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: Andrew Usher on 12 Feb 2010 00:50 Darwin123 wrote: > Your metaphors are gang raping the English language. Besides writing that garbage, you snipped all my actual points, indicating that you have no defence. Andrew Usher
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Feb 2010 08:58 Mark Borgerson wrote: > 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! > ;-) > Nope. Not even that. He doesn't like to learn from me; it's against his religion. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Feb 2010 09:00 J. Clarke wrote: > Mark Borgerson wrote: >> 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! >> ;-) > > 16 inch, for when you care enough to give only the very best. > > ROTFL. I missed that one. Sorry, Mark. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Feb 2010 09:01 Andrew Usher wrote: > Bob Myers wrote: > >>> Drills already have interchangeable bits, >> Ah, another person who's never seen the inside of >> a machine shop... > > OK, perhaps I didn't use the right terminology; I used that which I am > familiar. Nevertheless, my point stands that you don't normally need a > different machine for each different size of drilling. Now ask the question why that is so. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Feb 2010 09:02
Andrew Usher wrote: > Darwin123 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. > > My assertion is not a metaphor here. It's entirely literal: Americans > now feel they must apologise for having a 'backward' system of > measure. > I'm an American and I have never felt the need to apologize. Why do you? /BAH |