In winter, you only see it in the western part of the sky before it crosses the terminator. When it does, it kind of fades out. Somewhere I have a long exposure picture of it fading out as it crosses the terminator, but I'd have to search for it. I have seen it "accidentally" while out in the evening. You can infer that it must be the ISS because it is so bright and doesn't "flare" like an iridium satellite. In summer in northern latitudes, you can also wait for it to come back around and watch it go by on the next pass about 90 minutes later.

Here are a couple that I posted in another thread a couple of years ago: Both were taken on the same evening with a 300 mm lens mounted on a Canon 70D (no telescope). Jupiter and four of its moons can be seen in the lower image.

I think Kryten already answered that.

My favorite type of racing isn't listed, sadly. I enjoy one-design racing. My favorite driver? Not sure I have one but Marc Guillemot is a pretty classy guy and deserving of his promotion to chevalier de l'Ordre national du Mérite, one of France's highest honors for his sportsmanship and sacrifice in the 2008-2009 Vendee Globe. My favorite car? The Mclaren P1 is impressive.