I reject SI byte units *because* they are SI/metric, not just because I'm used to the original units.
Count me in the minority among geeks, but I do also. The British system is superior to the French "innovation" which is based on an inaccurate estimate of the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris. The British system is far more intricate and interesting, both in its history and its accuracy.
The meter was *originally* inaccurate, and remains so, although the appearance of accuracy has lately been improved by formulas involving the speed of light. But I'm not fooled, not being a "dumb American" on the subject:
Rather, an informed one who has no interest in blindly following SI/metric because I know the 200-year-old political agenda behind it, which I still have no interest in supporting, for the same reason that Brits and Americans rightly rejected it in the first place. Most people who advocate metric have no idea of its origins, and think they are irrelevant. So be it.
People who prefer to study the origins of things quickly reject the metric system.
Decimal is annoying. If we're going to fix units, they should be based off binary or hexadecimal. At least here in the US we have binary measurements for liquids (1 peck = 2 gallons = 4 pottles = 8 quarts = 16 pints = 32 cups = 64 gills)
I wouldn't call it annoying -- it is designed to be simpleminded -- but it *is* arbitrary. The French did not develop metric because of its superiority, but they have convinced a lot of people of this fact, even though their equally innovative calendar of the same era long ago failed.
The foot is not arbitrary, nor is it "the length of some king's foot." It is part of an accurate measuring system based on the extremely stable distance from the core of the earth to the north pole, which I'm delighted to use at any opportunity.
But people have a hard time believing that the ancient Egyptian culture knew more about the dimensions of the earth than the fact that it was flat, and so this subject is controversial, and drifting off-topic, and thus suffice it to say that Luke's desire for accuracy is in line with his appreciation of the imperial measuring system, and I agree with him on both counts.
-Jared
Or we may slay this thread if anyone decides to name the most infamous Government that was at war with the French? HINT_ that government was a user of metric measurements.
After all- Godwin's law seldom is escaped.
On Monday 19 March 2007 03:08:28 pm Oren Beck wrote:
Or we may slay this thread if anyone decides to name the most infamous Government that was at war with the French? HINT_ that government was a user of metric measurements.
"Most Infamous" is a bit gray, but how about Japan?
We use a modified form of the English system (pints SHOULD be 20 oz, not 16), but we drive on the right in honor of Napoleon (the enemy of our enemy at the time).
On 3/19/07, Jared [email protected] wrote:
I reject SI byte units *because* they are SI/metric, not just because I'm used to the original units.
Count me in the minority among geeks, but I do also. The British system is superior to the French "innovation" Rather, an informed one who has no interest in blindly following SI/metric because I know the 200-year-old political agenda behind it, which I still have no interest in supporting, for
Imagine me, of all people, not wanting to get into your political discussion...
If you oppose SI, then why would you want to use its terminology? The prefixes 'kilo', 'mega', and 'giga' were used in SI long before there were computers with 1024 bytes of memory to count. There's got to be some British terms that can be applied to the task, although it's more likely they'd have to apply to a number like 1760 (yds/mi) or 112 (the number of pounds in a British 'hundredweight') or somesuch.
On 3/19/07, Monty J. Harder [email protected] wrote:
There's got to be some British terms that can be applied to the task,
although it's more
likely they'd have to apply to a number like 1760 (yds/mi) or 112 (the number of pounds in a British 'hundredweight') or somesuch. _______________________________________________
So- could then we have an air pressure measurement in Stones Per Inch?
Monty J. Harder wrote:
On 3/19/07, Jared [email protected] wrote:
I reject SI byte units *because* they are SI/metric, not just because I'm used to the original units.
Count me in the minority among geeks, but I do also. The British system is superior to the French "innovation"
<snip> Rather, an informed one who has no interest in blindly following SI/metric because I know the 200-year-old political agenda behind it, which I still have no interest in supporting, for
Imagine me, of all people, not wanting to get into your political discussion...
Well, it's off-topic, and wide-ranging, discussing two- and three-hundred year old origins of ideas, rather than being confined to the events of the past decade as if they were sufficient to understand larger patterns. Plus I had a public education in Independence, MO, so I tend to get theories and facts wrong and argue endlessly about trivial things. Easy to imagine why you wouldn't want to get involved. :-)
If you oppose SI, then why would you want to use its terminology? The
To oppose it only strengthens it. Rather than oppose, it is wiser to not advocate it. And when someone else starts advocating it as 'superior' then it's time to weigh in and least propose an honest study of its origins.
And I use the terms kilo mega and giga because they are common. There is no need to be fanatical about these issues. But it is reasonable to be informed and thus speak with precision -- and precision is the point that Luke was originally making.
Oren, the "Stones Per Inch" proposal is one to remember for a long time. Clever.
-Jared
-
Jared -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Monty J. Harder -
Oren Beck