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: Mike Dworetsky on 4 Feb 2010 13:35 J. Clarke wrote: > Mike Dworetsky wrote: >> Andrew Usher wrote: >>> 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 >> >> I don't know, but all the other space countries and consortia such as >> ESA are using metric, and they are highly successful at launching >> commercial and scientific satellites. Even India is getting in on >> the space industry. The difference is that none of them are having >> to prove themselves better than the Russians. >> >> I don't see any signs lately that the US is going back to the moon, >> regardless of units, so at best your comment is an irrelevance. If >> it ever does, the astronauts may have to bring passports with valid >> Chinese visas. > > Yeah, like the Chinese are going to the Moon anytime soon. > It was a sort of joke and not meant seriously. But only sort of; I do think one of their long term goals is to land a man on the Moon, if for no other reason than prestige. It may be sooner than you think. Compare where America was in 1960 with 1969. It only took 9 years. If they put their minds to it, don't you think they will find a way? > In any case, China is a signatory of the Outer Space Treaty. Well, I am greatly relieved to learn that. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
From: Bart Goddard on 4 Feb 2010 13:51 "Bob Myers" <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote in news:hkf3e6$drh$1 @usenet01.boi.hp.com: >Given the above, there would have to be a significant >justification for continuing with the "English" system, I need justification for continuing what I've always been doing? I don't think so. Usually it's the changer, not the non-changer, who needs to justify his plans. Is there a justification for using more than one language in the world? If not, then I guess we're honor-bound to pick one and insist that everyone learn it. What I'd like to see is some sort of justification for sucking the soul out of the world for the sake of "easier" and "cheaper." Until then, I'm sticking with my interesting measurements, my curvy, twisty streets, my ethnically different friends, and my non-rectangular house. And if it costs me my life because the ambulance had trouble finding the place, then it was worth it. (The point being, as it has always been, the arguments put forth in burden the world with the metric system would never be tolerated if applied to any other aspect of our lives. That's a pretty good indication that the logic is deeply flawed.) B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Mike Dworetsky on 4 Feb 2010 13:52 Mike Dworetsky wrote: > Heidi Graw wrote: > > [snip] > >>> Common units work extremely well, but if you want your house >>> built in MeTric I'll add 25% to the cost, and you've got it. >> >> No need. I wouldn't be hiring you anyway. My husband >> built the house I designed. Custom? Very...and rather >> quite unique. >> >> Take care, >> Heidi <...whose house is a mishmash of German metric and British >> standard. > > 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. Thinking back on this, "obviously" the 5-5/8 dimension was probably called 6 inches the same way that a 2x4 is not really 2 by 4 inches but rather less in trimmed, planed form. Someone in the Ministry of Annoying Decisions, who had probably never in his life built anything with his own hands, decided that as 150mm was close to 6 inches, and Britain Had to Go Metric, a decree was issued to timber merchants to sell timber in this size, without realising that this would be the final planed width dimension. If anyone knows the true story though, I'd be grateful for that information. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
From: Andrew Usher on 4 Feb 2010 13:54 On Feb 4, 12:35 pm, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote: > It was a sort of joke and not meant seriously. But only sort of; I do think > one of their long term goals is to land a man on the Moon, if for no other > reason than prestige. It may be sooner than you think. Compare where > America was in 1960 with 1969. It only took 9 years. If they put their > minds to it, don't you think they will find a way? I suppose they will, when we still can't. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 4 Feb 2010 14:02
On Feb 4, 12:23 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > ALL such systems of measurement are to some degree > arbitrary; there is no inherent advantage in that regard, > for most applications, to either system. Precisely; metric is not, as vulgarly asserted, more scientific than English. > 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). The 'Gimli glider' case, like the Mars climate orbiter, was really caused by an attempt to convert where the old units had been working just fine (as well as other mechanical problems, of course). > 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. This weakens your first point, and seems to me an argument against wwitching. > 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. As Bart keeps pointing out, this logic applied to languages would justify forcing everyone to switch to English now. We accept that language diversity will continue for an indefinite length of time, why not for measures as well? > 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. I don't agree that metric is more intuitive the way people actually use it. Why would you think that? - There's nothing inherent about the meter, liter, and kilogram that makes them intuitive. > 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." Then you haven't read my argument (It doesn't seem anyone has). I argue, first, that (as much as I love science) politics/philosophy is ultimately more important, and hence I would have to oppose metric even if I thought it superior, which I don't. Andrew Usher |