On 13/01/2019 12:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
As a kid, I was always fascinated when I saw my mother add up
a column of prices. It wasn't just pounds, shillings and pence
- we still had farthings!

Remember when I used to do the shopping for my mum on a Saturday morning.
In the days when you bought most things fresh - and didn't go by car to
shop. And she used to give me the exact money. For a large shopping bag of
mixed groceries.

That's because you would have spent the change in sweets.

--
Max Demian

Robin wrote:

On 13/01/2019 12:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 13 January 2019 02:34:48 UTC, BillD wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Despite trying to convert, I still find yards feet and inches easier
to use for DIY round the house than metric. I reckon it interfaces
with the human brain better.

Yes, the metre is fine, close enough to a yard to allow easy
visualisation but there isn¼t any foot like equivalent and the cm is a
bit of a bodge.

there's the metric foot or 30cm


Which rather proves the point that going from a centimetre to metre is too
big a change for practical use.

I think the decimetre gets used quite a lot, at least in France. We
don't seem to use it at all.

yes, which is odd when it's such a handy unit

Our teacher at the time (?late 50s, early 60s) said we should never use
it, as the French had endless problems confusing cm and dm, and anyway,
as Englishmen, we had the foot to use.

--

Roger Hayter

On Sunday, 13 January 2019 12:19:14 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In which case there would only be pound shops in the poorer towns, or
parts of a town?

That's almost any provincial high street, these days.

Owain

wrote
wrote

What percentage of people can't count without using their fingers anyway?

Quite a lot.

22% of fifteen year olds in this country are functionally innumerate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...in-mathematics

Thats not saying that they have to count using their fingers.

This is one reason why pound shops are popular with poor,
and poorly-educated, people. They find it easier to work
out how many things they can buy with this week's "giro".

Doesnt explain why we dont have any at all.

On Sunday, 13 January 2019 15:47:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
Doesnt explain why we dont have any at all.

You don't use pounds?

Owain

wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

In which case there would only be pound shops in the poorer towns, or
parts of a town?

That's almost any provincial high street, these days.

But that isnt the only shops they can and do use.

The dregs use the local Aldi here.

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 13 January 2019 15:47:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
Doesnt explain why we dont have any at all.

You don't use pounds?

We dont have dollar shops either and tho we
do have quite a few of that type of shop, they
dont have their prices just round dollars.

On 13/01/2019 15:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 13/01/2019 12:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 13 January 2019 02:34:48 UTC, BillD wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Despite trying to convert, I still find yards feet and inches easier
to use for DIY round the house than metric. I reckon it interfaces
with the human brain better.

Yes, the metre is fine, close enough to a yard to allow easy
visualisation but there isn¼t any foot like equivalent and the cm is a
bit of a bodge.

there's the metric foot or 30cm


Which rather proves the point that going from a centimetre to metre is too
big a change for practical use.

I think the decimetre gets used quite a lot, at least in France. We
don't seem to use it at all.

yes, which is odd when it's such a handy unit

Our teacher at the time (?late 50s, early 60s) said we should never use
it, as the French had endless problems confusing cm and dm, and anyway,
as Englishmen, we had the foot to use.


I find it _much_ easier to get a rough measure using hands rather than
feet in most cases: I can get my hands up to heights and into places my
feet won't go without a ladder and/or risk of severe groin strain. YMMV.

And a hand (4 inches) is within 2 per cent of a decimetre so allows easy
conversion where precision not required.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article ,
writes
On Friday, 11 January 2019 13:24:41 UTC, NY wrote:
"bert" wrote in message
...

I read an article recently arguing that base 12 would be better than 10
because it has more factors.

Definitely. If we'd been born with 12 digits, we'd have learned to count in
base 12, and we'd have invented two extra symbols for what in base 10 we
write as 11 and 12. I can do base 16 arithmetic more easily than base 12,
and that's partly because there's only ever one digit (numeric or letter) in
each column.

Decimal is trivial to divide by 2 or 5. Base 12 is trivial to divide by
6, 4, 3, 2. And that's why humans have used base 12 so much. Nothing to
do with number of digits, it's not as if counting to 12 presents any
difficulty to anyone.


NT
That was the basis of the article I read- can't remember who wrote it.
--
bert

In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/01/2019 02:09, Fredxx wrote:

Furlongs? I thought everyone knew you get 10 cricket pitches in a furlong.

You mean wickets not pitches.
A cricket oval is somewhat larger than a chain.

Just shows how confusing the old stuff was.



10 chains one furlong 8 furlongs 1 mile. Simples.
A chain being 22 yds so a mile is 1760yds. What's not to like :-)
--
bert

On 13/01/2019 21:55, bert wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/01/2019 02:09, Fredxx wrote:

Furlongs? I thought everyone knew you get 10 cricket pitches in a
furlong.

You mean wickets not pitches.
A cricket oval is somewhat larger than a chain.

Just shows how confusing the old stuff was.



