willshak wrote:

Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).

A liter is a quart plus a liter bit more...

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

Which sorta reinforces my argument that those in the US who need to use
metrics can and in those areas where it isn't needed (mile markers for
instance) we can stay the same. Measurements are, in the final
analysis, just numbers and numbers are just ways of rather arbitrarily
if think about, to assign a value.

Indeed! We agree again!
Coming from a metric country to the US at age 25, and active in science,
I have never forgotten metric, and I got fairly easily used to US
measurements with all their (silly) subdivisions.
Here is how to look at it:

A quart is a little less than a liter.
An inch is about 2.54 cm
A pound is 453 grams
A mile is about 1.6 km.

For the rest it is a question of powers of 10 for metric measurements.
Duh.

But I have never been able to nicely guess how far away another km or
mile was.

Oh yea, a brisk, but not too brisk walking pace is 5 km/hr or 3 miles/hr
(with proper inaccuracies built in).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:


Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.

The point is to just stop using US units. A liter = quart and a yard
= meter. 1 mile = 1.5 kilometers

Anyone in school doing math will love you for it. Kids will love you
for it.

Forget conversions. Forget US units.

And................if you really have to know a conversion. Google
will nail it for you. Put in any distance an it will convert to any
other distance. One conversion to convert light years to centimeters
or feet.

same with volume, same with time, same as it ever was.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:43:52 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

But everyone will use it. Ever since the 2 liter soda bottle, 99.999%
of the population is exposed to the metric system. Anyone working
around machinery or automobiles is exposed to it.


Yes, I had Latin and would have preferred to learn metrics. I use it
every day now. The machines in our industry have been metric for the
past 30 years since the US manufacturers stopped making them. All the
tooling associated with them is metric and the US suppliers of our raw
material use metric.




Which sorta reinforces my argument that those in the US who need to use
metrics can and in those areas where it isn't needed (mile markers for
instance) we can stay the same. Measurements are, in the final
analysis, just numbers and numbers are just ways of rather arbitrarily
if think about, to assign a value.

In a few years cars and phones will be smart enough not to need (as
many) signs.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:46:51 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 12/30/2011 11:04 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 30, 3:03 pm, wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:44 am,
wrote:

wrote in message

m...

Metspitzer wrote the following:
There is no reason to even speak about the US standard. Any US
conversions will be when it happens in the real world.

Now playing: One Eskimo, Kandi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_tBHoRaxns

My kids were learning the metric system when they were in elementary
school in the 1960s.

And if memory serves, the Military uses Metric, and many industries too.

Even working in the chemical industry in a laboratory, they would
still convert an analysis to add something to the process from grams/
liter to pounds/gallon going from the laboratory to the plant. Kind
of stupid and open to error.

Not sure the Brits have fully converted. They still weigh themselves
in stones

We still sell beer in pints.
But petrol is in litres.

Let old people ask for a pint. ID the ones that ask for a liter.

We still have miles/mph.
But timber is sold in meters.

Use the prints that have English measurements until the new guys start
running things.

We still weigh people in stones and pounds.
But we sell butter in grams/Kg.

Keep your old recipes with cups and let your daughter use her new ones
when she gets in the kitchen. You may never teach grandma how to scan
the old ones and fax them to you anyway.

We still have knots and nautical miles, altitude is measured in feet.
But scalar ratios are almost always decimal.

Thanks for the update.
When I talk to folks there, they always use Centigrade for temperature.

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

Which sorta reinforces my argument that those in the US who need to use
metrics can and in those areas where it isn't needed (mile markers for
instance) we can stay the same. Measurements are, in the final
analysis, just numbers and numbers are just ways of rather arbitrarily
if think about, to assign a value.

Indeed! We agree again!
Coming from a metric country to the US at age 25, and active in science,
I have never forgotten metric, and I got fairly easily used to US
measurements with all their (silly) subdivisions.
Here is how to look at it:

A quart is a little less than a liter.
An inch is about 2.54 cm
A pound is 453 grams
A mile is about 1.6 km.

The way to look at is.. who cares? Other than an inch (and maybe a
foot) when was the last time you needed a measurement that you did it
yourself? When I need a wrench, I get one I think is correct and then go
up or down depending on the original one fit. I either take the
measurement on the side of the milk carton at face value or the
measurement of the measuring cup I am using to double check. I can't
tell (again with the possible exception of an inch using my finger
knuckle or a foot using my well foot). Other than that who really cares?

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Metspitzer wrote:

In a few years cars and phones will be smart enough not to need (as
many) signs.

My personal experience suggests that signs will still be around, if only
to keep someone's ne'er do well brother in law off of some politican's
couch (grin).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote the following:
In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
But everyone will use it. Ever since the 2 liter soda bottle, 99.999%
of the population is exposed to the metric system. Anyone working
around machinery or automobiles is exposed to it.


