Systems of measurement

[Cuddles]

Why can't everyone just use a sensible system of units? Why are so many people stuck with inconsistent, illogical archaic units when we have much more sensible ones which are far easier to use? This article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/) gives a perfect introduction into how a single, unified system can make things so much easier.

[MRT]

The stuff about swimming pools being the size of two buses or five dinosaurs comes from journalists and press departments. These are the same people who convert original thoughts into cliches and stereotypes for the 'benefit' of their readers. The following week they will run a story about how culture is being dumbed down.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Why can't everyone just use a sensible system of units? Why are so many people stuck with inconsistent, illogical archaic units when we have much more sensible ones which are far easier to use? This article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/) gives a perfect introduction into how a single, unified system can make things so much easier.

Mad magazine tried it, but it never caught on. Can't think why...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement#Conventional

[brianp]

What we really need on a forum like this is a unit of measurement to quantify Bullshit. So I'm going to propose the "Sarah" which is defined as the amount of bullshit inherent in the statement:


I tried to explain re the 84 day thing...there is a vibrational pattern to numbers and the 84 links to Uranus...Astronomers wouldn't agree to this ...but intuitive astologers would...I am aware of the facts... but there is a vibrational element to astrology that astronomers for the most part don't recognise..."For most everyday purposes the "millisarah" is sufficient.

[median]

What we really need on a forum like this is a unit of measurement to quantify Bullshit. So I'm going to propose the "Sarah" which is defined as the amount of bullshit inherent in the statement:


;D;D

Speaking of measurement units. A friend of mine and I once developed a scale cataloging burp ratings on fizzy drinks. Coke was defined as 1C. Most drinks didn't even come close;D

[bindeweede]

What we really need on a forum like this is a unit of measurement to quantify Bullshit. So I'm going to propose the "Sarah" which is defined as the amount of bullshit inherent in the statement:

For most everyday purposes the "millisarah" is sufficient.

So, have I got this right, you are proposing an SI unit for BS:cheesy:. A good idea, and the "Sarah" would be just about as good a unit as any.

So how many divisions would you have on the scale? If you are thinking of 1000, I think this would lead to conflict. "I think this this statement merits 438 milliSarahs" . "No, it is more like 521 milliSarahs", etc. A scale of 1 to 10 would probably be enough.;D
Then you would have to address the issue of decimal places.;)

[Allo Allo]

Why can't everyone just use a sensible system of units? Why are so many people stuck with inconsistent, illogical archaic units when we have much more sensible ones which are far easier to use? This article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/) gives a perfect introduction into how a single, unified system can make things so much easier.

Delightful article! Thanks Cuddles. I'll never look at a sheep in the same way again! ;D

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Perhaps we could have a new unit of length, the credule, based on how far you can throw a psychic. If we set that at 10 credules, then 1 credule would be how far you can trust them.

[bindeweede]

Perhaps we could have a new unit of length, the credule, based on how far you can throw a psychic. If we set that at 10 credules, then 1 credule would be how far you can trust them.

Very good. I like.;D

[brianp]

So, have I got this right, you are proposing an SI unit for BS:cheesy:. A good idea, and the "Sarah" would be just about as good a unit as any.

So how many divisions would you have on the scale? If you are thinking of 1000, I think this would lead to conflict. "I think this this statement merits 438 milliSarahs" . "No, it is more like 521 milliSarahs", etc. A scale of 1 to 10 would probably be enough.;D
Then you would have to address the issue of decimal places.;)

No, any SI unit has to have a basic unit (sarah or Sa) and all the prefixes too, terrasarah TSa, megasarah MSa, gigasarah GSa, kilosarahs KSa, millisarah mSa, nanosarah nSa etc - and a given quantity of bullshit can be expressed in any of them. So if a statement "Yes darling, that hat really suits you" is worth say 456 mSa (456 millisarahs) it can also be written as 0.456 Sa (0.456 sarahs), 456000000 nSa (456000000 nanosarahs) or 0.000456 KSa.

[Allo Allo]

Perhaps we could have a new unit of length, the credule, based on how far you can throw a psychic. If we set that at 10 credules, then 1 credule would be how far you can trust them.

I really like credules - just rolls off the tongue - mush easier to say than Sarahs - and I don't think she should be acknowledged in Sarahs - 'cause the next thing you know she might put about that she's "famous" for Sarahs! Don't go there! Credules is really brilliant - and it doesn't pick on one person - or has it been done before?

[brianp]

I really like credules - just rolls off the tongue - mush easier to say than Sarahs - and I don't think she should be acknowledged in Sarahs - 'cause the next thing you know she might put about that she's "famous" for Sarahs! Don't go there! Credules is really brilliant - and it doesn't pick on one person - or has it been done before?

OK, the "credule" it is.

[Araneus]

Credule is much better than Sarah, since it sounds like a unit (c.f. Joule) and doesn't rely on reference to a single person.

The next question is, how should it be defined? Does it refer to the production of bullshit or the receptiveness to it? If it is the latter, it could be defined such that 1 credule is the amount of credulity necessary to believe a particular statement (e.g. "The invasion of Iraq was a critical tool in the fight against terrorism" to pick an obvious but possibly too political example).

[Allo Allo]

OK, the "credule" it is.

Great! I see it as being very useful in all sorts of settings! I have taken it into my thinking system already!

"credule, based on how far you can throw a psychic. If we set that at 10 credules, then 1 credule would be how far you can trust them."

What politicians say could be measured in credules.
Certain things people say like "everythings going to be all right" when you know damn well it isn't can be measureed in credules.

I would use fractions of a credule too.

At our last staff meeting a raise was suggessted as being immanent (as it has been for the last two years) - 0.50 credules! (measuring MY belief) or 1000 credules (measuring bullshit value).

Which way does it work?

[brianp]

I would suggest that the higher the bullshit rating the higher the measurement should be. So - "of course I like that hat" would be, say, 50 credules, while Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman ..." would rate at least 1000.

[Araneus]

At our last staff meeting a raise was suggessted as being immanent (as it has been for the last two years)

im·ma·nent (ĭm'ə-nənt)
adj.
Existing or remaining within; inherent: believed in a God immanent in humans.
Restricted entirely to the mind; subjective.Sound like that is exactly what they meant.

[Allo Allo]

im·ma·nent (ĭm'ə-nənt)
adj.
Existing or remaining within; inherent: believed in a God immanent in humans.
Restricted entirely to the mind; subjective.Sound like that is exactly what they meant.

Yes! ;D;D

sorry - think I meant "imminent" ;D is that right? :-\

[Dr B]

I have always found the "Canard" particularly useful...;D

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I have always found the "Canard" particularly useful...;D

Excellent idea! Perhaps we could use the " credule" and the " Canard" in a combined system- common measure and rank-ordering?

:-)