The metric system sucks
in [Math]
|
Prev: connecting Luminet-Poincare Dodecahedral Space with AP-Reverse -Concavity for 10% #379 Correcting Math
Next: Cantor's Diagonal?
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 20:43 On Feb 3, 7:22 pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...(a)telus.net> wrote: > 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. In that case, there's no benefit from going metric either. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 20:45 On Feb 3, 5:13 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > 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). Yes. And what does it have to do with units? The Internet, by its nature, doesn't care what units are used. Going to the moon was done very largely with English units. So how is this supposed to be an argument for metric? Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 20:46 On Feb 3, 3:02 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...(a)frizurf.no> wrote: > Hi, > > excellent parody; a trifle long, though. DO you know the meaning of the word 'parody'? Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 20:52 On Feb 3, 2:09 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > So, while the rest of the world marches on, Americans > > are certainly free to remain behind. > > Right, people who use your preferred system are "ahead" > while anyone else is "behind". This is an odd definition > of "ahead" and "behind", and is, in fact, just a > restatement of the original, unsupported thesis. One of the things I was trying to get it in my essay was how the pro- metric people distort language in order to promote their argument. Usually, when some movement does this, they have a weak argument at the best - at worst they are deliberately lying. I wish everyone responding would read at least Sections I-III and VI of my post (the non-scientific parts), as I should not have to repeat my arguments then. Anyway, it's good to see that at least one person understands me. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 20:54
On Feb 3, 10:06 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I really shouldn't have to respond to ridiculous stuuf like this! > > The rest of the world just called to say the feeling is mutual. So bullshit is OK, as long as it's on your side? Well that's all I need to know. Andrew Usher |