So the results are in for the groups of Brasil 2013:
Seems we Chileans will be opening with Australia; with Spain and Holland also there, there is a promise for pain and entertainment. It'll be tricky, particularly with the Spaniards rushing to keep the World Cup.
Group D, though, now that will be pretty interesting to see; there's a lot of great football condensed there.
May the best country win!
For most everyday uses, I do pretty much that and more or less guess how much above or below half a metre something is. Body measurements also help: I know the distance between my index's knuckle and tip is almost exactly 10cm, so that helps make small measurements easy without too much error.
I never really use the decimetre. I do use milimetres a lot, though.
The thing about the metric system is it's standardization: Even though all measurement systems are built on the same essential basis (ie, find something in nature that we can agree on to use as a comparison and abstract it into a numerical value we can then use for measurement of other things), the metric system ("Metre" simply meaning "Measure" in French) was created with the intention of finding the most universal points of reference available, and always with the notion that, as our capacity for observation improved, those points of reference would be further defined.
That's why it started using the calculated perimetre of the Earth as basis for the metre; you don't get more universal than the planet everyone lives on, plus there was a relatively trusted method of calculating that number. Also, using such a measure allowed defining the metre within a frame of reference that didn't change (at least in practical terms).
As technology allowed for more precise observations, more universal and stable measures were used, and that's why we ended up with, say, the second being calculated over the atomic activity of a very specific element. Sure it sound complicated when you look at it from that angle, but how exactly it is determined is less important than how dependable the source of the measure is; unless the laws of physics go bananas all of the sudden, the second we are using today will be measurable in 100, 1,000 and 10,000 years without change.
Then it is decimal, which is the system we all use today. A lot of civilizations in the past used other methods (like the Egyptians, who used a sexagesimal system. These guys were the first to measure time in multiples of 6, later influencing the Mesopotamians and Greek into developing the 60/60/24 system we use today), but for a good while we've been doing everything on a base of 10. Thus, in order to make it even more universal and scalable, the measures were all built with the idea of decimalization in mind.
The result is a system that has a very solid foundation and that leaves behind all the cultural and political issues that made measures used in one part of the world very hard to reconcile with those used somewhere else.
If you grow using feet and pounds, it's very reasonable for you to see it as the more comfortable method; I grew up using metres and kilograms, and they seem very natural to me (and there are some techniques to help you grasp them easily since an early age, such as measuring the size of your hand and learning your "metre step" and "metre waist"). But considering the Imperial system was built over thousands of years of multiple localized measures and a mixing of consuetudinary references (which, really, was the exact same method everyone used prior to the XVIII century. There were like 80 different measures for the league, for instance, almost one for each country that used them), while the Metric was built from the start as an internally-consistent and universal method, I think it is fair to claim the latter as, at least, a more dependable option in the long run (not to say that Imperial units may not be more effective at certain specific scenarios, though).
I can't speak for every metric out there, but for my group and myself the conversion has become pretty commonplace, and that considering I have an unhealthy aversion to using the term "square" when playing, so it all gets converted straight into metres.
While objectively there is a bit more of math involved, in the end it's a matter of getting used to it, I think.
I seem to remember James Jacob mentioning that the writing policy for all Pathfinder (or Paizo material, for that matter) is to use US English for language uniformity, in which case the term would have to be "meter".
Thankfully I live in a country where the quality of food very rarely is an issue, which with my tendency to try weird stuff everywhere is likely the reason I'm still alive. After mining, growing food is sort of our specialty, and we're so geographically isolated that diseases just kind of give up (oddly enough, we have one of the highest rates of Creutzfeldt-Jacobs in the world, yet none of our cows have ever shown signs of Mad Cow's. Researchers think we got the short end of the stick from a group of immigrants in the early XXth century that ended being pretty prolific in terms of kids and it just stuck into the local genepool).
I think it's really cool to interact with someone who's been playing longer than I've been alive. Heck, my mother was 16 when you started playing!
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
1.- 17-18 years. Started in 1996.
2.- AD&D 2e
3.- d20 (a mix of 3.5 and Pathfinder elements), 7th Sea, Ars Magica 5e. AD&D 2e still is my nostalgia favourite, though, but my players never let me DM it (save for one guy, they really dislike that system. Ungrateful bastards).
4.- Gnome Illusionist killed by zombies and werewolves after opening a cursed sarcophagus. He was the last member of the party to go down, though, so that's something.
