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: Darwin123 on 11 Feb 2010 11:18 On Feb 11, 12:36 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 1:34 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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." > > I do think it's a little bit treasonous, yes. So you are saying it. It is treasonous to pursue ones own best economic interest. Given your belief, you would have to approve a U.S. government regulation to ban the metric system. > > > 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 <I meant now>. > > Again, anywhere that metric is necessary to serve the global market, > it would have already been adopted, wouldn't it? > That doesn't make any sense. "The" global market is extremely dynamic. Markets open up rapidly. In the last 20 years, DNA technology has developed, high definition TV has caught on, compact discs have replaced the floppies, hybrid cars are now popular, China has become capitalist, India is doing well, most of the world is in an economic depression, Africa is doing worse,the baby boomers are growing older, social security is being threatened, medications for HIV have been developed, monoclonal antibodies now treat cancer, ... The answer is to your question is "no". A start up business that 20 years ago would have chosen English standard equipment may very well decide now to start up with metric equipment. A laser scientist who is starting his own laboratory now could want to choose a metric breadboard with metric optical devices, unlike the scientist 20 years ago who may very well have chosen an English breadboard with English optical devices. We are not talking about government regulations. Of course, if you want to prevent that it may take a government regulation to do so. If the U.S. were communist, I suppose it could force the English system of units to be exclusively used. It would be a U.S. nationalist statement. No laser scientist in the U.S. could use a metric breadboard. Scientific journals could only publish articles that use the English system of units. University textbooks would be required to show calculations only in the English system of units. The scenario is slightly exaggerated just for clarify something. It would take a dictatorship to prevent the eventual ascendancy of metric in the U.S. It will take time, but eventually the system will be the predominant system of units even without a government regulation. Therefore, your objection to the English system of units has nothing to do with socialism. Your statement about "left" and "right" was just sand in the eyes. Your statement about "political correctness" was itself a misuse of the English language. So what is the basis of your objection to metric?
From: Andrew Usher on 11 Feb 2010 11:45 On Feb 11, 10:18 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > So you are saying it. It is treasonous to pursue ones own best > economic interest. Given your belief, you would have to approve a U.S. > government regulation to ban the metric system. I suppose I would, at least (as stated in the original post) in all fields where metric wasn't already standard in 1960. As far as pursuing economic interests, that's no excuse. The profit motive is the source of much of the evil in the world and there is nothing wrong with regulations that restrict acting on it. > > > 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 <I meant now>. > > If the U.S. were communist, I suppose it could force the English > system of units to be exclusively used. It would be a U.S. nationalist > statement. No laser scientist in the U.S. could use a metric > breadboard. Scientific journals could only publish articles that use > the English system of units. University textbooks would be required to > show calculations only in the English system of units. > The scenario is slightly exaggerated just for clarify something. It > would take a dictatorship to prevent the eventual ascendancy of metric > in the U.S. It will take time, but eventually the system will be the > predominant system of units even without a government regulation. > Therefore, your objection to the English system of units has nothing > to do with socialism. Your statement about "left" and "right" was just > sand in the eyes. Your statement about "political correctness" was > itself a misuse of the English language. First of all, your use of 'communist' and 'dictatorship' is surely exaggerated and 'communist' is not synonymous with 'totalitarian'. If there were to be a government regulation compelling the English system, it would not require government to have any more power than it does now. Indeed, there _are_ regulations compelling the use of metric in various ways, but you don't call those 'communist' do you? No, of course you have a double standard, metric is the progressive system so government enforcement of it can only be a good thing, right? But the English system is evil so government enforcement of it could only be 'communist' and 'dictatorship'! And, indeed, the metric system would never be where it is today without government compulsion which started in France. Do you think that all those countries that did force the change are 'communist' or 'dictatorships'? If so, what does that make supporting metrication today? > So what is the basis of your objection to metric? I believe I have answered that sufficiently already, and unless you have read my entire essay (the first post of this thread), I don't need to explain again. The truth is, the leftist machine has gotten people's minds to feel sorry for our measuring system, just like they've gotten white men to feel sorry for being white and male. Just like they've gotten us to believe a thousand ridiculous and harmful things like political correctness, feminism, global-warming hysteria, etc. etc. Andrew Usher
From: Darwin123 on 11 Feb 2010 11:50 On Feb 11, 11:45 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 10:18 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > The truth is, the leftist machine has gotten people's minds to feel > sorry for our measuring system, just like they've gotten white men to > feel sorry for being white and male. Your metaphors are gang raping the English language.
From: Joshua Cranmer on 11 Feb 2010 11:58 On 02/11/2010 12:36 AM, Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 10, 1:34 pm, Darwin123<drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> 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." > > I do think it's a little bit treasonous, yes. The U.S. Constitution might disagree: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Using the metric system is definitely not "levying War", and I can't see any court considering it "giving [another country] Aid and Comfort." -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Mark Borgerson on 11 Feb 2010 17:11
In article <hl162u0173l(a)news4.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol says... > Bob Myers wrote: > > 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? > > People who wrote the code to make the hardware work. > > >Many - probably most - of the > > most successful standards in use today were developed by > > industry groups responding to market needs, not through > > government regulation. > > The government regulation happened after the standards > were made. This is what creates unique standards rather > than forcing the buyers of the products to choose between > a dozen, or dozens, of standards. > > > > > 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. > > > But the it's the governments' choices of which standard will > be used when deciding procurements. After that, the laws > about regulations happen if the industry isn't adept to > changing needs of the populace. A good example is > the telephone industry ;-). Another one is the airplane > business. > I think it will take something between a 60mm mortar and a 155mm howitzer shell to budge Andrew from his position! ;-) Mark Borgerson |