I don't get it, why is metric better?

On 8/8/2016 6:53 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 8/8/2016 12:06 PM, Jack wrote:
>> On 8/7/2016 3:28 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2016 2:35 PM, Jack wrote:
>>
>>>> If I were born with metric, I would be super happy if everything stayed
>>>> metric. I wasn't, I was born with imperial, and I'd be super happy if
>>>> everything stayed imperial. It's not a matter of what is better, or
>>>> fear, stubbornness and independence. It is simply a matter of
>>>> simplicity, efficiency and convenience. I would mainly prefer to have
>>>> one set of tools, one set of hardware.
>>>
>>> We could phase into that simplicity, efficiency, and convenience, but as
>>> long as a bunch of stubborn old fogeys keep Imperial, we all will. No
>>> sense phasing all fasteners into metric is there? Our great
>>> grandchildren will be having this same conversation and 200 boxes of
>>> nuts and bolts.
>>
>> Whelp, if you have a magic wand to switch everything instantly to
>> metric, (or
>> imperial) please wave it, few to none "old fogeys" will mind. As it
>> stands
>> things are a big mess that has nothing to do with *fear, stubbornness and
>> independence*, nor age, for that matter. It has to do with what you
>> are asking,
>> a phase in from imperial to metric. 90% of my machines are imperial,
>> and I am
>> not about to toss any of them because a couple of whippersnappers that
>> can't
>> handle fractions have a hard on over metric.
>>
>> If my great grandchildren are lucky, they will still be using my
>> machinery if
>> they can afford the space and electricity to run them. Personally, I have
>> benefited exactly ZERO from the switch, and my great grandchildren
>> undoubtedly
>> will need two sets of tools, two sets of hardware, and will also have
>> benefited
>> exactly zero from the switch.
>>
>
> Someone said that the most successful countries used imperial.
>

You don't have to take someone's word for it, just look at the facts.

On 8/8/2016 6:39 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent"
>>>>>>>>>>> ismore accurate I believe.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I still think fear and a certain stubbornness are the main
>>>>>>>>>> factors. "Independence" is just used to disguise them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think you are wrong. ;~)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not "+1.00"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No +1 says it all. +1.00 simply says the same thing with
>>>>>> more numbers. ;~)

>>
> Actually, "+1" vs "+1.00" was tossed out as an abstraction with
> no context. But context IS relevant. I provided one context,
> apparently now you want to concoct a different context just for
> the sake of being contrary.

Actually you took of to left field with it. I simply stated that +1 was
enough to get the message across.

On 8/8/2016 6:33 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 8/8/2016 2:41 PM, notbob wrote:
>> On 2016-08-08, gray_wolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I give up. How many moles in an apple?
>>
>> I know there's a joke in there, somewhere, but I'm not a comedian.
>> Perhaps you could ask a rodent comedian. ;)
>>
>> nb
>>
>
> LOL! That's what I thought and was looking for some help. :-)


Ok,,,,

the number of worms + X

On 8/6/2016 5:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:40:30 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:pNidnd9XMaqu0TjKnZ2dnUU7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> Actually I believe the biggest problem with the metric system is that
>>> meter is used in every instance of resolution.
>>> Micrometer, millimeter, centimeter, decimeter, meter , kilometer.....
>>
>> That's probably why, in the real world (and Olympics
>> games excepted :-) ) pretty much everything is measured
>> in mm and km. Hard to get those two crossed up. Altho
>> I do find it amusing to see something specified as being
>> 23400 mm long.
>
> Not true. Meteorology uses the meter quite extensively. Electronics
> uses the micron, and medicine still uses the centimeter.
>


Yes meteorologists do extensively use the meter/metric in their forecasts.

When they convert the actual temperature to metric you get the "feels
like temperature"

;~)

On 8/6/2016 9:47 AM, John McCoy wrote:

> Possibly the odd values are accumulated rounding error, due
> to going metric to imperial and back to metric.
>
> John
>


Yeah!

On 8/6/2016 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> So are you saying that the metric system is like not being able to use
>> all of the letters of the alphabet to spell all of the words? LOL
>
> We seem to do alright in that regard. The Roman alphabet has
> several letters that we don't use, which other languages like
> German and Icelandic do.
>
> John
>


Hawaiian, 12 letters, IIRC.

On 7/30/2019 1:51 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> Is there a marking that means 12 1/2 mm on a rule?
>
> I have a PDF of what I call an "anti-ruler" for just such an occasion.
> It has 0-10 in (tenths marks) on one edge, and 0-25cm (1/2 - 1/8 marks)
> on the other.
>
> http://www.delorie.com/tmp/anti-ruler.pdf
>


Does it show one forth of 25mm? :~)

On 7/30/2019 2:10 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:55:21 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/2019 10:10 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> Well that's nice, but how does it apply to gasoline, mercury, or
>>>> liquid hydrogen?
>>>
>>> Or humans. Fahrenheit is convenient because normal outside temperatures
>>> range from 0 to 100 (ish). I don't care how comfortable the water is.
>>> But now I have to remember that -17 is cold and 38 is hot.
>>>
>>
>> Worse than the imperial/metric argument is the "Feels Like Temperature".
>>
>> Can we simply report absolute temperatures and humidity?
>>
>> If the actual temperature is 98 degrees F and the humidity is 90% and
>> the "feels like" is 111 degrees
>> F, does Bob who weighed 250 lbs last year think that the "feels like
>> temp" feels the same after he gains 100 lbs? I think not.
> It will still "feel like" 111 degrees with no humidity to fat Bob.
> 111 with no humidity will feel a lot worse at 350 than it did at
> 250lbs
>

?

DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>> Well that's nice, but how does it apply to gasoline, mercury, or
>> liquid hydrogen?
>
> Or humans. Fahrenheit is convenient because normal outside temperatures
> range from 0 to 100 (ish). I don't care how comfortable the water is.
> But now I have to remember that -17 is cold and 38 is hot.

And here's real data to back that argument up: In Defense of Fahrenheit,
http://lethalletham.com/posts/fahrenheit.html

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> A "tad" is a bit more than a "pinch", of course.

I'm told that all imperial units derive from the LRCH ;-)


Joe

On 8/5/2016 5:16 PM, Leon wrote:
> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>
> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>
> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>
> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>
> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.

As already mentioned, that is a bastardized imperial translation. I've
been working with metric machines using metric tooling to make usually
metric dimensioned parts. It is rare to ever see a decimal and it is
always .5 on some small items.

Many people here bitch about having to use metric, but on the occasion
we give Imperial measurements of parts for tooling made in China, they
have no problem translating. Once you use it for a couple of week it is
really easy. You never have to wonder if you need a 23/64 or 3/8 wrench.

On 8/7/2016 11:54 AM, graham wrote:
> On 8/7/2016 9:19 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/7/2016 9:01 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> That's why coffee cups are 5oz? ;-)
>>>
>>> A blatant falsity started by the French to corrupt
>>> the modern world!
>>>
>>> All my coffee mugs are 8oz, give or take a tad. I am
>>> not cultured enough to drink from a demi-tasse.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your mug is 8oz????? When you hold and drink out of it, does your pinky
>> finger stick straight out? LOL
>>
>> I use closer to a 12oz mug and fill to 10 oz. My wife brings it to me
>> on a two wheel dolly. ;~)
>>
>> A 5oz cup is what you drink a sample of coffee from at the demo booth at
>> Sam's.
> Depends on whether it's an Imperial or US ounce too:-)


LOL

On 8/7/2016 11:10 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> An oddly pleasant and distant memory of mine from my early childhood.
>> I was probably 4~5 years old.
>>
>> I recall my parents doing yard work and me being in the middle of it all.
>> It was a fun time for me because I got to watch dad and hopefully help dad
>> mow the yard with the gas powered reel mower. The mower was exceptionally
>> easy to control, I could do it all by my self.
>
> Lucky you/ When I was a kid, there were only reel push mowers. Worked OK
> for an adult but for a little kid the handle cross pieces were somewhere
> around eye level. NOT easy :(
>
>


No push mower is easy, and especially down here in Houston. We have St.
Augustine grass, often referred to as carpet grass. Let it get a little
over grown and it is an effort to walk on, no dragging your feet. ;~)

My dad replace that self propelled mower with a standard push mower when
I was about 8 and I had to drag it to cut the yard.

On 8/7/2016 12:07 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/07/2016 11:57 AM, graham wrote:
>> On 8/7/2016 7:37 AM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 08/06/2016 4:51 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2016 4:45 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 8/6/2016 7:31 AM, dpb wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
>>>>>>> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
>>>>>>> reasoning will change him/her.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more
>>>>>> accurate I believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I still think fear and a certain stubbornness are the main factors.
>>>>> "Independence" is just used to disguise them.
>>>>> Graham
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you are wrong. ;~)
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>> Not "+1.00"?
>
> No, 1 - 0/32 :)
>


Now you have cut out 90% of the world and they will not understand that.
LOL

On 8/7/2016 11:57 AM, graham wrote:
> On 8/7/2016 7:37 AM, dpb wrote:
>> On 08/06/2016 4:51 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2016 4:45 PM, graham wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2016 7:31 AM, dpb wrote:
>>>>> On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
>>>>>> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
>>>>>> reasoning will change him/her.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more
>>>>> accurate I believe.
>>>>>
>>>> I still think fear and a certain stubbornness are the main factors.
>>>> "Independence" is just used to disguise them.
>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you are wrong. ;~)
>>
>> +1
>>
> Not "+1.00"?
>


No +1 says it all. +1.00 simply says the same thing with more numbers. ;~)

On 7 Aug 2016 16:30:55 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2016-08-07, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> OTOH, there is snobbery in the metric-only crowd. Amazing.
>
>And you are exhibiting what, exactly?

You're, of course, wrong. No, I didn't call anyone stupid for using
the metric system. I don't care what they weigh themselves using or
get plowed drinking. I didn't make the point that those who don't
want to change must not be (aren't smart enough to be) college grads.
Indeed, most of us are, AFAICT. Not wanting to change is *not*
snobbery. Inertia is about the worst it can be called. There is just
no point to it.

>As Ed has already stated, metric is already here. I've always hadda
>set of metric tools. I only bought SAE, later. This due to my being
>a motorcycle mechanic in the early Japanese "dumping" days (70s). I
>used metric cuz that's what works. Also worked on my American made
>'60 Rambler. Much later, I worked in Silcon Valley. All our specs,
>plans, fasteners were in metric. Why? Our primary market was the
>rest of the World. And this was almost twenty years ago. ;)

...and your point is?

ads wrote:

> I'm aware that this is an old posting, but I still find it amusing
> that the metric proponents who think their system is "so much better"

In metric, one millilitre of water occupies one cubic centimetre,
weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one
degree centigrade... which is 1% of the difference between its
freezing point and its boiling point. An amount of hydrogen weighing
the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it. That makes
perfect sense right? Everything adds up perfectly, 1 centimetre = 10
millimetres, 1 decimetre = 10 centimetres, 1 metre = 10 decimetres.

