Irish road-signs are now metric
Markus Kuhn
of road signs to metric went on 20 January?
Judging from the media reports, it sounds all mostly smooth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1394213,00.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050120/IRELAND20/TPInternational/Europe
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050121-080831-3060r.htm
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=657577
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4189591.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/20/nmetr20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/01/20/ixportal.html
Markus
Euric
>From the articles that I read, the American and UK press seemed more
negative about the change. It seems that the more major things that
are metricated, the more the imperialists feel left behind. The
interesting aspect of the conversion will be the effects of
cross-border car sales. How long will it take for 50 % or more of cars
on Irish roads have metric only displays? Will metric cars with right
hand drive end up in the UK? Will the Irish experience help accelerate
the change in the UK?
Andreas Prilop
> Anyone from Ireland here with a report on how the change
> of road signs to metric went on 20 January?
> Judging from the media reports, it sounds all mostly smooth.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1394213,00.html
And now the bad news:
The silly "kph" is still alive.
--
Mars, unlike Earth, has no atmosphere.
The Chicago manual of style, 15th ed., p. 362
Steve MacGregor
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.0502011658030.13175-100000@s5b003...
> On 30 Jan 2005, Markus Kuhn wrote:
> And now the bad news:
> The silly "kph" is still alive.
In the picture in the second article, the sign itself had the proper
"km/h". The silly "kph" appeared in the article in the same sentence as
"mph".
The newspapers, of course, should be informed of the proper symbol so
that they can add that to their style guides.
--
Steve
tasty...@yahoo.com
crisis we still think in feet and inches" by one Christopher Booker.
It was more-or-less an angry rant at the official use of metric versus
the unofficial (and widespread) use of customary. Booker closed it off
with a populist potshot that can be summarized as metric is for the
ruling class, and customary is for the masses. Hopefully in a
generation or so voices like this will be very much on the fringe of
the opinion spectrum.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Steve MacGregor wrote:
> "Andreas Prilop" <nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote in
message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.44.0502011658030.13175-100000@s5b003...
> > On 30 Jan 2005, Markus Kuhn wrote:
>
> > And now the bad news:
> > The silly "kph" is still alive.
>
> In the picture in the second article, the sign itself had the proper
> "km/h". The silly "kph" appeared in the article in the same sentence
as
> "mph".
fps is so common in my work that I'm not sure many folks would
particularly recognize f/s.
>
> The newspapers, of course, should be informed of the proper symbol so
> that they can add that to their style guides.
Who is the authority establishing "properness"?
Steve MacGregor
news:1107457186.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> The newspapers, of course, should be informed of the proper symbol so
>> that they can add that to their style guides.
>
> Who is the authority establishing "properness"?
I believe that's in the FAQ that shows up in this newsgroup about once a
month. Haven't you seen it lately?
Or was your question actually a statement: "I do not accept any
authority"?
--
Steve
Christoph Paeper
>
> fps is so common in my work
In the meaning of "feet per second" or "frames per second"? Or even yet
another?
> that I'm not sure many folks would particularly recognize f/s.
It would be either "ft./s" or "Hz".
--
Useless Fact #1:
Barbie's measurements if she were life size: 39-23-33 [99-58-84].
Joona I Palaste
It's bound to happen some day. Back in the 17th century, Finland used
all sorts of obscure length units, such as the "virsta" and the
"vaaksa". However, not only do I understand metric units, I have to
convert lengths expressed in imperial to metric to have some idea of
how long they are.
If people had been "thinking in virstas and vaaksas" in Finland, this
would never have happened. So obviously there was a period somewhere
in Finnish history where metric permanently replaced the old system.
So why can't there be such a period in Irish, British and Merkin
history too?
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-------------------------------------------------------- rules! --------/
"It sure is cool having money and chicks."
- Beavis and Butt-head
tasty...@yahoo.com
> all sorts of obscure length units, such as the "virsta" and the
> "vaaksa". However, not only do I understand metric units, I have to
> convert lengths expressed in imperial to metric to have some idea of
> how long they are.
> If people had been "thinking in virstas and vaaksas" in Finland, this
> would never have happened. So obviously there was a period somewhere
> in Finnish history where metric permanently replaced the old system.
> So why can't there be such a period in Irish, British and Merkin
> history too?
Sure, it's only natural for people who have grown up in an environment
that has used FFUs to think in these units. Reporting in metric is
their job, but once they go home, they think imperial. They're
obviously converting from imperial to metric on the job anyway.
Anyways, all you need is a generation to go by, before people will
speak metric. It may not seem natural to the Brits now, but if they're
getting their ambient temperature in centigrade, cook from metric
recipes, hear news in metric, they'll easily transition to the new
measurements.
Steve MacGregor
news:opslmzrnh5b8p244@crissov...
>> that I'm not sure many folks would particularly recognize f/s.
>
> It would be either "ft./s" or "Hz".
In any case, it would not be Hz, since equals 1/s. You might write
"ft廈z", but that would be mixing metric and conventional units, and is
as silly as floor loads of kilograms per square foot or pounds per
square meter.
--
Steve
Christoph Paeper
> "Christoph Paeper" <christop...@nurfuerspam.de> wrote
>
>>> that I'm not sure many folks would particularly recognize f/s.
>>
>> It would be either "ft./s" or "Hz".
>
> In any case, it would not be Hz, since equals 1/s.
It would be, if he was talking about framerate. The sentence refers to my
question that you didn't quote.
--
Useless Facts #14:
There are 102,981,500 ways to combine six of the 8-studed LEGO bricks of one
color.
Since 1949, the LEGO company, based in Denmark, has produced more than
200,000,000,000 of the plastic elements that make up the Lego System.
Jim Riley
>Anyways, all you need is a generation to go by, before people will
>speak metric. It may not seem natural to the Brits now, but if they're
>getting their ambient temperature in centigrade, cook from metric
>recipes, hear news in metric, they'll easily transition to the new
>measurements.
What advantage is there for an ordinary American to use Celsius?
Their thermometers to measure the inside or outside temperature, body
temperature, and oven temperature would no longer would be useful.
They would risk heatstroke when the temperature is "only 40", their
food might be undercooked if they use a metric recipe with a
Fahrenheit oven. They might not know whether "39" was a fever or not.
Will people be able to maintain their weight if they can tie calories
into the temperature scale that they use?
Is Celsius even used for physics?
--
Jim Riley
Phil McKerracher
"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:Fm_Md.881$UX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> What advantage is there for an ordinary American to use Celsius?...
OK, I'll bite (having undergone the transition from Fahrenheit to Celsius
myself in Australia, so having some experience).
First and foremost, the advantage is that the rest of the world (and even
the scientific community within America) now uses Celsius. This means that
after the initial change to Celsius there is ultimately LESS need to do
conversions, have thermometers with dual scales, print specifications with
two temperature ranges and so on. It's an international standard, which is
important if you want to trade.
Second, Celsius ties in with other units in the metric system and removes
the need for conversion factors there as well. This ultimately makes life
easier for anyone who has to heat or cool something (do these count as
"ordinary" Americans?).
Third, it's much easier to remember what the freezing point and boiling
point of water are, it doesn't really have to be "taught". The freezing
point in particular is of great practical importance when driving or for
protecting plumbing or plants. Forgetting the magic number for the freezing
point can literally be fatal.
> Their thermometers to measure the inside or outside temperature, body
> temperature, and oven temperature would no longer would be useful...
True, you need new thermometers or conversion stickers or a conversion
chart. There's a cost, but it's CHEAPER in the long run.
> ...They would risk heatstroke when the temperature is "only 40", their
> food might be undercooked if they use a metric recipe with a
> Fahrenheit oven. They might not know whether "39" was a fever or not...
Again, I think these are arguments IN FAVOUR of changing to a single
standard scale.
> Is Celsius even used for physics?
Yes! Almost universally, including within North America.
--
Phil McKerracher
www.mckerracher.org
Jim Riley
<ph...@mckerracher.org> wrote:
>"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>news:Fm_Md.881$UX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> What advantage is there for an ordinary American to use Celsius?...
>First and foremost, the advantage is that the rest of the world (and even
>the scientific community within America) now uses Celsius. This means that
>after the initial change to Celsius there is ultimately LESS need to do
>conversions, have thermometers with dual scales, print specifications with
>two temperature ranges and so on. It's an international standard, which is
>important if you want to trade.
What does it matter if scientists use different temperature scales,
from ordinary persons? Can you really relate the temperature of the
sun to the temperature of an oven?
>Second, Celsius ties in with other units in the metric system and removes
>the need for conversion factors there as well. This ultimately makes life
>easier for anyone who has to heat or cool something (do these count as
>"ordinary" Americans?).
Can you give me an example of such a calculation that an ordinary
American might perform?
>Third, it's much easier to remember what the freezing point and boiling
>point of water are, it doesn't really have to be "taught".
I know what the freezing point and boiling point of water are. If you
"knew" that the boiling point was some magic round number like "100"
wouldn't be harder to be untaught that water doesn't boil at that
temperature where you live?
> The freezing
>point in particular is of great practical importance when driving or for
>protecting plumbing or plants. Forgetting the magic number for the freezing
>point can literally be fatal.
Give me an example where forgetting the freezing point of water would
be fatal?
>> Their thermometers to measure the inside or outside temperature, body
>> temperature, and oven temperature would no longer would be useful...
>
>True, you need new thermometers or conversion stickers or a conversion
>chart. There's a cost, but it's CHEAPER in the long run.
>> ...They would risk heatstroke when the temperature is "only 40", their
>> food might be undercooked if they use a metric recipe with a
>> Fahrenheit oven. They might not know whether "39" was a fever or not...
>
>Again, I think these are arguments IN FAVOUR of changing to a single
>standard scale.
The US uses a single standard scale for ordinary everyday
applications.
>> Is Celsius even used for physics?
>
>Yes! Almost universally, including within North America.
Rather than Kelvin?
--
Jim Riley
tasty...@yahoo.com
Jim Riley wrote:
> Is Celsius even used for physics?
>
Yes. Same goes for chemistry, biology, geology, etc. There is
probably a wider use of Kelvin in low-temperature physics,
astrophysics, etc. but overall, what I've seen in the hard sciences,
Celsius is king.
tasty...@yahoo.com
> from ordinary persons? Can you really relate the temperature of the
> sun to the temperature of an oven?
Organic chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, and all related sciences
are usually done at room or body temperatures. Not all science is
astrophysics of collapsing stars or cryogenics. Most of the science
funding these days is for medicinal purposes, so it'll likely be done
at 20-25ºC.
> >Second, Celsius ties in with other units in the metric system and
removes
> >the need for conversion factors there as well. This ultimately makes
life
> >easier for anyone who has to heat or cool something (do these count
as
> >"ordinary" Americans?).
>
> Can you give me an example of such a calculation that an ordinary
> American might perform?
OTC or prescription drugs: some, believe it or not, actually have
reccomended storage temperatures in Celsius only. This is also very
useful for imported food products that you get in ethnic markets on
which no imperial labeling is done whatsoever. Same can be said for
some Canadian products. Computer CPU temperatures are reported only in
centigrade; what if you need to corelate them to your room temperature
that's reported in Fº only?
> >Third, it's much easier to remember what the freezing point and
boiling
> >point of water are, it doesn't really have to be "taught".
>
> I know what the freezing point and boiling point of water are. If
you
> "knew" that the boiling point was some magic round number like "100"
> wouldn't be harder to be untaught that water doesn't boil at that
> temperature where you live?
Ask a random sample of Americans at what temperature water freezes and
boils and get back to us. And I mean a true random sample. Better
still, go watch your weatherman (or woman) around the time when the
temperatures head for 32ºF. They will never throw out the 32ºF
figure like it's nothing. It's always mentioned in the context of
freezing or freezing water. Americans have to be _reminded_ that this
is the freezing point. You don't have to do this with centigrade, and
I never remember the European weather reports making a big deal out of
it.
A telling example comes from the Late Night show w/Jay Leno. One of
the periodic features is the Battle of the Jaywalk All-Stars, a mock
quiz show where dumb people are asked simple questions. One time a
question was "What's the boiling temperature of water," to which one of
the dum-dums answered "100ºC" Needless to say, the "Wrong Answer"
buzzer rang immediately. After some confusion, Jay Leno actually
straigtened things out and the guy received credit for his answer.
> The US uses a single standard scale for ordinary everyday
> applications.
If medicine is not an ordinary everyday application, then your point is
well taken. Medicine, medical research, pharmacy--it's all metric in
the background, some forms of it are even acceptable publicly:
IV/injection dosages in mL (cc's), drugs in mg, cervical dilation in
cm, etc.
Christoph Paeper
>
> at 20-25ºC.
What you are using there for a degree sign is infact the Spanish ordinal
masculine indicator (U+00BA instead of U+00B0), a superscript o. They look
very similar in many fonts, but in the one I'm using, for example, º and
the female counterpart ª have a line below. The degree sign is
Shift+AltGr+; on US International keyboard layout, AFAICS. For some
strange reason it seems to be missing from many other ones.
--
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
Isaac Asimov
Jim Riley
>> What does it matter if scientists use different temperature scales,
>> from ordinary persons? Can you really relate the temperature of the
>> sun to the temperature of an oven?
>
>Organic chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, and all related sciences
>are usually done at room or body temperatures. Not all science is
>astrophysics of collapsing stars or cryogenics. Most of the science
>funding these days is for medicinal purposes, so it'll likely be done
>at 20-25ºC.
Does it matter that organic chemistry, biochemistry, and microbiology
are done with a different temperature scale than that used by the
layman?
>> Can you give me an example of such a calculation that an ordinary
>> American might perform?
>OTC or prescription drugs: some, believe it or not, actually have
>reccomended storage temperatures in Celsius only.
The question was about calculations that an ordinary American might
perform that take advantage of the relationships among various metric
units. Something like calculating the time it will take to heat a cup
of water in a 1200 W microwave.
> This is also very
>useful for imported food products that you get in ethnic markets on
>which no imperial labeling is done whatsoever. Same can be said for
>some Canadian products. Computer CPU temperatures are reported only in
>centigrade; what if you need to corelate them to your room temperature
>that's reported in Fº only?
>> I know what the freezing point and boiling point of water are. If
>> you "knew" that the boiling point was some magic round number like "100"
>> wouldn't be harder to be untaught that water doesn't boil at that
>> temperature where you live?
>Ask a random sample of Americans at what temperature water freezes and
>boils and get back to us. And I mean a true random sample. Better
>still, go watch your weatherman (or woman) around the time when the
>temperatures head for 32ºF. They will never throw out the 32ºF
>figure like it's nothing.
It is easier to say "freezing" rather than "thirty two". Where I
currently live, it is uncommon enough for the temperature to be below
freezing, that the weathermen are almost wishful that the temperature
will get down to freezing, when it is most likely that it will barely
get below 40.
> It's always mentioned in the context of
>freezing or freezing water. Americans have to be _reminded_ that this
>is the freezing point.
This is truly a bizarre claim. Can you give me an example of such
usage? Are you a native English speaker?
> You don't have to do this with centigrade, and
>I never remember the European weather reports making a big deal out of
>it.
>> The US uses a single standard scale for ordinary everyday
>> applications.
>
>If medicine is not an ordinary everyday application, then your point is
>well taken. Medicine, medical research, pharmacy--it's all metric in
>the background, some forms of it are even acceptable publicly:
>IV/injection dosages in mL (cc's), drugs in mg, cervical dilation in
>cm, etc.
Body temperature?
--
Jim Riley
Markus Kuhn
|> On 8 Feb 2005 10:34:06 -0800, tasty...@yahoo.com wrote:
|>
|> >> What does it matter if scientists use different temperature scales,
|> >> from ordinary persons? Can you really relate the temperature of the
|> >> sun to the temperature of an oven?
|> >
|> >Organic chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, and all related sciences
|> >are usually done at room or body temperatures. Not all science is
|> >astrophysics of collapsing stars or cryogenics. Most of the science
|> >funding these days is for medicinal purposes, so it'll likely be done
|> >at 20-25ºC.
|>
|> Does it matter that organic chemistry, biochemistry, and microbiology
|> are done with a different temperature scale than that used by the
|> layman?
If you have a fridge at home, you *are* in the microbiology business.
(If you have not, you are even more so ... ;-)
If you have an oven at home, you *are* in the organic chemisty business.
In modern live, layman experience and scientific practice go hand in
hand. I find that very welcome, useful, and an enrichment of our lives.
Cooking would be far less interesting without the physics and chemistry
I learned at school. (If you are interested in the subject, I recommend
reading the book http://www.curiouscook.com/onfoodandcooking.shtml)
It would be cruel, if I had to learn *all* the critical temperatures
(melting and evapolation temperatures of common ingredients, denaturation
temperatures of proteines, the water absorption curve of starch,
microbial activity temperatures curves for hygiene, yeast, yoghurt,
sourdough), backing curves, etc. *twice* in two randomly different
temperature scales, one to understand school classes, scientific
literature and any web page from outside my country, and the other
in the kitchen and to talk to fellow laypeople.
Why use two scales, if one would do as well? Why artificially separate
fields of knowledge and experience by using randomly different measures?
Why exclude the general population from scientific understanding
by clouding their understanding through the continued use of archaic
and less practical units that differ from what all scientists find
most convenient?
Sounds to me like a recipe^Wscam to keep the masses uneducated,
easier to control, indoctrinate, and manipulate. Sounds deeply
undemocratic and dangerous for the long-term benefit of society ...
Markus
Joona I Palaste
> Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> writes:
> |> Does it matter that organic chemistry, biochemistry, and microbiology
> |> are done with a different temperature scale than that used by the
> |> layman?
(snip)
> Why use two scales, if one would do as well? Why artificially separate
> fields of knowledge and experience by using randomly different measures?
> Why exclude the general population from scientific understanding
> by clouding their understanding through the continued use of archaic
> and less practical units that differ from what all scientists find
> most convenient?
> Sounds to me like a recipe^Wscam to keep the masses uneducated,
> easier to control, indoctrinate, and manipulate. Sounds deeply
> undemocratic and dangerous for the long-term benefit of society ...
