On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:35:23 +0100, Plusnet wrote:

> I've been pronouncing it [winding] as spelt all along.

That explains a lot.  It's got nothing to do with grain at all.

-- 
Waterways route planning website: http://canalplan.org.uk

Jane Vernon wrote:

>Marjorie wrote:

>> But I wonder - if we knew the world was certain to end in, say, a week, 
>> what would we do with that week?
>> I know the things I would stop doing - weed the garden, water the 
>> plants, clean the house (no change there, then), weigh myself, do the 
>> washing etc, - but what would umrats actually do for that last week of 
>> the world?
>
>Take friends out to restaurants and other places of entertainment. 
>Watch old cine films/look at old photos with all relatives and friends. 
>  Go to some concerts.  Go swimming.  Eat up all the treats in the 
>freezer and storecupboard.   Wear my favourite clothes all of the time. 
>  Cover the walls of my house with my wallhangings.  Take all the best 
>pots out of the showroom and use them.  Laugh.
>
>'Course if I had more than a week I could get in lots more things.

ISTR an exercise at a course I was once on where they asked us to
write down such a list of goals, then one for 6 months, maybe
another for 2 years, and finally one without a specific limit.
Then we had to "compare & contrast" and work out why we were
putting off things we clearly wanted to do, and why short-term
aims didn't figure in our long-term vision.

Chris
-- 
Chris J Dixon  Nottingham    
'48/60/32 M B+ G+ A L(-) I S-- CH-(--) Ar++ T+ H0 ?Q Sh+
chris@cdixon.me.uk
Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Jane Vernon wrote:
> 
>> Marjorie wrote:
> 
>>> But I wonder - if we knew the world was certain to end in, say, a week, 
>>> what would we do with that week?
>>> I know the things I would stop doing - weed the garden, water the 
>>> plants, clean the house (no change there, then), weigh myself, do the 
>>> washing etc, - but what would umrats actually do for that last week of 
>>> the world?
>> Take friends out to restaurants and other places of entertainment. 
>> Watch old cine films/look at old photos with all relatives and friends. 
>>  Go to some concerts.  Go swimming.  Eat up all the treats in the 
>> freezer and storecupboard.   Wear my favourite clothes all of the time. 
>>  Cover the walls of my house with my wallhangings.  Take all the best 
>> pots out of the showroom and use them.  Laugh.
>>
>> 'Course if I had more than a week I could get in lots more things.
> 
> ISTR an exercise at a course I was once on where they asked us to
> write down such a list of goals, then one for 6 months, maybe
> another for 2 years, and finally one without a specific limit.
> Then we had to "compare & contrast" and work out why we were
> putting off things we clearly wanted to do, and why short-term
> aims didn't figure in our long-term vision.
> 
Interesting exercise.
I think one of my short-term plans would entail a jar of Nutella and a 
spoon, but if I'm hoping to survive for a good number of years yet, 
there are very good reasons why I don't even keep the stuff in the house.

-- 
Marjorie

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:54:43 +0100, Marjorie
 wrote:

>Plusnet wrote:
>> In article <p6XOq0A2I4xIFwU6@oooah.noooah>, martin@spl.at says...
>>> Jane Vernon wrote...
>>>> Siderius Nuncius wrote:
>>>>> "Kim Andrews"  wrote
>>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:59:12 +0100, Martin Clark  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Plusnet wrote...
>>>>>>>>> 2-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk says...
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:35:23 +0100, Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've been pronouncing it [winding] as spelt all along.
>>>>>>>>>> That explains a lot.  It's got nothing to do with grain at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wheat's that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can barley hear you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, dear. Another crop of puns.
>>>>>>> We maize well all join in.
>>>>>> Go on then, I'm all ears...
>>>>>  That gave me a rye smile.  The anti-punsters are getting a bit 
>>>>> millet-ant, though.
>>>> Oat-ake no notice of them.
>>>>
>>> Are we going to get all of these puns in one go, or is it going to 
>>> become a cereal?
>>>
>> It's nice to think that, if the world really had ended today, umra would 
>> have gone out with a punthread.
>> 
>I thought we had another couple of weeks, until the umbrellas move 
>around the earth and meet each other coming back, or something. I am 
>busy dealing with garden produce at the moment - making jam, 
>freezing/drying/cooking things, etc, and thinking, "This had better be 
>worth it, if the world ends soon I might as well not have bothered."
>
>But I wonder - if we knew the world was certain to end in, say, a week, 
>what would we do with that week?
>I know the things I would stop doing - weed the garden, water the 
>plants, clean the house (no change there, then), weigh myself, do the 
>washing etc, - but what would umrats actually do for that last week of 
>the world?
Go to the UK and see my grandson every day, see the rest of the
family, take them out for nice meals, eat chocolate.  I'd miss the
dogs.