Whereas in the Imperial system, the answer to "How much energy does
it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?" is "Go fuck
yourself," because you can't directly relate any of those quantities.

https://i.redd.it/2zvqpynr264z.png

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 8:32 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> How often do you suppose Bob yells, cut that piece of cable to
>> 10 centimeters and it gets cut at 10 millimeters or decimeters?
>>
> Since 10 centimeters is just under 4 inches and a 10 mm length of
> cable would be just over 3/8", I suppose that would never happen
> - who would ever cut a 3/8" length of cable, or a 4" cable for
> that matter?
>

The other possibility was about 40 inches.

Give the answer.

A mile minus 1/16"

5279', 11-15/16"

A kilometer minus 1mm.


Hint, the answer can easily be misunderstood.

9999999999 somethingmeter

Or

999999999999999 anothermeter

:-)

graham <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/6/2016 7:31 AM, dpb wrote:
>> On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
>>> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
>>> reasoning will change him/her.
>>
>> I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more
>> accurate I believe.
>>
> I still think fear and a certain stubbornness are the main factors.
> "Independence" is just used to disguise them.
> Graham
>
>

Then the more likely explanation, the rest of the world is not smart enough
to use Imperial and fractions.

We in the U.S. Measure in whole numbers, just like with metric, and in
fractions. The rest of the world complains about having to use fractions.
We complain about the rest of the world because we don't want to measure
in only a few resolutions.

We look at the length of a piece of wood as perhaps 95 -1/2". or 96".
Metric users think 2438 millimeters or may be 2400 mm.

That would be like us measuring that length as about 1520 sixteenths.

It may be that metric is preferred for the rest of the world because it
works with all of your fingers for adding and subtraction. :-). Metric is
truly easier but not necessarily better.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 07:47:30 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:

>Give the answer.
>
>A mile minus 1/16"
>
>5279', 11-15/16"

Nah, it's 63359-15/16". ;-)

>A kilometer minus 1mm.
>
>
>Hint, the answer can easily be misunderstood.
>
>9999999999 somethingmeter
>
>Or
>
>999999999999999 anothermeter
>
>:-)
>
>

On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 23:40:35 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 18:33:31 -0400, ads wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 19:43:48 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being
>>>> your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told
>>>> by a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will
>>>> be in km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US
>>>> owing mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche
>>>> being resistive of direct edict.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's a couple of other factors that come into play on
>>>that particular example.
>>>
>>>One is that, someone who's grown up with a given system
>>>developes facility at estimating in that system, so US
>>>drivers can estimate distances in miles, and not in km,
>>>and so naturally resisted the more "difficult" system.
>>>
>>>The other is the random coincidence that highway speed
>>>works out to roughly 60mph (this was particularly true
>>>when they tried metric roads, since the double-nickle was
>>>in effect). Since our time system works on an increment
>>>of 60, that's mile-a-minute, and you can easily figure
>>>how long it'll take to get somewhere. 100kph doesn't
>>>work out that way.
>>>
>>>Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.
>>>
>
>Decimal time is used al;l the time in industry - on timeclocks, and in
>time management - 10ths of an hour per operation - because it's easier
>to PRICE things that way since the monetary system is also decimal
>>>John
>>
>>I'm aware that this is an old posting, but I still find it amusing
>>that the metric proponents who think their system is "so much better"
>>don't want to admit that their measurement of length and thus volume
>>and everything else is based on an inaccurate measurement of the size
>>of the Earth. Is that inaccurate measurement really so much better
>>than the yard being based on the distance from a King's nose to his
>>thumb? The measurement of time in both systems goes back to some
>>Babylonian who arbitrarily divided the day into units that matched
>>their other measurement bases.
>>
>>And measuring vehicle fuel consumption in liters/100km has always
>>seemed backwards.
> Actually it doesn't. Lower fuel consumption - less fuel used for a
>trip - makes more sence than MPG - where better fuel economy means you
>go farther on a unit of fuel.
>
>Six of one, half dozen of the other - but the old "imperial" system is
>definitely NOT BETTER.
>
>With the metric (or decimal) system EVERYTHING is in units of 10. No
>mote 12 inches to a foot - 3 feet to a yard (or 36 inches) and 5380 ft
>to a mile - 63360 inches to a mile. Or 16 oz to a lb and 2000 lb to a
>ton - and the weight of water???8.34 lb to the gallon US - or 62.427
>lb per cu ft.
>
>In metric it is 10mm.cm, 100cm or 1000mm per meter, 1000 meters per KM
>- just move decimal points.
>1000 grams per Kilogram for weight - and one gram per cubic centimeter
>of water - so 1 kilogram per liter. Dead simple.

What's so great about 10? Computers don't do well with it. All my
SAE wrenches and drill bits and so on are nicely binary--units of one
half, one fourth, one eighth, one sixteenth, etc.

>Also accuracy in measurement is easier in metric ans 1mm is about
>.0304 inches .1mm is .003+ inches.

Accuracy in measurement is only easier if 1mm is sufficient
granularity for you.

> Again - not NECESSARILLY better - but a heck of a lot SIMPLER.
>
> As far as what it was originally based on, it is immaterial because
>it's all been re-calibrated to atomic measurements.
>Since the International Yard and Pound Agreement of 1959, one foot is
>defined as 0.3048 meter exactly.

It's all arbitrary.

>The basic unit of length in the metric system; it was originally
>planned so that the circumference of the Earth would be measured at
>about forty million meters. A meter is 39.37 inches. Today, the meter
>is defined to be the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458
>seconds.
>
>The previous definition of the meter was one ten-millionth of the
>distance from the geographic north pole to the equator, measured over
>the earth's surface in a circle running through Paris, France.

Damned French.

>> Your trips aren't in 100km sections - they're in
>>some unique number of miles or kilometers. Km/liter is much more
>>informative if you know the size of the fuel tank.
>
> And is still METRIC but not SI Metric convention.
>
> Easy enough to convert too - all based on the fact that 1L per 100km
>-s equal to 100 km/L - so 2 L /100KM is 50 KM per Liter - and 4 L /
>100Km is 25 Km per liter. 8 is 12.5 - it's all linear. - so 10
>L/100Km is 10 Km per liter

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/05/2016 10:32 PM, Leon wrote:
>> Actually I believe the biggest problem with the metric system is that
>> meter is used in every instance of resolution.
>> Micrometer, millimeter, centimeter, decimeter, meter , kilometer.....
>>
>> How often do you suppose Bob yells, cut that piece of cable to 10
>> centimeters and it gets cut at 10 millimeters or decimeters?
>>
>> Now one might suggest that they do away with any resolution more coarse
>> than millimeters to cut down on confusion. Bob yells, cut that piece of
>> cable to 19,800 mm's and I also need 4 cut at 1,980 mm's.
>
> That is the beauty of the metric system, every thing is based on the meter.
>
> You mentioned Micrometers, millimeters, etc. but for got the
> nanometers, picometers, Femtometers, etc.
>
> Metric ton 1000 kilograms. If I do something on a small scale and it
> produces 1 kilogram. I know if I scale it up by a factor of 1000, then
> it will produce a metric ton.
>
> If the English system would you give some one an 8' length of lumber if
> he asked for one 8" long. 8 yards for the 8'piece. Works the same in
> the metric system

But inches, feet, yards, or miles do not sound the same.

Suppose imperial was simply sillinches, billinches, centinches?






>
> If Bob wants a piece of cable 10 centimeters long, and the person who is
> cutting the pieces cuts it to 10 decimeters, ,or 10 millimeters he
> should be fired as the pieces would be much to short, when he can see
> the length that is need fits the centimeter range rather than the other two.
>
>
>
>
Well what makes you think 10 decimeter would be too short? The cutter and
Bob are "union" workers. The cutter is not paid to think, he is paid to do
what he thinks his boss said and to make the cut precisely.

On 8/7/2016 2:35 PM, Jack wrote:


>
> If I were born with metric, I would be super happy if everything stayed
> metric. I wasn't, I was born with imperial, and I'd be super happy if
> everything stayed imperial. It's not a matter of what is better, or
> fear, stubbornness and independence. It is simply a matter of
> simplicity, efficiency and convenience. I would mainly prefer to have
> one set of tools, one set of hardware.

We could phase into that simplicity, efficiency, and convenience, but as
long as a bunch of stubborn old fogeys keep Imperial, we all will. No
sense phasing all fasteners into metric is there? Our great
grandchildren will be having this same conversation and 200 boxes of
nuts and bolts.

On 17 Sep 2016 11:43:21 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:

>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:dfdptb93eie6dngsb31g0i0cum6cr97qaa@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Of course but because machines like binary and we don't, doesn't mean
>> it's the only use.
>>
>
>If we'd simply stop counting our thumbs and use them as status bits
>instead, binary would come a whole lot more naturally. Teach your kids to
>count properly: One, two, three, four, overflow, sign, five, six, seven,
>eight.

How about using them for hexadecimal. It might take some Vulcan
coordination, however.

>The status bits might need a bit more thought.

Status bits seem pretty simple, at least for your base-8. Increment
right to left, decrement left to right. Overflow then becomes the
count after either pinkie (pinkie and ring change together) and sign
becomes a decrement or increment past zero.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 19:28:04 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 8/6/2016 5:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:37:38 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Gill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>> As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
>>>>> is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
>>>>> not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
>>>>> proportioned units.
>>>
>>>> That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on
>>>> the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
>>>> through Paris.
>>>
>>> An arbitrary fraction of the distance from the pole to the
>>> equator is not a useful definition in the real world. No
>>> person can visualize what 1/10000000 of the distance from
>>> pole to equator is. Everyone can visualize how long a foot
>>> is, or the distance from nose to fingertips (a yard).
>>>
>>> I'm sitting here drinking a cup of coffee. A cup, 8 oz, is
>>> a useful real world measurement, being about 1 serving of
>>> liquid. A cubic meter is neither easy to visualize nor
>>> particularly usefully sized (the liter, 1/1000 of a cubic
>>> meter, is no longer an official metric unit).
>>
>> That's why coffee cups are 5oz? ;-)
>>
>> An easier measurement to grasp is the ounce or pint. Gets two
>> measurements for the price of one. Cubic feet aren't obvious for the
>> same reason that cubic meters aren't. We don't think in volume (a
>> cubic foot looks nothing like 8 gallons).
>>
>Wow! Is a cubic foot really 8 gallons? I would have imagined 2~3 gallons.