More like grasping at straws trying to find support for the "But I don't
want to learn metric! I want to keep my imperial! Waah!" argument.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-------------------------------------------------------- rules! --------/
"We're women. We've got double standards to live up to."
- Ally McBeal
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Phil McKerracher wrote:
> "Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:Fm_Md.881$UX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > What advantage is there for an ordinary American to use Celsius?...
>
> OK, I'll bite (having undergone the transition from Fahrenheit to
Celsius
> myself in Australia, so having some experience).
>
> First and foremost, the advantage is that the rest of the world (and
even
> the scientific community within America) now uses Celsius.
But where is the advantage in that? The vast majority of
Americans rarely converse with the rest of the world about
temperatures.
> This means that after the initial change
This is a canard. You're never "done". Old recipes, old
references, old tools, they hang around for decades.
> to Celsius there is ultimately LESS need to do
> conversions, have thermometers with dual scales, print specifications
with
> two temperature ranges and so on. It's an international standard,
which is
> important if you want to trade.
Which the vast majority of Americans don't do, so we are still
left wondering where the advantage is.
>
> Second, Celsius ties in with other units in the metric system and
removes
> the need for conversion factors there as well. This ultimately makes
life
> easier for anyone who has to heat or cool something (do these count
as
> "ordinary" Americans?).
No, not really. Average americans never do any calculations to
determine
heating or cooling rates. They don't even understand why their
AC unit is rated in BTU's.
>
> Third, it's much easier to remember what the freezing point and
boiling
> point of water are, it doesn't really have to be "taught". The
freezing
> point in particular is of great practical importance when driving or
for
> protecting plumbing or plants. Forgetting the magic number for the
freezing
> point can literally be fatal.
Fatality is a real risk well before freezing. And if water is
seriously involved, it can be WAY above freezing.
Furthermore, the vast majority of water doesn't freeze at the
same temperature. And water boils at a wide variety of temperatures
in the US.
>
> > Their thermometers to measure the inside or outside temperature,
body
> > temperature, and oven temperature would no longer would be
useful...
>
> True, you need new thermometers or conversion stickers or a
conversion
> chart. There's a cost, but it's CHEAPER in the long run.
For whom? If I never convert, can use old instruments forever.
>
> > ...They would risk heatstroke when the temperature is "only 40",
their
> > food might be undercooked if they use a metric recipe with a
> > Fahrenheit oven. They might not know whether "39" was a fever or
not...
>
> Again, I think these are arguments IN FAVOUR of changing to a single
> standard scale.
>
Actually, it's an argument (if majorities are the issue) of
not changing within a single culture.
> > Is Celsius even used for physics?
>
> Yes! Almost universally, including within North America.
Actually, I think his suggestion was that typically, in various
fields of physics, absolute temperature scales are typically used.
And this conversion isn't simple. And that lack of simplicity is
adverse to the argument for universal temperature systems.
Klaus von der Heyde
> But where is the advantage in that? The vast majority of
> Americans rarely converse with the rest of the world about
> temperatures.
Thanks to usenet and www, conversation increased a lot in the last
10 years. Would be nice if everyone reading weather and travel
reports, and about anything including something measured, without
having to look up or convert units (or for the provider to supply
data in both, as weather report sites do). It is not only a business-
to-business thing to deal with measurements by others, but a very
person-to-person issue today.
Temperature scales are among the worst. With distances, one can at
least be sure that zero ist zero, but with a varying zero point,
one is lost. I can roughly convert between feet and metre now, but
I have no intention to learn the Fahrenheit scale. It is bad enough
to have °C and K.
> No, not really. Average americans never do any calculations to
> determine
> heating or cooling rates. They don't even understand why their
> AC unit is rated in BTU's.
"Average" germans do not calculate this, too, I think. But they can
compare the power rating of heaters, light bulbs, and other devices
(ACs are rarely found in private homes here). And most important, it
is easy for them to relate this to energy consumption and the bill
for electricity. To make this more convienient, energy is listed as
kWh, instead of MJ.
In what unit do americans get charged for their electric energy?
Klaus
Steve MacGregor
news:cug7eg$nju$2...@f1node01.rhrz.uni-bonn.de...
> In what unit do americans get charged for their electric energy?
In kWh, spelled out as "kilowatt-hours", usually, because we don't
understand the metric symbols.
It would be convenient, though, to be charged in MJ for both electricity
and natural gas, wouldn't it?
--
Steve
Jukka K. Korpela
> In kWh, spelled out as "kilowatt-hours", usually, because we don't
> understand the metric symbols.
Actually the appropriate symbol would be "kW h" or (better) "kW搬" (and
perhaps best using the DOT OPERATOR character instead of the MIDDLE DOT),
since multiplication of units should be indicated using a space or a dot.
This would make the unit even more inconvenient, and that's good. :-)
> It would be convenient, though, to be charged in MJ for both electricity
> and natural gas, wouldn't it?
The unit of energy is the joule (J), and MJ is just a symbol for a multiple
of the joule. I wonder why they don't express the prices per joule - they
would sound much smaller. Just as phone charges would sound smaller if
expressed in terms of an amount of money per second, the unit of time.
Seriously, we all know (I guess) that kilowatt-hours are used because
people are used to it and because it is intuitive in _some_ contexts.
It relates to the energy consumption of equipment with powers like
one or a few kilowatts, typically used for something that can be
conventiently expressed in hours. But I don't think that this should really
matter. After all, calculating the cost of using an electric equipment for
some amount of time requires some multiplications anyway
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Markus Kuhn
|> It would be convenient, though, to be charged in MJ for both electricity
|> and natural gas, wouldn't it?
Definitely. It would also be nice if terrorist bombs, nuclear weapons,
vulcanos, earthquakes and asteroid impacts were described in joules.
That would make it far more intuitive to compare these high-energy
catastrophes with my monthly gas bill or my bowl of breakfast cereals.
No more pound/kiloton TNT or Richter scales, please. And no more litres
or gallons at the gas station. Energy is energy! How can you
appreciate it if you can't even compare it? I want to see more
joules in the headlines ...
Markus
Jim Riley
Kuhn) wrote:
>Why use two scales, if one would do as well? Why artificially separate
>fields of knowledge and experience by using randomly different measures?
Because the large mass of people do not have to change their
instruments, documentation, knowledge, and folklore to utilize
Fahrenheit in their everday lives. Those who need to utilize both
scales can easily convert between the two. In doing so they are
assisted by the fact that the two scales are in quite different ranges
for most temperatures that are of practical everyday use (exception,
temperatures in the sub-zero range where the scales coincide may be
useful if you are dead or Canadian).
>Why exclude the general population from scientific understanding
>by clouding their understanding through the continued use of archaic
>and less practical units that differ from what all scientists find
>most convenient?
I suspect that there are larger barriers to lay understanding of
science than the system of units that measurements are made in.
>Sounds to me like a recipe^Wscam to keep the masses uneducated,
>easier to control, indoctrinate, and manipulate. Sounds deeply
>undemocratic and dangerous for the long-term benefit of society ...
Use of deprecating terms such as "FFU" are attempts to manipulate and
control society by a scientific-priest class who would attempt to
marginalize and humiliate those not familiar with their terminology.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
<s_t_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Klaus von der Heyde" <uzs...@uni-bonn.de> wrote in message
>news:cug7eg$nju$2...@f1node01.rhrz.uni-bonn.de...
>
>> In what unit do americans get charged for their electric energy?
Dollars.
>In kWh, spelled out as "kilowatt-hours", usually, because we don't
>understand the metric symbols.
>It would be convenient, though, to be charged in MJ for both electricity
>and natural gas, wouldn't it?
Doesn't conversion efficiency factor in? Would it be more convenient
if gasoline (Br: petrol) were sold by the MJ rather than the gallon or
liter?
--
Jim Riley
Michael Dahms
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:24:38 -0700, "Steve MacGregor"
> >
> > and natural gas, wouldn't it?
>
> Doesn't conversion efficiency factor in?
You are right.
> Would it be more convenient
> if gasoline (Br: petrol) were sold by the MJ rather than the gallon or
> liter?
No.
Michael Dahms
Markus Kuhn
|> Markus Kuhn wrote:
|>
|> >Why exclude the general population from scientific understanding
|> >by clouding their understanding through the continued use of archaic
|> >and less practical units that differ from what all scientists find
|> >most convenient?
|>
|> I suspect that there are larger barriers to lay understanding of
|> science than the system of units that measurements are made in.
This is no doubt true, but it is in itself no argument for
maintaining an additional and entire unnecessary barrier by
using different units in science and outside science.
There are admittedly a few cases where strictly scientific units are
perhaps too subtle and confusing for lay people. An example would be
using kN instead of kg to state the maximum capacity of a lift,
because people without physical training tend to treat mass and
weight force as equivalent quantities and therefore will not see
any need to learn a separate unit for force. Equally, the kelvin
temperature scale has its origin so far outside the range of
temperatures experienced in everyday life that I would not
recommend it for use in medicine and cake recipes.
Consequentely, neither the newton nor the kelvin have become a part
of daily non-scientific practice in metric countries, because lay
people can relate much more easily with the kilogram and degree
Celsius.
The globally established conventions for using international
standard units in daily life have been carefully chosen such that no
scientific understanding beyond average primary school knowledge
is needed to use and understand them.
|> >Sounds to me like a recipe^Wscam to keep the masses uneducated,
|> >easier to control, indoctrinate, and manipulate. Sounds deeply
|> >undemocratic and dangerous for the long-term benefit of society ...
|>
|> Use of deprecating terms such as "FFU" are attempts to manipulate and
|> control society by a scientific-priest class who would attempt to
|> marginalize and humiliate those not familiar with their terminology.
Terms like FFU are no doubt an expression of frustration. However,
I do not believe that the desire to see more widespread use of
metric units is an "attempt to marginalize and humiliate" anyone.
The metric proponents I know are only too happy to really help
people understand their measures and, where necessary, even the physical
concepts behind them. I doubt there is anyone here who wouldn't love
to see the wider public understand and appreciate even the most basic
physics concepts taught in secondary education much better. It would be
nice, but I don't believe it is a prerequisite for using metric units.
Markus
Markus Kuhn
|> > Would it be more convenient
|> > if gasoline (Br: petrol) were sold by the MJ rather than the gallon or
|> > liter?
|>
|> No.
I quite like the thought. However, it would probably introduce
levels of physical detail (specific energy of the product, etc.)
that the average person might not fully appreciate. For a liquid,
a volume is something more tangible for most.
Curious:
Do gas station pumps take into consideration that gasoline/petrol
expands at higher temperature, and that you actually get more
energy and can drive further with a litre bought at -5 °C rather
than at 25 °C? I believe to remember that Formula 1 racing cars are
commonly filled with chilled petrol for exactly this reason.
Markus
skea...@accessbee.com
gasoline it has a much higher ignition energy which makes it less of a
fire hazard and allows supercharging the cylinder to several times
atmospheric pressure. It is the ultimate high octane fuel.
Michael Dahms
>
> Do gas station pumps take into consideration that gasoline/petrol
> expands at higher temperature, and that you actually get more
> energy and can drive further with a litre bought at -5 °C rather
> than at 25 °C?
They don't, but gas is no stored at such low temperatures, generally.
Michael Dahms
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Klaus von der Heyde wrote:
> ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>
> > But where is the advantage in that? The vast majority of
> > Americans rarely converse with the rest of the world about
> > temperatures.
>
> Thanks to usenet and www, conversation increased a lot in the last
> 10 years. Would be nice if everyone reading weather and travel
> reports, and about anything including something measured, without
> having to look up or convert units (or for the provider to supply
> data in both, as weather report sites do).
First we'll get a common language, then I'll worry about
having a singular temperature scale. Until then, the least
communication inconvienence on the web is temperature scales.
Currency fluctuations are a bigger issue. Heck, even folks
that supposedly all speak english can't decide what the heck
the "pavement" is, and that one could get ya killed.
Erik Naggum
> There are admittedly a few cases where strictly scientific units are
> perhaps too subtle and confusing for lay people. An example would be
> using kN instead of kg to state the maximum capacity of a lift,
> need to learn a separate unit for force.
This confusion is made worse by the incessant references to "kilogram
force" in British science programs (e.g., on Discovery channel) that
attempt to translate from American sources that used «pound force».
>> Use of deprecating terms such as "FFU" are attempts to manipulate
>> and control society by a scientific-priest class who would attempt
>> to marginalize and humiliate those not familiar with their
>> terminology.
Jim, if you really want not to be marginalized and humiliated, it would
serve you well to avoid such paranoid and conspiratorial nonsense. Such
"opinions" about the metric system from Americans is one reason Europe
has so much disdain for FFUs. Such disturbingly paranoid fears about
some force that is going to come into ordinary people's lives and alter
their minds against their will also existed in Europe several hundred
years ago, at about the time Harry Potter would have been a documentary.
If anything, such comments make more rational people dead certain that
to give in to the FFUs would be just as bad as to give in to the
peculiar religiousness that the U.S. displays as the foundation for its
actions.
> The metric proponents I know are only too happy to really help people
> understand their measures and, where necessary, even the physical
> concepts behind them. I doubt there is anyone here who wouldn't love
> to see the wider public understand and appreciate even the most basic
> physics concepts taught in secondary education much better. It would
> be nice, but I don't believe it is a prerequisite for using metric
> units.
But conversely, it is precisely lack of understanding of physics that
keeps the old units alive and well. I believe that U.S. units hold the
entire people down, as physics expressed with FFUs is much, much harder
than physics expressed with SI units, and the conceptual barrier is just
a little too high for the vast majority to forge, meaning that the clear
and present benefits of the SI are not within reach to this majority
until they have learned it. However, every other country on earth offers
proof positive that there is no superhuman feat to learne the SI units
and to relate to them in their everyday life. It is only when you are
used to FFUs that SI is difficult, but characteristically, FFUs are not
that hard for SI users to adapt to. This does not mean that FFUs are any
more "natural": It means that FFUs are conceptually simpler, as if they
were a language with fewer tenses, fewer genders, fewer inflections, and
fewer means to construct new words. Starting at such a disadvantaged
point means that learning a more normal language is very hard, but if
you already know a more normal language, learning the simpler language
is very easy. Since all natural languages spoken by human beings have to
be equally "natural", the differences are entirely cultural.
Erik Naggum @2005-045
--
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder;
act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none;
in a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Dr John Stockton
2005 20:18:55, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Markus Kuhn <n05W06+mgk2
5...@viterbi.cl.cam.ac.uk> posted :
>
>There are admittedly a few cases where strictly scientific units are
>perhaps too subtle and confusing for lay people. An example would be
>using kN instead of kg to state the maximum capacity of a lift,
>because people without physical training tend to treat mass and
>weight force as equivalent quantities and therefore will not see
>any need to learn a separate unit for force.
FYI, in the UK "physical training" means exercise such as sport, and not
what one gets in the Cavendish.
Since all lifts operate in a gravitational field which is near enough
constant, fixed-ratio conversion between kN & kg introduces no
significant error; and, although people are often weighed on spring
balances, it is not the force on their feet which concerns them but
their true mass (or, for ladies, their volume and its distribution).
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??.Stoc...@physics.org ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
Markus Kuhn
|> >There are admittedly a few cases where strictly scientific units are
|> >perhaps too subtle and confusing for lay people. An example would be
|> >using kN instead of kg to state the maximum capacity of a lift,
|> >because people without physical training tend to treat mass and
|> >weight force as equivalent quantities and therefore will not see
|> >any need to learn a separate unit for force.
|>
|> FYI, in the UK "physical training" means exercise such as sport, and not
|> what one gets in the Cavendish.
Thanks. Having received my entire secondary education at a place
called "Emil-von-Behring Gymnasium", I regularly get confused
about the subtle difference between physical and physics education.
Markus
Gene Nygaard
Kuhn) wrote:
>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> writes:
>|> Markus Kuhn wrote:
>|>
>|> >Why exclude the general population from scientific understanding
>|> >by clouding their understanding through the continued use of archaic
>|> >and less practical units that differ from what all scientists find
>|> >most convenient?
>|>
>|> I suspect that there are larger barriers to lay understanding of
>|> science than the system of units that measurements are made in.
>
>This is no doubt true, but it is in itself no argument for
>maintaining an additional and entire unnecessary barrier by
>using different units in science and outside science.
>
>There are admittedly a few cases where strictly scientific units are
>perhaps too subtle and confusing for lay people. An example would be
>using kN instead of kg to state the maximum capacity of a lift,
The maximum force experienced by the lift is not just the force due to
gravity on a stationary person. The lift itself accelerates; that
acceleration times the mass needs to be added to the static force due
to gravity.
In other words, it is much more sensible to do it the way we do it.
It's not a matter of "not confusing the lay people." Rather, it is
only screwballs in technical fields who might delude themselves into
seeing some error here.
>because people without physical training tend to treat mass and
>weight force as equivalent quantities and therefore will not see
>any need to learn a separate unit for force. Equally, the kelvin
Weight is not different from mass, when we talk about body weight of
humans, or of other animals, in the medical sciences and in sports and
in veterinary science and in biology and whatever. It isn't a matter
of "treating" them as the same; they are the same.
>temperature scale has its origin so far outside the range of
>temperatures experienced in everyday life that I would not
>recommend it for use in medicine and cake recipes.
>
>Consequentely, neither the newton nor the kelvin have become a part
>of daily non-scientific practice in metric countries, because lay
>people can relate much more easily with the kilogram and degree
>Celsius.
The general public rarely deals with measurements that should be
expressed in newtons, now that newtons per square meter have been
given their own name--pascals.
The "net weight" of a bag of sugar, for example, is expressed in
kilograms, not in newtons. It should be expressed in kilograms, not
in newtons.
There is nowhere in the world where newtons are legal units for the
sale of goods by weight--nor should there be.
If you weren't so confused about that yourself, you could better help
the general public to use newtons when they should be used. The
Russian space program finally, about a decade and a half ago, switched
to newtons for rocket thrust, for example.
--
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
"It's not the things you don't know
what gets you into trouble.
