Author
|
Topic: Evolution of math in the USA (Read 13553 times)
|
|
|
Alen
Zebranky food
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 30
|
Another great fact lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Numbers and commas
You'll have to blame my university for that I'm afraid. We were taught at school to use the comma, and even though I strayed away from it during my Uni years (mostly due to applications like Matlab really disliking commas in the wrong spots) I had to return to it for my Masters. Nothing puts the comma back in you like having to correct 30+ pages because you used a separator your professor doesn't like.
The difference between 30 and 40 F is cold and a little less cold; the difference between 30 and 40 C is quite warm and deadly heat. Say all you want about precision in the metric scale and easy conversions, but I never want to give up my Fahrenheit thermometer.
This might just be me being a weak Northener, but 30 C is pretty damned hot already. It's what you're used to I guess. I think it's handy when every 10 degrees denotes a major difference. -30 is deadly cold, -20 is really cold, -10 is cold, 0 is sucky, 10 is chilly, 20 is warm, 30 is hot and so on.
Plus, you know as soon as we convert the sped limit signs to km/h, all the already crazy drivers here will use it as an excuse to drive 95 mph. My commute is dangerous enough as it is. 
IIRC, back when I lived in Ireland they had speedometers that showed both kpm and mph. Dunno how that works for modern digital displays though.
I think part of my problem is that you're finding a use for all of the metric measurements I find obscure in your daily life. Just because the math conversions are easy, doesn't mean I want to be doing them ALL THE TIME.
I think you may be thinking about it in the wrong way. Or maybe I misunderstood you. But I don't do conversions all the time. Look at your system. when you buy a gallon of ice cream, you don't have to convert that to quarts or ounces before you know how much it is, do you? having a 4 cl measurement is handy if you want to figure out how many drinks you get out of a litre bottle, but I don't stop and look at my measuring cup every time and go "hmm yes, that is indeed 0.4 dl or 0.04 l. Just like you know the size of an ounce, a quart and a gallon, I know the size of a cl, dl and l. And I know an ml is pretty small.
Of course, cooking has all sort of other crazy measurements like teaspoon, tablespoon, etc., which certainly doesn't help matters any (and I'm not even sure how these convert to ounces right offhand).
Yeah, we have those as well. it usually says how many ml it is on the measuring cup as well, but those are random values that I'm not good at remembering.
My main problem is that this is sort of like expressing 5'11" as 71 inches. It's tough to visualize (at least for me) lots of little units stacked together. I can get a good idea of how tall something is if you say it's 6 feet. If you say it's 72 inches, chances are my guesstimation is going to be further off unless I bother to do some math (and I'm lazy like that).
But isn't that what you'd have to do any way? You stack up 6 feet and then 7 inches. How is that different from stacking up 2 metres and then 7,8 decimetres? Ys, I know there's a comma (sorry Death) in the dm there, but isn't the principle exactly the same? And if you were buying timber, wouldn't you be doing the same thing?
Oh, snark snark snark. One thing you should realize is that here in the US, an 85 year old house is historic. The country is only just a bit over 200, after all. I imagine that impression is quite different in Europe, where you folks have been building your houses and castles for thousands of years. Most consturction in this country is from the 1950s or later, though, and we have a tendency to tear down things when they get that old (until they hit that magic "historic" number, which I suppose varies by person) and rebuild them. We like our snazzy, modern buildings, I guess. As mentioned by RType, 1/8 of an inch is common division. So yes, we do get more precise than inches (which considering we are still talking about building, was never really a question), as I mentioned before. Just because we spec things out to whole inches doesn't mean we can't measure stuff smaller than that. Snark snark snark. I wasn't referring to building, and I said as much before.
Actually, I misunderstood you. since I was talking about houses, I assumed your question was about that. As such, I apologize and I'll try to not tangle myeslf into a argument on how your 50 year old houses are all inch perfect. Interesting about the 1/8 inch, doesn't it being a common division indicate that the inch is a bit too big? Your question actually makes much more sense when pertaining to buildings than as a general "How exact do you need to be?". I mean, how exact when? When I cut the grass then a few mm here or there aren't going to matter. But when I trim my hair down to 6mm, a few extra mm's is going to make me look bald. Likewise, when I measure water for baking bread then dl is perfectly fine, but if I'm putting chili powder in something I prefer to be more exact. So your question seems pretty pointless unless you direct it at a specific situation, in which case there si always a counter argument to e made...
