The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Ken S. Tucker on 3 Feb 2010 17:08 On Feb 3, 4:53 am, Bart Goddard <goddar...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote innews:hkbq66327kt(a)news3.newsguy.com: > > > Bart Goddard wrote: > >> "Heidi Graw" <hg...(a)telus.net> wrote in > >>news:tC4an.64378$PH1.2203(a)edtnps82: > > >>> He prefers the metric. It's easier to learn and easier to use. > >>> I also prefer metric for those same reasons. > > >> Which is also a reason for choosing Cosmetology school > >> over Engineering. > > >> B. > > > Now try cooking. Before you respond with another snotty post, > > think chefs. > > Don't tell me what to do, whippersnapper. I cook a lot > and I brew a whopping amount of beer. And I gotta say > that beer made with metric units just doesn't taste as > good. Malt in pounds, water in gallons, hops in ounces... > the way God meant it to be! Yeah and you squash grapes with 2 feet. How do you do that in MEtric? Guess that's why MEtric peoples don't drink wine, unless it's made by us, the common folks. Ken
From: Joshua Cranmer on 3 Feb 2010 18:13 On 02/03/2010 06:00 PM, Ray Vickson wrote: > No. The internet was invented and developed in Europe by the high- > energy Physics community (CERN). That was the World Wide Web. The Internet was developed by researchers in the U.S. working under the ARPA program to link up the various research universities. Why do you think IANA was originally controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense (and is now run by a company who does it on a contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce). -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Antares 531 on 3 Feb 2010 18:31 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:09 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <hgraw(a)telus.net> wrote: > > >>"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> wrote in message >>news:Xns9D14516084083goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.90... >> Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18(a)verizon.invalid> wrote in >> news:hkbrpu$e0j$1(a)news- >> int2.gatech.edu: >> >>> Woah. You're basically saying here "the U.S. uses Imperial units, so the >>> rest of the world should too. >> >> Yet isn't that the argument the other side gives as well? >> "We all use Metric, so the US should too, and by the way, >> if they don't, then they're just stoopid." >> >> B. > >Actually, I don't care what sort of measuring system the US uses. >I don't need to buy American if I want metric components for >my European imported machinery and equipment. German >engineers are also quite happy to travel to Canada to build >and manufacture stuff for us. They've also built a reputation >of being on time and on budget and they've proven that >time and time again. > >The Americans can also choose not to enter into the metric >global market. You can keep your US measures for your >US manufactured goods and simply sell them to your >fellow Americans. > >So, while the rest of the world marches on, Americans >are certainly free to remain behind. It's your choice >after all. > >Heidi > Heidi, you make some good points here, but what would you suggest as an approach to changing all the land survey and architectural layout schemes from the very obtuse feet/inches/rods/yards/miles, etc., that were used to lay out the entire U.S.A.? I can't really think of a workable solution to this problem. It is a burden that our ancestors placed upon us and we have little choice other than to shut up and live with it. Gordon
From: Tronscend on 3 Feb 2010 20:10 Hi, "Marshall" <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> skrev i melding news:99469b66-c77b-471c-959e-fc99c7ca6f12(a)a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com... On Feb 2, 5:45 pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...(a)telus.net> wrote: > American engineering is .... not bad. > American engineering .... went to the moon ... A Brit (a famous one, even) had the basic idea, a Russian wrote the theory, a Peruvian made the first rocket, and the Germans got the whole thing off the ground in a large scale. Of course there is Goddard, but Paulet beat him to the invention. So a lot of, as it were, groundwork, was laid by other nations' engineers. T
From: Heidi Graw on 3 Feb 2010 20:22
>"Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote in message >news:hi1km5lsngjl0trb67pcd8r9a164nsbmi6(a)4ax.com... (snip) > Heidi, you make some good points here, but what would you suggest as > an approach to changing all the land survey and architectural layout > schemes from the very obtuse feet/inches/rods/yards/miles, etc., that > were used to lay out the entire U.S.A.? I can't really think of a > workable solution to this problem. It is a burden that our ancestors > placed upon us and we have little choice other than to shut up and > live with it. All present layouts can be converted into metric units. This, of course, would lead to properties and buildings having some rather interesting numbers which would include decimal points. But, any *new* developments can be built using metric measures and metrically cut materials. So, instead of building a house by the square foot, one can build by the square metre. Current mills don't even need much retooling, if any, because they already cut metric or standard depending on their customer's demands. Ie. in BC we cut lumber for different markets. You name it, and they'll cut it according to your measure. This kind of versatility allows them to sell their products globally. Take care, Heidi |