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 5 Feb 2010 19:57 "Bob Myers" <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote in news:hki8u3$ugb$1 @usenet01.boi.hp.com: > Bart Goddard wrote: > >> If there's a compelling reason for the US to switch to >> metric, I have yet to hear it. > > So what's wrong with: > > (1) It's inefficient (and has a higher risk of error) to > have to deal with two systems, It's not wrong, it's just not true. Switching the US to metric will increase error, because so many people will be uncoordinated with it. How many children will you kill today, just so you can have better efficiency 50 years from now? > (2) The rest of the world is already using metric, in > most places pretty much exclusively. Asked and answered. The "you should be like us" argument is only one degree removed from racism. Apply the same reasoning to language and you'll see what I mean. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: adamk on 5 Feb 2010 10:32 > Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18(a)verizon.invalid> wrote in > news:hkc1pu$fks$1(a)news- > int2.gatech.edu: > > > If one agrees that the systems of units should be > standardized, > >> > Surely language differences are a bigger barrier to > trade > than measuring systems. So under the same arguments, > since > English is the most spoken language in the world, Wrong. Chinese and Hindi are the most spoken. > B. > > -- > Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: adamk on 5 Feb 2010 10:46 > > which is hardly more difficult than the metric > formula (considering my > converted numbers were harder to calculate with). > Although I did this > in my head, anyone really doing it would use a > calculator. Yes, thou of superior brain power.!. Then, why do you write such stupid posts? > > I really shouldn't have to respond to ridiculous > stuuf like this! GIGO. You start with a garbage post.... > > Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 5 Feb 2010 20:54 On Feb 4, 8:49 pm, Matt <30d...(a)net.net> wrote: > Who came up with early units of measure, like the cubit? It wasn't > some scientist in a lab. The cubit was quite anthropocentric and was > arguably superior to either the foot or the meter for everyday use by > humans. It can't have been that useful, as it became obsolete. Is there even a cubit in English units? I suppose it would just be half a yard, following the Romans. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 5 Feb 2010 20:58
On Feb 5, 5:15 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > (1) It's inefficient (and has a higher risk of error) to > have to deal with two systems, which we effectively > are doing now despite being a supposedly "English > system" country. As I and Bart have said repeatedly, the same could be said of languages, in some respects more so. Yet the same leftists who want so badly for us to go metric are pushing linguistic diversity on us. That's because it's all politics. > (2) The rest of the world is already using metric, in > most places pretty much exclusively. And that's their business, I suppose. > The U.S. has ALREADY "gone metric" in many, > many cases. We buy soft drinks in 2-liter bottles, > and wine in 750 mL bottles. The latter is only because of government compulsion, in one isolated law passed in the 1970s. The former, though, had no good explanation, except perhaps that the industry wants to make it harder to compare prices of different sizes - hardly anyone knows e.g. how many 2-L bottles make a 12-pack. Both should be reversed, for consistency. Andrew Usher |