On Feb 2, 2:54 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...*yahoo.com> wrote:
> I. Introduction

Agreed.
It's the frogs, 1 Napolean penis weighs 1 gram, and has a length
of 1 centimeter and climax's in 1 second, sounds scientific.
Base 12 is vital in architecture, I need 16" centres on a 4'x8'
ply, bingo, 16", that has no solution in a MeTric base 10 system.
Ken
.....

>"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics*vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
>news:732f921e-1220-42f9-bca3-a5a821dee69b*b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 2:54 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...*yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I. Introduction
>
> Agreed.
> It's the frogs, 1 Napolean penis weighs 1 gram, and has a length
> of 1 centimeter and climax's in 1 second, sounds scientific.
> Base 12 is vital in architecture, I need 16" centres on a 4'x8'
> ply, bingo, 16", that has no solution in a MeTric base 10 system.
> Ken
> ....


....and mechanics in Canada use two sets of tools, one for metric
and one for non-metric. Car parts are now made all over the world
and are combined into one vehicle. This means certain parts require
metric tools and others not. It's a massively confusing thing to work
on a globally manufactured vehicle. Btw, my own husband prefers
the metric system.

Heidi

On Feb 2, 7:47*pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...*telus.net> wrote:
> >"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...*vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> >news:732f921e-1220-42f9-bca3-a5a821dee69b*b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 2, 2:54 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...*yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I. Introduction
>
> > Agreed.
> > It's the frogs, 1 Napolean penis weighs 1 gram, and has a length
> > of 1 centimeter and climax's in 1 second, sounds scientific.
> > Base 12 is vital in architecture, I need 16" centres on a 4'x8'
> > ply, bingo, 16", that has no solution in a MeTric base 10 system.
> > Ken
> > ....
>
> ...and mechanics in Canada use two sets of tools, one for metric
> and one for non-metric. *Car parts are now made all over the world
> and are combined into one vehicle. *This means certain parts require
> metric tools and others not. *It's a massively confusing thing to work
> on a globally manufactured vehicle. *Btw, my own husband prefers
> the metric system.
>
> Heidi

This evening, I did a calculation of the amount of charge necessary to
levitate a dust particle on thge moon. Using SI units, I could do all
of it in my head because there is then no conversion of pounds of
force to anything else or Volts/foot to some other units. The old
english units are simply stupid and unnatural confusing so many people
that they never like technical subjects. If we went metric,
engineering would be so much motre obvious that we would have more
American engineering students. The old english system simply promotes
stupidity.

On Feb 2, 7:14*pm, Frogwatch <dboh...*mindspring.com> wrote:

> This evening, I did a calculation of the amount of charge necessary to
> levitate a dust particle on thge moon. *Using SI units, I could do all
> of it in my head because there is then no conversion of pounds of
> force to anything else or Volts/foot to some other units.

I rather doubt you did, as your 'problem' is not well-defined.
Nevertheless, if you could do it, it would be because you have
memorised some values - specifically, Newton's and Coulomb's constants
- in SI units. If you had the same in English units it would be
equally easy.

>*The old
> english units are simply stupid and unnatural confusing so many people
> that they never like technical subjects.

I doubt you can provide any evidence of this. If people lack the
intelligence to understand units of measure, they should not be in
technical subjects anyway.

> *If we went metric,
> engineering would be so much motre obvious that we would have more
> American engineering students.

Sure, that's why American engineering has been declining just as
engineering has been going metric. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

>*The old english system simply promotes stupidity.

Stupidity is not bothering to think for yourself but instead
regurgitating tired metric propaganda.

Did you even try to read my essay?

Andrew Usher

On Feb 2, 6:47*pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...*telus.net> wrote:

>*Btw, my own husband prefers
> the metric system.

And why should his opinion matter, if he hasn't looked at it from the
perspective I have?

Andrew Usher

>"Frogwatch" <dbohara*mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:b743d9a3-3aeb-478e-a827>>

>>Heidi had written:
>> ...and mechanics in Canada use two sets of tools, one for metric
>> and one for non-metric. Car parts are now made all over the world
>> and are combined into one vehicle. This means certain parts require
>> metric tools and others not. It's a massively confusing thing to work
>> on a globally manufactured vehicle. Btw, my own husband prefers
>> the metric system.
>>
>> Heidi

> Frogwatch wrote:
> This evening, I did a calculation of the amount of charge necessary to
> levitate a dust particle on thge moon. Using SI units, I could do all
> of it in my head because there is then no conversion of pounds of
> force to anything else or Volts/foot to some other units. The old
> english units are simply stupid and unnatural confusing so many people
> that they never like technical subjects. If we went metric,
> engineering would be so much motre obvious that we would have more
> American engineering students. The old english system simply promotes
> stupidity.