Yes, I had Latin and would have preferred to learn metrics. I use it
every day now. The machines in our industry have been metric for the
past 30 years since the US manufacturers stopped making them. All the
tooling associated with them is metric and the US suppliers of our raw
material use metric.




Which sorta reinforces my argument that those in the US who need to use
metrics can and in those areas where it isn't needed (mile markers for
instance) we can stay the same. Measurements are, in the final
analysis, just numbers and numbers are just ways of rather arbitrarily
if think about, to assign a value.



The first time I saw Km speed limits and distance signs on a US highway
was on the new Rt.1 in Delaware back in the 1990s. There were no MPH or
distance signs in Miles.
I made regular trips from here to southern DE (next to the MD border
near Ocean City) when my Mother lived there. When she died, I never went
down there again.
Does anyone know if that still is the case?


--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On 2011-12-30, Jules Richardson wrote:

When it comes to precise measurements, I do find that metric suits me
better for smaller-scale work, and yards/feet/inches works better for
e.g. working on the house, so I routinely make use of both.

I find metric much easier to deal with. It's all base 10. The only
place it is not an advantage is temperature. Fahrenheit is more
granular than Celsius, at roughly 4 deg F for every 1 deg C.

You wanna see how screwy US measurements are? Ask yer avg American to
explain the difference between the weight of 1 oz and the volume of 1
oz. Whenever this subject comes up on rec.food.cooking, the mustard
is off the hot dog!!

nb

--
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:25:17 -0500, willshak wrote:

Metspitzer wrote the following:
There is no reason to even speak about the US standard. Any US
conversions will be when it happens in the real world.

Now playing: One Eskimo, Kandi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_tBHoRaxns

My kids were learning the metric system when they were in elementary
school in the 1960s.

As did I, in the early '60s. We were also taught arithmetic (in several
bases, no less ;-).

notbob wrote the following:
On 2011-12-30, Jules Richardson wrote:

When it comes to precise measurements, I do find that metric suits me
better for smaller-scale work, and yards/feet/inches works better for
e.g. working on the house, so I routinely make use of both.

I find metric much easier to deal with. It's all base 10. The only
place it is not an advantage is temperature. Fahrenheit is more
granular than Celsius, at roughly 4 deg F for every 1 deg C.

You wanna see how screwy US measurements are? Ask yer avg American to
explain the difference between the weight of 1 oz and the volume of 1
oz. Whenever this subject comes up on rec.food.cooking, the mustard
is off the hot dog!!

nb



Everyone in rec.food.cooking should have a kitchen scale besides the
measuring cup. :-p

--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:




Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.


You have to "want" to understand it. If you look at that 2 liter soda
bottle, it will show you it is 67.6 ounces and no, I did not have to
look it up. Wine and spirits are 750 ml and 1 liter too.

After using it a while you can think pressure in bars and weight in
kilos and density if grams per liter. Take a trip to Europe and you
will find groceries in kilos and fuel priced in Euro per liter. After
a week, I don't have to even do the math any more, I know what it
means.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:27:32 -0500, Metspitzer
wrote:




The point is to just stop using US units. A liter = quart and a yard
= meter. 1 mile = 1.5 kilometers

Anyone in school doing math will love you for it. Kids will love you
for it.

Forget conversions. Forget US units.


It is a mind set. People are afraid of change and some ferociously
resist it. . When I found that I'd have to use metrics some years
ago, the thought was a bit intimidating. After a few days, it was
just another set of numbers that was easy to understand. Forget silly
wrench sizes like 23/64.

If you can use dimes and dollars, you can use metric.

Harry K wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:12 pm, wrote:
There is no reason to even speak about the US standard. Any US
conversions will be when it happens in the real world.

Now playing: One Eskimo, Kandihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_tBHoRaxns

I am surprised. this is the first thread I have seen where a bunch of
retards haven't jumped in trying to defend the non-metric system.

One of the most commong objections is "I won't know what wrench to
use" while ignoring the fact that they haven't looked at the size of
wrench they grab for a long long time. I need a 9/16 I grab "that"
wrench and amazingly it is the right size. Would work just the same
in metric except there wouldn't be nearly as many in a set.

I just checked a few items in the fridge, bread, milk, water, butter,
ketchup. All had metric equivalents listed on them but only the water
bottle was in metric (750 ml).

Harry K

Hmmm,
The longer we use imperial system, the resulting economic implications
will be huge. The sooner we switch over to metric system, the better
it'll be. Any how, I am OK with both but what a bore.

notbob wrote:

It's already happened. Looked at a container of liquid, lately? It's
already taught in schools. Perhaps not in K-12, but the minute you go
on to higher education, it's ALL metric.

