Whine: I got quoted 12 times and not one person understood what I meant.

[icaritos]

Yup, that's exactly what I meant. Temperature can be expressed in terms of energy-which determines how hot or how cold an object is-and 300F does NOT mean that it contains 3x the energy at 100F. However, an object at 30 degrees Celsius will have 3x the energy of an object at 10 degrees Celsius.
(Please also note that I'm overly simplifying my examples for the sake of convenience)

Damn, now I need to look up later where and how it scales. I've always thought the numbers were constant....



Waiiiiiit... How does the Celsius conversion work then? If Celsius stays constant, then whey does the conversion formula stay constant too? I'm not looking it up now, but I thought the conversion was something like F=C2.5+32 or something like that. That would have to change at some point in the higher digits if one degree in Celsius doesn't stay 2.5 degrees in Fahrenheit.

Assuming you're right though, it does change my argument for Fahrenheit. I'm not going to back a system that is inconsistent! That's the whole point of a measurement system!

If you don't mind, since you don't seem to understand the way metric was basically created i will copy pasta my response to a similar topic in another thread

"1 meter = original definition: Distance travelled in one wavelength (vacuum) of Krypton-86 radiation
new revised definition: Distance travelled by light (vacuum) in 1/299792458 to a absolute uncertainty of .1nm

This was decided to be the base for one meter by the CGPM (General Conference on Weights and Measurements original name is french hence mismatching initials). This was chosen after some consideration, they wanted a practical size measurement that they could relate to a natural aspect (decided to be a wavelength since its easily measurable).

In order to facilitate the use of measurements among the scientific community, a base of 10 was decided.

Hence the meter was divided into 100 parts each named a centimetre. A cube of dimensions 10x10x10 centimetres was created and named a cubic decimetre. This amount was quantified as 1 Liter.

This measurement was then filled with water at a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius (temperature of melting ice, so the water is neither compressed nor expanding), and the resulting weight named a Kilogram. Since 1 Liter was defined as 1000cm^3 weighting 1 Kilogram this means that 1Kg divided by 1000 would be found by 1cm^3 now named 1 gram.

The point im trying to make here is that these measurements are not by occasion, they were specifically designed to improve the accuracy of our calculations by clearly defining a physical constant (Krypton radiation/speed of light/water temp) as it's foundation. The fact that each part was divided into base tens was merely for it's ease of use, but the measure itself (metre) has a unchangeable definition."

Regarding Celsius it is merely a division of 100 units between the temperature at which water freezes and boils, at higher number it doesn't hold any specifics (-273.15 C is absolute zero) but it holds the same unit difference as Kelvins (1 C = 1 K) so it is still relevant scientifically.

 

[Signa]

Yup, that's exactly what I meant. Temperature can be expressed in terms of energy-which determines how hot or how cold an object is-and 300F does NOT mean that it contains 3x the energy at 100F. However, an object at 30 degrees Celsius will have 3x the energy of an object at 10 degrees Celsius.
(Please also note that I'm overly simplifying my examples for the sake of convenience)

Damn, now I need to look up later where and how it scales. I've always thought the numbers were constant....



Waiiiiiit... How does the Celsius conversion work then? If Celsius stays constant, then whey does the conversion formula stay constant too? I'm not looking it up now, but I thought the conversion was something like F=C2.5+32 or something like that. That would have to change at some point in the higher digits if one degree in Celsius doesn't stay 2.5 degrees in Fahrenheit.

Assuming you're right though, it does change my argument for Fahrenheit. I'm not going to back a system that is inconsistent! That's the whole point of a measurement system!

If you don't mind, since you don't seem to understand the way metric was basically created i will copy pasta my response to a similar topic in another thread

"1 meter = original definition: Distance travelled in one wavelength (vacuum) of Krypton-86 radiation
new revised definition: Distance travelled by light (vacuum) in 1/299792458 to a absolute uncertainty of .1nm

This was decided to be the base for one meter by the CGPM (General Conference on Weights and Measurements original name is french hence mismatching initials). This was chosen after some consideration, they wanted a practical size measurement that they could relate to a natural aspect (decided to be a wavelength since its easily measurable).

In order to facilitate the use of measurements among the scientific community, a base of 10 was decided.

