What is the newest installment of 'Random Thoughts' on Physics Forums?

[jim hardy]

Grand-daughter, nine, sure increased her prowess at swimming this last week in our lake.
Went from just a couple yards of dog paddle to fifty feet, still dog paddling with arms but good leg kicking,
she's almost ready to put face under water .
Have two days left to advance her to breast stroke, hyping it as "Frog Paddle"
and she tried out the kayak...
it's good for them to succeed.

 

[Sophia]

Grand-daughter, nine, sure increased her prowess at swimming this last week in our lake.
Went from just a couple yards of dog paddle to fifty feet, still dog paddling with arms but good leg kicking,
she's almost ready to put face under water .
Have two days left to advance her to breast stroke, hyping it as "Frog Paddle"
and she tried out the kayak...
it's good for them to succeed.

I'm sure she enjoys the time spent with her grand dad. And once she'll be thankful to you for teaching her to swim :-) same as it was something very special for me when my grandpa taught me to ride a bike.
There's something unique about the bond between grandchildren and grandparents if the relationships in the family are healthy.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-the-oxford-comma-and-why-do-people-care-so-much-about-it/

 

[Sophia]

I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-the-oxford-comma-and-why-do-people-care-so-much-about-it/

That's interesting, never heard of Oxford comma before. In fact, I would assume that a comma before "and" is a mistake. I'll be wiser now!

 

[Pepper Mint]

That's interesting, never heard of Oxford comma before. In fact, I would assume that a comma before "and" is a mistake. I'll be wiser now!

I think I like Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty, and also find myself interested in other pop stars.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's interesting, never heard of Oxford comma before. In fact, I would assume that a comma before "and" is a mistake. I'll be wiser now!

Just to be clear, a comma before "and" is a mistake (or, at least, unnecessary) when you have only two things. It becomes necessary with three or more things (a list) to avoid the sort of confusion that comes from constructions like, "I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty."

 

[fresh_42]

Just to be clear, a comma before "and" is a mistake (or, at least, unnecessary) when you have only two things. It becomes necessary with three or more things (a list) to avoid the sort of confusion that comes from constructions like, "I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty."

My difficulty arises from the fact, that it would be an error in my language. It would only be mandatory, if it was followed by a complete sentence and thus changes the subject.
The distinction between two and more listed objects sounds somehow not logic (to me).

 

[Ibix]

Just to be clear, a comma before "and" is a mistake (or, at least, unnecessary) when you have only two things. It becomes necessary with three or more things (a list) to avoid the sort of confusion that comes from constructions like, "I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty."

I don't think it's so easy. Consider a modification of your list: "I love my mum, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty", which is unambiguous. If I put in an Oxford comma I get: "I love my mum, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty". That can be read as stating that my mum is Lady Gaga.

Edit: I agree that a comma is unnecessary for a two-element list. Care is necessary when it is possible to read a sub-list as an expansion of the elements preceding it.

I think.

 

[Sophia]

My difficulty arises from the fact, that it would be an error in my language. It would only be mandatory, if it was followed by a complete sentence.
The distinction between two and more listed objects sounds somehow not logic (to me).

Same here. Rule that there should never be a comma before "and" is one of the first grammar rules we learn (unless there's an exception, of course ).
I confess that I haven't studied use of comma in English and that's why I usually use Slovak rules in my writing. There are only some cases when I noticed that it should be used and remembered it after seeing the expressions many times (Eg. "in fact," before "too" and similar).
I should really look into these things. And revise conditionals and phrasals.

 

[fresh_42]

Same here. Rule that there should never be a comma before "and" is one of the first grammar rules we learn (unless there's an exception, of course ).
I confess that I haven't studied use of comma in English and that's why I usually use Slovak rules in my writing. There are only some cases when I noticed that it should be used and remembered it after seeing the expressions many times (Eg. "in fact," before "too" and similar).
I should really look into these things. And revise conditionals and phrasals.

Only thing I know about them is, that there are far less commas in English. In case of doubt, I just don't make one or I make a point.
E.g:

If I put in an Oxford comma I get: ...

would have to be "If I put in an Oxford comma, I (will) get: ..." in German.

The side effect, however, is that I unfortunately kind of randomize the usage of commas in English.
A US-American once told me that our sentences are far too long. That has been a good advice.

 

[Sophia]

Only thing I know about them is, that there are far less commas in English. In case of doubt, I just don't make one or I make a point.
E.g:

would have to be "If I put in an Oxford comma, I (will) get: ..." in German.

