 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:48:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 21 May 2008 19:04:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>
>>Is that weigh a pound, or cost a pound? ;-)
>
> You would not believe the cost of water here, if you buy it in a bottle.
> Not funny :(
I bet I would.....bottled water here isn't exactly cheap either....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I can't even begin to imagine how consistency can be less convenient
> in any case.
As I said, it's because the units chosen are not of a scale that is
convenient for every-day use, and because 10 isn't really divisible by
many numbers.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:56:42 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> You would not believe the cost of water here, if you buy it in a
>> bottle. Not funny :(
>
>Did you know, "Evian" spelled backwards is "naive"?
I only know that "Evian" spelt "Evian" is pure chance AFAIC :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:21:58 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>Weird I just seem to bring out the honesty in people :-P
Oh! What I didn't write :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:40:07 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>That's so we can have a meter that measures in metres and not get
>ourselves confused.
I've worked on meters that measured cubic metres. The spelling saves
confusion as you say.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> As I said, it's because the units chosen are not of a scale that is
> convenient for every-day use,
... which is probably why US telephone companies measure wire length in
"kilofeet".
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 May 2008 11:28:51 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Darren New wrote:
>> As I said, it's because the units chosen are not of a scale that is
>> convenient for every-day use,
>
>... which is probably why US telephone companies measure wire length in
>"kilofeet".
In the drilling industry tension is measured in kips - 1,000
pounds-force
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> As I said, it's because the units chosen are not of a scale that is
> convenient for every-day use,
Like what? mm, cm, m and km pretty much cover most things in terms of
distance. And having numbers that often go over 100 for everyday
temperatures doesn't seem too convenient.
> and because 10 isn't really divisible by many numbers.
But everyone knows how to divide by 10, which I think is more useful.
It also makes physics equations easier, with no ugly scale factors. Once I
had the misfortune to come across a text book using American units, I nearly
died looking at all those simple equations with horrendous scaling factors
and units.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:40:07 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> That's so we can have a meter that measures in metres and not get
>> ourselves confused.
>
> I've worked on meters that measured cubic metres. The spelling saves
> confusion as you say.
We don't have that distinction. That is one of the reasons that I try to
convince people that the scales they use to measure their weight should
be called kilometers. Up till now with very minor success.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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". 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. 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.
Having numbers that go below zero for everyday temperatures seems less
convenient.
>> 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. And certainly
my opinions carry no weight beyond my own opinion.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
