On Tue, 1 May 2001 15:20:50 Nat Hager III wrote: >Today's Letters page from the Wall Street Journal (.html version attached) ... >Although units are fundamentally arbitrary, the English System is based on >one of the most basic measurement notions, that of halving and doubling. So what??? :-( I'm absolutely appalled at this kind of rationale. However, what really pisses me off the most is that this has been uttered by an "educated" individual, someone who apparently teaches universtity students AND in an area where the advantages of the metric system should be more readily, easily and uncontroversially proven to be the best! What an idiot!!! :-( >There are 16 ounces to a pound, which means that if you cut your >quarter-pounder in half and then in half again, you have an ounce. >Similarly, half of a quart is a pint, half of that a cup and if you halve >that three more times, you have a fluid ounce. Half of that is a >tablespoonful. Double a quart twice and you get a gallon. > ??? AARRGGHH... :-( So half-a-foot is what? Or what about half-a-yard, or half-an-inch, or half-a-mile? Therefore, we should create a new name for every "half-a-thing" that appears before us??? In addition to that, half-anything you want from point A to B and tell me if you'd ever reach point B after all!!! !@#$^@#%$ Measurements are **in a continuum** not in a discrete world. >Although base-10 is the way we calculate, computers use base 2, so in some >ways the English System is far in advance of the metric. ??? Q@#$%^@# Yeah, right!... We use K's and Megs >these days, which are not quite M's and Millions. Metric proponents proudly >point to the fact that a liter of water weighs exactly a kilogram. Fair >enough, but "a pint's a pound the whole world round," or at least once was. In addition to being an idiot, this individual is also ignorant! A pint has NEVER been a pound "the world around" by at least some 4%! Gee... People take stupid popular sayings as if they were undisputed truths. Alas... :-( >A fluid ounce of water weighs an ounce. The equivalence is present in both >systems. > Plus he makes so many blunders about such halving-thing that I won't waste my time correcting him... >The base-10 compatibility of the metric system was once thought to be a boon >to calculation and commerce. But by the time of the U.S. metric fad of the >1970s, the calculator and, more to the point, calculating scales and >prepackaged meats, had rendered the arithmetical edge irrelevant. > Oh, yeah? What about *manual* calcs, you ding-dong??? One may still be required to do such kinds of exercises. Should people always rely on gizmos to do their arithmetic? What kind of society is this guy "preaching" here?... >Standardization of machine parts may make economic sense. Having to own two >sets of sockets, wrenches and taps is an expense. But then the world might >be a cheaper and more efficient place if we legislated only black clothing. > ??? Amazing... And this guy has a PhD?... >Nevertheless, this reasoning does not apply to pricing of bananas. But take >heart, at least they let Mr. Thoburn sell his fruit for pence. How long will >it be before the London gold fixing is quoted in Euros per gram? > Hopefully, for your info, Dr. Flintstone, sooner than you think... ;-) Marcus >Robert Prener >Professor of Mathematics >Long Island University >Brookville, N.Y. >... Check out the FREE cell phone packages complete with accessories at Lycos Wireless Marketplace http://www.inphonic.lycos.com/redirect.asp?referringpage=www.lycosad129
