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: Mark Borgerson on 4 Feb 2010 17:27 In article <Xns9D1549C604254goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.93>, goddardbe(a)netscape.net says... > "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in > news:RNidnbNg2rtvX_fWnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk: > > > I was a schoolboy when the UK went metric so I had to learn both. > > Metric/SI units are a lot easier to work with. There are fewer > > different constants you have to remember. > > We have to learn both in the US. I was in 6th grade in 1972 > and we were using it then. I remain unimpressed. The > acrobatics that are done to convince people that metric > is easier are silly. First they have you convert meters > to centimeters (a calculation nobody ever does) and > then they have you add 6 tons 50 pounds 9 ounces to > 2 tons 742 pounds 13 ounces (also a calculation nobody > does.) > > It is a fact that in almost all real calculations in > English units, one unit is chosen and it is decimated. > The only exception I can think of off the top of my > head is that carpenters like their denominators to be > powers of 2. Otherwise, most people would calculate > using number like 15.53 feet. Every bit as easy as > the same calculation in the metric system. > That point of decimation brings back memories----when I worked on highway surveys back in the '60, all the measurements were in feet---and tenths or hundredths of feet. Not an inch to be found in the survey logs! Mark Borgerson
From: Heidi Graw on 4 Feb 2010 17:38 >"Gerry Myerson" <gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote in message >news:gerry-31BCD8.09095505022010(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> In article <hkeig101lnd(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> >> wrote: > >> I grew up in the US and cannot think in metric terms so I >> always have to do a conversion to make guesstimates. >> For some strange reason, kilometers seem to take "longer" >> to drive than miles when I drove from Buffalo to Port >> Huron, Michigan. :-) > Gerry wrote: > Probably because of those metric Canadian hours, what with > each one being 100 minutes long. What about measuring time in degrees? How might that work? Ie. it's 360 o'clock, or 180, or 90, etc. Heidi
From: Antares 531 on 4 Feb 2010 17:42 On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:09:55 +1100, Gerry Myerson <gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: >In article <hkeig101lnd(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> >wrote: > >> I grew up in the US and cannot think in metric terms so I >> always have to do a conversion to make guesstimates. >> For some strange reason, kilometers seem to take "longer" >> to drive than miles when I drove from Buffalo to Port >> Huron, Michigan. :-) > >Probably because of those metric Canadian hours, what with >each one being 100 minutes long. > When are they likely to change over to a metric week of 10 days? Then, I guess the month should be replaced with a metric month of 100 days and the year extended to a metric decimal multiple of 1000 days. Gordon
From: Andrew Usher on 4 Feb 2010 20:52 On Feb 4, 4:27 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > That point of decimation brings back memories----when I > worked on highway surveys back in the '60, all the > measurements were in feet---and tenths or hundredths > of feet. Not an inch to be found in the survey logs! I must point out that the normal word is 'decimalisation'. Decimation is something quite different ;) Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 4 Feb 2010 20:55
On Feb 4, 4:09 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: > In article <hkeig101...(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > > > I grew up in the US and cannot think in metric terms so I > > always have to do a conversion to make guesstimates. > > For some strange reason, kilometers seem to take "longer" > > to drive than miles when I drove from Buffalo to Port > > Huron, Michigan. :-) > > Probably because of those metric Canadian hours, what with > each one being 100 minutes long. Actually, I've long thought decimal time wouldn't be a bad idea. But on the other hand, the fact that everyone works with the different units of time shows that non-decimal units are not really confusing to common people, unlike what metric propaganda says. (And if they were consistent, they would decimalise time - and angle, which is still worse, as I explained in Section V of my essay.) Andrew Usher Andrew Usher |