Re: Metric system (was: Re: SPF)
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 08:48:29PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
> At 08:17 AM 7/5/2007 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >actually, it was you who first brought up the metric issue, and as you
> >admitted you did it deliberately to provoke a response.
>
> I was trying to come up with an example related to pushing through a new
> Internet mail system. Nothing more. My only fault is allowing myself to be
> goaded into this debate.
your fault is starting it in the first place.
> >and 12 and 14 and 16 and .... (any other number you care to pick)
>
> 12 -> 2^2 3^1
very droll.
> 16 -> 2^4 (nybble anyone? evil!!)
so what is 14 two-to-the-power-of then?
your alleged "system" doesn't exist. it's just arbitrary factoids.
> >pounds in a stone, how many rods in a furlong, and hundreds of other
> >arbitrary conversion rules.
>
> Hyperbole.
no, fact.
> >in metric, it's all base 10....and base 10
> >is the arithmetic that everyone has learnt ever since europeans learnt
> >it from the arabs....and we adopted it wholesale BECAUSE it made so much
> >more sense than roman numerals and tallies.
>
> Ur conflating number systems and measurements systems.
you are imagining a system where there is none.
> >the arithmetic isn't difficult. it's the remembering of hundreds of
> >stupid and arbitrary conversions.
>
> That's laziness. Chinese have an advantage over us English speakers
> because their writing systems with its *thousands* of stupid and
> arbitrary symbols requires them to exercise their brains to an extent
> that we do not.
amazing. do you actually believe that shit or are you just unwilling to
admit that you're wrong?
the chinese have a massive disadvantage because their written language
is so complex that it is a specialised discipline mastered by only a
few, whereas english (and other alphabetic languages) is simple enough
for the bulk of the population to learn, WITHOUT any loss of ability to
communicate or express concepts (in fact, it's easier to express complex
concepts because you can write it directly rather than by analogy to
some ancient pictograph which kind of evokes an image vaguely related to
the concept you're trying to express).
go study basic linguistics before attempting to come up with garbage like
that.
> Confronted with that we go on long whinges about how impossibly hard things
> are and how things should be "easier" (read: we have to use our brains less).
no, we use our brains for things that are important (like actually
thinking, and solving the problem at hand) rather than on rote-learning
and repetition and wrestling with the baroque method. learning a
consistent *system* is vastly superior and far more efficient than
rememberng hundreds of arbitrary facts.
> That's not unique to base 10 math. The advantage of the Arabic number
> representation system comes from its orthographic layout and the use of a
well, duh.
the thing is, though, that nobody actually counts in binary UNLESS
they're working on something related to computers. whereas people
actually do use decimal every day, all around the world - even in
primitive, backwards countries like the USA.
> We've both made our positions and arguments clear and edified many
> lurking netizens.
the difference is that you're wrong, and your position is just plain
stupid.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Reply to: