Prev: connecting Luminet-Poincare Dodecahedral Space with AP-Reverse -Concavity for 10% #379 Correcting Math
Next: Cantor's Diagonal?
From: Bob Myers on 10 Feb 2010 14:21 Darwin123 wrote: > On Feb 9, 4:35 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: >> Darwin123 wrote: >> That's the most sensible solution I've seen here yet - which, >> of course, is why it will probably never happen! >> >> Bob M. > > I was actually suggesting this as a straw man solution. It is > very much not a sensible solution. It is taking Andrew's argument to > its absurd extreme. Please re-read what I wrote - I didn't say that it was a sensible solution, only that it was the most sensible solution I've seen *here* yet. ;-) Bob M.
From: Bob Myers on 10 Feb 2010 14:25 Androcles wrote: >> So, you'll want to export your "inched" equipment and machines to >> where? Are you taking into account the clients' will in your sales >> dpt? > > Machines today are CNC, so you can have both. Wow, and you say the drills and other tooling will also automagically change to the system in use without having to produce/stock/maintain both types? Imagine that... Bob M.
From: Bob Myers on 10 Feb 2010 14:28 jmfbahciv wrote: > Bob Myers wrote: >> Darwin123 wrote: >>> How about removing all regulations concerning units and see what >>> individuals and companies would do? >> >> That's the most sensible solution I've seen here yet - which, >> of course, is why it will probably never happen! >> > The only reason you are able to read these posts is because > we introduced and developed standards. don't throw the > bath water out with the babies. While (as noted earlier) my original comment was at least half in jest, I am prompted to ask re this one: who is this "we" you're talking about? Many - probably most - of the most successful standards in use today were developed by industry groups responding to market needs, not through government regulation. I've spent more than my fair share of time working in such groups, and would MUCH rather deal with industry standardization efforts than government or quasi-governmental regulation. Bob M.
From: Darwin123 on 10 Feb 2010 14:34 On Feb 2, 5:54 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I. Introduction > > > he pointed out) any policies that happen to fall on the left-wing side > (which I support myself when it comes to economic matters). ] > > ... All conversion > to the metric system today, and not only that compelled by government, > can safely be put under this head, as anyone that had good reasons to > convert unrelated to ideology would have done so already. I detect a little socialism here of the nationalist variety. So it isn't just government regulation that bothers you. In your opinion, any American that decides to switch to metric is being "Leftist," even if he does so for his own self interest. According to you, technology and economics haven't changed for so long that "anyone who had good reasons unrelated to ideology would have done so already." If an American businessman decides to go metric to sell to Europeans, he is doing it for "ideological reasons." Or maybe he sees a market that hasn't opened up till reasons. And you do agree with Leftists on economic matters. Then you obviously feel the metric system is bad for moral reasons. You sound like a type of socialist. Only the word "nationalist" belongs in front. You love government regulation when it puts money in your pocket.
From: Transfer Principle on 10 Feb 2010 20:59
On Feb 5, 5:32 pm, adamk <ad...(a)adamk.net> wrote: > > 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. Last night, a certain game show gave "Chinese" as the right answer to the question "What is the most spoken language in the world?" thus confirming adamk's claim. According to Wikipedia (as wary as many of us are to count Wikipedia as a valid source), there are approximately 850 million speakers of Mandarin. For English, Wikipedia gives a wide range of native speakers and ESL's, and 850 million is in the middle of this range, and so the question would still be inconclusive. Rather than take the time to find a more credible source, I choose simply to take it upon faith that adamk is correct that Chinese speakers currently outnumber English speaker. Notice that I am neutral as to the metrication question, and so I elect not to take sides on whether the proponents or opponents of the metric system are correct. (Indeed, in particular, my agreement with adamk as to whether Chinese speakers constitute a plurality of the world's population doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with him that the metric system is superior.) But what I do notice here is the type of debate of which I can only dream in the set theory debate threads. Unlike in such set theory threads, here both sides make their arguments and explain why they believe that their respective measurement system is superior. Even though Andrew Usher, the OP of this thread, is often considered to be a so-called "crank" in the set theory threads, no one is calling him by that label here -- in fact, there are even some standard theorists who actually agree with Usher. Insulting attacks occur only occasionally in this thread (such as when adamk calls Usher's post "stupid" and "garbage"). And most importantly, we don't see advocates of the metric system accusing those of the U.S. customary system (or British imperial) of "not even doing measurements" (or vice versa) the same way that both standard theorists and "cranks" accuse their opponents of "not even doing mathematics" all the time. In short, I wish that the set theory debate threads would be more like this metric debate thread. |