from a story by an American author about baseball
"for you to get a minimum of $250 mil, in addition to the legal fees and expenses"
That to me is a quarter of a million dollars but in context that doesn't make sense.
(I use 250m for thousands, 250mm for millions but mil is also used for thousands.)
Translation please
the Americans don't use the French metric system, so mil is always million for them,as in 1,000,000.00 or seven digits. Being an Aussie I'm used to using both and mil is used down here to represent a thousandth of something, like 100 ml for 100 thousandths of a litre is said as "One hundred mils." For the 1,000 of something you'll rarely find mille used in English but often in French.
the Americans don't use the French metric system, so mil is always million for them,as in 1,000,000.00 or seven digits. Being an Aussie I'm used to using both and mil is used down here to represent a thousandth of something, like 100 ml for 100 thousandths of a litre is said as "One hundred mils."
Not completely true. While in reference to money and most other things mil would definitely be millions, there is one exception.
That exception is high precision non-metric units of length. There is in US usage a unit of length called a mil with is 1/1000th of an inch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousandth_of_an_inch
You may also come across mil spec which depending on context could be either military specification or a specification with tolerances specified in mils.
mil spec
In the past I've seen mil. spec. which always meant military specification. I've seen with electronics good, vehicles, weapons, and prepackage meals of all things.
In the past I've seen mil. spec. which always meant military specification.
I'm not surprised, since the mil unit is only used in the US. The second US meaning of mil spec is only going to come up in high precision parts fabrication, usually in the context of small parts.
The second US meaning of mil spec is only going to come up in high precision parts fabrication, usually in the context of small parts.
Not true DS. Mil spec defined above is a reference to military specifications used to produce products for the military. Mil spec products are often a higher quality product made to tighter tolerance than a civilian product. Many civilian products require high precision parts to be fabricated, but their production is not controlled by a military specification. Furthermore small parts are usually produced to meet small tolerances and their production is often controlled by commercial specifications. Bottom line is mil spec does not mean high precision.
Not true DS. Mil spec defined above is a reference to military specifications
Again, there is a non-metric unit in the US called a mil. A mil is 1/1000th of an inch. I have seen mil spec used in cases where it could not mean military spec because it was used in reference to a purely civilian product. The usage in that case is to a specification with a tolerance in mils (thousandths of an inch).
DS, you are correct that the US uses a unit of measure called a mil and that it is 1/1000 of an inch.
However in the phrase 'Mil Spec' the term 'Mil' is an abbreviation for Military, not a unit of measure. Furthermore, the phrase 'Mil Spec' refers to a set of standards that are established and maintained for an item by the Military. When a specification is developed by a Commercial Entity to define the standards for controlling the production of an item, it is called a 'Commercial Specification'. The differentiation between a Military and Commercial specification is who created it, not its application.
There is nothing preventing the application of a 'Mil Spec' to the manufacture of a Commercial Product by a Commercial Manufacturer.
I worked for an R&D Electronic company that produced products for Military and Commercial customers. In some cases, the Military required us to produce their product to the requirements specified in a Commercial Specification. Some Commercial customers required us to meet a Military Specification.
The bottom line is who developed it, not who uses it.
Mil spec defined above is a reference to military specifications used to produce products for the military.
This is true, but I've also seen it used to designate a specification for civilian products. When I was involved in manufacturing electronic goods (many, many, many moons ago) we had a few customers who specified mil spec components for their goods. The reason for it was the mil specs for electronics had a wider temperature range for continued operation than the civilian ones and by using the mil spec they were over engineering the consumer devices and reducing the number of service calls, while their business rivals were using civilian specs and getting ten times the number of service calls from consumers in areas where weather extremes occurred. So you could often see mil spec gear in civilian projects.
Ernest, see my reply to DS. I forgot to change the Post As selection so it is from DParsons1000, can't edit that once posted, or at least I don't know how.
I agree with your comment. The reason for the differences between most Mil Specs and their Commercial equivalents is the Military uses its products in environments that are more severe than the environments in which Civilian products are used. Since the Military wants their equipment to survive these more severe environments, they specify thing like higher temperature ranges, operation in high humidity conditions, higher corrosion resistance, higher shock/impact standards, etc.
Since the Military wants their equipment to survive these more severe environments, they specify thing like higher temperature ranges, operation in high humidity conditions, higher corrosion resistance, higher shock/impact standards, etc.
Yeah, getting an electronics tech to make a service call on your radio in the middle of a fire-fight in a desert is a little hard to arrange, also hard to organise at Mawson Base. In the 1980s many electronics companies used mil spec components for their gear to cut back on service needs. Heck, with some components it was cheaper to buy the mil spec unit than the commercial spec equivalent because the number of mil spec items made and sold was significantly higher and thus made them cheaper.
Lest we get over-wrought and caught up in endless point-pickery, the quoted example is little more than sloppy short-hand for "million." Slang, if you will. It has as much relevance outside the U.S. as "bro" or "wassup."
Move along folks; nothing to see here.
from a story by an American author about baseball
"for you to get a minimum of $250 mil, in addition to the legal fees and expenses"
If the author had spelled out "million" as he should have there wouldn't be any confusion. He did it wrong so he paid the price. Unless it was dialogue, then the character could easily have said "mil."
Unless it was dialogue,
I'm pretty sure the line is from the player's lawyer agent about the possible payout on a law suit against the club management. I'd have to go back and re-read the story to be sure, but it being dialogue fits what I remember of the scene.
typo edit.
Unless it was dialogue,
I'm pretty sure the line is from the player's lawyer agent about the possible payout on a law suit against the club management. I'd have to go back and re-read the story to be sure, but it being dialogue fits what I remember of the scene.
Correct. "Oh Boy" by Dual Writer. Immediately before a game the player had been drinking club supplied protein drinks which somebody had doctored with enough horse drugs that he, the player, should have died.
Thanks to the contributors to the thread "Broke and Sad" I found the story I had previously read and then lost. Thanks folks.
@ Ernest Bywater
That could also be 25 cents (250 mils (1 mil = 0.001 dollars))
"mil spec" is the official abbreviation of "Military Specification"
@Switch Blayde
Unless it was dialogue, then the character could easily have said "mil."
If he had spelled it out correctly it should have been "mill"
"mil spec" is the official abbreviation of "Military Specification"
In the US there is also a non-metric unit of length called a mil which is 1/1000th of an inch. I have seen mil spec used in reference to non-military high precision small parts where it means that the parts are engineered and fabricated to a tolerance specified in mils.
In the US there is also a non-metric unit of length called a mil which is 1/1000th of an inch.
Sorry folks, but the reference was clearly for U.S. dollars, so the only meaning would be millions. As for the amount, a lawyer can claim any amount they want, but it's doubtful they'd get it from suing a small group or an individual. All they need to do is hand off their belongings to their spouse (if they can trust them) and declare bankruptcy. What most do is to incorporate, so the money can only be collected from the business, but the individual loses nothing, including the money they paid themselves as the held of the club.
Even if you sued a major corporation with plenty of funds, they'd bounce it from one court to another until it was either dismissed, or they get a honey pot deal with only minimal fines and no admission of guilt.
Sorry folks, but the reference was clearly for U.S. dollars, so the only meaning would be millions. As for the amount
I said that up front in a much earlier comment.
In the US a mill is one tenth of one cent, only used for tax purposes, usually property tax. While a legal part of the monetary system there is not and never been any coinage. So it wouldn't get you very far in a gin mill or any other run of the mill situation, even if it was a grist mill though I like coins with milled edges.
In the US a mill is one tenth of one cent, only used for tax purposes, usually property tax.
Don't forget how they are used in gas prices. ;)
While a legal part of the monetary system there is not and never been any coinage.