OK, you got me. It's really 7.5 gallons. ;-)

On 8/7/2016 9:21 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/6/2016 10:08 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>> As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
>>>> is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
>>>> not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
>>>> proportioned units.
>>> That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on
>>> the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
>>> through Paris. It has been redefined in terms of physical
>>> quantities, but that doesn't make it 'better'. In fact it is
>>> just more convenient because it is all decimal. That makes it
>>> easier to make arithmetical calculations.
>>
>> How does it make it easier to divide something into thirds?
>>>
>>> Bill
>
> There is no such thing as "a third" in the metric world.
>
Sure there is. The metric world has no problem with using
infinitely repeating decimals.

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:12:22 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:

> Metric ton 1000 kilograms. If I do something on a small scale and it
> produces 1 kilogram. I know if I scale it up by a factor of 1000, then
> it will produce a metric ton.

That's a weak argument, of course; anyone with a slide rule can lay
out any ratio he wants, and read the scale straightaway for a factor
of 683, 880, 1000... whatever

> If the English system would you give some one an 8' length of lumber if
> he asked for one 8" long. 8 yards for the 8'piece.

That's the strong argument: changing units from inch to foot, foot to yard,
yard to fathom, fathom to nautical mile, nautical mile to statute mile... is annoying.

On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 17:50:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/26/2019 6:33 PM, ads wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 19:43:48 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being
>>>> your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told
>>>> by a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will
>>>> be in km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US
>>>> owing mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche
>>>> being resistive of direct edict.
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a couple of other factors that come into play on
>>> that particular example.
>>>
>>> One is that, someone who's grown up with a given system
>>> developes facility at estimating in that system, so US
>>> drivers can estimate distances in miles, and not in km,
>>> and so naturally resisted the more "difficult" system.
>>>
>>> The other is the random coincidence that highway speed
>>> works out to roughly 60mph (this was particularly true
>>> when they tried metric roads, since the double-nickle was
>>> in effect). Since our time system works on an increment
>>> of 60, that's mile-a-minute, and you can easily figure
>>> how long it'll take to get somewhere. 100kph doesn't
>>> work out that way.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> I'm aware that this is an old posting, but I still find it amusing
>> that the metric proponents who think their system is "so much better"
>> don't want to admit that their measurement of length and thus volume
>> and everything else is based on an inaccurate measurement of the size
>> of the Earth. Is that inaccurate measurement really so much better
>> than the yard being based on the distance from a King's nose to his
>> thumb? The measurement of time in both systems goes back to some
>> Babylonian who arbitrarily divided the day into units that matched
>> their other measurement bases.
>>
>> And measuring vehicle fuel consumption in liters/100km has always
>> seemed backwards. Your trips aren't in 100km sections - they're in
>> some unique number of miles or kilometers. Km/liter is much more
>> informative if you know the size of the fuel tank.
>>
>Does not really matter what is is based on, it works.
>
>Most of the people against it just don't want to change what they
>already knwo. I've worked with both and it is easier to work in 1os.
>No bothering to add 47/64th to 23/32nds.

When I work on stuff I just pick the resolution I need (32nds, or
64ths, whatever) and stick with it. Then I just remember the
numerator. It doesn't matter what the base is, then.

>No one has ever convinced anyone to change from one to the other either.
> Like arguing religion or politics, my way is the best way.

It's even sillier than that.

On 8/7/2016 11:51 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 23:07:42 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
Snip


> Hmmm - I wonder if that is one reason, maybe a major one, that European
> students show up so much better than US students on math tests?
>
>

Absolutely! Other students do not have to deal with fractions.

On 7/26/2019 6:33 PM, ads wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 19:43:48 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being
>>> your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told
>>> by a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will
>>> be in km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US
>>> owing mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche
>>> being resistive of direct edict.
>>
>>
>> There's a couple of other factors that come into play on
>> that particular example.
>>
>> One is that, someone who's grown up with a given system
>> developes facility at estimating in that system, so US
>> drivers can estimate distances in miles, and not in km,
>> and so naturally resisted the more "difficult" system.
>>
>> The other is the random coincidence that highway speed
>> works out to roughly 60mph (this was particularly true
>> when they tried metric roads, since the double-nickle was
>> in effect). Since our time system works on an increment
>> of 60, that's mile-a-minute, and you can easily figure
>> how long it'll take to get somewhere. 100kph doesn't
>> work out that way.
>>
>> Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.
>>
>> John
>
> I'm aware that this is an old posting, but I still find it amusing
> that the metric proponents who think their system is "so much better"
> don't want to admit that their measurement of length and thus volume
> and everything else is based on an inaccurate measurement of the size
> of the Earth. Is that inaccurate measurement really so much better
> than the yard being based on the distance from a King's nose to his
> thumb? The measurement of time in both systems goes back to some
> Babylonian who arbitrarily divided the day into units that matched
> their other measurement bases.
>
> And measuring vehicle fuel consumption in liters/100km has always
> seemed backwards. Your trips aren't in 100km sections - they're in
> some unique number of miles or kilometers. Km/liter is much more
> informative if you know the size of the fuel tank.
>
Does not really matter what is is based on, it works.

Most of the people against it just don't want to change what they
already knwo. I've worked with both and it is easier to work in 1os.
No bothering to add 47/64th to 23/32nds.

No one has ever convinced anyone to change from one to the other either.
Like arguing religion or politics, my way is the best way.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 23:08:13 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>> > As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
>> > is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
>> > not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
>> > proportioned units.
>> That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on
>> the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
>> through Paris. It has been redefined in terms of physical
>> quantities, but that doesn't make it 'better'. In fact it is
>> just more convenient because it is all decimal. That makes it
>> easier to make arithmetical calculations.
>
>How does it make it easier to divide something into thirds?

It's a single base rather than multiple bases (ten and whatever
divisor needed for the precision needed - 2/4/6/16/32). Imperial can
be made easier by limiting the bases to 10 (drop feet) and use only
one divisor (e.g. use 24/32 rather than 3/4 and do the arithmetic on
the numerator only).

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:37:04 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Puckdropper wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> *snip*
>>> Computer science uses base-2 (binary) because of similar properties
>>> related to how arithmetic works. Base-8 (octal) and especially Base-16
>>> (hexadecimal) is common in software. The former makes it more
>>> intuitive to work with groups of 3 in the context of binary numbers,
>>> while the latter makes it more intuitive to work in groups of 2, 4,
>>> and 8. You can get used to thinking in different bases fairly easily.
>>> I think math would come easier for many young kids if they practiced
>>> using different number systems explicitly. I never really "got"
>>> English grammar (beyond rote memorization) until I began learning
>>> Spanish in high school. Spanish class did more to help me understand
>>> English grammar than any English class ever did.
>>>
>> Good post, well thought out and presented
>>
>> I thought, though, that CS used base-2 because that was what the hardware
>> did.
>Base 8 and 16 are "shorthand" for base 2.
>e.g. 14 (Decimal) = 1110 (base 2) = 16 (base 8) = E (base 16).

Shorthand in that it's easier to make binary machines but base-16 is
just as much of a base as base-15 is (though neither, in that context
are particularly useful except as learning tools).
>
>People don't like 0s and 1s, but computers do, so we have software that
>translates between various bases. Of course 14 need not just be an
>numeric value, it could also represent an instruction which tells a
>computer to increment a register, or to do some other thing.

Note that floating point often uses base-16 arithmetic. Base-2 is
just a representation of the base-16.

>
>
>> As I understand transistors and TTL, they natively work with the
>> presence or absence of a voltage, which lends itself to base-2.
>>
>> Puckdropper
>>

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:14:20 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/8/2016 9:38 PM, graham wrote:
>
>>> Someone said that the most successful countries used imperial.
>>>
>> Define successful!!!!!!
>
>I describe it as the highest standard of living with the least amount of
>government control.

Those are not different measures. The reason the standard of living
is higher is _because_ there is (or was) less government control.

On 8/5/2016 4:16 PM, Leon wrote:
> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?


The Metric system is a "basic introduction to math"

The Imperial system is "Algebra".

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 09:23:22 -0400, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 08/07/2016 8:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> The eye deceives. A five gallon pail of paint is roughly 12 x 17.
>> Looking at it and not counting the corners that is more than a cubic
>> foot to the eye, but you still have 2 1/2 gallons to go.
>
>The volume of a cylinder is Pi X the radius Squared X the height.
>
>(12/2)squared*Pi*17= 1.1 square feet
^^^^^^ cubic

You guys ( and ladies) are making a mountain out of a mole hill. You eithe=
r accept one or the other system. No need to compare "equivalent" values. =
The British system is based on 12. The metric system is based on 10. It =
is that simple! If you can multiply and divide bye 12 in you head you're d=
oing very well and are just a good as the guy using metric values. Of cour=
se, since you are both using a decimal system to perform the division, the =
metric guy has the advantage. Most people can multiply and divide by 10 a =
lot easier and, probably with less errors, than the person doing it in base=
12. I grew up with computers; base 2, 8, and 16 are very common there. S=
ometimes I can add in those systems, but subraction, multiplication, and di=
vision totally escape me.

I am not very smart, so I will stick 10. =20

Len

On 8/8/2016 11:46 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 9:56 AM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> Do you normally begin to get fronts this time of year?
> ...
>
> Well, there are fronts continually, yes, altho some may have sensible
> effects no more than simply a wind-direction shift as far as temp's go.
> But, differing air masses can/are still the trigger events for storm
> development. Sufficient cool air to keep daytime temps in the 70s/80s
> in August isn't unheard of certainly, but isn't that common, though,
> which is probably the real question.
>
> This is, as I'm sure you're probably aware, the peak of the NM/CO
> "monsoon" season so it's almost a daily event that there's at least a
> chance of those moving across from the west and drifting into SW KS and
> the OK/TX panhandles from the late afternoon 'til early morning hours as
> the general winds prevail from the west. This gets blocked entirely
> when a broad high develops but at the moment we're in a moderate
> situation. The continuing of the La Nina cycle that hasn't yet (while
> it's in transition) gotten to the El Nino phase tends to let the
> northern jet stream stay near our latitude and that allows for moisture
> to be in the area. We've had (for us) high dewpoints all summer, albeit
> right on top of us we've been being missed by the really abundant
> rainfall we're at least at or a little above normal for the year. OTOH,
> when El Nino really gets set up, it cause the jet stream to buckle and
> shift the southward track east and thru the southeast US instead and
> that sets us up for the extreme droughts as the '30s, '50s and the five
> years that finally broke last summer. Needless to say, we're hoping
> that this cycle won't be nearly so severe nor long in duration.
>
> And that's more than you wanted to know... :)
>
Thank you... ;~)

And hey, you probably had that all bottled up and needed to let it out. LOL

On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-7, John McCoy wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > On 8/7/2016 9:32 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> That's really dumb. 1/4" would be a change. How many times, in my
> >> life, am I going to care about the size of 35mm film. It's a name.
> >
> > Its a measurement.
>
> It actually is more of a name. The original specification
> (from Thomas Edison) was for 1.375 inches. It became "35mm"
> when European filmmakers captured the market for it (Kodak
> originally could only sell to Edison, but Edison overlooked
> patenting the film in Europe, so makers there could sell to
> anyone).

