Matt wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:27:06 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Matt wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:06:21 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Andrew Usher wrote:
Matt wrote:
And the Celsius temperature scale is just silly. Why throw away twice
the whole-number granularity afforded by the Fahrenheit scale? Or the
notion that 100 tends to suggest more of a milestone than 38 as a
temperature extreme for comfort? Aren't the metric zealots gaga over
powers of ten? Why not use a power of ten to describe a temperature
that is extreme but survivable? Sterilizers operate near 100C. But
the Celsius scale makes it easier for tabletop chemists to calibrate
their thermometers.
No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water,
it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct
for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration.

You obviously have not done any arithmetic.
That is simply an absurd statement.

... have not done *any* arithmetic?!

I would find it hard to believe it to be true of anyone posting here.
I suppose some equally absurd scoffing remark could be contrived in
supposed refute of my statement. Still, I suspect that everyone
posting here has done arithmetic correctly at least once in their
life.

Using 212 instead of 100
is more difficult for every calculation.
Or not:

212 - 112 = 100.
Easy.

100 - 112 = -12
A negative number which may make subsequent calculations more
difficult and subject to error if the sign is dropped.

Again, "ease of calculation" is not the only consideration in the real
world. Conversational use of measured values has significance, too.

Anything below freezing is a negative number in Celsius. Not so handy
for numbers which happen often enough in mid-latitude winters.

If you have your computer
do it, it will be wrong.
Because ...?

Using 100 implies that you don't have
to do any numbers other than 1.
Is zero not a number?

So now going metric is about using fewer unique digits in a number?

Or not.

1 meter divided by 4 is 25 centimeters.

1 foot divided by 4 is 3 inches.

Did you ever take chemistry in high school?

Yes.

How did you do your calculations without using
scientific notation?


Or physics?

Yes.

How did you do your calculations without using scientific
notation?


Or home economics?

No.

Too bad. You'ld have discovered that using the metric system
might have been easier when you needed to adjust the amounts
for a recipe.


You seem to be fixated on laboratory and academic environments. There
is a much larger world outside such controlled settings.

How about the importance of measuring as opposed to calculating?


the first step is learn about calculating using arithmetic. It
is beginning to look like most the nuts posting in this thread
have never done that.

Note Benford's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
lists of numbers from many (but not all) real-life sources of
data, the leading digit is distributed in a specific,
non-uniform way.

The higher increments of those nicely spaced divisions into tenths get
little use:
According to this law, the first digit is 1 almost one third
of the time, and larger digits occur as the leading digit
with lower and lower frequency, to the point where 9
as a first digit occurs less than one time in twenty.

There are reasons why people, left to their own devices, didn't
gravitate to dividing real-world lengths into tenths.

If one is an adherent of evolution, then *why* did people with ten
fingers win out over people with fewer digits? Perhaps because it
isn't necessarily fatal to lose a finger. And now a measurement system
comes along to enshrine factors of ten for measurements which don't
lend themselves to divisions into tenths, when fingers beyond perhaps
six or eight were considered expendable by nature. How many fingers
does Homer Simpson have? Why are we so accepting of cartoon characters
having fewer than ten fingers? Are we really just giving the
cartoonist a break?

Do you enjoy playing dumb?


Analogies between the metric system and decimalized monetary systems
are bogus. Unlike a unit of length, units of currency have no physical
reference in nature. Controlled experiments in a chemistry lab are
somewhat analogous to monetary systems in that they, too, deal with
contrived situations. The value of an ounce of gold is a cultural
convention. The length from here to there is a physical reality
regardless of the currency in one's wallet.


Why do you think chemistry labs exist? do you know what chemists
do in the real world? For a start, learn about cement making.

/BAH

Andrew Usher wrote:
On Feb 15, 7:06 am, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:

No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water,
it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct
for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration.
You obviously have not done any arithmetic. Using 212 instead of 100
is more difficult for every calculation. If you have your computer
do it, it will be wrong. Using 100 implies that you don't have
to do any numbers other than 1.

This is just retarded.

If that is retarded, then your level of thinking is below an
amoeba.

/BAH

jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote in :

Andrew Usher wrote:
On Feb 15, 7:06 am, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:

No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water,
it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct
for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration.
You obviously have not done any arithmetic. Using 212 instead of 100
is more difficult for every calculation. If you have your computer
do it, it will be wrong. Using 100 implies that you don't have
to do any numbers other than 1.

This is just retarded.

If that is retarded, then your level of thinking is below an
amoeba.

The "retarded" part is thinking that Celcius is any
more "metric" than Fahrenheit. No one talks about
kilodegrees. There's no conversion of units in temperature.
It would have been just as convenient to incorporate
Fahrrenheit into the Metric system as it was Celcius.

And at least in Fahrenheit, 0 degrees is a brisk, manly
cold compared to the wimpy-ass 0 degrees in Celcius which
can barely freeze water.
B.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:10:44 -0500, Matt wrote:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:18:03 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Matt wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:27:06 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Did you ever take ...
Or home economics?

