From: J�rgen Exner on
"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:rbmmf5pai8fmukirgppni8rhk6h8k36rvq(a)4ax.com...
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>Easier: 5 x 5280 / 12. Why go through all that other bullshit?
>>
>> Because 5280 is such a nice number in the hexadezimal system that
>> everyone will know it. NOT.
>>
>>>> According to your statement above this is actually the only way because
>>>> according to you you would never need to know how many feet there are in
>>>> a mile. Besides, how on earth can possibly remember those odd numbers
>>>> anyway?
>>>
>>>I don't think I know anyone who doesn't know there are 5280 feet in a
>>>mile,
>>
>> Well, you do now.
>
>Okay, I should have said "any American." It's pretty basic in this country.
>
>>>unless you're talking about nautical miles. Speaking of which, don't you
>>>use
>>>knots as a measure of airspeed? They aren't metric.
>>
>> You seem to be somewhat confused. Nautical miles and thus knots are part
>> of the ISO system (aka 'metric') although obviously they are not decimal
>> based.
>
>Neither nautical miles nor knots have anything to do with the metric system
>as far as I can see.

They are admitted in the metric system as historical and still widely
used units.

>The nautical mile is based on some angular distance, I
>think one minute, at the earth's surface. Nothing to do with the kilometer
>or any other multiple of the meter, and I think the nautical mile existed
>before the metric system came along anway.

Of course. But they have been incorporated into the "Syst�me
International d'Unit�s".

>>>Neither is time. If you really think metric is so great, why not do
>>>something about those pesky 60-second minutes, 60-minute hours and 24-hour
>>>days? Wouldn't you rather have *everything* go by orders of ten? Wow, what
>>>a
>>>wonderful metricized world that would be!
>>
>> Again you are confused. The common time is part of ISO (aka 'metric')
>> although obviously not decimal (or hexadecimal for that matter).
>
>Right. Not decimal and therefore not part of the metric system of
>measurement.

Then please explain _YOUR_ definition of 'metric'.

In normal use 'metric' refers to the 'Syst�me International d'Unit�s',
as defined in ISO 31 and its derivatives. The nautical mile (and thus
the knot) is recognized and admitted as a traditional unit in this
system. As is of course the second/minute/hour/day time measurement.

Therefore I can only repeat: you are confused about the relation between
the metric system and the decimal system.

>The business of dividing time and other things, such as
>circles, by 6s and 60s goes back to the Babylonians and/or Sumerians, which
>is to say, several millennia before the metric system existed.

Sure, no argument. But what does that have to do with the metric system?

>>
>>>> And can you tell me how many drops there are in a quart?
>>>
>>>Why would anyone care?
>>
>> Mabye because they want to know how long their bottle of eyedrops (size
>> 10 tablespoons just to pick a number) will last?
>
>The answer to that is "until the bottle is empty." I have never heard anyone
>raise that question about eye drops. The drop is a unit of liquid measure
>that I believe is universal even though it's not a definite volume, which
>I'm sure must vary slightly according to the surface tension, specific
>gravity and viscosity of the liequid being dispensed.
>
>>
>>>The point is, drops are still used as a unit of
>>>liquid measure and they are not metric.
>>
>> Well, and when I order a cup of coffee in a restaurant I do not expect
>> to be served exactly 1/4 quart of coffee. So cup is still used as unit
>> of liquid measure although the amount measured is not imperial, either.
>
>As a unit of liquid measure, the cup is what it is and does not have any
>particular relationship to the amount of coffee you're served in a cup.
>
From: Bill Graham on

"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:to5mf5he88r5n6j2opdj9vpcjv9j9loek0(a)4ax.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2tlkf5dv03jmudhdl6jij705tkfoom6hj2(a)4ax.com...
>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>>And go metric, you mean? There'd be no point to it. Metric is silly for
>>>>most
>>>>ordinary purposes,
>>>
>>> Yeah, right. That's probably the reason why 200+ countries are using it
>>> where there are only 3 that don't.
>>
>>One of the three that doesn't is the world's only remaining superpower.
>>Who
>>cares what they're using in Lower Slobovia or West Bongo-Bongo?
>
> Careful, that is an argument that is backfiring on a big scale. 'The
> rest' is caring less and less about what that 'remaining superpower' is
> doing or not doing in its arrogance and are just moving forward, leaving
> that 'remaining superpower' to its own devices.

Nonsense! The young people in the rest of the world will always be
mesmerized by the pop culture of the superpowers.....For some inexplicable
reason, they are attracted to our miserable teenage singers and guitar
players......Nothing we can come up with is too tasteless for the worlds
teenagers to moon over......

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:muudnU7_3uQPqWbXnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:s72dnR0m5on4k2bXnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:W8-dnQ16jqYTl2fXnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OLmdnQWi2eLSIGTXnZ2dnUVZ7rudnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>>>
>> SNIP
>>>>
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Even though the Yanks left the Empire they still won't join the rest of
>>>> the world.
>>>
>>> And go metric, you mean? There'd be no point to it. Metric is silly for
>>> most ordinary purposes, and it would cost billions to change everything.
>>
>> Well what about the cost of not changing it?
>>
>> Item 1 Mars Climate Orbiter crashes and burns*
>> $327,600,000.00c
>>
>> So that's about one dollar per citizen - bad start!
>
> What has that to do with English vs. metric?
>
>>
>> (OK so in the fifties the Brits made a car engine that had metric bolts
>> with imperial heads... )
>
> The Brits are funny about these things, but there's no reason the two
> systems can't co-exist, as in fact they did in Britain for many years. And
> still do in the U.S.