Those Europeans! They changed perfectly good .30 caliber to 7.62 millimeters, too!

On 8/7/2016 12:32 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/6/2016 8:22 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:MuudnUZzJMY9HTvKnZ2dnUU7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> Wow! Is a cubic foot really 8 gallons?
>>
>> Not quite. It's actually a bit under seven and a half.
>>
>
>
> Still 2 to 3 times more than I would have guesstimated.

The eye deceives. A five gallon pail of paint is roughly 12 x 17.
Looking at it and not counting the corners that is more than a cubic
foot to the eye, but you still have 2 1/2 gallons to go.

On 8/8/2016 5:36 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> notbob <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 2016-08-08, John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like the answer in moles, please.
>>
>> I think I need the molecular breakdown of sed apples.
>
> Not really. Assume an apple is the elementary unit of
> appleness. All you need to know is the mass of an apple,
> then you can figure the mass of 6.022e23 of them, and
> divide that into 40kg to find what fraction of a mole
> it is.
>
> It'll be a tiny number :-)
>
> John
>

Yes but are there known isotopes?

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 4:16:17 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>
> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>
> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>
> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>
> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
>
> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
> hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
> diameter of 3.57mm?
>
> And then there are threaded inserts to accept 5/16" coarse thread bolts.
> Drill pilot hole with 11mm diameter bit. In so much that you want to
> work with imperial sized bolts, couldn't they have just said drill pilot
> hole at 7/16"?

On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 15:44:06 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 01:15:01 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 23:40:35 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 18:33:31 -0400, ads wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 19:43:48 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being
>>>>>> your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told
>>>>>> by a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will
>>>>>> be in km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US
>>>>>> owing mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche
>>>>>> being resistive of direct edict.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There's a couple of other factors that come into play on
>>>>>that particular example.
>>>>>
>>>>>One is that, someone who's grown up with a given system
>>>>>developes facility at estimating in that system, so US
>>>>>drivers can estimate distances in miles, and not in km,
>>>>>and so naturally resisted the more "difficult" system.
>>>>>
>>>>>The other is the random coincidence that highway speed
>>>>>works out to roughly 60mph (this was particularly true
>>>>>when they tried metric roads, since the double-nickle was
>>>>>in effect). Since our time system works on an increment
>>>>>of 60, that's mile-a-minute, and you can easily figure
>>>>>how long it'll take to get somewhere. 100kph doesn't
>>>>>work out that way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Decimal time is used al;l the time in industry - on timeclocks, and in
>>>time management - 10ths of an hour per operation - because it's easier
>>>to PRICE things that way since the monetary system is also decimal
>>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>I'm aware that this is an old posting, but I still find it amusing
>>>>that the metric proponents who think their system is "so much better"
>>>>don't want to admit that their measurement of length and thus volume
>>>>and everything else is based on an inaccurate measurement of the size
>>>>of the Earth. Is that inaccurate measurement really so much better
>>>>than the yard being based on the distance from a King's nose to his
>>>>thumb? The measurement of time in both systems goes back to some
>>>>Babylonian who arbitrarily divided the day into units that matched
>>>>their other measurement bases.
>>>>
>>>>And measuring vehicle fuel consumption in liters/100km has always
>>>>seemed backwards.
>>> Actually it doesn't. Lower fuel consumption - less fuel used for a
>>>trip - makes more sence than MPG - where better fuel economy means you
>>>go farther on a unit of fuel.
>>>
>>>Six of one, half dozen of the other - but the old "imperial" system is
>>>definitely NOT BETTER.
>>>
>>>With the metric (or decimal) system EVERYTHING is in units of 10. No
>>>mote 12 inches to a foot - 3 feet to a yard (or 36 inches) and 5380 ft
>>>to a mile - 63360 inches to a mile. Or 16 oz to a lb and 2000 lb to a
>>>ton - and the weight of water???8.34 lb to the gallon US - or 62.427
>>>lb per cu ft.
>>>
>>>In metric it is 10mm.cm, 100cm or 1000mm per meter, 1000 meters per KM
>>>- just move decimal points.
>>>1000 grams per Kilogram for weight - and one gram per cubic centimeter
>>>of water - so 1 kilogram per liter. Dead simple.
>>
>>What's so great about 10? Computers don't do well with it. All my
>>SAE wrenches and drill bits and so on are nicely binary--units of one
>>half, one fourth, one eighth, one sixteenth, etc.
>
>So you need to do quick calcs in your head to know what the next
>larger or next smaller wrench size is. - Not so with Metric - which
>are virtually ALL simple whole numbers

The next larger wrench is the one that is next to the one I am using.
The next smaller is the one next to it on the other side. I don't
generally care about what marking is on the wrench, just that it fits.

>And actually computers have no problem dealing with decimal
>calculations

OK, what is the binary representation of 0.1?

>>>Also accuracy in measurement is easier in metric ans 1mm is about
>>>.0304 inches .1mm is .003+ inches.
>>
>>Accuracy in measurement is only easier if 1mm is sufficient
>>granularity for you.
>
> No, tenths, hundredths and thousandths of a MM are commonly used for
>fine measurements. The micron - 1 1/millionth of ameter is .0004 of
>an inch. - Also known as a MicroMetre

So, 2^-1, 2^-1, etc work equally well and computers can calculate them
exactly.

>>> Again - not NECESSARILLY better - but a heck of a lot SIMPLER.
>>>
>>> As far as what it was originally based on, it is immaterial because
>>>it's all been re-calibrated to atomic measurements.
>>>Since the International Yard and Pound Agreement of 1959, one foot is
>>>defined as 0.3048 meter exactly.
>>
>>It's all arbitrary.
>
> Actually no it is not. As noted below

Yes, it is. Somebody decided that "this is a meter". There's no law
of nature that requires it to have that value.

>>>The basic unit of length in the metric system; it was originally
>>>planned so that the circumference of the Earth would be measured at
>>>about forty million meters. A meter is 39.37 inches. Today, the meter
>>>is defined to be the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458
>>>seconds.
>>>
>>>The previous definition of the meter was one ten-millionth of the
>>>distance from the geographic north pole to the equator, measured over
>>>the earth's surface in a circle running through Paris, France.
>>
>>Damned French.
>
>You like the Italians (romans) better???

Hell yeah.

>>>> Your trips aren't in 100km sections - they're in
>>>>some unique number of miles or kilometers. Km/liter is much more
>>>>informative if you know the size of the fuel tank.
>>>
>>> And is still METRIC but not SI Metric convention.
>>>
>>> Easy enough to convert too - all based on the fact that 1L per 100km
>>>-s equal to 100 km/L - so 2 L /100KM is 50 KM per Liter - and 4 L /
>>>100Km is 25 Km per liter. 8 is 12.5 - it's all linear. - so 10
>>>L/100Km is 10 Km per liter

notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2016-08-07, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8/6/2016 3:30 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in news:lrmdnULdX_XmYTjKnZ2dnUU7-
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/6/2016 10:37 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A cubic meter is neither easy to visualize nor
>>>>> particularly usefully sized
>>>>
>>>> Hint: Its a tad larger than a cubic yard. In the back of a dump truck
>>>> you can't tell them apart.
>>>
>>> OK, run down to the store and get me 4/10000 cubic meters
>>> of milk, please :-)
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>> Cant. It comes in 5/10000 bottles. Costs 167 Rupee
>
> What I learned, during this thread, is that most ppl in rw do not have
> a degree.
>
> Major in any of the hard sciences and you WILL learn metric. ;)
>
> nb
>

Learning your SS number to get your grades is harder than learning metric,
I learned metric in grade school. It is not hard at all.
It is more likely that those that learned Imperial and fractions first
have a much easier time learning metric than those that learned metric
first and later tried to learn the Imperial and working with fractions.

As I have stated earlier, I use both in my shop because my Festool tools
use metric and I design for imperial measurements. Can those that learned
metric first do that ?

So reading the answers here no one has proven that metric is better so much
as simply easier to some degree.
Oddly those that think metric is better tend to work with only one
resolution vs multiple resolutions on a given project. I suppose that is
because working with multiples of 10 is more confusing when you have to
start using decimal points and or as I have also stated the sounds of each
resolution differ slightly compared to Imperial so to cut down on the
possibility of verbal miscommunication only one resolution is commonly
used.

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 08/05/2016 6:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> ...
>
>> Why didn't they just make it metric in the first place??
> ...
>
> 'Cuz it was already made and it's much cheaper to markup and print new
> materials to satisfy the mommy-state of the EU than retool...

There's another thing to consider here: when you retool, you risk breaking
all your customer's jigs or CNC programs.

Puckdropper

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>
> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>
> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>
> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>
> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths
> of a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an
> inch. There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
>
> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
> hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
> diameter of 3.57mm?
>
> And then there are threaded inserts to accept 5/16" coarse thread
> bolts. Drill pilot hole with 11mm diameter bit. In so much that you
> want to work with imperial sized bolts, couldn't they have just said
> drill pilot hole at 7/16"?

Yay! A conversion that doesn't cut off the resolution to something
useless! I was looking at wire grommets (for desks and the like) today,
and they stated 50mm/2". They were 50mm, but that means the fit will be
sloppy if you drill for 2". Either give me a reasonably precise
conversion or don't give me one at all.

Some countries have banned the use of imperial units in their
metrificiation efforts, which is why you get moronic stuff like this.

Rule of thumb: If there's no decimal points in a dual-system dimension,
one of the measurements is wrong.

Puckdropper

Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in news:lrmdnULdX_XmYTjKnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:

> On 8/6/2016 10:37 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>
>> A cubic meter is neither easy to visualize nor
>> particularly usefully sized
>
> Hint: Its a tad larger than a cubic yard. In the back of a dump truck
> you can't tell them apart.
>
>

I've found a handy way to estimate from meters to feet is to multiply the
number by 3 then divide the number by 3 and add the two results.