More obscure units. I didn't even know what the unit for 10K was until you typed it out there. The others... Well, more conversion excercises as far as I'm concerned. Again, why bother with all that (admittedly easy) math if you don't have to?
Like I said, excepting the Swedish mile they're hardly ever used. and again, i think you're overplaying the conversion part. I don't actually sit down and count out how many meters there are in a km, or how many km's in a mile. It's an automatic unconscious thing. Much like turning 12 inches into a foot I suspect is for you.
Suffice to say, I don't really deal with elecrtical measurements much (read: at all), outside of knowing that I have 120V outlets in my house, I need certain amperages when I change my fuses, and that the smoke detectors take 9V batteries. Is there even an English system for measuring this stuff? I only did so in physics class; suffice to say that metric was the only system allowed.
Other than the BTU, I haven't encountered any. Thankfully.
Thank you for bringing this up. because it's always bothered me as well, I'm used to dealing with this because we see notations from the folks in the German offices often enough. but it's still seriously annoying, I personally take it as proof that Europeans have a bit of trouble with the whole logical notation thing. myself, 
I think you should take it as more of an indication that people form larger countries will usually stubbornly stick to their own systems, no matter how inferior or annoying they are. I suppose it's part of the arrogance that comes with having once been (or still being) a world power.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 23, 2009, 08:54:04 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
This might just be me being a weak Northener, but 30 C is pretty damned hot already. It's what you're used to I guess. I think it's handy when every 10 degrees denotes a major difference. -30 is deadly cold, -20 is really cold, -10 is cold, 0 is sucky, 10 is chilly, 20 is warm, 30 is hot and so on.
By "quite warm" I really meant uncomfortably so, though you aren't dying like you would be at 40.
Personally, it sort of bothers me that 1 degree indicates a fairly significant change. It brings in too much precision for something so mundane. On the F scale, you can guesstimate temperatures to the nearest 5 degrees or so and it doesn't matter much (unless you're edging down toward 32, and it's the difference between rain and snow). With C, you really do have to be pretty exact, because 5 degrees is a lot of difference (or at least a noticeable one).
IIRC, back when I lived in Ireland they had speedometers that showed both kpm and mph. Dunno how that works for modern digital displays though.
I've seen a few cars with both, but many American cars only measure in mph. Suffice to say, this includes any car with a digital display, unless you can change it between the 2 scales, which is fairly rare. It lends another level of complexity to the idea of converting the system; would drivers need to learn to convert speeds in their heads if they can't afford or don't want a new car? To say nothing of the fact that all police departments would need to get new radar guns; that's a lot of our local tax dollars down the toilet, just so they can do a better job writing more tickets for us.
I think you may be thinking about it in the wrong way. Or maybe I misunderstood you. But I don't do conversions all the time. Look at your system. when you buy a gallon of ice cream, you don't have to convert that to quarts or ounces before you know how much it is, do you? having a 4 cl measurement is handy if you want to figure out how many drinks you get out of a litre bottle, but I don't stop and look at my measuring cup every time and go "hmm yes, that is indeed 0.4 dl or 0.04 l. Just like you know the size of an ounce, a quart and a gallon, I know the size of a cl, dl and l. And I know an ml is pretty small.
Well, when I have a bottle of soda and an 8 oz. glass, I suppose it might be useful to know how many times I can get a drink before I have to run to the supermarket again. Of course, since a quart and a liter are quite close, it makes things easier. But then again, I'm not one of those people that obsesses over nutrition labels and serving sizes; there's a group that would be driven completely bonkers (well, moreso than they are already, anyway) by having to convert all of their scales and measuring cups to a new set of units.
But isn't that what you'd have to do any way? You stack up 6 feet and then 7 inches. How is that different from stacking up 2 metres and then 7,8 decimetres? Ys, I know there's a comma (sorry Death) in the dm there, but isn't the principle exactly the same? And if you were buying timber, wouldn't you be doing the same thing?
That's the point. The foot is a much more useful measurement than inches for that distance. I would express it as 6'7", not as 79". However, that's exactly how metric height / length is measured in my experience (at least for fairly practical distances, not long ones): you don't say 2.78 meters (which is already a bit confusingly precise for the height of our hypothetical basketball player, presumably), or 2 meters and 7.8 decimeters, you say 278 cm. Not only is that level of precision not really necessary for measuring someone's height, it's also a bit abstract until you do some math to convert it, or stack an obscene amount of tiny units on top of one another.