Hence the meter was divided into 100 parts each named a centimetre. A cube of dimensions 10x10x10 centimetres was created and named a cubic decimetre. This amount was quantified as 1 Liter.

This measurement was then filled with water at a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius (temperature of melting ice, so the water is neither compressed nor expanding), and the resulting weight named a Kilogram. Since 1 Liter was defined as 1000cm^3 weighting 1 Kilogram this means that 1Kg divided by 1000 would be found by 1cm^3 now named 1 gram.

The point im trying to make here is that these measurements are not by occasion, they were specifically designed to improve the accuracy of our calculations by clearly defining a physical constant (Krypton radiation/speed of light/water temp) as it's foundation. The fact that each part was divided into base tens was merely for it's ease of use, but the measure itself (metre) has a unchangeable definition."

Regarding Celsius it is merely a division of 100 units between the temperature at which water freezes and boils, at higher number it doesn't hold any specifics (-273.15 C is absolute zero) but it holds the same unit difference as Kelvins (1 C = 1 K) so it is still relevant scientifically.

The fact you have all that information says to me you know what you are talking about, but none of it makes any sense to me in the context of what I learned.

I thought Metric was based purely off of water. It makes a lot more sense than Krypton radiation, because water is the most common substance you can see and touch on the planet. I know for a fact that in Science class that one cubic centimeter of water is also 1 gram and one milliliter. From that point on, you can extrapolate distance, weight, and volume. Put it through a few temperature tests and then you have Celsius. I really don't know my science history, but I find it implausible that they determined the wavelength of krypton radiation hundreds of years ago and decided to use that as a measuring system.

But hey, maybe my junior-high science teacher and books were full of shit. It happens.

Damn, now I need to look up later where and how it scales. I've always thought the numbers were constant....

Waiiiiiit... How does the Celsius conversion work then? If Celsius stays constant, then whey does the conversion formula stay constant too? I'm not looking it up now, but I thought the conversion was something like F=C2.5+32 or something like that. That would have to change at some point in the higher digits if one degree in Celsius doesn't stay 2.5 degrees in Fahrenheit.

Alright, try this out:
The formula for converting Fahrenheit to Celsius is
http://www.albireo.ch/temperatureconverter/c.gif
Using this, 1 Fahrenheit is equal to -17.22222222222222 Celsius. But 10 Fahrenheit is equal to -12.222222222222223 Celsius. It can easily be seen here that 10 Fahrenheit=/= 10X1 Fahrenheit. Within this lies my main complaint of why is this is a poor scale.

See, the conversion formula is proof that it is non-linear. You can't take the value for 1 converted Fahrenheit unit and multiply it as you please, nononono, you have to recalculate it EVERY single time. What does that tell you?

Besides, comparing Celsius and Fahrenheit to determine accuracy is poor practice. You should compare them against the Kelvin scale(which is the empirical scale for temperature) before comparing them against each other. You'll see then why the Fahrenheit is frowned upon by many.

Actually, maybe because I'm tired, but that math isn't looking like it's proving your point at all. I'm only estimating here, but if I treat 5/9th as approximately 1/2, then the fact that the Fahrenheit went up 10 degrees while the Celsius goes up 5, it works out in my mind. The fact that you have to recalculate every time it goes up is just saying to me that Fahrenheit isn't 1:1 with Celsius, which we already know. But it's 12:40am here, and I work tomorrow. I can't spend much brain power on it now. Maybe when I'm more conscious I can graph the equation and see how it looks. It looks rather close to the standard X=Ym+B or whatever it was I learned in high school. I just remember the equations that curved on those graphs usually needed exponents to change the arc.

 

[Signa]

...and now you're upset.

When did I say that? I know the thread title kinda implies it, but I'm not some emo kid bitching and cutting myself because no one understands me.

This was more of a "holy crap, the record must be set straight!" reaction than one of anguish. But now that we've gotten that part out of the way, I'm just having fun with the petty argument.

 

[icaritos]

Yup, that's exactly what I meant. Temperature can be expressed in terms of energy-which determines how hot or how cold an object is-and 300F does NOT mean that it contains 3x the energy at 100F. However, an object at 30 degrees Celsius will have 3x the energy of an object at 10 degrees Celsius.
(Please also note that I'm overly simplifying my examples for the sake of convenience)

Damn, now I need to look up later where and how it scales. I've always thought the numbers were constant....