So, if you have a measurement of 100 m:
100 * 3 = 300
100 / 3 = 33.333
100 m ~= 333.333 ft
100m = 328.084ft

Not bad at all for something that takes only a few seconds to calculate
in your head.

Puckdropper

Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
> news:57a61232$0$31233$c3e8da3 [email protected]:
>
> [...]
>> I've found a handy way to estimate from meters to feet is to multiply
>> the number by 3 then divide the number by 3 and add the two results.
> [...]
>> Not bad at all for something that takes only a few seconds to
>> calculate in your head.
>
> It's even faster to multiply by 10, then divide by 3 -- which produces
> exactly the same result in fewer steps.
>

Looks like that method's easily reversable, too. Cool!

Puckdropper

Leon <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

*snip*

> So reading the answers here no one has proven that metric is better so
> much as simply easier to some degree.

*snip*

That's because it isn't. Floating around somewhere is a Metric vs Imperial
comparison, where it says one system is better because of some reason, then
not long after says the other system is better because of the same reason.

A quick Google didn't return anything like it, and it wasn't on the
repairfaq.org humor page. (Don't go there if you don't have some time to
kill... you'll be busy reading jokes for an hour or better.)

Puckdropper

On 8/7/2016 10:48 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 4:16 PM, Leon wrote:
>> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>
>
> The Metric system is a "basic introduction to math"
>
> The Imperial system is "Algebra".

Brilliant, Leon. Simply brilliant!

Only better analogy I can come up with would be "Chinese Algebra" LOL!

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 8/7/2016 12:07 PM, dpb wrote:
>>
>> No, 1 - 0/32 :)
>>
>
>
> Now you have cut out 90% of the world and they will not understand
> that.
> LOL
>
>

This'll throw another percent or three:
1" -0/32"+1/16"

Puckdropper

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 08/07/2016 12:09 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> ...
>
> A) Yes, that's true and for everyday use, it's a good-enough reason.
>
> B) No (at least I) don't expect them to adapt to us, I just don't want
> them (or some DC bureaucrat) forcing _us_ (as in US) to switch things
> that don't need to be switched just for the sake of it.
>
> Wasn't going to but what the heck, having come this far... :)
>
> C) It's been the fortunate position of US by dint of its combination
> of resources plus the economic and governing systems to build a
> sufficiency that that is so (others having to use our system,
> languages, etc.). Getting to that point collectively to be able to
> create a similar condition was a prime reason for the EU which then
> created for the most part the switch in industrial US.
>
> D) Again, "learning how to use other methods" isn't the issue; I don't
> think there's anybody who's responded in the (apparently now
> interminable :) ) thread who doesn't "know how"; it's that for much
> use and particularly that of everyday use there really is no clear
> advantage in changing and (as I've also noted earlier) the denizens
> here are mostly old fogeys and we see no reason to switch just for the
> sake of switching. We don't export the weather, the roads are where
> they've always been, "a mile a minute" is _far_ more convenient that
> whatever it works out to in kpm, etc., etc., etc., ... OTOH, US
> manufacturing switched decades ago for all that export so what has
> been important already is.
>

I'm not an old fogey, still much to young for that. I'm rather open
minded when it comes to measurement systems, with one caveat: Pick one
and use it! If it's metric, tell me and I'll adjust. If it's Imperial,
tell me and I'll adjust. Don't pretend it's both, the difference
between a 2" hole and a 50mm hole is a 2" item will fit snugly in the 2"
hole and not at all in the 50mm hole.

I use metric quite a bit when model railroading, as it's convenient.
Metric is good at measuring small things. I use Imperial when
woodworking, Imperial is good at measuring average size things. When it
comes to huge things, it's a tossup, but Metric would probably win out.
It supports things like Gm (Gigameters) or even Ym (Yottameters) if you
don't want to use light years. (I know those are the prefixes for
storage, and storage stole them from Metric so I think they're right.)

If they had based the meter off something closer to the foot, like a
cubit or something, they might have wound up with a system that was good
at measuring small things (the centimeter would probably be the unit of
choice), average size things (meters), and big things (Mm).

Puckdropper

On 8/8/2016 5:33 AM, Just Another Joe wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A "tad" is a bit more than a "pinch", of course.
>
> I'm told that all imperial units derive from the LRCH ;-)


But if she uses one of those shampoos or conditioners that builds body,
won't that affect the accuracy?

Unquestionably Confused <[email protected]> wrote in news:57a87fcd$0
[email protected]:

> On 8/8/2016 5:33 AM, Just Another Joe wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> A "tad" is a bit more than a "pinch", of course.
>>
>> I'm told that all imperial units derive from the LRCH ;-)
>
>
> But if she uses one of those shampoos or conditioners that builds body,
> won't that affect the accuracy?
>

No moreso than tidal forces on the Earth affecting the Meter.

Puckdropper

notbob <[email protected]> wrote in news:e0rialFlsqmU4
@mid.individual.net:

> On 2016-08-08, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> And you just proved my point. Your answer is incomplete. Each pile
>> weighs 4 and 2/7 kilograms.
>
> As is yers: 30 kg / 7 kg = 4.286 kg.
>
> What? No one here has a decent calculator? Howzabout the computer
> yer on? ;)
>
> nb
>

The computer's excellent at math, the darn programmers are awful at
making it useful. I keep a TI89 handy because Windows Calculator
emulates a write-only desk calculator. Well, to be fair it's now more
like a TI30--two line display.

Not that I ever need to use anything more advanced than fractions...

Puckdropper

graham <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> It might affect a meter but it won't affect a metre:-)
> Graham

Why? Do you guys have people making sure the metre's needs are met? Do
they clean it and dust it and all that?

'round here, meter maids are part of the police force. :-)

Puckdropper

notbob <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 2016-08-08, gray_wolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I give up. How many moles in an apple?
>
> I know there's a joke in there, somewhere, but I'm not a comedian.
> Perhaps you could ask a rodent comedian. ;)
>
> nb

If you should find a mole in your apple, it's probably just best to give
the apple to the mole!

Puckdropper

<[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

*snip*
>
> Computer science uses base-2 (binary) because of similar properties
> related to how arithmetic works. Base-8 (octal) and especially Base-16
> (hexadecimal) is common in software. The former makes it more
> intuitive to work with groups of 3 in the context of binary numbers,
> while the latter makes it more intuitive to work in groups of 2, 4,
> and 8. You can get used to thinking in different bases fairly easily.
> I think math would come easier for many young kids if they practiced
> using different number systems explicitly. I never really "got"
> English grammar (beyond rote memorization) until I began learning
> Spanish in high school. Spanish class did more to help me understand
> English grammar than any English class ever did.
>

Good post, well thought out and presented

I thought, though, that CS used base-2 because that was what the hardware
did. As I understand transistors and TTL, they natively work with the
presence or absence of a voltage, which lends itself to base-2.

Puckdropper

krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:dfdptb93eie6dngsb31g0i0cum6cr97qaa@
4ax.com:

> Of course but because machines like binary and we don't, doesn't mean
> it's the only use.
>

If we'd simply stop counting our thumbs and use them as status bits
instead, binary would come a whole lot more naturally. Teach your kids to
count properly: One, two, three, four, overflow, sign, five, six, seven,
eight.

The status bits might need a bit more thought.

Puckdropper

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:37:38 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Gill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
>>> is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
>>> not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
>>> proportioned units.
>
>> That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on
>> the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
>> through Paris.
>
>An arbitrary fraction of the distance from the pole to the
>equator is not a useful definition in the real world. No
>person can visualize what 1/10000000 of the distance from
>pole to equator is. Everyone can visualize how long a foot
>is, or the distance from nose to fingertips (a yard).
>
>I'm sitting here drinking a cup of coffee. A cup, 8 oz, is
>a useful real world measurement, being about 1 serving of
>liquid. A cubic meter is neither easy to visualize nor
>particularly usefully sized (the liter, 1/1000 of a cubic
>meter, is no longer an official metric unit).

That's why coffee cups are 5oz? ;-)

An easier measurement to grasp is the ounce or pint. Gets two
measurements for the price of one. Cubic feet aren't obvious for the
same reason that cubic meters aren't. We don't think in volume (a
cubic foot looks nothing like 8 gallons).

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:43:13 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 15:44:06 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>
> >And actually computers have no problem dealing with decimal
> >calculations
>
> OK, what is the binary representation of 0.1?

0.0001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011
0011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011
0011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011
0011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011
0011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011
0011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011
0011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011
001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011...

At least that's what my dual-system tape measure says. ;-)

On 8/8/2016 2:08 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-08-08, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 8/8/2016 11:54 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> OK, try this:
>>>
>>> 30/7=4.82571428571, which checks to 7*4.82571428571=30
>>>
>>> I rounded off at 3 sig dec. Feel free to check it w/ the full answer.
>>> If you want the answer in teaspoons or moles (both mass), I can do
>>> that, too. ;)
>
>> That answer is even farther off by about 10%.
>
> Post whatever numbers you feel happy with. I still choose my HP50g's
> answer over yers. FWIW, my calculus intructor would side with me. ;)
>
> nb
>


Wow, I doubt, given my answer and your answer, your calculus instructor
would agree with you. Take you answer out of context and yes he would.

But If you can't understand that my answer is precisely correct it may
say a lot about your instructor or what you actually got out of that class.

FWIW referencing another source means nothing if your answer is still wrong.

On 8/8/2016 9:35 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 8:58 AM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> And FWIW you should have said he puts them in equal weigh piles. Size
>> and weight are two different things.
>
> But if'fen he's going to make piles of equal weight, he's going to
> either have to have some very specifically-sized apples or a knife! :)


That too..... LOL

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:02:10 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>krw <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>Note that floating point often uses base-16 arithmetic. Base-2 is
>>just a representation of the base-16.
>
>Only on the old BCD mainframes was any form of base-16 used,
>and there, values of A-F weren't available for use (they were
>called undigits on the Burroughs systems and would cause a fault
>if used in an arithmetic operation - integer, fixed-point or
>floating point.

Huh? How can you have base-16 arithmetic and not use A-F? That
paragraph makes no sense.
>
>All modern processors do arithmetic in binary[*]. Don't confuse
>the storage format with the human representation of the storage when
>printed.

It depends on how you look at it. The hardware uses binary logic,
sure, but the arithmetic is purely hexadecimal. Normalization is done
in hexadecimal digits and the "binary point" is actually a
"hexadecimal point", for instance.
>
>[*] IBM's Power processors also support decimal floating point (a la BCD).