10 chains one furlong 8 furlongs 1 mile. Simples.
A chain being 22 yds so a mile is 1760yds. What's not to like :-)

Chains vary according to temperature due to thermal expansion.

--
Max Demian

"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 13 January 2019 10:12:49 UTC, wrote:
On Sunday, 13 January 2019 03:40:26 UTC, tabby wrote:
What percentage of people can't count without using their fingers
anyway?

Quite a lot.

22% of fifteen year olds in this country are functionally innumerate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...in-mathematics

This is one reason why pound shops are popular with poor, and
poorly-educated, people. They find it easier to work out how many
things they can buy with this week's "giro".

Owain

What an indictment of the school system & our national culture.


More a view of why so many think being poor is down to the individual
being feckless.

Plenty use pound shops because the pack sizes are often smaller for some
things. And the odd bargain.


Would that be you by any chance?
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
On 13/01/2019 12:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
As a kid, I was always fascinated when I saw my mother add up
a column of prices. It wasn't just pounds, shillings and pence
- we still had farthings!

Remember when I used to do the shopping for my mum on a Saturday
morning. In the days when you bought most things fresh - and didn't go
by car to shop. And she used to give me the exact money. For a large
shopping bag of mixed groceries.

That's because you would have spent the change in sweets.

You obviously didn't know my mum. ;-)

--
*El nino made me do it

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 13 January 2019 10:12:49 UTC, wrote:
On Sunday, 13 January 2019 03:40:26 UTC, tabby wrote:
What percentage of people can't count without using their fingers
anyway?

Quite a lot.

22% of fifteen year olds in this country are functionally innumerate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...in-mathematics

This is one reason why pound shops are popular with poor, and
poorly-educated, people. They find it easier to work out how many
things they can buy with this week's "giro".

Owain

What an indictment of the school system & our national culture.


More a view of why so many think being poor is down to the individual
being feckless.

Plenty use pound shops because the pack sizes are often smaller for some
things. And the odd bargain.


Would that be you by any chance?

Do you form an opinion about a shop having never used it?

--
*If you think this van is dirty, you should try having sex with the driver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 14 January 2019 14:49:39 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 13 January 2019 10:12:49 UTC, wrote:
On Sunday, 13 January 2019 03:40:26 UTC, tabby wrote:
What percentage of people can't count without using their fingers
anyway?

Quite a lot.

22% of fifteen year olds in this country are functionally innumerate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...in-mathematics

This is one reason why pound shops are popular with poor, and
poorly-educated, people. They find it easier to work out how many
things they can buy with this week's "giro".

Owain

What an indictment of the school system & our national culture.


More a view of why so many think being poor is down to the individual
being feckless.

Plenty use pound shops because the pack sizes are often smaller for some
things. And the odd bargain.


Would that be you by any chance?

Do you form an opinion about a shop having never used it?

I do otherwise I'd never use a shop.

In article , Max
Demian writes
On 13/01/2019 21:55, bert wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/01/2019 02:09, Fredxx wrote:

Furlongs? I thought everyone knew you get 10 cricket pitches in a
furlong.

You mean wickets not pitches.
A cricket oval is somewhat larger than a chain.

Just shows how confusing the old stuff was.



10 chains one furlong 8 furlongs 1 mile. Simples.
A chain being 22 yds so a mile is 1760yds. What's not to like :-)

Chains vary according to temperature due to thermal expansion.

Go fathom it out.
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Max Demian
writes
On 13/01/2019 21:55, bert wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/01/2019 02:09, Fredxx wrote:

Furlongs? I thought everyone knew you get 10 cricket pitches in a
furlong.

You mean wickets not pitches.
A cricket oval is somewhat larger than a chain.

Just shows how confusing the old stuff was.

10 chains one furlong 8 furlongs 1 mile. Simples.
A chain being 22 yds so a mile is 1760yds. What's not to like :-)

The fact that not one single solitary unit is related to another by a factor
of 10. Maybe the people that dreamed up the imperial system were mutants
with extra fingers and toes, and so counted in a base other than 10.

I wouldn't mind if everything was related together by a factor of (for
example) 12. You'd learn your 12 times table up to a point beyond 12x12 and
become fairly proficient with it. But when you have to handle different
conversion factors all over the place, it becomes ludicrous.

At least in the UK we tend to use the largest commonly-used unit for
expressing any given length or weight: road distances are measured in yards
or fractions of a mile; people's weights are expressed in stones and pounds.

In contrast, the US tends to use very large numbers of small units:
distances on road signs tend to be expressed in feet ("roadworks in 5280
feet", "no barrier for 900 feet" etc), and people's weights are expressed in
pounds only.

I'm not sure what the convention is for distance-to-exit signs on freeways -
are they generally in miles and fractions of a mile (equivalent to our
1-mile and 1/2-mile signs, and the 300, 200, 100 yard countdown signs) or
are they expressed in feet?