"It's the things you do know
that just ain't so."
Will Rogers
Steve MacGregor
news:erb511h7prqtf1eqb...@4ax.com...
> Weight is not different from mass, when we talk about body weight of
> humans, or of other animals, in the medical sciences and in sports and
> in veterinary science and in biology and whatever. It isn't a matter
> of "treating" them as the same; they are the same.
Whoa! That means that what we've been told all our lives -- that on the
moon, we'd weight only one sixth as much as we do on the earth -- is
WRONG!
--
Steve
Jim Riley
wrote:
>* Markus Kuhn @2005-02-13 20:18 -> Jim Riley
>>> Use of deprecating terms such as "FFU" are attempts to manipulate
>>> and control society by a scientific-priest class who would attempt
>>> to marginalize and humiliate those not familiar with their
>>> terminology.
>
>Jim, if you really want not to be marginalized and humiliated, it would
>serve you well to avoid such paranoid and conspiratorial nonsense.
I did not suggest a conspiracy existed. But claims that Americanss do
not know enough to put a coat on because of the use of the Fahrenheit
scale suggest that some people would attempt to control through their
use of vocabulary.
>But conversely, it is precisely lack of understanding of physics that
>keeps the old units alive and well. I believe that U.S. units hold the
>entire people down, as physics expressed with FFUs is much, much harder
>than physics expressed with SI units,
How so? 32 is as easy to remember as 9.8, and since it is a multiple
of 2, it is easier to use in example problems using 2 and 4 seconds.
Use of the Celsius scale could lead to a belief that the boiling point
of water is a universal constant, when it isn't even true for millions
of Americans under the conditions found in their kitchen.
For most day to day activities, the flat earth model works.
--
Jim Riley
Gene Nygaard
Naturally.
Not all of all of our lives, however.
Gene Nygaard
Klaus Wacker
> On 13 Feb 2005 20:18:55 GMT, n05W06...@viterbi.cl.cam.ac.uk (Markus
> Kuhn) wrote:
>
>>because people without physical training tend to treat mass and
>>weight force as equivalent quantities and therefore will not see
>>any need to learn a separate unit for force. Equally, the kelvin
>
> Weight is not different from mass, when we talk about body weight of
> humans, or of other animals, in the medical sciences and in sports and
> in veterinary science and in biology and whatever. It isn't a matter
> of "treating" them as the same; they are the same.
>
Note that Markus wrote "weight force", not weight.
I still learned at school that weight is a force and that it is wrong
to use that word for a quantity measured in kg. I am glad that that
has changed. However, the force still exists and a force really is
something quite different from mass. Please leave us physicists (and
others who need it) a name for that force. Weight force is as good a
name as any.
--
Klaus Wacker wac...@Physik.Uni-Dortmund.DE
Experimentelle Physik V http://www.physik.uni-dortmund.de/~wacker
Universitaet Dortmund Tel.: +49 231 755 3587
D-44221 Dortmund Fax: +49 231 755 4547
Gene Nygaard
<wac...@physik.uni-dortmund.de> wrote:
>Gene Nygaard <gnyg...@nccray.com> wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2005 20:18:55 GMT, n05W06...@viterbi.cl.cam.ac.uk (Markus
>> Kuhn) wrote:
>>
>[...]
>>>because people without physical training tend to treat mass and
>>>weight force as equivalent quantities and therefore will not see
>>>any need to learn a separate unit for force. Equally, the kelvin
>>
>> Weight is not different from mass, when we talk about body weight of
>> humans, or of other animals, in the medical sciences and in sports and
>> in veterinary science and in biology and whatever. It isn't a matter
>> of "treating" them as the same; they are the same.
>>
>
>Note that Markus wrote "weight force", not weight.
>
>I still learned at school that weight is a force and that it is wrong
>to use that word for a quantity measured in kg. I am glad that that
>has changed. However, the force still exists and a force really is
>something quite different from mass. Please leave us physicists (and
>others who need it) a name for that force. Weight force is as good a
>name as any.
But when you are talking about the maximum capacity of a lift, you
should have people adding up the "weights" they know (and that is not
the "weight force" as distinguished from those weights). It would be
silly to have each lift list its maximum acceleration, then for people
to take their mass in kilograms and multiply that by the sum of the
acceleration of the lift and the local acceleration of gravity to get
force in newtons (or even worse, to take their mass in pounds and
multiply by the sum of that acceleration and the local acceleration
due to gravity to get poundals, then convert those poundals to pounds
force), just to see if the lift is overt its capacity. Then to factor
in a different acceleration when they ride on a faster lift. Better
to let the engineers who know that maximum acceleration factor
peculiar to that particular elevator into their determination of the
maximum capacity in kilograms.
BTW, if the ambiguities in the word "weight" bother those who recently
borrowed it and often use it with a different meaning, guess who
should be out shopping for a new word.
Gene Nygaard
Erik Naggum
>> Jim, if you really want not to be marginalized and humiliated, it
>> would serve you well to avoid such paranoid and conspiratorial
>> nonsense.
> I did not suggest a conspiracy existed. But claims that Americanss
> do not know enough to put a coat on because of the use of the
> Fahrenheit scale suggest that some people would attempt to control
> through their use of vocabulary.
And which actual claims would that be? Such wild exaggerations about an
opponent is precisely what people use when judging mental stability.
>> But conversely, it is precisely lack of understanding of physics
>> that keeps the old units alive and well. I believe that U.S. units
>> hold the entire people down, as physics expressed with FFUs is
>> much, much harder than physics expressed with SI units,
> How so? 32 is as easy to remember as 9.8, and since it is a multiple
> of 2, it is easier to use in example problems using 2 and 4 seconds.
/This/ is what you associate with physics?
> For most day to day activities, the flat earth model works.
I think you've just proven my point.
Erik Naggum @2005-047
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Dr John Stockton wrote:
[snip]
> Since all lifts operate in a gravitational field which is near enough
> constant, fixed-ratio conversion between kN & kg introduces no
> significant error;
The error is in the conversion. A 1N lift won't lift a 1 kg mass.
Dr John Stockton
15:06:53, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
posted :
>* Jim Riley @2005-02-16 03:27
?? Surely no true loyal American would post in ISO dating? Though his
system does post in GMT, but the host adds something called PST.
>>> Jim, if you really want not to be marginalized and humiliated, it
>>> would serve you well to avoid such paranoid and conspiratorial
>>> nonsense.
>> I did not suggest a conspiracy existed. But claims that Americanss
>> do not know enough to put a coat on because of the use of the
>> Fahrenheit scale suggest that some people would attempt to control
>> through their use of vocabulary.
>
>And which actual claims would that be? Such wild exaggerations about an
>opponent is precisely what people use when judging mental stability.
It occurs to me to wonder what proportion of US residents are either
themselves immigrants from communities not then using the Imperial
system of measurement, or are descended from recent immigrants
satisfying that condition. Let's take "recent" as meaning that the
present resident's lifetime overlapped the immigrant's.
Pretty well all the Hispanics and those from Continental Europe will be
included, all the Asians except for sub-continentals, and many of the
Africans. So it must be a fairly large proportion, though it excludes
all but the newest Irish.
All those immigrants, except for the failures, will have adapted to the
Imperial system, generally from a more logical or simpler one. So the
present population must be sadly degenerated if they cannot learn a new,
simpler system which they need to know something of whenever travelling
to parts out of US control.
Still, perhaps we should accept Jim's view of the present capabilities
of his country-folk.
>>> But conversely, it is precisely lack of understanding of physics
>>> that keeps the old units alive and well. I believe that U.S. units
>>> hold the entire people down, as physics expressed with FFUs is
>>> much, much harder than physics expressed with SI units,
That is, of course, a competitive benefit to the majority of the world
population; they work in simpler units, and can charge the Americans
more for the extra trouble that they cause by wanting FFU.
>> How so? 32 is as easy to remember as 9.8, and since it is a multiple
>> of 2, it is easier to use in example problems using 2 and 4 seconds.
>
>/This/ is what you associate with physics?
It may be all that he knows of the subject.
>> For most day to day activities, the flat earth model works.
>
>I think you've just proven my point.
>
>Erik Naggum @2005-047
? Is that not unduly imprecise? Surely there should be a Z after the
047 - you'll just have something else to think of if posting soon after
local midnight.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
Gene Nygaard
<sp...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>JRS: In article <e54ce2-...@news.naggum.no>, dated Wed, 16 Feb 2005
>15:06:53, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
>posted :
>>* Jim Riley @2005-02-16 03:27
That formatting is inserted by the newsreader of someone replying to
him, dummy.
Surely you have far too much time on your hands if you are trying to
guess at what time everybody posted their messages. But I don't
understand why you think there should be a Zulu after the 47th day of
the year in any case. Now, if you look at the headers, you will see
that Erik actually posted it at 15:06 Z, or most likely 16:06 in his
local time.
Once again, just material introducing the quoted material, inserted by
the browser of someone replying.
Gene Nygaard
Time flies like an arrow;
fruit flies like a banana.
Erik Naggum
>> * Jim Riley @2005-02-16 03:27
> ?? Surely no true loyal American would post in ISO dating? Though
> his system does post in GMT, but the host adds something called PST.
What on earth are you on?
>> Erik Naggum @2005-047
> ? Is that not unduly imprecise? Surely there should be a Z after the
> 047 - you'll just have something else to think of if posting soon after
> local midnight.
I tend to marvel at the behavior that Brits deem appropriate when they
encounter precision above their national maximum, but rest assured that
even if it is difficult for you to stomach precision, there are people
elsewhere on the planet who value precision -- even in English -- and
who are unlikely to dumb their language down to fit British mores.
ISO 8601 time formats have an optional time zone suffix. Date formats
do not. In case you wish to crack better jokes in the future.
Erik Naggum @2005-048
Dr John Stockton
02:24:25, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
posted :
>* Dr John Stockton @2005-02-16 23:48
>>> * Jim Riley @2005-02-16 03:27
>> ?? Surely no true loyal American would post in ISO dating? Though
>> his system does post in GMT, but the host adds something called PST.
>
>What on earth are you on?
It is desirable that the Riley leg should be pulled from time to time,
to remind him not to take himself more seriously than anyone else does.
Europeans, however, are expected to be smart enough to realise that.
It's a pity that Usenet convention, presumably set in the USA with
inadequate consideration, seems to be that attribution times are given
without time zone.
>>> Erik Naggum @2005-047
>> ? Is that not unduly imprecise? Surely there should be a Z after the
>> 047 - you'll just have something else to think of if posting soon after
>> local midnight.
>
>I tend to marvel at the behavior that Brits deem appropriate when they
>encounter precision above their national maximum, but rest assured that
>even if it is difficult for you to stomach precision, there are people
>elsewhere on the planet who value precision -- even in English -- and
>who are unlikely to dumb their language down to fit British mores.
That paragraph appears to have no relevant meaning. Perhaps you are
unaware of the meaning, in UK English, of "imprecise"? or failed to read
with care that to which you were replying?
> ISO 8601 time formats have an optional time zone suffix. Date formats
>do not. In case you wish to crack better jokes in the future.
That is a date/time format with the time at fully-reduced precision and
the T omitted. Without the Z, it indicates a period of something over
48 hours, from 00:00h New Zealand Summer Time to 24:00 Aleutian Standard
Time, possibly extended by odd Pacific Islands; a local time of an
unspecified locality (after all, Norwegians get everywhere these days;
remember Thor Heyerdahl, and the "London Underground" song set to the
"Hall of the Mountain King"). With the Z, it indicates UTC.
Alternatively, if one is allowed to abut an @ to the left side of YYYY-
DDD (and in the draft 2000 standard, the only two instances of @ refer
to location, not to time), one must be allowed to abut a Z to the right
side, with the same meaning as in ISO 8601..
--
Gene Nygaard
<sp...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>JRS: In article <prbde2-...@news.naggum.no>, dated Thu, 17 Feb 2005
>02:24:25, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
>posted :
>>* Dr John Stockton @2005-02-16 23:48
>>>> * Jim Riley @2005-02-16 03:27
>>> ?? Surely no true loyal American would post in ISO dating? Though
>>> his system does post in GMT, but the host adds something called PST.
>>
>>What on earth are you on?
>
>It is desirable that the Riley leg should be pulled from time to time,
>to remind him not to take himself more seriously than anyone else does.
It was Erik Naggum's news reader, not Jim Riley's, which inserted that
information.
>Europeans, however, are expected to be smart enough to realise that.
>
>It's a pity that Usenet convention, presumably set in the USA with
>inadequate consideration, seems to be that attribution times are given
>without time zone.
Enough of the gratuitous America-bashing. As a matter of fact, Jim
Riley's browser does insert the time with time zone. For example, "On
Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:35:52 +0000, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
wrote:"
So does mine: "On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:48:12 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<sp...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:"
Dr. John Stockton's browser, OTOH, is not configured to show the time
zone: "JRS: In article <e54ce2-...@news.naggum.no>, dated Wed,
16 Feb 2005 15:06:53, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Erik Naggum
<er...@naggum.no> posted :
Chalk two up on the American side. And one fool across the pond with
either an inferior news reader, or one which he can't figure out how
to configure (I didn't bother with mine; it just happens to be the
default--in fact, while that is shown in quoting earlier messages is
in Zulu time, the times on my listings on my news reader are U.S.
Central Time). BTW, you do realize that +0000 means the same as Z,
don't you?
--
Gene Nygaard
"There's no way to know for sure without finding
out what a "kg" is, and my belief, as an American,
is that if I have to start understanding the metric
system, then the terrorists have won."
--Dave Barry
Erik Naggum
> It's a pity that Usenet convention, presumably set in the USA with
> inadequate consideration, seems to be that attribution times are
> given without time zone.
You presume too much.
The rest of your pretentious nonsense is best ignored. Whatever problems
you clearly have with participating here on Usenet, please get help.
Derailing a discussion because you have a personal problem with date
notations is so insane that the rest of your «contributions» here must
be judged in the same light. Say, weren't you the nutjob who couldn't
use URL's unless they had /exactly/ the right format for you? I'm sorry
I forgot you -- such disturbances clearly deserve to be remembered.
Erik Naggum @2005-049
Dr John Stockton
08:18:34, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
posted :
>* Dr John Stockton @2005-02-17 23:34
>> It's a pity that Usenet convention, presumably set in the USA with
>> inadequate consideration, seems to be that attribution times are
>> given without time zone.
>
>You presume too much.
You should realise that a finite number of counter-examples, in an
unregulated medium, are inadequate to refute an assertion of the
existence of an established convention.
>The rest of your pretentious nonsense is best ignored.
You have failed to address your comprehension problem.
Read back, see where you have been unable to understand that imprecise
does not mean precise, but rather the opposite, and apologise
accordingly.
Before you try to write English, you should first learn to read it.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Erik Naggum
> You have failed to address your comprehension problem.
>
> Read back, see where you have been unable to understand that
> imprecise does not mean precise, but rather the opposite, and
> apologise accordingly.
>
> Before you try to write English, you should first learn to read it.
Ah, so your huffing and puffing is simply an inferiority complex. Well,
get over it: You do not achieve respect for your hard-earned title by
behaving the way you do and displaying your lack of self-confidence. You
are likely to get wounded if you parade such psychological problems in
public and try to get the upper hand as in some primitive simian power
struggle. Take good care of yourself in private, /then/ venture out in
public with a substantiated self-confidence that has no need to belittle
your superiors to feel a little less bad about yourself. I mean this.
So be a nice doctor and figure out what this newsgroup is for: It is
not for pompous Dr Blow Hards to try to belittle people who are clearly
better than him in all possible respects, but for discussions of the
metric system. So get with the program and /please/ try to get over your
personal hangups with the attribution line, the syntax for URL's, and
other irrelevant minutiae. Not everyone who has an interest in the
metric system has Asperger's syndrome, so your obsessive attention to
irrelevant detail is out of place. Try alt.support.aspergers, instead.
To test your moral fiber, I have made a small change to one of the
things you obsess about. If you notice it, will you realize that you
have gotten what you wanted, or will you keep ranting and raving and
look for more things to criticize because you still feel inferior to me?
I have used a different custom for enclosing quoted text than you are
used to, as well, just to see if you get all flummoxed about it.
In order to let you know just how utterly despicable I consider you to
be as a person (considering that you evidently fail to catch drifts the
size of tsunamis): Some actually believe that those who have been
awarded a prestigious title or degree like «Doctor» should abide by
professional codes of conduct, such as honoring the original meaning of
«doctor» («teacher», if you did not know) -- and should be stripped of
their degree if they bring disgrace to their peers. Something to think
about before you sacrifice your future just because you need to «win»
Usenet flamewars you /start/ by obsessing about irrelevantia?
If you can remember what I and others were saying here before your puny
little brain and sadly brief attention span got overloaded from
experiencing an unusual attribution line, it is still possible for you
to return to something at least marginally on-topic if you wish to show
the world how well you are able to behave if you concentrate. I am not
betting on your ability or willingness to behave better, however, so if
you fail to realize what an ass you have made of yourself and go on to
rant and rave even further, you will get the last word. If you should
surprise me by acting like a human being, you can be certain that I will
ignore your past misbehavior and discuss the /real/ topics you bring up.
Erik Naggum @2005-050
Brian Inglis
K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>"Steve MacGregor" <s_t_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In kWh, spelled out as "kilowatt-hours", usually, because we don't
>> understand the metric symbols.
>
>Actually the appropriate symbol would be "kW h" or (better) "kW搬" (and
>perhaps best using the DOT OPERATOR character instead of the MIDDLE DOT),
>since multiplication of units should be indicated using a space or a dot.
>This would make the unit even more inconvenient, and that's good. :-)
>
>> It would be convenient, though, to be charged in MJ for both electricity
>> and natural gas, wouldn't it?
>
>The unit of energy is the joule (J), and MJ is just a symbol for a multiple
>of the joule. I wonder why they don't express the prices per joule - they
>would sound much smaller. Just as phone charges would sound smaller if
>expressed in terms of an amount of money per second, the unit of time.
