Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

tom wrote in
. net:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Actually it comes out during the TV play and at
least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?"

Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out.

tom
K0TAR


I never saw that one.. Read the books, but I don't remember that, at
least not with much meaning. Maybe just to indicate human capacity for
coming up with wrong answers from wrong questions? I doubt he ever
spelled out what the real roots were. A good magician doesn't
deliberately and publicly spoil the illusion (or in his case,
allusion, perhaps). The one thing I'm fairly sure of is that the
references were cultural, colloquial, and that's why so many people
got it. Without that it might have just been another impenetratable
space opera with humour thrown in.

Ok, a hint. 9 times 6 IS 42.

tom
K0TAR


Well, I wondered about non-euclidean geometry for a moment, then
remembered Greg House saying something about working smart, not hard,
and no-one said I couldn't plunder Wikipedia, so....

Actually, before I got there, I wasn't even sure if what Adams had
denied was that "six times nine equals thirteen is wrong", or that he
denied the more interesting case that it was its correctness in base 13
that explained the 'answer'. Apparently he did deny it. Which doesn't
mean it isn't true. But according to Wikipedia's stuff, he chose a
small number that looked ordinary and totally unprofound. Which means
that he let whim, i.e. unconscious conditioning hold sway, without
attempt to mediate it. Given that the English colloquilasm would never
be entirely far from a writer wose native language and culture was
English, I stand by my 'theory'. Though I'd like to know if he was
ever directly questioned about the 'sixes and sevens' thing and denied
it. Even then, he would be telling the truth if it hadn't been
conscious. MUCH more like he was influence ny this that by base 13, no?

Maybe you should get me started on my idea for The Long Dark Teatime Of
The Soul, you might like it. The only thing I'll say about it now,
unprompted, is that in this case the allusion isn't English, it's
French.


I also found this:
"Stephen Fry, a friend of Adams, claims that Adams told him "exactly why 42",
and that the reason is[12] "fascinating, extraordinary and, when you think
hard about it, completely obvious." However, Fry says that he has vowed not
to tell anyone the secret, and that it must go with him to the grave."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galax
y

I have never met Stephen Fry, and I suspect he wouldn't confirm my idea if I
did ask him, but it would fit, given the way thoughts run if you ponder it
for a while. Considering the phrase "all at sixes and sevens" in the context
of the way HHGTTG works is revealing to the point that even if it really were
the original basis, I wouldn't consider it a spoiler if I'd been told either
before or after thinking of it for myself.

Can't help wondering when people are going to talk about antennas again.

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 02:51:37 -0000, wrote:

In fact, the origins of the standard gauge considerably predate the Roman
Empire, and may even predate the invention of the wheel. The width of
prehistoric vehicles was determined by number of interacting factors which
gave rise to a fairly standard vehicle width of a little under 2 metres
(6.6 ft) These factors have changed little over the millenia, and are still
reflected in today's motor vehicles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge

Yep. Put two people comfortably on a bench and measure the width of
the bench. That's the minimum cart width. They probably should have
changed over the millenia as we are becoming larger and more rotund.

I dunno about the "standard" gauge. There seems to be quite a few
not-so-standard gauges in use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_gauges

Of course, the US standards were established in the time honored
traditional methods of politics, rhetoric, violence, and open warfa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Gauge_War


Best argument I ever saw for the popularisation of science understanding.
This is why I have trouble with Art, for example. Never mind if he's right or
wrong, all it takes to settle that is for enthusasts who already build
antennas to go a tad bit out of their way to see if any of his designs work
as advertised. The real problem is the scientified equivalent of purplpe
prose which obfuscates understanding as surely as an aggressive and
legalistic patent does. Einstein had no time for that kind of 'thinking', he
directly asserted several times that clarity and simplicity will get you
there better.

If the public had a better understanding of engineering and science, things
like Betamax, apparently better tech than VHS according to most who discuss
this issue, would have won, to the advantage of most people, not just the few
who forced the 'war'. Conflict is bad enough, but the one thing that can most
effectively redeem it is if it is won by whatever was most right, or useful,
or helpful. And if enough people grasp that well beforehand, the conflict
probably wouldn't happen so much.

Maybe I should shut up now, but this has got to be THE slowest day of the
year. And I include most of the last one in this assessment.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:26:42 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

Einstein had no time for that kind of 'thinking', he
directly asserted several times that clarity and simplicity will get you
there better.