On Monday, 14 January 2019 16:07:10 UTC, NY wrote:
"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Max Demian
writes
On 13/01/2019 21:55, bert wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/01/2019 02:09, Fredxx wrote:

Furlongs? I thought everyone knew you get 10 cricket pitches in a
furlong.

You mean wickets not pitches.
A cricket oval is somewhat larger than a chain.

Just shows how confusing the old stuff was.

10 chains one furlong 8 furlongs 1 mile. Simples.
A chain being 22 yds so a mile is 1760yds. What's not to like :-)

The fact that not one single solitary unit is related to another by a factor
of 10. Maybe the people that dreamed up the imperial system were mutants
with extra fingers and toes, and so counted in a base other than 10.

I wouldn't mind if everything was related together by a factor of (for
example) 12. You'd learn your 12 times table up to a point beyond 12x12 and
become fairly proficient with it. But when you have to handle different
conversion factors all over the place, it becomes ludicrous.

On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?



At least in the UK we tend to use the largest commonly-used unit for
expressing any given length or weight: road distances are measured in yards
or fractions of a mile; people's weights are expressed in stones and pounds.

But looking at a tape measure I have here it totals up to 11 inches then 1 ft the next is 13 inches, but if measuring (in imperial which I sometimes do) I'd say something was say 1 ft 1 inch or 13 inches.


In contrast, the US tends to use very large numbers of small units:
distances on road signs tend to be expressed in feet ("roadworks in 5280
feet", "no barrier for 900 feet" etc), and people's weights are expressed in
pounds only.

and don't they have a differnt number of ounces to a pound.


I'm not sure what the convention is for distance-to-exit signs on freeways -
are they generally in miles and fractions of a mile (equivalent to our
1-mile and 1/2-mile signs, and the 300, 200, 100 yard countdown signs) or
are they expressed in feet?

On 11/01/2019 11:35, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Note that it was Lockheed that screwed up, but NASA also failed to
implement systems that would have caught the error:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

Also...just to make one despair..... "The discrepancy between calculated
and measured position, resulting in the discrepancy between desired and
actual orbit insertion altitude, had been noticed earlier by at least
two navigators, whose concerns were dismissed because they "did not
follow the rules about filling out [the] form to document their
concerns". A meeting of trajectory software engineers, trajectory
software operators (navigators), propulsion engineers and managers, was
convened to consider the possibility of executing Trajectory Correction
Maneuver-5, which was in the schedule. Attendees of the meeting recall
an agreement to conduct TCM-5, but it was ultimately not done".



--
Spike

On Monday, 14 January 2019 16:47:14 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is flying at 30,000ft
(about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?


because flight levels expressed in hectofeet to the nearest 100 ft, are used to ensure safe vertical separation between aircraft, despite natural local variations in atmospheric air pressure.

32,000 feet is referred to as "flight level 320" which is clearer over the radio.

Some countries do use metric flight levels,

Owain

On 11/01/2019 10:59, newshound wrote:
On 10/01/2019 21:08, ARW wrote:
On 10/01/2019 19:55, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:15:24 +0000, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 10/01/19 19:10, ARW wrote:
Third year apprentice (one of the best we have had) was having trouble
putting the meter tails into the mains isolator on some new builds.

He was having difficulty tightening up the hex screws.

One answer in the office was "You have a **** set of Allen keys"

In his defence he replied "They are brand new I only got them on
Saturday and I paid for the most expensive of the two pairs
available as
I don't want **** tools"

Anyone care to guess what went wrong:-)?

Imperial vs metric?

+1


Indeed.

But at least he came in and said he had a problem. And the problem is
now sorted.

Obviously never heard of the word imperial before and was amazed at
the markings on the tool that he had never noticed.



And credit for being prepared to spend a bit more.

He got his money back for them. He sold them to the new starter.

--
Adam

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 14 January 2019 16:07:10 UTC, NY wrote:
"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Max
Demian
writes
On 13/01/2019 21:55, bert wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/01/2019 02:09, Fredxx wrote:

Furlongs? I thought everyone knew you get 10 cricket pitches in a
furlong.

You mean wickets not pitches.
A cricket oval is somewhat larger than a chain.

Just shows how confusing the old stuff was.

10 chains one furlong 8 furlongs 1 mile. Simples.
A chain being 22 yds so a mile is 1760yds. What's not to like :-)

The fact that not one single solitary unit is related to another by a
factor
of 10. Maybe the people that dreamed up the imperial system were mutants
with extra fingers and toes, and so counted in a base other than 10.

I wouldn't mind if everything was related together by a factor of (for
example) 12. You'd learn your 12 times table up to a point beyond 12x12
and
become fairly proficient with it. But when you have to handle different
conversion factors all over the place, it becomes ludicrous.

On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they dont run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

At least in the UK we tend to use the largest commonly-used unit for
expressing any given length or weight: road distances are measured in
yards
or fractions of a mile; people's weights are expressed in stones and
pounds.