Waiiiiiit... How does the Celsius conversion work then? If Celsius stays constant, then whey does the conversion formula stay constant too? I'm not looking it up now, but I thought the conversion was something like F=C2.5+32 or something like that. That would have to change at some point in the higher digits if one degree in Celsius doesn't stay 2.5 degrees in Fahrenheit.

Assuming you're right though, it does change my argument for Fahrenheit. I'm not going to back a system that is inconsistent! That's the whole point of a measurement system!

If you don't mind, since you don't seem to understand the way metric was basically created i will copy pasta my response to a similar topic in another thread

"1 meter = original definition: Distance travelled in one wavelength (vacuum) of Krypton-86 radiation
new revised definition: Distance travelled by light (vacuum) in 1/299792458 to a absolute uncertainty of .1nm

This was decided to be the base for one meter by the CGPM (General Conference on Weights and Measurements original name is french hence mismatching initials). This was chosen after some consideration, they wanted a practical size measurement that they could relate to a natural aspect (decided to be a wavelength since its easily measurable).

In order to facilitate the use of measurements among the scientific community, a base of 10 was decided.

Hence the meter was divided into 100 parts each named a centimetre. A cube of dimensions 10x10x10 centimetres was created and named a cubic decimetre. This amount was quantified as 1 Liter.

This measurement was then filled with water at a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius (temperature of melting ice, so the water is neither compressed nor expanding), and the resulting weight named a Kilogram. Since 1 Liter was defined as 1000cm^3 weighting 1 Kilogram this means that 1Kg divided by 1000 would be found by 1cm^3 now named 1 gram.

The point im trying to make here is that these measurements are not by occasion, they were specifically designed to improve the accuracy of our calculations by clearly defining a physical constant (Krypton radiation/speed of light/water temp) as it's foundation. The fact that each part was divided into base tens was merely for it's ease of use, but the measure itself (metre) has a unchangeable definition."

Regarding Celsius it is merely a division of 100 units between the temperature at which water freezes and boils, at higher number it doesn't hold any specifics (-273.15 C is absolute zero) but it holds the same unit difference as Kelvins (1 C = 1 K) so it is still relevant scientifically.

The fact you have all that information says to me you know what you are talking about, but none of it makes any sense to me in the context of what I learned.

I thought Metric was based purely off of water. It makes a lot more sense than Krypton radiation, because water is the most common substance you can see and touch on the planet. I know for a fact that in Science class that one cubic centimeter of water is also 1 gram and one milliliter. From that point on, you can extrapolate distance, weight, and volume. Put it through a few temperature tests and then you have Celsius. I really don't know my science history, but I find it implausible that they determined the wavelength of krypton radiation hundreds of years ago and decided to use that as a measuring system.

But hey, maybe my junior-high science teacher and books were full of shit. It happens.

Damn, now I need to look up later where and how it scales. I've always thought the numbers were constant....

Waiiiiiit... How does the Celsius conversion work then? If Celsius stays constant, then whey does the conversion formula stay constant too? I'm not looking it up now, but I thought the conversion was something like F=C2.5+32 or something like that. That would have to change at some point in the higher digits if one degree in Celsius doesn't stay 2.5 degrees in Fahrenheit.

Alright, try this out:
The formula for converting Fahrenheit to Celsius is
http://www.albireo.ch/temperatureconverter/c.gif
Using this, 1 Fahrenheit is equal to -17.22222222222222 Celsius. But 10 Fahrenheit is equal to -12.222222222222223 Celsius. It can easily be seen here that 10 Fahrenheit=/= 10X1 Fahrenheit. Within this lies my main complaint of why is this is a poor scale.

See, the conversion formula is proof that it is non-linear. You can't take the value for 1 converted Fahrenheit unit and multiply it as you please, nononono, you have to recalculate it EVERY single time. What does that tell you?

Besides, comparing Celsius and Fahrenheit to determine accuracy is poor practice. You should compare them against the Kelvin scale(which is the empirical scale for temperature) before comparing them against each other. You'll see then why the Fahrenheit is frowned upon by many.

