Re: Metric system (was: Re: SPF)
At 06:25 PM 7/3/2007 +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote:
>Without regarding the history of the metric system, the U.S. is under
Totally irrelevant and not even related to the analogy.
>Also, the metric system (and to a larger extent, the SI system) has an
>arbitrary _base_ unit (ever heard of the one-meter-bar in Paris?).
>Compare to the imperial system, which tries to give meaning to many
>units in its system (e.g. one ``oil barrel'' is equal to 672 ``cups'').
<snip>
>scenarios. The imperial units seem chaotic compared to this.
Thanks for derailing this list totally off topic. Somehow I knew there
would be some people who just couldn't leave the English/Metric thing alone.
I've got a news flash for ya. *Every* base unit of the metric system is
arbitrarily defined. The English system as well has arbitrarily defined
base units. The difference is that metric derived units are interrelated by
factors of 10 whereas English derived units are interrelated by factors of 2
and 3. As I stated earlier, the human mind does not work on groups of 10.
It's 2 and 3 and that's why the English system is the way it is. All the
units *serve the natural operation of the human mind*. It's elitist to
force everyone to adopt a system that serves a tiny fraction. And the fact
is no math problem is easier in metric than in English other than ones where
ur just dividing or multiplying by 10. But that's because of the nature of
the decimal system. A computer doesn't operate under base 10, it uses base
2. The "move the decimal" point trick applies there as well. It applies in
every number system. The English units aren't chaotic. e.g. 1 pint = 2
cups. **wow - difficult math**. Guess some folks aren't as good at math as
they think. O_O
Also, don't confuse a number system with a measurement system. U seem to
have conflated them.
--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede malis"
00000100
Reply to: