On Sep 8, 11:14*pm, notbob wrote:
On 2009-09-09, Lew Hodgett wrote:

So how do they get in?

Well, they don't actually stop them, they just "frown" a lot.. *

nb

And we write angry letters and speak loudly sometimes.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote in message
In the times that I use metric and inches I just "round" 25 mm to the
inch,
4" ~ 100mm.
1/2 inch ~ 12.5 mm or 6 1/2 mm
1/4 inch ~ 6.25mm or 6 1/4 mm
1/8 inch ~ 3.125mm or 3 1/8 mm

When you get down to it as far as I'm concerned, it's all what sounds
better. I've got to tell you, 75° F sounds a whole lot warmer than 24°C.
The
older I get, the colder it seems to get.



LOL, Move down to Houston. 24 sounds a lot cooler than 75. 98 is HOT.

"Robatoy" wrote:

Can you think of a more porous border?

Guess that depends on location.

Lew

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-09, Leon wrote:

replied with what is half of 5.3mm. YOU gave the answer but tried with
out
success to show me a ruler with that marking.

That's because NO ONE! makes a RULE in that small a graduation, in
either Imperial or Metric. They don't make it cuz no one can use it!!
There are other measuring instruments that can easily make that
measurement in metric. What don't you understand?

nb

I see you now understand my point, the answer to why we still use fractions
of an inch originated by the OP. I have a couple of Bridge City rules that
are in 64 th graduations. Half way between those graduations is 128 ths of
an inch. That measurement is much easier to mark than 2.65 mm. Thanks for
helping me better understand why I perfer fractions of an inch over metric
measurements. Apparently you need much more sufisticated measuring devices
than a rule to measure sizes smaller than 1 mm. 1/64" is easily marked with
a rule.

"Luigi Zanasi" wrote in message
...


Sorry Leon, but I can say "three mils" faster than you can say "three
sixteenths. :-)


You got me!

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:45:15 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

Yabbut.. is a 'mil' a millimeter?


Nah. It's a tenth of a percent on my property taxes.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 05:32:40 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Well, I think it is pretty complicated stuff to move from Imperial to
metric. Here's one small example.

I used to work for Oregon DOT (retired now). While I was with ODOT,
there were 2 times where we and other DOT's were mandated by the
Federal government to move from Imperial to metric with respect to our
construction projects - which effectively meant for all our work.

All standards for measurements, materials, legal documents, etc, were
to be changed to use the metric system.

The first time, the mandate was rescinded before we completed the
change. This was part of the effort that was going to switch the
entire US system to metric, but was abandoned before it really got
going. Making that kind of switch would pay in the long run, but short
term it is difficult.

The second time, the mandate was for DOT's and I imagine other related
agencies. The mandate started out, um, mandatory but was made optional
before we completed the change... ODOT went ahead and finished that
work and became "metrified". We maintained our work in metric for
several years. It took several years to make that transition, you
can't believe the amount of things that have to be redone. I believe a
few other state DOT's did the same, but most DOT's never completed the
change to metric.

This was not popular with contractors. All work and materials they did
for us had to also be in metric, , but for anything else they would
use Imperial. I am sure that was awkward and increased overhead costs.

Eventually the contractors lobbied the legislature and, I assume, the
Governor's office, to switch back to Imperial. Which we did.

As I understand it, all the DOT's that made the changeover to metric
eventually switched back. Not because the DOT wanted to change;
changing such standards is an exhaustive and expensive process. They
changed because of outside (read: political) pressure.

Jim Weisgram wrote:
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Well, I think it is pretty complicated stuff to move from Imperial to metric.

The easiest way would be to repeal the laws that forbid voluntary full
metrication and trade in metric only products.

For example, the FPLA is a Federal law covers packaged goods that you
see in the supermarket. It mandates non-metric units on the label. A
two liter bottle with a label that says "2 L" is legal in all
countries except the USA. There is a proposal to change the FPLA. Many
manufacturers want the freedom to offer metric-only labels (as you can
see with wine and liquor) and don't want to pay the costs of
relabeling just for the US.

Many Americans are unaware that non-metric units are mandatory.

"pat" wrote in message
The easiest way would be to repeal the laws that forbid voluntary full
metrication and trade in metric only products.

For example, the FPLA is a Federal law covers packaged goods that you
see in the supermarket. It mandates non-metric units on the label. A
two liter bottle with a label that says "2 L" is legal in all
countries except the USA.

Many Americans are unaware that non-metric units are mandatory.

You bring up a good point. Let's face it, only Congress would know what is
best for us. We should do as the say.

