Most Scandinavian refer June-July-August as Summer months
They also don't consider 3am as being in the morning, but still middle of the night.
Reminds me of walking out of a movie theater in Fairbanks at 2:30 in the morning. (The late movie was Ferris Bueller's Day Off). The brilliant morning light caught us right in the eyes. It was truly the last thing I was expecting as I opened the door that June morning.
Most Scandinavian refer June-July-August as Summer months
They also don't consider 3am as being in the morning, but still middle of the night.
Spot on. And I've never understood the expression 'one in the morning'. 'Six in the morning', yes.. but not before. Of course right now it's sunny all the time (it's just a matter of where the sun is - east, south, west, north), so darkness doesn't even have anything to do with it. But 'one in the morning' is just funny..
'One in the morning' is to distinguish it from 'One in the afternoon'. Just saying 'one o'clock' can be ambiguous. The 12 hour clock is still commonly used in the UK.
Outside of the UK Europe is 24 hour for the most part, but we may still use the 12-hour system in speech. It's just that Scandinavians (I don't know about the rest of Europe) will say 'one in the night' (or 'four in the night') instead of '.. in the morning' (but as that expression 'one in the night' doesn't really exist in English, as far as I know, it sounds a bit awkward - that's just to compare with the 'in the morning' expression which doesn't work for Scandinavians because morning starts much later than at midnight. Morning is a time when you could presumably consider getting out of bed).
Well, I said 'presumably consider'.. as in 'in principle', not the actual time of getting out of bed
Back to the 'end of spring' issue (P2 timeframe), I guess I see where that come from, and where the error is. No problem with spring starting in March, the error is in assuming spring lasts a quarter of a year. Most, if not all places, spring is much shorter than that.
Outside of the UK Europe is 24 hour for the most part, but we may still use the 12-hour system in speech. It's just that Scandinavians (I don't know about the rest of Europe) will say 'one in the night' (or 'four in the night') instead of '.. in the morning' (but as that expression 'one in the night' doesn't really exist in English, as far as I know, it sounds a bit awkward - that's just to compare with the 'in the morning' expression which doesn't work for Scandinavians because morning starts much later than at midnight. Morning is a time when you could presumably consider getting out of bed).
In North America the most common expressions I hear are "nine o'clock at night", or somewhat less often "seven in the morning", and "nine pm" or "eight am". Also hear "seven in the evening" occasionally.
Europe went 24hr system about 30years ago with the influx of cheap Casio lcd watches that was in set 24hr mode as default.
Within a year all bus and TV schedules went 24hr.
It also helps that their language's over there makes it fast & easy to say: tjugo-noll-noll (20:00)
Are you saying they never had cheap Casio watches stateside?
Hmm...The British Navy switched to the 24-hour clock in 1915, that Army followed in 1918. British Rail and London Transport switched to the 24-hour clock for timetables in 1964. I don't recall there were any digital watches around til the late 70's or early 80's.
In 1972 or thereabouts I built a digital clock with Nixie tubes and TTL logic. It was defiantly a 12 hour clock
>Are you saying they never had cheap Casio watches stateside?
Probably they were sold as 12hr system am/pm by default in the states?.
In Europe (beside England) the words am-pm did not translate well as with LCD of the time the letters could not be made regional.
U.S does have military time but, ooh-eight-hundred-hours does not roll of your tongue
Oddly I'm surrounded by people in Scandinavia who use the 12-hour clock in normal everyday speech.
On the subject of units, yesterday I watched a YouTube video by a smart young American guy explaining all about Time Domain Reflectometry. All his calculations were done in nano-seconds and inches. It was painful.
Europe went 24hr system about 30years ago with the influx of cheap Casio lcd watches that was in set 24hr mode as default.
Are you saying that Casio watches caused Europe to go to the 24-hour system, or that the watches defaulted to 24-hour mode in Europe because that was the system used in Europe? The latter statement makes more sense to me.
>watches defaulted to 24-hour mode in Europe because that was the system used in Europe? The latter statement makes more sense to me.
