The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Andrew Usher on 9 Feb 2010 06:17 On Feb 8, 3:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > Knock knock, I'm trying to convert breast size cups into > MeTric. What's 38D in MeTric? > Anyone. You can convert the band size from in to cm easily enough, cup sizes don't convert and aren't terribly systematic to begin with. I say one should measure the size of breasts by volume, in cubic inches of course: http://www.thebreastfiles.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8501 > Example, I walk into a store to buy wifey a bra, and say > it's a 38D, but then the service gal asks me for the MeTric > equivalent, what is it? > What's "D" in MeTric? The same, or nearly so. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 9 Feb 2010 06:18 On Feb 8, 7:09 pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > The word "mile" comes from the Latin "mille" and was a thousand > > paces by marching Roman troops. > > That's 1.6 meters per step? Quite impressive! We've told you that a pace is two steps. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_(length) Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 9 Feb 2010 06:19 On Feb 8, 8:56 pm, Matt <30d...(a)net.net> wrote: > >It can't have been that useful, as it became obsolete. Is there even a > >cubit in English units? I suppose it would just be half a yard, > >following the Romans. > > If the pro-metric crowd gets their way, English units will become > obsolete. Would their demise mean they "can't have been that useful?" I meant that it became obsolete without any bureaucratic compulsion. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 9 Feb 2010 06:20 On Feb 8, 9:50 pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > In any event, it's a completely dishonest tactic that you ignore my > > real essay in favor of your silly ridicule. The point is the SI mafia > > whose only purpose is to impose SI units everywhere. > > No, no. I agree. We should keep the Imperial system, which is "an > unfortunate result of trying to put the Anglo-Saxon distance units > into the Roman-based system", and the "aberrant British units". > > Or do you propose to eliminate all units that come from Britain and > just keep the God-given American system, which has been given to us > not by Brits but by Native Americans? As I already stated - and you no doubt read - I prefer we should use the British volume units but the US weight units. Of course computations of volume should be in cubic inches or cubic feet for simplicity - only commercial products need use the gallon, etc. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 9 Feb 2010 06:23
On Feb 9, 3:23 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> Have you ever converted metric in a chemistry lab? > > > A (aqueous) chemistry lab is a cherry-picked environment for arguing > > the merits of the metric system. The density of water is quite > > important there. Not so much in a metallurgy lab. The density of iron > > is expressed no more conveniently in metric (7.874 g/cm^3) than > > English units (491.6 lb/ft^3). > > The relevance becomes very obvious if you want to work out the weight of > a larger or smaller amount. In metric 1km^3 or 1mm^3 requires only a > quick shift in the decimal point. Such 'quick shifts' are a common source of errors. Of course, you can do it by calculator or computer, but that also makes working with English units' conversion factors easy. > > Currency is decimalized; it isn't metric. And its base unit isn't > > rigidly defined, else prices wouldn't change over time. > > I reckon you should be forced back to English money too with 240 pennies > in a dollar 12 pence in a shilling etc. It is much more in keeping with > these other arcane units of measurement. There's really no problem with non-decimal money, but inflation has made the old values irrelevant. Andrew Usher |