But looking at a tape measure I have here it totals up to 11 inches
then 1 ft the next is 13 inches, but if measuring (in imperial which
I sometimes do) I'd say something was say 1 ft 1 inch or 13 inches.

That tape measure is ****ed by design.

In contrast, the US tends to use very large numbers of small units:
distances on road signs tend to be expressed in feet ("roadworks in 5280
feet", "no barrier for 900 feet" etc), and people's weights are expressed
in
pounds only.

and don't they have a differnt number of ounces to a pound.

Nope. You are likely 'thinking' of troy ounces and troy pounds.

Pity about this ****
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)#In_Britain

I'm not sure what the convention is for distance-to-exit signs on
freeways -
are they generally in miles and fractions of a mile (equivalent to our
1-mile and 1/2-mile signs, and the 300, 200, 100 yard countdown signs) or
are they expressed in feet?

On 14/01/2019 16:06, NY wrote:
"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Max
Demian writes
On 13/01/2019 21:55, bert wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/01/2019 02:09, Fredxx wrote:

Furlongs? I thought everyone knew you get 10 cricket pitches in a
furlong.

You mean wickets not pitches.
A cricket oval is somewhat larger than a chain.

Just shows how confusing the old stuff was.

10 chains one furlong 8 furlongs 1 mile. Simples.
A chain being 22 yds so a mile is 1760yds. What's not to like :-)

The fact that not one single solitary unit is related to another by a
factor of 10. Maybe the people that dreamed up the imperial system were
mutants with extra fingers and toes, and so counted in a base other than
10.

I wouldn't mind if everything was related together by a factor of (for
example) 12. You'd learn your 12 times table up to a point beyond 12x12
and become fairly proficient with it. But when you have to handle
different conversion factors all over the place, it becomes ludicrous.

I agree. Metric is far easier for calculation purposes. However, one of
the reasons Imperial has so many odd factors is that the units are
real-world scale and therefore far more useful in day to day, rather
than engineering, life.

SteveW

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 01:31:19 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 14 January 2019 16:07:10 UTC, NY wrote:
"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Max
Demian
writes
On 13/01/2019 21:55, bert wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/01/2019 02:09, Fredxx wrote:

Furlongs? I thought everyone knew you get 10 cricket pitches in a
furlong.

You mean wickets not pitches.
A cricket oval is somewhat larger than a chain.

Just shows how confusing the old stuff was.

10 chains one furlong 8 furlongs 1 mile. Simples.
A chain being 22 yds so a mile is 1760yds. What's not to like :-)

The fact that not one single solitary unit is related to another by a
factor
of 10. Maybe the people that dreamed up the imperial system were mutants
with extra fingers and toes, and so counted in a base other than 10.

I wouldn't mind if everything was related together by a factor of (for
example) 12. You'd learn your 12 times table up to a point beyond 12x12
and
become fairly proficient with it. But when you have to handle different
conversion factors all over the place, it becomes ludicrous.

On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they dont run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft rather than
9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters or 10km.
or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.




At least in the UK we tend to use the largest commonly-used unit for
expressing any given length or weight: road distances are measured in
yards
or fractions of a mile; people's weights are expressed in stones and
pounds.

But looking at a tape measure I have here it totals up to 11 inches
then 1 ft the next is 13 inches, but if measuring (in imperial which
I sometimes do) I'd say something was say 1 ft 1 inch or 13 inches.

That tape measure is ****ed by design.

your usual intelectual approach to things.

Strange so many ****ed by design things are sold.

On 15/01/2019 11:29, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 01:31:19 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they dont run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft rather than
9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters or 10km.
or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

And if it flies up to 32768 it flips upside down as that's a negative
number in twos complement.

--
Max Demian

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 11:46:36 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/01/2019 11:29, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 01:31:19 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they dont run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft rather than
9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters or 10km.
or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

And if it flies up to 32768 it flips upside down as that's a negative
number in twos complement.

--
Max Demian

32768 what bits ? well that's 32K hardly enough memory to store a fart.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:20:08 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

Second year apprentice quit yesterday because he could not cope with the
dirt/dust/cold and he has not even done a proper dirty job or worked
through a cold winter.

Daughter experienced this when in a temp retail job in Scotland. The
resident staff were complaining that they had to leave the front door
open (to entice customers in) and have to get someone to help lift a
box of a shelf because it was 'heavy'. They asked her why she didn't
seem to be bothered. Her reply, 'If I wasn't doing this I would
probably be cutting up a tree in a ditch'. ;-)

Re the point, whist I'm sure electrics can be a dirty job (I've done a
bit over my life) and you are sometimes working in the cold and dark
(no CH when the power is off ) or outside fittings etc, I'm not sure
if the job is as overall physical as say plumbing or bricklaying,
plastering and especially roofing / drainage.

