Japanese sedans

They finally recalled and redesigned that little clip that always
breaks. VW has a long history of building great cars and then
forgetting one little detail.

nate

 

I looked at the site and I read one of the articles on the website "Let's
not go metric".

The more interesting-sounding one, Twelve and Ten:The Case Against the
System of Decimalization
could not be opened -- 'file damaged' error msg.

Firstly I note you have followed the society in using a made-up word
"dozenal". Nothing wrong with that if you can persuade the rest of the
world to use it...

The article in question looks as though it was written some time ago and,
even if it wasn't, manages, in my opinion, to exaggerate and to omit; it is
self-serving after all, let's be clear about that.

Just two examples:-

It is true that in some countries the pound (weight) is used, but it is
clearly derived from the metric kg and to claim otherwise is misleading.
The 500-g pound is half a kg, not any relation to the 453-g Imperial lb.

It is true that many engineering measurements are derived from Imperial.
Not surprising since the Industrial Revolution began in Britain. But you
try screwing an Imperial quarter-inch nut on a metric 6 mm screw!
Related: Try giving an engineering drawing in Imperial to any European
engineer. With what is he/she going to measure the rooms? A measuring tape
imported from the United States or UK? Yes, in Germany there are still
references to a Zollstock (an inch-stick or ruler) but it's only
metaphorical.

There were many units/measures in Europe, which are still found in the
languages. The old French sous is one (20 old centimes, a fifth of a franc,
IIRC) But that doesn't mean it passes an So What? test.

Metric rules (outside the USA), ok?

DAS

 

not going to happen in my lifetime.

what countries? i can't think of more than one country that still uses
the archaic pound. the rest of the world has moved on.

is it actually possible that there's an engineering drawing made
anywhere in the world in anything but the ISO system? including the
USA?

use rot13 on

to find me

 

I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing with his calculator.

Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
of .2 meters square.

 

Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".

What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager simply didn't
open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.

 

Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3 m, and
0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").

Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"

 

Misunderstandings. In linear measurements:

0.2 meters figures to 7.87 inches (agreed)
30.0 centimeters figures to 11.811 inches (not 1 foot)
(double check this at http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/EASYlength.html )

30.48 centimeters equals 12 inches.

Radio Shack stock intact. ;^)

--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

 

No need to verify anything, I posted the conversion factor I was using
and you agree that 0.2 meters = 7.87" plus 12" = 30.48 cm.

I understand all that, but you posted:

12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.

The way I read that is 12" equals 0.30 meters (which is false) equals
30.48 cm (also false) = 12". It's a given that 12" = 12 inches, but the
middle stuff is not right.

Still time to reconsider

 

People! Who cares what the true conversion was. The point was
they couldn't figure it out and I couldn't get a mental picture of
size, using metric. I ended up buying a large piece bigger than I
needed from a different package. If the manufacturer did their
job for the consumer, they should have put both on the package,
anyway the people in the store still think .2 meters = 12" and who
cares? It just shows that metric (for some people) is like listening to
latin.

 

It should be a no brainer coming from the English measure to figure 12"
is a 1/3 of a foot and that since a meter is (roughly) 39" that 12" is
going to be at least a 1/3rd of a meter (0.3 sumthin').... not a quarter
(0.2 sumthin'). Duh. How's that for gymnastics? LOL


"They" should be drummed out of office who forced the metric system on
ANY endeavor outside of medical laboratories and possibly the tooling
industry. You might recall one unmanned Mars landing resulted in a
crash because of a software failure to convert measurement systems. But
I digress.

Also, Top posting sucks, so I moved you to your rightful location in the
established continuum. So there. Nya! ;^)
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

 

PARDON ME..... correction: 12" is a 1/3 of a *yard*. Must proof read
better with this thread. ;^)

--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

 

It's a simpler word than "duodecimal" and also signifies twelve as a
sacrosanct cardinal rather than pandering to ten ("duodecimal"
pertains to two upon ten).

Metric isn't the problem; decimalization (kind of) is. Now
personally, I don't have any problems working in base ten; one of
the strongest cases given for switching to base twelve is the fact
that it is neatly divisible by three and therefore reflects the real
world more accurately (idem the "awkwardness" of working with five
in base twelve). However, given that [ten]^n / 3 MOD [ten] = 1 where
n>0, and [ten]^n / 3 always yields 3[...].3 recurring, it isn't that
hard to handle threes in decimal base. Plus, decimal makes fives a
breeze (fancy 0.2497249724972497... in base twelve? Neither
decimal nor dozenal make sevens any easier to work with; 1/7 is a
full period prime in both bases, although the dozenal fraction
0.186T35 makes drawing a hexagram freehand on a "clockface" circular
diagram a whole lot easier, for what that's worth. :}

All in all, while a dozenal metric system could arguably be
considered "easier" and more convenient and suitable for everyday
use, it is much tougher to make a concrete case for actually
wholeheartedly converting to it from our current decimal system.
Otoh, maybe people could get used to using both side by side...

 

If you want to debate top posting over bottom posting, I'm game.
Bottom posting is lazy. As I read through the posts I'm able to remember
what was said in the previous post, I don't need to scroll through it again and again.
Time. the new stuff's at the top. If you look through google you will get to see
the real 'meat' of the posts rather than the same stuff over and over.

 

Where's my Pyramid "inch" and "cubit?"
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

 

I bought this *kewl* hand held converter from Radio Shack. Does volume,
weight, length, area, temperature, square and cubic conversions. It
*also* does decimal to fraction and back conversions. Limited to 8
digits left of the decimal and 7 to the right of the decimal. :^) Only
$9.
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

 

Top posting is "lazy" because in most news readers, the cursor defaults
to the top. Some readers have a switch to automatically place the cursor
at the end of all quoted text. Bottom posting also *encourages* readers
to trim the oldest quotes before scrolling down as the oldest quotes
become tedious and or repetitive. PERSONALLY, I've come to a neutral
place. If the existing top or bottom format already exists, then I just
continue in that format. The *pogo-posters* are the real *lazy* ones.
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

 

What's that supposed to mean?

That's exactly what I said. My problem is with:

"12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches" (from your original post).

12" \= 0.30 meters, nor does 0.30 meters = 30.48 cm. 12" = 12 inches, no
argument here.

 

Oh, please, not again!!!

 

Oh the "delightful" vagaries of mathematical shorthand not carried out
suffiently past the decimal point. ;^) Is this thread dead now?
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

 

I immediately posted a correction for my proof reading oversight.

Replace "foot" with "yard."
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)