posted by [identity profile] en-ki.livejournal.com at 12:35pm on 2007-03-14
lb<->kg is iffy because you're writing mass in pounds, not because you're writing weight in kg—even though you're using a scale to do it, the underlying question of interest is mass.

(I initially wrote "lb<->kb"; but of course that conversion would involve unreasonably large exponents.)
 
posted by [identity profile] metahacker.livejournal.com at 01:49pm on 2007-03-14
lb/kb does vary a lot by year and media. Back in, oh, 1980, it'd have been a fairly valid measure of disk density...
 
posted by [identity profile] en-ki.livejournal.com at 02:19pm on 2007-03-14
Efficiency of particular media is one thing; I am thinking in terms of the conversation rate intrinsic to the universe, which I would assume involves the Planck mass.
 
posted by [identity profile] en-ki.livejournal.com at 02:20pm on 2007-03-14
Teach me to go years without touching a quantum textbook. I was thinking of a hypothetical "smallest nonzero rest mass", not the actual Planck mass.

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31