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: J. Clarke on 6 Feb 2010 17:28 Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 6, 7:01 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>> Mixed units = feet and inches, pounds and ounces, etc. >> >>> Nothing to do with dimensional analysis. >> >> Then you've never done it. That's OK--I knew a PhD aeronautical >> engineer who worked on the ME-262 who had never heard of it either. > > Of course I know what 'dimensional analysis' is. It's just not what I > was talking about. If you think feet and inches, pounds and ounces don't have anything to do with it then you don't know what it is.
From: OP on 6 Feb 2010 18:53 Andrew Usher wrote: > I. Introduction > > LEFTIST POLITICS is one of the great errors of our age. [ By leftism I > mean specifically the quasi-religious crusading ideology identified by > Ted Kaczyncki (I always have trouble spelling that name!), and not (as > he pointed out) any policies that happen to fall on the left-wing side > (which I support myself when it comes to economic matters). ] Leftists > attempt to insinuate themselves in every field in which they can, > contaminating it with their poison. It is imperative, then, that they > be stopped wherever this can be done without injury. You love the metric system, you want to kiss it. Also, this is off-topic junk.
From: Michael Press on 6 Feb 2010 21:14 In article <hke1l2$n19$8(a)reader2.panix.com>, nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > In article <Xns9D144609322B7goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.95>, > Bart Goddard <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > > >Don't tell me what to do, whippersnapper. I cook a lot > >and I brew a whopping amount of beer. And I gotta say > >that beer made with metric units just doesn't taste as > >good. Malt in pounds, water in gallons, hops in ounces... > >the way God meant it to be! > > Philistine! What happened to hogsheads and gils? Pour me a dram > of the good stuff, while you're at it... Okay, but you will not be happy with it; as it is 8 fluid dram to the fluid ounce. Perhaps a gill would be more to your liking. -- Michael Press
From: Michael Press on 6 Feb 2010 23:18 In article <Xns9D169470F2CA7goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.89>, Bart Goddard <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> wrote: > jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in news:hkh7r45hcd(a)news3.newsguy.com: > > > Bob Myers wrote: > >> I can't believe this is being seriously discussed in supposedly > >> science-oriented newsgroups. > > > > <snip> > > > > You are going to have to realize that there exist people who > > don't know there are more than one measurement system and > > that they are not the same. > > That isn't what this discussion is about. Rather, it's about > the weakness of certain arguments. Metric and English systems > have various strengths and weaknesses. "It's antiquated" or > "it's hard to calculate density of water in" or "we use it > and you should copy us" or "if you spend a zillion dollars > now retooling, you'll make it all back in only 1.5 centuries" > simply carry no weight. > > If there's a compelling reason for the US to switch to > metric, I have yet to hear it. Presumably, if a compelling > reason existed, we would have been so compelled, eh? > Afterall, how much have the British really benefitted > from Decimation? It's slightly easier to calculate > change (which the cash register did for them anyway) > but they've lost a certain amount of coolness pound, shilling, pence, guinea, florin, half-crown, farthing, sixpence, tuppence, halfpence, bob, quid. I was sorry to see them go, and do not even live there. -- Michael Press
From: Sunny on 7 Feb 2010 02:23
"Michael Press" <rubrum(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message news:rubrum-7FBB70.20184506022010(a)news.albasani.net... > In article <Xns9D169470F2CA7goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.89>, > Bart Goddard <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> wrote: > >> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in news:hkh7r45hcd(a)news3.newsguy.com: >> >> > Bob Myers wrote: >> >> I can't believe this is being seriously discussed in supposedly >> >> science-oriented newsgroups. >> > >> > <snip> >> > >> > You are going to have to realize that there exist people who >> > don't know there are more than one measurement system and >> > that they are not the same. >> >> That isn't what this discussion is about. Rather, it's about >> the weakness of certain arguments. Metric and English systems >> have various strengths and weaknesses. "It's antiquated" or >> "it's hard to calculate density of water in" or "we use it >> and you should copy us" or "if you spend a zillion dollars >> now retooling, you'll make it all back in only 1.5 centuries" >> simply carry no weight. >> >> If there's a compelling reason for the US to switch to >> metric, I have yet to hear it. Presumably, if a compelling >> reason existed, we would have been so compelled, eh? >> Afterall, how much have the British really benefitted >> from Decimation? It's slightly easier to calculate >> change (which the cash register did for them anyway) >> but they've lost a certain amount of coolness > > pound, shilling, pence, guinea, florin, half-crown, > farthing, sixpence, tuppence, halfpence, bob, quid. > > I was sorry to see them go, and do not even live there. > Michael Press I have, so far, lived with both systems, however, Australia in its infinite wisdom has now done away with the one and two cent coins, plus the one and two dollar notes (replaced by 1 and two dollar coins) :-) |