Kitchen wall clocks was 12hr, but when I got my Casio watch and did not like the nondescript words am/pm, so I left it in 24hr mode.
I also noticed that around same time more things started going 24hr, and people start saying 'tjugo-ett' if them meant 9-in-the-evening.
Though there was probably some use of the 24hr system before that, the digital watches made the country of Sweden go completely 24hr in just 1-2 years.
But as the Danish is counting to 20 (not decimal 10) before they start over and for value 50 they say: two 20's and a half, I'm not sure how the 12/24hr system works out for them.
And the Germans way of saying the lower decimal digit first, probably makes it weird too.
Is it so that BC/AD don't work any more as well? Perhaps I missed the memo.
MEMO
To: Heater
From: Political Correctness Committee
Going forward, B.C.E (Before Common Era) should be used in lieu of BC (Before C
oops! can't use that word we don't want to offend anyone).
C.E. (Common Era) should be used in lieu of AD (Anno D
oops! can't use that word either!!).
Thank you for your consideration of these new terms.
There's never been an equivalent to 'am/pm' in Scandinavian, or most (if any) other non-English languages of modern times. As for the 24-hour clock, it has existed as far back as I can remember, and that's a long time before the invention of digital watches (LED came beforer LCD). It's not as if it's some kind of late twenty century change like going from horsepowers to kilowatts. It's just that analog clocks were, and are, in 12-hour format. And in daily speech we'll use 12 hours now and then, but there's no am/pm or equivalent suffix attached. If necessary you'll throw in an 'in the morning' or 'in the evening', but in most cases you would use it where context makes it clear. What never happens is *writing* in 12-hour format. It's simply not seen.
Aaand... there's no such thing as 'fifteen hundred', 15:00 isn't counting hundreds. It's 'fifteen null-null' or whatever works for the different languages.
I don't know. The 24-hour clock comes to us from the Egyptians and was in use in Europe since the end of the 1800's.
Amazingly the French did not manage to decimalize it!
Ah! Decimalising isn't very useful if the environment doesn't fit. Due to variability, the calender can never even be metricated let alone decimalised. So, for standard time measuring, only the unit of seconds is standardised.
Computing is another example where decimalising is awkward. Memory addressing is tied to the binary encoding of address bits. This leads to the more convenient units being based on a measure of base two rather than base ten.
It's not clear to me why the variability in time keeping you mention prevents time being counted in base 10. There is nothing intrinsically 12 or 24 or 60 about the way the Earth rotates every day or orbits the sun.
It's also not clear to me that decimal fit's any environment better or worse that base 12 or any other base.
The clash of binary with decimal is a particular pain. That's why 0.1 + 0.2 almost never equals 0.3 now a days. If only humans had settled on base 8 or 16.
It's not clear to me why the variability in time keeping you mention prevents time being counted in base 10. There is nothing intrinsically 12 or 24 or 60 about the way the Earth rotates every day or orbits the sun.
It's also not clear to me that decimal fit's any environment better or worse that base 12 or any other base.
The clash of binary with decimal is a particular pain. That's why 0.1 + 0.2 almost never equals 0.3 now a days. If only humans had settled on base 8 or 16.
Yes, if only evolution had given us three fingers to oppose the thumb, and of course four toes to match, working with computers would be so much easier. Sigh.
It's not clear to me why the variability in time keeping you mention prevents time being counted in base 10. There is nothing intrinsically 12 or 24 or 60 about the way the Earth rotates every day or orbits the sun.
True, but inertia of existing system means there has to be a compelling reason to change. Metricating the calender is dumb because it can only ever be piecemeal. One significant advantage of the ISO system over the myriad of imperial systems that preceded it is the uniformity of scale. Piecemeal fails to deliver that uniformity.
It's also not clear to me that decimal fit's any environment better or worse that base 12 or any other base.
That's just the inertia. We have base ten and there's no great reason to change.
If only humans had settled on base 8 or 16.
Heh, not enough foresight eh. Maybe computing will one day be considered a compelling reason.
I'm not sure about the link between number of fingers and the decimal system.. after all, the Babylonians and some others didn't use a base 10 system. There are still remnants of non-decimal thinking here and there. Score, dozen, the whole Danish numbering system (and the French as well), all those other older count units.. sheep herders in the Caucasus mountains counting sheep in base 2 (yes really - it's good for counting large numbers on your fingers, no thinking necessary).
Base 8 and 16, and even base 12 are in many ways better than base 10. I would be happy with any of them. Particularly 8 or 16 as I handle that already.
I'm partial to the base 12 system. If only because 12 is nicely divisible by 2, 3, 4 and 6. We had to learn our multiplication tables up to 12 times 12 back in the day. Last I saw schools had dropped that down to 10 times 10. Do they still do that at all today?
Nothing at all. It's like Brits waiting for a late bus...eventually they will start chatting to each other about nothing..."at least the weathers not bad"..."brrr, it'll be rain later"..."I have to have the cat put down because he's ill"..."where is that ruddy chip?"
Lol, I just viewed that phone numbers video. Talk about sweating the small stuff! That was bloody mind numbing, needless to say I didn't view the whole thing.
EDIT: Yes, nice pic of the new boards. Lots of easy access I/O points.
It's not clear to me why the variability in time keeping you mention prevents time being counted in base 10. There is nothing intrinsically 12 or 24 or 60 about the way the Earth rotates every day or orbits the sun.
It's also not clear to me that decimal fit's any environment better or worse that base 12 or any other base.
The clash of binary with decimal is a particular pain. That's why 0.1 + 0.2 almost never equals 0.3 now a days. If only humans had settled on base 8 or 16.
There may not be anything intrinsically base 12 about the earths rotation, but the time it takes for one rotation was divided up into base 12 multiples, so the only way to make it fit any other base neatly would be to change the length of the second. Not something to be done lightly since so many of our other units and measurements are based on the length of a second.
There may not be anything intrinsically base 12 about the earths rotation, but the time it takes for one rotation was divided up into base 12 multiples, so the only way to make it fit any other base neatly would be to change the length of the second. Not something to be done lightly since so many of our other units and measurements are based on the length of a second.
Researching the equation of time might be enlightening. I thought the earth rotated on its axis at a constant rate of once in 24 hours. After thinging about it I realized this couldn't be true or noon and midnight would be swapped every 6 months. I concluded that, in 24 hours, the earth rotated so that any given point would again be facing the sun. Again incorrect. The orbit of the earth around the sun isn't circular so its rotational speed changes during the year. This has been known for a long time I think. Do some research on sundials and the strange figure 8 on most of them.
Comments
Reminds me of walking out of a movie theater in Fairbanks at 2:30 in the morning. (The late movie was Ferris Bueller's Day Off). The brilliant morning light caught us right in the eyes. It was truly the last thing I was expecting as I opened the door that June morning.
Back to the 'end of spring' issue (P2 timeframe), I guess I see where that come from, and where the error is. No problem with spring starting in March, the error is in assuming spring lasts a quarter of a year. Most, if not all places, spring is much shorter than that.
-Tor
In North America the most common expressions I hear are "nine o'clock at night", or somewhat less often "seven in the morning", and "nine pm" or "eight am". Also hear "seven in the evening" occasionally.
Within a year all bus and TV schedules went 24hr.
It also helps that their language's over there makes it fast & easy to say: tjugo-noll-noll (20:00)
Hmm...The British Navy switched to the 24-hour clock in 1915, that Army followed in 1918. British Rail and London Transport switched to the 24-hour clock for timetables in 1964. I don't recall there were any digital watches around til the late 70's or early 80's.
In 1972 or thereabouts I built a digital clock with Nixie tubes and TTL logic. It was defiantly a 12 hour clock
Probably they were sold as 12hr system am/pm by default in the states?.
In Europe (beside England) the words am-pm did not translate well as with LCD of the time the letters could not be made regional.
