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: Bart Goddard on 3 Feb 2010 23:08 "Heidi Graw" <hgraw(a)telus.net> wrote in news:blran.64560$PH1.28067 @edtnps82: >> The Architectural consultants inform me that we have a lack >> of washrooms, so I'm redesigning the plumbing. > > Look luck with it. > Ed. Note: "Washroom" is Metric for "Bathroom". -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Heidi Graw on 3 Feb 2010 23:12 "Bart Goddard" <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> wrote in message news:Xns9D14E13912687goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.100... > "Heidi Graw" <hgraw(a)telus.net> wrote in news:blran.64560$PH1.28067 > @edtnps82: > >>> The Architectural consultants inform me that we have a lack >>> of washrooms, so I'm redesigning the plumbing. >> >> Look luck with it. >> > > Ed. Note: "Washroom" is Metric for "Bathroom". I also noticed that wee little cyber bugs were munching on my own post. I'm pretty sure I signed off with Good luck. Hmmm... Heidi > > > -- > Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 23:23 On Feb 3, 9:22 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > I used to work for a surveyor, and I once mentioned to him > that our job would be hell if we had to switch to metric. > He just shook his head and said, "Naw, they've already > changed it several times. We used to do it in rods > and chains, then we had to do it in miles, feet and inches. > Then we had to switch to decimal feet. It's no big deal." When I have had contact with surveying, they used decimal feet - that's what makes the most sense to me, in that field. Again, decimal feet and decimal inches never coexist, showing that the units do serve their different purposes. > And indeed, even though the U.S. was laid out in miles, > the measurements were so inaccurate that there are no > sections which are very close to a mile square. The > dimentions are given in decimal feet: 5326.34 ft, etc. They can't be exact, due to the curvature of the Earth. I seem to remember that the surveys were pretty good, though of course they may differ by location. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 23:24 On Feb 3, 9:25 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > And anyway, my post was a defense of American and > British engineering. Which is of course based on non-metric units. Andrew Usher
From: Marshall on 3 Feb 2010 23:37
On Feb 3, 8:24 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 9:25 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > And anyway, my post was a defense of American and > > British engineering. > > Which is of course based on non-metric units. True enough! Even taking the benefits of the switch to metric as a given, those benefits are diffuse and delayed, with no immediate strong beneficiary to act as an advocate. On the other hand, the switching cost is obvious, immediate, and psychologically painful. So it's not an easy sell in the best of conditions. Not entirely dissimilar to qwerty vs. dvorak. Marshall |