Yes. We tried to "go metric", but when you ask a manufacturer to trade in
his $30,000 machine lathes and milling machines for a new one just because
it's metric calibrated, you will find a lot of resistance......Most decent
machine shops can work with any measurement system. That's what pocket
calculators are for.....

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:bZOdncTha_Cg32bXnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x(a)y.Invalid> wrote in message
> news:47emf5pj8g53hhkochk87u5l5aqmu07h8q(a)4ax.com...
>> Per Neil Harrington:
>>>> Was Pinto the one where the occupants were incinerated if
>>>> somebody hit it from behind?
>>>
>>>That's the one. Probably something of an exaggerated problem, but never
>>>having been hit in it from behind I can't speak from experience. Of
>>>course
>>>those who *were* incinerated in Pintos wouldn't have considered it an
>>>exaggeration.
>>
>> IIRC, the bigwigs at Ford decided not to put in a protective
>> plate that would have prevented it because it would cost
>> something like $1.83 more per car than the anticipated legal
>> judgments by the incinerated.
>>
>> Nice folks...
>
> I remember reading something like that. That may be a little simplistic,
> though. I don't know.
>
No. They made a conscious decision to fight the lawsuits rather than to fix
the problem.....It turned out to be cheaper that way.....Actually, not a bad
decision, especially if you are an Objectivist. There is no way to make any
car completely safe, so the best you can do is to follow the money. The
alternative is to crowd all of us into padded cells........

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:baednajj7tOd9mbXnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rbmmf5pai8fmukirgppni8rhk6h8k36rvq(a)4ax.com...
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>Easier: 5 x 5280 / 12. Why go through all that other bullshit?
>>
>> Because 5280 is such a nice number in the hexadezimal system that
>> everyone will know it. NOT.
>>
>>>> According to your statement above this is actually the only way because
>>>> according to you you would never need to know how many feet there are
>>>> in
>>>> a mile. Besides, how on earth can possibly remember those odd numbers
>>>> anyway?
>>>
>>>I don't think I know anyone who doesn't know there are 5280 feet in a
>>>mile,
>>
>> Well, you do now.
>
> Okay, I should have said "any American." It's pretty basic in this
> country.
>
>>
>>>unless you're talking about nautical miles. Speaking of which, don't you
>>>use
>>>knots as a measure of airspeed? They aren't metric.
>>
>> You seem to be somewhat confused. Nautical miles and thus knots are part
>> of the ISO system (aka 'metric') although obviously they are not decimal
>> based.
>
> Neither nautical miles nor knots have anything to do with the metric
> system as far as I can see. The nautical mile is based on some angular
> distance, I think one minute, at the earth's surface. Nothing to do with
> the kilometer or any other multiple of the meter, and I think the nautical
> mile existed before the metric system came along anway.
>
>>
>>>Neither is time. If you really think metric is so great, why not do
>>>something about those pesky 60-second minutes, 60-minute hours and
>>>24-hour
>>>days? Wouldn't you rather have *everything* go by orders of ten? Wow,
>>>what a
>>>wonderful metricized world that would be!
>>
>> Again you are confused. The common time is part of ISO (aka 'metric')
>> although obviously not decimal (or hexadecimal for that matter).
>
> Right. Not decimal and therefore not part of the metric system of
> measurement. The business of dividing time and other things, such as
> circles, by 6s and 60s goes back to the Babylonians and/or Sumerians,
> which is to say, several millennia before the metric system existed.
>
>>
>>>> And can you tell me how many drops there are in a quart?
>>>
>>>Why would anyone care?
>>
>> Mabye because they want to know how long their bottle of eyedrops (size
>> 10 tablespoons just to pick a number) will last?
>
> The answer to that is "until the bottle is empty." I have never heard
> anyone raise that question about eye drops. The drop is a unit of liquid
> measure that I believe is universal even though it's not a definite
> volume, which I'm sure must vary slightly according to the surface
> tension, specific gravity and viscosity of the liequid being dispensed.
>
>>
>>>The point is, drops are still used as a unit of
>>>liquid measure and they are not metric.
>>
>> Well, and when I order a cup of coffee in a restaurant I do not expect
>> to be served exactly 1/4 quart of coffee. So cup is still used as unit
>> of liquid measure although the amount measured is not imperial, either.
>
> As a unit of liquid measure, the cup is what it is and does not have any
> particular relationship to the amount of coffee you're served in a cup.
>
>
I believe the whole metric system started with some fraction of the Earth's
circumference.....That is, the meter was defined as some distance on the
earth's surface....After that, the subdivision of the meter, and its
expansion, were based on factors of ten and ergo the metric system was born.
But the original meter was some arbitrary measurement based on the Earth's
surface......