Poking 2.5m T&E though places is probably easier than poking 22mm
copper pipe (or even plastic) and a leak of electricity isn't likely
to make such a mess as a bad fitting on a CH circuit. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 01:31:19 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 14 January 2019 16:07:10 UTC, NY wrote:
"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Max
Demian
writes
On 13/01/2019 21:55, bert wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/01/2019 02:09, Fredxx wrote:

Furlongs? I thought everyone knew you get 10 cricket pitches in
a
furlong.

You mean wickets not pitches.
A cricket oval is somewhat larger than a chain.

Just shows how confusing the old stuff was.

10 chains one furlong 8 furlongs 1 mile. Simples.
A chain being 22 yds so a mile is 1760yds. What's not to like :-)

The fact that not one single solitary unit is related to another by a
factor
of 10. Maybe the people that dreamed up the imperial system were
mutants
with extra fingers and toes, and so counted in a base other than 10.

I wouldn't mind if everything was related together by a factor of (for
example) 12. You'd learn your 12 times table up to a point beyond
12x12
and
become fairly proficient with it. But when you have to handle
different
conversion factors all over the place, it becomes ludicrous.

On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they dont run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

At least in the UK we tend to use the largest commonly-used
unit for expressing any given length or weight: road distances
are measured in yards or fractions of a mile; people's weights
are expressed in stones and pounds.

But looking at a tape measure I have here it totals up to 11 inches
then 1 ft the next is 13 inches, but if measuring (in imperial which
I sometimes do) I'd say something was say 1 ft 1 inch or 13 inches.

That tape measure is ****ed by design.

Strange so many ****ed by design things are sold.

And you're too stupid to actually consider what you are
buying and buy the ones that arent ****ed by design.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they dont run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

I presume flight levels measured in feet and 1000 feet apart are a worldwide
standard, and that countries which measure altitude in metres (on their
altimeters) convert from the round number of feet. It would be *very* prone
to errors if air traffic control gave round numbers of metres (and therefore
non-round number of feet) when you entered "metric airspace" because you now
had to fly at a round number of metres, so I presume it's not done like
that. (But I may be wrong...)

I did notice on a little turboprop plane that took me from Schipol to a
small airport (Paderborn) in Germany that the pilot announced (in German)
"we will be flying at 5000 m" or whatever (he certainly mentioned "hoch"
(height) and "four-and-twenty-blackbirds" style German numbers and
"metres"). But I presume he was still flying at a round number of thousands
of feet, which he rounded to the nearest whole number of metres for the
benefit of the passengers.


I wonder if the world will ever redefine airspace to use metres (maybe have
flight levels ever 300 m which is *roughly* 1000 feet), since metres are the
international scientific/engineering standard. I suppose they won't change
unless the advantage of doing so outweighed the problems during transition.

Do air-traffic control throughout the world specific air-pressure settings
(*) in inches of mercury, or do metric-speaking countries use mmHg or
millibars?

(*) For calibrating the altimeter to today's sea-level air pressure, so the
altimeter reads a consistent height above ground irrespective of changes in
air pressure.

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

BS, as a metre is only 3 inches more than a yard.

and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

and to people checking flight info it's not very relivant anyway.

such sites as flightradar 24 aren;t for pilots deciding where to and at what hieght to fly, as I've told you before that is controlled by air traffic controllers and is not decided by computer or autopilots.


But looking at a tape measure I have here it totals up to 11 inches
then 1 ft the next is 13 inches, but if measuring (in imperial which
I sometimes do) I'd say something was say 1 ft 1 inch or 13 inches.

That tape measure is ****ed by design.

Strange so many ****ed by design things are sold.

And you're too stupid to actually consider what you are
buying and buy the ones that arent ****ed by design.

Maybe that;s why we designed our own concorde rathe rthan buy the american or russain versions which were so ****ed by design one never took off and the other crashed on i';s first flight, best to stick with UK/French designed supersonic commercail planes.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
I wish I'd been taught how to do *mental* arithmetic and how to process
the carry/borrow digits and to retain a mental running total. I never
was: I was taught how to do it on paper, with rules for
carrying/borrowing digits which I can do fine (albeit slowly and
laboriously).

You need to develop shortcuts.

5 x 13 = 50 + 15 = 65
2 x 27 = 40 + 14 or 60 - 6 = 54
65 + 54 = 110 + 9 = 119
7 x 17 = 7 x 20 - 21 or 70 + 49 = 119
119 + 119 = 120 + 120 - 2 = 238

The more you do though, the less you need the shortcuts as you begin to
recognise that 2 x 27 is 54 and similar without any intermediate stage.

I suppose it's like the standard technique for remembering lists of things
by making up a story which includes all the objects - which is find as long
as your brain can encode the list into the story and decode it back again
quickly enough when you have to look up the position of a given object.

Whenever I've tried it, my brain hasn't been sufficiently inventive to think
of the objects that will feature in the story, and to remember that story so
I can decode it again. Maybe it comes with a *lot* of practice.

