The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Darwin123 on 11 Feb 2010 11:50 On Feb 11, 11:45 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 10:18 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > The truth is, the leftist machine has gotten people's minds to feel > sorry for our measuring system, just like they've gotten white men to > feel sorry for being white and male. Your metaphors are gang raping the English language.
From: Joshua Cranmer on 11 Feb 2010 11:58 On 02/11/2010 12:36 AM, Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 10, 1:34 pm, Darwin123<drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> So it isn't just government regulation that bothers you. In your >> opinion, any American that decides to switch to metric is being >> "Leftist," even if he does so for his own self interest. According to >> you, technology and economics haven't changed for so long that "anyone >> who had good reasons unrelated to ideology would have done so >> already." > > I do think it's a little bit treasonous, yes. The U.S. Constitution might disagree: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Using the metric system is definitely not "levying War", and I can't see any court considering it "giving [another country] Aid and Comfort." -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Mark Borgerson on 11 Feb 2010 17:11 In article <hl162u0173l(a)news4.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol says... > Bob Myers wrote: > > jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Bob Myers wrote: > >>> Darwin123 wrote: > >>>> How about removing all regulations concerning units and see what > >>>> individuals and companies would do? > >>> That's the most sensible solution I've seen here yet - which, > >>> of course, is why it will probably never happen! > >>> > >> The only reason you are able to read these posts is because > >> we introduced and developed standards. don't throw the > >> bath water out with the babies. > > > > While (as noted earlier) my original comment was at least > > half in jest, I am prompted to ask re this one: who is this > > "we" you're talking about? > > People who wrote the code to make the hardware work. > > >Many - probably most - of the > > most successful standards in use today were developed by > > industry groups responding to market needs, not through > > government regulation. > > The government regulation happened after the standards > were made. This is what creates unique standards rather > than forcing the buyers of the products to choose between > a dozen, or dozens, of standards. > > > > > I've spent more than my fair share of time working in such > > groups, and would MUCH rather deal with industry > > standardization efforts than government or quasi-governmental > > regulation. > > > But the it's the governments' choices of which standard will > be used when deciding procurements. After that, the laws > about regulations happen if the industry isn't adept to > changing needs of the populace. A good example is > the telephone industry ;-). Another one is the airplane > business. > I think it will take something between a 60mm mortar and a 155mm howitzer shell to budge Andrew from his position! ;-) Mark Borgerson
From: J. Clarke on 11 Feb 2010 17:54 Mark Borgerson wrote: > In article <hl162u0173l(a)news4.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol says... >> Bob Myers wrote: >>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> Bob Myers wrote: >>>>> Darwin123 wrote: >>>>>> How about removing all regulations concerning units and see >>>>>> what individuals and companies would do? >>>>> That's the most sensible solution I've seen here yet - which, >>>>> of course, is why it will probably never happen! >>>>> >>>> The only reason you are able to read these posts is because >>>> we introduced and developed standards. don't throw the >>>> bath water out with the babies. >>> >>> While (as noted earlier) my original comment was at least >>> half in jest, I am prompted to ask re this one: who is this >>> "we" you're talking about? >> >> People who wrote the code to make the hardware work. >> >>> Many - probably most - of the >>> most successful standards in use today were developed by >>> industry groups responding to market needs, not through >>> government regulation. >> >> The government regulation happened after the standards >> were made. This is what creates unique standards rather >> than forcing the buyers of the products to choose between >> a dozen, or dozens, of standards. >> >>> >>> I've spent more than my fair share of time working in such >>> groups, and would MUCH rather deal with industry >>> standardization efforts than government or quasi-governmental >>> regulation. >>> >> But the it's the governments' choices of which standard will >> be used when deciding procurements. After that, the laws >> about regulations happen if the industry isn't adept to >> changing needs of the populace. A good example is >> the telephone industry ;-). Another one is the airplane >> business. >> > I think it will take something between a 60mm mortar and > a 155mm howitzer shell to budge Andrew from his position! > ;-) 16 inch, for when you care enough to give only the very best.
From: Bob Myers on 11 Feb 2010 17:55
Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 10, 1:25 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: >> Androcles wrote: >>>> So, you'll want to export your "inched" equipment and machines to >>>> where? Are you taking into account the clients' will in your sales >>>> dpt? >> >>> Machines today are CNC, so you can have both. >> >> Wow, and you say the drills and other tooling will also >> automagically change to the system in use without having >> to produce/stock/maintain both types? Imagine that... > > Drills already have interchangeable bits, Ah, another person who's never seen the inside of a machine shop... FYI, a "drill" in this context is a rod of metal with a sharp end and a helical cutting surface machined into it, useful in creating holes in metal; a "bit" is something wordworkers use in conjunction with a device called a "brace." You might get more of a clue about this through a consideration of terms such as "drill press" and "drill index." Bob M. |