In Canada, the industry uses the GJ, and consumers are charged for
those units, based on the volume metered (industry uses 1000 m3 ==
e3m3, and heat content factor ~40 MJ/m3 == GJ/e3m3); can't remember
now if my consumer metre measures m3 or ft3, and an average energy
content factor ~0.95: price is ~CA$6/GJ.
In the US, the industry uses the dekatherm Dth == MMBTU == millions of
BTUs (business MM, where M == 1000, not metric) == ~1.05GJ, don't know
how they charge the consumer, probably MMBTU.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian....@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
Brian Inglis
n05W06...@viterbi.cl.cam.ac.uk (Markus Kuhn) wrote:
In Canada, we mainly pay for the energy content of gasoline.
Most gas/petrol pumps have a little sticker that says "this pump has
been volume corrected to 15 degrees Celsius", the industry standard
for ATC.
Normally beside a bigger sticker with a coloured pie chart showing how
much of the retail price goes to federal and provincial government
taxes, and how little goes to the retailer, distributor, and producer.
Check your gas/petrol pump the next time you fill up.
Brian Inglis
You've got Canadian and a Finnish posts in this thread, care to guess
again what the delivery temperature range might be: certainly -30C to
+30C most years and most places in the country, perhaps -40C to +40C
some years and places in the country.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>* Jim Riley @2005-02-16 03:27
>> I did not suggest a conspiracy existed. But claims that Americanss
>> do not know enough to put a coat on because of the use of the
>> Fahrenheit scale suggest that some people would attempt to control
>> through their use of vocabulary.
>
>And which actual claims would that be?
<1107887646.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Ask a random sample of Americans at what temperature water freezes
and boils and get back to us. And I mean a true random sample.
Better still, go watch your weatherman (or woman) around the time
when the temperatures head for 32ºF. They will never throw out the
32ºF figure like it's nothing. It's always mentioned in the context
of freezing or freezing water. Americans have to be _reminded_ that
this is the freezing point. You don't have to do this with
centigrade, and
>>> But conversely, it is precisely lack of understanding of physics
>>> that keeps the old units alive and well. I believe that U.S. units
>>> hold the entire people down, as physics expressed with FFUs is
>>> much, much harder than physics expressed with SI units,
>> How so? 32 is as easy to remember as 9.8, and since it is a multiple
>> of 2, it is easier to use in example problems using 2 and 4 seconds.
>
>/This/ is what you associate with physics?
What do you associate with physics?
>> For most day to day activities, the flat earth model works.
>
>I think you've just proven my point.
You don't agree?
--
Jim Riley
Gene Nygaard
They do--and gasoline temperatures are fairly often that low--or that
high.
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/h44.htm
then click on
Section 3
3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices
to take you to this pdf file
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/h44/lmd.pdf
Note: In this section of Handbook 44, the reference temperature for
the temperature compensation of refined petroleum
products is shown as "15 °C (60 °F)." Although these values are not
exact equivalents, they reflect industry usage when the
SI and inch-pound units are used in measurements.
...
S.1.2.1. Retail Motor-Fuel Devices. - Deliveries
shall be indicated and recorded, if the device is
equipped to record, in liters or gallons and decimal
subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof.
...
S.2.7. Wholesale Devices Equipped with Automatic
Temperature Compensators.
S.2.7.1. Automatic Temperature Compensation. -
A device may be equipped with an automatic means
for adjusting the indication and registration of the
measured volume of product to the volume at 15 °C
(60 °F).
<end quote>
There's more if you read the whole thing.
Gene Nygaard
Erik Naggum
>>>I did not suggest a conspiracy existed. But claims that Americanss
>>>do not know enough to put a coat on because of the use of the
>>>Fahrenheit scale suggest that some people would attempt to control
>>>through their use of vocabulary.
>>
>>And which actual claims would that be?
>
>>>>> Ask a random sample of Americans at what temperature water
>>>>> freezes and boils and get back to us. And I mean a true
>>>>> random sample. Better still, go watch your weatherman (or
>>>>> woman) around the time when the temperatures head for 32ºF.
>>>>> They will never throw out the 32ºF figure like it's nothing.
>>>>> It's always mentioned in the context of freezing or freezing
>>>>> water. Americans have to be _reminded_ that this is the
>>>>> freezing point.
I trust that you are just as able to see the difference between the text
you quote and the interpretation you made of it as I am, so I would like
you to consider the possibility that your interpretation was colored by
your own preconceptions and so ended up as a wild exaggeration of the
actual statement you have quoted. When you state that someone else has
claimed something you had better be accurate. If you interpret it with
wild abandon and /say/ you interpret it, then at least you accept full
responsibility for the interpretation. As it stands, /you/ have claimed
that someone actually said something they did not. This is dishonest,
and it is one of those little things that ring alarm bells concerning
your general fidelity towards your sources and in your arguments: If you
confuse what someone actually said with what you think they meant, you
are not likely to keep track of other distinctions between fantasy and
reality, either, and so those who listen to you will have to do all the
work you have not to ascertain that what you report is actually so. To
those of your readers who are sticklers for accuracy and truth, this is
a «tax» you levy on all your readers to pay for your laziness.
> What do you associate with physics?
Lots of mathematics that get overly complicated with FFUs and make a lot
of sense with SI units. (Yes, I have tried both.)
>>> For most day to day activities, the flat earth model works.
>> I think you've just proven my point.
> You don't agree?
No. The only way it could make sense, is if «most day to day activities»
is defined to be those where the flat earth model works. I do not think
that is a sensible definition, especially not if every single case where
it does not work is moved out of the «most» category by that criterion.
So it is a non-sensical claim devoid of specific meaning.
In my view, there is no reason to dumb down the model for the simple
reason that it would still «work». If the curvature of the earth does
not affect the outcome to any significant degree, well, then it does not
affect the outcome, and /both/ the flat and the globe model produce the
same results. What advantage is there at this point to use an
oversimplified model that has to be tested for validity by comparing the
result to that from the globe model? How do you determine that the flat
model «works» unless you compute with both models and find that the
difference is insignificant, which could vary according to application?
And if you wish to go by hunches and guesswork, why not just upgrade
your intuition to match the globe model, which is no harder than to work
on the mathematical and physical problems for a while. I hope U.S. youth
get to do this in class and are not hampered by a flat earth model, the
same way they are hampered by «Intelligent Design» in biology classes.
Erik Naggum @2005-050
Phil McKerracher
"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:hLXNd.2811$UX3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:24:17 GMT, "Phil McKerracher"
> <ph...@mckerracher.org> wrote:
>
> >"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> >news:Fm_Md.881$UX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >> What advantage is there for an ordinary American to use Celsius?...
>
> >First and foremost, the advantage is that the rest of the world (and even
> >the scientific community within America) now uses Celsius. This means
that
> >after the initial change to Celsius there is ultimately LESS need to do
> >conversions, have thermometers with dual scales, print specifications
with
> >two temperature ranges and so on. It's an international standard, which
is
> >important if you want to trade.
>
> What does it matter if scientists use different temperature scales,
> from ordinary persons?...
Like I said, it matters because of all the conversions.
> >Second, Celsius ties in with other units in the metric system and removes
> >the need for conversion factors there as well. This ultimately makes life
> >easier for anyone who has to heat or cool something (do these count as
> >"ordinary" Americans?).
>
> Can you give me an example of such a calculation that an ordinary
> American might perform?
Any heating or cooling engineer needs to calculate capacities of tanks etc
that have a direct bearing on cost. Builders need to use the right amount of
roof and wall insulation...
> >Third, it's much easier to remember what the freezing point and boiling
> >point of water are, it doesn't really have to be "taught".
>
> I know what the freezing point and boiling point of water are.
In Fahrenheit? Really? You're unusual, I think.
> Give me an example where forgetting the freezing point of water would
> be fatal?
You don't slow down as road gets icy and slide off the road. Your
refrigerator loses efficiency and you don't notice and get food poisoning.
The overnight temperature drops below freezing and you don't cover your
frost-sensitive plants and they die. Your pipes freeze and burst and all
your possessions are water-damaged.
> The US uses a single standard scale for ordinary everyday
> applications.
No, it uses a mix of scales. Have you bought a thermometer or ruler lately?
--
Phil McKerracher
www.mckerracher.org
Gene Nygaard
<ph...@mckerracher.org> wrote:
>
>"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>news:hLXNd.2811$UX3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:24:17 GMT, "Phil McKerracher"
>> <ph...@mckerracher.org> wrote:
>>
>> >"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Fm_Md.881$UX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> >> What advantage is there for an ordinary American to use Celsius?...
>>
>> >First and foremost, the advantage is that the rest of the world (and even
>> >the scientific community within America) now uses Celsius. This means
>that
>> >after the initial change to Celsius there is ultimately LESS need to do
>> >conversions, have thermometers with dual scales, print specifications
>with
>> >two temperature ranges and so on. It's an international standard, which
>is
>> >important if you want to trade.
>>
>> What does it matter if scientists use different temperature scales,
>> from ordinary persons?...
>
>Like I said, it matters because of all the conversions.
And it matters especially because
1. The conversions are more difficult than a simple multiplication or
division.
2. The conversions are different for temperature intervals than for
temperature readings.
>
>> >Second, Celsius ties in with other units in the metric system and removes
>> >the need for conversion factors there as well. This ultimately makes life
>> >easier for anyone who has to heat or cool something (do these count as
>> >"ordinary" Americans?).
>>
>> Can you give me an example of such a calculation that an ordinary
>> American might perform?
>
>Any heating or cooling engineer needs to calculate capacities of tanks etc
>that have a direct bearing on cost. Builders need to use the right amount of
>roof and wall insulation...
>
>> >Third, it's much easier to remember what the freezing point and boiling
>> >point of water are, it doesn't really have to be "taught".
>>
>> I know what the freezing point and boiling point of water are.
>
>In Fahrenheit? Really? You're unusual, I think.
No, he isn't. There's almost nobody in the United States over the age
of six who doesn't know that.
Many more Americans are unsure about the number of feet in a yard or
the number of quarts in a gallon, than there are who don't know the
freezing and boiling points of water in degrees Fahrenheit.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm
But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the
citizens of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough
reformation of their whole system of measures, weights and coins,
reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established
in their coins, and thus bringing the calculation of the principal
affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply
and divide plain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.
U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson
Brian Inglis
<jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:06:53 +0000, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
>wrote:
>
>>* Jim Riley @2005-02-16 03:27
>
>>> I did not suggest a conspiracy existed. But claims that Americanss
>>> do not know enough to put a coat on because of the use of the
>>> Fahrenheit scale suggest that some people would attempt to control
>>> through their use of vocabulary.
>>
>>And which actual claims would that be?
>
><1107887646.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
> Ask a random sample of Americans at what temperature water freezes
> and boils and get back to us. And I mean a true random sample.
> Better still, go watch your weatherman (or woman) around the time
> when the temperatures head for 32ºF. They will never throw out the
> 32ºF figure like it's nothing. It's always mentioned in the context
> of freezing or freezing water. Americans have to be _reminded_ that
> this is the freezing point. You don't have to do this with
> centigrade, and
ISTM that at least 50% of a random sample of Americans would get one
or both of those quantities wrong, based on Jay Leno walkabouts, some
US game show where contestants bet whether people on the street will
get the answers to simple questions right or wrong, and the Canadian
TV show "Talking to Americans" which often visits US college campuses,
and has featured US politicians, including GWB, showing them clued out
about basic facts, their own country, and the rest of the world.
KerryC
I pop into this group only occasionally. Mr Naggum's lovely insult is the
best I have seen for quite a while. Had me hooting and chortling. More
please! I look forward to further gems.
KerryC
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message
news:78fie2-...@news.naggum.no...
Dr John Stockton
00:52:55, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
posted :
>* Dr John Stockton @2005-02-18 22:20Z
>> You have failed to address your comprehension problem.
>>
>> Read back, see where you have been unable to understand that
>> imprecise does not mean precise, but rather the opposite, and
>> apologise accordingly.
>>
>> Before you try to write English, you should first learn to read it.
>
>Ah,
Lines and lines of intestinal retrostalsis.
None of which address the question of your inability to understand the
difference between the words "precise" and "imprecise".
You are still giving a 48-hour-long date :
>Erik Naggum @2005-050
and, by the way, you have a signature which is not standards-compliant;
read RFC 1855.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>* Jim Riley @2005-02-19 03:13Z
>>>>I did not suggest a conspiracy existed. But claims that Americanss
>>>>do not know enough to put a coat on because of the use of the
>>>>Fahrenheit scale suggest that some people would attempt to control
>>>>through their use of vocabulary.
>>>
>>>And which actual claims would that be?
>> [Quoting] <1107887646.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>>
>>>>>> Ask a random sample of Americans at what temperature water
>>>>>> freezes and boils and get back to us. And I mean a true
>>>>>> random sample. Better still, go watch your weatherman (or
>>>>>> woman) around the time when the temperatures head for 32ºF.
>>>>>> They will never throw out the 32ºF figure like it's nothing.
>>>>>> It's always mentioned in the context of freezing or freezing
>>>>>> water. Americans have to be _reminded_ that this is the
>>>>>> freezing point.
>
>I trust that you are just as able to see the difference between the text
>you quote and the interpretation you made of it as I am, so I would like
>you to consider the possibility that your interpretation was colored by
>your own preconceptions and so ended up as a wild exaggeration of the
>actual statement you have quoted.
I assume you meant to write 'mild' rather than 'wild'. So do you
agree that if Americans heard on the weather that it would be in the
30s that they would have enough sense to wear a coat, but that they
wouldn't know that water would freeze around 32 F?
The Fahrenheit scale is more useful than Celsius. It provides for
more precision, without resorting to fractions. It allows use of two
digits across most terrestial temperatures, and for the areas just
outside, a modifier of "minus" or "hundred and" can be used with 2
digits.
If absolute temperatures are used, I have to remember the constant to
use whether converting to Rankine or Kelvin. So where does an
advantage for the use of Celsius come in? Counting calories?
> If you
>confuse what someone actually said with what you think they meant,
The initial claim was so incredible that I did not know if tastyalien
really meant it?
>> What do you associate with physics?
>
>Lots of mathematics that get overly complicated with FFUs and make a lot
>of sense with SI units. (Yes, I have tried both.)
Could you give me one example?
What do you mean by "FFUs"? Is this a term recognized by the
authorities responsible for defining SI, or any other similar
authority? If not, why do you choose to use it?
>>>> For most day to day activities, the flat earth model works.
>>> I think you've just proven my point.
>> You don't agree?
>
>No. The only way it could make sense, is if «most day to day activities»
>is defined to be those where the flat earth model works.
Does "day to day activities" really need to be defined?
Sleeping, eating, walking, sitting, setting things on a table or
shelf, hanging a lamp, throwing or kicking a ball, weightlifting,
skiing, digging drainage ditches, building a house, reading a road
map, driving to work or school, measuring mass, volume, distance, or
temperature.
> In my view, there is no reason to dumb down the model for the simple
>reason that it would still «work». If the curvature of the earth does
>not affect the outcome to any significant degree, well, then it does not
>affect the outcome, and /both/ the flat and the globe model produce the
>same results. What advantage is there at this point to use an
>oversimplified model that has to be tested for validity by comparing the
>result to that from the globe model?
If you were faced with the task of carrying a refrigerator up a flight
of stairs, would you first consider relativistic effects, perhaps
before deciding that they would not be significant?
> How do you determine that the flat
>model «works» unless you compute with both models and find that the
>difference is insignificant, which could vary according to application?
If my application is walking across the floor, I will already have
done it before the person computing whether it is possible has picked
up his pencil or calculator.
>And if you wish to go by hunches and guesswork, why not just upgrade
>your intuition to match the globe model, which is no harder than to work
>on the mathematical and physical problems for a while. I hope U.S. youth
>get to do this in class and are not hampered by a flat earth model,
Why do you hope that this is true?
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
<ph...@mckerracher.org> wrote:
>"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>news:hLXNd.2811$UX3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> What does it matter if scientists use different temperature scales,
>> from ordinary persons?...
>
>Like I said, it matters because of all the conversions.
If the scientists have to present their findings to the general
public, the conversion is simple.
>> >Second, Celsius ties in with other units in the metric system and removes
>> >the need for conversion factors there as well. This ultimately makes life
>> >easier for anyone who has to heat or cool something (do these count as
>> >"ordinary" Americans?).
>>
>> Can you give me an example of such a calculation that an ordinary
>> American might perform?
>
>Any heating or cooling engineer needs to calculate capacities of tanks etc
>that have a direct bearing on cost. Builders need to use the right amount of
>roof and wall insulation...
So the builders can convert their plans from feet and inches to
meters, get a table of resistance values for their proposed building
materials, convert those to Celsius and meters, find the climate for
the location where the building is being built, convert that to
Celsius, do the heat loss calculation, and then convert back to
determine the heating and cooling capacity needed?
How exactly does Celsius tie into other SI units? Let's say I have a
liter of water that I want to heat one degree. How many Joules will I
need?
>> I know what the freezing point and boiling point of water are.
>
>In Fahrenheit? Really? You're unusual, I think.
Does the temperature get below freezing where you live? Maybe it
simply a matter of experience. And why would people know what the
freezing point of water in Celsius is?
>> Give me an example where forgetting the freezing point of water would
>> be fatal?
>
>You don't slow down as road gets icy and slide off the road.
The most dangerous conditions are when the air temperature is slightly
above freezing, and precipitation can fall as rain then freeze. Or
perhaps if there is a thin coating of water on top of the ice. Or
there may only be ice on bridges and overpasses because they cool
faster.
But even here, one could sense the slick condition of the roadway even
if they did not know the freezing point of water.
> Your
>refrigerator loses efficiency and you don't notice and get food poisoning.
I don't have a thermometer in my refrigerator.
>The overnight temperature drops below freezing and you don't cover your
>frost-sensitive plants and they die.
If you live in a cooler climate, you don't bother with frost-sensitive
plants outside. In warmer climates, the building management sends out
notices when there is a risk of freezing, and the weather bureau
issues frost warnings.
It is unlikely that you will wake at 4 a.m. to check the temperature,
so any preparation will have been made on the basis of a forecast.