The side effect, however, is that I unfortunately kind of randomize the usage of commas in English.
A US-American once told me that our sentences are far too long. That has been a good advice.

Exactly! We would use a comma in that sentence as well. And we are encouraged to use long sentences in essays, which earns you extra points for using elaborate language. And you can prove you know rules about commas, too. .

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think it's so easy. Consider a modification of your list: "I love my mum, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty", which is unambiguous.

Actually, this could be read to mean your mum is both Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty. Suppose, for example, your mum played both characters in some theatrical production, or, went as Lady Gaga to one Halloween party and as Humpty Dumpty to another.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Care is necessary when it is possible to read a sub-list as an expansion of the elements preceding it.

Yes.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Exactly! We would use a comma in that sentence as well. And we are encouraged to use long sentences in essays, which earns you extra points for using elaborate language. And you can prove you know rules about commas, too. .

I would have put a comma there, too.

 

[Ibix]

Actually, this could be read to mean your mum is both Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty. Suppose, for example, your mum played both characters in some theatrical production, or, went as Lady Gaga to one Halloween party and as Humpty Dumpty to another.

Could be. Context is key...

 

[fresh_42]

Could be. Context is key...

I tend to say you are right: "I love my mum, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty." is obviously an apposition.

 

[Pepper Mint]

I don't care about long or short sentences, provided that you know how to rhyme your words to make me/readers feel good while reading your sentences. I would try to read between the lines.

 

[fresh_42]

I would try to read between the lines.

Are you British?

 

[Pepper Mint]

Are you British?

Yes I am a British person born in Africa but bred and living in Asia and Oceania.

 

[collinsmark]

I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-the-oxford-comma-and-why-do-people-care-so-much-about-it/

The way I was taught, the Oxford comma (as we're calling it here) is appropriate when listing proper names. For example, if you see a sign on small office building, "The Law Offices of Peterman, Miller, and Schmitt," the comma before "and" would be completely appropriate. And in my experiences, most proper names are listed this way (particularly in business names that include several proper names). But when listing mundane things, for example, "I like apples, oranges and pears," just leave it out.

I suppose that's a second reason why it should be used in "...my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty."

 

[zoobyshoe]

The way I was taught, the Oxford comma (as we're calling it here) is appropriate when listing proper names. For example, if you see a sign on small office building, "The Law Offices of Peterman, Miller, and Schmitt," the comma before "and" would be completely appropriate. And in my experiences, most proper names are listed this way (particularly in business names that include several proper names). But when listing mundane things, for example, "I like apples, oranges and pears," just leave it out.

I suppose that's a second reason why it should be used in "...my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty."

I'm pretty sure it applies to any list of any kind. Here's a site that supports that:

Rule 1. Use commas to separate words and word groups in a simple series of three or more items.

Example: My estate goes to my husband, son, daughter-in-law, and nephew.

Note: When the last comma in a series comes before and or or (after daughter-in-law in the above example), it is known as the Oxford comma. Most newspapers and magazines drop the Oxford comma in a simple series, apparently feeling it's unnecessary. However, omission of the Oxford comma can sometimes lead to misunderstandings.

Example: We had coffee, cheese and crackers and grapes.

Adding a comma after crackers makes it clear that cheese and crackers represents one dish. In cases like this, clarity demands the Oxford comma.

We had coffee, cheese and crackers, and grapes.

Fiction and nonfiction books generally prefer the Oxford comma. Writers must decide Oxford or no Oxford and not switch back and forth, except when omitting the Oxford comma could cause confusion as in the cheese and crackers example.

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp

 

[WWGD]

Nasty episode at McD's the other day. They have this no-loitering, rule that says a 10-15 min. only stay time while consuming food
(this is the type of rule that is not commonly enforced, but instead done so when management wants to,
basically, get rid of someone). This lady was (falsely) accused of loitering, and was asked to leave the premises.
She showed her receipt and an actual coffee she was consuming at the moment, to no avail; the security guy was aggressively asking
her to leave. There was a cop who ganged up with security against the lady, adding to the pressure for her to leave right away. The lady started
protesting loudly that she was being falsely accused. A second cop joined in while a few customers were shouting things like,
"leave her the f*@k alone , she bought something". Lady eventually left, obviously upset. A tense atmosphere remained for some
20-30 minutes afterwards, after which I left. Many customers left during the incident.

 

[fresh_42]

Nasty episode at McD's the other day...

Christianity at its best. If they only weren't emphasizing their "belief" several times a day ...

 

[Pepper Mint]

That horrible!