I was going to say the same. I was exposed to metric conversions in
K-12, but never in a 'practical' sense. It wasn't until college when I
realized metric was alive and well, and the high school should have
focused more on it.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 22:32:28 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:



Harry K wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:12 pm, wrote:
There is no reason to even speak about the US standard. Any US
conversions will be when it happens in the real world.

Now playing: One Eskimo, Kandihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_tBHoRaxns

I am surprised. this is the first thread I have seen where a bunch of
retards haven't jumped in trying to defend the non-metric system.

One of the most commong objections is "I won't know what wrench to
use" while ignoring the fact that they haven't looked at the size of
wrench they grab for a long long time. I need a 9/16 I grab "that"
wrench and amazingly it is the right size. Would work just the same
in metric except there wouldn't be nearly as many in a set.

I just checked a few items in the fridge, bread, milk, water, butter,
ketchup. All had metric equivalents listed on them but only the water
bottle was in metric (750 ml).

Harry K

Hmmm,
The longer we use imperial system, the resulting economic implications
will be huge. The sooner we switch over to metric system, the better
it'll be. Any how, I am OK with both but what a bore.

We're already fifty years past that point. ...far enough that it really
doesn't matter anymore. Conversion is trivial, if needed, and for most it's
not.

On Dec 31 2011, 3:05*pm, willshak wrote:
Davej wrote the following:

On Dec 30, 2:25 pm, "Charlie" wrote:
[...]
...And another thing would be to start packaging goods in kilograms. You
can heft a package and guess that it weighed about 5 pounds. Until you can
judge *a couple of kilos that way you will never become adept at the
conversion.

Yes, we never get the feel for it. Plenty of US kids learn the metric
system in school, but they never get to the point where they can
estimate how much something weighs in Kilograms or estimate how many
Liters a quantity of liquid is.

Having to Learn something that one may never use in real live is a waste
of time and money.
Classes teaching metrics should be limited to those who intend to go on
to careers where metrics are actually used.
It's like having to learn Latin.


All information is good.

On Dec 31 2011, 4:46*pm, Frank wrote:
On 12/30/2011 11:04 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 30, 3:03 pm, *wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:44 am,
wrote:

*wrote in message

news:gr2dnaf_TtxbdWHTnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@supernews .com...

Metspitzer wrote the following:
There is no reason to even speak about the US standard. *Any US
conversions will be when it happens in the real world.

Now playing: *One Eskimo, Kandi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_tBHoRaxns

My kids were learning the metric system when they were in elementary
school in the 1960s.

And if memory serves, the Military uses Metric, *and many industries too.

Even working in the chemical industry in a laboratory, they would
still convert an analysis to add something to the process from grams/
liter to pounds/gallon going from the laboratory to the plant. *Kind
of stupid and open to error.

Not sure the Brits have fully converted. *They still weigh themselves
in stones

We still sell beer in pints.
But petrol is in litres.

We still have miles/mph.
But timber is sold in meters.

We still weigh people in stones and pounds.
But we sell butter in grams/Kg.

We still have knots and nautical miles, altitude is measured in feet.
But scalar ratios are almost always decimal.

Thanks for the update.
When I talk to folks there, they always use Centigrade for temperature.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah yes. that came in about ten years ago. Most of it is down to the
bloody EU.
The metric system interrelates between different branches of science/
technology better than the imperial.
However there are just as many cockups and errors as in the imperial
system.
Mostly through mismeasurement by Napoleon's scientists.
They even set up a metric calendar.
They mismeasured atmospheric pressure which was meant to be 1bar but
is actually 1.013bar.

On Dec 31 2011, 6:49*pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
On 12/31/2011 12:01 PM, Harry K wrote:





On Dec 30, 8:48 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/30/2011 9:31 PM, Harry K wrote:

On Dec 30, 3:29 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
* *wrote:
One of my most compelling *stories of conversion failure is the "Gimli
Glider", where the Air Canada guys wern't trained in metric, and they sent
an airplane with too little fuel. Not good at all. I just watched a show
about that, and it's terrifying.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Harry * *wrote in message

...

Not sure the Brits have fully converted. They still weigh themselves
in stones

Errors? *Ya mean like the famous one that cost NASA one orbiter and
one Mars lander due to two teams, one using metric, the other this
abortion of a system? *That kind of error

Harry K

Yep. *Those picnickers were scrambling and piloting an engine out 747
to a safe landing...Wow!

Harry K

It wasn't a 747, it was a 767 twin engine airliner. ^_^

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_techn...cs/clips/1155/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/59tcnv

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks. *I actually had to google that befoe I believed you? *It ain't
what *you know that hurts, it is what one knows that is wrong

Harry K

I remembered that the pilots made that incredible emergency landing and
afterwards, every time it was tried in a simulator, the plane crashed.
I think the pilot flew gliders for fun and actually used his glider
skills by side slipping the big plane to bleed off air speed. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The fellow that landed his airliner on the Hudson river was a glider
pilot too.

