"How the EU works: In Germany, they make the rules, in Britain, theyobey the rules, in France, they bend the rules, in Spain, they break therules, and in Italy they have no rules at all."

On 11/19/2011 9:01 AM, Dan Stephenson wrote:
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.

I forcefully disagree with you! I regard it as one of the great
revelations of my life when I first saw the metric system printed on the
back of a school exercise book. I was of course suffering thro' the
mid-20th century British system of weights, measures and currency. It is
estimated that learning the ridiculous foot-pound system adds an
unnecessary year to arithmetic classes.

The French did try decimal clocks after the Revolution tho' the idea
foundered on the rocks of conservatism. We find it convenient to be able
to estimate time to 0.0035 parts of a day (5 minutes) but would it
really be so bad if we accepted 0.005 and had watches showing 200ths of
a day? You could say "I'll have breakfast at three thirty five", which
is close enough to 8 o'clock.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:46:14 -0500, James Silverton wrote:

On 11/19/2011 9:01 AM, Dan Stephenson wrote:
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.

I forcefully disagree with you! I regard it as one of the great
revelations of my life when I first saw the metric system printed on the
back of a school exercise book. I was of course suffering thro' the
mid-20th century British system of weights, measures and currency. It is
estimated that learning the ridiculous foot-pound system adds an
unnecessary year to arithmetic classes.

The French did try decimal clocks after the Revolution tho' the idea
foundered on the rocks of conservatism. We find it convenient to be able
to estimate time to 0.0035 parts of a day (5 minutes) but would it
really be so bad if we accepted 0.005 and had watches showing 200ths of
a day? You could say "I'll have breakfast at three thirty five", which
is close enough to 8 o'clock.

Always carry a chain, you never know when you might want to
play a game of cricket. Or plough a furlong.

Who cares except a bunch of retired old timers



"Dan Stephenson" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
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.

--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:

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.

But you cannot measure .87 meters with a meter gauge. Anything can be
decimalized, but the beauty of the imperial-type measurements, is that
they have natural subdivisions. Somewhat for the same reasons there is
more than a one euro, 1/10 euro, and 1/100 euro coin. My point is
valid.
--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:

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.

Do you pay by the word, is that it?
--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:

(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.)

As I have related already, the benefits are standardizations, not
_which_ standard, and the metric system is simply one standard that
eschews the benefits of natural subunits and has only decimalization to
go on.

So if *I* wanted to measure less than an inch, I could choose decimal
inches if I chose, however, I would probably refer to ratios of two
because that is what all the tooling uses. For example, half inch,
quarter-inch, 5-16ths etc.. For firearms the sub-inch are referred-to
in calibers, referencing one inch. So a 30-cal is a decimalization to
0.3 inch. A .22 is 22/100ths of an inch. What wonderful flexibility.
I can use whatever I want and whatever standard has natually evolved.
I do not have to shoe-horn in a 7.62mm or 5.56mm, but I could if I
wanted to. I mean, we only did that to provide a metric decimalization
for NATO after WW2, based on long-established standards based on
caliber.
--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

On 2011-11-19 15:46:05 -0600, Martin said:


I'm amazed that Americans are using decimal currency.

Back to the topic of Britain, I must say, the best way to get into
conversation with Britons is to ask "so, what is a shilling, anyway".
To date, no Briton has been able to resist talking up a storm about
their pre-decimal currency. It's pretty cool, actually, as a
historical thing, plus it is a GREAT way to make introductions.

Most likely we (Americans) use decimal currency for no other reason
than to be different than the British, from whom we won our
independence. It is also the reason a lot of our American English
words are different - to create a difference. Thus, the ommision of
"u" in color, favor, etc., and use of s in words like defense, offense.

I must say, in all my extensive travels in Europe, the one place I've
had the greatest trouble understand a European's English, is in
England. I don't mean to denigrate, but the thickness of some rural
accents is just incredible. Way more so than in America, a much bigger
place.
--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

On 2011-11-19 09:43:15 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:


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?

That continental Europe needed reform 200 years ago, and the United
Kingdom and the United States did not?

I must say, I feel an affinity for Britain and the Britons. I can
trace my ancestry to Henry Stephenson born in 1772 in Virginia to
Presbyterian parents -- but no farther. Yet, Stephensons are British.
Either northern England or southern Scotland, according to my various
internet perusals. I just need to find my family tree papers and try
one of those heritage websites to try to find when and from-where the
Atlantic crossing took place. How COOL would it be to visit the
village where my ancestors lived?
--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

On 2011-11-19 10:42:49 -0600, Irwell said:


Always carry a chain, you never know when you might want to
play a game of cricket. Or plough a furlong.

Or plough a hectare. Oh wait, is that a measure in System Internationale?

No, it is not. It's an invention because people were used to acres.
--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:36:58 +0100, Johannes Kleese wrote:

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.)

British driving and Imperial units of measure Johannes Kleese
11/19/2011 4:36:58 PM

What unit(s) do 'you' use for the time and date of your post?
11(months)19(days)2011(years) 4(hours)36(minutes)58(seconds).

Resolve it all in seconds, or years?