Again, who was talking about BCD?

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:48:30 +0000, Spalted Walt
<[email protected]> wrote:

>ads wrote:
>
>> I'm aware that this is an old posting, but I still find it amusing
>> that the metric proponents who think their system is "so much better"
>
>In metric, one millilitre of water occupies one cubic centimetre,
>weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one
>degree centigrade... which is 1% of the difference between its
>freezing point and its boiling point.

Well that's nice, but how does it apply to gasoline, mercury, or
liquid hydrogen?

>An amount of hydrogen weighing
>the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it.

The same amount as what?

>That makes
>perfect sense right? Everything adds up perfectly, 1 centimetre = 10
>millimetres, 1 decimetre = 10 centimetres, 1 metre = 10 decimetres.

So? I seldom deal in one or ten of anything.

>Whereas in the Imperial system, the answer to "How much energy does
>it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?" is "Go fuck
>yourself," because you can't directly relate any of those quantities.

How does that help if you aren't dealing with water?

>https://i.redd.it/2zvqpynr264z.png

Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>Bill wrote:
>> krw wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought, though, that CS used base-2 because that was what the
>>>>> hardware
>>>>> did.
>>>> Base 8 and 16 are "shorthand" for base 2.
>>>> e.g. 14 (Decimal) = 1110 (base 2) = 16 (base 8) = E (base 16).
>>> Shorthand in that it's easier to make binary machines but base-16 is
>>> just as much of a base as base-15 is (though neither, in that context
>>> are particularly useful except as learning tools).
>>
>> There are shortcuts with base 8 and 16 since they are powers of 2.
>> base 15 wouldn't be useful in this context.
>For instance, if you wish to write down a 32 bit string, 8 hex digits is
>the "nicest
>way to do it, for a person.

And if you have 12-bit systems, 3 octal digits were the nicest way
to do it (e.g. PDP-8, PDP-12).

For BCD machines, decimal rules. Makes it very easy to read core dumps.

J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:48:30 +0000, Spalted Walt
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >ads wrote:
> >
> >> I'm aware that this is an old posting, but I still find it amusing
> >> that the metric proponents who think their system is "so much better"
> >
> >In metric, one millilitre of water occupies one cubic centimetre,
> >weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one
> >degree centigrade... which is 1% of the difference between its
> >freezing point and its boiling point.
>
> Well that's nice, but how does it apply to gasoline, mercury, or
> liquid hydrogen?
>
> >An amount of hydrogen weighing
> >the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it.
>
> The same amount as what?
>
> >That makes
> >perfect sense right? Everything adds up perfectly, 1 centimetre = 10
> >millimetres, 1 decimetre = 10 centimetres, 1 metre = 10 decimetres.
>
> So? I seldom deal in one or ten of anything.
>
> >Whereas in the Imperial system, the answer to "How much energy does
> >it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?" is "Go fuck
> >yourself," because you can't directly relate any of those quantities.
>
> How does that help if you aren't dealing with water?

Lighten up, Francis, it was meant to be humorous.

<https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/6jpgxo/hmmm_metric_or_imperial/>
<https://pics.me.me/metric-system-is-like-being-raised-with-harhes-lll-brain-52661275.png>
<http://media.ifunny.com/results/2014/08/26/hwpzxh9w7w.jpg>

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 19:47:38 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 8/7/2016 4:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 10:21:32 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/6/2016 10:08 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>>> As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
>>>>>> is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
>>>>>> not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
>>>>>> proportioned units.
>>>>> That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on
>>>>> the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
>>>>> through Paris. It has been redefined in terms of physical
>>>>> quantities, but that doesn't make it 'better'. In fact it is
>>>>> just more convenient because it is all decimal. That makes it
>>>>> easier to make arithmetical calculations.
>>>>
>>>> How does it make it easier to divide something into thirds?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as "a third" in the metric world.
>>
>> Most of the metric world *is* the third world. ;-)
>>
>
>Now be nice. ;~)

But it's true! ;-)

On 8/8/2016 9:37 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 9:13 AM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> Yes, I understand this. This was required in my formal drafting classes.
> ...
>
> And I figured (really knew) so...
>


;~)
And here we sit on the computer when I should be out, during the cool
part of the day, working on an almost complete job. 92 degrees so far.

On 8/8/2016 9:28 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Actually I recall the US begin the conversion in the mid 70's.
>
> Auto industry did, for sure, maybe some others. The tech
> industries were a little slower.

;~) My previous profession was in automotive management.


Automotive was probably first because many American cars were
built/assembled in Canada and those cars were a mix of measurements
standards. Metric for those parts manufactured in Canada and non metric
for those assemblies that were shipped to Canada to build the vehicle.

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 2:55:46 PM UTC-4, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
> > Worse than the imperial/metric argument is the "Feels Like Temperature".
> >
> > Can we simply report absolute temperatures and humidity?
>
> You mean, where water freezes at 273.2K and boils at 373.2K ?
>
> > If the actual temperature is 98 degrees F and the humidity is 90% and
> > the "feels like" is 111 degrees F, does Bob who weighed 250 lbs last
> > year think that the "feels like temp" feels the same after he gains
> > 100 lbs? I think not.
>
> My furnace controller actually has a bit of this logic in it. If the
> humidity is high, it's allowed to cool the house a bit more to
> compensate. As the house dries, the temperature rises until it gets to
> the set point. Turns out this works *remarkably* well at keeping that
> house at the same "feels like" temperature.

The Nest thermostat has a "Cool To Dry" feature which basically does the
same thing.

Plus I can say "Alexa, make it cooler (warmer)" and the Nest will change
by 2 degrees or "Alexa, set the temperature to 75", etc. :-)

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 13:44:25 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Not true. Meteorology uses the meter quite extensively.
>
>Well, you can find an exception for everything. Heck,
>aviation still does altitude in feet, and you'd have
>thought they'd go metric a long time ago.
>
>> Electronics
>> uses the micron,
>
>True, altho the term itself seems to be disappearing.
>It's almost always written as um, and when spoken the
>unit is generally left off completely.

It was always written "um" and is still spoken as "micron". Nothing
has changed at all. The unit is *not* left off unless the context
makes is perfectly clear. ...no different than any other unit. You
don't say "two feet, one inch, and three eighths of an inch", rater
"two feet, one and three eighths". No difference.

On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 11:10:58 PM UTC-4, DJ Delorie wrote:
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
> > Well that's nice, but how does it apply to gasoline, mercury, or
> > liquid hydrogen?
>
> Or humans. Fahrenheit is convenient because normal outside temperatures
> range from 0 to 100 (ish). I don't care how comfortable the water is.
> But now I have to remember that -17 is cold and 38 is hot.

How hard is it to remember that -17 is cold? -17 is cold in both F & C.

The difference is that in F it's F-ing cold, while in C it's just C-C-C-Cold.

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 4:16:17 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>
Take up a different hobby where metric is the only standard and it all makes sense - Cycling is an example.

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:29:59 PM UTC-7, Bob D wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 4:16:17 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> > So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
> >
> Take up a different hobby where metric is the only standard and it all makes sense - Cycling is an example.

You're young.
I've stripped the threads on a 1mm pitch hub by threading on a 24tpi cluster.
Maybe twice, in fact (but that was decades ago).

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:50:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 7/26/2019 6:33 PM, ads wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 19:43:48 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >>> That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being
> >>> your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told
> >>> by a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will
> >>> be in km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US
> >>> owing mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche
> >>> being resistive of direct edict.
> >>
> >>
> >> There's a couple of other factors that come into play on
> >> that particular example.
> >>
> >> One is that, someone who's grown up with a given system
> >> developes facility at estimating in that system, so US
> >> drivers can estimate distances in miles, and not in km,
> >> and so naturally resisted the more "difficult" system.
> >>
> >> The other is the random coincidence that highway speed
> >> works out to roughly 60mph (this was particularly true
> >> when they tried metric roads, since the double-nickle was
> >> in effect). Since our time system works on an increment
> >> of 60, that's mile-a-minute, and you can easily figure
> >> how long it'll take to get somewhere. 100kph doesn't
> >> work out that way.
> >>
> >> Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.
> >>
> >> John
> >
> > I'm aware that this is an old posting, but I still find it amusing
> > that the metric proponents who think their system is "so much better"
> > don't want to admit that their measurement of length and thus volume
> > and everything else is based on an inaccurate measurement of the size
> > of the Earth. Is that inaccurate measurement really so much better
> > than the yard being based on the distance from a King's nose to his
> > thumb? The measurement of time in both systems goes back to some
> > Babylonian who arbitrarily divided the day into units that matched
> > their other measurement bases.
> >
> > And measuring vehicle fuel consumption in liters/100km has always
> > seemed backwards. Your trips aren't in 100km sections - they're in
> > some unique number of miles or kilometers. Km/liter is much more
> > informative if you know the size of the fuel tank.
> >
> Does not really matter what is is based on, it works.
>
> Most of the people against it just don't want to change what they
> already knwo. I've worked with both and it is easier to work in 1os.
> No bothering to add 47/64th to 23/32nds.
>
> No one has ever convinced anyone to change from one to the other either.
> Like arguing religion or politics, my way is the best way.

The average male likes metric better.

12.95 is a more impressive than 5.1

;-)

graham <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 8:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/5/2016 9:24 PM, graham wrote:
>>> On 8/5/2016 7:54 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 8/5/2016 5:23 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 8/5/2016 3:16 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Those fractions are probably due to conversion from Imperial Measure.
>>>>
>>>> That would be a logical explanation but they the Leigh Jig and the
>>>> slides are manufactured in a metric country
>>> It depends on when it was made.
>>> Graham
>>>
>>
>>
>> October 14, 2014. ;~) Does that shed more light? LOL
> They've been on the market for over 30 years. I would imagine he hasn't
> bothered to retool.
>

No, that's not it. That is how to up grade the fingers of your DT jig to a
later version past the D4. You can buy the new set of fingers that are
identical in size and shape, except for the extra holes in the set or you
can make yours the same by drilling the hikes in those odd sizes and
locations.