On Jan 1, 5:17*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:



Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it..

You have to "want" to understand it. *If you look at that 2 liter soda
bottle, it will show you it is 67.6 ounces and no, I did not have to
look it up. *Wine and spirits are 750 ml and 1 liter too.

There can be any amount of ounces in a litre.
How many gallons are in a mile?
It makes no sense to conjugate them.
Just as "cups" is nonsense.

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hmmm,
The longer we use imperial system, the resulting economic implications
will be huge. The sooner we switch over to metric system, the better
it'll be. Any how, I am OK with both but what a bore.

On the other hand, with China making all our imperial-based tools and
whatnot, maybe they'll convert to pounds and ounces as being the more
familiar.

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:17:59 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:




Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.


You have to "want" to understand it. If you look at that 2 liter soda
bottle, it will show you it is 67.6 ounces and no, I did not have to
look it up. Wine and spirits are 750 ml and 1 liter too.

My teachers made a valiant attempt to teach me metric in the 60's but
I still have to go from 7.62mm=.30caliber to understand metric sizes.
And I've survived with the limited knowledge. There's things I'd
rather clutter my brain with.

Jim

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:22:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:27:32 -0500, Metspitzer
wrote:




The point is to just stop using US units. A liter = quart and a yard
= meter. 1 mile = 1.5 kilometers

Anyone in school doing math will love you for it. Kids will love you
for it.

Forget conversions. Forget US units.


It is a mind set. People are afraid of change and some ferociously
resist it. . When I found that I'd have to use metrics some years
ago, the thought was a bit intimidating. After a few days, it was
just another set of numbers that was easy to understand. Forget silly
wrench sizes like 23/64.

So when you needed to, you figured it out. Lots of us have never
needed to.


If you can use dimes and dollars, you can use metric.

That's how we were taught math. The teacher tossed the book that
was adding up apples 'Because who *likes* apples, anyway. Let's talk
about money.'

Jim

On Jan 1, 5:19*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:17:59 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:

Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.

On Dec 31 2011, 10:49*am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
On 12/31/2011 12:01 PM, Harry K wrote:





On Dec 30, 8:48 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/30/2011 9:31 PM, Harry K wrote:

On Dec 30, 3:29 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
* *wrote:
One of my most compelling *stories of conversion failure is the "Gimli
Glider", where the Air Canada guys wern't trained in metric, and they sent
an airplane with too little fuel. Not good at all. I just watched a show
about that, and it's terrifying.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Harry * *wrote in message

...

Not sure the Brits have fully converted. They still weigh themselves
in stones

Errors? *Ya mean like the famous one that cost NASA one orbiter and
one Mars lander due to two teams, one using metric, the other this
abortion of a system? *That kind of error

Harry K

Yep. *Those picnickers were scrambling and piloting an engine out 747
to a safe landing...Wow!

Harry K

It wasn't a 747, it was a 767 twin engine airliner. ^_^

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_techn...cs/clips/1155/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/59tcnv

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks. *I actually had to google that befoe I believed you? *It ain't
what *you know that hurts, it is what one knows that is wrong

Harry K

I remembered that the pilots made that incredible emergency landing and
afterwards, every time it was tried in a simulator, the plane crashed.
I think the pilot flew gliders for fun and actually used his glider
skills by side slipping the big plane to bleed off air speed. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I recall something about gliders but 'side slipping' is part of
standard powered flight training also.

Harry K

On Dec 31 2011, 9:58*pm, G. Morgan
wrote:
notbob wrote:
It's already happened. *Looked at a container of liquid, lately? *It's
already taught in schools. *Perhaps not in K-12, but the minute you go
on to higher education, it's ALL metric.

I was going to say the same. I was exposed to metric conversions in
K-12, but never in a 'practical' sense. It wasn't until college when I
realized metric was alive and well, and the high school should have
focused more on it.

Same old problem. As long as they try to introduce it "gradually" it
will be resisted. Change it on a given day and change it all at once
and the reactionaries will not be able to bitch about having to
convert one to another. Of course they won't like it but by the end
of the week they would realize how asinine their resistance was.

Harry K

On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 01:51:49 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Jan 1, 5:17*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:



Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.

You have to "want" to understand it. *If you look at that 2 liter soda
bottle, it will show you it is 67.6 ounces and no, I did not have to
look it up. *Wine and spirits are 750 ml and 1 liter too.

There can be any amount of ounces in a litre.
How many gallons are in a mile?
It makes no sense to conjugate them.
Just as "cups" is nonsense.

I understand how cups were invented but there is a better way. Back
in the day, after milking the cows, you would have a bucket of milk.
That was ok. Call it a gallon. Now we need a way to divide it up, so
you take half and I will take half.

Take that and split it in half. Then split that in half. Then split
that in half. Eventually you get a 15/16 wrench.