 

[WWGD]

Christianity at its best. If they only weren't emphasizing their "belief" several times a day ...

?? This McDonalds.

 

[WWGD]

That horrible!

Yes, it was pretty bad. I was upset for a few hours afterwards. Lady appeared to be poor , from the way she was dressed. I suspect they would not have done this to someone who was better dressed -- meaning likely to be wealthier and better-educated (because then they would likely both have a better knowledge of their rights and be able to hire a lawyer).

 

[Sophia]

Nasty episode at McD's the other day. .

That's terrible. Why do you think they did that?
Edit: Sorry I didn't see your previous post.

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, it was pretty bad. I was upset for a few hours afterwards. Lady appeared to be poor , from the way she was dressed. I suspect they would not have done this to someone who was better dressed -- meaning likely to be wealthier and better-educated (because then they would likely both have a better knowledge of their rights and be able to hire a lawyer).

While I was a student I once decided to buy me some trousers during lunch time. I have been dressed with an old jeans, an old jacket and possibly haven't been shaved. In the first shop I entered there have been two mid-aged ladies as service personal. Perhaps I better should have said, two chatterboxes. I was obviously disturbing them and was rather lost in the store. So I left and entered the next shop nearby. This time I met two (obviously gay) men as service personal. I have been lost, too, because I didn't really see what I was looking for. But the two guys managed to sell me some trousers, despite of my "poor" appearance, which later on turned into one of my favorite trousers.

It doesn't always be like it seems at first glance. (The more I think about it the more I tend to say: It is never like it seems.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nasty episode at McD's the other day. They have this no-loitering, rule that says a 10-15 min. only stay time while consuming food
(this is the type of rule that is not commonly enforced, but instead done so when management wants to,
basically, get rid of someone). This lady was (falsely) accused of loitering, and was asked to leave the premises.
She showed her receipt and an actual coffee she was consuming at the moment, to no avail; the security guy was aggressively asking
her to leave. There was a cop who ganged up with security against the lady, adding to the pressure for her to leave right away. The lady started
protesting loudly that she was being falsely accused. A second cop joined in while a few customers were shouting things like,
"leave her the f*@k alone , she bought something". Lady eventually left, obviously upset. A tense atmosphere remained for some
20-30 minutes afterwards, after which I left. Many customers left during the incident.

I believe McDonald's is slowly going insane. They have lost touch with everything that once made them such a successful business.

 

[WWGD]

That's terrible. Why do you think they did that?
Edit: Sorry I didn't see your previous post.

Oh, no problem, here is my take. I think part of a personality issue, meaning here the personality of the city. New York's main theme is
success, "making it". And as a result, those who do not seem to have made it are not considered to be (all this at a collective subconscious level ) as being worthy of consideration as people who at least give an outward appearance of success (more so than most places; poor people are mistreated in most places). There was an interesting book a few years back on the personality of cities by Richard Florida; I think the name was "Who's your City" (as in "who's your daddy") EDIT: There may be additional factors to consider that affect this particular store, (34-35th and 8th Av.) :http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/n...mcdonalds-arent-there-for-the-fries.html?_r=0

 

[WWGD]

I believe McDonald's is slowly going insane. They have lost touch with everything that once made them such a successful business.

No kidding; security, management trained by Attila the Hun's school of charm.

EDIT: Although to be fair, the issue may be related to this particular store ( bet 34th and 35th and 8th Av.):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/n...mcdonalds-arent-there-for-the-fries.html?_r=0 where junkies hang out.

 

[Sophia]

Oh, no problem, here is my take. I think part of a personality issue, meaning here the personality of the city. New York's main theme is
success, "making it". And as a result, those who do not seem to have made it are not considered to be (all this at a collective subconscious level ) as being worthy of consideration as people who at least give an outward appearance of success (more so than most places; poor people are mistreated in most places). There was an interesting book a few years back on the personality of cities by Richard Florida; I think the name was "Who's your City" (as in "who's your daddy") EDIT: There may be additional factors to consider that affect this particular store, (34-35th and 8th Av.) :http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/n...mcdonalds-arent-there-for-the-fries.html?_r=0

What an interesting article. It explains a lot. Though it was maybe unfair to this particular lady who may have been thrown out without reason. But they may know her because maybe she did something illegal there in the past? Still, there was no reason to kick her out if she was drinking peacefully yesterday.

It's strange that the security guy leaves at 2pm. Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to have 24 hour security present? Then more "normal" people would visit because they wouldn't be afraid of the addicts.
Still , as we see, there's always a risk of judging people based on their looks which is unacceptable. The job of security guide there would require intensive training and experience so that they can judge properly.