"Leon" wrote in
:

Well fractions can be tough to recognize as a specific amount. In
school I studied Mechanical and Archetectural drafting

You got me there! I was going in a different direction, and nothing like
any kind of drafting was offered in my schools

with a scale,
no pocket calculators or computers back then. Fractions became second
nature.




--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Leon" wrote in
:

I see you now understand my point, the answer to why we still use
fractions of an inch originated by the OP. I have a couple of Bridge
City rules that are in 64 th graduations. Half way between those
graduations is 128 ths of an inch. That measurement is much easier to
mark than 2.65 mm. Thanks for helping me better understand why I
perfer fractions of an inch over metric measurements. Apparently you
need much more sufisticated measuring devices than a rule to measure
sizes smaller than 1 mm. 1/64" is easily marked with a rule.


Leon, that is a good description of the need for finer graduations on your
metric rulers. Has nothing to do with whether metric or US measurements
are more convenient (except, what you're used to fits best, of course!).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy wrote in
:

On Sep 8, 9:51*pm, Han wrote:
notbob wrote

bob.com:

On 2009-09-09, Upscale wrote:

has been invading most everything. That is, except for the food
that we export up from the US. And, considering that 90% of our
food comes from the US, it's a wonder we don't all starve deciding
how to allocated all those pounds and quarts of food.

We're bound to go metric pretty soon. *After all, isn't Mexico on
the metric system. *

nb *

Metric or not, a pound is half a kilo, an ounce is 100 g or 1/1 a
kilo.
*At
least when I was a child. *I think now they are getting confused ...
*Must
be because of the € ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Een ons vlees. was 100 gram/ 500 gram 'een pond'.
Indeed

My grandfather always talked about 'duim' (thumb)..I guess about an
inch.
Yes, that was very, very old-fashioned/obsolete when I was a kid

At our house in The Netherlands, the indoor temp was always in degrees
F.
Well, we had dual scales on the thermometer (or was it triple, with
Reaumur sp? too)

Everything else was metric.
Everything was always metric.


a 100mm x 100mm x100mm cube of water weighs 1 KG and is one liter. (At
max density 4C)
Makethat 1 dm cubed.

I had one "uncle" (neighbor from way back) who still used degrees F in
his thinking. But he was the only one, and that was in the late forties
as I recall. His house is to be demolished now, next to the old KRO
studios in Hlversum, to make way for an apartment building.

And there was this childrens story about birds dropping dead off the
telegraph wires because it was over 100 in the shade (in Holland!!??)

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"pat" wrote in message
The easiest way would be to repeal the laws that forbid voluntary
full metrication and trade in metric only products.

For example, the FPLA is a Federal law covers packaged goods that you
see in the supermarket. It mandates non-metric units on the label. A
two liter bottle with a label that says "2 L" is legal in all
countries except the USA.

Many Americans are unaware that non-metric units are mandatory.

You bring up a good point. Let's face it, only Congress would know
what is best for us. We should do as the say.

Ed, you are as confused as most Americans. Except the lobbyists. They
know everything much better.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Oh, I think the US has adopted the metric system more than we realize,
given the success of the 9mm bullet.
(Call me old-fashioned, but I still prefer the .45.)

I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson was initially responsible for
rejection of the metric system. He wanted the meter to be the length
of a pendulum with a period of one second at sea level.

Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:

dpb wrote:

Robatoy wrote:

...

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with
an archaic system?

Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive
to the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some
bizarre French system crammed down its throat.

Amen.



Yeah, the US would much rather hold out for some stupidly bizarre
measurement that had to do with the distance from the nose to the
thumb of some long dead English king.

It's only stupidly bizarre to those who didn't grow up with it. And it goes
back to Rome or earlier, not to "some long dead English king".

Bizarre French system? Talk about your basic unadulterated
horse****... downright bizarre, if you ask me.

It's not bizarre only if you grew up with it.

LOL... sometimes I think the stuff here is akin to really poorly done
comedy.

Perhaps I shoud have used a smiley?

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to
the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre
French system
crammed down its throat.

So instead of getting paid in dollars and cents should we change to a
system of farthings, shillings, or ringgits?

Why should we change _anything_?

Much of our country happily works with metric every day and have for
decades. Those people don't look any worse for wear.

Are they the majority? If not then what right do they have to impose their
system on the majority?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:

dpb wrote:

Robatoy wrote:

...

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with
an archaic system?

Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive
to the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some
bizarre French system crammed down its throat.

Amen.



