[OT] EDN cover art FAIL

I'm guessing they think that since they say "Top 100," that that thermometer should be showing 100, rather than 120 or whatever. It's a total non-sequitur, but that seldom dissuades the nitpickers. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Sergey Kubushyn:

The point is that they chose exactly the wrong value, since, for making a quick & approximate conversion, you must remember that -40 C = -40 F and that 1 Celsius degree is more or less 2+ 1/10 Fahrenheit.

So 100 F = -40 F + 140 F

-40 C + 77 C = 37 C (actually 38).

Artistic license be damned, target audience matters.

Ummm. 1 degree C is 1.8 degrees F instead of 2. 0 or 2.1 or 2 +/- 0.1 = x.

Using 2 instead of 1.8 is mighty sloppy for an engineering discussion group or engineering trade magazine.

josephkk:

I believe it is more than appropriate for Engineering. Maybe not for Physics or Mathematics.

Do you know what a slide rule is? The tailor has his scissors, the plumber has his wrench, what was the distinctive tool of the engineering trade before pocket calculators?

Slide rules are rather more accurate than the ~11% error in using 2 vs 1.8, though!

Try giving change for $2.00 as if it were $1.80, and see how far you get!

I took the examination for Professional Engineer in 1952, using a slide rule. This was before pocket calculators were available, but an error of 2 for 1.8 would have flunked all of the problems.

Did you hear about the constipated mathematician?

He worked it out with a pencil.

Cheers! Rich ( ;-)

Joel Koltner:

Sure, but who's using 2?

VWWall:

Probably that time you were paying more attention to the numbers. Please read again my example and wonder where that seven comes from.

F. Bertolazzi:

Er, one tenth of twice, which is 2/10

Like in the 7 above.

If you convert 1000 F in this way you get 532 C, which is not 537.77, but pretty close, and anyway much closer than using 2 instead of 1,8

You should stop, then.

Give it up. The remark you made was about as dumb as it gets, AND your subsequent remarks proves my remarks about you to be true.

Go ahead... act like it is not you that is frustrated.

I'll sit by watching and laughing.

The reference was to YOUR horseshit, you retarded twit.

We know.

Far more than you know, dipshit.

Do you think I give a fat flying f*ck what 96% percent of the people here care about? If so, you are dumber than I previously thought.

Furthermore, over 90 percent of actual engineering calculations do not need to be done with more than 2,5 significant digits; ideal for slide rules.

A slide rule user with a brain can glean as many as three accurate places. By adding a couple further calcs, one can resolve down even farther.

Seeing three accurate places is done on ANY slide rule calc I ever did.

If you are too stupid to see between the graduations and fancy accurate guesses in .2 of the increment span steps, you are too dumb to use a slide rule.

You called it .5, when we can easily resolve accurately, by sight, better than that as I just noted. Oh, and there is always that "when you do, your calcs will be more accurate" thing as well.

Who ever told you to regard the cursor falling between two increments as being only .5? It is quite easy to see four or even five breaks accurately between two ticks on a slide rule.

Put on some glasses.

TheGlimmerMan:

Evidently not, otherwise you would have stopped writing here long ago. Mine is called a rhetoric question, since the answer is already known.

You are just venting the frustration that cames from the fact that you believe you are much more intelligent than what you actually are.

And I'm reading it because I enjoy watching stupid bullies ridicule themselves.

I see that, as usual, it took you three tries to read and partly understand one post. Good boy, keep tryin'.

I work with satellites, and smart bomb controllers.

You?

Bwuahahahahahah!

I am a bully, because I reply to the fucktards attacking me by calling them the retarded bastards that they are?

You have a bent perception of reality, f*****ad.

The other 10% only need one significant digit? ;-)