Actually, I misunderstood you. since I was talking about houses, I assumed your question was about that. As such, I apologize and I'll try to not tangle myeslf into a argument on how your 50 year old houses are all inch perfect. Interesting about the 1/8 inch, doesn't it being a common division indicate that the inch is a bit too big?
For building, sure. That is one application where you need precision to a greater degree. For other stuff? Not really.
Your question actually makes much more sense when pertaining to buildings than as a general "How exact do you need to be?". I mean, how exact when? When I cut the grass then a few mm here or there aren't going to matter. But when I trim my hair down to 6mm, a few extra mm's is going to make me look bald.
Wait, you actually measure the length of your hair? I just tell the lady that does mine to cut it a bit shorter, but not a buzzcut. Maybe that's why you folks need so much precision.
Likewise, when I measure water for baking bread then dl is perfectly fine, but if I'm putting chili powder in something I prefer to be more exact. So your question seems pretty pointless unless you direct it at a specific situation, in which case there si always a counter argument to e made...
I rather like spicy food, so being exact with chili powder is not too much of an issue with me (to an extent, of course; no need to dump out the whole bottle).
Of course there is a counter argument. As I said before, this is a pretty silly devil's advocate discussion we're having here to begin with.
Like I said, excepting the Swedish mile they're hardly ever used. and again, i think you're overplaying the conversion part. I don't actually sit down and count out how many meters there are in a km, or how many km's in a mile. It's an automatic unconscious thing. Much like turning 12 inches into a foot I suspect is for you.
Well, sure, as long as you know what they're all called. I expect most people are familiar with milli-, centi-, and kilo- here in the US. The computer literate are certainly familiar with mega-, giga-, and tera- by now. More sciencey types are sure to know micro-, nano-, and possibly pico-, and generally deci-, deka-, and hecta- are mentioned in school, at least in passing. Other measurements are much more obscure; I happen to know femto- offhand, but I'm weird like that. All the others are a mystery to me, and I would certainly have to look them up if I saw it printed on something.
Also, it's somewhat ironic that you use an English unit to describe one of the more obscure metric ones. Perhaps you're not as free of the system as you'd like to believe.
I think you should take it as more of an indication that people form larger countries will usually stubbornly stick to their own systems, no matter how inferior or annoying they are. I suppose it's part of the arrogance that comes with having once been (or still being) a world power.
Not sure what that has to do with improper use of punctuation in math. but hey,
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
I've seen a few cars with both, but many American cars only measure in mph. Suffice to say, this includes any car with a digital display, unless you can change it between the 2 scales, which is fairly rare. It lends another level of complexity to the idea of converting the system; would drivers need to learn to convert speeds in their heads if they can't afford or don't want a new car? To say nothing of the fact that all police departments would need to get new radar guns; that's a lot of our local tax dollars down the toilet, just so they can do a better job writing more tickets for us.
I'm surprised that a lot of digital equipment does not provide for easy change of units, but that does seem to be the case. There aren't that many different speed limits in use, though, so you can easily memorise the most common cases. In the short term, changing the US to metric would lead to a lot of extra mental arithmetic for most citizens (or increased use of pocket calculators).
Note that, right now, US drivers are in the same situation as soon as they cross the border to Canada or Mexico. Just think of US metrication as becoming Lower Saskatchewan or Greater New Mexico. 
That's the point. The foot is a much more useful measurement than inches for that distance. I would express it as 6'7", not as 79". However, that's exactly how metric height / length is measured in my experience (at least for fairly practical distances, not long ones): you don't say 2.78 meters (which is already a bit confusingly precise for the height of our hypothetical basketball player, presumably), or 2 meters and 7.8 decimeters, you say 278 cm. Not only is that level of precision not really necessary for measuring someone's height, it's also a bit abstract until you do some math to convert it, or stack an obscene amount of tiny units on top of one another.
Your hypothetical basketball player should contact the Guinness world record guys. However, you do make an interesting point. A user of metric is probably less likely to think in terms of units stacked on top of each other; it's more a question of knowing from experience that someone that's 2 metres is likely to play basketball while 155-185 cm is normal. Traditional units tend to encourage this sort of intuitive comparison of similarly sized units at the expense of generality and easy comparison between differently sized units. I suspect that part of the reason why each side thinks the other is being silly is that each one expects a measurement system to have the features they usually make use of. I see the attraction of measuring length in terms of things like the width of a thumb, the length of a foot and the length of a pace (note that the metre and yard are both pretty close to this). However, the English mile is kind of arbitrary; the Scandinavian ones are roughly the distance you can walk before taking a break.