Actually, maybe because I'm tired, but that math isn't looking like it's proving your point at all. I'm only estimating here, but if I treat 5/9th as approximately 1/2, then the fact that the Fahrenheit went up 10 degrees while the Celsius goes up 5, it works out in my mind. The fact that you have to recalculate every time it goes up is just saying to me that Fahrenheit isn't 1:1 with Celsius, which we already know. But it's 12:40am here, and I work tomorrow. I can't spend much brain power on it now. Maybe when I'm more conscious I can graph the equation and see how it looks. It looks rather close to the standard X=Ym+B or whatever it was I learned in high school. I just remember the equations that curved on those graphs usually needed exponents to change the arc.

To answer your question regarding the metric distance, they didn't measure Krypton first. At first the metric system was just like the imperial, in that it was kind of arbitrary. However they later got together and decided to create a standardized system that scientists could utilize. So the metric system was born out of much discussion on how to better represent such aspects. The krypton measurement is merely a way to keep it consistent with an unchangeable phenomenon.

To give an example, if every single meter stick in the planet were to be destroyed, they still be able to accurately recreate the "meter" unit by remeasuring Krypton-86 wavelength. Do keep in mind however that measurement of temperature (Celsius) is different from spatial measurements (meter, kilogram, liter, etc) and Celsius is merely accepted scientifically because it shares the same scale with Kelvin (measuring boiling and freezing temp of water in standard atmospheric pressure is very convenient experimentally) which is the scientific standard.

Please do post if you have any further questions, i will gladly (try to) clarify.

 

[Omegatronacles]

Speaking of football, my friend said today that Canadians should call hockey "football" just to further confuse the debate between English and American football.

Just to confuse things further, there are 5 different sports here in Australia that use the "football" moniker. Soccer (European football), Gridiron (American football), Rugby League (Nation Rugby League, NRL), Australian Football (AFL), and Rugby Union, which has no generally agreed on alternate name.

 

[infohippie]

What I like about the metric system: absurdly easy conversions

What I dislike about the metric system: words are cumbersome and can't sound "cool." When was the last time you heard of someone who got beaten to within a centimetre of his life?

Although many years ago back in high school, a friend of mine did say he was going to half-kilogram somebody.

 

[theklng]

lets choose the system that has more random, organic measurements so that we may sound more cool when we use the chosen words for describing life-changing distance comparisons.

because you know, being cool is so underrated.

the one good argument you have is cultural differences, but the rest is garbage.

so because you simply disagree with my stance, it's garbage? Well, by that logic, your post is also garbage because I disagree with it. Or are you the king of garbage deciding? 'cause if that's the case, then my humble opinion has no weight in declaring your post garbage and I apologize for making such an egregious accusation.

as the seasoned reader would notice, i did not explicitly take sides; i merely pointed out the flaws of your argument through sarcasm. but, given what you have said thus far in this so called discussion, my attempts at explaining myself are, at best, futile.

i also hear that this sort of behavior is popular among the american midwestern tribes, and is often used as a ritual to seduce the females (preferably under the effects of moonshine).

can i get ONE person who DOESN'T live in the american midwest to admit that not all of us are hicks? i am in no way saying that saint louis is a goddamn eden amidst a dystopian wasteland of drunken cousin fuckers but christ give us SOME credit.

i certainly do not believe that all british people fear the dentist and oral care products like 5 year olds fear nosferatu, nor do i assume that all irsh are drunken morons fit to only shine in a bar brawl, nor do i believe that all asians are good at math to a point that makes pythagoras look like a mouth-breathing head-trauma victim.

so for the love of fairness keep your hick and redneck jokes pointed at the people you want to insult cause i highly doubt anyone on the idiocy level you imply actually has the attention span to play games let alone post on a game/media forumn.

OT: Meters always seemed more precise to me, wish kelvin was the staple temperature gauge and always thought it was fucking hilarious that people actually used a king's FOOT as a method of measuring anything... god complex much?

PS: for the record, try moonshine before you bash it, it goes down rather smoothly for something brewed in a backyard.

PPS: Rawr, so much serious in that my head hurt.

i tried really hard not to read this in the voice of lester from the cleveland show. it didn't work out.

 

[Dys]

Rubbish. Why is a gallon (4.5 L) relevant, but a liter not? In what world is 12 Fl oz more or less applicable as a drink size than 600ml?