Though it's difficult because if they can't go to macdonalds they will go elsewhere. It's such a complicated situation.

 

[WWGD]

What an interesting article. It explains a lot. Though it was maybe unfair to this particular lady who may have been thrown out without reason. But they may know her because maybe she did something illegal there in the past? Still, there was no reason to kick her out if she was drinking peacefully yesterday.

It's strange that the security guy leaves at 2pm. Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to have 24 hour security present? Then more "normal" people would visit because they wouldn't be afraid of the addicts.
Still , as we see, there's always a risk of judging people based on their looks which is unacceptable. The job of security guide there would require intensive training and experience so that they can judge properly.

Though it's difficult because if they can't go to macdonalds they will go elsewhere. It's such a complicated situation.

EDIT: Yes, it is pretty difficult considering the strong sense of exercising one's freedom and independence from people in the U.S. Still, as you said, I agree it seems (unless, e.g., there is some history we don't know about) that this lady was treated unfairly. There are ways of learning to deal with difficult situations other than by reacting aggressively . But I myself am sometimes guilty of reacting aggressively when using more finesse would work much more effectively..

 

[zoobyshoe]

No kidding; security, management trained by Attila the Hun's school of charm.

EDIT: Although to be fair, the issue may be related to this particular store ( bet 34th and 35th and 8th Av.):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/n...mcdonalds-arent-there-for-the-fries.html?_r=0 where junkies hang out.

The insanity is evident from them jumping on someone for loitering when they have the vastly worse problem of people shooting up in the restrooms.

I went to the McDonalds down the street here a few months ago and got a cup of coffee. I drank it out in the parking lot so I could smoke a cig at the same time. When I went back in for a refill, the manager said I had to pay full price because I had left the premises. Refills are only for people who remain on the premises.

What they're trying to discourage are bums who pick a cup out of the garbage outside and take it in and just pay the refill price, falsely claiming they'd bought a cup at full price earlier. But, despite the fact this very guy had sold me the coffee and that I still had my receipt, he felt it necessary to strictly enforce the letter of the law, and refuse me a refill priced refill.

Starbucks, on the other hand, completely doesn't care if three or four bums do that every day. They have these minor sorts of losses in perspective, and don't go nuts trying to prevent them, which would just be off-putting to regular customers. Starbucks realizes no one wants to stand in line hearing an employee interrogating a bum about whether or not they actually paid full price for a coffee earlier.

 

[Astronuc]

Is your financial advisory your fiduciary?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/op-ed-john-oliver-financial-130705640.html

US News article from March 19, 2015.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...5/03/19/is-your-financial-advisor-a-fiduciary

 

[fresh_42]

Funny: http://www.sciencealert.com/this-si...-york-subway-to-convert-fahrenheit-to-celsius

... which only leaves the question where to get a NYC subway plan from ...

 

[Sophia]

Funny: http://www.sciencealert.com/this-si...-york-subway-to-convert-fahrenheit-to-celsius

... which only leaves the question where to get a NYC subway plan from ...

That's a cool trick!
It would be useful. I'm slowly getting used to the concept of gallons and inches (I still can't estimate them exactly, but I'm able to tell if the computer screen is large or small and I know that my aquarium is 33 gallons so I can roughly imagine what 5 or 100 gallons looks like) but temperature? Omg I have to use converter all the time!

 

[Pepper Mint]

That's a cool trick!
It would be useful. I'm slowly getting used to the concept of gallons and inches (I still can't estimate them exactly, but I'm able to tell if the computer screen is large or small and I know that my aquarium is 33 gallons so I can roughly imagine what 5 or 100 gallons looks like) but temperature? Omg I have to use converter all the time!

I think PF should also include a rule that any members posting anything related to their own local specifics should or have to state their globally known variants for the rest of other people to understand (e.g 1-3 gallons [xxx liters], 5-8 inches [xxx cm]). Or they should drop the numbers otherwise.

 

[Sophia]

At the fish forum I visit, there's a converter at the bottom of the page. It's very practical.
However, as you say, it would be much more effective if OP used measurements in both systems.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

... e.g 1-3 gallons [xxx liters] ...

And is that US gallons or UK (Imperial) gallons? The UK gallon was originally based on the volume of 10 pounds of water. I know that the US gallon is quite a bit smaller but I don't know what it was based on.