5.- More or less, yes. Of the original five-player group, two left about 10 years ago (they still show up for occasional one-shots and boardgames, though); the other three are still part of the group. Three new players joined over the course of the last decade (one in 2002, one in 2007 and one in 2009).
6.- I think I originally joined to check on some converted material, and eventually it became part of my daily routine.
There is a bit of thought about deflation. Perhaps it's not as bad as it has been painted? After all, the idea of economy as a "marketplace of completely rational beings" is pretty thoroughly discredited today. The only people who vaguely approach that "ideal" are autistic people. So, while it is true that things would become cheaper if you waited to make your buy, there are many factors to why not. First, most people would keep buying because they didn't understand the significance. Second, people want their stuff NOW anyway. Third, the difference in price won't impact cheaper products, say, people won't wait three months to buy a 100$ game because it may be 2$ cheaper then. Fourth, many of the products we NEED will be bought anyway. I would say it might reshape the economy a bit, but it's not likely to be as catastrophic as people paint it.
A bit of deflation is not a disaster, just like a bit of inflation isn't either.
The problems of deflation come in two varieties: The danger of a deflationary spiral and the signals it gives out about the state of other aspects of the economy (mainly, and ailing internal consumption market).
Long-term deflation is problematic because more than just people waiting to buy. If prices continually go down, the income of the seller also continualy goes down (unless in the rare scenario of a deflationary phenomenon triggered by sharp increases in efficiency), which in turn means wages will start going down and ultimately consumption will suffer, further increasing the pressure on lower prices (inflationary spirals happen on a similar, but opposite, manner).
Thing is, lowering wages is far more difficult than increasing them, which creates a complex scenario in which margins go down at rates faster than costs. Deflation will cause some of the costs to go down, but the less manufacture-intensive companies (such as services, which are a stapple of more developed economies) will see a progressively smaller possitive impact of deflation in their costs (and thus a sharper negative effect).
Debt deflation is also a problem, though how much it will affect the economy depends on how is its debt market structured.
What if gravity switched and you started falling upwards?
The activities I could do with invisibility are mostly things I would prefer not doing.
Flight, on the other hand, would be downright awesome (assuming it also includes not freezing to death in cold air/blood boiling due to altitude/eyes not drying out when flying too fast, otherwise it would... still be pretty awesome, though more limited in scope).
Depending on how fast it goes, you could offer a pretty sweet delivery service for very urgent and/or valuable stuff -which could be a nice source of revenue-, as well as do a lot of good things for other people for free. That besides the obvious showmanship options, of course.
Exploration and quick travel would be the coolest part, though. Why drink a coke on the street when you can drink it on top of a 4-kilometre mountaintop with a killer view?
No. It is useful... But its value is what someone would buy it for. That it has a use to you doesn't preclude that.
In the sake of precision, value and price are not the same thing.
The value is determined by how you rank a particular good in relation to the comparative cost of the second best alternative (for simplicity, what you are willing to give up or pay for something).
The price, on the other hand, is a market function resulting, primarily, from the values given to goods by both buyer and seller (several other variables also can influence the price, but it all starts from the value). Price is an equilibrium of values, but not value itself.
Most economic theories say that you buy something when the market price is at least equal or lower than the value you give it, while you sell something when the market price is equal or higher than that. In a perfect equilibrium, we couls say that value = price (which is different than saying that value and price are the same thing), but such states are like spherical chicken in physics: Only happen in paper.
While the details differ from model to model, most economic theories have a relatively solid understanding of what determines the price.
It's the value that no one is entirely sure how to determine. Most current economic schools think of value as a subjective thing with some parts that can be more or less measured but still leaving a wide marding for unmanageable variables, though there are some lines of thought, particularly on the Marxist-leaning end of the scale, that adscribe an Exchange Value (the value something would have from being useful for an exchange, ie, something that cannot be traded in a market has no Exchange Value) and a Use Value (the value something would have from its consumption).
I honestly don't know enough about internal US politics to give a fair or appropriate opinion, but comming from a region -Latin America- where decreasing legislative quorums "in the sake of governability" and "because the other parties are blocking everything we do" happens on a constant basis, I can at least give the insight of our experience (which my own country also suffered, taking us several decades to recover from) in noting that while strict quorum systems that make it hard to pass laws can seem problematic, they often are a better alternative to a system in which every change of government brings the possibility of a full turnover.