Ralph B  writes:
>On Sep 11, 8:24=A0am, "Siderius Nuncius" 
>wrote:
>> "Plusnet"  wrote
>>
>> > It's nice to think that, if the world really had ended today, umra
>> > would have gone out with a punthread.
>>
>> And let us not forget the Dark Puns which,although invisible, make up
>> over 90% of umra.[1]
>
>And if the world was to disappear down a black hole, umrats would want
>to know the direction of spin.

since the black holes (if/when they're made) will be so small as to
evaporate (hawking-wise) immediately, the issue of spin is
immaterial, since (again, by hawking-ness) the objects will re-emerge
with the same spin as they went in.  (won't they?)
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

Nick wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:59:10 +0000, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> 
>> Ralph B  writes:
>>> On Sep 11, 8:24=A0am, "Siderius Nuncius" 
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Plusnet"  wrote
>>>>
>>>>> It's nice to think that, if the world really had ended today, umra
>>>>> would have gone out with a punthread.
>>>> And let us not forget the Dark Puns which,although invisible, make up
>>>> over 90% of umra.[1]
>>> And if the world was to disappear down a black hole, umrats would want
>>> to know the direction of spin.
>> since the black holes (if/when they're made) will be so small as to
>> evaporate (hawking-wise) immediately, the issue of spin is immaterial,
>> since (again, by hawking-ness) the objects will re-emerge with the same
>> spin as they went in.  (won't they?)
> 
> I've been pondering Hawking radiation and confusing myself.
> 
> Stop me when I go wrong:
> 
> Pairs of particles constantly appear and recombine in the vacuum, which 
> has no effect - on average nothing is created or destroyed.  
> 
> But if you have a black hole around, one of the particles can fall into 
> the black hole.  
> 
> So there is now a single new particle in the universe outside the black 
> hole.
> 
> So for conservation of mass-energy to hold across the whole system, the 
> black hole must have got lighter by one particle (it's as though the 
> black hole has emitted the particle)
> 
> So the black hole gets smaller and eventually goes "poof!".
> 
> BUT
> 
> From the pov of the black hole, it has just swallowed another particle. 
> How on earth does adding something make it smaller?

AIUI it's to do with uncertainty of position of particles - a particle 
near the edge of the black hole can at one instant be inside it and at 
the next outside it and able to excape its clutches. How on earth (!) 
this manages to counterbalance the matter that's falling in escapes 
(heh) me...

On 11 Sep 2008 22:59:10 GMT, rf10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
wrote:
>
>...the objects will re-emerge
>with the same spin as they went in.  (won't they?)

Peanut butter sandwiches do that (YMMV)

lff

> since the black holes (if/when they're made) will be so small as to
> evaporate (hawking-wise) immediately, the issue of spin is
> immaterial, since (again, by hawking-ness) the objects will re-emerge
> with the same spin as they went in.  (won't they?)

We are still talking about laundry, aren't we?
-- 
Jenny M Benson

Mrs Nemo wrote...
>
>> since the black holes (if/when they're made) will be so small as to
>> evaporate (hawking-wise) immediately, the issue of spin is
>> immaterial, since (again, by hawking-ness) the objects will re-emerge
>> with the same spin as they went in.  (won't they?)
>
>We are still talking about laundry, aren't we?

No, no - laundry's different. Individual socks will vanish from one 
washing machine and then turn up in another washing machine hundreds of 
miles away.
-- 
Martin

In article <gadcf8$s2e$4@aioe.org>, nemonews@hotmail.com says...
> 
> > since the black holes (if/when they're made) will be so small as to
> > evaporate (hawking-wise) immediately, the issue of spin is
> > immaterial, since (again, by hawking-ness) the objects will re-emerge
> > with the same spin as they went in.  (won't they?)
> 
> We are still talking about laundry, aren't we?
> 
Perhaps it's the kind of spin which requires a doctor.

Q: Have spin-doctors become un-newsworthy since the Downing Street 
house-swap?

-- 
Sam

In article <gBA8UVBkZjyIFweQ@oooah.noooah>, Martin Clark 
wrote:
>  Individual socks will vanish from one 
> washing machine and then turn up in another washing machine hundreds of 
> miles away.


I don't /understand/ the behaviour of socks in washing-machines, but I have
come to accept it - much like my understanding of general relativity.

But...   For many years, I've owned a small ivory-backed penknife that was
my Mother's: I think she inherited it from her father.  Yesterday I had
occasion to look for it - and there were two of them!  Surely I would have
remembered acquiring a second one, almost but not quite identical to the
first?  How long should I leave them before looking to see if there is a
third?

Rosemary


-- 
Rosemary Miskin     ZFC Pm   miskin@orpheusmail.co.uk
Loughborough, UK             http://miskin.orpheusweb.co.uk

Rosemary Miskin wrote...
>
>But...   For many years, I've owned a small ivory-backed penknife that was
>my Mother's: I think she inherited it from her father.  Yesterday I had
>occasion to look for it - and there were two of them!  Surely I would have
>remembered acquiring a second one, almost but not quite identical to the
>first?  How long should I leave them before looking to see if there is a
>third?
>
Perhaps you had previously noticed them in different places and assumed 
that they were the same one?
-- 
Martin

Rosemary Miskin wrote:
> In article <gBA8UVBkZjyIFweQ@oooah.noooah>, Martin Clark 
> wrote:
>>  Individual socks will vanish from one 
>> washing machine and then turn up in another washing machine hundreds of 
>> miles away.
> 
> 
> I don't /understand/ the behaviour of socks in washing-machines, but I have
> come to accept it - much like my understanding of general relativity.
> 
> But...   For many years, I've owned a small ivory-backed penknife that was
> my Mother's: I think she inherited it from her father.  Yesterday I had
> occasion to look for it - and there were two of them!  Surely I would have
> remembered acquiring a second one, almost but not quite identical to the
> first?  How long should I leave them before looking to see if there is a
> third?
> 

This sort of thing can be explained by Mike's theory about wormholes. 
He has always (apparently) believed that there are wormholes through 
which things can both disappear and appear, in the sense that you not 
only lose things but find things you never knew you had.  Someone 
somewhere else lost the second penknife.