There is a better way. Divide things by 10 instead and fractions go
away. Now isn't that better? Yes much. It is so much easier, in
fact, that kids would jump at the idea at having a choice. Just give
them a few math problems and see.

Who still loves fractions? Kids.......you want to make fractions go
away forever? Yeah!

The way to make it go away is to just let the kids stop talking about
"cups" at all. Old folks just keep using "cups" as long as you have
recipes that are given in "cups" and slowly replace them with kids
that understand liters naturally.

The time you save by eliminating fractions can be used for a few
"ballpark" conversions that the "old folk" use.

On 1/1/2012 10:04 AM, Harry K wrote:
On Dec 31 2011, 10:49 am, The Daring Dufasthe-daring-
wrote:
On 12/31/2011 12:01 PM, Harry K wrote:





On Dec 30, 8:48 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/30/2011 9:31 PM, Harry K wrote:

On Dec 30, 3:29 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
One of my most compelling stories of conversion failure is the "Gimli
Glider", where the Air Canada guys wern't trained in metric, and they sent
an airplane with too little fuel. Not good at all. I just watched a show
about that, and it's terrifying.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Harry wrote in message

...

Not sure the Brits have fully converted. They still weigh themselves
in stones

Errors? Ya mean like the famous one that cost NASA one orbiter and
one Mars lander due to two teams, one using metric, the other this
abortion of a system? That kind of error

Harry K

Yep. Those picnickers were scrambling and piloting an engine out 747
to a safe landing...Wow!

Harry K

It wasn't a 747, it was a 767 twin engine airliner. ^_^

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_techn...cs/clips/1155/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/59tcnv

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks. I actually had to google that befoe I believed you? It ain't
what you know that hurts, it is what one knows that is wrong

Harry K

I remembered that the pilots made that incredible emergency landing and
afterwards, every time it was tried in a simulator, the plane crashed.
I think the pilot flew gliders for fun and actually used his glider
skills by side slipping the big plane to bleed off air speed. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I recall something about gliders but 'side slipping' is part of
standard powered flight training also.

Harry K

I seem to remember, that because of no power, the airliner's air brakes
were non-functional so he had to side slip like a simple glider to slow
down.

TDD

In article ,
Metspitzer wrote:


I understand how cups were invented but there is a better way. Back
in the day, after milking the cows, you would have a bucket of milk.
That was ok. Call it a gallon. Now we need a way to divide it up, so
you take half and I will take half.

You mean all those half gallon and quart things of milk in the grocery
don't exist? (cue the Twilight Zone theme)


Take that and split it in half. Then split that in half. Then split
that in half. Eventually you get a 15/16 wrench.

All done with the appropriate measuring utensils. Easy peazy (to
quote Charlie Sheen among others)


There is a better way. Divide things by 10 instead and fractions go
away. Now isn't that better? Yes much. It is so much easier, in
fact, that kids would jump at the idea at having a choice. Just give
them a few math problems and see.

Again done my different set of measuring utensils. You don't
eyeball a quart of milk any more than you eyeball an mL of milk or
whatever. So you just decide what you want and get out the right
measuring utensils. I have yet to find a lot of reasons to so the
conversions and I have been a nurse for years. And when if it was
needed, the pharmacy and/or the dispensing computer did what was needed
to make the conversion.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Jan 1, 4:36*pm, Metspitzer wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 01:51:49 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:





On Jan 1, 5:17*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:

Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.

You have to "want" to understand it. *If you look at that 2 liter soda
bottle, it will show you it is 67.6 ounces and no, I did not have to
look it up. *Wine and spirits are 750 ml and 1 liter too.

There can be any amount of ounces in a litre.
How many gallons are in a mile?
It makes no sense to conjugate them.
Just as "cups" is nonsense.

I understand how cups were invented but there is a better way. *Back
in the day, after milking the cows, you would have a bucket of milk.
That was ok. Call it a gallon. *Now we need a way to divide it up, so
you take half and I will take half.

Take that and split it in half. *Then split that in half. *Then split
that in half. *Eventually you get a 15/16 wrench.

There is a better way. *Divide things by 10 instead and fractions go
away. *Now isn't that better? *Yes much. *It is so much easier, in
fact, that kids would jump at the idea at having a choice. *Just give
them a few math problems and see.

Who still loves fractions? *Kids.......you want to make fractions go
away forever? * Yeah!

The way to make it go away is to just let the kids stop talking about
"cups" at all. *Old folks just keep using "cups" as long as you have
recipes that are given in "cups" and slowly replace them with kids
that understand liters naturally.

The time you save by eliminating fractions can be used for a few
"ballpark" conversions that the "old folk" use.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fractions give an exact result. Decimal often results in
approximations.
Eg there is no decimal one third or one seventh.