When parties become ideologically extreme (which, from the outsider's perspective I have seems to be the case with both Democrats and Republicans), governing will be a problem regardless of what you do. I just think it's better to have a problem of passivity than a problem of throwing everything overboard on every cyle; the former takes a while to fix -a while during which very likely few sweeping changes will take place, with all the good and bad such a situation implies- and requires parties to calm down and start seeking consensus again eventually, while the latter gives exactly the opposite incentive. We get a lot of that in this side of the continent and, while context is certainly different, it's never been a good thing.
One of the big reasons some Latin American countries like Chile and Uruguay have been able to become stable and comparatively more prosperous than their neighbours has been a cooling of heads and realising that making things easier for the current government by lowering quorums (a tool meant to force consensus and avoid the easy change of important governing mechanisms) is often not the best strategy in the long term.
Keeping proportions, of course, but I think it's a point worth considering for the debate at least.
Hypertext was originally developed by a Jesuit priest -Father Busa- in 1949 while trying to find a way to compile and interconnect the work of Saint Augustine. He had actually modelled the entire thing -which consisted of tens of thousands of panels and about 10 million words- by hand, before travelling to the offices of IBM in order to propose the development of such technology.
The CEO of IBM originally told him it would be impossible for machines to do such a complex thing, to which Father Busa replied "The difficult we achieve quickly. The impossible, that takes us a bit longer". Eventually, IBM accepted the challenge, though the CEO asked the priest "If this works, I trust you won't ask us to rename IBM into International Busa Machines".
The name Hypertext, however, was coined by Ted Nelson in the 60's.
While I like the well-thought and neatly organized system under which the Golarion powers have been introduced, I also enjoy the byzantine complexity of the Planescape powers, which I personally like to interpret as the myriad of alternate and often conflicting natures their followers from an endless number of worlds give them.
Although I'm sure it was more the result of multiple heads and years of development rather than a purposeful thing, the end result is precisely one of the things I like about Planescape.
Then again, I am of the view that the world beyond the world should be both complex and complicated, which I understand is not necessarily a popular view. It's one of the reasons why I couldn't enjoy the 4e cosmology, even if I fully acknowledge the well-put-togetherness (is that even a word?) it has.
Yeah, the volcanoes are kind of hard to connect to the central concept. My personal interpretation is that the progressively more hostile volcanoes (which are also suggested as having their own purposeful intent) represent the "being evil for evil's sake", becoming more and more punishing in an effort to get just a bit further into being a bastard on everyone around.
But I agree that it is a much tougher sell than, say, the concept of cruelty and evil organization suggested by Baator's structured and "neatly organized" planar layers.
You forgot one though. Concordant Opposition. Obsession about Balance! Realm of the unstoppable Neutrals.
Oh, you are right!
Haha, that's a great way of putting it.
Aye, I agree.
I explained my players the planes in the following manner:
-Celestia: Obsessed about virtue
While somewhat simplistic (ie, Baator is as much about cruelty as it is about corruption and competition, but also about structure and personal gain), it helped them when it came to telling one plane from the other, as well as emphatizing on the point that, be them good or be them bad, everyone can go a bit too far on their thing when it comes to the Outer Planes. On a quick look several planes might seem hard to differentiate, but in truth they all have very distinct character.
Planescape is by far my favourite version of the cosmology.
The reasons that make me enjoy it so much are as follows:
-Overarching Theme: A big focus of Planescape is the concept of belief, and how it can literally change the world. This makes ideals a continous source of conflict that goes far beyond the traditional good vs evil. You have many conflicting worldviews in Planescape, ranging from oblivious solipsists who believe everything is inside their head to ruthless social darwinist that see power, personal drive, and capacity as the only ways to measure one's worth.
-Planar Personality: Even though the planes borrow a lot from real-world sources (as Planescape is built on the cosmology originally developed by Gary Gygax), there is a lot of care put into making each plane have its own character. Since these are infinite worlds that would be essentially impossible to fully describe, the books instead worry about making sure you understand what each plane is about, giving out a handful of locations as examples and then delving into what it feels, smells, and means to be in, say, Limbo.