 

[jim hardy]

I know that the US gallon is quite a bit smaller but I don't know what it was based on.

per wiki

The American colonists adopted a system based on the 231-cubic-inch wine gallon for all fluid purposes. This became the US fluid gallon.

ratio Imperial/US gallons is very close to 5/4 .

 

[fresh_42]

I can roughly imagine what 5 or 100 gallons looks like) but temperature?

I always remember the formula with $100°C = 212°F$. Therefore it has to be $°F - 32 → /9 → \cdot 5$.

And is that US gallons or UK (Imperial) gallons?

It gets even funnier with miles: nautical, Russian, US, British, and I suppose several more.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

per wiki

Well, the wiki says that the US gallon was originally the volume of a cylinder 6 inches deep and 7 inches in diameter, which comes to about 230.9 cubic inches and was subsequently rounded to 231 cubic inches by definition. However, that doesn't really "explain" very well where it came from.

 

[WWGD]

Well, the wiki says that the US gallon was originally the volume of a cylinder 6 inches deep and 7 inches in diameter, which comes to about 230.9 cubic inches and was subsequently rounded to 231 cubic inches by definition. However, that doesn't really "explain" very well where it came from.

Jonathan, how well do you think these measures describe general differences in "dispositions"(not sure it is the right word) between English and French? I mean, English measures are empirically-based: feet, gallons, acres, etc., many of them describe units found in areas of daily life. French units are more abstract and idealized in a sense. Am I grasping for straws, or is there something to what I said?

 

[Jonathan Scott]

My guess is that all countries including France originally had their own practical local measurements. France after the French Revolution decided to adopt a new set of scientifically-based measurements at a time when the enthusiasm for new ideas was sufficient to overcome the inertia.

 

[Astronuc]

Creative demonstration of gravity waves.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-best-gravitational-waves-explainers-191107941.html

 

[WWGD]

Let me elaborate on what I meant, just in case, and for the sake of clarifying the idea to myself as well: Anglo/British measures originate mostly from practical , daily experiences: feet originate from the length of an average foot, similar for acres, bushels, etc. , while the metric system seems to be based more on pure, theoretical notions of the properties that a measurement should have, without any significant apparent concern for the practicality and applicability of its system. A meter is 100 centimeters, which are 1000 millimeters , and so on. There is a (superficial, at least) correspondence on the main philosophical inclinations: main Empiricist philosophers (Hume, Berkeley, Locke ,etc.) were Englishmen. Main Rationalists where French (at least continental: Descartes, Spinoza)

 

[Pepper Mint]

Here is the history of measurement systems.

The metric system was first described in 1668, and officially adopted by France in 1799. Over the course of the 1800s and 1900s, it became the dominant system worldwide including the only measurement system enacted by law by the United States. Numerous countries continue to use their customary units. The American system is unusual, however, in not having adjusted itself to close metric values in the manner of the Scandinavian mile (now 10 km exactly), the Chinese jin (now 0.5 kg exactly) or the Dutch ons(now 100 g).

 

[fresh_42]

We have had cubits. But whose underarm was it? A reference meter sounds much more logical than former measurements.
In my book about units they wrote: The advantage of body measures have been their overall availability. However, with increasing trade structures they had been too inaccurate. Therefore they established references at town halls. But again with increasing trades local measure weren't effective either. With science on the rise Huygens suggested the length of a pendulum at 1 Hz. But again this wasn't equal at all locations. Therefore they defined the meter (1791) as the 10 millionth part of Earth's quadrant.

E.g.: 1 mile =
7.5 km (Germany)
7.4676 km (Russia)
1.6093426 km (GB)
1.6093472 (US)
1.853181 (nautical, GB)
1.853248 (nautical, US)

What a mess!

 

[WWGD]

We have had cubits. But whose underarm was it? A reference meter sounds much more logical than former measurements.
In my book about units they wrote: The advantage of body measures have been their overall availability. However, with increasing trade structures they had been too inaccurate. Therefore they established references at town halls. But again with increasing trades local measure weren't effective either. With science on the rise Huygens suggested the length of a pendulum at 1 Hz. But again this wasn't equal at all locations. Therefore they defined the meter (1791) as the 10 millionth part of Earth's quadrant.

E.g.: 1 mile =
7.5 km (Germany)
7.4676 km (Russia)
1.6093426 km (GB)
1.6093472 (US)
1.853181 (nautical, GB)
1.853248 (nautical, US)

What a mess!

Try looking for best-priced products when you need to compare gallons to fl. oz, to liters, etc. $5.99 for fl. oz vs. $7 for 1/2 gallon , etc ( made up )