Stuck Ferrule (female end) question

On Jul 8, 2:46*pm, riverman wrote:


In a similar vein, the old Rand McNally Road Atlas used to have (maybe
still does...) a great page in the back where it showed a few hundred
cities as dots, and had little red lines connecting them,
approximating the road networks. The lines were labeled with the
distance and time required to travel between these adjacent cities. In
my younger days I used to drive all over the place...a very similar
pattern to my older life it appears....and relied on this page a lot
for determining my route. I discovered that it was impossible to
determine the best route from LA to Boston, as there were only short
segments, but I assumed that if point C lay somewhere between point A
and point B, then the shortest distance from A to C, then C to B,
would be the shortest distance from A to C. Then, of course, add point
D between A and C, and point E between A and D, etc.....and strangely
enough...I soon found that the shortest distance from A to C worked
itself out from the details.

Very similar to the approach taken by Messrs. Lewis, Clark, Thompson,
Humboldt (not necessarily in chronological order) etc. Of course,
these and their ilk generally left more, and more explicit and
accurate, directions than they found.....but they and their immediate
successors would have found the whole process eerily familiar and
instantly recognizable and useful.

Seems obvious

Yes, it does.

(and was later proven with mathematical studies of
Hamiltonian Paths and Euler Circuits and Dijkstra's Algorithm)

Wouldn't know.....never heard of any of those.

but
you'd be suprised how many people will take the long (time and
distance) route around town on a highway rather than the short (time
and distance) route through town just because they are in love with
feeling motion.

Maybe. Probably not. Not easily surprised in these latter days.

Travelling 60mph for a half hour seems like its
'faster' than travelling 30 mph for 25 minutes, yet people do it.

Travelling 60 mph for whatever length of time is "faster" than
travelling 30 mph for whatever length of time......twice as fast, as a
matter of fact. Travelling 60 mph will also get you to wherever you
are going in exactly half the time as moving toward it at thirty miles
per hour over the same route. On the other hand, if we're dealing
with different routes then making the trip in 25 minutes at 30 mph
would appear (at first glance) to offer obvious and insurmountable
advantages to travelling at 60 mph hour for 30 minutes to the same
destination. That's the trouble with first glances.

In fact, I deal with an uncannily similar situation daily (more or
less) on my way to work in the mornings. I can take a 6 mile route
over "surface streets" or a bit more than twice as long route via the
freeway. The freeway route takes an average of about a minute longer
despite the much higher (more than double) average speed.....most
days. Just about a horse apiece.....slight advantage to the surface
streets. But.....

But the surface streets are littered with 17 traffic lights. If I hit
them all wrong the balance tilts WAY over to the freeway side in terms
of travel time. And, in any case, the fuel savings via the freeway
(no stop and start) tilt heavily in it's favor regardless of a few
seconds difference in travel time.

I think most people don't really think, let alone analyze, when they
are doing stuff.

Maybe. But it could just be more a question of what they think about
and what analytical tools and data they have at their disposal, the
former being highly dependent on the latter.

Its refreshing to hear stories of people who do.

Yeah......generally. But then we run into people who do it
badly.....and that's at least as distressing as people who don't do it
at all, ainna? I mean, look at the diminutive member, the kennies,
davie, etc.

You'd truly enjoy the opening chapter of "Beyond Numeracy' by John
Allen Paulos.

You're assuming I'd understand it. That's flattering.....or
naive.

giles

On Jul 8, 10:20*pm, MajorOz wrote:
On Jul 8, 2:46*pm, riverman wrote:





On Jul 8, 6:17*pm, Giles wrote:

The question that arises is whether or not it's
worth the bother to pursue the closest approximation to a straight
line that is possible on a given route. *That is to say, over the
course of, say, a thousand mile cross-country trip, is there a
substantial savings in mileage and time to be gained by taking the
inside lane in each curve, switching lanes as necessary and taking the
shortest, straightest path possible between successive curves?

Don't know. *

In a similar vein, the old Rand McNally Road Atlas used to have (maybe
still does...) a great page in the back where it showed a few hundred
cities as dots, and had little red lines connecting them,
approximating the road networks. The lines were labeled with the
distance and time required to travel between these adjacent cities. In
my younger days I used to drive all over the place...a very similar
pattern to my older life it appears....and relied on this page a lot
for determining my route. I discovered that it was impossible to
determine the best route from LA to Boston, as there were only short
segments, but I assumed that if point C lay somewhere between point A
and point B, then the shortest distance from A to C, then C to B,
would be the shortest distance from A to C. Then, of course, add point
D between A and C, and point E between A and D, etc.....and strangely
enough...I soon found that the shortest distance from A to C worked
itself out from the details.

Seems obvious (and was later proven with mathematical studies of
Hamiltonian Paths and Euler Circuits and Dijkstra's Algorithm) but
you'd be suprised how many people will take the long (time and
distance) route around town on a highway rather than the short (time
and distance) route through town just because they are in love with
feeling motion. Travelling 60mph for a half hour seems like its
'faster' than travelling 30 mph for 25 minutes, yet people do it.