-Weirdness and Mystery: Planescape is not a setting you can go out and expect to fully explore or understand; it is meant to be complicated and filled with perils so far beyond your reach that there is no chance you'll ever topple them. The gods are specifically said to be unkillable, for instance. While there is still a huge, huge number of adventures to be had, the setting wants you to know there is a bigger world than you and that no matter how powerful you get, there are things you are simply not meant to see. It gives a sense of wonder and immensity that I really enjoy.
-Consistent: Despite all its oddities, Planescape presents a very consistent cosmology. Although it can be a bit strange at first, things do click when you understand that, for example, the Outer Planes cannot be properly described in physical terms, because they are not exactly physical in nature, or how the Astral plane really is infinitesimal rather than infinite. Why do creatures fight over land and resources in an endless plane? Because it's not the land or resources that really matter, but what they mean.
Planescape is a divisive setting, and several of the things I mention are precisely the reasons why other people dislike it. To some, it feels like there are too many plot devises that you are not meant to mess with (like the Lady of Pain), or too many dangerous places that are too difficult to weave into an adventure. To others, the big focus on philosophy and belief feels too distant to the more heroic nature of D&D, or too dense to be something you'd like to put into a gaming session. These are all valid and quite understandable complaints. However, one thing that cannot be said about Planescape is that it doesn't put attention to what makes it unique, and if you like those sorts of things, you are in for a treat.
OP's question implies that there is a limit to the number of dice one should have.
There is none.
More Dice = Better skin, crops grow healthier, your kids behave, you run faster, your farts smell like fresh watermellon in the summer and sound like music.
You are a better person overall the more dice you have. It is almost scientifically proven.
Whew, I know what you mean. I grow plants for a living (mostly olives and plums) and the last three years have been unusually dry around here. One of the fields has the luck of being washed by two creeks which in turn are connected to a region of eternal ices, so water's never a problem there, but the one up north and closer to the desertic region of the country has been a truly monumental challenge to maintain.
The government is evaluating building up some new desalinization plants to help with the problem (that region is very important for fruit production), but that will take some years. I'm honestly not sure if that field will be economically viable for olives within 3-4 years.
Celestial Healer wrote:
An easy way of fixing hardened brown sugar is to throw it into the microwave along with a piece of cloth soaking wet, and cover both with a plate. After less than half a minute, it should be back into shape.
If microwaving is not an option, you can also try with putting the sugar inside a piece of cloth and suspending it above boiling water/steam for a bit.
Hey, if you've ever interested in seeking work for a while over here, I can ask around. Unemployment is so low that workforce is actually hard to find, leading to large-scale immigration from the surrounding countries (and Spain. So many spaniards, so many spaniards).
As for the olives, it depends on the variety. With the exception of some double-purpose varieties like the manzanilla, the olives used for oil production are not edible, plus they taste horrible.
For oil, you want olives with high yield (11% or more of the fruit must be oil. We aim for around 14% with our arbequina, frantoio, leccino, coratina and koroneiki varieties) and you need to maximize the amount of polyphenols (ie, the stuff that results in the flavour and aroma) inside the fruit, which in turn means they will be extremely bitter. While technically you can make oil from eddible olives, they have too little oil content and too much water, making them economically difficult and very complicated in terms of quality (the excess of water leads to faster oxidation, which screws up quality).
The black colour typically associated with eddible olives is only attained by some varieties and after they have had enough time to mature. That's one of the key reasons why people get confused with premium olive oils, since they don't taste like the olives you eat.
Aye, it's far enough, plus mining is very closely regulated here, particularly when near agricultural regions (after all, mining is the main national industry). The veins are on the other side of the hill range that splits the property in two, plus the two creeks that provide water for the crops and orchard run on the opposite end.
There should be no impact on the fields.
Ahem. How does Chilean laws regarding precious metals found on private grounds look like? Do you own them or are they property of the state?
Minerals, and essentially anything under the surface that is not an open space, are owned by default by the state, regardless of who owns the land above. You can request the mineral rights on consessions that range from 25 to 100 years for exploitation.
In this case, a third party had requested the mineral rights to a 400 hectares (about 1,000 acres) section of hills inside the property in the early 90's, and began prospecting about 5 months ago. We got news that gold, copper, and silver were struck a few hours ago.
The law then gives you several options for cases like this (as we own the land above, but the mineral rights belong to the third party). Thing is, my father was planning on building a golf course right between those hills, so now they are evaluating what to do.
The first option is to sell the area to the third party, but there is also the possibility of creating a joint venture. Since my father's main business is construction and heavy construction machinery, it could be a very interesting possibility.