Not quite true, but you have to be an old fossil to remember. Washington State issued aluminum tax tokens for use in paying sales tax at retail stores. Their value was stamped on the obverse face: 1 mill tax on 14 cents or less; later, 1 mill tax on 10 cents or less. When aluminum proved to be worth more than the coin (which was round with a hole in the center, about the size of a quarter) the state replaced then with green plastic tokens.
I saw them about 1948-49 in the corner markets of Port Orchard where we lived for awhile (I was 8 or 9 yrs then). Store keepers hated them. Big strings of them (threaded through that center hole) hung behind the cash register.
Since then, the typical sales tax in Washington is 8.3 percent (local options vary the rate a small amount).
Photos: http://www.brianrxm.com/comdir/cnssalestax_washington.htm
In Seattle the sales tax is 9.5%. At least in restaurants. Which is why they will be changing the spelling to C attle and omitting the space, because they treat us like Cattle.
In the U.S. "mil", pronounced "mill", is a tenth of a cent, "mill" is a factory, originally a place to grind grain.
In the first issue of money by the U.S. Treasury there were mil denominated notes, though technically there were never mil denominated coins. By the second issue the smallest denomination was the cent.
@tppm
"mil spec" is the official abbreviation of "Military Specification"
The (in)famous $500 hammer was because it was built by an aircraft manufacturer because they couldn't find a commercially available hammer that met the mil spec.
The (in)famous $500 hammer was because it was built by an aircraft manufacturer because they couldn't find a commercially available hammer that met the mil spec.
Those manufacturers were notorious. It cost tens or hundreds millions of dollars to design the refuelling equipment for your liquid powered rockets. The UK forces took an ordinary car gas supply forecourt pump and modified it to do the job for under $120.000. How much did the President's loo in Air Force 1 cost????????
It was like reinventing the typewriter keyboard
Those manufacturers were notorious.
The problem isn't really the the manufacturers and it's not just limited to the military. The problem is congress and the way they write appropriations bills. They get very detailed about the specifications for items that they are appropriating money for to the point that no over-the shelf mass produced consumer product could meet the requirements.
For example, way back when they still allowed smoking in federal buildings, Congress appropriated money to buy ash trays for the desks of federal employees. Not only did they have to be glass ash trays, Congress specified that they had to break into X number of pieces when struck with a hammer.
I don't know what X was, but I do know that Congress did supply a specific number.
Those ash trays cost a lot more than any ash tray you could by in a store, and it wasn't because the manufacturers were being greedy.
While there are companies that live or die by the ability to sell to the government, a lot of manufacturers with large civilian customer bases simply aren't willing to put up with all the BS, hoops and red tape you have to go through to sell something to the government.
Yes, the government makes people jump through hoops to sell the government things the government wants. Naturally, the few companies that are willing to go through the process want (and probably deserve) to get paid for all that extra effort.
The problem isn't really the the manufacturers and it's not just limited to the military. The problem is congress and the way they write appropriations bills.
Many years ago in a previous job we used to encounter similar things when looking at tenders for work from the Territory Government (think state government).
Many of the tech tenders were put out by people that obviously didn't have a clue about what it was they actually needed.
There were several times where the "specified or equivalent" equipment wouldn't actually do what they wanted it to do.
One example was a video surveillance and recording system. They specified the system that they wanted (or equivalent) and part of the specification was to allow for future upgrades.
1 the system they specified wasn't capable of doing everything that they said they wanted it to do.
2 as it was the system was fully maxed out, there was no possibility of adding on to it. In the future a second separate system would be required.
After wasting several months of pointing out the bloody obvious we just gave up. From that point on we only tendered for work where the requirements & equipment specified actually matched up. Anything else just wasn't worth the time & effort involved.
The same rules apply to the so-called cost-of-living increases for Social Security benefits. The politicians brag about those increases. Then do one or both of the following: Decrease other benefits (that are usable by the recipients), Fail to apply the cost of living figures to the other benefits. Those benefits include Medicare and Food Stamps (for lower incomes) among many other benefits.
The result is that each year when those cost-of-living adjustments hit. The Social Security recipients have to wait and compare all the benefits before finding out if they gained or lost over all.