Yeah, the US would much rather hold out for some stupidly bizarre
measurement that had to do with the distance from the nose to the
thumb of some long dead English king.

It's only stupidly bizarre to those who didn't grow up with it. And it
goes
back to Rome or earlier, not to "some long dead English king".


I think the yard as we know it dates back to Henry I of England. And I
*did* grow up with it. I'm kind of ****ed about that. It is a stupid
system, regardless of how I can relate to it.

Bizarre French system? Talk about your basic unadulterated
horse****... downright bizarre, if you ask me.

It's not bizarre only if you grew up with it.

It isn't bizarre... it's based on science. I should have grown up with it
as opposed to having it as a sideline. The majority of manufacturing and
packaging is done with metric... why is my country so stinking backwards it
can't (or more accurately, won't) teach it (effectively) in schools?

Yes it's *my* country, but I really wonder about it sometimes.

Ed

"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
It isn't bizarre... it's based on science. I should have grown up with
it as opposed to having it as a sideline. The majority of manufacturing
and packaging is done with metric... why is my country so stinking
backwards it can't (or more accurately, won't) teach it (effectively) in
schools?

Yes it's *my* country, but I really wonder about it sometimes.

Ed

Because time and time again the cost of migrating has been shown to
outweigh the benefits?


It will happen over time when it becomes cost effective.

The mill I work for, produces hundreds of thousands of parts a day
made from southern pine, the buyers dimensions and specs and final
inspections
are in millimeters and all the buyers reps use metric in any discussions.

It was far easier and cheaper to adopt metric measurements than constantly
make conversions and add another place in the system for errors.

basilisk

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote in
:

I see you now understand my point, the answer to why we still use
fractions of an inch originated by the OP. I have a couple of Bridge
City rules that are in 64 th graduations. Half way between those
graduations is 128 ths of an inch. That measurement is much easier to
mark than 2.65 mm. Thanks for helping me better understand why I
perfer fractions of an inch over metric measurements. Apparently you
need much more sufisticated measuring devices than a rule to measure
sizes smaller than 1 mm. 1/64" is easily marked with a rule.


Leon, that is a good description of the need for finer graduations on your
metric rulers. Has nothing to do with whether metric or US measurements
are more convenient (except, what you're used to fits best, of course!).

Perhaps if the metric measurement were more widely used in th US we would
see rules with finer graduations.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"pat" wrote in message
The easiest way would be to repeal the laws that forbid voluntary
full metrication and trade in metric only products.

For example, the FPLA is a Federal law covers packaged goods that you
see in the supermarket. It mandates non-metric units on the label. A
two liter bottle with a label that says "2 L" is legal in all
countries except the USA.

Many Americans are unaware that non-metric units are mandatory.

You bring up a good point. Let's face it, only Congress would know
what is best for us. We should do as the say.

Uh, Ed, I don't see how requiring "2L (2.1 QT)" instead of just "2L" or just
"2.1 QT" is an example of "only Congress would know what is best for us".

wrote:
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Oh, I think the US has adopted the metric system more than we realize,
given the success of the 9mm bullet.
(Call me old-fashioned, but I still prefer the .45.)

Uh, 9mm is just .38 caliber misspelled.

I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson was initially responsible for
rejection of the metric system. He wanted the meter to be the length
of a pendulum with a period of one second at sea level.

Ed Edelenbos wrote:
It isn't bizarre... it's based on science. I should have grown up with
it as opposed to having it as a sideline. The majority of manufacturing
and packaging is done with metric... why is my country so stinking
backwards it can't (or more accurately, won't) teach it (effectively) in
schools?

Yes it's *my* country, but I really wonder about it sometimes.

Ed

Because time and time again the cost of migrating has been shown to outweigh the benefits?

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 2009-09-09, Leon wrote:

I see you now understand my point......

of an inch originated by the OP. I have a couple of Bridge City rules that
are in 64 th graduations. Half way between those graduations is 128 ths of
an inch.

And just what do you use them for, Leon? Measuring freeze blocks
and step stringers. I'm a machinist and seldom use them for measuring
anything, certainly not 1/128".

You have no point. You just want to argue.

nb

Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:

dpb wrote:

Robatoy wrote:

...

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with
an archaic system?

Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive
to the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some
bizarre French system crammed down its throat.

Amen.



Yeah, the US would much rather hold out for some stupidly bizarre
measurement that had to do with the distance from the nose to the
thumb of some long dead English king.

It's only stupidly bizarre to those who didn't grow up with it. And
it goes
back to Rome or earlier, not to "some long dead English king".


