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: Heidi Graw on 4 Feb 2010 12:35 >"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message >news:NrmdnTESA90yOPfWnZ2dnUVZ7vGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >Mike wrote: > About 35 years ago I moved to a new (to me) older house in London and > needed to replace some damaged floorboards. When all the houses in my > area were built they were done in Imperial measurement with boards, as I > recall, 5-5/8 inches wide (finished size), or 143 mm. > > But when it came to buying some new replacement boards, I couldn't find > any because timber had been decreed to be in metric cuts a few years > earlier. They literally would not fit. So I had to have the merchant trim > about 5 mm off the edges of all the 150-mm boards I bought so I could fit > them in. (Floorboards have a small gap between them in most houses; > normally you would lay your interior flooring on top of them.) > > My point is that it should have been perfectly possible to measure in > metric, but retain the same historic physical size as a stock option, > because the vast majority of housing stock used the old size, however you > measure it. None of this made any sense to me but some government > official had decreed it because he liked round numbers, or because 150mm > was some sort of standard continental timber size. Ah yes, renovations...a builder's nightmare. My first house was a small 1940's wartime bungalow built for air force personnel. I figure that if a married couple survives the renovations project, they were meant to be together. Renovations...a true test for any marriage. LOL... After awhile, it turned out that having two people live in one small house was just too crowded. We were constantly in each other's way. So, we decided to build an addition. Hubby took his chainsaw and went up on the roof to start cutting. When the neighbours heard the noise they rushed over and asked Bill, "What the f*ck are you doing?" To that, Bill replied, "Heidi and I are getting a divorce. I'm taking my half of the house." LOL.... Take care, Heidi
From: Ken S. Tucker on 4 Feb 2010 12:36 On Feb 3, 7:40 pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...(a)telus.net> wrote: > >"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote in message > >news:69011e79-866e-43f3-b01f-bca8a84282fe(a)19g2000yql.googlegroups.com... > > (snip > > >Ken wrote: > >Went in to order some 5/8" during the MEtric > > conversion and the guy asks if I want 16mm ply, ok that's the > > same, then a few months later I went back and placed an order > > for 16mm, and guys asks, do ya mean 5/8" ? > > Canucks are really screwed up. > > LOL...nah...we're bi-measurable. We can swing both ways > or more. LOL... I spent my childhood raised the metric > way. Then when we immigrated to Canada I had to > learn the British standard. Later, when my children > entered school, they learned a bastardization of > metrics. All I could do was shake my head in disbelief. > Ah well... What the ding-bat govmonks in BC did is to take the building code and convert 2x4's into mm's, like duh, meanwhile all the real people, those who actually do work, are still on imperial. On the other side we use watts for electrics, BTU's for A/C, gallons/minute for pumps, so we're definitely swingers, like all over the place. > >> >... and 2"x4" studs, and much more. > > >> ...like those 2"x10"? > > > Code on our floor calls for 2"x8" stud, I like a bit of bounce. > > I'm on concrete ground. Hard on the feet, legs and back unless > I wear my fluffy pink slippers and stand on a cushioned mat > at my various work stations. Yeah that's right, personally I try to design in bounce. I went to 2x4's in my work shop floor. Maybe I'll go for pink fuffies next time. > >>Heidi wrote: > >> I use metric measures and metric recipes. Works just fine. > >Ken wrote: > > But a gazillion cook books use, teaspoons, etc. stuff right > > off the table. > > ...not in Canada. But, I rarely use cookbooks. And even if I do, > I never follow the exact recipe. I usually end up making all > kinds of adjustments to make my cooking uniquely Heidi Graw. ;-) > > >>Heidi wrote: > >> Hey, I like driving 120 km/hr down the freeway. It gives me > >> the impression I'm going much faster than I'm actually driving. ;-) > > Ken wrote|: > > "120 klicks" you must be a hot-rodder. > > My Daddy taught me to drive. His advice? "Just step on it." LOL... > > >Are you that person > > yapping into a cell while breezing past me in a sports car? > > Nah...I don't own a cell. I refuse to be at anyone's beck > and call. Half the time I don't even answer the telephone. > If it's important enough, they'll call back. I also don't have > caller ID. This way, everyone has an equal chance at > being ignored. I answer at *my convenience.* Wifey had a cell, $24/month and I asked how often she used it, 3 times a month, so that's $8/call, cancelled her cell. > (snip) > > >>Heidi wrote: > >> No need. I wouldn't be hiring you anyway. My husband > >> built the house I designed. Custom? Very...and rather > >> quite unique. > >Ken wrote: > > OK!, wife and I would like to see some pix's. > > I'll describe it. 3,000 square foot level entry > U-shaped bungalow. Vaulted ceilings, 6 sky-lights, > 5 glass sliding doors. 2x8 construction, interior > walls insulated to dampen sound, thus reducing > any echoes. Walk in and you can actually > feel the difference. It feels solid and secure. The > house hugs the ground and rolls with any > earthquakes without breaking apart. > > Cedar shake roof lined with zinc stripping along > the caps to keep moss from growing on it. > Wide overhanging eaves to keep rain away > from the windows and outside walls. > Specially engineered trussing to hold the load. > > In-floor hot water heating, gas fired monstrosity > of engineered gadgetry that I find baffling. Thanks Heidi, that looks nice, your hubby must be quite talented. There is a good group "alt.architecture" I'd like to invite you to peruse. > > I'm trying to get a design together, have a look, > > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/46333912(a)N06/426003595 > > Awesome, but I would hate to be the one cleaning and > maintaining it. Our retirement home will be a small > bungalow with an open floor plan and a large screened > in porch. Hubby will build that one, too. We just completed a nice cozy guest cottage, http://www.flickr.com/photos/dynamics/ wifey finds nice. > > The Architectural consultants inform me that we have a lack > > of washrooms, so I'm redesigning the plumbing. > > Look luck with it. > Heidi Thanks Heidi, we'll see what materializes. Regards Ken