The shortcuts that you mention rely on being able to see that (for example)
119 + 119 is 120+120 -2: to translate obscure numbers to a nice round
numbers, so the maths on those *and then remember what correction to need to
add/subtract afterwards*. Again, enough practice and maybe it becomes
easier. The problem is that initially doing it that way is harder than doing
it on paper, and until you overcome that initial hurdle there's no incentive
to do it the "harder-but-it-will-become-easier" way.

For some reason I never learned all those little dodges when I was at school
in the late 60s and the 70s. Not because of calculators - they either
weren't an affordable price or else were banned at school - but because we
were taught always to work it out with a pen and paper. Shame. There are
several skills that other people have which I have no comprehension of:
mental arithmetic and reversing a trailer/caravan are two that spring to
mind!

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 16:23:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

BS, as a metre is only 3 inches more than a yard.

Flight levels arent done in yards, they are done in feet
and even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should
have noticed that there are 3 feet in a yard.

and most airlines fly at around 30,000ft anyway.

But there are a number of available flight levels
at around that flight level 300 when done in feet
and far fewer when done in KM.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

I ignored all your other **** on stuff like Concorde
because its even sillier **** than this silly ****.

In article , NY
wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is flying
at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they don‘t run into each other and you need a
lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters or
10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesn‘t give enough flight levels.

I presume flight levels measured in feet and 1000 feet apart are a
worldwide standard, and that countries which measure altitude in metres
(on their altimeters) convert from the round number of feet. It would be
*very* prone to errors if air traffic control gave round numbers of
metres (and therefore non-round number of feet) when you entered "metric
airspace" because you now had to fly at a round number of metres, so I
presume it's not done like that. (But I may be wrong...)

[Snip]

Flying from Toulouse to London on an Airbus, last year, I noted that the
screens for passengers to see the route gave two versions of height &
distances. The screen simply had one follow the other.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 15/01/2019 13:21, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:20:08 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

Second year apprentice quit yesterday because he could not cope with the
dirt/dust/cold and he has not even done a proper dirty job or worked
through a cold winter.

Daughter experienced this when in a temp retail job in Scotland. The
resident staff were complaining that they had to leave the front door
open (to entice customers in) and have to get someone to help lift a
box of a shelf because it was 'heavy'. They asked her why she didn't
seem to be bothered. Her reply, 'If I wasn't doing this I would
probably be cutting up a tree in a ditch'. ;-)

Re the point, whist I'm sure electrics can be a dirty job (I've done a
bit over my life) and you are sometimes working in the cold and dark
(no CH when the power is off ) or outside fittings etc, I'm not sure
if the job is as overall physical as say plumbing or bricklaying,
plastering and especially roofing / drainage.

Poking 2.5m T&E though places is probably easier than poking 22mm
copper pipe (or even plastic) and a leak of electricity isn't likely
to make such a mess as a bad fitting on a CH circuit. ;-)


Brickies have labours fetch them their bricks and mortar.
I would say plastering and roofing is more physical than electrics.
The plumbing is probably about the same but probably cleaner unless its
a blocked toilet although I get the broken maceration wiring jobs.



--
Adam

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:48:59 UTC, ARW wrote:
Brickies have labours fetch them their bricks and mortar.
I would say plastering and roofing is more physical than electrics.
The plumbing is probably about the same but probably cleaner unless its
a blocked toilet although I get the broken maceration wiring jobs.

I suppose housebashing is comparatively cleaner and warmer than a lot of commercial and industrial work, whatever the trade.

Certainly I wouldn't want to rewire or replumb most restaurant kitchens.

Owain

In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 15/01/2019 13:21, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:20:08 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

Second year apprentice quit yesterday because he could not cope with the
dirt/dust/cold and he has not even done a proper dirty job or worked
through a cold winter.

Daughter experienced this when in a temp retail job in Scotland. The
resident staff were complaining that they had to leave the front door
open (to entice customers in) and have to get someone to help lift a
box of a shelf because it was 'heavy'. They asked her why she didn't
seem to be bothered. Her reply, 'If I wasn't doing this I would
probably be cutting up a tree in a ditch'. ;-)

Re the point, whist I'm sure electrics can be a dirty job (I've done a
bit over my life) and you are sometimes working in the cold and dark
(no CH when the power is off ) or outside fittings etc, I'm not sure
if the job is as overall physical as say plumbing or bricklaying,
plastering and especially roofing / drainage.

Poking 2.5m T&E though places is probably easier than poking 22mm
copper pipe (or even plastic) and a leak of electricity isn't likely
to make such a mess as a bad fitting on a CH circuit. ;-)


Brickies have labours fetch them their bricks and mortar.
I would say plastering and roofing is more physical than electrics.
The plumbing is probably about the same but probably cleaner unless its
a blocked toilet although I get the broken maceration wiring jobs.

I'll say that replacing a kitchen tap where the fixings have rusted up is
quite an epic. A double sink with waste disposal unit in one makes the
working space quite constricted.