I think most people don't really think, let alone analyze, when they
are doing stuff. Its refreshing to hear stories of people who do.
You'd truly enjoy the opening chapter of "Beyond Numeracy' by John
Allen Paulos.

--riverman

I have always considered the best route to be neither the shortest nor
the quickest, but that which resulted in the least hassle. * That is
the reason I won't, for instance, go straight through a large city,
with its stoplights, emergency vehicles, etc, and prefer, usually, the
beltways.

I-894.....this afternoon.....en route from Wauwatosa to
Burlington.....by far the shortest, fastest and least frustrating
route. Semi on fire.....3 lanes at a standstill.....who knew?

However, for the same reason, I don't cross Wyoming on I-80, unless I
am in a hurry. *I prefer US 30. *It is more peaceful, scenery is
better, and there are fewer 18-wheelers (except in snow, when I-80 is
closed and ALL THE TRUCKS clog up US 30)

I don't cross Wyoming at all. Much peace of mind.

Enjoy the blue highways

Or take a nice peaceful boat ride all the way up the Missouri.....more
or less.....sorta.

(Wm. Leastheat Moon)

oz-

hippopotamus amphibius
been there.....read that.

On Jul 9, 6:02*am, Giles wrote:
On Jul 8, 2:46*pm, riverman wrote:

You'd truly enjoy the opening chapter of "Beyond Numeracy' by John
Allen Paulos.

You're assuming I'd understand it. *That's flattering.....or
naive. * * * * *


I'm very certain that you'd understand it, and only slightly less
certain that you would enjoy it. He recounts his musings while driving
(along the NJ Tpk, I believe). It's a fascinating and entertaining
insight into how the mind wanders with a completely understandable
mathematical/logical bent. If you enjoy compendi of mathematical
oddities, puzzles, trivia, etc. then this is a satisfying read, The
rest of the book may or may not be to your liking, but the prequel;
"Innumeracy" is definitely readable by the layman and has gotten rave
reviews and awards from all sorts of quarters.

--riverman

On Jul 9, 1:00*pm, riverman wrote:
On Jul 9, 6:02*am, Giles wrote:

On Jul 8, 2:46*pm, riverman wrote:
You'd truly enjoy the opening chapter of "Beyond Numeracy' by John
Allen Paulos.

You're assuming I'd understand it. *That's flattering.....or
naive. * * * * *

I'm very certain that you'd understand it, and only slightly less
certain that you would enjoy it. He recounts his musings while driving
(along the NJ Tpk, I believe). It's a fascinating and entertaining
insight into how the mind wanders with a completely understandable
mathematical/logical bent. If you enjoy compendi of mathematical
oddities, puzzles, trivia, etc. then this is a satisfying read, The
rest of the book may or may not be to your liking, but the prequel;
"Innumeracy" is definitely readable by the layman and has gotten rave
reviews and awards from all sorts of quarters.

--riverman

"Innumeracy" rings a bell. I may have a copy lying around
somewhere.....though I haven't read it. Anyway, I looked it up and
found this:

http://www.innumeracy.com/

Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" rings a very loud bell. One of my
favorite books. Opened up a whole new world to me. I've read it
three or four times......just about time for another reading*.

Meanwhile, I don't particularly enjoy mathematical works in
general.....not even those that cater especially to the mathematically
handicapped like myself. I periodically subject myself to such
material out of an occasional vain hope that exposure (however
remedial) will some day result in enlightenment.....or at least a
sustained interest. It never works.

giles
*others of hofstadter's works i've delved into, particularly "Gödel,
Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid", and "Le Ton beau de Marot: In
Praise of the Music of Language," are so opaque to me that they might
as well have been written in some encrypted obscure martian dialect.

On Jul 11, 4:06*am, Giles wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:00*pm, riverman wrote:





On Jul 9, 6:02*am, Giles wrote:

On Jul 8, 2:46*pm, riverman wrote:
You'd truly enjoy the opening chapter of "Beyond Numeracy' by John
Allen Paulos.

You're assuming I'd understand it. *That's flattering.....or
naive. * * * * *

I'm very certain that you'd understand it, and only slightly less
certain that you would enjoy it. He recounts his musings while driving
(along the NJ Tpk, I believe). It's a fascinating and entertaining
insight into how the mind wanders with a completely understandable
mathematical/logical bent. If you enjoy compendi of mathematical
oddities, puzzles, trivia, etc. then this is a satisfying read, The
rest of the book may or may not be to your liking, but the prequel;
"Innumeracy" is definitely readable by the layman and has gotten rave
reviews and awards from all sorts of quarters.

--riverman

"Innumeracy" rings a bell. *I may have a copy lying around
somewhere.....though I haven't read it. *Anyway, I looked it up and
found this:

http://www.innumeracy.com/

Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" rings a very loud bell. *One of my
favorite books. *Opened up a whole new world to me. *I've read it
three or four times......just about time for another reading*.