> Your pipes freeze and burst and all
>your possessions are water-damaged.
If you live in a cooler climate, pipes are buried deeper, and
insulated inside. If the pipes freeze and burst it will not be when
the air temperature outside is in the low 30s.
In warmer climates, the building management sends out notices when
there is a risk of freezing, and requests that you leave the water
dripping and keep cupboards open to the pipes under the sink.
>> The US uses a single standard scale for ordinary everyday
>> applications.
>
>No, it uses a mix of scales. Have you bought a thermometer or ruler lately?
I have never bought a ruler with a temperature scale on it. I don't
think even the US is that mixed up.
The last clock/thermometer I bought could be set to display in either
Fahrenheit or Celsius and AM/PM or 24-hour time, and display the day
of the week in English or Spanish. The person that I bought the
clock/thermometer for preferred Fahrenheit, AM/PM, and English.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Quoting: U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson
> reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established
> in their coins,
When the US currency system was defined, it defined the units as
being:
mill (thousandth of a dollar)
cent (hundredth of a dollar)
di(s)me (tenth of a dollar)
dollar (unit of currency)
eagle (ten dollars)
Do you think that it would speed American adoption of the metric
system if the the 'deka' prefix was replaced with an 'eagle' prefix?
Besides being familiar, it would avoid possible confusion between
'deci' and 'deka'.
--
Jim Riley
Erik Naggum
> I assume you meant to write 'mild' rather than 'wild'.
You assume too much, but by way of introduction, you certainly fail to
show your most intelligent side.
> So do you agree that if Americans heard on the weather that it would
> be in the 30s that they would have enough sense to wear a coat, but
> that they wouldn't know that water would freeze around 32 F?
No. (I never «agree» with people who ask stupid questions, regardless of
what I might think.)
>> If you confuse what someone actually said with what you think they
>> meant,
> The initial claim was so incredible that I did not know if tastyalien
> really meant it?
May I suggest that your core problem is that you try to imagine what
people may have meant instead of understanding what they have written?
This is a common shortcoming of people who are not used to written
exchanges of opinion, but relate to them as if they were spoken by a
person whose face and body language they see and whose tone of voice
they use to find clues to their actual intent and meaning, as opposed to
the words they speak -- when they can no longer see and hear people,
they get paranoid and confused and begin to create mental images that
«speak» the written words to them, like an avatar. This is getting more
prevalent as people are no longer used to imagine what words they read
are referring to or describing, as when reading books, but get all their
news from talking heads on TV and all their fiction from movies.
> What do you mean by "FFUs"? Is this a term recognized by the
> authorities responsible for defining SI, or any other similar
> authority? If not, why do you choose to use it?
You know the answer to these stupid questions already. Just be smarter.
>>>>> For most day to day activities, the flat earth model works.
>>>> I think you've just proven my point.
>>> You don't agree?
>> No. The only way it could make sense, is if «most day to day
>> activities» is defined to be those where the flat earth model
>> works.
> Does "day to day activities" really need to be defined?
You're so not getting the point.
> If you were faced with the task of carrying a refrigerator up a
> flight of stairs, would you first consider relativistic effects,
> perhaps before deciding that they would not be significant?
The only interesting thing about these stupid questions is for what
purpose you expect to use the answers. Since you appear retarded, but
probably isn't, answering your stupid questions is counterproductive.
> Why do you hope that this is true?
/Are/ you retarded? If yes, keep doing what you're doing. If not, get
off that idiotic rhetorical question carousel and get serious. If you
want to take part in a discussion with something other than your own
mental models of other people, you could do a lot of good by assuming
that other people have arrived at their conclusions and valuations at
least as intelligently as you have yourself, and probably more so, such
that it would behoove you to listen, rather than pontificate with your
stupid rhetorical questions. If you enter discussions only to convince
others, you will always fail.
Erik Naggum @2005-051
Jim Riley
wrote:
>* Jim Riley @2005-02-20 01:33Z
>> What do you mean by "FFUs"? Is this a term recognized by the
>> authorities responsible for defining SI, or any other similar
>> authority? If not, why do you choose to use it?
>
>You know the answer to these stupid questions already. Just be smarter.
You use "FFUs" for "Fred Flinstone Units". "The Flintstones" was an
animated US television program in the 1960s. Fred Flintstone was one
of the characters.
The authorities responsible for defining SI do not recognize the term
"FFU".
I do not know why Erik Naggum uses it.
--
Jim Riley
Erik Naggum
> You use "FFUs" for "Fred Flinstone Units". "The Flintstones" was an
> animated US television program in the 1960s. Fred Flintstone was one
> of the characters.
OK, so you really are retarded. Go play in the street, now.
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>* Jim Riley @2005-02-19 03:13Z
>>>>I did not suggest a conspiracy existed. But claims that Americanss
>>>>do not know enough to put a coat on because of the use of the
>>>>Fahrenheit scale suggest that some people would attempt to control
>>>>through their use of vocabulary.
>>>
>>>And which actual claims would that be?
>> [Quoting] <1107887646.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>>
>>>>>> Ask a random sample of Americans at what temperature water
>>>>>> freezes and boils and get back to us. And I mean a true
>>>>>> random sample. Better still, go watch your weatherman (or
>>>>>> woman) around the time when the temperatures head for 32ºF.
>>>>>> They will never throw out the 32ºF figure like it's nothing.
>>>>>> It's always mentioned in the context of freezing or freezing
>>>>>> water. Americans have to be _reminded_ that this is the
>>>>>> freezing point.
>
>I trust that you are just as able to see the difference between the text
>you quote and the interpretation you made of it as I am, so I would like
Oh, get off your hgh horse, Erik! For once, Jim is right.
The first thing I read in this discussion was Jim's reply to your
challenge to back up his claim that this is what you said, and I
immediately understood it the same way he did. He may have used a
tiny bit of hyperbole in making the point on which you challenged him
on--something that should have been an effective tool in making the
point, if he were arguing with a sentient being.
There is nobody in America who doesn't know the freezing point of
water in degrees Fahrenheit. Maybe a few who don't know the "standard
pressure" boiling point of water--but maybe that's a good thing too.
Do you know the normal boiling point of water in degrees Celsius,
where you live? Where I live? In Quito, Ecuador?
You also seem to be overlooking one main reason for the use of the
phrase "freezing point of water" or various shortenings such as "a
little above freezing" and the like. In discussions aimed at an
audience likely to include some people who use degrees Fahrenheit and
some people who use degrees Celsius, this avoids clumsy, awkward use
of conversions, expressing the numbers in dual units. Note that this
is especially true of Usenet discussions. Note that this is a good
method of avoidance of the dual units precisely because EVERYBODY
using either temperature scale knows what the freezing point of water
is on that scale.
Gene Nygaard
Erik Naggum
> Oh, get off your high horse, Erik!
Great introduction! You certainly show me what to expect from you.
> The first thing I read in this discussion was Jim's reply to your
> challenge to back up his claim that this is what you said,
Perhaps your attitude would improve if you paid attention? Hint: Try to
keep track of who says what when. It should be easy with most software
aids that displays threads. Losing track of only a handful of messages
is not a great way to suggest that I should listen to your grievances.
> and I immediately understood it the same way he did.
Sigh. If you are clear about what you understand and what other people
have actually said (claimed), you accept responsibility for your own
interpretation and you do not try to put words into your opponents's
mouth, which is what I think is a despicable habit people drag along
with them from the sloppy customs of oral communication.
> He may have used a tiny bit of hyperbole in making the point on which
> you challenged him on--something that should have been an effective
> tool in making the point, if he were arguing with a sentient being.
Imagine such a stupid line from someone who cannot even keep track of
which person said what and who does not get the simple point that if he
says that someone else «claimed» something, he had better be honest. It
is hard enough to discuss things in this medium even without having to
correct misrepresentations and outright lies about other people's actual
statements.
The typical problem is that a few people «understand» some claim to
have one particular meaning, and then that meaning becomes the claim
itself after a couple exchanges. Most statements have multiple meanings
and it is never possible to ascertain that you have not missed some of
them. For instance, I understood the statement made by «tastyalien» (so
now you got that correction for free) to mean that your average American
does not know the /exact/ freezing point of water in Fahrenheit, but Jim
understood it to mean that they had no clue whatsoever. Of course people
know the temperature ranges to one significant digit by heart, but the
point made by «tastyalien» as I understood it was that, e.g., «30's» is
enough to know what clothes to wear, but that by itself does not mean
you know the freezing and boiling points of water.
What happened was that Jim collapsed a number of interpretations into a
single pretty stupid one, which made the rest of the points made in the
actual statement appear to vanish in thin air -- you missed them, too,
and my guess is that they vanished only in the instant you thought that
Jim's dumbed-down version was «it». Well, it was not. But thanks to
Jim's dumbed-down version, the point that Americans still need reminders
of the /exact/ freezing point of water -- not just when it is «cold» --
was entirely lost. I think that lost point was vastly more important
than the dumbed-down version that tried to belittle the observation by
an amazingly stupid interpretation. Why /do/ American weathermen have to
remind people that 32°F is the freezing point? And how many Americans
will know that 212°F is the boiling point off the top of their head? If
you do not think this point matters at all, that is just fine by me, but
if you truly believe that just because /you/ do not think it matters, it
does not exist, it was not intended, and it could not matter to anyone
else, so /you/ can switch one statement with another as you like, well,
why should anyone pay any attention to you from now on? You obviously do
not respond to what you are /actually/ resonding to, but to some random,
dumbed-down version that you feel free to pretend someone else wrote,
just like Jim does.
> There is nobody in America who doesn't know the freezing point of
> water in degrees Fahrenheit.
It only takes a single American to disprove such nonsense. The obvious
abundance of American who who do /not/ know it is 32°F clearly makes
your statement one of fantasy. And that means that you do not pay much
attention to the difference between stuff you make up on the spot and
actual facts, either, which is consistent with confusing what you
understand someone to have meant with what they actually wrote.
> Maybe a few who don't know the "standard pressure" boiling point of
> water--but maybe that's a good thing too. Do you know the normal
> boiling point of water in degrees Celsius, where you live? Where I
> live? In Quito, Ecuador?
And just what is the important argument here? Some ignorance is made
less worrying because of more ignorance? In my view, it is opposite: If
you believe that if I don't know the normal boiling point of water in
Quito, Equador, you are somehow permitted to be ignorant of the boiling
point of water where you are, there is clearly no shortage of things
that I do not know which you then can use to relinquish yourself of the
responsibility to know anything at all: I have failed to grasp string
theory, for instance, so you could be ignorant of /all/ physics, right?
> You also seem to be overlooking
Oh, I am so sorry. Did I fail to include Encyclopædia Britannica in my
response to you so you could determine what I have overlooked because I
did not mention it explicitly to you? In /normal/ discussions, Gene, if
you have an additional point, you just make an additional point, it is
not the other guy's fault for not bringing it up. Stupidity like trying
to imagine what other people have overlooked because they do not agree
with you is downright annoying. Such stupid fault-finding is indicative
of the importance of something other than the topic at hand, such as
one's personal honor or imaginary status in a virtual tribe. Yecch!
And of /course/ you did not mean it literally like that, but it is this
incessant failure to distinguish between your own opinions and those of
others that makes for a very cumbersome, careful dialog where one has to
point out that other people are actually other people, not a figment of
your imagination, obeying your wishes and desires and fitting your
preconceived models of what opponents in discussions must be like.
If there is but one thing that I wish you would take away from this, it
is simply that literally billions of people feel exactly as safe and at
home with Système Internationale d'Unités as you do with your customary
units. /Your/ comfort with /your/ units is an accident of history, and
it has no deeper meaning. Defending what you do because you just
happened to get used to it before you encountered any alternatives, is
unbelievably provincial, but it does go to show that you try very hard
to map other people's experiences and opinions into /your/ mental
models. I would suggest that you try to listen -- and not just to your
first emotional impression or the first meaning that pops into your
head, but to what people are /actually/ saying. After all, if you wish
to be able to communicate, you rely on others to do this towards /your/
statements.
> In discussions aimed at an audience likely to include some people who
> use degrees Fahrenheit and some people who use degrees Celsius, this
> avoids clumsy, awkward use of conversions, expressing the numbers in
> dual units.
Yeah, right. Some of us who prefer to live outside of the U.S., thank
you very much, have actually visited your country. Some of us approach
your units the same way we approach your language: We do not translate
some-old-word via some-old-understanding into the-best-fitting-new-word
in the new language, we actually look at what you guys call it and then
we use the same word for it. Different languages and cultures have lots
of non-overlapping areas in how they perceive their surroundings and
reality in general, they all have rich histories and myths and fairy
tales about trolls and gods and vampires and whatnot and usually they
have a set of common texts that everybody knows: Shakespeare or King
James' authorized translation of the Middle Eastern fairy tales. It took
15 years to become fluent in the languages I grew up with, so it would
be incredibly arrogant and ignorant to believe that I can just swap word
for word and end up with a different language. The same goes for units,
and even money: Most people do stupid human conversion tricks from one
currency to the other when they travel abroad, but smart people look at
how much money they have and how much stuff costs and they just figure
out the relative values of stuff they can buy with it the same way they
did at home. Dividing both sides of an equation by a constant is not
something you /have/ to do if you have proper mathematical intuition,
and that is just a matter of education.
> Note that this is especially true of Usenet discussions. Note that
> this is a good method of avoidance of the dual units precisely
> because EVERYBODY using either temperature scale knows what the
> freezing point of water is on that scale.
Yeah, what a brilliant idea. Let us forget units and even words. Jeg kan
skrive norsk og du kan skrive engelsk, og så kan vi bruke bilder av det
vi snakker om, isteden. I hear the Chinese have done a wonderful job of
unifying numerous languages into the same ideographic characters, so why
should we have to use precise terminology like «0°C» when we can conjure
up the image of freezing water through some beautiful pictogram? Just in
case you have not noticed because it is so blindingly obvious, I entered
this newsgroup knowing full well that if I wrote in Norwegian, Swedish,
Danish, German, or French, communication with excellent people like
yourself would not take place. Imagine that! I yield to a standard in
order to achieve something far greater than expressing my «identity»
through the use of words and units I just happened to grow up with.
In my view, the whole world has gone to great lengths to be able to
communicate with Americans, read American science and literature, watch
American movies and TV series and cable network news, study from
American textbooks, and just plain suck up your wonderful culture. What
do you do in return for this enormous favor and the enormous sacrifice
that the world has made when they decided to yield their first or only
natural language to yours? You stupid, ungrateful fucks insist on your
retarded customary units. The rest of the world knows that there is
something far greater than our personal pride, our personal feelings,
our personal identity, and we yield to the standard language to obtain
that which is so much greater than ourselves that it is clearly worth it
in the end. What do you egomaniacal pricks do to make this easier for us
and to take part in something greater than the both of our cultures,
namely science, technology and world peace? You stick to your retarded
units, for nothing can ever be greater than your American fucking units,
so you say «Screw you, all 5.5 billion of you, who work so hard to learn
the primary international language. It's our goddamn language and we're
not gonna yield an inch!»
«Get off your high horse», was it, Gene? Would you like to learn how
people around the world express that same sentiment towards American
arrogance and stupid provinciality? Or is one language enough for you?
By the way, all of your excellent scientists /have/ yielded to standards
far more important than folk units and their provincial upbringing. The
very best of your culture publishes exclusively in SI units. So when you
wimper and whine about the value of your pre-scientific units, what you
actually communicate to those who admire American science and technology
is that you do not admire the very best of your culture. And so it goes,
that the U.S. is losing its lead in innovation and science and depends
so heavily on immigration of brilliant minds who have always thought in
SI units that you have to lower your national security and terror guard
to let the brains you need so desperately back in again, while grade
inflation and ever-increasing SAT scores are intended to make your puny
pre-scientific brains feel better about yourself. A people so steeped in
omphaloskeptic self-esteem issues clearly has no place for anything that
could possibly be of greater importance than how you /feel/, poor you.
In the meantime, however, the world population in general works just as
hard as you did when your economy still grew, and they actually know the
value of yielding to a greater good than egocentric emotions, so you can
wallow decadently in your pre-scientific feelings (including such
horrors as «intelligent design» in biology classes so your insane and
retarded will not feel bad about their irrational myths) while the rest
of the world not only catches up with you, but leaves you behind. Feel
free to interpret this as utter disgust with your anti-scientific
presidency and my utter failure to forgive you for letting him get into
the White House to begin with. Your retarded, provincial units did not
bother me at all until it became clear that you stupid arrogant fucks
actually /do/ believe that there is nothing greater than the U.S. of A.,
not even world peace (never mind /stability/), science and technology.
Only at that point did it become important to force you hicks to adjust
to international standards and to make you realize what costs the rest
of the world has absorbed to accomodate your language. The /least/ you
can do to make communication more efficient is to drop those provincial
units of yours when you talk to an international forum. Use them at home
the same way children of immigrants do at home if you must, but when you
venture out into the public space, focus on /communication/, not who you
are and how you feel and which tribal insignia you like to show off.
So to make it really simple for you: The rest of the world has done its
homework, has proven both ability and willingness to adjust to your
language, and has demonstrated excellence in adjusting to standards and
requirements of science, technology, and world peace and prosperity. You
are not that much of a source of admiration, any more, since you no
longer value your own science and technology and clearly do not value
world peace or prosperity, so now you get to do your homework and prove
your ability and willingness to adjust to /our/ units in international
arenas, including all international trade, especially TV programs and
literature that sell your science and technology and other things that
need sane units. It is just like your 110V 60Hz power and your 56 kb/s
bandwidth multiplier in international telephony circuits and your NTSC
TVs and videos and DVDs: Good at home, but not exportable.
So let me know if you need help getting off that high horse.
Erik Naggum @2005-051
Paul Hobson
> JRS: In article <qvkge2-...@news.naggum.no>, dated Fri, 18 Feb 2005
> 08:18:34, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
> posted :
>
>>* Dr John Stockton @2005-02-17 23:34
>>
>>>It's a pity that Usenet convention, presumably set in the USA with
>>>inadequate consideration, seems to be that attribution times are
>>>given without time zone.
