[math-fun] Pi s ~= nanocentury
It may be an old joke for you, but I did not know that pi seconds are almost a nanocentury. - cf. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement>.
Yes. I heard about the term nanocentury at Lucasfilm from Tom Porter and Rodney Stock. One nanocentury is (said to be) how long a user is willing to wait for a response to an input action -- apparently the term originated at IBM in the 1960s. It's hard to believe that I'm the first to notice that pi seconds is roughly the same thing -- certainly within the usual precision of HCI measurements -- but that's what everyone thinks now. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:15 AM Georg Dr. Fischer < dr.georg.fischer@gmail.com> wrote:
It may be an old joke for you, but I did not know that pi seconds are almost a nanocentury. - cf. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement>. _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Hello, in the same vein : 1 attoparsec is about 3.085 cm. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attoparsec best regards, Simon Plouffe Le 2019-03-22 à 17:31, Tom Duff a écrit :
Yes. I heard about the term nanocentury at Lucasfilm from Tom Porter and Rodney Stock. One nanocentury is (said to be) how long a user is willing to wait for a response to an input action -- apparently the term originated at IBM in the 1960s. It's hard to believe that I'm the first to notice that pi seconds is roughly the same thing -- certainly within the usual precision of HCI measurements -- but that's what everyone thinks now.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:15 AM Georg Dr. Fischer < dr.georg.fischer@gmail.com> wrote:
It may be an old joke for you, but I did not know that pi seconds are almost a nanocentury. - cf. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement>. _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
In the same vein of Simon's same vein, one cubic attoparsec is about 1 fluid oz. (Actually, .993456 fluid oz.) (Not original to me, can't remember who told me.) On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:59 AM Simon Plouffe <simon.plouffe@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, in the same vein : 1 attoparsec is about 3.085 cm. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attoparsec
best regards, Simon Plouffe
Le 2019-03-22 à 17:31, Tom Duff a écrit :
Yes. I heard about the term nanocentury at Lucasfilm from Tom Porter and Rodney Stock. One nanocentury is (said to be) how long a user is willing to wait for a response to an input action -- apparently the term originated at IBM in the 1960s. It's hard to believe that I'm the first to notice that pi seconds is roughly the same thing -- certainly within the usual precision of HCI measurements -- but that's what everyone thinks now.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:15 AM Georg Dr. Fischer < dr.georg.fischer@gmail.com> wrote:
It may be an old joke for you, but I did not know that pi seconds are almost a nanocentury. - cf. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement>. _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
TD: "...apparently the term [nanocentury] originated at IBM in the 1960s. It's hard to believe that I'm the first to notice that pi seconds is roughly the same thing..." A Google books search finds a Proceedings, IBM Scientific Computing Symposium on Computers in Chemistry (1969) that has on page 92 a footnote: "A nanocentury is 3.15576 seconds."
In the same vein: If you take a circle whose diameter is one of Grace Hopper's nanoseconds, then its circumference would be an approximate attocentury. (The convention c = 1 is liberally assumed throughout.) -- APG.
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:00 PM From: "Hans Havermann" <gladhobo@bell.net> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] Pi s ~= nanocentury
TD: "...apparently the term [nanocentury] originated at IBM in the 1960s. It's hard to believe that I'm the first to notice that pi seconds is roughly the same thing..."
A Google books search finds a Proceedings, IBM Scientific Computing Symposium on Computers in Chemistry (1969) that has on page 92 a footnote: "A nanocentury is 3.15576 seconds."
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
there's also the microcentury, john von neumann's maximum length of a good lecture (52 min 35.7 sec). it's too bad this hard limit is ignored so often. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:21 AM Adam P. Goucher <apgoucher@gmx.com> wrote:
In the same vein: If you take a circle whose diameter is one of Grace Hopper's nanoseconds, then its circumference would be an approximate attocentury.
(The convention c = 1 is liberally assumed throughout.)
-- APG.
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:00 PM From: "Hans Havermann" <gladhobo@bell.net> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] Pi s ~= nanocentury
TD: "...apparently the term [nanocentury] originated at IBM in the 1960s. It's hard to believe that I'm the first to notice that pi seconds is roughly the same thing..."
A Google books search finds a Proceedings, IBM Scientific Computing Symposium on Computers in Chemistry (1969) that has on page 92 a footnote: "A nanocentury is 3.15576 seconds."
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Thane Plambeck tplambeck@gmail.com http://counterwave.com/
A light-nanosecond is 0.983571056 feet (11 51/64 inches). On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:28 AM Thane Plambeck <tplambeck@gmail.com> wrote:
there's also the microcentury, john von neumann's maximum length of a good lecture (52 min 35.7 sec). it's too bad this hard limit is ignored so often.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:21 AM Adam P. Goucher <apgoucher@gmx.com> wrote:
In the same vein: If you take a circle whose diameter is one of Grace Hopper's nanoseconds, then its circumference would be an approximate attocentury.
(The convention c = 1 is liberally assumed throughout.)
-- APG.
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:00 PM From: "Hans Havermann" <gladhobo@bell.net> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] Pi s ~= nanocentury
TD: "...apparently the term [nanocentury] originated at IBM in the 1960s. It's hard to believe that I'm the first to notice that pi seconds is roughly the same thing..."
A Google books search finds a Proceedings, IBM Scientific Computing Symposium on Computers in Chemistry (1969) that has on page 92 a footnote: "A nanocentury is 3.15576 seconds."
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Thane Plambeck tplambeck@gmail.com http://counterwave.com/ _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com http://math.ucr.edu/~mike https://reperiendi.wordpress.com
participants (8)
-
Adam P. Goucher -
Georg Dr. Fischer -
Hans Havermann -
Mark VandeWettering -
Mike Stay -
Simon Plouffe -
Thane Plambeck -
Tom Duff