On 7/26/2019 5:33 PM, ads wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 19:43:48 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being
>>> your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told
>>> by a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will
>>> be in km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US
>>> owing mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche
>>> being resistive of direct edict.
>>
>>
>> There's a couple of other factors that come into play on
>> that particular example.
>>
>> One is that, someone who's grown up with a given system
>> developes facility at estimating in that system, so US
>> drivers can estimate distances in miles, and not in km,
>> and so naturally resisted the more "difficult" system.
>>
>> The other is the random coincidence that highway speed
>> works out to roughly 60mph (this was particularly true
>> when they tried metric roads, since the double-nickle was
>> in effect). Since our time system works on an increment
>> of 60, that's mile-a-minute, and you can easily figure
>> how long it'll take to get somewhere. 100kph doesn't
>> work out that way.
>>
>> Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.
>>
>> John
>
> I'm aware that this is an old posting, but I still find it amusing
> that the metric proponents who think their system is "so much better"
> don't want to admit that their measurement of length and thus volume
> and everything else is based on an inaccurate measurement of the size
> of the Earth. Is that inaccurate measurement really so much better
> than the yard being based on the distance from a King's nose to his
> thumb? The measurement of time in both systems goes back to some
> Babylonian who arbitrarily divided the day into units that matched
> their other measurement bases.
>
> And measuring vehicle fuel consumption in liters/100km has always
> seemed backwards. Your trips aren't in 100km sections - they're in
> some unique number of miles or kilometers. Km/liter is much more
> informative if you know the size of the fuel tank.
>


Metric is good for those people that are not good at fractions.

On 7/27/2019 9:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:58:47 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:50:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2019 6:33 PM, ads wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 19:43:48 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being
>>>>>> your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told
>>>>>> by a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will
>>>>>> be in km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US
>>>>>> owing mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche
>>>>>> being resistive of direct edict.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a couple of other factors that come into play on
>>>>> that particular example.
>>>>>
>>>>> One is that, someone who's grown up with a given system
>>>>> developes facility at estimating in that system, so US
>>>>> drivers can estimate distances in miles, and not in km,
>>>>> and so naturally resisted the more "difficult" system.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other is the random coincidence that highway speed
>>>>> works out to roughly 60mph (this was particularly true
>>>>> when they tried metric roads, since the double-nickle was
>>>>> in effect). Since our time system works on an increment
>>>>> of 60, that's mile-a-minute, and you can easily figure
>>>>> how long it'll take to get somewhere. 100kph doesn't
>>>>> work out that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> I'm aware that this is an old posting, but I still find it amusing
>>>> that the metric proponents who think their system is "so much better"
>>>> don't want to admit that their measurement of length and thus volume
>>>> and everything else is based on an inaccurate measurement of the size
>>>> of the Earth. Is that inaccurate measurement really so much better
>>>> than the yard being based on the distance from a King's nose to his
>>>> thumb? The measurement of time in both systems goes back to some
>>>> Babylonian who arbitrarily divided the day into units that matched
>>>> their other measurement bases.
>>>>
>>>> And measuring vehicle fuel consumption in liters/100km has always
>>>> seemed backwards. Your trips aren't in 100km sections - they're in
>>>> some unique number of miles or kilometers. Km/liter is much more
>>>> informative if you know the size of the fuel tank.
>>>>
>>> Does not really matter what is is based on, it works.
>>>
>>> Most of the people against it just don't want to change what they
>>> already knwo. I've worked with both and it is easier to work in 1os.
>>> No bothering to add 47/64th to 23/32nds.
>>>
>>> No one has ever convinced anyone to change from one to the other either.
>>> Like arguing religion or politics, my way is the best way.
>>
>> The average male likes metric better.
>>
>> 12.95 is a more impressive than 5.1
>>
>> ;-)
>
> But 91-83-91 isn't nearly as impressive. ;-)
>


Yeah, BIG girl!

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:37:04 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Puckdropper wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> *snip*
>>> Computer science uses base-2 (binary) because of similar properties
>>> related to how arithmetic works. Base-8 (octal) and especially Base-16
>>> (hexadecimal) is common in software. The former makes it more
>>> intuitive to work with groups of 3 in the context of binary numbers,
>>> while the latter makes it more intuitive to work in groups of 2, 4,
>>> and 8. You can get used to thinking in different bases fairly easily.
>>> I think math would come easier for many young kids if they practiced
>>> using different number systems explicitly. I never really "got"
>>> English grammar (beyond rote memorization) until I began learning
>>> Spanish in high school. Spanish class did more to help me understand
>>> English grammar than any English class ever did.
>>>
>> Good post, well thought out and presented
>>
>> I thought, though, that CS used base-2 because that was what the hardware
>> did.
>Base 8 and 16 are "shorthand" for base 2.
>e.g. 14 (Decimal) = 1110 (base 2) = 16 (base 8) = E (base 16).
>
>People don't like 0s and 1s, but computers do, so we have software that
>translates between various bases. Of course 14 need not just be an
>numeric value, it could also represent an instruction which tells a
>computer to increment a register, or to do some other thing.
>
>Bill
>
>
>> As I understand transistors and TTL, they natively work with the
>> presence or absence of a voltage, which lends itself to base-2.
>>
>> Puckdropper
>>

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 4:16:17 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>=20
> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and=20
> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>=20
> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>=20
> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4=20
> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>=20
> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of=
=20
> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.=20
> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
>=20
> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT=20
> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the=20
> hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill=20
> diameter of 3.57mm?
>=20
> And then there are threaded inserts to accept 5/16" coarse thread bolts.
> Drill pilot hole with 11mm diameter bit. In so much that you want to=20
> work with imperial sized bolts, couldn't they have just said drill pilot=
=20
> hole at 7/16"?

This is a pointless discussion (similar to religion or politics). It is wha=
tever you are comfortable with...whether you're using a dial or veneer cali=
per, scale or tape measure. If you are in thousandths, you are dealing with=
10's anyway! But, if you're not capable of using metric measure...you are =
in denial of the rest of the world. OMO

On 8/8/2016 11:54 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-08-08, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> 7 x 4.286 = 30.002 To get the correct eqaual answer you have to use a
>> fraction.
>
> OK, try this:
>
> 30/7=4.82571428571, which checks to 7*4.82571428571=30
>
> I rounded off at 3 sig dec. Feel free to check it w/ the full answer.
> If you want the answer in teaspoons or moles (both mass), I can do
> that, too. ;)
>
> nb
>


That answer is even farther off by about 10%.

The result is 33.77999999997

7 x 4.28571428571428 is even closer but not perfect, 29.99999999999996


You cannot always divide "perfectly" with out using fractions.

A nonfraction equation is close but not as precise as (4 & 2/7) x 7 = 30

On 8/8/2016 7:47 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/8/2016 7:03 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
>> On 8/8/2016 3:26 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2016 1:09 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/8/2016 4:46 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Q. Johnny has 30 kilograms of apples. He puts them in 7 equal
>>>>>> size piles. What is the weight of each pile?
>>>>>> A. Each pile weighs 30/7 kilograms.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you just proved my point. Your answer is incomplete. Each pile
>>>>> weighs 4 and 2/7 kilograms.
>>>>>
>>>>> And FWIW you should have said he puts them in equal weigh piles. Size
>>>>> and weight are two different things.
>>>>
>>>> Size and volume are different things too. Each pile might be
>>>> 17 and 1/7 apples (which would imply someone went to a lot of
>>>> trouble to cut up an apple to make the piles equal).
>>>>
>>> (Huge sigh). Y'all have gone far afield.
>>> J. Clarke wondered if the metric system is why European students
>>> do better than Americans on math tests. [Do they really?]
>>> L Blanchard replied "Absolutely! Other students do not have to
>>> deal with fractions."
>>>
>>> I only wrote the math problem to illustrate that the metric
>>> system does not free students from dealing with fractions.
>>>
>>> Now you guys are sounding like this: :)
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w
>>
>> FWIW some time ago a Russian math said that the imperial people were
>> better at doing mental calculations than the metric folks. I wonder if
>> working with fractions could have contributed to that.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well sure, you have a few things to remember. The metric folks are having to
> remember where the decimal point goes on nearly every number or suffix that
> number with a different resolution of meter when multiplying or dividing.
>
> It is much easier to divide 1 by 3, 1/3,
>
> than with the metric system where you end up with
> .333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
> and that still is not as accurate of an answer as 1/3. ;~)
>
>
>
> Metric is easier but not always infinitely as accurate.
>
> And that was an easy one. Still easy for imperial, 8 divided by 7.
>
> Answer, 1 & 1/7.
>
> Metric answer, something like 1.142857142857..... And you need a calculator for
> that.
>
> Using fractions in measurements insures absolute accuracy.
>

And it makes things a bit more tidy. :-) I recall reading somewhere that some
draftsmen used mm and nothing else in building even big things like ships and
locomotives to eliminate the error of a misplaced decimal point.

On 8/7/2016 9:32 AM, [email protected] wrote:

>
> That's really dumb. 1/4" would be a change. How many times, in my
> life, am I going to care about the size of 35mm film. It's a name.

Its a measurement. Kodak, a US company made miles of it and used metric
tools to do it. They had to or not have that business that Fuji, Agfa
and others made money from. They chose to buy a metric ruler and cash in.



>> I agree there is no reason to change road signs. It does take a couple
>> of days to get used to kilometers.
>
> It takes a lot more than that, even with both scales on the
> speedometer.

I guess I gave you too much credit. Ever been to Europe? By day two
most of us are buying fuel by the liter and can figure distance in
kilometers. Stubbornness is the only reason a normal intelligent person
would not grasp it.


>>
>> If you want to do business with the rest of the world you will use
>> metric. Aside from stubbornness, there is no good reason not to.
>
> Again, with the strawman.
>
Yep,stubbornness. You've not stated one of those many reasons not to
use metric.

On 8/8/2016 7:11 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 4:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> +1 implies accuracy to one significant digit.
>
> 1 is an integer and is therefore infinitely precise...
>
Only when counting objects, not when measuring.
You can have precisely two boards, but it is highly unlikely that you
would have a board that is "infinitely precisely" two yards long.
Q. How long is a 72 1/2 inch board to the nearest yard?
A. 2 yards.
2 yards is NOT an infinitely precise measure of the board.
To three significant digits, the board is 2.01 yards long.

steve robinson <[email protected]> writes:
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 12:40:21 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>wrote:

>>Metric is good for those people that are not good at fractions.
>
>
>metrics a pain in the arse too many numbers to bugger around with
>and people dont stick to industry standards , industry standards is
>milimeter , meter , kilometer but you still get some individuals
>use centimeters and on most drawings in construction they miss off
>the designation or the decimal place , at least with feet and inches
>you new wear you stood

That's one of the most cacographic rants I've read this week.