>>
>>You presume too much.
>
>
> You should realise that a finite number of counter-examples, in an
> unregulated medium, are inadequate to refute an assertion of the
> existence of an established convention.
>
>
>
>>The rest of your pretentious nonsense is best ignored.
>
>
> You have failed to address your comprehension problem.
>
> Read back, see where you have been unable to understand that imprecise
> does not mean precise, but rather the opposite, and apologise
> accordingly.
>
> Before you try to write English, you should first learn to read it.
>
For whatever reason, I had this stereotype in my head that the British
were an arrogant, ethnocentric people. Wat to prove me wrong.
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
http://www.underthecouch.org
.:you may want to fix my email
address before you send anything:.
Paul Hobson
> * Gene Nygaard @2005-02-20 14:41Z
>
>
>> There is nobody in America who doesn't know the freezing point of
>> water in degrees Fahrenheit.
>
>
> It only takes a single American to disprove such nonsense. The obvious
> abundance of American who who do /not/ know it is 32°F clearly makes
> your statement one of fantasy. And that means that you do not pay much
> attention to the difference between stuff you make up on the spot and
> actual facts, either, which is consistent with confusing what you
> understand someone to have meant with what they actually wrote.
>
ok. Maybe Gene's statement isn't 100% accurate. But what you say simply
is not true! An obvious abundance of Americans don't know the freezing
point??? Where are you getting this info. Maybe we 'mericans aren't as
smart as you guys, but I think in general were a lot nicer.
OT question: Why do so many Europeans and Asians come to the US for
school (mostly engineering and sciences) if English units are so bad?
Why do all of the foreign engineers that I work with consider working
with US vs SI to be an arbitrary sign convention that they could care
less about?
Dr John Stockton
dated Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:09:22, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Jim
Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> posted :
The authorities responsible for defining SI have not defined the term
"Jim Riley" either; yet you seem happy enough to use it. Since FFUs are
by definition non-SI, it is unreasonable to expect SI authorities to
have defined the term formally.
It has become part of the English technical language now; not widely
known as yet, but spreading well across the world (who invented it? I
expect that the OED will want to know). One day it may become part of
the American dialect too.
There is also FFF, which refers specifically to the date format
dd/mm/yy[yy] hh:mm[:ss](a|p).m. and similar, or to recognisable parts
thereof.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??.Stoc...@physics.org ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
Christoph Paeper
>
> There is also FFF,
You mean the furlong-fortnight-firkin system of units?
> which refers specifically to the date format
Oh.
> dd/mm/yy[yy] hh:mm[:ss](a|p).m. and similar,
That looks rather British to me, American being more like:
m/d/yy h:mm[:ss] (A|P)M
But I'm neither and thus my observations could be entirely false.
--
Useless Fact #6:
In most advertisements, including newspapers,
the time displayed on a watch is 10:10.
Jim Riley
<gtg...@mail.gatech.edu> wrote:
>ok. Maybe Gene's statement isn't 100% accurate. But what you say simply
>is not true! An obvious abundance of Americans don't know the freezing
>point??? Where are you getting this info. Maybe we 'mericans aren't as
>smart as you guys, but I think in general were a lot nicer.
And let's suppose that it were true.
Would adoption of the Celsius scale in the US lead to those who know
the freezing point of water in Fahrenheit to learn its value in
Celsius?
Would it cause those those who currently don't know the freezing point
in Fahrenheit to learn what its value is in Celsius? If one lives in
Miami is there practical utility in knowing the freezing point?
Popping an ice tray in the freezer compartment doesn't require knowing
what the freezing point of water is.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>* Gene Nygaard @2005-02-20 14:41Z
>> and I immediately understood it the same way he did.
> The typical problem is that a few people «understand» some claim to
>have one particular meaning, and then that meaning becomes the claim
>itself after a couple exchanges. Most statements have multiple meanings
>and it is never possible to ascertain that you have not missed some of
>them. For instance, I understood the statement made by «tastyalien» (so
>now you got that correction for free) to mean that your average American
>does not know the /exact/ freezing point of water in Fahrenheit, but Jim
>understood it to mean that they had no clue whatsoever. Of course people
>know the temperature ranges to one significant digit by heart, but the
>point made by «tastyalien» as I understood it was that, e.g., «30's» is
>enough to know what clothes to wear, but that by itself does not mean
>you know the freezing and boiling points of water.
My contention is that Americans /do/ know that the freezing point of
water in Fahrenheit is 32 degrees. Tastyalien's claim to the contrary
was so incredible, that I truly believed that /he believed/ that
Americans did not know to wear a coat when the temperature was in the
30's. He has not responded to the contrary.
> the point that Americans still need reminders
>of the /exact/ freezing point of water -- not just when it is «cold» --
>was entirely lost.
What was lost was that the claim "that Americans need reminder of the
freezing point of water" was not backed up by tastyalien.
> Why /do/ American weathermen have to
>remind people that 32°F is the freezing point?
Do they? Or do they remind the listeners of certain precautions that
they should take. A given radio or television broadcast may cover an
area where some areas will reach below freezing and others will not.
If they suggest that listeners in the colder areas cover their plants,
it is just a way to emphasize the difference. I live in an area that
sometimes has freezing weather, but not on an annual basis. People
might have moved to the area since the last freeze, or perhaps they
have purchased outside plants.
If the weatherman says that it will be rain tomorrow and to take an
umbrella, is that a reminder that rain will cause your head to get
wet? To someone who is from a culture where the weather report
consists solely of a dry recitation of numbers, they might think so.
> And how many Americans
>will know that 212°F is the boiling point off the top of their head?
Probably fewer. And even fewer know that 212 is not the boiling point
under the conditions where they live or cook. If Celsius were adopted
would Americans know that 100 was the boiling point of water?
>> There is nobody in America who doesn't know the freezing point of
>> water in degrees Fahrenheit.
>
>It only takes a single American to disprove such nonsense. The obvious
>abundance of American who who do /not/ know it is 32°F clearly makes
>your statement one of fantasy.
This supposed abundance is not obvious.
>If there is but one thing that I wish you would take away from this, it
>is simply that literally billions of people feel exactly as safe and at
>home with Système Internationale d'Unités as you do with your customary
>units.
Since both groups are exactly as safe and at home with the units that
they are familiar, why should either convert.
--
Jim Riley
Paul Hobson
Exactly. I think these academics have quite an over-inflated view of
their opinion's importance. While I would *love* to see an adoption of
SI in the United States, it's not going to happen. People's lives (on
average) will not be magically better if all of the sudden, the new
office building being built is 100 m tall instead of 330 ft or whatever.
Meanwhile, I'm going to get back to my concrete design homework and talk
about service loads in kips/ft and use my dimensionally incorrect
equations to solve for nominal values!
Erik Naggum
> And let's suppose that it were true.
>
> Would adoption of the Celsius scale in the US lead to those who know
> the freezing point of water in Fahrenheit to learn its value in
> Celsius?
Yes.
> Would it cause those those who currently don't know the freezing
> point in Fahrenheit to learn what its value is in Celsius?
Ah, this is a much more intelligent question. If they do not know it
because they cannot remember seemingly random numbers, there is a high
probability that they will learn the Celsius scale. This can be seen in
the much smaller number of Europeans who do not know their temperature
scale than the number of Americans who do not know theirs. (The number
will never reach zero, of course.)
> If one lives in Miami is there practical utility in knowing the
> freezing point?
Yes.
Erik Naggum @2005-052
Erik Naggum
> I think these academics have quite an over-inflated view of their
> opinion's importance.
This is a good example of the irrelevancies that Americans believe that
have a useful function in public discussions. First, that you have to
make up such stupid beliefs about others is annoying enough, as it makes
you less likely to remain true to a higher purpose than emotion-sharing.
Second, that you have to «share» your stupid beliefs about others, is
offensive to those who thought this was a forum where the topic at hand
is more interesting than what random Americans make up their personal
beliefs about. If this forum were to have been about what you feel or
believe, such as a personal forum the likes of a blog, the single most
/American/ invention I can think of, your stupid opinions about your
opponents would have had a place here.
> While I would *love* to see an adoption of SI in the United States,
> it's not going to happen.
This is in indictment of the American culture, not of SI.
> People's lives (on average) will not be magically better if all of
> the sudden, the new office building being built is 100 m tall instead
> of 330 ft or whatever.
American exports to SI regions would increase. Considering that the U.S.
has a trade deficit so large it alarms economist the world over, it is
actually quite probable that adopting international standards would both
lower the costs of American imports and make American exports much more
competitive on the world market.
And judging the merits of idea by its potential to «magically» improve
average people's lives is one of those things that make the rest of the
world so /tired/ of the United States: You do /nothing/ if the effects
are not immediately visible and dramatic, and when you finally pull
yourself together and do something, it is a frigging /war/ on drugs or
on poverty or on terrorism or some other inanimate concept, and it has
exactly zero effect, but you sure do market the hell out of it, and I am
quite certain that everyone involved feel great about themselves.
Regardless of whether one believes climate change is man-made or not,
the «what's in it for me?» attitude of the U.S. is filling the whole
world with disgust for your simple-mindedness and egoism. Your annoying
insistence on your provincial units in international trade and fora just
goes to show how unfathomably arrogant you are. As I have already said,
the world bows to your standards when it comes to language and much of
your culture, but not to your units. In that area, we demand that you
bow to our standards. Whether you keep your provincial units for home
use or not does not concern those who trade or communicate with you, but
if you do, you will inevitably separate the scientific class from the
public in general even more. That is your prerogative, of course, and I
certainly have no inclination to influence your home units -- those who
have moved to your country or were born in it have, however, the right
to make this a political issue in your country. It seems that you want
to deny them that right just as much as you want to insist on using your
home-brew units in export and international communication.
The very notion that there could be someting of higher value than
yourself and your own country that it sometimes makes much sense to
sacrifice some short-term values to achieve, means that you are stuck in
local maxima, unable to attain global maxima -- the inevitable cost of
optimizing too much. The FFU issue is just such a local maximum, where
the mere danger of losses in the near term is enough to make you reject
all future gains. To people who have studied the effects of poverty on
people's mental well-being, this is known as the poverty syndrome and is
one of the strongest /reasons/ poor people remain poor: You can simply
never get rich if you cannot take a loss on an investment. (Ironically,
the U.S. «war on poverty» has never been sincere: If you really want the
poor to stop being poor, you give them more money than they need day to
day, so that they can save and invest. Make it loans or microcredit, but
give them more than they need, and the poor will slowly but surely get
richer and pull themselves out of their povery by their own hair. What
does the U.S. do in its «war on poverty», however? They make certain
that no American on welfare can save money, because it is more important
to make sure that nobody gets a free ride than to end poverty. The cost
of the local maximum versus the global maximum has never been clearer.
So when you are certain that the U.S. will never adopt the SI, what you
are telling those who know more than just the American culture is that
you believe that you will forever languish in your local maxima and will
never realize that you can achieve dramatic improvements if you stop
competing so intensely within your current pocket. To those who have
admired the U.S. intensely, but always felt relieved upon returning from
visits, the dramatic inability of your market to sustain multiple
winners is seen as the /worst/ indictment of your culture, because you
appear unable to process the gigantic societal benefits of not competing
until the last man is standing. Contrary to what you believe about your
innovativeness and the healthy benefits of competition, people will play
safe when they have to compete all the time -- if you take a fall and
are out of the game, you will not take significant risks unless you are
very certain that you will win, and when you have made them, you will
push and push and push until you do win, and beat every competitor, and
go all Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer on your fellow men. But just as they
threw CP/M out of the market in less than six months, I predict that the
U.S. economy will suddenly and violently change to SI, because all other
dramatic changes in the U.S. economy have come from someone who refused
to play the same /game/ as his would-be competitors. (One of the lasting
insights in business is that the best way to win a competition is to
move to a different arena.) In other words, every time someone has been
certain that something would never change, one day that suddenly had.
Erik Naggum @2005-052
Erik Naggum
> My contention is that Americans /do/ know that the freezing point of
> water in Fahrenheit is 32 degrees. Tastyalien's claim to the contrary
> was so incredible, that I truly believed that /he believed/ that
> Americans did not know to wear a coat when the temperature was in the
> 30's.
If you had said just this to begin with, all would have been well, so I
appreciate that you clarify the responsibility belatedly. However, that
said, it is vitally important to be able to process «incredible» claims
accurately, because one incredible claim is not interchangeable with
another incredible claim based solely on their incredibility, yet this
is just how many people tend to respond. This error in thinking makes it
hard to make an incredible claim credible, because the incrediblity it
has been interchanged with is usually incredible because it is false.
This way of forcing people into equating something they believe in with
something that is clearly false, is a pretty nasty habit that some
people tend to prefer over thinking about hard issues. I tend to be much
more honest about it and ask people directly if they are insane or
retarded. At least they can refute that.
> He has not responded to the contrary.
Of course not. Doing so would dignify the outrageous irrationality of
the position you had imputed to him. Again, if you had taken personal
responsiblity for your beliefs, rejecting them would be simple and easy,
but when you pretend that somebody else has them, what good would it do
to refute them? You have already shown that you just make up stuff and
pretend that other people are responsible for it. There is no telling
when this will stop, or indeed what caused it in the first place. It is
only people like me, who could not possibly care less how many people
dislike him for stating what he believes to be true (insofar as they do
not turn to violence) who care enough about these things to risk the
castigation of people who need to imagine people on high horses just for
trying to remain true to time-honored principles.
> What was lost was that the claim "that Americans need reminder of the
> freezing point of water" was not backed up by tastyalien.
Why should it be? Whether they objectively «need» it or not is an open
question, I guess, but the fact that the weather reports keep harping on
it, is obvious to anyone who has even watched CNN, and much more so if
one has had to stay in one of the weathery cities for conferences.
>> Why /do/ American weathermen have to remind people that 32°F is the
>> freezing point?
> Do they?
Yes, they do.
> Or do they remind the listeners of certain precautions that they
> should take.
They do that, too, of course.
> If the weatherman says that it will be rain tomorrow and to take an
> umbrella, is that a reminder that rain will cause your head to get
> wet? To someone who is from a culture where the weather report
> consists solely of a dry recitation of numbers, they might think so.
It is indeed an example of a behavior that is quite puzzling, but the
missing connection is not between rain and getting your head wet that
most visitors take away from seeing such reports, it is that Americans
are so stressed-out that they need these helpful reminders. Over here,
it would most probably be considered condescending and paternalistic,
and considering the hysterical American reaction to anything that even
remote resembles government mind control, quite irrational of you.
> If Celsius were adopted would Americans know that 100 was the boiling
> point of water?
If we can judge by how well this number is known in SI countries, yes.
> This supposed abundance is not obvious.
I have addressed this elsewhere. Let me know if the four groups are not
obvious to you when you have read about them.
> Since both groups are exactly as safe and at home with the units that
> they are familiar, why should either convert.
Because of trade and communication between the two groups, naturally.
I realize that this may be hard for Americans to accept, but just
because we have learned English (even more so because we have learned
American English -- who would want to sound British with their bogus
liaison r's and glottal stops, dropped syllables and wrong stress, just
to fall short because we cannot fake their haughty aloofness?), we have
no inclination to accept /everything/ American. Some American mores are
just as despicable as those of African and Middle-Eastern tribes, most
prominently your culture of honor. (Which may explain why Europeans have
so much better resonance with New England than with, say, Texas.) The
majority of Europeans feel nothing but disgust for your president, even
those who used to love the United States and almost everything in it:
All of a sudden, they realized that they knew so little about the U.S.,
and what they learned was almost like learning about your family
priest's sexual abuse of choir boys, or about your admired professor's
wife-beating: Suddenly, those of us who loved the United States and much
of the American culture and people, had to think very carefully about
how the few things we admired came to be and what it came with.
Most of us ex-America-friendly Europeans found that we could not
condone all the crap that came with the package. This should be easy for
highly sensitive Americans to understand: You tend to be much, much more
hostile towards transgressions of community standards than Europeans are
-- which I guess explains why it took us so long to care much about your
despicable hypocrisy. (E.g., sexual infidelities among our politicians
are laughably common, a result of the natural attraction of women to men
in power and of men to beautiful young women, so when you went insane
with rage over Bill Clinton's, many Europeans realized that you had an
insanely evil side of which we wanted nothing. The fact that such an
irrelevant incident could lead to such consequences, and among them the
nomination of George W. Bush as the Republican presidential candidate,
which is probably going to loom large when the demise of the United
States is chronicled in the future, told vastly more rational Europeans
that the religiosity of the Americans has world-threatening nature.)
You may wonder what your units of measurement has to do with the
increased anti-americanism and general animosity towards things American
in the rest of the world. The simple answer is that we would like to be
free to pick what we like from your culture, since it obviously is not
/all/ good, so when you force your provincial units on us through your
entertainment exports, it will make us aware of your provincialism and
of the things we do not like about your culture. If you could remove the
provincial units in exported goods and services, other things that might
annoy us will most likely be less salient as a consequence. Therefore,
it is in /your/ best interest to ensure that you do not annoy importers
of American goods and services any more than you absolutely have to. It
would, for instance, be a very good start if you could drop the infernal
«letter» paper size in your PDF files -- it would cost you very little
to use the width of A4 (209.9 mm; «letter» is 215.9 mm) and the height
of «letter» (279.4 mm; A4 is 297 mm), but it would make it possible to
print it everywhere on the standard paper size there.
If you have no intention of ever interacting with furriners, you just
go ahead and do whatever you please. It is not like we force you to
interact with us. It is when you choose to do so that we object to your
lack of willingness to compromise for the greater good.
Erik Naggum @2005-052
Erik Naggum
>>> There is nobody in America who doesn't know the freezing point of
>>> water in degrees Fahrenheit.
>> It only takes a single American to disprove such nonsense. The
>> obvious abundance of American who who do /not/ know it is 32°F
>> clearly makes your statement one of fantasy. And that means that
>> you do not pay much attention to the difference between stuff you
>> make up on the spot and actual facts, either, which is consistent
>> with confusing what you understand someone to have meant with what
>> they actually wrote.
