Mango Fun

18 Responses to "Seriously, WTF ?"

Anonymous said :

March 19, 2009 at 12:42 PM

What's wrong with the clocks one? I know roman numerals go I, II, III, IV, V, but I always see 'IIII' for 4 on clockfaces. Maybe it's a UK thing.

Anonymous said :

March 19, 2009 at 12:47 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#IIII_vs_IV

Anonymous said :

March 19, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Then why didn't they continue with the pattern and use IIIIIIIIIIII for XII? Common doesn't make it right.

Anonymous said :

March 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM

the only difference is the use of the subtractive notation. The use of different letters (I, V, X, L, C, D, M) for certain numbers (1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000) is not the question here, but only the subtractive notation (IIII->IV or CCCC->CD), witch is a relatively recent addition to the roman numeral system (arround 13. C. AD) and it wasn't accepted equally in all its applications. So until recently (in part due to the intervention of Luis XIV (ironically :D )) it was not implemented by watchmakers (among others).

Bear in mind that the roman numeral system is thousands of years old and that it has undergone certain changes during its long use, and depending on the locality, period or discipline there are bound to be some inconsistencies... :)

Anonymous said :

March 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM

The clock is like that because the first grandfather clock that was ever made had that mistake on it. Since then they have continued to make them like that.

Find any grandfather clock. They are all like that.

Anonymous said :

March 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM

I don't think that the first grandfather clock predates this tombstone of a slave:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5838/ivscythicaslave.jpg

It says that his master was a soldier in the 4th Scythian Legion... see the IIII :)

Anonymous said :

March 19, 2009 at 3:25 PM

I have a grandfather clock and it most certainly does not have a IIII for a IV

Anonymous said :

March 19, 2009 at 6:02 PM

I have a clock that i'm sure my grandfather brought, but it is digital so I don't suffer from that terrible IIII/IV situation, though it once was put upside down and we were all really confused when it read 95:11, boy was I late to work that day.

Anonymous said :

March 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Are you serious?
Everyone knows IIII is due to the importance of IV (meaning the Roman god Jupiter...)

Anonymous said :

March 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM

King Ludwig of Bavaria commissioned a clock. When it arrived with IV at the 4 o'clock position be berated the clockmaker for getting it wrong. No one was stupid enough to correct him, so since then clocks use IIII for 4.

MAESTRO LINDO said :

March 24, 2009 at 3:46 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous said :

March 24, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Also, the 4 is written as a IIII because of the symmetry in the clock, now there's 4 numbers which are based on I, 4 numbers based on V and 4 based on X. Pretty important if your clock has to look nice.

Anonymous said :

March 25, 2009 at 10:01 PM

Hilarious pictures but I couldn't begin to tell you what the f*** they were thinking.

Anonymous said :

March 27, 2009 at 8:32 AM

IIII is the original roman notation for 4. Since the original roman numbering system did not have the concept of decimal places or place values, any notation is the same inspite of its positioning. So IV and VI are both basically the same - 6.
The system we use now a days i.e IV for 4 and VI for 6 is a relatively newer system.

Unknown said :

April 19, 2009 at 3:27 AM

The one with the grenade and the door... those door handles you turn down to open the door. So, there isn't much of a problem.

Anonymous said :

April 23, 2009 at 9:45 PM

That toilet is a squat toilet and they're everywhere in Asia. Our "throne" toilets are rare outside of big cities and tourist destinations.

Anonymous said :

May 3, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Sarah, you're forgetting that you also need to open the door...it's the opening that pulls the pin, not the turning of the handle.

Anonymous said :

June 7, 2009 at 7:21 AM

That toilet is not a squat toilet, it's a "throne" toilet set into the ground. So a ghetto squat toilet. Actual squat toilets don't have water tanks like that one.

Also, I think Sarah means that by turning the handle down, the rope loop will slip off. That one looks like a 'shop anyway.

Post a Comment