2002-06-27 Is it stupidity or laziness? Gibt es dummheit oder faulheit?
As for the second statement, I find that hard to believe. If there is one area the schools are really serious about, is holocaust studies. Who told you they don't know? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wizard of OS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 2002-06-27 06:35 Subject: [USMA:20682] Re: Benefit of L/100 km vs. km/L > One more example that Americans are stupid! > > most of america's students don't even know if nazi germany was good or bad! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:41 AM > Subject: Re: [USMA:20649] Benefit of L/100 km vs. km/L > > > > 2002-06-26 > > > > Wiz, > > > > People in North America can not even do the simplest of math. They NEVER > > calculate any form of fuel consumption, whether it be L/100 km, km/l or > mpg. > > They find out what the mpg rating is from some other source and when asked > > just repeat that same number. > > > > It makes no difference if their car doesn't get that number, or their car > is > > older and doesn't perform as it once did. Once xxx mpg, always xxx mpg. > > And to calculate the fuel needed to drive 250 km, they don't care and > would > > never do the calculation. > > > > The same is true with women's dress sizes. Once a size x, always a size > x. > > Even if she has turned into a Buffalo. The clever dress makers, just > change > > the size 9 to match the customer. That is the beauty of FFU. If you > don't > > like the length of the inch, just change it to what ever you want. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wizard of OS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, 2002-06-26 06:57 > > Subject: [USMA:20649] Benefit of L/100 km vs. km/L > > > > > > > one lil' example: > > > > > > I wanna go to hamburg from berlin. I know my car consumes 9 L/100 km on > > > highway. Hamburg is 250 km away what's my consumption? > > > > > > 9 L x 2,5 = 22,5 L I dont need even a calculator > > > > > > ISN'T it ez? > > > when you use km/L it makes it completely impossive to do it without > > > calculator!!! > > > > > > 11,11 km/L > > > 250 km to go > > > > > > 250/11,11 > > > > > > some kinda impossible in mind to do > > > > > > now you maybe see the convenience of 100 km > > > > > > think about it :-D > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Brian J White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:51 AM > > > Subject: [USMA:20632] Re: Fwd: Re: L/100 km > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Problem is John...that megameters are basically unused. Distances > are > > > > kilometers, speed limits are in kilometers per hour....therefore it > > makes > > > > perfect sense to use kilometers per liter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 18:29 2002-06-25 -0400, kilopascal wrote: > > > > >2002-06-25 > > > > > > > > > >I don't see how the Europeans will face any defeat by using litres > per > > > > >hundred kilometres, as they have been using that unit maybe over 100 > > > years. > > > > >I too would prefer litres per megametre. Maybe this unit can be > > > suggested > > > > >to the guy who wrote the article. > > > > > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > >From: "M R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, 2002-06-25 17:52 > > > > >Subject: [USMA:20627] Fwd: Re: L/100 km > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some 1 in our forum suggested > > > > > > L / Mm (liters / megameter) and that is a better > > > > > > format. > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead if the Europeans insist on weird l / 100 km, > > > > > > then definitely they will face the defeat. > > > > > > > > > > > > Madan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Brian J White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:47:58 -0700 > > > > > > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > From: Brian J White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Subject: [USMA:20626] Re: L/100 km > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry to say....but I kinda agree with him. I > > > > > > > think km per liter would > > > > > > > have been a much better choice than liters per > > > > > > > 100km. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it has anything to do really with > > > > > > > metric vs ifp per se > > > > > > > really. You'd have the same problem changing to > > > > > > > gallons per 100 > > > > > > > miles. It's just not as intuitive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 13:47 2002-06-25 -0400, Nat Hager III wrote: > > > > > > > >Someone might find intersting... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Nat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >June 21, 2002 Friday Ontario Edition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >SECTION: Special Report: Driver's Edge; Road Rant; > > > > > > > Pg. DO2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >LENGTH: 569 words > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >HEADLINE: A measure only engineers could love > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >SOURCE: National Post > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >BYLINE: David Menzies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >BODY: > > > > > > > >In the three-year history of Road Rant, your humble > > > > > > > ink-stained wretch has > > > > > > > >vented on subjects ranging from impaired drivers to > > > > > > > left-lane bandits. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >But nothing has generated more reader response than > > > > > > > my tirade two weeks ago > > > > > > > >regarding the way fuel consumption is measured. (To > > > > > > > recap: I lamented the > > > > > > > >death of the old miles per gallon standard, which > > > > > > > was long ago replaced by > > > > > > > >the ghastly L/100 km benchmark.) With the exception > > > > > > > of my engineer neighbour > > > > > > > >Kornel Farkas, I have yet to come across someone > > > > > > > who speaks of their > > > > > > > >vehicle's fuel consumption using the less-is-more > > > > > > > measurement standard of > > > > > > > >L/100 km. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Why not stay true to the metric system by measuring > > > > > > > fuel consumption via > > > > > > > >kilometres per litre (kpl)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Without further ado, here is a sampling of the > > > > > > > feedback: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- "You wrote: 'Aside from the authors of the Fuel > > > > > > > Consumption Guide, does > > > > > > > >anyone out there actually refer to their car's gas > > > > > > > consumption using the > > > > > > > >L/100 km benchmark?' I'll answer: Posted on my > > > > > > > fridge is my Golf TDI's > > > > > > > >mileage record. I wrote, 'Car mileage record: 1,105 > > > > > > > km/49 litres = 4.43 > > > > > > > >litres/100 km.' We're talking about fuel > > > > > > > consumption. If you burn less to go > > > > > > > >the same distance, then a smaller number makes > > > > > > > perfect sense." Mike Seibert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- "I agree with you that the logic behind the way > > > > > > > fuel economy is presented > > > > > > > >in metric is difficult to accept ... Using the > > > > > > > current metric logic, one > > > > > > > >could express the speed limit as 1.1 hours/100 km, > > > > > > > which is 90 km an hour, > > > > > > > >or 0.9 hours/100 km, which is about 110 km. Would > > > > > > > that make sense?" John D. > > > > > > > >Holmes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- "Regarding the article on kpl versus L/100 km: > > > > > > > Finally, a voice of reason! > > > > > > > >L/100 km is ridiculous. No one has a good feel for > > > > > > > that number. Do you think > > > > > > > >the same idiots will decide to change the km/h to > > > > > > > hours/100 km on our > > > > > > > >speedometers?" Robert MacKenzie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- "Your pleas for yet another change in the vehicle > > > > > > > fuel consumption values > > > > > > > >would only confuse consumers further. Wouldn't it > > > > > > > be simpler to leave things > > > > > > > >as they are and do as I have been doing since 1962 > > > > > > > -- convert using the > > > > > > > >simple formula: 282.5 divided by litres per 100 km > > > > > > > = mpg. Or, 282.5/mpg = > > > > > > > >litres per 100 km." Allan Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- "When we consider fuel economy, the only time we > > > > > > > consider a higher number > > > > > > > >to be better is when we are thinking in terms of > > > > > > > the old miles per gallon > > > > > > > >standard. Otherwise, in our speech, greater numbers > > > > > > > indicate worse fuel > > > > > > > >economy. A gas-guzzler is one that takes a lot of > > > > > > > fuel; an efficient car > > > > > > > >takes less fuel. Logically, our measure should > > > > > > > reflect the way we otherwise > > > > > > > >think, not the other way around." Jeremiah Shapiro > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- Finally, Mr. Farkas took issue with my desire for > > > > > > > the "illogical" kpl > > > > > > > >benchmark. "Instead of saying, 'My diet is 800 > > > > > > > calories a day,' David would > > > > > > > >say, 'I can maintain my metabolism for 108 seconds > > > > > > > on one calorie of food > > > > > > > >energy.' Instead of saying, 'Subway fare is $2.25,' > > > > > > > David would say, 'I can > > > > > > > >take 44% of my route on the subway for $1.' By the > > > > > > > way, do you think the > > > > > > > >price of the 78-page Friday issue of the National > > > > > > > Post was appropriately > > > > > > > >marked as 25 cents, or should the front page have > > > > > > > stated: 'Every 3.12 pages > > > > > > > >you do not completely read is a wasted penny?' " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bottom line: All those in favour of L/100 km are > > > > > > > apparently engineers (those > > > > > > > >fun-loving folk who look upon pocket protectors as > > > > > > > fashion accessories). > > > > > > > >Everyone else loathes the L/100 km standard. Oh, > > > > > > > well. At least we have a > > > > > > > >measurement system that is adored by 0.000000001% > > > > > > > of the world's population. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >LOAD-DATE: June 21, 2002 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > > > > > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