On Jan 1, 9:24*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*Metspitzer wrote:

I understand how cups were invented but there is a better way. *Back
in the day, after milking the cows, you would have a bucket of milk.
That was ok. Call it a gallon. *Now we need a way to divide it up, so
you take half and I will take half.

You mean all those half gallon and quart things of milk in the grocery
don't exist? * (cue the Twilight Zone theme)



Take that and split it in half. *Then split that in half. *Then split
that in half. *Eventually you get a 15/16 wrench.

* *All done with the appropriate measuring utensils. Easy peazy (to
quote Charlie Sheen among others)



There is a better way. *Divide things by 10 instead and fractions go
away. *Now isn't that better? *Yes much. *It is so much easier, in
fact, that kids would jump at the idea at having a choice. *Just give
them a few math problems and see.

* * *Again done my different set of measuring utensils. You don't
eyeball a quart of milk any more than you eyeball an mL of milk or
whatever. *So you just decide what you want and get out the right
measuring utensils. I have yet to find a lot of reasons to so the
conversions and I have been a nurse for years. And when if it was
needed, the pharmacy and/or the dispensing computer did what was needed
to make the conversion.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

So because it is _possible_ to make the conversions the current system
is better than not changing it to do away with conversions? Your
logic sucks to be concise.

Harry K

On Jan 1, 9:41*am, harry wrote:
On Jan 1, 4:36*pm, Metspitzer wrote:





On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 01:51:49 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Jan 1, 5:17*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:

Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.

You have to "want" to understand it. *If you look at that 2 liter soda
bottle, it will show you it is 67.6 ounces and no, I did not have to
look it up. *Wine and spirits are 750 ml and 1 liter too.

There can be any amount of ounces in a litre.
How many gallons are in a mile?
It makes no sense to conjugate them.
Just as "cups" is nonsense.

I understand how cups were invented but there is a better way. *Back
in the day, after milking the cows, you would have a bucket of milk.
That was ok. Call it a gallon. *Now we need a way to divide it up, so
you take half and I will take half.

Take that and split it in half. *Then split that in half. *Then split
that in half. *Eventually you get a 15/16 wrench.

There is a better way. *Divide things by 10 instead and fractions go
away. *Now isn't that better? *Yes much. *It is so much easier, in
fact, that kids would jump at the idea at having a choice. *Just give
them a few math problems and see.

Who still loves fractions? *Kids.......you want to make fractions go
away forever? * Yeah!

The way to make it go away is to just let the kids stop talking about
"cups" at all. *Old folks just keep using "cups" as long as you have
recipes that are given in "cups" and slowly replace them with kids
that understand liters naturally.

The time you save by eliminating fractions can be used for a few
"ballpark" conversions that the "old folk" use.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fractions give an exact result. *Decimal often results in
approximations.
Eg there is no decimal one third or one seventh.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Decimals are more precise, just depends on how minute yu want the
measure, 10ths? 100ths? 1,000ths? and continue on down into the
billionths if you want. And it can be done without a pencil and
paper. Try that with fractions.

Harry K

On Jan 1, 10:52*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 08:03:01 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:





On Jan 1, 5:19*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:17:59 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:

Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.

You have to "want" to understand it. *If you look at that 2 liter soda
bottle, it will show you it is 67.6 ounces and no, I did not have to
look it up. *Wine and spirits are 750 ml and 1 liter too.

My teachers made a valiant attempt to teach me metric in the 60's but
I still have to go from 7.62mm=.30caliber to understand metric sizes..
And I've survived with the limited knowledge. * There's things I'd
rather clutter my brain with.

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You wouldn't be "cluttering your brai" if you would just give up
converting one to the other. *If they did away with this abortion
tomorrow, by Wednesday you would have no problem...correction, by the
first time you bought gas or some groceries youwouldn't even notice.
I buy a "loaf" of bread and I have no clue as to its weight in either
system. *I buy a case of beer - again I have no idea if it is packed
in metric or our screwed up system. *Same with nuts, bolts, distance,
etc.

loaf of bread - the one in my refrig is not "1 pound", I just
looked.

Of course not. *An egg doesn't weigh a pound either. *So?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The point is that I bet most people think they are buying a pound of
bread.

I doubt if most people even have a guess at how much the package
contains when they buy something - they just grab a box or bottle
"that size".

Our system cannot be defended on any basis other than "it has always
been that way".

Harry K

On Jan 1, 8:36*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/1/2012 10:04 AM, Harry K wrote:





On Dec 31 2011, 10:49 am, The Daring Dufasthe-daring-
*wrote:
On 12/31/2011 12:01 PM, Harry K wrote:

On Dec 30, 8:48 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/30/2011 9:31 PM, Harry K wrote:

On Dec 30, 3:29 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
* * *wrote:
One of my most compelling *stories of conversion failure is the "Gimli
Glider", where the Air Canada guys wern't trained in metric, and they sent
an airplane with too little fuel. Not good at all. I just watched a show
about that, and it's terrifying.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Harry * * *wrote in message

...

