Discussion:
7 named typhoons and hurricanes
Add Reply
Mr. Man-wai Chang
2018-09-12 14:27:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Source: <https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/eastern-pacific/>

Barijat
Mangkhut
Olivia
Paul
Florence
Issac
Helene

Scrabble time: What word can you make out of B,M,O,P,F,I,H?

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
soup
2018-09-12 19:19:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/09/2018 15:27, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> Source: <https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/eastern-pacific/>
>
> Barijat
> Mangkhut
> Olivia
> Paul
> Florence
> Issac
> Helene
>
> Scrabble time: What word can you make out of B,M,O,P,F,I,H?


bio, bop, fib, fob, foh, fop, him, hip, hob, hop, imp, mho, mib, mob,
mop, obi, ohm, phi, poh, poi, pom
Harrison Hill
2018-09-13 17:26:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 20:19:16 UTC+1, soup wrote:
> On 12/09/2018 15:27, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> > Source: <https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/eastern-pacific/>
> >
> > Barijat
> > Mangkhut
> > Olivia
> > Paul
> > Florence
> > Issac
> > Helene
> >
> > Scrabble time: What word can you make out of B,M,O,P,F,I,H?
>
>
> bio, bop, fib, fob, foh, fop, him, hip, hob, hop, imp, mho, mib, mob,
> mop, obi, ohm, phi, poh, poi, pom

Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-13 19:29:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 18:26:47 UTC+1, Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 20:19:16 UTC+1, soup wrote:
> > On 12/09/2018 15:27, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> > > Source: <https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/eastern-pacific/>
> > >
> > > Barijat
> > > Mangkhut
> > > Olivia
> > > Paul
> > > Florence
> > > Issac
> > > Helene
> > >
> > > Scrabble time: What word can you make out of B,M,O,P,F,I,H?
> >
> >
> > bio, bop, fib, fob, foh, fop, him, hip, hob, hop, imp, mho, mib, mob,
> > mop, obi, ohm, phi, poh, poi, pom
>
> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?

What do you mean, "not"? MHO is a perfectly acceptable Scrabble
word.
Tak To
2018-09-13 21:09:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 1:26 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> [...]
>
> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?

Inverse-ohm, perhaps.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
bill van
2018-09-13 23:52:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-13 21:09:35 +0000, Tak To said:

> On 9/13/2018 1:26 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
>
> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.

It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the Official
Scrabble Dictionary.

bill
Richard Tobin
2018-09-14 08:44:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pnet8k$k8m$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:

>>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?

>> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.

>It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the Official
>Scrabble Dictionary.

Superseded in formal use by the siemens.

-- Richard
Peter Moylan
2018-09-14 11:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/09/18 18:44, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <pnet8k$k8m$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
>
>>> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.
>
>> It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the
>> Official Scrabble Dictionary.
>
> Superseded in formal use by the siemens.

Yes, but it depends on how formal. There are still plenty of people who
call a mho a mho. Also, the upside-down omega is still in use, although
the S rotated by 180 degrees is gaining ground.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Yates
2018-09-14 13:42:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:12:48 +1000, Peter Moylan
<***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 14/09/18 18:44, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <pnet8k$k8m$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
>>
>>>> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.
>>
>>> It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the
>>> Official Scrabble Dictionary.
>>
>> Superseded in formal use by the siemens.
>
>Yes, but it depends on how formal. There are still plenty of people who
>call a mho a mho. Also, the upside-down omega is still in use, although
>the S rotated by 180 degrees is gaining ground.

Isn't that identical to the S rotated by 360 degrees?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-09-14 14:37:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:42:19 -0700, Richard Yates
<***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:12:48 +1000, Peter Moylan
><***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 14/09/18 18:44, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <pnet8k$k8m$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
>>>
>>>>> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.
>>>
>>>> It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the
>>>> Official Scrabble Dictionary.
>>>
>>> Superseded in formal use by the siemens.
>>
>>Yes, but it depends on how formal. There are still plenty of people who
>>call a mho a mho. Also, the upside-down omega is still in use, although
>>the S rotated by 180 degrees is gaining ground.
>
>Isn't that identical to the S rotated by 360 degrees?

