The need for the metric system in science is obvious , but I really
have to agree here. Metric amounts to a monomania in seeking to
convert everything stripping richness out many centuries of usage. I
see nothing wrong with using miles, horsepower, torque in foot-pounds,
ounces, tons and all those tradition laden units. In the era of
computers there is less need for one way of measuring since they can
all be converted with as much precision as needed. Getting your
information in whatever unit you wish is little more than pushing a
button or clicking on an icon.
I have to admit that it is rather satisfying to me that the arrogance
of setting the size of the meter to 1/40,000,000 of the polar
circumference got its deserved comeuppance when people realized that
they had no accurate idea of the the polar circumference of the earth,
and that it changed anyway, not to mention the silliness of the idea
of having to do something so difficult as to measure the earth so you
can measure off some fabric in a shop. So really the meter is not some
godlike(King Louis XVI) subdivision of the earth, but is just as
arbitrary as the yard. The decimal part of it is handy though.
And the difficulties of traditional units are largely overstated by
people who have given up their ability to reckon. To anyone used to
decimal money like that used in the US, traditional English currency
was mystifying with its impossible to remember the numerical
relationships between pounds, shilling, and pence. Throw in
sovereigns, guineas, crowns and farthings and an American is
completely befuddled. Yet somehow we managed with no confusion at all
with it until 1776 or so.
There is something to be said for the idea that those of us who have
not converted really have something good. The French units must have
been crap for them to have jumped on metric. :-) Well. yeah. There
was that king and all the king's men.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On / May 7, 2008 CE, at 10:01 PM, Moose wrote:
> Andrew Fildes wrote:
>> Print full size on SuperA4 and trim or matte the print.
>>
> What??? The perfectly logical series of paper sizes all in only one
> boring aspect ratio of the sqrt of 2 isn't the be and end all?
>
> Super A4? 227x356mm, ~ 9x14", 1.57 ratio.
>
> Where's that come from? Is Descartes on acid? May we be saved from
> pure
> logical rationality and reductionism?
>
> I like the "English" system of measurement for a couple of primary
> reasons:
>
> It relates to my body. My foot is about a foot long. The length from
> my
> nose to fingertips is about a yard. The final phlange of my thumb is
> about an inch long. I much prefer that to a system that is al based on
> conceptions of the mind.
>
> Also, I like being part of the last holdout against worldwide
> standards
> imposed by a bunch of technocrats.
>
> I don't know how a true curmudgeon could be comfortable supporting
> such
> a system of conformity.
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|