The following Dodgers have been smited by the JDK for their crimes against Jam:
All the girls! for picking on the JDK and damaging his already delicate self esteem!
The Basserd Who Nicked Copper's Stuff For the offense of nicking Copper's stuff. You are a tw*t, whoever you are and we all hope you get run over by a tram in Nottingham. Or Liverpool. Or whereever else they have trams!
Copper For the crime of playing with her Wii instead of her Jammie pals!
I've only just noticed that almost all clocks that display Roman Numerals use IIII insthe only drink worth havingd of IV to represent 4 o'clock:
Very odd. At first I thought it was the just the one in the van-hire office I was in at the weekend, but then I saw one in an Indian restaurant this evening. It was really starting to bug me. And when I got home, I discovered that my own mantelpiece clock features the very same phenomenon. So I've been surrounded by clocks displaying this incorrect Roman numeral all my life and never noticed...
So obviously, I googled it. I'm not, it seems, the only person to have noticed this and wondered why. There doesn't appear to be a definitive answer, however. Some of the less mundane suggestions are:
The letters 'IV' were an abbreviated for of JUPITER in Roman times, so the Roman used to put IIII on their sundials because they didn't want the face to read 'one, two, three, GOD, five...'.
It's an aesthetic thing - the VIII is quite a 'heavy' character while the IV is not, so the IV was changed to IIII to even up the clock face.
King Louis the something or other was a dumb-shit (well, he was f rench) and when presented with a clock bearing the IV, he announced that it was wrong and insisted that it be changed.
Heh. This kind of stuff always bugs me. Now I've noticed it, it's gonna bug me for the rest of my life.
Funny, though. When I pointed it out to the van guy, he squinted at the clock and said 'What's wrong with it?' When I explained it to him, he acquired an expression of enlightenment.
Exactly the same in the Indian. The guy looked at the clock and couldn't see a problem, until I explained it to him. He was very grateful that I told him ttough. I could tell.
I shall spend the next few days looking sidways at clocks suspiciously in case they try and jump me with any more nasty little surprises...
I think this is quite interesting actually - and Im surprised its on all clocks and that there is so much myth and legend around why there is a difference -
It truly is an interesting world we live in and this is just the sought of trivia that I can quote on dates with young ladies which will make me amazingly attractive to them and make them instantly invite me into their beds... Im sure that will work...
__________________
I'll take arrogance and the inevitable hubris over self-doubt and lack of confidence.
"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face" - Mike Tyson
Clock faces that are labelled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for 4 o'clock and IX for 9 o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not in the other. There are several suggested explanations for this, several of which may be true:
* The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which IV would not. * The number of symbols on the clock totals twenty I's, four V's, and four X's, so clock makers need only a single mold with five I's, a V, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for the clocks, cast four times for each clock:
V IIII IX VI II IIX VII III X VIII I IX
IIX and one of the IX's can be rearranged or inverted to form XI and XII. The alternative uses seventeen I's, five V's, and four X's, possibly requiring the clock maker to have several different molds.
* IIII was the preferred way for the ancient Romans to write 4, since they to a large extent avoided subtraction. * It has been suggested that since IV is the first two letters of IVPITER, the main god of the Romans, it was not appropriate to use. * The I symbol would be the only symbol in the first 4 hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next 4 hours, and the X symbol only in the last 4 hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry. * IV is difficult to read upside down and on an angle, particularly at that location on the clock. * Louis XIV, king of Land of the garlic eating surrender monkeys, preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.[/ul]
* Louis XIV, king of Land of the garlic eating surrender monkeys, preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.[/ul]
He he he he... It's good to see that my language filter is working perfectly!
Looks like you found the same pages I did, dude. Question is, had you ever noticed it before now?
Since you're all so interested in this little voyage of clockular discovery that I'm on, I have another useful snippet of trivia for you, which I picked up in conversation today. Take a look at this picture:
This is the clock on the front of the world famous Corn Exchange in Bristol (source of the well known phrase 'cash on the nail' - but that's another story). Take a look at the clock. Nothing remarkable about it, I think you'll agree. If you were looking at it in real life however, you'd notice that rather than an hour hand, minute hand and second hand, it's actually equipped with two minute hands, each set 9 minutes apart.
These reflect the difference between Bristol time and London time - Bristol being 200km due west of London the sun rises and sets nine minutes later than it does in London. Keeping different times was fine until the coming of the railway, when it soon became apparent that agreement would have to be reached on exactly when trains arrived and departed. Thus began the concept of Greenwich Mean Time.
Apparently we can thank Isambard Kingdom Brunel - another famous Bristolian - for correcting this rather irritating anomaly. I imagine his conversation with the Minister for Clocks And Stuff would have gone something like this:
Isambard: Ere, me babber. 'Ave youw notessed thaat when youw catch ther trainl from Lundun to Bressle, yer waaaatch ends up noine menets faasrt?
Minister: What's that, old chap? Didn't quite catch it on account of the rather poor Vicki Pollard impression.
Minister: Watch? Fast? Bristol? What are you whittering about man? By the way old chap, I've noticed that my watch is always 9 minutes fast whenever I take a jaunt to bristol. Go and sort it out for us, there's a good fellow.
Isambard: Cheers then, Drive. Sorry. Thaat were outta 'abit. I gotta ideal. Frum now on, all ther clarks in Bressle be put ferwerd noine menets so they's ther same as Lundun's. Prublem sulved.
Minister: Splendid. Now tell my why you have such a strange name...