OT: Why the US will never go metric....

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

On 6/13/2010 1:07 AM, Richard Henry wrote:

(...)

One of the projects I worked on for the Army specified a maximum size
in inches and a maximum weight in pounds, but required that the
included software display distances in meters and masses in kilograms.

Arrrgh!

It saddens me to think of all the bright technical minds in
'imperial measurment' countries that got turned off to applied
physics because of our insistence on awkward, self-
destructive measurement systems.

Complete nonsense. Because you can't figure this stuff out, and aren't bright
enough to find a calculator that can, doesn't mean the average college kid
can't.

Beijing must be very happy about this.

--Winston <--Slugs? Poundals? Foot-pounds? You're joking, right?

I don't remember ever using slugs or poundals, except as curiosity. Seems
you're the dense one here.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

JL > The US press measures everything in football fields. If they
switched
JL > to soccer fields, it wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.

Did you intend that to be as funny as it actually was?

If you cannot tell, you really should be in some other forum.

 

[Greegor]

JL > The US press measures everything in football fields. If they
switched
JL > to soccer fields, it wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.

Did you intend that to be as funny as it actually was?

 

[Winston]

On 6/13/2010 1:45 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston<Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

(...)

It saddens me to think of all the bright technical minds in
'imperial measurment' countries that got turned off to applied
physics because of our insistence on awkward, self-
destructive measurement systems.

Complete nonsense. Because you can't figure this stuff out, and aren't bright
enough to find a calculator that can, doesn't mean the average college kid
can't.

By the time the young person reaches college age the battle
has long been lost. Let's agree to disagree that it is
a shame we refuse to supply a logical set of measurement tools
as a basis for learning.

Beijing must be very happy about this.

--Winston<--Slugs? Poundals? Foot-pounds? You're joking, right?

I don't remember ever using slugs or poundals, except as curiosity. Seems
you're the dense one here.

I am *far* from the sharpest knife in the drawer, that is true.

However, it is not a good defense to insist "we always did it
that way".


--Winston

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:28:52 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

On 6/13/2010 1:45 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston<Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

(...)

It saddens me to think of all the bright technical minds in
'imperial measurment' countries that got turned off to applied
physics because of our insistence on awkward, self-
destructive measurement systems.

Complete nonsense. Because you can't figure this stuff out, and aren't bright
enough to find a calculator that can, doesn't mean the average college kid
can't.

By the time the young person reaches college age the battle
has long been lost. Let's agree to disagree that it is
a shame we refuse to supply a logical set of measurement tools
as a basis for learning.

No, I won't agree to disagree with such *obvious* crap.

Beijing must be very happy about this.

--Winston<--Slugs? Poundals? Foot-pounds? You're joking, right?

I don't remember ever using slugs or poundals, except as curiosity. Seems
you're the dense one here.

I am *far* from the sharpest knife in the drawer, that is true.

No argument here. Clearly you have a problem with simple arithmetic.

However, it is not a good defense to insist "we always did it
that way".

It's a damned good "defense" when there is no good reason to change and a few
trillion reasons not to.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:28:52 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net>
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 1:45 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston<Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

(...)

It saddens me to think of all the bright technical minds in
'imperial measurment' countries that got turned off to applied
physics because of our insistence on awkward, self-
destructive measurement systems.

Complete nonsense. Because you can't figure this stuff out, and aren't bright
enough to find a calculator that can, doesn't mean the average college kid
can't.

By the time the young person reaches college age the battle
has long been lost. Let's agree to disagree that it is
a shame we refuse to supply a logical set of measurement tools
as a basis for learning.

Beijing must be very happy about this.

--Winston<--Slugs? Poundals? Foot-pounds? You're joking, right?

I don't remember ever using slugs or poundals, except as curiosity. Seems
you're the dense one here.

I am *far* from the sharpest knife in the drawer, that is true.

However, it is not a good defense to insist "we always did it
that way".

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) or measuring the distance to a first down
in yards. All real physics and electronics math is done in SI units in
the USA, in schools and in practice.

John

 

[Winston]

On 6/13/2010 8:48 PM, John Larkin wrote:

(...)

