I think you missed the point. You need to measure the gnats WHOLE ass - not
its ass h*le. The size of the aperture relative to the phase of the matter
passing becomes mute when using the RMS value of the WHOLE ass width.
Thus, you get a HGA, RMS. The Texas thing can be explained within 2 standard
From: Andrzejewski, Jan <email@example.com>
To: 'rp-ml' <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 11:30 AM
Subject: Ambiguous Measurement Terminology
>Were the gnats that you photographed in a state of unconsciousness?
>If so it could then it could be assumed that their little ass muscles were
>very relaxed and larger than what may be used as an international standard.
>There is also the problem of the classification of the terminology, 'ass' (
>should it be open or shut )
>its main purpose is to keep all the waste inside the gnat until it decides
>to defecate. ( could be pretty messy on the optics ).
>The secondary function of a gnats ass is to keep in any gaseous matter
>a sudden strenuous action causes the gnat to break wind.
>In both functional cases the aperture would be closed and unmeasureable
>Could any body use an SEM ( scanning electron microscope ) on a live gnat?
>What was the average size of the gnats used in the sample? and I suppose
>that if a really big gnat from Texas was used then the size of the problem
>could be doubled.
>3D Systems could make a fortune recalibrating their customers machines to
>the GA unit of measurement. under the premise that the gnats ass dilemma is
>just another millennium bug that needs immediate attention.
>For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:50:52 EEST