Not sure the Brits have fully converted. They still weigh themselves
in stones

Errors? *Ya mean like the famous one that cost NASA one orbiter and
one Mars lander due to two teams, one using metric, the other this
abortion of a system? *That kind of error

Harry K

Yep. *Those picnickers were scrambling and piloting an engine out 747
to a safe landing...Wow!

Harry K

It wasn't a 747, it was a 767 twin engine airliner. ^_^

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_techn...cs/clips/1155/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/59tcnv

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks. *I actually had to google that befoe I believed you? *It ain't
what *you know that hurts, it is what one knows that is wrong

Harry K

I remembered that the pilots made that incredible emergency landing and
afterwards, every time it was tried in a simulator, the plane crashed.
I think the pilot flew gliders for fun and actually used his glider
skills by side slipping the big plane to bleed off air speed. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I recall something about gliders but 'side slipping' is part of
standard powered flight training also.

Harry K

I seem to remember, that because of no power, the airliner's air brakes
were non-functional so he had to side slip like a simple glider to slow
down.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Side slips are done in the air to avoid overshooting the runway not on
the ground. Trying one one the ground begs for a rollover.

Harry K

On Jan 1, 10:15*am, Frank wrote:
On 1/1/2012 7:48 AM, HeyBub wrote: Tony Hwang wrote:

Hmmm,
The longer we use imperial system, the resulting economic implications
will be huge. The sooner *we switch over to metric system, the better
it'll be. Any how, I am OK with both but what a bore.

On the other hand, with China making all our imperial-based tools and
whatnot, maybe they'll convert to pounds and ounces as being the more
familiar.

Actually we'll all need a third set of tools in Chinese units:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese...of_measurement

Back to the days in the 50s and 60s when a mechanic did need three
sets of wrenchs, Imperial, Metric and the British Whitworth.

Harry K

On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 20:52:37 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

On Jan 1, 10:52*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 08:03:01 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:





On Jan 1, 5:19*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:17:59 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:

Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.

You have to "want" to understand it. *If you look at that 2 liter soda
bottle, it will show you it is 67.6 ounces and no, I did not have to
look it up. *Wine and spirits are 750 ml and 1 liter too.

My teachers made a valiant attempt to teach me metric in the 60's but
I still have to go from 7.62mm=.30caliber to understand metric sizes.
And I've survived with the limited knowledge. * There's things I'd
rather clutter my brain with.

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You wouldn't be "cluttering your brai" if you would just give up
converting one to the other. *If they did away with this abortion
tomorrow, by Wednesday you would have no problem...correction, by the
first time you bought gas or some groceries youwouldn't even notice.
I buy a "loaf" of bread and I have no clue as to its weight in either
system. *I buy a case of beer - again I have no idea if it is packed
in metric or our screwed up system. *Same with nuts, bolts, distance,
etc.

loaf of bread - the one in my refrig is not "1 pound", I just
looked.

Of course not. *An egg doesn't weigh a pound either. *So?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The point is that I bet most people think they are buying a pound of
bread.

You hang around with really stupid people.

I doubt if most people even have a guess at how much the package
contains when they buy something - they just grab a box or bottle
"that size".

Are you married? Have you ever gone shopping with her?

Our system cannot be defended on any basis other than "it has always
been that way".

Wrong! It costs real money to change. ...not worth it at this point.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:40:43 -0500, "
wrote:




Our system cannot be defended on any basis other than "it has always
been that way".

Wrong! It costs real money to change. ...not worth it at this point.

It would probably take a century or two for a full change. While soda
comes in one and two liter bottles, it is also in 12 ounce cans. I
cannot imagine the cost of retrofitting or replacing vending machines
to take the 500 ml cans.

Some things are easy, but still costly, like road signs, maybe the
newer gas pumps. Fasteners can be phased win with new models as they
come out. In the interest of a world economy, many already have
changed.

My Buick had a switch that changed the speedo and gauges to metric.

On Jan 2, 4:49*am, Harry K wrote:
On Jan 1, 9:41*am, harry wrote:





On Jan 1, 4:36*pm, Metspitzer wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 01:51:49 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Jan 1, 5:17*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:

Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.

You have to "want" to understand it. *If you look at that 2 liter soda
bottle, it will show you it is 67.6 ounces and no, I did not have to
look it up. *Wine and spirits are 750 ml and 1 liter too.

There can be any amount of ounces in a litre.
How many gallons are in a mile?
It makes no sense to conjugate them.
Just as "cups" is nonsense.

I understand how cups were invented but there is a better way. *Back
in the day, after milking the cows, you would have a bucket of milk.
That was ok. Call it a gallon. *Now we need a way to divide it up, so
you take half and I will take half.

