"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 13 Feb 2006 13:49:25 -0800, wrote:

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?

I can and have. :)

Why?

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:52:39 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 13 Feb 2006 13:49:25 -0800, wrote:

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?

I can and have. :)

Why 12 and not 13, or, better yet, 36?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:01:32 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On 13 Feb 2006 13:49:25 -0800, wrote:

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?

I can and have. :)

Why?

Because I can.

Hell, I *can* paint my house pink with yellow polka dots if I wanted to but
I don't...........because it does not make sense to do it.

So excluding the reason that you *can*, why else would you choose to count
your money in base 12?

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:52:37 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:01:32 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...
On 13 Feb 2006 13:49:25 -0800, wrote:

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?

I can and have. :)

Why?

Because I can.

Hell, I *can* paint my house pink with yellow polka dots if I wanted to
but
I don't...........because it does not make sense to do it.

So excluding the reason that you *can*, why else would you choose to count
your money in base 12?

Keeps the brain cells exercised.

And because I can.

Fair enough.

How is the shoulder coming along?

Calif Bill wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
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? 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?

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.

Bassy,

It was a extremely sarcastic, tongue in cheek, comment, sorry you went to
all that trouble to help me understand the stupidity of not converting to
metric system.

I have always thought it made sense, and having both metric and standard
bolts and screws drives that point home everyday.

When someone says "We don't need no stinking logic", they probably are
either stupid or being sarcastic, or as in my situation, both.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

Nah, we should convert to Wentworth.


If I knew what Wentworth was I would agree with you.

oh what the hell, I do agree with you.


--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

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.
If you think about it, base 2 is good enough for computers, it should be
good enough for us.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:44:26 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:10:09 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:52:39 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 13 Feb 2006 13:49:25 -0800, wrote:

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?

I can and have. :)

Why 12 and not 13, or, better yet, 36?

Think about it - you were an engineer.

Hey! Curling is on. Who has time to think?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Reggie Smithers wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..

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? 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?

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.

Bassy,

It was a extremely sarcastic, tongue in cheek, comment, sorry you
went to all that trouble to help me understand the stupidity of not
converting to metric system.

I have always thought it made sense, and having both metric and
standard bolts and screws drives that point home everyday.

When someone says "We don't need no stinking logic", they probably
are either stupid or being sarcastic, or as in my situation, both.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************


Nah, we should convert to Wentworth.

If I knew what Wentworth was I would agree with you.

oh what the hell, I do agree with you.



Seems to me that at least some of the nuts on my 1954 British Seagull
outboard are Whitworth.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
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? 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?

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.

Bassy,

It was a extremely sarcastic, tongue in cheek, comment, sorry you went
to all that trouble to help me understand the stupidity of not
converting to metric system.

I have always thought it made sense, and having both metric and
standard bolts and screws drives that point home everyday.

When someone says "We don't need no stinking logic", they probably are
either stupid or being sarcastic, or as in my situation, both.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************
Nah, we should convert to Wentworth.

You studied the Wentworth system in engineering school?

I'm glad I was an English major; one of my professors had a vintage
British car and introduced us to the history of Sir Joseph Whitworth.

So, tell us about the Wentworth system.

Did you not ever wrench on a British Motorcycle? A wrench is the bolt
size not the head size.


Whoooooooossssssssshhhhhhhhh.

You the Whoooooooossssssssshhhhhhhhh'ed one.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:29:20 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
m...
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? 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?

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.


Bassy,

It was a extremely sarcastic, tongue in cheek, comment, sorry you went
to
all that trouble to help me understand the stupidity of not converting
to
metric system.

I have always thought it made sense, and having both metric and standard
bolts and screws drives that point home everyday.

When someone says "We don't need no stinking logic", they probably are
either stupid or being sarcastic, or as in my situation, both.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

Nah, we should convert to Wentworth.

Base 12.

Was a Sci-fi novel, where the aliens used a base 11 or maybe 13 system.
Pretty good novel, but can not remember the name. They poison gassed the
planet first to get the gold.