If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
British driving and Imperial units of measure
Trying to sell your book ?
"Dan Stephenson" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : 201111181919293211-stephedanospam@maccom... On 2011-11-14 14:16:48 -0600, Jean said: in Britain they willingly create confusion (pounds, feets, oz, driving at the left), I think driving on the left is really great. I'm right-handed, and I can use right-hand to steer but shift with my left. And as I love scenic-driving in Britain and Ireland, it is incredibly helpful to point my camera out the window with the right hand (my camera of the style that is meant to be held and 80% operated with the right hand). I just wish Norway hadn't gone over to driving on the right for my drive up the fjordlands to the Nordkapp a couple years back. Now THAT is the world's most scenic drive! (driving on the right in New Zealand was helpful, too, btw) I also like the round-abouts. The fly-ways on American interstate highways are far superior than the mega-roundabouts on the British four-lane carriageways, but, for the other 98% of traffic control, they are better than stop signs and traffic lights. And they're a hoot to drive in that they are like a chicane. Taking a roundabout fast in a Porsche would be awesome. And in general, the English measures make more sense than metric, anyway. Everybody knows this. True, the metric system is better for modern engineering and such, but for workaday purposes people intuit the English measures, they're easier to manipulate in one's head, they have a connection usually with something in everyday life (inch, foot, yard, gallon, etc.), and all the tooling already invested-in are all in English / Imperial measures. These are the same arguments made in the first Transactions of the ASME one hundred years ago, and they're largely true today. I daresay the biggest problem with the English / Imperial units, is when people want to force-in metric units on an already-existing Imperial system, and unit conversion problems occur as a result -- FOR NO REASON. -- Dan Stephenson http://web.mac.com/stepheda Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
British driving and Imperial units of measure
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:24:42 +0100, Johannes Kleese wrote:
True geniuses of engineering come up with something like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/ English_length_units_graph.svg - Now, how many poppyseeds are one shackle? US and UK measure system are comparatively quite simple compared to the situation that prevailed in continental Europe at the same time. Here below is a web site which lists the many measures in use in a very small countryside before the introduction of the metric system. The measure system varied from village to village, the units name were different, those that had the same name could have values varying from 1 to 3 or more. And the situation was the same in every province of every country. http://www.stjuliendance.com/h_mesur...LA_CHAISE-DIEU Examples: La Chaise-Dieu, wines: 1 pot = 10 quartes = 20 litres 9351 1 quarte = 2 pintes = 2 litres 0935 1 pinte = 2 chopines = 1 litre 0467 1 chopine = 0 litre 5233 Craponne, just 19km away (5 leagues) from La Chaise-Dieu: 1 pot = 15 pintes = 25 litres 8610 1 pinte = 2 chopines = 1 litre 7240 1 chopine = 0 litre 8620 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
British driving and Imperial units of measure
On 2011-11-19 03:24:42 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:
And in general, the English measures make more sense than metric, anyway. Everybody knows this. they're easier to manipulate in one's head Indeed. 1 inch being 0.0833 feet or 0.02777 yards is a straight-forward conversion and just makes sense. Say I'd measured several small pieces and summed up to 1373 inch. That's obviously 114.42 feet or 38.14 yards, got that in a second of thinking. I wonder what wicked idiot came up with the idea that turning 3487 centimeters into 34.87 meters would be as easy? You are joking, right? There are twelve inches in a foot. Referring to it in decimal is metric-thinking. I challenge you to measure 0.02777 (repeating 7 I assume) yards. When I see 1373 inches, which is a ridiculous unit of measure for that distance, you should use yards -- I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100 feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5 inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as .42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches. Test: did you use a calculator to reduce 1373 inches to feet and yards? I did not, nor do I to convert 114 feet 5 inches to 38 yards 5 inches. My point is valid: used consistently, without ridiculous excusions into metric or forcing mixed use, the traditional units of measure are perfectly serviceable. Ask yourself why we aren't using decimal time. -- Dan Stephenson http://web.mac.com/stepheda Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
British driving and Imperial units of measure
On 2011-11-19 07:22:26 -0600, Paul Aubrin said:
US and UK measure system are comparatively quite simple compared to the situation that prevailed in continental Europe at the same time. Here below is a web site.... Thank you. The benefits are in standardization, not in what is the standard, per se. -- Dan Stephenson http://web.mac.com/stepheda Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
British driving and Imperial units of measure
19.11.2011 16:01, Dan Stephenson kirjoitti:
When I see 1373 inches, which is a ridiculous unit of measure for that distance, you should use yards -- I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100 feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5 inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. Quite. You don't believe (as one who uses the decimal base for figures) that the approach described above is a fine example about divide and conquer figures in order to transfer from one unit of length to another. It would be much easier if you just moved decimal points to left or right. Right? I guess this is what the decimal base is about. I could understand your stand if you had the base of "0..9, A,B" in use. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
British driving and Imperial units of measure