Which reminds me: It's not known as "German Engineering" for nothing.
These top-notch masterminds use the metric system. When was the
last time anyone extolled the virtues of American Engineering? Or,
British Engineering? As a global customer what sort of engineering
might you pick of those three?

Heidi

"Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc*yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59061f76-2ea5-4dc4-8e76-4065498271ec*z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 6:47 pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...*telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Btw, my own husband prefers
>> the metric system.
>
> And why should his opinion matter, if he hasn't looked at it from the
> perspective I have?
>
> Andrew Usher

As a Canadian he has experience working with both systems.
He prefers the metric. It's easier to learn and easier to use.
I also prefer metric for those same reasons.

Heidi

Frogwatch <dbohara*mindspring.com> wrote in news:b743d9a3-3aeb-478e-a827-
googlegroups.com">94243899e421*u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> This evening, I did a calculation of the amount of charge necessary to
> levitate a dust particle on thge moon. Using SI units, I could do all
> of it in my head because there is then no conversion of pounds of
> force to anything else or Volts/foot to some other units. The old
> english units are simply stupid and unnatural confusing

It seems natural to want to divide units into halves, thirds and
fourths. It's not often that a person needs to levitate a
dust particle to the moon. But note that it takes more
mental effort to divide a meter into thirds than it does
a foot.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

"Heidi Graw" <hgraw*telus.net> wrote in news:tC4an.64378$PH1.2203*edtnps82:


> He prefers the metric. It's easier to learn and easier to use.
> I also prefer metric for those same reasons.

Which is also a reason for choosing Cosmetology school
over Engineering.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

>"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe*netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9D13CCB0DF19Egoddardbenetscapenet*74.209. 136.81...
> "Heidi Graw" <hgraw*telus.net> wrote in
> news:tC4an.64378$PH1.2203*edtnps82:
>
>
>> He prefers the metric. It's easier to learn and easier to use.
>> I also prefer metric for those same reasons.
>
> Which is also a reason for choosing Cosmetology school
> over Engineering.
>
> B.

<chuckle> ...and lots of folks do just that. A good question
to ask is, "How do you get the most using the least amount of
energy?" If cosmetology earns one an adequate living, and it
requires less energy and effort, then why not?

Haven't you noticed that those who earn the most conserve
the most energy? Being an energy efficient person can be
rather quite profitable. ;-)

Heidi

On Feb 3, 12:04*am, "Heidi Graw" <hg...*telus.net> wrote:
> >"Bart Goddard" <goddar...*netscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9D13CCB0DF19Egoddardbenetscapenet*74.209. 136.81...
> > "Heidi Graw" <hg...*telus.net> wrote in
> >news:tC4an.64378$PH1.2203*edtnps82:
>
> >> He prefers the metric. *It's easier to learn and easier to use.
> >> I also prefer metric for those same reasons.
>
> > Which is also a reason for choosing Cosmetology school
> > over Engineering.
>
> > B.
>
> <chuckle> ...and lots of folks do just that. *A good question
> to ask is, *"How do you get the most using the least amount of
> energy?" *If cosmetology earns one an adequate living, and it
> requires less energy and effort, then why not?
>
> Haven't you noticed that those who earn the most conserve
> the most energy? *Being an energy efficient person can be
> rather quite profitable. *;-)
>
> Heidi

The observation that various fields use variations on units is one of
the great "Duh" lines in the original rant. I work in x-ray
spectroscopy and routinely use eV for photon energy instead of the
usual Joule simply because it is easy to relate this to how the x-rays
are produced. Of course, I then convert to wavelength.

On Feb 2, 11:13*pm, Frogwatch <dboh...*mindspring.com> wrote:

> The observation that various fields use variations on units is one of
> the great "Duh" lines in the original rant. *I work in x-ray
> spectroscopy and routinely use eV for photon energy instead of the
> usual Joule simply because it is easy to relate this to how the x-rays
> are produced. *Of course, I then convert to wavelength.

