"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."

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)

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

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 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)

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.

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.

"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

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)

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.)

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?