The initial comment is stupid, as obviously units of measurement one is unable to instantly recognize and approximate are less useful, but it's all a matter of familiarity. 186cm is far easier a height to compare gauge than 6'3", there is no unit conversion (and neither is a whole or convenient number).....There may be a point if all imperial measurements directly correlated to something used everyday, but, I honestly can't think of any examples (outside of, perhaps, packaging, but in many countries you buy milk etc by the litre, so again that depends entirely on local convention).

 

[GundamSentinel]

To answer your question regarding the metric distance, they didn't measure Krypton first. At first the metric system was just like the imperial, in that it was kind of arbitrary. However they later got together and decided to create a standardized system that scientists could utilize. So the metric system was born out of much discussion on how to better represent such aspects. The krypton measurement is merely a way to keep it consistent with an unchangeable phenomenon.

To give an example, if every single meter stick in the planet were to be destroyed, they still be able to accurately recreate the "meter" unit by remeasuring Krypton-86 wavelength. Do keep in mind however that measurement of temperature (Celsius) is different from spatial measurements (meter, kilogram, liter, etc) and Celsius is merely accepted scientifically because it shares the same scale with Kelvin (measuring boiling and freezing temp of water in standard atmospheric pressure is very convenient experimentally) which is the scientific standard.

Please do post if you have any further questions, i will gladly (try to) clarify.

In the eighteenth century, there were two favoured approaches to the definition of the standard unit of length. One approach followed philosopher John Wilkins in defining the metre as the length of a pendulum with a half-period of one second, a 'seconds pendulum'. The other approach suggested defining the metre as one ten-millionth of the length of the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from the Equator to the North Pole. In 1791, the French Academy of Sciences selected the meridional definition over the pendular definition because the force of gravity varies slightly over the surface of the Earth, which affects the period of a pendulum. They even sent out a damn expedition to exactly measure the Earth...

In 1795 they made a brass meter bar to represent the definition of a meter, in 1799 they made a platinum 'final' one. (After that they made a couple others)

In 1960 they decided on the Krypton approach and in 1983 they changed it again to:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299 792 458 of a second.

Wiki is your friend

 

[Bobic]

So, since I can't whine and ***** in the thread that this occurred in as it got closed, I'd thought I'd make a new one so I could say my piece. After all 12 people misread what I said, and I'm sure there are others who will try to misread what I say now, so as far as I'm concerned, I've got a new topic and not a rehash of a recently closed one.

Effectively, this is another metric vs imperial thread (hey, the rules say no repeat threads within a month, and I've not seen a thread dedicated to this that recently, so here goes). In my original post responding to some one accusing America of using a stupid measurement system, I said:

Stop bitching about our measuring system. You don't see us complaining about how dumb the size of the units of the metric system measures are.

See, what I mean by that is NOT that metric is stupid for using multiples of 10 for converting up to larger measurements. That's actually genius. I'm saying that the physical size of the measurements are too small or too large to be of proper use. For my everyday use, the measurements are unwieldy.

Of course that is all a matter of opinion, and what sizes of measurements you are raised with dictate how you visualize certain distances, weights and volumes, but all I know is I want a measurement system that gives me a good number for what I'm trying to measure, with the least amount of fractions, decimals or segments involved. When I want to borrow a cup of sugar, I don't want 230 milliliters, or whatever the conversion is. If I'm off by just a few crystals, I'm suddenly adding 231, a full unit over the intended amount. I'd look like a fool if I added an extra cup, teaspoon or tablespoon of an ingredient while baking cookies. The same goes for temperature. I like to hear that the temperature is a nice even 70F, not a random 21.1C. The boiling and freezing temperature of water is irrelevant when I want data on the climate for my day. Just because they made the scale 0-100 doesn't make it instantly better.

In b4 "QQ some more"

Edit: Optional discussion: Change a common imperial vernacular with a metric one to make it sound stupid. Example: Centimeterworm

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

 

[Signa]

Rubbish. Why is a gallon (4.5 L) relevant, but a liter not? In what world is 12 Fl oz more or less applicable as a drink size than 600ml?

The initial comment is stupid, as obviously units of measurement one is unable to instantly recognize and approximate are less useful, but it's all a matter of familiarity. 186cm is far easier a height to compare gauge than 6'3", there is no unit conversion (and neither is a whole or convenient number).....There may be a point if all imperial measurements directly correlated to something used everyday, but, I honestly can't think of any examples (outside of, perhaps, packaging, but in many countries you buy milk etc by the litre, so again that depends entirely on local convention).