Take that and split it in half. *Then split that in half. *Then split
that in half. *Eventually you get a 15/16 wrench.

There is a better way. *Divide things by 10 instead and fractions go
away. *Now isn't that better? *Yes much. *It is so much easier, in
fact, that kids would jump at the idea at having a choice. *Just give
them a few math problems and see.

Who still loves fractions? *Kids.......you want to make fractions go
away forever? * Yeah!

The way to make it go away is to just let the kids stop talking about
"cups" at all. *Old folks just keep using "cups" as long as you have
recipes that are given in "cups" and slowly replace them with kids
that understand liters naturally.

The time you save by eliminating fractions can be used for a few
"ballpark" conversions that the "old folk" use.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fractions give an exact result. *Decimal often results in
approximations.
Eg there is no decimal one third or one seventh.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Decimals are more precise, just depends on how minute yu want the
measure, *10ths? *100ths? 1,000ths? *and continue on down into the
billionths if you want. *And it can be done without a pencil and
paper. Try that with fractions.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, write me out one seventh in decimal.

On Jan 2, 4:52*am, Harry K wrote:
On Jan 1, 10:52*am, "





wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 08:03:01 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

On Jan 1, 5:19*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:17:59 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:

Ask anyone how many units in pints or quarts those 2 liter bottles
contain. Even I'd have to look it up for the exact figure. I believe
it's a little less than a quart (I would have to look it up to see if my
guess is correct, but I won't).
Being exposed to the metric system does not mean that one understands it.

You have to "want" to understand it. *If you look at that 2 liter soda
bottle, it will show you it is 67.6 ounces and no, I did not have to
look it up. *Wine and spirits are 750 ml and 1 liter too.

My teachers made a valiant attempt to teach me metric in the 60's but
I still have to go from 7.62mm=.30caliber to understand metric sizes.
And I've survived with the limited knowledge. * There's things I'd
rather clutter my brain with.

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You wouldn't be "cluttering your brai" if you would just give up
converting one to the other. *If they did away with this abortion
tomorrow, by Wednesday you would have no problem...correction, by the
first time you bought gas or some groceries youwouldn't even notice.
I buy a "loaf" of bread and I have no clue as to its weight in either
system. *I buy a case of beer - again I have no idea if it is packed
in metric or our screwed up system. *Same with nuts, bolts, distance,
etc.

loaf of bread - the one in my refrig is not "1 pound", I just
looked.

Of course not. *An egg doesn't weigh a pound either. *So?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The point is that I bet most people think they are buying a pound of
bread.

I doubt if most people even have a guess at how much the package
contains when they buy something - they just grab a box or bottle
"that size".

Our system cannot be defended on any basis other than "it has always
been that way".

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There a good reasons for the imperial system.
Consider the number of factors of both 1760 and 2240.

On Jan 2, 4:54*am, Harry K wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:36*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:





On 1/1/2012 10:04 AM, Harry K wrote:

On Dec 31 2011, 10:49 am, The Daring Dufasthe-daring-
*wrote:
On 12/31/2011 12:01 PM, Harry K wrote:

On Dec 30, 8:48 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/30/2011 9:31 PM, Harry K wrote:

On Dec 30, 3:29 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
* * *wrote:
One of my most compelling *stories of conversion failure is the "Gimli
Glider", where the Air Canada guys wern't trained in metric, and they sent
an airplane with too little fuel. Not good at all. I just watched a show
about that, and it's terrifying.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Harry * * *wrote in message

...

Not sure the Brits have fully converted. They still weigh themselves
in stones

Errors? *Ya mean like the famous one that cost NASA one orbiter and
one Mars lander due to two teams, one using metric, the other this
abortion of a system? *That kind of error

Harry K

Yep. *Those picnickers were scrambling and piloting an engine out 747
to a safe landing...Wow!

Harry K

It wasn't a 747, it was a 767 twin engine airliner. ^_^

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_techn...cs/clips/1155/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/59tcnv

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks. *I actually had to google that befoe I believed you? *It ain't
what *you know that hurts, it is what one knows that is wrong

Harry K

I remembered that the pilots made that incredible emergency landing and
afterwards, every time it was tried in a simulator, the plane crashed.
I think the pilot flew gliders for fun and actually used his glider
skills by side slipping the big plane to bleed off air speed. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I recall something about gliders but 'side slipping' is part of
standard powered flight training also.

Harry K

I seem to remember, that because of no power, the airliner's air brakes
were non-functional so he had to side slip like a simple glider to slow
down.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Side slips are done in the air to avoid overshooting the runway not on
the ground. *Trying one one the ground begs for a rollover.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Side slips are done to increase drag. They are ineffective on some
aircraft and dangerous in others as they can turn into a spin.

A similar manouver on the ground is called a "groundloop".
It can break the undercarriage.
Occasionally neccesary to reduce the ground run.