Yeah, but simplicity and sometimes clarity usually fail to get
funding. Seen any government money go to the myriad of simple fusion
schemes?
http://www.fusor.net
Nope, even though some of them may actually eventually work. It all
goes to gigantic fizzix experiments which are anything but simple and
to my limited intelligence, not very clear.

If the public had a better understanding of engineering and science, things
like Betamax, apparently better tech than VHS according to most who discuss
this issue, would have won, to the advantage of most people, not just the few
who forced the 'war'.

Beta is often used as the poster child of technology versus cost. Sony
wanted license fees for Beta, while VHS was essentially free. The
public voted with their dollars and VHS won.

Moral: The GUM (Great Unwashed Masses) are cheap.

Incidentally, the same thing sorta happened with the battle between
the RCA all electronic and CBS color wheel schemes for color
television. The FCC almost went with the color wheel scheme because
RCA hadn't really shaken all the bugs out of their system.

Fast forward a half century and we have the same FCC voting on digital
television standards. If technical superiority were the criteria,
COFDM should have won over 8VSB. However, such decisions are not made
on the basis of technical superiority. The public could have been
better educated on the issues, but the decision was made by a
committee of politicians, not the public.

AM stereo and HD radio, versus satellite radio (XM and Sirius) is an
oddity. HD Radio, AM stereo, and DRM should have been the winner,
because they are the cheapest and simplest. Yet, satellite radio is
far more popular. The real difference is that satellite radio started
out with no commericals, and slooooowly infested the programming with
them. People were willing to pay for what they preceived as
commercial free programming. I guess the GUM isn't very well educated
on the the technology, but it's certainly not stupid.

Conflict is bad enough, but the one thing that can most
effectively redeem it is if it is won by whatever was most right, or useful,
or helpful. And if enough people grasp that well beforehand, the conflict
probably wouldn't happen so much.

I presume you've never attended (online or in person) a standards
committee discussion. It's fortunate that the technical debates are
mostly done electronically or at a distance, as I'm fairly sure some
of the proponents of extrememe technologies would settle their
differences in the parking lot.

Maybe I should shut up now, but this has got to be THE slowest day of the
year. And I include most of the last one in this assessment.

Not for me. For some odd reason, I'm getting a series of customer
calls asking for help with various Christmas toys and gadgets. They
apparently have stared at them for a week, given up, and now call me
for help. For example: "I got this iPod thing. How do I make it play
tunes?" I just finished an over the phone Netflix appliance (Roku)
setup. My guess is public understanding of engineering and science
has a very long way to go.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:26:42 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

Einstein had no time for that kind of 'thinking', he
directly asserted several times that clarity and simplicity will get you
there better.

Yeah, but simplicity and sometimes clarity usually fail to get
funding. Seen any government money go to the myriad of simple fusion
schemes?
http://www.fusor.net
Nope, even though some of them may actually eventually work. It all
goes to gigantic fizzix experiments which are anything but simple and
to my limited intelligence, not very clear.


Gubmint won't touch it till private efforts start working. Was the same with
canals and railways. And mining. And hospitals. And, perhaps, large scale
space explorations. Very cool site, I'll try to follow some of that stuff. I
suspect small scale fusion will be the answer to many problems, far more than
it's likely to cause.

If the public had a better understanding of engineering and science,
things like Betamax, apparently better tech than VHS according to most
who discuss this issue, would have won, to the advantage of most people,
not just the few who forced the 'war'.

Beta is often used as the poster child of technology versus cost. Sony
wanted license fees for Beta, while VHS was essentially free. The
public voted with their dollars and VHS won.

Moral: The GUM (Great Unwashed Masses) are cheap.


Gubmint by GUMint? I amuse myself.... I guess FireWire might suffer the
same way, it wants royalties in the price of every plug. I think that one
will be a survivor though, it is very good. But it won't be as common as USB
which doesn't.

Incidentally, the same thing sorta happened with the battle between
the RCA all electronic and CBS color wheel schemes for color
television. The FCC almost went with the color wheel scheme because
RCA hadn't really shaken all the bugs out of their system.

Fast forward a half century and we have the same FCC voting on digital
television standards. If technical superiority were the criteria,
COFDM should have won over 8VSB. However, such decisions are not made
on the basis of technical superiority. The public could have been
better educated on the issues, but the decision was made by a
committee of politicians, not the public.