From: Bart Goddard on 4 Feb 2010 13:05 nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in news:hkevh2$i0c$1 @reader2.panix.com: > > In article <Xns9D15464AACB40goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.93>, > Bart Goddard <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> wrote: >>nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in >>news:hke1bi$n19$6(a)reader2.panix.com: >> >>> What is the density of water in pounds per cubic foot? >> >>As usual, the decimaphile offers us a calculation that >>1. is already known and 2. nobody ever does. Against > > If you mean non-technical people, they get through most of their > lives without doing any calculations at all. Engineers, on the > other hand, have to deal with the density of water quite a bit. Things > get submerged in it, containers are built empty and later filled > with it, it can end up standing on the roofs of buildings if you > didn't design them right, etc. "Deal with" is not "calculate." Nobody calculates the density of water. I have this piece of plywood which is 1 foot by 1 foot. Now I'm going to calculate the area in English units while you calculate it in metric. On you mark...get set....GO! I'm done. Let me know when you get your answer. And remember: people "deal with" the areas of wood all the time. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Heidi Graw on 4 Feb 2010 13:07 >"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote in message >news:bf8ba2c3-6fdc-4aba-adb2-19c0b08051e8(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... (snip) > Thanks Heidi, that looks nice, your hubby must be > quite talented. Well...he wanted a challenge, so I gave it to him. ;-) Actually, the real reason he wanted to build the family home was to prove to himself he could do just as his own father and my father had done. If they could do it, so could he. He had no clue as to how to go about it. So, I gave him a project to practice on. Build a dog house. And what a beauty that turned out to be. The next step was for him to build a large garage and workshop. This provided him with more learning opportunities. The only problem: the garage was larger than the house and it look odd. So, then he felt confident enough to build a huge two-story addition. It turned out awesome. But then, with that large garage and house, we didn't have much room left for the boys to play in the yard. So, then we sold that, moved out into the boonies, bought acreage and built that house from scratch. We've lived in it for the past 20 years. It was the perfect family home. 4 bedrooms all large and airy. Our plan now is to portion off a section of that house to create a suite for one son, while the other son can take over the rest of the house. But, on that same acreage, we will be building our retirement home. > There is a good group "alt.architecture" I'd like to invite you > to peruse. Oooh...sounds interesting. I take a peek. > > We just completed a nice cozy guest cottage, > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/dynamics/ > > wifey finds nice. I'm glad your wife likes it. I, however, would have gone with a slightly more interesting design, something similar to this: http://www.ucmycabins.com/cottages.html > Thanks Heidi, we'll see what materializes. > Regards > Ken Be sure to keep me informed as to your progress, I'm sincerely interested. Take care, Heidi
From: Bob Myers on 4 Feb 2010 13:23
I can't believe this is being seriously discussed in supposedly science-oriented newsgroups. ALL such systems of measurement are to some degree arbitrary; there is no inherent advantage in that regard, for most applications, to either system. But if we're talking about what system to use in the future, I would submit the following: 1. The current situation, wherein persons (mostly in "English unit" countries) basically HAVE to keep tools, etc., in both versions, is not optimal. It leads to inefficencies and errors (as in the famous case of the "Gimli glider," in which an airliner ran out of fuel in mid-flight, in large part due to confusion between the two systems of units). 2. It is admittedly costly to switch from a "both systems" situation to using one only, or to switch from one to the other. But tools and tooling does wear out and have to be replaced over time, and you can take advantage of this to minimize the cost of transition either way. We should also note that many, many currently available electronic measuring devices (scales, calipers, etc.) are easily switched from one system to the other by the press of a button. And we have to look at the cost of the transition vs. the costs inherent in the inefficiencies and errors noted above. 3. The question, then, assuming that we do not wish to continue using two systems in parallel forever (and I have yet to see any justification for doing THAT) is simply which one makes more sense to switch to, worldwide, for the future. It is readily apparent that the "metric" or "SI" system is the logical choice here, as it is already the most popular system worldwide (and thus the overall cost of transition is minimum going in that direction), plus it has the advantage of being, once learned, a simpler and more intuitive set of units. Given the above, there would have to be a significant justification for continuing with the "English" system, and again, I have seen nothing offered here beyond "it's just too hard for me to learn a new system." Bob M. |