19.11.2011 16:17, Markku Grönroos kirjoitti:
19.11.2011 16:01, Dan Stephenson kirjoitti: When I see 1373 inches, which is a ridiculous unit of measure for that distance, you should use yards -- I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100 feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5 inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. Quite. You don't believe (as one who uses the decimal base for figures) that the approach described above is a fine example about divide and conquer figures in order to transfer from one unit of length to another. It would be much easier if you just moved decimal points to left or right. Right? I guess this is what the decimal base is about. I could understand your stand if you had the base of "0..9, A,B" in use. Sorry, not quite: you meant that 120 inches is 10 feet. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
British driving and Imperial units of measure
"Dan Stephenson" wrote in message news:2011111908015246940-stephedanospam@maccom... On 2011-11-19 03:24:42 -0600, Johannes Kleese said: And in general, the English measures make more sense than metric, anyway. Everybody knows this. they're easier to manipulate in one's head Indeed. 1 inch being 0.0833 feet or 0.02777 yards is a straight-forward conversion and just makes sense. Say I'd measured several small pieces and summed up to 1373 inch. That's obviously 114.42 feet or 38.14 yards, got that in a second of thinking. I wonder what wicked idiot came up with the idea that turning 3487 centimeters into 34.87 meters would be as easy? You are joking, right? There are twelve inches in a foot. Referring to it in decimal is metric-thinking. I challenge you to measure 0.02777 (repeating 7 I assume) yards. When I see 1373 inches, which is a ridiculous unit of measure for that distance, you should use yards -- I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100 feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5 inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as .42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches. Test: did you use a calculator to reduce 1373 inches to feet and yards? I did not, nor do I to convert 114 feet 5 inches to 38 yards 5 inches. My point is valid: used consistently, without ridiculous excusions into metric or forcing mixed use, the traditional units of measure are perfectly serviceable. Ask yourself why we aren't using decimal time. Perhaps Americans are not very good at irony. -- JohnT |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
British driving and Imperial units of measure
On 2011-11-19 08:31:16 -0600, JohnT said:
"Dan Stephenson" wrote in message news:2011111908015246940-stephedanospam@maccom... On 2011-11-19 03:24:42 -0600, Johannes Kleese said: And in general, the English measures make more sense than metric, anyway. Everybody knows this. they're easier to manipulate in one's head Indeed. 1 inch being 0.0833 feet or 0.02777 yards is a straight-forward conversion and just makes sense. Say I'd measured several small pieces and summed up to 1373 inch. That's obviously 114.42 feet or 38.14 yards, got that in a second of thinking. I wonder what wicked idiot came up with the idea that turning 3487 centimeters into 34.87 meters would be as easy? You are joking, right? There are twelve inches in a foot. Referring to it in decimal is metric-thinking. I challenge you to measure 0.02777 (repeating 7 I assume) yards. When I see 1373 inches, which is a ridiculous unit of measure for that distance, you should use yards -- I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100 feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5 inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as .42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches. Test: did you use a calculator to reduce 1373 inches to feet and yards? I did not, nor do I to convert 114 feet 5 inches to 38 yards 5 inches. My point is valid: used consistently, without ridiculous excusions into metric or forcing mixed use, the traditional units of measure are perfectly serviceable. Ask yourself why we aren't using decimal time. Perhaps Americans are not very good at irony. Nahh, we're best at bronzy. It's like irony, except it's made of bronze. -- Dan Stephenson http://web.mac.com/stepheda Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
British driving and Imperial units of measure
I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100
feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5 inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as .42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches. Same in the metric system: 100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters. You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one. 34.87 meters vs. 114 feet and 5 inches You need five words, or two numbers and two units. I just need one number and one unit. You may learn and get used to any riduculous unit, but that doesn't make the system straight-forward. Even if it's based on Henry I's thumb. Thanks for your attention. (One more question though: Which unit do you use for parts smaller than an inch? Don't tell me you stole the prefixes from the darn metric system and use milli- or microinches.) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
British driving and Imperial units of measure
US and UK measure system are comparatively quite simple compared to the
situation that prevailed in continental Europe at the same time. That's why the metric system has been in use for some 200 years now. Where's your point? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Will of the People Be Damned. Majority of Americans stillskeptical on healthcare overhaul. Majority think it is a "private matter andconsider the new rules approved by Congress to be a government takeover"according to Bloomberg poll | Tis Odonovan, Himself | Europe | 1 | March 24th, 2010 02:51 PM |
New Rules Under 'Secure Flight" | Sancho Panza[_1_] | Air travel | 0 | August 20th, 2009 05:33 AM |
Italy - No Use For "Rules"... | Gregory Morrow | Europe | 24 | February 17th, 2007 03:00 PM |
Court rules: legally break locked cell phones | Carole Allen | Europe | 2 | November 29th, 2006 02:21 PM |
TSA Quart Size ZipLock "rules" | [email protected] | Air travel | 10 | October 21st, 2006 05:57 AM |