Re: Am I a racist?


"Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlmark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

Arlon Staywell wrote:

"The Voice" <veralexi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

< ... >

< ... >

Most trolls don't make any sense as though they are they haven't emerged
from their dream world.

You know you can edit that if you like, or not.

I am sorry about the major snips but I am not the farming and
ranching
expert and some of it would have been lost on me anyway.

Do you have time for a story? It's a bit ponderous.

It's the story of how I got my parents to buy me a first computer.

It involves finding the center of mass of a semicircular solid.
Perhaps you've heard a story like it already. I wouldn't be surprised.

Finding the center of mass of a semicircular solid can't be done
without a computer. Technically of course it can, but it is a
reiterative
process that requires hundreds, even thousands, of very long calculations
and more depending on the accuracy one seeks. That being the case you
can
see how a computer shows itself useful.


Not nearly as useful as two pieces of string -- one for plumb and one
to hang the piece.
Hang the piece from any three noncongruent points.
The plumb lines intersect the center of mass.

I am wise to your game, Hammes. I should think most schoolchildren
will be too.

Points can't be "noncongruent." Points are dimensionless, they don't
have any "size" in any dimension.

One might say /all/ points are "congruent" or perhaps even "equal"
since all their dimensions have the same proportions and size in the sense
of having no proportions or size or in the sense of all of that being zero.
Such nomenclature is not useful though. And "noncongruent" is plain wrong.

That aside, you /can/ find the center of mass with, as you put it, "a
piece of string." But this is no simple or inexpensive task. You still
have a reiterative, hit or miss, process with more accuracy requiring more
trials. And you can't just go to the department store and buy kite string.
It will skew your readings. You need precision equipment. Have you ever
tried to buy a micrometer, Dennis? I have. Accuracy costs hundreds, even
thousands of dollars. I have spent as much as $30 on a micrometer as this
is all the accuracy I need for my own purposes so far. When I rebuilt a
Chevrolet 327 the parts kit came with the necessary measuring tools of
sufficient accuracy for the home mechanic only. To find the center of mass
of the solid in question though you will need a specially designed high
precision string and it will cost much more than the computer.

Piece too big?

I was able to convince my parents to buy a computer for me. Convincing
them to hire you for anything would likely be beyond my skill.

The only people fooled by your game here are less intelligent and
probably could benefit more from computers than the rest.

Take three noncongruent (not necessarily orthogonal) photos.
Cut out the pictures of the piece.
Hang each once from any edge.
Project the plumb.
(We presume that any Holy Engineer can do junior-high engineering
drafting. And that any competent sixth-grader can take a square root
using only a pencil.)

j
f

Furthermore computers can work with any number of computer "models"
that cost no more than a few minutes of data entry. Your method requires a
real world model, perhaps several real world models, all at considerable
expense.

The case is closed, has been closed for some time, the computer won its
place in the engineering and design field. You are an anachronism. As the
old song goes, "John Henry died with a hammer in his hand." Is that how you
want us to remember you as well?

What kind of *** transplant do we hafta call "an education" next?
And how much Holier Than Common Folk is it going to be?
Nearly as Holy as, say, "Global Warming"?

Indeed.


~~
Arlon





.