I think the yard as we know it dates back to Henry I of England. And
I *did* grow up with it. I'm kind of ****ed about that. It is a
stupid system, regardless of how I can relate to it.

Bizarre French system? Talk about your basic unadulterated
horse****... downright bizarre, if you ask me.

It's not bizarre only if you grew up with it.

It isn't bizarre... it's based on science.

On what "science" is it based? What research was conducted to show that the
units selected for the Metric system were of greater utility than other
units?

I should have grown up
with it as opposed to having it as a sideline. The majority of
manufacturing and packaging is done with metric... why is my country
so stinking backwards it can't (or more accurately, won't) teach it
(effectively) in schools?

Yes it's *my* country, but I really wonder about it sometimes.

Interesting--on the one hand you say that the US is backward and doesn't
teach it, but on the other, you say that it's used in the majority of
manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and packagers
figure it out?

In any case, I learned it in school and never really found a reason to use
it in everyday life. It's just some silly system that some silly people
made up.

Leon wrote:
"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-08, Leon wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
It's 2.65mm.

Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
gradeschool math.

nb

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indicate
that distance.


OMG Leon. Everybody knows that .5mm = 1RCH.

Or at least now everybody knows.

yr hmbl numerologist,
jo4hn

On 2009-09-09, J. Clarke wrote:

manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and packagers
figure it out?

They actually use their brains to THINK, a simple function of higher
animals that seems to be rapidly falling out of favor.

nb

On Sep 8, 10:34*am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.

How could I forget RCHs???? That is the only relevant and important
measurement in wooddorking. The rest just has to fit, how long or wide
or deep doesn't need to be expressed in any kind of system.

On Sep 9, 12:47*pm, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 8, 10:34*am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.

How could I forget RCHs???? That is the only relevant and important
measurement in wooddorking. The rest just has to fit, how long or wide
or deep doesn't need to be expressed in any kind of system.

Two systems there too. R = Red or R= Royal.

On Sep 9, 12:00*pm, jo4hn wrote:
Leon wrote:
"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-08, Leon wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
It's 2.65mm.

Jaysus! *If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
gradeschool math.

nb

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indicate
that distance.

OMG Leon. *Everybody knows that .5mm = 1RCH.

Or at least now everybody knows.

* * * * yr hmbl numerologist,
* * * * jo4hn

Ah yes, the Pubic Scale.Then there are the Smidges, Tiches, Tads.

On 09/09/2009 09:42 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

On what "science" is it based? What research was conducted to show that the
units selected for the Metric system were of greater utility than other
units?

I suspect none. However, it was invented by scientists who tried to
come up with logical and practical standard units.

On the other hand, having used both it is much easier to carry out unit
conversions with the metric system. Certain physical constants work out
nicely in metric:

-a liter of water masses almost exactly 1kg
-the force due to gravity on earth of 1kg is very close to 10 newtons
-a 1 meter pendulum has a period of very close to 2 seconds
-standard atospheric pressure is very close to 100 kPa
-speed of light in vacuum is very close to 3x10^8 m/s


I do find it interesting that since 1893 the inch and pound are actually
defined in terms of metric values. Thus, an inch is defined as 25.4mm,
while the pound is defined as 0.45359237 kilogram.

Chris

On Sep 9, 7:18*am, Han wrote:
Robatoy wrote :





On Sep 8, 9:51*pm, Han wrote:
notbob wrote

bob.com:

On 2009-09-09, Upscale wrote:

has been invading most everything. That is, except for the food
that we export up from the US. And, considering that 90% of our
food comes from the US, it's a wonder we don't all starve deciding
how to allocated all those pounds and quarts of food.

We're bound to go metric pretty soon. *After all, isn't Mexico on
the metric system. *

nb *

Metric or not, a pound is half a kilo, an ounce is 100 g or 1/1 a
kilo.
*At
least when I was a child. *I think now they are getting confused ...
*Must
be because of the € ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Een ons vlees. was 100 gram/ 500 gram 'een pond'.

Indeed

*My grandfather always talked about 'duim' (thumb)..I guess about an
inch.

Yes, that was very, very old-fashioned/obsolete when I was a kid

At our house in The Netherlands, the indoor temp was always in degrees
F.

Well, we had dual scales on the thermometer (or was it triple, with
Reaumur sp? too)

Everything else was metric.

Everything was always metric.



a 100mm x 100mm x100mm cube of water weighs 1 KG and is one liter. (At
max density 4C)

Makethat 1 dm cubed.

mm's are confusing enough. dm's are WAY over the top. G

Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 8, 10:34 am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.