Wait, you actually measure the length of your hair? I just tell the lady that does mine to cut it a bit shorter, but not a buzzcut.
I'm with Draxas on this one.
Like I said, excepting the Swedish mile they're hardly ever used. and again, i think you're overplaying the conversion part. I don't actually sit down and count out how many meters there are in a km, or how many km's in a mile. It's an automatic unconscious thing. Much like turning 12 inches into a foot I suspect is for you. Well, sure, as long as you know what they're all called. I expect most people are familiar with milli-, centi-, and kilo- here in the US. The computer literate are certainly familiar with mega-, giga-, and tera- by now. More sciencey types are sure to know micro-, nano-, and possibly pico-, and generally deci-, deka-, and hecta- are mentioned in school, at least in passing. Other measurements are much more obscure; I happen to know femto- offhand, but I'm weird like that. All the others are a mystery to me, and I would certainly have to look them up if I saw it printed on something. Also, it's somewhat ironic that you use an English unit to describe one of the more obscure metric ones. Perhaps you're not as free of the system as you'd like to believe. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
jaychant
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 432
Please visit my homepage
|
While I'm used to the English system, I would be all for a change in standard to the metric system. Draxas, the only reason you prefer the Engliish system is because you're so used to it. You would get used to the Metric system after a few years too, and then you would wonder why you thought the English system had any use at all.
To prevent confusion to drivers with a mph speedometer, signs could still state the mph as well as the kph. Change to the metric system would have to be a gradual change rather than a sudden change, because the U.S. is such a huge country. But eventually, the change would be successful and the English system would finally be gone, making things much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SweetSassyMolassy
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 271
|
That's the point. The foot is a much more useful measurement than inches for that distance. I would express it as 6'7", not as 79". However, that's exactly how metric height / length is measured in my experience (at least for fairly practical distances, not long ones): you don't say 2.78 meters (which is already a bit confusingly precise for the height of our hypothetical basketball player, presumably), or 2 meters and 7.8 decimeters, you say 278 cm. Not only is that level of precision not really necessary for measuring someone's height, it's also a bit abstract until you do some math to convert it, or stack an obscene amount of tiny units on top of one another.
Wait, what? I don't think I see your point on this. Measuring someone to be 6'7'' has the precision of measurement in inches, and 278 cm has the precision of centimeters, which really isn't a big difference. I wouldn't go as far to say that the difference between centimeters and inches is too precise for a height measurement, in fact if I was used to it I'd prefer centimeters.
And why don't people use 2.78 meters?
It seems like what you mean is that the foot is an easier reference for measuring something like someone's height, whereas the meter must actually be broken into centimeters on the spot, making it slightly more confusing. I think this may seem true to both of us US guys, but I'm sure when someone who's used to metric sees 2.78 m or 278 cm, they don't think about each individual centimeter and instead divide up the measurement from another reference, like "I know how tall 25 centimeters is, so just stack 11 of those. " Sure, that's inconvenient for us because we think they're converting to decimeters or something, but we're just talking the ease of on the spot measurement, which to them would probably be easy.
And this is a nice topic, but what's the objective here? Do the metric users want Americans to switch? Why? It's been working fine for America. All international science is done in metric, what's the difference?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 23, 2009, 06:39:04 pm by SweetSassyMolassy »
|
Logged
|
I am not always understand about what you speak, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Personally, it sort of bothers me that 1 degree indicates a fairly significant change. It brings in too much precision for something so mundane. On the F scale, you can guesstimate temperatures to the nearest 5 degrees or so and it doesn't matter much (unless you're edging down toward 32, and it's the difference between rain and snow). With C, you really do have to be pretty exact, because 5 degrees is a lot of difference (or at least a noticeable one).
Like was pointed out,how is it that when it comes to length measurement there's no need to be too precise, but temperature needs to pretty exact? Anyhow, most modern digital thermometers give the temperature with one decimal point, i.e 16,7 C or so. Hopefully that might satisfy your craving for exactness on this one point.
