Re: Metric Time (was Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique))

Whittet (
9 Oct 1995 19:14:08 GMT

In article <4578mk$>, says...
>Message-ID: <456lhe$>
>>The foot has stood the test of time because it as the most useful human
>>scale measure. Unfortunately, a bunch of "intellectual" morons think
>>they have a better way and want to force it on everyone else.
>Quick, without using a calculator, tell me how many feet are in
>53.872134 miles.

the point you seem to miss is that the system of feet and inches
is easy for people to work with using a series of different interconnected

Can you give me an instance of something ~4604 feet 10 1/2 inches long
that requires measurement to a precision greater than the nearest inch?
>Now tell me how many meters are in 53.872134 kilometers. I'll bet you
>can get it to the third decimal place.

Why is measurement to the nearest millimeter required over a distance
of 7/8ths of a mile?

>How many ounces in 112.4355 tons?

British and American answers will be different of course...

How many grams in 112.4355 metric

The point is that the ton is a unit of measure which it makes no sense
to round off into ounces; If you were measuring that amount of coal for
example, the coal dust thrown up by moving the coal on and off your scale
would probably amount to pounds of coal, not ounces.
>If you have an engine that uses 3 fluid ounces of gas for every foot
>it travels, how many gallons does it burn travelling 30.5 miles?

If I had an engine that burned that amount of gas for every foot it traveled
I would probably be measuring its fuel in pounds. Can you name a gas fired
non diesel internal combustion engine which gets that kind of gas milage?
It would have to be something the size of a supertanker and gas is an
unlikely choice of fuels for it.
>If you have an engine that uses 15 cubic centimeters of gas for every
>meter that it travels, how many liters does it burn travelling 30.5
>Oh yeah, the foot is *so* much better...

Quite right, since the illusion of precision apparently leaves
the impression that these paper calculations relate in some way
to actual measures which is obviously false.
>Keith Morrison