On 8/8/2016 9:48 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 9:33 AM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
>> Who needs a calculator...doesn't everybody know the repeating fraction
>> for seventh's??? :)
>>
>> 1/7 = 0.1412857...
>> 2/7 = 0.28857142857...
>> 3/7 = 0.42857142857...
>>
>> etc., etc., ...
>>
> ...
> Dang typos...
>
>> 2/7 = 0.2857142857...
>

My keyboard does this all the time... ;~)

On 8/8/2016 9:47 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 9:42 AM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> And here we sit on the computer when I should be out, during the cool
>> part of the day, working on an almost complete job. 92 degrees so far.
>
> Ditto, altho I have the excuse of working w/ the broker on getting a
> granddaughter's fall 529A payment in the works for fall semester...
>
> We had a little front thru; yesterday was only in upper 80s and just to
> be barely 90 today. But 100's back by midweek until another front late
> week they say...things are in a lull on farm at moment; wheat's over,
> milo and corn still few weeks away. We are getting ready to hay some of
> the native grass but it's too damp and still chances of showers so we'll
> wait 'til a stretch of dry before laying it down...

Do you normally begin to get fronts this time of year?

I actually heard about the front and that we may feel effects of it
later this week early next week. Hi's to only reach low 90's, but if
we get a north wind the humidity goes down and it feels better. It is
unusual to feel the effects of a front before late September.

We normally are in the low 90's in May but this year we had the 30"+ of
rain from the middle of April to about mid June and temps stayed
unseasonably low. And then the normal cycle hit suddenly and it has
been tough acclimatizing. Add to that the normally dry flood reservoirs
being like lakes and adding to the humidity. BUT, we have only hit 100
a couple of times, I think.

krw <[email protected]> writes:

>Note that floating point often uses base-16 arithmetic. Base-2 is
>just a representation of the base-16.

Only on the old BCD mainframes was any form of base-16 used,
and there, values of A-F weren't available for use (they were
called undigits on the Burroughs systems and would cause a fault
if used in an arithmetic operation - integer, fixed-point or
floating point.

All modern processors do arithmetic in binary[*]. Don't confuse
the storage format with the human representation of the storage when
printed.

[*] IBM's Power processors also support decimal floating point (a la BCD).

On 8/8/2016 4:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/7/2016 11:52 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/7/2016 11:57 AM, graham wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2016 7:37 AM, dpb wrote:
>>>> On 08/06/2016 4:51 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/6/2016 4:45 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/6/2016 7:31 AM, dpb wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
>>>>>>>> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
>>>>>>>> reasoning will change him/her.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more
>>>>>>> accurate I believe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still think fear and a certain stubbornness are the main factors.
>>>>>> "Independence" is just used to disguise them.
>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are wrong. ;~)
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>> Not "+1.00"?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No +1 says it all. +1.00 simply says the same thing with more numbers.
>> ;~)
>>
> +1 implies accuracy to one significant digit.
> +1.00 implies accuracy to three significant digits.

And yet the two zeros are redundant and equal nothing.

Implied and actual are two different things.

Both of your examples are equal even if you added a thousand zeros after
the decimal point.

On 8/8/2016 4:34 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/7/2016 9:21 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/6/2016 10:08 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>> As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
>>>>> is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
>>>>> not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
>>>>> proportioned units.
>>>> That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on
>>>> the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
>>>> through Paris. It has been redefined in terms of physical
>>>> quantities, but that doesn't make it 'better'. In fact it is
>>>> just more convenient because it is all decimal. That makes it
>>>> easier to make arithmetical calculations.
>>>
>>> How does it make it easier to divide something into thirds?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>
>> There is no such thing as "a third" in the metric world.
>>
> Sure there is. The metric world has no problem with using
> infinitely repeating decimals.


I though a real number only had ONE decimal.... How many decimals do
you typically see in a number?

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1

How would you show that using equal whole numbers??? '~)

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>
>More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
>wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>
>I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
>Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>
>For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4

It's probably not a coincidence that 6.35mm is 0.25 inches.

On 8/7/2016 11:52 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/7/2016 11:57 AM, graham wrote:
>> On 8/7/2016 7:37 AM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 08/06/2016 4:51 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2016 4:45 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 8/6/2016 7:31 AM, dpb wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
>>>>>>> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
>>>>>>> reasoning will change him/her.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more
>>>>>> accurate I believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I still think fear and a certain stubbornness are the main factors.
>>>>> "Independence" is just used to disguise them.
>>>>> Graham
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you are wrong. ;~)
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>> Not "+1.00"?
>>
>
>
> No +1 says it all. +1.00 simply says the same thing with more numbers.
> ;~)
>
+1 implies accuracy to one significant digit.
+1.00 implies accuracy to three significant digits.

On 8/5/2016 8:32 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> How often do you suppose Bob yells, cut that piece of cable to
> 10 centimeters and it gets cut at 10 millimeters or decimeters?
>
Since 10 centimeters is just under 4 inches and a 10 mm length of
cable would be just over 3/8", I suppose that would never happen
- who would ever cut a 3/8" length of cable, or a 4" cable for
that matter?

On 8/6/2016 3:46 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-08-06, John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.
>
> I can go either way. The only metric I do not like is temperature.
> SAE temp is more granular than metric.
>
> nb
>

I was able to lern temperature quickly. We rented a villa in Italy in
March. The owner said he'd program the thermostat for us before he
left. He asked if 14 was Ok. I nodded yes. Next morning I learned to
convert and set it for 20.

On 8/6/2016 9:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:

>
>> Major in any of the hard sciences and you WILL learn metric. ;)
>
> Learning <> using, or liking it, for everyday use. There's no reason
> to change and billions of reasons not to.
>

Really? Will your 1.4" film work in my 35mm camera?

Like it or not, metric is here and not going away. Most of us use metric
in our daily lives and have no idea that we do. We think nothing of it
when we buy a 750 ml bottle of wine or 2 liter bottle of soda. Most of
the manufactured products we buy are metric but unless we need a tool or
replacement screw we have no idea.

In 1960 many auto shops could not work on imported cars but the guys
that bought a set of metric wrenches charged a premium. Smart they were.

I agree there is no reason to change road signs. It does take a couple
of days to get used to kilometers.

If you want to do business with the rest of the world you will use
metric. Aside from stubbornness, there is no good reason not to.

On 8/8/2016 1:09 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 8/8/2016 4:46 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>>> Q. Johnny has 30 kilograms of apples. He puts them in 7 equal
>>> size piles. What is the weight of each pile?
>>> A. Each pile weighs 30/7 kilograms.
>>
>> And you just proved my point. Your answer is incomplete. Each pile
>> weighs 4 and 2/7 kilograms.
>>
>> And FWIW you should have said he puts them in equal weigh piles. Size
>> and weight are two different things.
>
> Size and volume are different things too. Each pile might be
> 17 and 1/7 apples (which would imply someone went to a lot of
> trouble to cut up an apple to make the piles equal).
>
(Huge sigh). Y'all have gone far afield.
J. Clarke wondered if the metric system is why European students
do better than Americans on math tests. [Do they really?]
L Blanchard replied "Absolutely! Other students do not have to
deal with fractions."

I only wrote the math problem to illustrate that the metric
system does not free students from dealing with fractions.

Now you guys are sounding like this: :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w

On 8/7/2016 9:46 AM, Leon wrote:

> The English english words, bird and the name Mark.

And despite their much loved use of the metric system, they continue to
weigh themselves in "stones" and tell time in "fortnights".

How much do ya weight mate?, Why fourteen stone, when I weighed a
fortnight ago.

Nothing consistent about the POME's ..

;)

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
https://www.facebook.com/eWoodShop-206166666122228
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 7/29/2019 11:10 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> writes:
>> Well that's nice, but how does it apply to gasoline, mercury, or
>> liquid hydrogen?
>
> Or humans. Fahrenheit is convenient because normal outside temperatures
> range from 0 to 100 (ish). I don't care how comfortable the water is.
> But now I have to remember that -17 is cold and 38 is hot.
>

You have to remember stuff? That is the lamest excuse yet. Spend a
week in Europe and you will know much of the metric system by day two.

The first time we rented a villa there it was cool weather. The first
night I found that setting the thermostat to 19 was more comfortable
than 14.

On 8/7/2016 5:19 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> notbob <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Much later, I worked in Silcon Valley. All our specs,
>> plans, fasteners were in metric. Why? Our primary market was the
>> rest of the World. And this was almost twenty years ago. ;)
>
> Where you just then converting? 20 years ago would be
> 1996, most companies in the tech industries started
> converting about 10 years before that. Mid 90's was
> when my company switched from phillips screws (in a
> mix of inch & metric sizes) to Torx (all metric, of
> course).
>
> John
>


Actually I recall the US begin the conversion in the mid 70's.

Thank you for that and the trillion dollar debt Mr. Jeemey Caater.
Every politician has been trying to out spend him since that.

On 8/6/2016 8:22 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:MuudnUZzJMY9HTvKnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]:
>
>>
>> Wow! Is a cubic foot really 8 gallons?
>
> Not quite. It's actually a bit under seven and a half.
>


Still 2 to 3 times more than I would have guesstimated.

On 8/6/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 3:16 PM, Leon wrote:
>> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>>
>> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
>> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>>
>> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
>> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>>
>> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
>> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>>
>> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
>> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
>> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
>> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
>>
>> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
>> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
>> hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
>> diameter of 3.57mm?
>>
>> And then there are threaded inserts to accept 5/16" coarse thread bolts.
>> Drill pilot hole with 11mm diameter bit. In so much that you want to
>> work with imperial sized bolts, couldn't they have just said drill pilot
>> hole at 7/16"?
>
> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
> reasoning will change him/her.
> Graham


Or the rest of the world needs a simple way to measure so that they can
function. I use the metric system every time I am in the shop, and I
mix it with imperial. But put me in the real world where distances
become greater and the sounds of all the resolutions are just too
similar, or you get in to huge numbers, or you have to know where to put
the decimal point.

On 8/6/2016 8:31 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
> ...
>
>> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
>> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
>> reasoning will change him/her.
>
> I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more
> accurate I believe.


Yeah!

On 8/6/2016 2:43 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being
>> your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told
>> by a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will
>> be in km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US
>> owing mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche
>> being resistive of direct edict.
>
>
> There's a couple of other factors that come into play on
> that particular example.
>
> One is that, someone who's grown up with a given system
> developes facility at estimating in that system, so US
> drivers can estimate distances in miles, and not in km,
> and so naturally resisted the more "difficult" system.
>
> The other is the random coincidence that highway speed
> works out to roughly 60mph (this was particularly true
> when they tried metric roads, since the double-nickle was
> in effect). Since our time system works on an increment
> of 60, that's mile-a-minute, and you can easily figure
> how long it'll take to get somewhere. 100kph doesn't
> work out that way.
>
> Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.
>
I have. :~)


> John
>