Drill holes in fixing washer - four holes each needing 3 drill sizes.
Manoevering drill round pipes. Then bend said washer to get a bit of slack
in the mounting. Then use a multitool from the top to cut through the
steel mouning bolt and two copper pipes. nearly 3 hours work.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 15/01/2019 16:54, NY wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
I wish I'd been taught how to do *mental* arithmetic and how to
process the carry/borrow digits and to retain a mental running total.
I never was: I was taught how to do it on paper, with rules for
carrying/borrowing digits which I can do fine (albeit slowly and
laboriously).

You need to develop shortcuts.

5 x 13 = 50 + 15 = 65
2 x 27 = 40 + 14 or 60 - 6 = 54
65 + 54 = 110 + 9 = 119
7 x 17 = 7 x 20 - 21 or 70 + 49 = 119
119 + 119 = 120 + 120 - 2 = 238

The more you do though, the less you need the shortcuts as you begin
to recognise that 2 x 27 is 54 and similar without any intermediate
stage.

I suppose it's like the standard technique for remembering lists of
things by making up a story which includes all the objects - which is
find as long as your brain can encode the list into the story and decode
it back again quickly enough when you have to look up the position of a
given object.

Whenever I've tried it, my brain hasn't been sufficiently inventive to
think of the objects that will feature in the story, and to remember
that story so I can decode it again. Maybe it comes with a *lot* of
practice.

The shortcuts that you mention rely on being able to see that (for
example) 119 + 119 is 120+120 -2: to translate obscure numbers to a nice
round numbers, so the maths on those *and then remember what correction
to need to add/subtract afterwards*. Again, enough practice and maybe it
becomes easier. The problem is that initially doing it that way is
harder than doing it on paper, and until you overcome that initial
hurdle there's no incentive to do it the
"harder-but-it-will-become-easier" way.

For some reason I never learned all those little dodges when I was at
school in the late 60s and the 70s. Not because of calculators - they
either weren't an affordable price or else were banned at school - but
because we were taught always to work it out with a pen and paper.
Shame. There are several skills that other people have which I have no
comprehension of: mental arithmetic and reversing a trailer/caravan are
two that spring to mind!

We weren't taught shortcuts either. In my case it was simply coming up
with my own to do simple calculations when I was shopping or doing DIY,
didn't have access to a calculator or couldn't be bothered climbing down
to go and get some paper.

Reversing a caravan is easy, but a trailer can be a lot harder - the
short hitch to axle length means it turns rapidly out of line and often
trailers are too low to see, so correction comes too late. Give me a
caravan rather than a camping trailer everythime!

On the other hand, don't ask me to lay paving slabs or plaster large
areas. Definitely not my thing.

SteveW

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
On sunday I was trying to work out why they say a plane is
flying at 30,000ft (about 5.6 miles) why not use miles or km ?

Because aviation works like that. You need to specify what height
they have to fly at so they dont run into each other and you need
a lot more levels than every mile or km vertically.

So use metres, but I noticed that flight will level off at 31,000 ft
rather than 9448.8 metres. so why not just fly at 10k meters
or 10km. or perhaps 9km if they can't make 10km.

Because that doesnt give enough flight levels.

I presume flight levels measured in feet and 1000 feet apart are a
worldwide standard,

Yes they are and 1000 metres apart would give only a third of them.

and that countries which measure altitude in metres (on their altimeters)
convert from the round number of feet.

Those altimeters have dual markings. And those
planes dont fly outside their own country anyway,

It would be *very* prone to errors if air traffic control gave round
numbers of metres (and therefore non-round number of feet) when you
entered "metric airspace"

No such animal.

because you now had to fly at a round number of metres, so I presume it's
not done like that.

Correct.

(But I may be wrong...)

No you arent.

Its a bit like the language used. It sposed to be universally english
but in the wilds of Tadzhikistan etc they dont bother with that.

I did notice on a little turboprop plane that took me from Schipol to a
small airport (Paderborn) in Germany that the pilot announced (in German)
"we will be flying at 5000 m" or whatever (he certainly mentioned "hoch"
(height) and "four-and-twenty-blackbirds" style German numbers and
"metres"). But I presume he was still flying at a round number of
thousands of feet, which he rounded to the nearest whole number of metres
for the benefit of the passengers.

Correct.

I wonder if the world will ever redefine airspace to use metres (maybe
have flight levels ever 300 m which is *roughly* 1000 feet),

Unlikely because its much harder to say. Flight level 10.3 doesnt work.

since metres are the international scientific/engineering standard. I
suppose they won't change unless the advantage of doing so outweighed the
problems during transition.

And there is no advantage in doing that. Flight Level 320 is just a unitless
number.

Do air-traffic control throughout the world specific air-pressure settings
(*) in inches of mercury,

No, only the USA and Canada.

or do metric-speaking countries use mmHg or millibars?

Yes, and altimeters display both so you can set using either.