No.

Too bad. You'ld have discovered that using the metric system
might have been easier when you needed to adjust the amounts
for a recipe.

Did you use scientific notation in home economics?

When you took home economics, were the primary measurements in metric
units?

How often did (or do) you cook something using one tenth the
quantities called for in the recipe?

What? No examples of the wonders of the metric system in home
economics where you took your slide rule to class and used scientific
notation?

Narrow-minded scoffers who speak in disingenuous, moot quips have an
exaggerated view of their opinions. And often lack the class to admit
when they were wrong.

Perhaps Uncle Al has had an influence on your posting style. Your
posts seemed to be of higher quality years ago. Now they often contain
slaps constructed with half a thought.

Being like Uncle Al is a two way street. You need to bring a lot more
horsepower to the table to make an emulation worth reading.

In article 7,
Bart Goddard wrote:

And at least in Fahrenheit, 0 degrees is a brisk, manly
cold compared to the wimpy-ass 0 degrees in Celcius which
can barely freeze water.

On the other hand, in Fahrenheit, 100 degrees is merely an average
summer's day in Austin, compared to the manly 100 degrees in
Celsius which can boil water clean away.

--
Gerry Myerson ) (i - u for email)

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:10:27 +1100, Gerry Myerson wrote:

In article 7,
Bart Goddard wrote:

And at least in Fahrenheit, 0 degrees is a brisk, manly
cold compared to the wimpy-ass 0 degrees in Celcius which
can barely freeze water.

On the other hand, in Fahrenheit, 100 degrees is merely an average
summer's day in Austin, compared to the manly 100 degrees in
Celsius which can boil water clean away.

http://www.accuweather.com/us/tx/aus...r=0&zipchg= 1
August
Normal High: 96°F

Are you saying there's nothing manly about Texans enduring ambient
temperatures near 100°F?

An ambient temperature of 100°C isn't manly; it's fatal.

Matt wrote in news:9ni3o5ddfpra303s2toi8453kt7he6di7s@
4ax.com:

Are you saying there's nothing manly about Texans enduring ambient
temperatures near 100øF?

An ambient temperature of 100øC isn't manly; it's fatal.


Well, two months of 100 degree highs here in Austin will
unman about anyone. (It's darn difficult to brew decent
beer when the amient tempurature kills brewers' yeast.)

On the other hand, I know at least
one person in the Century Club for having survived 100 C
in a Turkish sauna.

B.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:10:27 +1100, Gerry Myerson wrote:
In article 7,
Bart Goddard wrote:

And at least in Fahrenheit, 0 degrees is a brisk, manly
cold compared to the wimpy-ass 0 degrees in Celcius which
can barely freeze water.

On the other hand, in Fahrenheit, 100 degrees is merely an average
summer's day in Austin, compared to the manly 100 degrees in
Celsius which can boil water clean away.

It was fairly nice this afternoon, with sunlight and temps flirting with
25°C, which isn't all that rare in February in this part of Texas.

--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey ) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Peoria 1 (February 21)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, February 25 vs. Manitoba, 5:05

On Feb 17, 8:40*pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:


I actually praise the French revolution in general, and call myself a
socialist. You would know this if you'd read many of my posts.

Andrew Usher

This is still the first time that I ever heard "white-guilt"
associated with the metric system. Y
You still haven't explained to us how the metric system relates
to "white guilt" or "the left." In fact, I don't precisely understand
what you mean by "the left." Most people relate "the left" to
socialism. You seem to relate the "left" to blacks and Jews. Most
people relate the profit motive to "the right." You seem to think that
the profit motive to the Jews, not "the right.
After the French revolution, the legislature was divided into
the left and the right. At the time, it literally referred to the
geometry of the room. The left side was associated with violent
extremists, the Jacobians. The right side was associated with the
"profit making" group. I don't know if there were ANY Jews on the
right side, but the right definitely liked profit. From your posts, it
seems that you think of yourself as a modern Jacobian.
It is amusing that you like the French revolution and dislike the
metric system. The metric system was created because of the French
revolution. There were no Jews involved, so far as I know.
For your information, the Jacobian movement collapsed. Their
ideology was unworkable. The metric system has survived long after the
Jacobians have disappeared. You would know this if you could read.

In article 7, Bart Goddard writes:
jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote in :
Andrew Usher wrote:
On Feb 15, 7:06 am, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:

is more difficult for every calculation. If you have your computer
do it, it will be wrong. Using 100 implies that you don't have
to do any numbers other than 1.

This is just retarded.

If that is retarded, then your level of thinking is below an
amoeba.

The "retarded" part is thinking that Celcius is any
more "metric" than Fahrenheit. No one talks about
kilodegrees.

No, because degrees (whether Celsius or Fahrenheit) do not start at
absolute zero, but at temperatures that are commonly experienced by
humans.

You do, however, encounter discussion of "kiloKelvins", especially
in astrophysics. The Kelvin, not the degree Celsius, is the SI unit
of temperature.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include Standard_Disclaimer
Life's too important to take seriously.