That never helps, but people are getting very wary of politicians, which
might help, if they realise they have to think that bit more for themselves.
I can accept that pure technical superority isn't always a vital
justification, too. For example, cost, to me, is a vital engineering
parameter. As in not over-riding, but never to be ignored. Substitute 'cost'
with 'ease', 'readiness', and it quickly gets convoluted. Even 'self-
interest' creeps in obviously, but I guess it depends on whether it's
enlightened or not that matters most. The other main problem is short-
sightedness. Most really successful tech-driven economies are LONG sighted,
they don't make expensive errors they can't fix later. That said, even the
best of those can rest on their laurels and lose ground, as Japan seems to
have done.

AM stereo and HD radio, versus satellite radio (XM and Sirius) is an
oddity. HD Radio, AM stereo, and DRM should have been the winner,
because they are the cheapest and simplest. Yet, satellite radio is
far more popular. The real difference is that satellite radio started
out with no commericals, and slooooowly infested the programming with
them. People were willing to pay for what they preceived as
commercial free programming. I guess the GUM isn't very well educated
on the the technology, but it's certainly not stupid.


Interesting. I sometimes use a similar argument in my defence of Usenet when
debating with people who think it's dying. Given how fast it loads, I think
we can expect many 'web2' refugees, as it happens.

Conflict is bad enough, but the one thing that can most
effectively redeem it is if it is won by whatever was most right, or
useful, or helpful. And if enough people grasp that well beforehand, the
conflict probably wouldn't happen so much.

I presume you've never attended (online or in person) a standards
committee discussion. It's fortunate that the technical debates are
mostly done electronically or at a distance, as I'm fairly sure some
of the proponents of extrememe technologies would settle their
differences in the parking lot.


Nope. But I have seen infighting over ideas in forums. I've seen experts
stamp on good ideas then try to assert their own ideas which were weaker, and
because they had a strong academic background, most bystanders were quick to
curry favour with them. I figured the best answer was to go alone when I have
a good idea. First, they muscle in only when someone's already staked a
pitch, so the easiest way to undermine that is to break camp and move out.
Second, asking them for assistance will either result in conflict, or stolen
credit. Even systems like patenting invented to solve such issues fails
because legalistic presentations seem more to do with emotive attempts at
squatters' rights than any real defence that might as easily be done with
copyright law. None of which stops acrimonious court squabbles. So things
like those small scale fusion experiments will only reach success by being
done, repeated, by those who will do it without waiting for support. I think
the main reason 'big' science gets the funding is actually simple: it's too
big to actually be done at all without it.

Maybe I should shut up now, but this has got to be THE slowest day of
the year. And I include most of the last one in this assessment.

Not for me. For some odd reason, I'm getting a series of customer
calls asking for help with various Christmas toys and gadgets. They
apparently have stared at them for a week, given up, and now call me
for help. For example: "I got this iPod thing. How do I make it play
tunes?" I just finished an over the phone Netflix appliance (Roku)
setup. My guess is public understanding of engineering and science
has a very long way to go.


Yep. Though given the speed, I have to sympathise with both 'sides'. I loved
to take stuff apart and put it together (especially when the latter saved me
from punishment if the former would otherwise have gotten noticed), but when
confronted with bloated complex operating systems that have been cleaved from
the roots that led to their existence, I balk too, the same way many do when
told that only maths, and not human observations, will tell them anything
new about reality. And I'd rather stay with something whose engineering I can
grasp well enough to stand some chance of maintenance.

Actually I strongly suspect that this distance between science and tech
development and public comprehension won't be reduced until the tools enabled
by quantum mechanics start showing us things that shift the current paradigm
so much as a result of their new obervations, that people have something
really big and new to think about instead of being compelled to beleive that
all is run by chance. I think quantum theory largely got us into this mess,
but I also think it will get us out. But I have no clue how, other than what
I just said.

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

tom wrote in
. net:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Actually it comes out during the TV play and at
least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?"

Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out.

tom
K0TAR


I never saw that one.. Read the books, but I don't remember that, at
least not with much meaning. Maybe just to indicate human capacity for
coming up with wrong answers from wrong questions? I doubt he ever
spelled out what the real roots were. A good magician doesn't
deliberately and publicly spoil the illusion (or in his case,
allusion, perhaps). The one thing I'm fairly sure of is that the
references were cultural, colloquial, and that's why so many people
got it. Without that it might have just been another impenetratable
space opera with humour thrown in.

Ok, a hint. 9 times 6 IS 42.

tom
K0TAR


Well, I wondered about non-euclidean geometry for a moment, then
remembered Greg House saying something about working smart, not hard,
and no-one said I couldn't plunder Wikipedia, so....

Actually, before I got there, I wasn't even sure if what Adams had
denied was that "six times nine equals thirteen is wrong", or that he
denied the more interesting case that it was its correctness in base 13
that explained the 'answer'. Apparently he did deny it. Which doesn't
mean it isn't true. But according to Wikipedia's stuff, he chose a
small number that looked ordinary and totally unprofound. Which means
that he let whim, i.e. unconscious conditioning hold sway, without
attempt to mediate it. Given that the English colloquilasm would never
be entirely far from a writer wose native language and culture was
English, I stand by my 'theory'. Though I'd like to know if he was
ever directly questioned about the 'sixes and sevens' thing and denied
it. Even then, he would be telling the truth if it hadn't been
conscious. MUCH more like he was influence ny this that by base 13, no?

Maybe you should get me started on my idea for The Long Dark Teatime Of
The Soul, you might like it. The only thing I'll say about it now,
unprompted, is that in this case the allusion isn't English, it's
French.


I also found this:
"Stephen Fry, a friend of Adams, claims that Adams told him "exactly why
42",
and that the reason is[12] "fascinating, extraordinary and, when you think
hard about it, completely obvious." However, Fry says that he has vowed
not
to tell anyone the secret, and that it must go with him to the grave."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galax
y

I have never met Stephen Fry, and I suspect he wouldn't confirm my idea if
I
did ask him, but it would fit, given the way thoughts run if you ponder it
for a while. Considering the phrase "all at sixes and sevens" in the
context
of the way HHGTTG works is revealing to the point that even if it really
were
the original basis, I wouldn't consider it a spoiler if I'd been told
either
before or after thinking of it for myself.

Can't help wondering when people are going to talk about antennas again.



A 42 metre long, inverted V, fed through an ATU makes for an effective and
cheap all band antenna, although perhaps not the ultimate antenna. :-)
Perhaps an antenna array mounted 42 metres above ground? That would be some
tower system to have in the backyard.

Mike G0ULI

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in
:

A 42 metre long, inverted V, fed through an ATU makes for an effective
and cheap all band antenna, although perhaps not the ultimate antenna.
:-) Perhaps an antenna array mounted 42 metres above ground? That would
be some tower system to have in the backyard.


My vertical whip might be close to 42 decimetres in length. Does this count?

Dave wrote:
On Jan 2, 11:16 am, tom wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Actually it comes out during the TV play and at
least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?"
Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out.
tom
K0TAR
I never saw that one.. Read the books, but I don't remember that, at least
not with much meaning. Maybe just to indicate human capacity for coming up
with wrong answers from wrong questions? I doubt he ever spelled out what the
real roots were. A good magician doesn't deliberately and publicly spoil the
illusion (or in his case, allusion, perhaps). The one thing I'm fairly sure
of is thet the references were cultural, colloquial, and that's why so many
people got it. Without that it might have just been another impenetratable
space opera with humour thrown in.
Ok, a hint. 9 times 6 IS 42.

tom
K0TAR

it wasn't when i went to school. but 7*6 was

Argh! OK, another "hint".

Has anyone ever heard of anything besides base 10 arithmetic?

tom
K0TAR

Lostgallifreyan wrote:


Well, I wondered about non-euclidean geometry for a moment, then remembered
Greg House saying something about working smart, not hard, and no-one said I
couldn't plunder Wikipedia, so....

Actually, before I got there, I wasn't even sure if what Adams had denied was
that "six times nine equals thirteen is wrong", or that he denied the more
interesting case that it was its correctness in base 13 that explained the
'answer'. Apparently he did deny it. Which doesn't mean it isn't true. But
according to Wikipedia's stuff, he chose a small number that looked ordinary
and totally unprofound. Which means that he let whim, i.e. unconscious
conditioning hold sway, without attempt to mediate it. Given that the English
colloquilasm would never be entirely far from a writer wose native language
and culture was English, I stand by my 'theory'. Though I'd like to know
if he was ever directly questioned about the 'sixes and sevens' thing and
denied it. Even then, he would be telling the truth if it hadn't been
conscious. MUCH more like he was influence ny this that by base 13, no?

Maybe you should get me started on my idea for The Long Dark Teatime Of The
Soul, you might like it. The only thing I'll say about it now, unprompted,
is that in this case the allusion isn't English, it's French.

Someone I have had as a boss at 3 companies is totally convinced that
Adams meant it's all a throw of the dice since you get 42 when you add
up all sides of two dice.

tom
K0TAR

tom wrote in
. net:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:


Well, I wondered about non-euclidean geometry for a moment, then
remembered Greg House saying something about working smart, not hard,
and no-one said I couldn't plunder Wikipedia, so....

Actually, before I got there, I wasn't even sure if what Adams had
denied was that "six times nine equals thirteen is wrong", or that he
denied the more interesting case that it was its correctness in base 13
that explained the 'answer'. Apparently he did deny it. Which doesn't
mean it isn't true. But according to Wikipedia's stuff, he chose a
small number that looked ordinary and totally unprofound. Which means
that he let whim, i.e. unconscious conditioning hold sway, without
attempt to mediate it. Given that the English colloquilasm would never
be entirely far from a writer wose native language and culture was
English, I stand by my 'theory'. Though I'd like to know if he was
ever directly questioned about the 'sixes and sevens' thing and denied
it. Even then, he would be telling the truth if it hadn't been
conscious. MUCH more like he was influence ny this that by base 13, no?

Maybe you should get me started on my idea for The Long Dark Teatime Of
The Soul, you might like it. The only thing I'll say about it now,
unprompted, is that in this case the allusion isn't English, it's
French.

Someone I have had as a boss at 3 companies is totally convinced that
Adams meant it's all a throw of the dice since you get 42 when you add
up all sides of two dice.

tom
K0TAR


Yep, that's a nice one. I still like mine better though. Adams liked to play
with language directly, it would have appealed to him even if it wasn't how
he got there.

Any thoughts on tea? That was another mild obsession with him, and extends
obviously, though strangely, into the Teatime thing. Consider it a hint.

On Jan 2, 1:28*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote innews




Mike Kaliski wrote:

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
5...
Richard Clark wrote in
:

As the original poster (I presume it was Art) is in the habit of
quoting a German surveyor of the early 19th century; it should have
been settled by the Reichoffice of land boundaries.

These threads seem to be started in the vein of a breathless
discovery of an announcement tucked away in a locked file cabinet in
the janitor's closet in the third basement revealing plans for the
"new" hyper-Hohenzollern horse carriage expressway bypass - as much
as the original comment, responses and counter-responses are so
distinctive by fulfilling that metaphor.

That reminds me of another great bit of writing, on military
standards, I found it online somewhere, it explained how the Roman
roads were decided based on uquestrian travel, went on to show how the
same standard measures persisted through centuries of rail travel and
ended up explaining why it is
that the scale of the solid rocket booster of the most advanced form
of orbital transport known was exactly correlated with the width of a
horse's ass.

Basically true. The ruts on Roman or older roads caused by wagons and
carts meant that any cart not conforming to a standard wheel width
would tip over or lose a wheel. Rail wagons were adapted from road
carts and so the standard was maintained through the Victorian era.
Modern machinery is still essentially set up to those standards to
maintain compatibility with earlier equipment and so that older
machinery can still be maintained. Bit like the DOS prompt still being
available in Windows?

Mike G0ULI

"There is an urban legend that Julius Caesar specified a legal width for
chariots at the width of standard gauge, causing road ruts at that
width, so all later wagons had to have the same width or else risk
having one set of wheels suddenly fall into one deep rut but not the
other.

In fact, the origins of the standard gauge considerably predate the
Roman Empire, and may even predate the invention of the wheel. The width
of prehistoric vehicles was determined by number of interacting factors
which gave rise to a fairly standard vehicle width of a little under 2
metres (6.6 ft) These factors have changed little over the millenia, and
are still reflected in today's motor vehicles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge

I'll buy that it's a lot older, that's the thing about roots, they trace out
further than any effort to cut them does. And given how much they cover, it
seems unwise to consider them a limiting factor. Sure, if you want to fly,
can't stay rooted, but even that little homily doesn't mean that Arthur
Clarke wasn't right about the space elevator. We won't go far until we
build one. And what's the betting its tramlines will still be the width of a
horse's ass or two?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Amazingly precisely wrong!