But with light aircraft, particularly when flying outside air
traffic control just set the height to the height of the airport
while still on the ground before takeoff so no pressure involved.

(*) For calibrating the altimeter to today's sea-level air pressure, so
the altimeter reads a consistent height above ground irrespective of
changes in air pressure.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
I wish I'd been taught how to do *mental* arithmetic and how to process
the carry/borrow digits and to retain a mental running total. I never
was: I was taught how to do it on paper, with rules for
carrying/borrowing digits which I can do fine (albeit slowly and
laboriously).

You need to develop shortcuts.

5 x 13 = 50 + 15 = 65
2 x 27 = 40 + 14 or 60 - 6 = 54
65 + 54 = 110 + 9 = 119
7 x 17 = 7 x 20 - 21 or 70 + 49 = 119
119 + 119 = 120 + 120 - 2 = 238

The more you do though, the less you need the shortcuts as you begin to
recognise that 2 x 27 is 54 and similar without any intermediate stage.

I suppose it's like the standard technique for remembering lists of things
by making up a story which includes all the objects - which is find as
long as your brain can encode the list into the story and decode it back
again quickly enough when you have to look up the position of a given
object.

Whenever I've tried it, my brain hasn't been sufficiently inventive to
think of the objects that will feature in the story, and to remember that
story so I can decode it again. Maybe it comes with a *lot* of practice.

The shortcuts that you mention rely on being able to see that (for
example) 119 + 119 is 120+120 -2: to translate obscure numbers to a nice
round numbers, so the maths on those *and then remember what correction to
need to add/subtract afterwards*. Again, enough practice and maybe it
becomes easier. The problem is that initially doing it that way is harder
than doing it on paper, and until you overcome that initial hurdle there's
no incentive to do it the "harder-but-it-will-become-easier" way.

For some reason I never learned all those little dodges when I was at
school in the late 60s and the 70s. Not because of calculators - they
either weren't an affordable price or else were banned at school - but
because we were taught always to work it out with a pen and paper. Shame.
There are several skills that other people have which I have no
comprehension of: mental arithmetic and reversing a trailer/caravan are
two that spring to mind!

Just been trying to find a new car that will actually run the fancy cruise
control at a level above the current speed limit that you specify, and
automatically slow down in towns on rural roads and speed up again
as you leave them and discover when reading owners manuals that
the VW Golf reversing camera does actually help you when backing
a trailer/caravan.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Just been trying to find a new car that will actually run the fancy cruise
control at a level above the current speed limit that you specify, and
automatically slow down in towns on rural roads and speed up again
as you leave them

You mean, it *automatically* overrides the value that you have set
(presumably using GPS) when you enter a part of the road that has a lower
limit. That's clever.

Ours (Honda CRV) allows you to exceed the cruise level (if you press the
accelerator when you need to overtake) and then returns to the set level.
That only works with cruise control, not with speed limiter.

For some reason, the cruise control only works for speeds of 30 mph or
higher, so you have to set the limiter rather than cruise control when you
need to keep to a 20 limit. Not a problem, but I get so used to using CC for
other limits that it catches me out for a 20 limit. Maybe they want you to
remain in more immediate control of the speed (using the accelerator) at low
speeds, rather than doing so by clicking CC off if you need to slow down.

and discover when reading owners manuals that
the VW Golf reversing camera does actually help you when backing
a trailer/caravan.

When my parents had a caravan (early to mid 70s) reversing cameras weren't
an option. The only way of seeing what was behind was extensions to the
wing/door mirrors and a periscope that looked through the front and rear
windows of the caravan and displayed its image near the normal rear-view
mirror.

My dad had to take himself off with the caravan and find a bit of open
ground (maybe a deserted makeshift car park on the site of a demolished
building) to practice reversing. He got pretty damn good at it, manoeuvring
backwards through a narrow street in Sedburgh (IIRC) when an oncoming lorry
(which should have given way to him) refused to reverse. Dad had almost
finished when a policeman arrived and "booked" the lorry driver for
contravening road regulations (priority to oncoming traffic sign) - shame he
wasn't there a few moments earlier!

I went an an advanced driving course which included reversing a caravan and
driving on a skid pan. I was fine on the skid pan, but I was the only person
in the group who failed spectacularly to reverse the caravan even in a
straight line, let along around a corner. The course tutor said some people
never manage to master it. He tested me by standing me in front of a mirror
and getting me to try to touch his hand which was behind my head so I could
only see it through the mirror; the fact that I found that difficult went
hand-in-hand with the fact I found reversing an articulated vehicle
difficult, he said.

Mind you, I manage parallel parking without any problem - as long as I have
the mirror on the kerb side of the car pointing downwards so I can see how
close my back wheel is to the kerb and so know when to start to turn -
fortunately the Honda automatically drops the passenger door mirror when you
go into reverse (which can be turned off if you want), and normally you park
facing in the direction of the traffic so it is the passenger side which is
close to the kerb.