I'm just glad the gold was found on the hills and not exactly beneath the orchards, meaning that the oil production should remain unharmed.
I'm a diurn gamer; my perfect time to play is between 16:00 and 22:00; I also prefer open, well-ventilated and well-illuminated rooms to play (or gardens. I love roleplaying outside during the summer). After that, engines start to fail and all NPCs start looking the same.
That said, I could not for the life of me play before 12:00.
-According to the UNEP, about 30% of all the food produced in the world is wasted every year.
-The top-ten richest countries throw away unopened food in amounts that equal the total food produced by the entire Sub-Saharan Africa.
I think our problem is distribution and inefficient use of resources, rather than overpopulation (which has already been showing decreasing growth rates constantly since the 60's).
Got tempted with those really cheap starter decks for the Warcraft CCG. Always been intrigued about trying it out.
My previous order had not yet been sent, so I was offered the option to consolidate both into the same shipping, for more discounts!
Both times I've done it in the morning (8:30-9:00 am at GMT -4) and had no issues with the page. If schedule allows, perhaps you could try to process the order at this hour?
Distant Scholar wrote:
If the order had been processed, your credit card would have been charged for a small fee in order to check it. Look on your card's movements and, if there is a fee, then the order went through. If not, the order was not processed.
Note that Paizo guys are pretty forthcomming and helpful about these things, so if you still feel unsure, contact them. They've helped me in the past with mistakes on orders and last-minute changes.
Distant Scholar wrote:
Ordered a bunch of stuff (cards & maps). Hit the final Order All This Stuff button. Got dumped back to the main web page. No e-mail confirmation. Stuff still in shopping cart. Not sure if order is still in the works, or got canceled for some unknown reason. Don't want to try again, since I don't want two copies of everything. Typing in stilted sentences.
Did you get a confirmation email? While not an expert on the inner clockwork that makes the Golem move, I would guess such thing to be an automated response and thus, if there was no email, the order was not processed.
Myself, I nabbed four rulebooks and three expansions for Smallworld, and I still paid less than when ordering sushi.
Time Wizards! is a "roleplaying game" I wrote some time ago, based on a running joke which in turn sprang out of a typo we stumbled upon with some friends in the early 2000's on a splatbook forgotten by history.
You can download the rulebook (8 pages long PDF) from here: Download Link.
Basically, you take the role of a time wizard, holding power over causality and applying it context notwithstanding, such as Thursday Afternoon 15-Past-3 O' Clock -a time wizard-, endowed with such powers as "Closing the Door", "Donning the Bathing Suit", Splashing the Water", "Getting the Tan" and "Drinking the Pina Colada".
Game starts with the Time Master detailing the most uninteresting week he can think of (after the role of Time Master has been fought over), and then goes on with the players both trying to survive the rules (which are purposely obtrusive, often involving bananas, beards, and hats. Dice are used too, but mostly for slapping) and make sense out of the plot. And then fighting some more for the role of Time Master.
The last story we played got to a point we couldn't even understand what was going on, with physical space being promoted to the rank of Butter Knife and engaging in a duel of wits against a sentient barrel which had been previously turned into a dictionary entry and changed into a suffix. When another player finished the "encounter" with his signature phrase "But of course, I simply rewind the VCR", we had a collective brain meltdown and spent the rest of the evening laughing.
I'm not quite entirely sure what the purpose of the game is, but it seems that alcohol would make it easier to grasp.
1.- Get to work in the morning.
2.- Open my mail account as usual, to check on important stuff.
3.- See a Paizo email about the Golem Sale.
4.- Check said Golem Sale.
5.- See prices.
6.- End up buying games I didn't even know existed, because discounts.
I hope you are happy. Between you and Steam, my wallet won't even talk to me anymore.
Guy Humual wrote:
It's more than just learning the numbers; the system of measure you use is fundamental in the way you picture reality and visualize things.
For instance, while all of my players have at least a rough understanding of the basic Imperial units, telling them they have encountered a twenty-foot tall giant doesn't really get the message through quite as telling them it's six metres tall, because while they might be able to do the conversion, they can visualize something in metres much more naturally than they can with something in feet.
That's one of the reasons why, even though I have no particular problems dealing with Imperial units myself, I convert everything -and after so many years of doing it, now it's kind of automatic anyway-.