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) or measuring the distance to a first down
in yards. All real physics and electronics math is done in SI units in
the USA, in schools and in practice.

I am talking about the earliest experiences a kid has with
science and the inadequate tools we provide for them.

Measuring cups only recently include metric divisions.

We have the same name for entirely different measures
in some cases.

Commonly available length tools are still graduated in
inches, feet, fractions of inches

Weight scales are commonly available in pounds.

I grok that conversions can be done, but I don't grok
why we force that extra step on U.S. kids.
It seems wasteful and unnecessary to me.


--Winston

 

[Winston]

On 6/13/2010 8:41 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:28:52 -0700, Winston<Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

(...)

By the time the young person reaches college age the battle
has long been lost. Let's agree to disagree that it is
a shame we refuse to supply a logical set of measurement tools
as a basis for learning.

No, I won't agree to disagree with such *obvious* crap.

You agree then? Good.

--Winston

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:46:44 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net>
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 8:48 PM, John Larkin wrote:

(...)

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) or measuring the distance to a first down
in yards. All real physics and electronics math is done in SI units in
the USA, in schools and in practice.

I am talking about the earliest experiences a kid has with
science and the inadequate tools we provide for them.

Measuring cups only recently include metric divisions.

We have the same name for entirely different measures
in some cases.

Commonly available length tools are still graduated in
inches, feet, fractions of inches

Weight scales are commonly available in pounds.

I grok that conversions can be done, but I don't grok
why we force that extra step on U.S. kids.
It seems wasteful and unnecessary to me.

98% of the population doesn't do much math or science. Ounces and feet
are fine for everyday life.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_country


John

 

[Winston]

On 6/13/2010 10:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:

(...)

98% of the population doesn't do much math or science.

Yes, that is a symptom of the problem.

Ounces and feet are fine for everyday life.

Did you mean ounce force or fluid ounce?
If fluid ounce, did you mean the 28 ml imperial or 30 ml U.S. ounce?
Ounce mass?
Ounce thickness?
Troy ounces?
Metric ounces?

I have to stop typing now. My ounces are starting to cramp.

--Winston

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Winston wrote:

On 6/13/2010 8:48 PM, John Larkin wrote:

(...)

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) or measuring the distance to a first down
in yards. All real physics and electronics math is done in SI units in
the USA, in schools and in practice.

I am talking about the earliest experiences a kid has with
science and the inadequate tools we provide for them.

Measuring cups only recently include metric divisions.

We have the same name for entirely different measures
in some cases.

Commonly available length tools are still graduated in
inches, feet, fractions of inches

Weight scales are commonly available in pounds.

I grok that conversions can be done, but I don't grok
why we force that extra step on U.S. kids.
It seems wasteful and unnecessary to me.

You're absolutely right! Why should we try to drag them out of their
ignorance? They have every right to be as ignorant as you.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Winston wrote:

On 6/13/2010 10:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:

(...)

98% of the population doesn't do much math or science.

Yes, that is a symptom of the problem.

Ounces and feet are fine for everyday life.

Did you mean ounce force or fluid ounce?
If fluid ounce, did you mean the 28 ml imperial or 30 ml U.S. ounce?
Ounce mass?
Ounce thickness?
Troy ounces?
Metric ounces?

I have to stop typing now. My ounces are starting to cramp.

Out of Midol again?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:46:44 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net>
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 8:48 PM, John Larkin wrote:

(...)

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) or measuring the distance to a first down
in yards. All real physics and electronics math is done in SI units in
the USA, in schools and in practice.

I am talking about the earliest experiences a kid has with
science and the inadequate tools we provide for them.

Measuring cups only recently include metric divisions.

Bullshit. I have seen them since the early 80s.

We have the same name for entirely different measures
in some cases.

What? No list?

Commonly available length tools are still graduated in
inches, feet, fractions of inches

Are tools needed that have handle sizes declared in metric units?

As I recall a US ruler is properly graduated in US increments and a
metric ruler is properly graduated in metric units. Both are available
in the US and have been for decades.

Weight scales are commonly available in pounds.