Exactly! And I'm sure you don't go through Joules, etc., to do that.
Instead you memorise the conversion you use, which is 12,398 ev-A. Is
that easier just because it's 'metric'? (In fact ev are only half-
metric at best.)

Andrew Usher

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:44:47 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc*yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:47?pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...*telus.net> wrote:
>
>>?Btw, my own husband prefers
>> the metric system.
>
> And why should his opinion matter, if he hasn't looked at it from the
> perspective I have?
>
> Andrew Usher

I bothered to learn both systems before I was out of elementary school
(i.e., early 1960s), and I'd rather have "1.84 m" on my driver's license.
Aside from that, we'll be a little cooler than usual for early February
around here, around 14 C. (That's 57 F for the old-timers.)

--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick*io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 3, Abbotsford 1 (February 1)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 3 vs. Peoria, 7:05

On Feb 2, 4:47 pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...*telus.net> wrote:
> >"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...*vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> >news:732f921e-1220-42f9-bca3-a5a821dee69b*b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 2, 2:54 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...*yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I. Introduction
>
> > Agreed.
> > It's the frogs, 1 Napolean penis weighs 1 gram, and has a length
> > of 1 centimeter and climax's in 1 second, sounds scientific.
> > Base 12 is vital in architecture, I need 16" centres on a 4'x8'
> > ply, bingo, 16", that has no solution in a MeTric base 10 system.
> > Ken
> > ....
>
> ...and mechanics in Canada use two sets of tools, one for metric
> and one for non-metric. Car parts are now made all over the world
> and are combined into one vehicle. This means certain parts require
> metric tools and others not. It's a massively confusing thing to work
> on a globally manufactured vehicle. Btw, my own husband prefers
> the metric system.
> Heidi

Hi Heidi, if I knew there was a girl of the opposite sex
reading my post I wouldn't have mentioned the PP part.

I build houses, and very much respect an old 1940's decision
to base housing construction on 4" x 4" square, leading to
such things like 4'x8' plywood and 2"x4" studs, and much more.
That decision resulted in building high quality low cost homes,
that fit together with a minimum of customized thinking.
The base 12 of the foot is divisible by 2,3,4,6, the number
10 cannot be divided by those without screeeching decimals.

My wife finds MEtric to be annoying, when cooking, when table
spoons, ozs etc work fine. Cups, quarts and gallons works ok.

In Canada kms are too small cuz miles is what a big country
needs, 60 mph is a mile a minute.

In science I think in terms of metric, but science is only a
very small part of commerce and is not generally useful,
for 95% of people.

I figure ya gotta be bi-measureable now a days.
Common units work extremely well, but if you want your house
built in MeTric I'll add 25% to the cost, and you've got it.
Regards
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics*vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2d8ea280-58fb-41da-900d-8c6777b446c6*n33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

>Ken wrote:
> I build houses, and very much respect an old 1940's decision
> to base housing construction on 4" x 4" square, leading to
> such things like 4'x8' plywood...

....that is 5/8" thick...

>... and 2"x4" studs, and much more.

....like those 2"x10"?

> That decision resulted in building high quality low cost homes,
> that fit together with a minimum of customized thinking.

Well...instead of building by the square foot, you could build
by the square metre.

> The base 12 of the foot is divisible by 2,3,4,6, the number
> 10 cannot be divided by those without screeeching decimals.

2.5 doesn't involve all that much screeching...no worse than
trying to finangle something that is 3/16" of whatever.


>
> My wife finds MEtric to be annoying, when cooking, when table
> spoons, ozs etc work fine. Cups, quarts and gallons works ok.

I use metric measures and metric recipes. Works just fine.

>
> In Canada kms are too small cuz miles is what a big country
> needs, 60 mph is a mile a minute.

Hey, I like driving 120 km/hr down the freeway. It gives me
the impression I'm going much faster than I'm actually driving. ;-)

> I figure ya gotta be bi-measureable now a days.

Yes, it comes in handy knowing both, especially when it
involves cross-border trade and tourism with the US. 70F also
sounds a lot warmer than 20C. No wonder the Americans
think Canadians live in igloos.

> Common units work extremely well, but if you want your house
> built in MeTric I'll add 25% to the cost, and you've got it.

No need. I wouldn't be hiring you anyway. My husband
built the house I designed. Custom? Very...and rather
quite unique.

Take care,
Heidi <...whose house is a mishmash of German metric and British standard.