OK let's call the ledger balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
Printable View
OK let's call the ledger balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
Oy! Speak fer yerself! At least this post will get me another 15 seconds from Gruñón Juan. Reckon I've only got a couple of minutes to go now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgreybeard
I reckon I'm at least 60 minutes in credit with you Brett for putting you on to the Robin Trower video. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Who's Robin Trower
Dave TTC
Turning Wood Into Art
https://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=196117Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTTC
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
:sorry2: I just had to do it !!!! I was getting very concerned for Grumpy's well-being and became quite upset:C:C
I have read his earlier post again .... and again .... and again ....
http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net/clear.gifQuote:
http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net...cons/icon1.png
I need more information:
Was George with them, if so did he walk or was he carried?
Was Charlotte with them, if so what diameter are the wheels on the pram, and how many times do they turn per kilometer?
and I just cannot start to understand the torment and demons he was dealing with ....
What was causing him to image that George Mavridis would be walking around the estate with Kate & Will AND that Kate would be carrying him.???
I mean ----well ---- Kate's not a very big girl
:D:D:D
Did they stop to:
1-take any photos,
2-smell the roses
3-pick flowers
4-whatever
You are just trying to complicate things when it was just about sorted. :D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sawdust Maker
And where's Wally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
No one has mentioned the security detail - police, MI5/6, military, security sniffing dogs, overhead choppers - did the downdraft have an effect?
You need to look at all of the variables.
and was Kate really trying to keep up with William or were the Corgi's nipping at her heels
lifting a pound of gold is not as easy as lifting a pound of feathersQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob38S
and lifting a kilogram of gold is much harder than lifting a kg of feathers
I'll explain why tomorrow
but your problem is missing a vital piece of dataQuote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
the couple walked ROUND the estate holding hands
which implies walking side-by-side around a perimeter so one party will have walked a measurable distance further than the other
so answer (e) can only be approximately right.
That is the same as saying that if you wish to drive around Australia, you should go anti-clockwise as it will be slightly shorter.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
You will get a longer sentence for lifting gold than for lifting feathers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
:wink:
were we told what the prevailing weather conditions were :rain2:
Quote:
which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?
A. The same.
B. The feathers.
c. The gold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
it's all in the mind ...Quote:
Originally Posted by a duke
a kilogram of feathers will be a package around the size of a two or three pillows.
you expect a package that size to weigh some kilos, so when lifting it you exert enough oomph to lift 5 or more kgs
the density of gold is 19.30 g/cm3 so, a kilogram of gold occupies a volume of approximately 52cm3 -- imagine a box 25 x 25 x 83 mm -- unless you know for sure that the box is solid gold, your mind expects that a box that size will weight less than 100 g so your body only exerts enough oomph to lift 100g.
example: if you cut a 250g pack of butter into quarters lengthways, each quarter will weigh around 65g but the dimensions of each quarter will be greater than those of our (we wish !) 1kg gold bar.
To answer the original question, the key is post #35.
Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?
A. The same.
B. The feathers.
C. The gold.
Answer is B
Gold, precious metals etc are traditionally weighed in Troy measure which has 12 ounces to the pound. Feathers would be avoirdupois and 16 ounces to the pound.
It's neither. Educationally speaking the question posed by the OP is a joke. For a start there is far too much to read for a multiple choice test. It's been well established that multiple choice questions should also not include too many elements that create confusion - the question should be clear and obvious. It's WAY too easy to create these sorts of supposedly "tricky" questions and I have written many myself. They have very poor discrimination between the students that can achieve the subject objectives and those that don't, and do little except stress students. I've seen too many smart teachers (including myself when I first started) doing this to try usually to assert their so called intellectual superiority over students. There is no need to create such a long winded question to test if students can separate valid from invalid information. As a Uni head of department I often asked lecturers to remove questions like this every time I saw them on draft exam papers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgreybeard
The ultimate question for the lecturer was did he/she actually teach students how to separate valid from invalid physical information in the first place or did he/she just think they did? During my stint over 10 years as a university course accreditor this was one of the many things that came out. Too many lecturers not clearly even stating subject objectives, not teaching the objectives that were listed in their subject outlines (just teaching their pet stuff) and then even assessing something completely outside the subject objectives. The students should not have to guess "what is in the lecturers head".
....bump....