I never ever said that metric is an invalid measurement system, just that imperial isn't irrelevant. Here in America, we buy milk by the gallon, and my family goes through more than 1 a day. Buying them buy the liter would be pathetic and stupid. My point is while metric may have some awesome features like upscaling by tens or hundreds, a lot of the sizes that are used are useless for everyday use.

And yes, it's ALL about familiarity. You probably were raised as all metric, and then when you have an imperial measurement thrown at you, it doesn't make a lick of sense. As an American, I use the imperial system, but I was also taught what the metric measurements look like in school. I don't use them, but I know and understand them. I guess none of us were taught to care about their origins, so whatever random basis that each measurement was created from is irrelevant as long as we know what it looks like and how useful the size is.

 

[Dys]

Rubbish. Why is a gallon (4.5 L) relevant, but a liter not? In what world is 12 Fl oz more or less applicable as a drink size than 600ml?

The initial comment is stupid, as obviously units of measurement one is unable to instantly recognize and approximate are less useful, but it's all a matter of familiarity. 186cm is far easier a height to compare gauge than 6'3", there is no unit conversion (and neither is a whole or convenient number).....There may be a point if all imperial measurements directly correlated to something used everyday, but, I honestly can't think of any examples (outside of, perhaps, packaging, but in many countries you buy milk etc by the litre, so again that depends entirely on local convention).

I never ever said that metric is an invalid measurement system, just that imperial isn't irrelevant. Here in America, we buy milk by the gallon, and my family goes through more than 1 a day. Buying them buy the liter would be pathetic and stupid.My point is while metric may have some awesome features like upscaling by tens or hundreds, a lot of the sizes that are used are useless for everyday use.

Fantastic point, that's exactly why the rest of the metric world is struggling with their milk intake, it's because the system with which they measure bought milk is pathetic and stupid and prevents them from ever drinking in excess of 1 gallon of milk. Or, it could be, that a family that drinks more than a galloon of milk could either buy two "1 gallon" containers, or two "3 litre" containers. I fail to see how one is "stupid and pathetic" where one is not. It's all the same shit....You seem to be assuming that the metric system limits it's usefulness to single sizes (1 litre, 1 kg) but that is, of course, absurd. You don't go to a store and buy a pound of mixed candy (well, you probably can, but there are smaller sizes).

And yes, it's ALL about familiarity. You probably were raised as all metric, and then when you have an imperial measurement thrown at you, it doesn't make a lick of sense. As an American, I use the imperial system, but I was also taught what the metric measurements look like in school. I don't use them, but I know and understand them. I guess none of us were taught to care about their origins, so whatever random basis that each measurement was created from is irrelevant as long as we know what it looks like and how useful the size is.

As for the rest of your post, yes. Yes indeed, it is much easier to imagine things within the system that is more familiar to you. That has absolutely no bearing on the relevence, usefulness or any other aspect of the other system. Many countrys (in fact, all of the british colonys other than britain itself) have managed to switch from imperial to metric, and to be honest the whole process was rather mundane (though outside of engineering and scientific applications the only reason to bother changing is to be in step with the rest of the world, which is a non issue).

Look, I'm not claiming that America should change to the metric system. I rightly don't give a fuck, but there is no aspect of either system that renders them un usable. I'm studying engineering, and am interested in travel so the metric system is obviously going to be far more useful to me, and because I'm not lazy I can generally work with both (there are a few imperial units that irritate me, such as slug and pound per foot squared[footnote]I'm find with pound per square inch, I just get shitty when lecturers expect me to want to waste time switching between two standards[/footnote], but they are hardly used in day to day grocery shopping).

 

[Dogstile]

I know nothing about the differing number systems, but I do understand being quoted 12 times and not a single person understanding it.

Probably because i'm of the mindset that everyone on this forum has started getting overly touchy since EC did their piece on EA.

 

[Woodsey]

I measure everything in Badger tusks.

 

[iseko]

What I like about the metric system: absurdly easy conversions

What I dislike about the metric system: words are cumbersome and can't sound "cool." When was the last time you heard of someone who got beaten to within a centimetre of his life?

How about the nano-penis.