Bearded Ben wrote:
Is there a reason you didn't use the rough approximation of 5 ft = 1.5 m = 1 square for the weapon and spell ranges?
That was a mistake on my part; I seem to have pasted the wrong data from excel. Thank you very much for noticing.
Here's the updated version, which also fixes some other details and adds a squares-to-metres conversion table.
Any feedback to improve it is more than welcomed!
Metric Conversion Guide: Download Link
Ohh, you are quite correct. Thanks!
I also noticed some mistakes (I failed to apply the proper approximations on the weapon/spell ranges tables), plus I added a table for square-to-metre conversions.
Here's the updated version of the Metric Conversion Guide: Download Link
Any feedback to improve it is more than welcomed!
Prompted by the Metric System discussion over at the Off-Topic forums, I made this PFSRD Metric Conversion Guide covering the most relevant measures and rules.
I'd thought I'd share for anyone who could use such a thing.
Here's the download link (it's a PDF, about 400kb. Host is WeTransfer, pretty safe to use): PFSRD Metric Conversion Guide
I hope it helps!
The thing about metric measures is their standardization: They were created precisely because everyone was making up their own versions of measurements and causing quite a bit of a problem. That way, the Metre was defined in the XVII century as 1/10,000,000 of the distance between the North and South poles; the Centimetre as 1/100 of a metre; then the Litre as a volume of liquid inside a 10x10x10cm cube; from there the Kilogram was defined as the weight of said water cube at room temperature. Following that, decimal measures were created for all those, giving way to the Kilometre (1,000 metres), the Millilitre (1/1,000 of a litre), and so on.
Since the whole point was standardization, as time progressed, more universal methods were developed, and thus came the Prototypes (material representations of the measures, such as a metal bar that became THE metre, a metal sphere that became THE kilogram, and so on), which later turned into the more sophisticated methods we use today (such as using the wavelength of light), trying to find the most universal and unchanging reference.
So while the metric system does not have direct correlation to immediately evident things (such as bodyparts, which was usually the basis for measures in most ancient cultures), it has the advantage of being stable, universal, and linearly equivalent.
Alright, got the document finished. I tried to be as exhaustive as possible, while focusing on the most relevant stuff.
Here's the download link (it's a PDF, about 400kb. Host is WeTransfer, pretty safe to use): PFSRD Metric Conversion Guide
I'll see how to add it to the d20pfsrd promptly.
I hope it helps!
Vic Wertz wrote:
Ha! But perhaps we metrics have kings with really strange feet.
I'm just giving the final touches to the metric conversion document. Ended up longer than I expected, but I think it covers everything it needs to cover.
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Sure thing! I'll get it done this afternoon.
I don't think photoshoped models are the cause of "unatainable beauty", but rather a symptom.
After all, unatainable beauty standards are not a thing that just happened to show up in tha last few years.
If anything, what we crudely see in the video (a poor example, however. When we can clearly see it's photoshoped, I don't think it's going to really influence anyone. It's the ones we can't immediately identify as photoshoped that have a bigger effect, I believe) is just a modern version of makeup/corset/plastic surgery.
Don't forget that many of us from non-english speaking countries also use the English versions.
At this point in life I already do automatic conversions from imperial to metric in my head without even thinking, and most issues in the game can be solved with the simple approximations of 1 feet = 0.3 metres and 1 pound = 0.5 kilograms (numbers start getting wonky on the high zones, but isn't usually a problem in most cases), but I really like when books include some sort of conversion (ounces can go die in a corner, though).
One solution I think could work (and that I'd personally enjoy seeing) would be to include a conversion reference page at the end. It starts with the general equivalences of raw measures (feet to metres, pounds to kilograms, miles to kilometres, etc), and then conversions for the most relevant and useful ad hoc measures (in this case, stuff like 5-foot = 1.5 metres, metric versions of the carrying capacity, size categories, and overland movement tables, etc).
It allows you to cover that problem without having to print different versions of the book (plus sneakily advance the metric agenda in the US, mwahahaha).
A Chilean and an Argentine stumble on each other while exploring the jungle. The Chilean is carrying an anvil, while the Argentine is carrying a phone booth.
Chilean: Why on earth are you carrying a phone booth?
Argentine: Because in case I'm attacked by a panther, I can drop it to the ground and hide inside! And why are you carrying an anvil?
Chilean: Because if I'm attacked by a panther, I can drop it to the ground and run faster!