Meanwhile, I don't particularly enjoy mathematical works in
general.....not even those that cater especially to the mathematically
handicapped like myself. *I periodically subject myself to such
material out of an occasional vain hope that exposure (however
remedial) will some day result in enlightenment.....or at least a
sustained interest. *It never works.

giles
*others of hofstadter's works i've delved into, particularly "Gödel,
Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid", and "Le Ton beau de Marot: In
Praise of the Music of Language," are so opaque to me that they might
as well have been written in some encrypted obscure martian dialect.

Goedel, Escher, Bach generated such a cult following that I was unable
to give it a real fair trial. But I find that 'Pop Math' books bore
me, while rigorous mathematical texts blow me out of the water. I have
a very narrow range of readable mathematical books...almost entirely
limited to historical biographies that give a context to major
discoveries.

Let me know if you get into Innumeracy....and the opening chapter of
Beyond Numeracy. I'll take a gander at Metamagica Themas.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Jul 5, 12:01 pm, rw wrote:

the rod later, it was jammed. Although I was able to get the sections
apart using the 'behind the knee' method, I--riverman

Hi Myron,

A straight in-line pull is needed and the behind the knee method is one. I
was taught a slightly different approach - if you have a friend handy -
let's call the friend A and me B

With the ferrule between A and B, A takes a firm grip with one hand on B's
side of the ferrule and close to it, and the other hand about 18" on the
other (his) side of the ferrule. B then takes a firm grip with one hand on
A's side of the ferrule and close to it then, the other hand about 18" from
the ferrule on his side.

Now pull steadily and the joint will come apart.

This is much easier to demonstrate that to explain - usually the case with
simple manoeuvres


Bill

On Jul 11, 11:57*am, riverman wrote:


Goedel, Escher, Bach generated such a cult following that I was unable
to give it a real fair trial.

I wasn't aware of that cult following until I read a bit more about
Hofstadter last night. I guess nobody I know reads that kind of
stuff.....or none admit to it anyway. I gave it my best up to about
the middle of the book and then gave up in utter stupified
bewilderment. The same for "Le Ton beau de Marot" though giving up on
this one was easier to justify with a more or less intact ego because
much of it actually WAS in another language.....several others, to be
more precise.

But I find that 'Pop Math' books bore
me,

Ditto.....with a few notable exceptions.

while rigorous mathematical texts blow me out of the water.

Ditto.....in spades.

I have
a very narrow range of readable mathematical books...almost entirely
limited to historical biographies that give a context to major
discoveries.

Even that doesn't spark any interest here. But speaking of biography,
see below.*

Let me know if you get into Innumeracy....and the opening chapter of
Beyond Numeracy.

Will do. But don't hold your breath. My reading these days is
dictated primarily by kicking the piles and seeing what falls
out.....it could be a while.

I'll take a gander at Metamagica Themas.

Hope you enjoy it.

giles

* http://alturl.com/fug9t

HUZZAH!

On Jul 11, 8:12*pm, Giles wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:57*am, riverman wrote:

Goedel, Escher, Bach generated such a cult following that I was unable
to give it a real fair trial.

I wasn't aware of that cult following until I read a bit more about
Hofstadter last night. *I guess nobody I know reads that kind of
stuff.....or none admit to it anyway. *I gave it my best up to about
the middle of the book and then gave up in utter stupified
bewilderment. *The same for "Le Ton beau de Marot" though giving up on
this one was easier to justify with a more or less intact ego because
much of it actually WAS in another language.....several others, to be
more precise.

But I find that 'Pop Math' books bore
me,

Ditto.....with a few notable exceptions.

while rigorous mathematical texts blow me out of the water.

Ditto.....in spades.

I have
a very narrow range of readable mathematical books...almost entirely
limited to historical biographies that give a context to major
discoveries.

Even that doesn't spark any interest here. *But speaking of biography,
see below.*

Let me know if you get into Innumeracy....and the opening chapter of
Beyond Numeracy.

Will do. *But don't hold your breath. *My reading these days is
dictated primarily by kicking the piles and seeing what falls
out.....it could be a while. * * *

I'll take a gander at Metamagica Themas.

Hope you enjoy it.

giles

* *http://alturl.com/fug9t

HUZZAH!

Perhaps "the" pop science" book is _One, Two, Three...Infinity_, by
George Gamow.

Also pretty good are almost any 'splain books by Isaac Asimov.

cheers

oz

On Jul 11, 11:10*pm, MajorOz wrote:


Perhaps "the" pop science" book is _One, Two, Three...Infinity_, by
George Gamow.

I'm pretty sure I've read something or other by Gamow at one time or
another.....but not at all sure what it was. Anyway, looking him up
led to Hoyle, Hubble, Crick, the Kalam cosmological argument, Hume,
empiricism, Boswell, Johnson, dictionaries.......

An altogether delightful evening's romp through the Elysian/illusion/
allusion/elision(no mention of the Aleutians thus far) fields.

Thanks.

Also pretty good are almost any 'splain books by Isaac Asimov.

Certainly among the most readable of polymaths.

cheers

oz

prosit.

giles