|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Like what? mm, cm, m and km pretty much cover most things in terms of
>> distance.
>
> A cm is about right. You need something about a foot, tho. Otherwise you
> get things like "he was 197 cm tall".
Yesss? your point being? FYI I do say that and find 6 feet 2 a
completely ridiculous way of measuring. There is a difference between
convenience and convention, I guess.
> Note that people really rarely use
> "yards" as a measure here. It's feet and miles, unless you're measuring
> something that's particularly sold by the yard, like cloth.
>
> Kilograms are too heavy and grams are too light.
Indeed and why have a basic unit and define 1000 times that as a standard?
> Liters are too big and
> centiliters are too small. Basically, the factor of 1000 in common units
> is the problem. :-)
>
>> And having numbers that often go over 100 for everyday temperatures
>> doesn't seem too convenient.
never had that, thank goodness.
>
> Having numbers that go below zero for everyday temperatures seems less
> convenient.
Also because it feels very different, i.e. cold.
>
>>> and because 10 isn't really divisible by many numbers.
>> But everyone knows how to divide by 10, which I think is more useful.
>
> Not if you're constructing something. Then you want to be able to take a
> third of it, for example. Using a duodecimal number system probably
> would have been a better idea.
>
> And powers of 10 work almost as poorly as powers of 12 for computers. ;-)
>
>> It also makes physics equations easier, with no ugly scale factors.
>
> No question it works better in science than everyday life.
Theoretical physics being even better with c=1 and epsilon and mu also.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |