|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 15 2012 14:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: ...hard to visualize without conversion
seems like imperial units have a more severe problem with it for several reasons:
1. scale of units are not even. 1 mile = 1760 yards = 5280 feet for a ratio of 1.7k then 3
this means that scale problems are more severe for imperial systems as there is more space between some of the more spaced out intervals of units. this is especially true when people tend to use either mile or feet. seriously
in contrast, metric is more evenly spaced out, and it plays nice with exponentials.
2. arcane conversion scales for imperial. this makes conversion much harder and you are stuck in a particular zoom level. whereas metrics can just move a decimal place.
so your move of ruling out conversion is in fact illegal here because it fails to recognize the much easier time metrics has with conversions, as well as the smaller frequency of scaling problems requiringconversion in the metric system.
|
On October 15 2012 14:56 jidolboy wrote:
I use metric but what I dont get is
WHY THE FUCK DOES MOST CANADIANS USE FUCKING IMPERIALS???
I understand it's preference but I mean this is Canada but at least know your shit in metric where it is the STANDARD units in Canada. My friends and all the people I talk to use pounds and foot/inches for their weights and heights. Fucking annoying to convert them to cm and kg since I need to record them for reports.But even worse, whenever I ask them why they dont use fahrenheit, their response is this "We aint American yo" -_-
=p same reason the UK uses imperial, just because you change in what the 70's i forget when canada adopted it, but just because you make the official change doesn't force every industry to comply and force everyone to forget what they have been using all their lives.
People in this thread seem to block their empathy with smugness very well.
|
On October 15 2012 15:03 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 14:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: ...hard to visualize without conversion seems like imperial units have a more severe problem with it for several reasons: 1. scale of units are not even. 1 mile = 1760 yards = 5280 feet for a ratio of 1.7k then 3 this means that scale problems are more severe for imperial systems as there is more space between some of the more spaced out intervals of units. this is especially true when people tend to use either mile or feet. seriously in contrast, metric is more evenly spaced out, and it plays nice with exponentials. 2. arcane conversion scales for imperial. this makes conversion much harder and you are stuck in a particular zoom level. whereas metrics can just move a decimal place. so your move of ruling out conversion is in fact illegal here because it fails to recognize the much easier time metrics has with conversions, as well as the smaller frequency of scaling problems requiringconversion in the metric system.
I'm not sure why you're quoting me/ telling me this o.O
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
......ok back to sleep for me. read your own argument sometimes.
|
2. Standard units are more practical and convenient. No one goes to the grocery to buy 400ml drink, instead, they buy it in 12 ounces. No one buys 5 meters of wood, instead, they buy it is 1x1x12, all in feet.
No, but I do go to the store to get 1 liter milk, half a liter of soda or a 250ml can. Also I'm quite sure that in Norway atleast we use meters for wood, but I'm not a big consumer of planks and such so.. I could be remembering incorrectly.
|
Why is no one bring up time?
I brought it up last page but you guys keep going for some reason?
We all use a funky system of measurement for the year. Can we all be friends?
|
On October 15 2012 15:06 oneofthem wrote:
......ok back to sleep for me. read your own argument sometimes.
You: You can visualize any large quantity of small metric units, but not any large quantity of small imperial units.
Me: Actually, you'll be converting to larger units in both situations, so they'll both be possible to visualize.
You: YEAH BUT METRIC IS EASIER!
Me: I know that. I've been posting that in this thread long before you posted your remark. That's irrelevant.
You: Ha!
...
Good night.
|
Actually that "the rest of the world vs USA" argument is inaccurate.
Along with the USA, the imperial system is used in
- Liberia
- Myanmar
I wonder who's going to be the last to change over?
|
On October 15 2012 15:11 Medrea wrote:
Why is no one bring up time?
I brought it up last page but you guys keep going for some reason?
We all use a funky system of measurement for the year. Can we all be friends?
Same interest. What are your suggestions?
|
On October 15 2012 15:11 Medrea wrote:
Why is no one bring up time?
I brought it up last page but you guys keep going for some reason?
We all use a funky system of measurement for the year. Can we all be friends?
Ancient (e.g. Babylonian) number systems often used base 60 (which is where we get 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a circle, etc.) because 60 is evenly divisible in many, many ways (many different factors and a large prime factorization). It made doing geometry and fractions and other primitive math very easy to do.
Also, 365(.24) days in a year is almost 360  Not sure if 24 hours in a day comes from that same reasoning though.
|
On October 15 2012 15:16 DeCoder wrote:
Actually that "the rest of the world vs USA" argument is inaccurate.
Along with the USA, the imperial system is used in
- Liberia
- Myanmar
I wonder who's going to be the last to change over?
You mean of the remaining 190+ countries or so?
|
On October 15 2012 15:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 15:11 Medrea wrote:
Why is no one bring up time?
I brought it up last page but you guys keep going for some reason?
We all use a funky system of measurement for the year. Can we all be friends? Ancient (e.g. Babylonian) number systems often used base 60 (which is where we get 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a circle, etc.) because 60 is evenly divisible in many, many ways (many different factors and a large prime factorization). It made doing geometry and fractions and other primitive math very easy to do.
Yes there is an equivalent explanation for the distance measurements as well. 12 is a very common number.
And its because of the number 6 by the way.
|
On October 15 2012 15:27 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 15:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2012 15:11 Medrea wrote:
Why is no one bring up time?
I brought it up last page but you guys keep going for some reason?
We all use a funky system of measurement for the year. Can we all be friends? Ancient (e.g. Babylonian) number systems often used base 60 (which is where we get 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a circle, etc.) because 60 is evenly divisible in many, many ways (many different factors and a large prime factorization). It made doing geometry and fractions and other primitive math very easy to do. Yes there is an equivalent explanation for the distance measurements as well. 12 is a very common number. And its because of the number 6 by the way.
What's because of the number 6?
|
On October 15 2012 15:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 15:27 Medrea wrote:On October 15 2012 15:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2012 15:11 Medrea wrote:
Why is no one bring up time?
I brought it up last page but you guys keep going for some reason?
We all use a funky system of measurement for the year. Can we all be friends? Ancient (e.g. Babylonian) number systems often used base 60 (which is where we get 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a circle, etc.) because 60 is evenly divisible in many, many ways (many different factors and a large prime factorization). It made doing geometry and fractions and other primitive math very easy to do. Yes there is an equivalent explanation for the distance measurements as well. 12 is a very common number. And its because of the number 6 by the way. What's because of the number 6?
Just about everything
6 is an incredibly natural number.
|
On October 15 2012 15:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 15:11 Medrea wrote:
Why is no one bring up time?
I brought it up last page but you guys keep going for some reason?
We all use a funky system of measurement for the year. Can we all be friends? Ancient (e.g. Babylonian) number systems often used base 60 (which is where we get 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a circle, etc.) because 60 is evenly divisible in many, many ways (many different factors and a large prime factorization). It made doing geometry and fractions and other primitive math very easy to do. Also, 365(.24) days in a year is almost 360 Not sure if 24 hours in a day comes from that same reasoning though.
365 days a year despite being tantalizingly close to 360 or the ancient 60-base system has nothing to do with it at all. It is just an accidental result of how we count 1 Earth day as a complete rotation, and how 1 Earth revolution around the sun took 365 days. As to the 24 hours, there are many theories but all point to the ancient 12-base system, a sub of the 60-base. But why 24 and not 12? Maybe because they thought it was easier to separate night from day which divided apparently equally.
|
On October 15 2012 15:33 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 15:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2012 15:11 Medrea wrote:
Why is no one bring up time?
I brought it up last page but you guys keep going for some reason?
We all use a funky system of measurement for the year. Can we all be friends? Ancient (e.g. Babylonian) number systems often used base 60 (which is where we get 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a circle, etc.) because 60 is evenly divisible in many, many ways (many different factors and a large prime factorization). It made doing geometry and fractions and other primitive math very easy to do. Also, 365(.24) days in a year is almost 360 Not sure if 24 hours in a day comes from that same reasoning though. 365 days a year despite being tantalizingly close to 360 or the ancient 60-base system has nothing to do with it at all. It is just an accidental result of how we count 1 Earth day as a complete rotation, and how 1 Earth revolution around the sun took 365 days. As to the 24 hours, there are many theories but all point to the ancient 12-base system, a sub of the 60-base. But why 24 and not 12? Maybe because they thought it was easier to separate night from day which divided apparently equally.
Also it ends up that the earth rotates at an approximate 1,000 miles per hour across the equator, which is measure to be about 24,000 miles across.
Makes a lot of math pretty simple.
|
On October 15 2012 15:32 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 15:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2012 15:27 Medrea wrote:On October 15 2012 15:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2012 15:11 Medrea wrote:
Why is no one bring up time?
I brought it up last page but you guys keep going for some reason?
We all use a funky system of measurement for the year. Can we all be friends? Ancient (e.g. Babylonian) number systems often used base 60 (which is where we get 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a circle, etc.) because 60 is evenly divisible in many, many ways (many different factors and a large prime factorization). It made doing geometry and fractions and other primitive math very easy to do. Yes there is an equivalent explanation for the distance measurements as well. 12 is a very common number. And its because of the number 6 by the way. What's because of the number 6? Just about everything 6 is an incredibly natural number.
lol yes, it's even a "perfect number" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_number )
But the actual reason for the things I mentioned (not sure about the days per year, but definitely seconds, minutes, and degrees), was specifically because of 60 (and by proxy, 360), not because of 6 Many early number systems were base 60 from my previous explanation. Also:
"A common theory is that 60, a superior highly composite number (the previous and next in the series being 12 and 120), was chosen due to its prime factorization: 2×2×3×5, which makes it divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30. In fact, it is the smallest integer divisible by all integers from 1 to 6."
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_numerals
http://www.mathematicsmagazine.com/Articles/Base60.php
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57550.html
etc. etc. blah blah blah...
It's pretty cool though ^^
|
Use both. I was born when things were transitioning and 31 years later there is still reluctance to fully adopt metric, and because of that I'm stuck in the middle. Mertric is the superior system but I prefer being 6 foot than 183cm. Hell, we use stones as a unit of measurement here. Stones!
|
On December 09 2011 13:32 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
No one goes to the grocery to buy 400ml drink, instead, they buy it in 12 ounces.
This is not a good argument. I go out and buy for example 330ml soda cans, half-liter soda bottles and 1.4 liter bottles of Julmust or whatever the size of whatever I'm buying all the time
|
On October 15 2012 15:10 Neino wrote:Show nested quote +2. Standard units are more practical and convenient. No one goes to the grocery to buy 400ml drink, instead, they buy it in 12 ounces. No one buys 5 meters of wood, instead, they buy it is 1x1x12, all in feet. No, but I do go to the store to get 1 liter milk, half a liter of soda or a 250ml can. Also I'm quite sure that in Norway atleast we use meters for wood, but I'm not a big consumer of planks and such so.. I could be remembering incorrectly.
Exactly what Neino said. And in Croatia, if you go to buy wood for your fireplace or just planks for construction, you buy them in meters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