Yes, and they are also available in metric. Most are both, actually.

I grok that conversions can be done, but I don't grok

We can see that.

why we force that extra step on U.S. kids.

Why not? Build mental stamina, dumbass.

It seems wasteful and unnecessary to me.

Then you likely do not have the capacity to, or have not yet thought it
through.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:18:18 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net>
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 10:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:

(...)

98% of the population doesn't do much math or science.

Yes, that is a symptom of the problem.

Ounces and feet are fine for everyday life.

Did you mean ounce force or fluid ounce?
If fluid ounce, did you mean the 28 ml imperial or 30 ml U.S. ounce?
Ounce mass?
Ounce thickness?
Troy ounces?
Metric ounces?

I have to stop typing now. My ounces are starting to cramp.

--Winston

It certainly wouldn't be brain matter cramping. You first would need
to have some.

 

[Nial Stewart]

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) ...

.....and the UK.

And that's a _proper_ pint (568ml), not one of your American 4/5ths jobbies!



Nial.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:18:18 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net>
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 10:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:

(...)

98% of the population doesn't do much math or science.

Yes, that is a symptom of the problem.

Ounces and feet are fine for everyday life.

Did you mean ounce force or fluid ounce?

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

If fluid ounce, did you mean the 28 ml imperial or 30 ml U.S. ounce?

The beans would taste about the same.

Ounce mass?
Ounce thickness?
Troy ounces?
Metric ounces?

I have to stop typing now. My ounces are starting to cramp.

Relax. Most people manage to survive.

John

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:19:37 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

Hundreds, even thousands of folks measure force every day, and many of

those use ounces in their scales of measure. Many use Newtons.

Even in torque measure, ounces are used, so it is not "fluid of
course", idiot.

 

[Winston]

On 6/14/2010 6:11 AM, Nial Stewart wrote:

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) ...

....and the UK.

And that's a _proper_ pint (568ml), not one of your American 4/5ths jobbies!

A 'liquid pint', yes?

You mean the 473 ml pint?
Not the French (952.1 ml) pint?
Not the French-Canadian (500 ml) 'metric pint'?
Not the Flemish (250 ml) pint?

I guess you didn't mean the 'dry pint', that part of a 'dry quart'
or 'dry gallon'.

Ah well. If it confuses kids, it's because they are stupid.
People like that are unteachable anyway.

Got it.

--Winston

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmo]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:20:52 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

I don't remember ever using slugs or poundals, except as curiosity.  Seems
you're the dense one here.

In my first few years in college, when I was a physics major, I
laughed at my mechanical engineering roommate's struggles with
poundals and slugs.

At least we are not measuring things by 'curling stones' or the like.

Face it, measuring things evolved over centuries, just like everything
else has. Now that we are in an information age, and computing and other
such powerful tools are at arm's reach, we can either all standardize on
an agreed set of systems (as we slowly are) or remain stubborn, and let a
computer manage all the contrary inter-system translations.

Humans, being the contrary, savior murdering fucks we are, will surely
go with the stubborn path. Before we get settled on things and ever
become a truly civil society, he'll be back, and none of it will matter
any more anyway.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:24:12 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net>
wrote:

On 6/14/2010 6:11 AM, Nial Stewart wrote:
There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) ...

....and the UK.

And that's a _proper_ pint (568ml), not one of your American 4/5ths jobbies!

A 'liquid pint', yes?

You mean the 473 ml pint?
Not the French (952.1 ml) pint?
Not the French-Canadian (500 ml) 'metric pint'?
Not the Flemish (250 ml) pint?

I guess you didn't mean the 'dry pint', that part of a 'dry quart'
or 'dry gallon'.

Ah well. If it confuses kids, it's because they are stupid.
People like that are unteachable anyway.

French?
Flemish?

Do they make the bell curve look better? One is greedy for alcohol and
the other is greedy for cash, or does he just want to KEEP his alcohol
AND get more cash?

Got it.

--Winston

Are you sure that you are not just another participant in the stupid
pool?

It has a big sign on the side that says "FREE MONEY", and there is cash
all over the bottom, but it is not filled with water.