How could I forget RCHs???? That is the only relevant and important
measurement in wooddorking. The rest just has to fit, how long or wide
or deep doesn't need to be expressed in any kind of system.

My hat's off to the man who first discovered that a RCH could be used as a system of
measurement. I'd like to shake his hand (after he washes it first).

--
Repeat after me:
"I am we Todd it. I am sofa king we Todd it."
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 09/08/2009 08:10 PM, Robatoy wrote:

a 100mm x 100mm x100mm cube of water weighs 1 KG and is one liter. (At
max density 4C)

Technically a liter of water isn't _exactly_ 1kg. But it's awfully close.

Chris

On 9/8/2009 6:27 PM Puckdropper spake thus:

Morris Dovey wrote in :

Leon wrote:

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.

Really? What is the metric unit for weight?

Just yankin your chain. ;~)

Bakatcha

Newtons. But no one uses Newtons (except certain PDA users). Mass is
usually confused for weight. Just wait until we find life on other
planets and go there, just wait!

We'll probably be using a different measuring system by then. :-)

I know there's a certain amount of chain-yanking going on here, and that
I myself am contributing to it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that this
distinction here between weight and mass is a bunch of irrelevant
nitpicking by pointy-headed scientist types. To *most* human critters on
the planet, they're the same thing, practically speaking. Sheesh.

Who cares how much a bucket of cement weighs on the planet Snorlax?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 9/9/2009 9:58 AM Steve Turner spake thus:

Luigi Zanasi wrote:

On Sep 8, 10:34 am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.

How could I forget RCHs???? That is the only relevant and important
measurement in wooddorking. The rest just has to fit, how long or wide
or deep doesn't need to be expressed in any kind of system.

My hat's off to the man who first discovered that a RCH could be used as a system of
measurement. I'd like to shake his hand (after he washes it first).

Please pardon my ignorance: what's an RCH? All Google gives is
"Recognised Clearing Houses" (using define:rch).


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 2009-09-09, David Nebenzahl wrote:

Please pardon my ignorance: what's an RCH? All Google gives is
"Recognised Clearing Houses" (using define:rch).

Heh heh....

I almost got caught, too. Try googling for rch unit of measure.

nb

On 9/9/2009 11:10 AM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

Please pardon my ignorance: what's an RCH? All Google gives is
"Recognised Clearing Houses" (using define:rch).

Aaargh; never mind. Wikipedia provided the answer. (I guess it's good
for *something* after all.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On Sep 9, 2:07*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 9/8/2009 6:27 PM Puckdropper spake thus:





Morris Dovey wrote :

Leon wrote:

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.

Really? What is the metric unit for weight?

Just yankin your chain. *;~)

Bakatcha

Newtons. *But no one uses Newtons (except certain PDA users). *Mass is
usually confused for weight. *Just wait until we find life on other
planets and go there, just wait!

We'll probably be using a different measuring system by then. :-)

I know there's a certain amount of chain-yanking going on here, and that
I myself am contributing to it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that this
distinction here between weight and mass is a bunch of irrelevant
nitpicking by pointy-headed scientist types. To *most* human critters on
the planet, they're the same thing, practically speaking. Sheesh.

Who cares how much a bucket of cement weighs on the planet Snorlax?

A: 1123 fnorgs.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 9/8/2009 6:27 PM Puckdropper spake thus:

Morris Dovey wrote in :

Leon wrote:

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.

Really? What is the metric unit for weight?

Just yankin your chain. ;~)

Bakatcha

Newtons. But no one uses Newtons (except certain PDA users). Mass is
usually confused for weight. Just wait until we find life on other
planets and go there, just wait!

We'll probably be using a different measuring system by then. :-)

I know there's a certain amount of chain-yanking going on here, and that I
myself am contributing to it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that this
distinction here between weight and mass is a bunch of irrelevant
nitpicking by pointy-headed scientist types. To *most* human critters on
the planet, they're the same thing, practically speaking. Sheesh.

Who cares how much a bucket of cement weighs on the planet Snorlax?

a snorlaxian?

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-09, Leon wrote:

I see you now understand my point......

of an inch originated by the OP. I have a couple of Bridge City rules
that
are in 64 th graduations. Half way between those graduations is 128 ths
of
an inch.

And just what do you use them for, Leon? Measuring freeze blocks
and step stringers. I'm a machinist and seldom use them for measuring
anything, certainly not 1/128".

You have no point. You just want to argue.

nb

I am sorry to have troubled you notbob. Clearly you shoud refrain from
answering my questions as they seem to throw you into a tizzy.