That depends on the axis of rotation.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-14 20:04:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 14 September 2018 15:37:55 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:42:19 -0700, Richard Yates
> <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:12:48 +1000, Peter Moylan
> ><***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>On 14/09/18 18:44, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>> In article <pnet8k$k8m$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
> >>>
> >>>>> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.
> >>>
> >>>> It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the
> >>>> Official Scrabble Dictionary.
> >>>
> >>> Superseded in formal use by the siemens.
> >>
> >>Yes, but it depends on how formal. There are still plenty of people who
> >>call a mho a mho. Also, the upside-down omega is still in use, although
> >>the S rotated by 180 degrees is gaining ground.
> >
> >Isn't that identical to the S rotated by 360 degrees?
>
> That depends on the axis of rotation.
>
>

A rotation around the y axis is not possible on a plane. Don't know about
other forms of transport!
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-15 12:22:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 10:37:55 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 06:42:19 -0700, Richard Yates
> <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:12:48 +1000, Peter Moylan
> ><***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>On 14/09/18 18:44, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>> In article <pnet8k$k8m$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
> >>>
> >>>>> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.
> >>>
> >>>> It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the
> >>>> Official Scrabble Dictionary.
> >>>
> >>> Superseded in formal use by the siemens.
> >>
> >>Yes, but it depends on how formal. There are still plenty of people who
> >>call a mho a mho. Also, the upside-down omega is still in use, although
> >>the S rotated by 180 degrees is gaining ground.
> >
> >Isn't that identical to the S rotated by 360 degrees?
>
> That depends on the axis of rotation.

Or, more conventionally, in most typefaces, the upper and lower curves of
an S aren't identical (the lower one has a slightly larger radius, for
instance), so a careful look can distinguish them.
Peter Moylan
2018-09-15 05:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/09/18 23:42, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:12:48 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 14/09/18 18:44, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <pnet8k$k8m$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
>>>
>>>>> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.
>>>
>>>> It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the
>>>> Official Scrabble Dictionary.
>>>
>>> Superseded in formal use by the siemens.
>>
>> Yes, but it depends on how formal. There are still plenty of people who
>> call a mho a mho. Also, the upside-down omega is still in use, although
>> the S rotated by 180 degrees is gaining ground.
>
> Isn't that identical to the S rotated by 360 degrees?

Yes, but you don't want to overdo the rotation.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
David Kleinecke
2018-09-15 18:33:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 10:13:27 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 14/09/18 23:42, Richard Yates wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:12:48 +1000, Peter Moylan
> > <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/09/18 18:44, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>> In article <pnet8k$k8m$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
> >>>
> >>>>> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.
> >>>
> >>>> It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the
> >>>> Official Scrabble Dictionary.
> >>>
> >>> Superseded in formal use by the siemens.
> >>
> >> Yes, but it depends on how formal. There are still plenty of people who
> >> call a mho a mho. Also, the upside-down omega is still in use, although
> >> the S rotated by 180 degrees is gaining ground.
> >
> > Isn't that identical to the S rotated by 360 degrees?
>
> Yes, but you don't want to overdo the rotation.

If you really want to get confused about rotation look
at the Banach-Tarski paradox. Now featured on sci.lang
thanks to Peter Olcutt. Or better yet don't look.
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-09-16 09:23:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Den 15-09-2018 kl. 20:33 skrev David Kleinecke:
> [...]
> If you really want to get confused about rotation look
> at the Banach-Tarski paradox.

Which is not really a paradox, but merely a counter-intuitive
consequence of the Axiom of Choice. Or a striking example
of why measures are far from simple.

> Now featured on sci.lang
> thanks to Peter Olcutt. Or better yet don't look.

I didn't. Why would it be bad?

/Anders, Denmark.
Peter Moylan
2018-09-16 11:12:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/09/18 19:23, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 15-09-2018 kl. 20:33 skrev David Kleinecke:
>> [...] If you really want to get confused about rotation look at the
>> Banach-Tarski paradox.
>
> Which is not really a paradox, but merely a counter-intuitive
> consequence of the Axiom of Choice. Or a striking example of why
> measures are far from simple.