-- 
Jane
The potter in the purple socks

http://www.clothandclay.co.uk/umra/cookbook/contents.htm for recipes 
supplied by umrats

In article <RoTguhQq1uyIFwKJ@oooah.noooah>, Martin Clark 
wrote:
> Perhaps you had previously noticed them in different places and assumed 
> that they were the same one?

that could well explain why it's taken me so long to register that there are
two, but doesn't explain where the second came from.  

Unless, I suppose, they came in different boxes of Mother's stuff...  But
the one I knew about was always in her handbag and I'm sure that's where I
found it.

Rosemary
 

-- 
Rosemary Miskin     ZFC Pm   miskin@orpheusmail.co.uk
Loughborough, UK             http://miskin.orpheusweb.co.uk

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:49:51 +0100, Rosemary Miskin
 wrote:

>In article <gBA8UVBkZjyIFweQ@oooah.noooah>, Martin Clark 
>wrote:
>>  Individual socks will vanish from one 
>> washing machine and then turn up in another washing machine hundreds of 
>> miles away.
>
>
>I don't /understand/ the behaviour of socks in washing-machines, but I have
>come to accept it - much like my understanding of general relativity.
>
>But...   For many years, I've owned a small ivory-backed penknife that was
>my Mother's: I think she inherited it from her father.  Yesterday I had
>occasion to look for it - and there were two of them!  Surely I would have
>remembered acquiring a second one, almost but not quite identical to the
>first?  How long should I leave them before looking to see if there is a
>third?
>
>Rosemary
Do you think it might be something to do with that machine they've
just turned on in Switzerland?  Maybe all the lost socks will appear
too.  Perhaps they're all in a black hole.

badriya  writes:
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:49:51 +0100, Rosemary Miskin
> wrote:
>>[sock]
>
>Do you think it might be something to do with that machine they've
>just turned on in Switzerland?

it may have been turned on in switzerland, but an awful lot of it's in
france (we certainly crossed the border to go and look at it).

>Maybe all the lost socks will appear
>too.  Perhaps they're all in a black hole.

i would guess that if any do re-materialise, they'll *all* be odd
socks (i.e., all for "the other foot"), so that it'll be impossible to
use any of them and retain any satorial pretensions.

so they'll be for people like me, and so on...
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

On 14 Sep 2008 14:01:18 GMT, rf10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
wrote:

> badriya  writes:
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:49:51 +0100, Rosemary Miskin
>> wrote:
>>>[sock]
>>
>>Do you think it might be something to do with that machine they've
>>just turned on in Switzerland?
>
>it may have been turned on in switzerland, but an awful lot of it's in
>france (we certainly crossed the border to go and look at it).
>
>>Maybe all the lost socks will appear
>>too.  Perhaps they're all in a black hole.
>
>i would guess that if any do re-materialise, they'll *all* be odd
>socks (i.e., all for "the other foot"), so that it'll be impossible to
>use any of them and retain any satorial pretensions.
>
>so they'll be for people like me, and so on...
Another theory has been suggested here.  
There are apparently not enough socks in the world to fulfil all sock
duties so they have to move around as and when.  If you could see your
sock drawer when you are not looking into it there'd not be as many
socks as when you look, if you see what I mean.

In message , badriya
 writes
[]
>Another theory has been suggested here.
>There are apparently not enough socks in the world to fulfil all sock
>duties so they have to move around as and when.  If you could see your
>sock drawer when you are not looking into it there'd not be as many
>socks as when you look, if you see what I mean.
>
I do, as long as I don't look.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

        I haven't lost my mind; I have a tape back-up somewhere.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:02:00 +0200, badriya  wrote:

>Another theory has been suggested here.  
>There are apparently not enough socks in the world to fulfil all sock
>duties so they have to move around as and when.  If you could see your
>sock drawer when you are not looking into it there'd not be as many
>socks as when you look, if you see what I mean.

Would that be Schrödingers sock, then?

-- 
Jo

In message , Jo Lonergan 
 writes
>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:02:00 +0200, badriya  wrote:
>
>>Another theory has been suggested here.
>>There are apparently not enough socks in the world to fulfil all sock
>>duties so they have to move around as and when.  If you could see your
>>sock drawer when you are not looking into it there'd not be as many
>>socks as when you look, if you see what I mean.
>
>Would that be Schrödingers sock, then?
>
LOL! (For about a minute!)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Electricians do it 'till it Hz.