> ok. Maybe Gene's statement isn't 100% accurate. But what you say
> simply is not true! An obvious abundance of Americans don't know the
> freezing point??? Where are you getting this info.
First, Americans are not born with innate knowledge any more than other
people are. Until they are taught «water freezes at 32°C and boils at
212°C», they will not know. Gene's statement is one of those I would
expect from people who believe in innate or effortless acquisition of
knowledge.
Second, a significant number of «normal» Americans (5% is a safe bet
based on numerious small-scale research) fail to get this right when
they are asked. A small number of Europeans have a hard time remembering
fundamental properties of their surroundings, so it would be irrational
in the extreme to believe that /all/ Americans (of reasonable age) would
know /their/ properties.
Third, the U.S. has a very large proportion of the public who are
functional illiterates, relative to other civilized countries. It is
highly unlikely that they will know fundamental physical properties.
Fourth, the U.S. has a very large proportion of immigrants who are
unfamiliar with all of your random ways, again relative to other
civilized countries.
These are the obvious abundances. There are less obvious ones, such as
the number of students who get it wrong on tests, but who are hopefully
corrected, so their mistakes have little impact.
> Maybe we 'mericans aren't as smart as you guys, but I think in
> general were a lot nicer.
It is true that you Americans care much more about your emotions than
most other people. The cultivation of self-esteem is so bad that it has
become a topic in learned circles, as a direct cause of your youth's
lack of interest in the hard sciences. Also, you are far better armed
than any other civilized country, and some of us remember stuff like «an
armed society is a polite society». Lastly, you still suffer from one of
the properties of alarmingly primitive societies: A culture of honor.
People who do not are considered «rude» by the rubes: Both New Yorkers
and Europeans are less welcoming than southerners expect, but that does
not mean that anything of what southerners expect this to mean is true.
Another item that makes people nicer to each other is competitiveness,
and American are hysterically competitive, by European standards. On the
other hand, most Europeans consider Americans superficial and lacking in
depth of personal relationships. This is born out in research that looks
at the size of various strata of social relations: Americans have small
tight circles (supporting friends) and larger tribes than Europeans.
There are significant psychological costs to smiling a lot to
strangers, and the expectation that one has to be «happy» all the time
is a leading cause of stress-induced depression, for which American are
world-famous users of antidepressants at all ages. So yes, you may be
«nicer», but it papers over serious deficiencies. When you are offended,
many of you turn into psychopaths who are on vengeance drive from God to
harm those who have disrespected you. To those interested in psychology,
this is a pretty solid sign that a large fraction of you have inflated,
fragile egos who need constant reaffirmation from others to keep up
appearances. Yet another cultural factor is the effects of mortality
salience on your behavior -- all over the world, people have responded
with rational countermeasures, but the world really got to know how sick
the general American mind is when you went psychotic after 2001-09-11.
Case in point, since we are discussing the misguided American beliefs:
How many still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the WTC attack?
How many still believe that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction? Recent
research has indicated that Americans much, much more than Europeans
believe the first story that breaks in the news, even if it is later
retracted, and continue to believe it even though it is clearly false
because the first story fit better with the national psyche and running
stories in the media about how the world works.
I could go on, but my point here is that yes, you appear to be more
friendly, but you are also unstable and irrational, and you turn
downright evil at the drop of a hat. I measure people on how well they
cope with unpleasant experiences, not how well they respond to pleasant.
In this regard, Americans tend to fail to cope and become irrational and
hateful because someone has dared make life unpleasant for them, just as
if one had bared a breast on broadcast TV during a «family» program or
had used an offensive word when there were children watching.
In other words, when doing business and otherwise interacting with
Americans, one generally has to be far more cautious and careful not to
offend their multiple and random sore spots than when interacting with
any other people. The social code is thus much, much more strict and
offenders tend to be harshly mistreated, no matter their intent. To an
outsider, you therefore appear «nicer» because you are surrounded by
trigger-happy madmen you learn not to annoy or offend in any way. This
is the main reason I have never accepted any of the offers I got to live
and work in the U.S., because every single time I visited I experienced
the stress of having to make sure I never said anything to somebody that
they did not already believe, because Americans do not actally value the
much-touted freedom of expression if you dare say something /true/ that
hurts their feelings. Me, I believe that if you get offended by hearing
the truth, that is nobody else's problem and you should be ashamed of
yourself for bringing your personal issues into the public space. Not
that you Americans have any notion of the public space, anymore, but in
Europe, this concept is still very much alive, and many Europeans are
actually offended by the incessant need many Americans have for sharing
their emotional states instead of sticking to the topics at hand.
> OT question: Why do so many Europeans and Asians come to the US for
> school (mostly engineering and sciences) if English units are so bad?
Because you have something of more value than this detraction. You could
ask how many /more/ would come to the U.S. if you converted to SI, but
then the answer would hurt your self-esteem. Science is already in SI.
> Why do all of the foreign engineers that I work with consider working
> with US vs SI to be an arbitrary sign convention that they could
> care less about?
Because all those who did care, are not working with you.
If you knew anything at all about statistics, you would have recognized
that you have asked questions that are tied directly to self-selection
of the respondents, and you would know how worthless such questions are.
Erik Naggum @2005-052
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
>> freezing point?
>
>Yes.
I thoought the key question was when hell freezes over; not what
was the temperature at which hell freezes over. :-)
Nick
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>* Gene Nygaard @2005-02-20 14:41Z
>> Oh, get off your high horse, Erik!
>
>Great introduction! You certainly show me what to expect from you.
>
>> The first thing I read in this discussion was Jim's reply to your
>> challenge to back up his claim that this is what you said,
>
>Perhaps your attitude would improve if you paid attention? Hint: Try to
>keep track of who says what when. It should be easy with most software
>aids that displays threads. Losing track of only a handful of messages
>is not a great way to suggest that I should listen to your grievances.
It doesn't matter if tastyalien said it first. You were backing
him/her up.
And you were the one who got on his high horse about it.
>> and I immediately understood it the same way he did.
>
>Sigh. If you are clear about what you understand and what other people
>have actually said (claimed), you accept responsibility for your own
>interpretation and you do not try to put words into your opponents's
>mouth, which is what I think is a despicable habit people drag along
>with them from the sloppy customs of oral communication.
>
>> He may have used a tiny bit of hyperbole in making the point on which
>> you challenged him on--something that should have been an effective
>> tool in making the point, if he were arguing with a sentient being.
>
>Imagine such a stupid line from someone who cannot even keep track of
>which person said what and who does not get the simple point that if he
>says that someone else «claimed» something, he had better be honest. It
>is hard enough to discuss things in this medium even without having to
>correct misrepresentations and outright lies about other people's actual
>statements.
We've represented the gist of it quite well--you keep making the same
inane arguments in this message, and further down in the thread.
> The typical problem is that a few people «understand» some claim to
>have one particular meaning, and then that meaning becomes the claim
>itself after a couple exchanges. Most statements have multiple meanings
>and it is never possible to ascertain that you have not missed some of
>them. For instance, I understood the statement made by «tastyalien» (so
>now you got that correction for free) to mean that your average American
>does not know the /exact/ freezing point of water in Fahrenheit, but Jim
That's what I took to be your understanding. It is wrong.
>understood it to mean that they had no clue whatsoever. Of course people
I doubt it.
>know the temperature ranges to one significant digit by heart, but the
>point made by «tastyalien» as I understood it was that, e.g., «30's» is
>enough to know what clothes to wear, but that by itself does not mean
>you know the freezing and boiling points of water.
Okay, that's a reasonable starting point. But it also does not mean
that we do not know the freezing and boiling points.
> What happened was that Jim collapsed a number of interpretations into a
>single pretty stupid one, which made the rest of the points made in the
A single one, a slight exaggeration that got your attention. Seems
reasonable to me.
>actual statement appear to vanish in thin air -- you missed them, too,
>and my guess is that they vanished only in the instant you thought that
>Jim's dumbed-down version was «it». Well, it was not. But thanks to
>Jim's dumbed-down version, the point that Americans still need reminders
>of the /exact/ freezing point of water -- not just when it is «cold» --
>was entirely lost.
It was never lost. That's what I've been pointing out as being false.
You are the one filling his replies with immaterial, irrelevant
nonsense, hoping it gets lost.
>I think that lost point was vastly more important
>than the dumbed-down version that tried to belittle the observation by
>an amazingly stupid interpretation. Why /do/ American weathermen have to
>remind people that 32°F is the freezing point? And how many Americans
>will know that 212°F is the boiling point off the top of their head? If
Fewer will know the boiling point than the freezing point. It is
outside our normal usage of temperature scales for weather, for one
thing. We don't worry about that in deciding whether or not we need a
coat. But it still is a very small percentage who do not know the
boiling point.
>you do not think this point matters at all, that is just fine by me, but
>if you truly believe that just because /you/ do not think it matters, it
>does not exist, it was not intended, and it could not matter to anyone
>else, so /you/ can switch one statement with another as you like, well,
>why should anyone pay any attention to you from now on? You obviously do
>not respond to what you are /actually/ resonding to, but to some random,
>dumbed-down version that you feel free to pretend someone else wrote,
>just like Jim does.
I don't need to pretend anything. You keep making the same silly
statements in a number of different ways.
>> There is nobody in America who doesn't know the freezing point of
>> water in degrees Fahrenheit.
>
>It only takes a single American to disprove such nonsense. The obvious
>abundance of American who who do /not/ know it is 32°F clearly makes
>your statement one of fantasy. And that means that you do not pay much
>attention to the difference between stuff you make up on the spot and
>actual facts, either, which is consistent with confusing what you
>understand someone to have meant with what they actually wrote.
The number of Americans over the age of ten who do not know this is
roughly on a par with the number of them who do not know their own
name. Maybe a little bit higher, but not much. Even many people who
can no longer recognize their own children will be able to tell you
that water freezes at 32 °F.
The percentage of Americans over the age of ten who do not know water
freezes at 32 °F is roughly on a par with the percentage of Norwegians
who do not know that water freezes at 0 °C.
>
>> Maybe a few who don't know the "standard pressure" boiling point of
>> water--but maybe that's a good thing too. Do you know the normal
>> boiling point of water in degrees Celsius, where you live? Where I
>> live? In Quito, Ecuador?
>
>And just what is the important argument here? Some ignorance is made
>less worrying because of more ignorance? In my view, it is opposite: If
>you believe that if I don't know the normal boiling point of water in
>Quito, Equador, you are somehow permitted to be ignorant of the boiling
>point of water where you are, there is clearly no shortage of things
>that I do not know which you then can use to relinquish yourself of the
>responsibility to know anything at all: I have failed to grasp string
>theory, for instance, so you could be ignorant of /all/ physics, right?
Lots of people using the Celsius scale are not aware of the boiling
point of water where they are. I know it is about 208 °F where I am
(and since that's the number in which I have stored it in my memory, I
need to multiply 4 by 5/9 and subtract from 100 to get about 98 °C),
though there are many inhabited places on Earth where it is below 200
°F.
>> You also seem to be overlooking
>
>Oh, I am so sorry. Did I fail to include Encyclopædia Britannica in my
>response to you so you could determine what I have overlooked because I
>did not mention it explicitly to you? In /normal/ discussions, Gene, if
>you have an additional point, you just make an additional point, it is
>not the other guy's fault for not bringing it up. Stupidity like trying
>to imagine what other people have overlooked because they do not agree
>with you is downright annoying. Such stupid fault-finding is indicative
>of the importance of something other than the topic at hand, such as
>one's personal honor or imaginary status in a virtual tribe. Yecch!
Get off your high horse. I am pointing out another factor for you to
consider. Don't go off on a tangent about the way I presented this.
> And of /course/ you did not mean it literally like that, but it is this
>incessant failure to distinguish between your own opinions and those of
>others that makes for a very cumbersome, careful dialog where one has to
>point out that other people are actually other people, not a figment of
>your imagination, obeying your wishes and desires and fitting your
>preconceived models of what opponents in discussions must be like.
> If there is but one thing that I wish you would take away from this, it
>is simply that literally billions of people feel exactly as safe and at
>home with Système Internationale d'Unités as you do with your customary
>units.
Non sequitur. What in the world does this have to do with our
discussion?
> /Your/ comfort with /your/ units is an accident of history, and
>it has no deeper meaning. Defending what you do because you just
>happened to get used to it before you encountered any alternatives, is
>unbelievably provincial, but it does go to show that you try very hard
>to map other people's experiences and opinions into /your/ mental
>models. I would suggest that you try to listen -- and not just to your
>first emotional impression or the first meaning that pops into your
>head, but to what people are /actually/ saying. After all, if you wish
>to be able to communicate, you rely on others to do this towards /your/
>statements.
Now who is not paying attention?
What "I" know has never been an issue. And I haven't been "defending"
any usage of degrees Fahrenheit. I have tried to get you back on
track by pointing out an error in your observations.
>> In discussions aimed at an audience likely to include some people who
>> use degrees Fahrenheit and some people who use degrees Celsius, this
>> avoids clumsy, awkward use of conversions, expressing the numbers in
>> dual units.
>
>Yeah, right. Some of us who prefer to live outside of the U.S., thank
>you very much, have actually visited your country. Some of us approach
>your units the same way we approach your language: We do not translate
>some-old-word via some-old-understanding into the-best-fitting-new-word
>in the new language, we actually look at what you guys call it and then
>we use the same word for it. Different languages and cultures have lots
>of non-overlapping areas in how they perceive their surroundings and
>reality in general, they all have rich histories and myths and fairy
>tales about trolls and gods and vampires and whatnot and usually they
>have a set of common texts that everybody knows: Shakespeare or King
>James' authorized translation of the Middle Eastern fairy tales.
You sure like to fly off on tangents, don't you?
>It took
>15 years to become fluent in the languages I grew up with, so it would
>be incredibly arrogant and ignorant to believe that I can just swap word
>for word and end up with a different language. The same goes for units,
>and even money: Most people do stupid human conversion tricks from one
>currency to the other when they travel abroad, but smart people look at
>how much money they have and how much stuff costs and they just figure
>out the relative values of stuff they can buy with it the same way they
>did at home. Dividing both sides of an equation by a constant is not
>something you /have/ to do if you have proper mathematical intuition,
>and that is just a matter of education.
We arent' talking about travel abroad. We are talking about easily
understood language such as "it is a few degrees above freezing" where
people will understand it in whichever units they normally use,
without having to know what units the writer would have used.
>> Note that this is especially true of Usenet discussions. Note that
>> this is a good method of avoidance of the dual units precisely
>> because EVERYBODY using either temperature scale knows what the
>> freezing point of water is on that scale.
>
>Yeah, what a brilliant idea. Let us forget units and even words. Jeg kan
>skrive norsk og du kan skrive engelsk, og så kan vi bruke bilder av det
>vi snakker om, isteden.
That might work, but you are pushing my limits of reading Norwegian
without digging out a dictionary. In fact, that approach often does
work, since many people can read another language better than they can
write it.
> I hear the Chinese have done a wonderful job of
>unifying numerous languages into the same ideographic characters, so why
>should we have to use precise terminology like «0°C» when we can conjure
>up the image of freezing water through some beautiful pictogram? Just in
And what happens if the precise terminology is "from -3 °C to -1 °C
(27 °F to 30 °F)"? "A little below freezing" often conveys the idea
quite sufficiently. Especially if this is something that hasn't
actually happened yet, so that the "precise" numbers aren't known, and
in any case the actual "precise" numbers will vary somewhat in various
parts of the broadcast area as in a weather forecast.
Many scientists do publish in English units. Not in "physics" as
published in physics journals, perhaps, but that is not synonymous
with science.
Furthermore, there are lots of scientists who rarely use English units
who also do not publish "exclusively in SI units." There are whole
herds of dinosaurs in the field of astronomy who think that
centimeters are the cat's meow when it comes to measuring distances
between stars (when they aren't using other non-SI units such as
megaparsecs and light years), and that ergs per second are wonderful
units in which to measure their power. Herds of physicists using
"electronvolts" as well, and "calories" are common in the medical and
nutritional sciences.
Isn't it great to read through a calm, rational argument!
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not
Americans know that water freezes at 32 °F.
> So to make it really simple for you: The rest of the world has done its
>homework, has proven both ability and willingness to adjust to your
>language, and has demonstrated excellence in adjusting to standards and
>requirements of science, technology, and world peace and prosperity. You
>are not that much of a source of admiration, any more, since you no
>longer value your own science and technology and clearly do not value
>world peace or prosperity, so now you get to do your homework and prove
>your ability and willingness to adjust to /our/ units in international
>arenas, including all international trade, especially TV programs and
>literature that sell your science and technology and other things that
>need sane units. It is just like your 110V 60Hz power and your 56 kb/s
>bandwidth multiplier in international telephony circuits and your NTSC
>TVs and videos and DVDs: Good at home, but not exportable.
> So let me know if you need help getting off that high horse.
>
>Erik Naggum @2005-051
Gene Nygaard
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>* Paul Hobson @2005-02-20 21:41Z
>>>> There is nobody in America who doesn't know the freezing point of
>>>> water in degrees Fahrenheit.
>
>>> It only takes a single American to disprove such nonsense. The
>>> obvious abundance of American who who do /not/ know it is 32°F
>>> clearly makes your statement one of fantasy. And that means that
>>> you do not pay much attention to the difference between stuff you
>>> make up on the spot and actual facts, either, which is consistent
>>> with confusing what you understand someone to have meant with what
>>> they actually wrote.
>
>> ok. Maybe Gene's statement isn't 100% accurate. But what you say
>> simply is not true! An obvious abundance of Americans don't know the
>> freezing point??? Where are you getting this info.
>
>First, Americans are not born with innate knowledge any more than other
>people are. Until they are taught «water freezes at 32°C and boils at
>212°C», they will not know. Gene's statement is one of those I would
>expect from people who believe in innate or effortless acquisition of
>knowledge.
It is very much a learned thing. And it is one of the few things
almost everybody learns.
> Second, a significant number of «normal» Americans (5% is a safe bet
>based on numerious small-scale research) fail to get this right when
>they are asked. A small number of Europeans have a hard time remembering
>fundamental properties of their surroundings, so it would be irrational
>in the extreme to believe that /all/ Americans (of reasonable age) would
>know /their/ properties.
> Third, the U.S. has a very large proportion of the public who are
>functional illiterates, relative to other civilized countries. It is
>highly unlikely that they will know fundamental physical properties.
> Fourth, the U.S. has a very large proportion of immigrants who are
>unfamiliar with all of your random ways, again relative to other
>civilized countries.
First thing any immigrant will learn is the temperature corresponding
to 0 degrees on the Celsius scale--to help them figure out when they
need to put that coat on. They are even less likely than native-born
Americans not to know that the freezing point is 32 °F.
Musings of a frustrated sociologist snipped.
Gene Nygaard
Paul Hobson
> * Paul Hobson @2005-02-21 04:25Z
>
>
>> While I would *love* to see an adoption of SI in the United States,
>> it's not going to happen.
>
>
> This is in indictment of the American culture, not of SI.
100% correct. that was my intention
>
>> People's lives (on average) will not be magically better if all of the
>> sudden, the new office building being built is 100 m tall instead of
>> 330 ft or whatever.
>
>
> American exports to SI regions would increase. Considering that the U.S.
> has a trade deficit so large it alarms economist the world over, it is
> actually quite probable that adopting international standards would both
> lower the costs of American imports and make American exports much more
> competitive on the world market.
<figgin' snip>
> to play the same /game/ as his would-be competitors. (One of the lasting
> insights in business is that the best way to win a competition is to
> move to a different arena.) In other words, every time someone has been
> certain that something would never change, one day that suddenly had.
>
> Erik Naggum @2005-052
No arguement from me. Just don't go around making claims that Americans
don't know the freezing point of water. That was simply ridiculous.
Klaus von der Heyde
> Herds of physicists using "electronvolts" as well,
eV is, like kWh, a legal unit in Germany (and in many other metric
countries, as far as I know), and may be used alongside the SI unit
1 J = 1 kg·m^2·s^-2.
Klaus
Klaus von der Heyde
> I hear the Chinese have done a wonderful job of
> unifying numerous languages into the same ideographic characters, so why
> should we have to use precise terminology like «0°C» when we can conjure
> up the image of freezing water through some beautiful pictogram?
A trend that can be observed in computer software for many years,
sporting more and more icons (now even in menus). First there were
toolbars, than coolbars, and what is next? Foolbars?
There even is a fairly standardized symbol for freezing or ice, on
traffic signs: a snow flake. At least, in Europe it is standard...
> In my view, the whole world has gone to great lengths to be able to
> communicate with Americans, read American science and literature, watch
> American movies and TV series and cable network news, study from
> American textbooks, and just plain suck up your wonderful culture. What
> do you do in return for this enormous favor and the enormous sacrifice
> that the world has made when they decided to yield their first or only
> natural language to yours?
For me, it is fine to read and write in english, and use SI units with
that language. If the USians have a conversion problem with this, it
is mostly their problem. Sooner or later, they will recognize how
inconvenient this is, learn SI, and may even favour a changeover in
the USA.
> The /least/ you
> can do to make communication more efficient is to drop those provincial
> units of yours when you talk to an international forum.
That would be a good idea. I would even make it broader: any
publication intended for an international audience should use
international units. For that matter, all texts available via http
and nntp have an international audience.
> So to make it really simple for you: The rest of the world has done its
> homework, has proven both ability and willingness to adjust to your
> language, and has demonstrated excellence in adjusting to standards and
> requirements of science, technology, and world peace and prosperity.
There are many countries left that lack adaption to any of the last
four fields, I think.
> You
> are not that much of a source of admiration, any more, since you no
> longer value your own science and technology
The USA has by far the largest budget for scientific research, and is
leading in any field of science. Look where the Nobel Prize winners
come from.
Klaus
Erik Naggum
> It doesn't matter if tastyalien said it first. You were backing
> him/her up.
I am actually quite amazed at the things about which you are the final
arbiter whether matters or not. The world really has to ask you whether
something is important or not, does it not? And what, precisely, is the
meaning of getting on one's high horse, if not the pretentious belief in
one's own importance, especially to other people? Truth does not matter
to you, as it in fact does not matter to most Americans, which we have
seen from the statisticians who asked people if Saddam Hussein had WMD
or was behind the 2001-09-11 attacks. A majority of Americans prefer to
go where their emotions lead them. You are clearly one those misguided
fools who believe that what you feel should take precedence over the
truth. I regret to inform you what you feel is of no consequence to me.
Your opinions of me ceased to matter with the first line of the first
response you wrote to one of my articles. If you are so misguided that
you believe that I care what you feel just because I try (in vain) to
discuss something more important than your feelings with you, then let
me dispell that myth forcefully and immediately: I am completely and
utterly /uninterested/ in what you feel or believe or personally think.
If you can report interesting facts from the real world, as opposed to
your emotionally charged fantasy world, fine, I will listen. As long as
you keep ranting and raving about high horses and you insist on sharing
your emotions, you lose credibility faster than you can type.
> The percentage of Americans over the age of ten who do not know water
> freezes at 32 °F is roughly on a par with the percentage of
> Norwegians who do not know that water freezes at 0 °C.
I realize that asking an American «how do you know this to be true?» is
not going to yield useful information, but here you are clearly just
making things up on the spot, pretending it to be facts worthy of my
time. When you just make stuff up as it suits you, nothing else you say
will be credible unless you give references to credible sources. If you
make stuff up as you go in one instance and do not distinguish between
opinions and facts, then I have to go check whether anything you say is
actually so before I can act upon it. I am disinclined to waste my time
on your failure to separate fantasy and reality, to put it very mildly.
You have worn out whatever goodwill I might have had towards you, so if
you cannot be bothered to stop making stuff up and pretend it is fact,
you are completely irrelevant.
> Get off your high horse. I am pointing out another factor for you to
> consider. Don't go off on a tangent about the way I presented this.
Oh, I am so sorry. This is /your/ high horse, and you are not going to
share it with anyone, are you? Perhaps you should try to find your way
to the bathroom and look at the sheet of glass on the wall with the
funny face in it that moves when you move and yell «Get off your high
horse!» to it and see if it works? Your repetitive exposition of your
personal and emotional problems when reading Usenet articles is of no
interest to anyone but your circle of supportive friends and perhaps
your shrink. Try to figure out how to refrain from sharing your emotions
and start to concentrate on sharing your thoughts and your observations.
Any more «high horse» crap from you, and /anything/ you say will be at
least as uninteresting as your made-up claims of fact.
And grow the hell up. The world looks upon Americans as children who
never had to cope with harsh realities. It is disgusting how so many
Americans completely fail to behave as adults and believe that telling
stories is supposed to make other people sympathize with you. I recall
one instance which typified the American response to an answer he got to
a technical problem: «All solution and no sympathy.» No, little American
child, we do not «share your pain» or «relate» or «feel with you» or any
of that childish crap. If you cannot be bothered to stop crying and
whining and start thinking, you will be nothing more than babies crying
on airlines to us.
I stopped reading after your repetitive emotional problems surfaced yet
again. Repeat whatever /interesting/ things were on your mind without
exposing your emotional traumas and maybe I will listen to it. If you
still think your emotional state is something I should care about, you
clearly are so consumed with self-importance you must be left alone.
Erik Naggum @2005-052
Erik Naggum
> That would be a good idea. I would even make it broader: any
> publication intended for an international audience should use
> international units. For that matter, all texts available via http
> and nntp have an international audience.
Hm. I believe that if a resource is intended for international trade or
communication, you have to obey international standards. (This extends
beyond units to date formats, for instance.) If it is not /intended/ for
international communication, however, I have to give people the right to
use whatever local customs their /intended/ user population favors, just
like local languages, even if it is technically feasible for the whole
world to access a resource.
Incidentally, Gregg Easterbrook has an interesting article on the death
of languages at TNR Online (www.tnr.com) today: «Word Perfect» -- which
mirrors my sentiments exactly. (In Norway, we have a community of people
who prefer to use a version of Norwegian that looks very much like
lutefisk: Dug up remains from the garbage heap of history and dressed up
to look like a tradition. It is called «nynorsk», for «New Norwegian»,
despite the fact that it has more in common with Old Norse than anything
modern. It would not even be modern on Iceland. Imagine someone who dug
up Chaucer or Beowulf and claimed to write «New English» because he had
personal issues with the borrowing from French and Latin. Unlike the
Sami, who have real history to their language, «nynorsk» was made up by
a linguist who traveled around the country to pick up pieces of Old
Norwegian still in use, and then he tried to deny the passage of time
and history by resurrecting it like Frankenstein's monster. To this day,
this massive waste continues to drain public budgets, just because this
stupid minority insist on their peculiar ways. As Easterbrook says: «If
Hawaiian speakers start to demand special privileges and exemptions,
only ill can come of that.» Norwegians know that all too well.)
The death of local unit conventions follow exactly the same pattern as
the death of languages that nobody understands: Only good can come of
better communication. Or, to snatch Easterbrook's conclusion: «Overall,
though, the consolidation of language seems a positive trend. Having a
few widely agreed upon international languages is good for everyone.
Losing rare languages seems a minor problem at worst. The more people
who speak English or Mandarin, the better.»
I wonder what he would say about losing rare systems of units.
Erik Naggum @2005-052
Christoph Paeper
>
> You have worn out whatever goodwill I might have had towards you, so if
> you cannot be bothered to stop making stuff up and pretend it is fact,
> you are completely irrelevant.
As much as I remember this boring thread, several people made unproven (or
unprovable) claims, including yourself. So let it go already.
--
Useless Fact #1:
Barbie's measurements if she were life size: 39-23-33 [99-58-84].
Dr John Stockton
2005 03:35:55, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Christoph Paeper
<christop...@nurfuerspam.de> posted :
>*Dr John Stockton* <sp...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>:
>> dd/mm/yy[yy] hh:mm[:ss](a|p).m. and similar,
>
>That looks rather British to me, American being more like:
>
> m/d/yy h:mm[:ss] (A|P)M
>
>But I'm neither and thus my observations could be entirely false.
My mistake; I'm so accustomed to a reasonably sensible date format, not
unlike the German customary one, that I typed dd/mm instead of mm/dd.
In the UK, "popular" times are 12-h, but timetables and other data are
24-h.
FFF is confusing in that it does have M & D in the right order, but Y at
the wrong end.
Paul K
Erik Naggum wrote:
> First, Americans are not born with innate knowledge any more than other
> people are. Until they are taught «water freezes at 32°C and boils at
> 212°C», they will not know. Gene's statement is one of those I would
> expect from people who believe in innate or effortless acquisition of
> knowledge.
> Second, a significant number of «normal» Americans (5% is a safe bet
> based on numerious small-scale research) fail to get this right when
> they are asked. A small number of Europeans have a hard time remembering
> fundamental properties of their surroundings, so it would be irrational
> in the extreme to believe that /all/ Americans (of reasonable age) would
> know /their/ properties.
> Third, the U.S. has a very large proportion of the public who are
> functional illiterates, relative to other civilized countries. It is
> highly unlikely that they will know fundamental physical properties.
> Fourth, the U.S. has a very large proportion of immigrants who are
> unfamiliar with all of your random ways, again relative to other
> civilized countries.
> These are the obvious abundances. There are less obvious ones, such as
> the number of students who get it wrong on tests, but who are hopefully
> corrected, so their mistakes have little impact.
>
>
With your obvious extensive knowledge of all things U.S., can you enlighten us to
where Americans would be taught that "«water freezes at 32°C and boils at 212°C»"?
I have never been part of the U.S. educational system, and don't claim any
expertise in the field, but if that is what you have been taught, it's a pretty
safe bet ( probably better than your 5%) that it was not in the U.S.
Paul
Jim Riley
wrote:
>> ok. Maybe Gene's statement isn't 100% accurate. But what you say
>> simply is not true! An obvious abundance of Americans don't know the
>> freezing point??? Where are you getting this info.
>
>First, Americans are not born with innate knowledge any more than other
>people are. Until they are taught «water freezes at 32°C and boils at
>212°C», they will not know. Gene's statement is one of those I would
>expect from people who believe in innate or effortless acquisition of
>knowledge.
> Second, a significant number of «normal» Americans (5% is a safe bet
>based on numerious small-scale research) fail to get this right when
>they are asked.
Is that 5% of "Americans", or 5% of "normal Americans"? What
definition of normalcy are you using here?
Are you saying that 5% don't know _both_ the freezing point of water
and the boiling point of water (at sea level)? What do the numerous
small-scale research studies show for those who know the freezing
point of water, but not the boiling point of water, and vice versa?
--
Jim Riley
Klaus von der Heyde
> If it is not /intended/ for
> international communication, however, I have to give people the right to
> use whatever local customs their /intended/ user population favors, just
> like local languages, even if it is technically feasible for the whole
> world to access a resource.
Yes, I agree with you. It is just that english language texts, even
if not intended to be international, are often valuable sources for
readers from other countries, just because so many people understand
english.
Klaus
Jim Riley
wrote:
>* Jim Riley @2005-02-21 03:34Z
>> And let's suppose that it were true.
>>
>> Would adoption of the Celsius scale in the US lead to those who know
>> the freezing point of water in Fahrenheit to learn its value in
>> Celsius?
>
>Yes.
How will they learn it? And how will they relearn all the
associations that they have developed relating temperature to suitable
clothing and activities.
>> Would it cause those those who currently don't know the freezing
>> point in Fahrenheit to learn what its value is in Celsius?
>
>Ah, this is a much more intelligent question. If they do not know it
>because they cannot remember seemingly random numbers, there is a high
>probability that they will learn the Celsius scale.
What evidence is there that those who don't know what the freezing
point of water is on the Fahrenheit scale, do not know so because it
is two digit number. This is like suggesting that people who don't
know that the the body temperature is 37 C, don't know so because it
is a two digit number.
> This can be seen in
>the much smaller number of Europeans who do not know their temperature
>scale than the number of Americans who do not know theirs. (The number
>will never reach zero, of course.)
How much smaller is the number of Europeans?
>> If one lives in Miami is there practical utility in knowing the
>> freezing point?
>
>Yes.
And that practical utility is?
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>* Jim Riley @2005-02-21 04:35Z
>> My contention is that Americans /do/ know that the freezing point of
>> water in Fahrenheit is 32 degrees. Tastyalien's claim to the contrary
>> was so incredible, that I truly believed that /he believed/ that
>> Americans did not know to wear a coat when the temperature was in the
>> 30's.
>
>If you had said just this to begin with, all would have been well, so I
>appreciate that you clarify the responsibility belatedly.
Read my response to his original posting where he made his claim.
<O3mOd.3790$UX3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
>> He has not responded to the contrary.
>
>Of course not. Doing so would dignify the outrageous irrationality of
>the position you had imputed to him.
Read my response to his original posting where he made his claim.
I did not imply that his claim was irrational. I did suggest that his
observation was so outside my personal experience, that it might be
colored by his cultural experience or level of his familiarity with
English.
>> What was lost was that the claim "that Americans need reminder of the
>> freezing point of water" was not backed up by tastyalien.
>
>Why should it be? Whether they objectively «need» it or not is an open
>question, I guess, but the fact that the weather reports keep harping on
>it, is obvious to anyone who has even watched CNN, and much more so if
>one has had to stay in one of the weathery cities for conferences.
What is a "weathery" city? Which cities, and which time of year were
you there.
>>> Why /do/ American weathermen have to remind people that 32°F is the
>>> freezing point?
>> Do they?
>
>Yes, they do.
>
>> Or do they remind the listeners of certain precautions that they
>> should take.
>
>They do that, too, of course.
>
>> If the weatherman says that it will be rain tomorrow and to take an
>> umbrella, is that a reminder that rain will cause your head to get
>> wet? To someone who is from a culture where the weather report
>> consists solely of a dry recitation of numbers, they might think so.
>
>It is indeed an example of a behavior that is quite puzzling,
It is simply a different style.
> but the
>missing connection is not between rain and getting your head wet that
>most visitors take away from seeing such reports, it is that Americans
>are so stressed-out that they need these helpful reminders. Over here,
>it would most probably be considered condescending and paternalistic,
<snip run on sentence>. It is simply a different style.
>> If Celsius were adopted would Americans know that 100 was the boiling
>> point of water?
>
>If we can judge by how well this number is known in SI countries, yes.
Why is this temperature known in SI countries?
>> This supposed abundance is not obvious.
>
>I have addressed this elsewhere. Let me know if the four groups are not
>obvious to you when you have read about them.
See Gene Nygaard's response to your groups 1 and 4.
>> Since both groups are exactly as safe and at home with the units that
>> they are familiar, why should either convert.
>
>Because of trade and communication between the two groups, naturally.
Do Norwegians resent the fact that a larger percentage of people from
Norway emigrated to the US than any other European country?
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Lots of people using the Celsius scale are not aware of the boiling
>point of water where they are. I know it is about 208 °F where I am
>(and since that's the number in which I have stored it in my memory, I
>need to multiply 4 by 5/9 and subtract from 100 to get about 98 °C),
>though there are many inhabited places on Earth where it is below 200
>°F.
IIRC it is one degree Fahrenheit for each 550 feet of altitude, which
would equate to roughly one degree Celcius for each 300 m of
elevation.
Actually, I suspect that a lot of people who live at higher elevations
"know" that the boiling point of water is 212 F, and also know that it
takes longer than 3 minutes to boil a 3 minute egg, but who are
unaware that the boiling point of water is not 212 F where they live.
--
Jim Riley
Erik Naggum
> With your obvious extensive knowledge of all things U.S., can you
> enlighten us to where Americans would be taught that "«water freezes
> at 32°C and boils at 212°C»"?
>
> I have never been part of the U.S. educational system, and don't
> claim any expertise in the field, but if that is what you have been
All this because you were unable to understand that it was a typo? Who
was it here who said that Americans were nicer than Europeans? Sheesh.
Erik Naggum @2005-053