You prompted me to look up yet again the Axiom of Choice. (It's easy to
forget the precise definition, especially since there are several
equivalent ways to state it.) I found this:

<quote>
For an infinite collection of pairs of socks (assumed to have no
distinguishing features), there is no obvious way to make a function
that selects one sock from each pair, without invoking the axiom of
choice.[2]
</quote>

Could this be an explanation of the socks-in-clothesdryer paradox?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Paul Wolff
2018-09-16 13:26:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Peter Moylan <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> posted:
>On 16/09/18 19:23, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
>> Den 15-09-2018 kl. 20:33 skrev David Kleinecke:
>>> [...] If you really want to get confused about rotation look at the
>>> Banach-Tarski paradox.
>>
>> Which is not really a paradox, but merely a counter-intuitive
>> consequence of the Axiom of Choice. Or a striking example of why
>> measures are far from simple.
>
>You prompted me to look up yet again the Axiom of Choice. (It's easy to
>forget the precise definition, especially since there are several
>equivalent ways to state it.) I found this:
>
><quote>
>For an infinite collection of pairs of socks (assumed to have no
>distinguishing features), there is no obvious way to make a function
>that selects one sock from each pair, without invoking the axiom of
>choice.[2]
></quote>

I haven't got the starting conditions: are the indistinguishable socks
paired or unpaired when selection begins? Nor are we told what
distinguishes a paired sock from an unpaired sock, when the socks are by
definition indistinguishable.
>
>Could this be an explanation of the socks-in-clothesdryer paradox?
>
A more fruitful line of enquiry, I'm sure.
--
Paul
David Kleinecke
2018-09-16 18:32:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 2:23:43 AM UTC-7, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 15-09-2018 kl. 20:33 skrev David Kleinecke:
> > [...]
> > If you really want to get confused about rotation look
> > at the Banach-Tarski paradox.
>
> Which is not really a paradox, but merely a counter-intuitive
> consequence of the Axiom of Choice. Or a striking example
> of why measures are far from simple.
>
> > Now featured on sci.lang
> > thanks to Peter Olcutt. Or better yet don't look.
>
> I didn't. Why would it be bad?

You might be tempted to reply to PO.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-18 06:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-15 18:33:21 +0000, David Kleinecke said:

> On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 10:13:27 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 14/09/18 23:42, Richard Yates wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:12:48 +1000, Peter Moylan
>>> <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/09/18 18:44, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>>> In article <pnet8k$k8m$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the
>>>>>> Official Scrabble Dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Superseded in formal use by the siemens.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but it depends on how formal. There are still plenty of people who
>>>> call a mho a mho. Also, the upside-down omega is still in use, although
>>>> the S rotated by 180 degrees is gaining ground.
>>>
>>> Isn't that identical to the S rotated by 360 degrees?
>>
>> Yes, but you don't want to overdo the rotation.
>
> If you really want to get confused about rotation look
> at the Banach-Tarski paradox. Now featured on sci.lang
> thanks to Peter Olcutt. Or better yet don't look.

He's been a bit quiet lately, but I haven't got my hopes up. He's been
quiet for longish periods before, but then he comes back with ten new
threads. In any case, the other three nutters are more than taking up
the slack.


--
athel
David Kleinecke
2018-09-18 19:46:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 11:37:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-09-15 18:33:21 +0000, David Kleinecke said:

> > If you really want to get confused about rotation look
> > at the Banach-Tarski paradox. Now featured on sci.lang
> > thanks to Peter Olcutt. Or better yet don't look.
>
> He's been a bit quiet lately, but I haven't got my hopes up. He's been
> quiet for longish periods before, but then he comes back with ten new
> threads. In any case, the other three nutters are more than taking up
> the slack.

I feel sorry for PO. His Asperger's (or whatever it is) keeps
leading him astray. He surely got excited about the Banach-Tarski
Paradox solely because Tarski's name was on it - it has nothing
to do with his primary preoccupation which is AI language
understanding.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-14 12:00:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 14 September 2018 09:45:02 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <pnet8k$k8m$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
>
> >> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.
>
> >It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the Official
> >Scrabble Dictionary.
>
> Superseded in formal use by the siemens.
>

They don't take words out of dictionaries just because some
jumped-up 'authority' decides to use a different one.
Tak To
2018-09-14 17:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 7:52 PM, bill van wrote:
> On 2018-09-13 21:09:35 +0000, Tak To said:
>
>> On 9/13/2018 1:26 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Not "mho". An anti-ohm to describe conductivity?
>>
>> Inverse-ohm, perhaps.
>
> It's "A unit of electrical conductance", according the the Official
> Scrabble Dictionary.

I know. My point is that "anti" implies more of the
additive inverse whereas "inverse" implies more of the
multiplicative one.

Going back a bit, I think one "anti-helen" should be a
measurement of the strength of the incentive to reject/expunge
rather than that of the disincentive to acquire/own (or
the incentive to share).

Hilter is about one anti-helen?

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Loading...