U.S does have military time but, ooh-eight-hundred-hours does not roll of your tongue
Oddly I'm surrounded by people in Scandinavia who use the 12-hour clock in normal everyday speech.
On the subject of units, yesterday I watched a YouTube video by a smart young American guy explaining all about Time Domain Reflectometry. All his calculations were done in nano-seconds and inches. It was painful.
Amazingly the French did not manage to decimalize it!
Kitchen wall clocks was 12hr, but when I got my Casio watch and did not like the nondescript words am/pm, so I left it in 24hr mode.
I also noticed that around same time more things started going 24hr, and people start saying 'tjugo-ett' if them meant 9-in-the-evening.
Though there was probably some use of the 24hr system before that, the digital watches made the country of Sweden go completely 24hr in just 1-2 years.
But as the Danish is counting to 20 (not decimal 10) before they start over and for value 50 they say: two 20's and a half, I'm not sure how the 12/24hr system works out for them.
And the Germans way of saying the lower decimal digit first, probably makes it weird too.
Is it so that BC/AD don't work any more as well? Perhaps I missed the memo.
Aaand... there's no such thing as 'fifteen hundred', 15:00 isn't counting hundreds. It's 'fifteen null-null' or whatever works for the different languages.
Ah! Decimalising isn't very useful if the environment doesn't fit. Due to variability, the calender can never even be metricated let alone decimalised. So, for standard time measuring, only the unit of seconds is standardised.
Computing is another example where decimalising is awkward. Memory addressing is tied to the binary encoding of address bits. This leads to the more convenient units being based on a measure of base two rather than base ten.
It's also not clear to me that decimal fit's any environment better or worse that base 12 or any other base.
The clash of binary with decimal is a particular pain. That's why 0.1 + 0.2 almost never equals 0.3 now a days. If only humans had settled on base 8 or 16.
Yes, if only evolution had given us three fingers to oppose the thumb, and of course four toes to match, working with computers would be so much easier. Sigh.
True, but inertia of existing system means there has to be a compelling reason to change. Metricating the calender is dumb because it can only ever be piecemeal. One significant advantage of the ISO system over the myriad of imperial systems that preceded it is the uniformity of scale. Piecemeal fails to deliver that uniformity.
That's just the inertia. We have base ten and there's no great reason to change.
Heh, not enough foresight eh. Maybe computing will one day be considered a compelling reason.
Base 8 and 16, and even base 12 are in many ways better than base 10. I would be happy with any of them. Particularly 8 or 16 as I handle that already.
-Tor
Then there is the numberphile on how Americans are confused by British numbers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBbBbY4qvv4
I'm partial to the base 12 system. If only because 12 is nicely divisible by 2, 3, 4 and 6. We had to learn our multiplication tables up to 12 times 12 back in the day. Last I saw schools had dropped that down to 10 times 10. Do they still do that at all today?
You lot must have nothing better to do ;-)
Meanwhile.......
https://twitter.com/ParallaxKen/status/603598720190537729
Nothing at all. It's like Brits waiting for a late bus...eventually they will start chatting to each other about nothing..."at least the weathers not bad"..."brrr, it'll be rain later"..."I have to have the cat put down because he's ill"..."where is that ruddy chip?"
Neat picture, thanks.
EDIT: Yes, nice pic of the new boards. Lots of easy access I/O points.
There may not be anything intrinsically base 12 about the earths rotation, but the time it takes for one rotation was divided up into base 12 multiples, so the only way to make it fit any other base neatly would be to change the length of the second. Not something to be done lightly since so many of our other units and measurements are based on the length of a second.
Researching the equation of time might be enlightening. I thought the earth rotated on its axis at a constant rate of once in 24 hours. After thinging about it I realized this couldn't be true or noon and midnight would be swapped every 6 months. I concluded that, in 24 hours, the earth rotated so that any given point would again be facing the sun. Again incorrect. The orbit of the earth around the sun isn't circular so its rotational speed changes during the year. This has been known for a long time I think. Do some research on sundials and the strange figure 8 on most of them.
This thread has really run off the rails now.
Sandy