Re: pedagogically barren?

[Peter Bunclark]

 I'd be interested to hear how one measures the
 leading edge of the human life to death transition
 pulse with a precision that makes the UT1 vs.
 UTC question even relevant.

A husband has a will leaving everything to his wife, or if she dies first,
to their children.  The wife has a will leaving everything to her secret
lover. They are together in a car crash, and are put on life-support
systems including heart monitors.  They both, sadly, die at around the
same time;  both have a last-recorded heartbeat.

Pete.

Re: pedagogically barren?

[William Thompson]

Markus Kuhn wrote:

   (stuff deleted)

While the international inch is indeed linked to the meter by a
reasonably round factor, and even shows up indirectly in a number of ISO
standards (e.g., inch-based threads and pipes), this can clearly not be
said for the US pound and the US gallon and units derived from these,
which are still required by US federal law to be present on consumer
packages. As long as it remains legal and even required in the US to
price goods per gallon or pound (units completely unrelated to the inch!),
   (rest deleted)

According to the NIST website, a gallon is defined as exactly 231 cubic inches.
 I would say that was a long way from being completely unrelated to the inch.
While the pound is unrelated to the inch, it is defined as exactly 0.45359237
kilograms.
Neither is a nice round number, but there is a definite relationship.

William Thompson

Re: pedagogically barren?

[Seeds, Glen]

Title: RE: [LEAPSECS] pedagogically barren?





It's also true that changing to SI units for weight and volume is a lot more technically tractable than for length. Public opposition would still be a big barrier, though.

 /glen


-Original Message-
From: William Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: June 4, 2003 10:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] pedagogically barren?



Markus Kuhn wrote:


 (stuff deleted)


 While the international inch is indeed linked to the meter by a
 reasonably round factor, and even shows up indirectly in a number of ISO
 standards (e.g., inch-based threads and pipes), this can clearly not be
 said for the US pound and the US gallon and units derived from these,
 which are still required by US federal law to be present on consumer
 packages. As long as it remains legal and even required in the US to
 price goods per gallon or pound (units completely unrelated to the inch!),


 (rest deleted)


According to the NIST website, a gallon is defined as exactly 231 cubic inches.
 I would say that was a long way from being completely unrelated to the inch.


While the pound is unrelated to the inch, it is defined as exactly 0.45359237
kilograms.


Neither is a nice round number, but there is a definite relationship.


William Thompson


This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you.