Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Feb 2006 10:16:44 -0800, wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Feb 2006 06:46:34 -0800, wrote:


Reggie Smithers wrote:
wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:31:23 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:01:05 GMT, Don White
wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

As of 6 am, we've had maybe three to four inches of snow, and it's still
coming down, though lightly.

Out on the Bay, today:
NW winds 25 kt with gusts up to 35 kt. Waves 3 to 4 ft. Morning snow.
Vsby 1 nm or less...increasing to 1 to 3 nm this afternoon.

At the moment, our forecast states:

Snow this morning...then a chance of snow this afternoon. New snow
accumulation of 1 to 3 inches. Total accumulation 5 to 10 inches...less
along the Chesapeake Bay. Breezy with highs in the mid 30s. Northwest
winds 15 to 25 mph. Gusts up to 40 mph this morning.

Snow just started here at approx 1100 AST.
We may get between 15-20 cm before it's over.

cm?

freakin' metric system.
One day the US will catch up with the civilized world!
Screw the "civilized" world. We got along with the fractional system
for a hell of a lot longer than that pansy metric system.

Yeah, why would anybody want a system that actually makes sense?

We don't need no stinking logic. It takes a real man to understand the
fractional system, and it makes it easy to weed out the deadwood or
those moving up in the years and are not as sharp as they once were.

Consider it Darwin for the industrial world.

--
Reggie

SO, it's your conclusion that, because something has worked prior to
now, that it's good enough? Is it also your conclusion that something
that makes perfect mathematical sense shouldn't be used just because we
have a system that, although it's a system that's inherently easy to
make mistakes with, should be used over a system that is not?

When they miscalculated the last Mars mission, did they use the metric
system? :)


I think
"Darwin for the industrial world" is wanting to keep an antiquated,
hard to use system that makes little or no sense. Notice in the below
website how much of the world has developed the metric system. U.S. is
almost the only country who hasn't. Ever wonder why?

That's because the metric system is for morons who can't count, divide
or understand simple fractional constants.

http://www.metric4us.com/

Now, if you notice, our number system works on a base 10 system. NOT
base 16, or 32, or 64, or 8 or 4 or 2. Now it isn't rocket science, but
when our system DOES get complicated is when you need to convert one
set of units to another. Take for example something simple like what
does a quart of water weigh? First, you need to know the weight of a
gallon, then divide by four. Yes, I know it sounds easy, but what could
be easier than knowing that a liter is one kilo. Or, instantly you'd
know it's 1000 grams. That quart? you need to divide now by 16 to get
ounces.

So? Real engineers and scientists use the fractional system.

Tell me, what's 2/3s of 100? In metric.
It's exactly the same as it is here, of course. What makes you think
that the metric system can't or doesn't use fractions? What is .01? Now
what you've failed to take into account, is that, again, our number
system is a base 10 system. Wouldn't you think that a volumn, mass,
measurement, etc. system that is base 10 would work better than one
that is not? If not, please tell why a system that doesn't have any
reasonable base is much better than one that works exactly as we count?

1 - You have got to be kidding me - right? I'm a mathematician for
cripes sake - you think I was serious?

Good lord. :)

2 - I much prefer base 12 - more reliable and less prone to
transcription or transcribing errors.

Hmm, you're a mathematician????? Hehe!!! And you use base 12 for
everyday math? Really? When you go to the store and buy something, do
you count the money in base 12?