Regarding speeds, I'm sure you're right. After all, the Irish and English are much closer to the metric system countries, it makes sense for them to have it. I'd think stuff like that would be pretty common at the Canadian border as well, but perhaps not? And as I've said earlier, I do agree that changing your system would be insanely expensive. I just think it's worth the price since I won't be paying for it
Well, when I have a bottle of soda and an 8 oz. glass, I suppose it might be useful to know how many times I can get a drink before I have to run to the supermarket again. Of course, since a quart and a liter are quite close, it makes things easier. But then again, I'm not one of those people that obsesses over nutrition labels and serving sizes; there's a group that would be driven completely bonkers (well, more so than they are already, anyway) by having to convert all of their scales and measuring cups to a new set of units.
I'm afraid you lost me. I was trying to bring across that I know the rough sizes of our measurements just as well as you know the rough size of yours, but that I have the added bonus of being able to calculate more easily. I was just trying to make the point that the metric measurements don't mean that you have to perform conversions all the time any more than the English units do. You don't visualize a gallon as whatever amount of ounces and then add them together, nor do you have to sit down and calculate how many pints there are in one every time you need an ounce.. Likewise, I don't visualise a dl as 0, 1 litre, 10 cl or 100 ml, and I don't actually have to convert it to know how much it is.
That's the point. The foot is a much more useful measurement than inches for that distance. I would express it as 6'7", not as 79". However, that's exactly how metric height / length is measured in my experience (at least for fairly practical distances, not long ones): you don't say 2.78 meters (which is already a bit confusingly precise for the height of our hypothetical basketball player, presumably), or 2 meters and 7.8 decimeters, you say 278 cm. Not only is that level of precision not really necessary for measuring someone's height, it's also a bit abstract until you do some math to convert it, or stack an obscene amount of tiny units on top of one another.
We're still talking past each other. I'm referring to the example with planks in the timber yard, not the length of a person you keep returning to. ever since you asked me about why we need more exact measurements, I've been trying to give examples (houses, timber, hair and so forth). When you reply and quote those examples, I simply assume that we're still talking about that subject and haven't returned back to the original length of a person, which I thought we had dropped some time back. That's also why the length was over two metres, I was talking about timber. The example I wrote involved figuring out how many planks of a certain meter length we need and my reply was to that, how you'd have to stack your units up the exact same way if you were doing it in English units, only to then divide them again to get a measurement that can be easily comprehended. Sorry if I've been unclear. Of course you don't have to stack a persons length the same way since you don't need to figure out how many persons of a certain type you need to make a wall unless you're a very special person.
For building, sure. That is one application where you need precision to a greater degree. For other stuff? Not really. Wait, you actually measure the length of your hair? I just tell the lady that does mine to cut it a bit shorter, but not a buzzcut. Maybe that's why you folks need so much precision.
In Europe we have this amazing thing called a hair trimmer. They can be set to cut at different heights, depending on what length you want on your hair. It's a lot cheaper and more efficient than going to the barber. If my alternatives were -2 inches-1inch-bald then I'd be pretty annoyed. On my cutter the shortest length is 3 mm, and from there on up you have 3 mm intervals. Inches for intervals would suck. On the other hand, our lawn movers can't be set to mm standards. those examples were provided because I thought your question "How exact do you need length to be" to be silly, since it can have so many different applications. but I guess you missed that. I still think that question is silly, but since you've moved on to nitpicking examples instead of addressing it I guess we might as well drop it.
I rather like spicy food, so being exact with chili powder is not too much of an issue with me (to an extent, of course; no need to dump out the whole bottle).
Of course there is a counter argument. As I said before, this is a pretty silly devil's advocate discussion we're having here to begin with.
Yes, but what you don't seem to get is that this isn't an argument over superiority. We're not having a "devils advocate" discussion here. I'm not saying "Look at all the uses metric has, it is superior to your archaic system" and expecting you to throw out witty comebacks.. I'm simply trying to show how metric is used in everyday life, since you seem to believe that metric users only us ml and l, metres and kilometres. I don't really care if you never use small measurements because you're the toughest salsa eater of all time and can afford saffron by the boatload. I'm simply trying to illustrate that it's not as simple as "Metric is only useful for really big or really small things!" You on the other hand, seem determined to quip every example I give rather than taking to heart that there are actually metric units that can be used in every day situations, rather than just "really big and really small".
Well, sure, as long as you know what they're all called. I expect most people are familiar with milli-, centi-, and kilo- here in the US
Well add the deci, and that's what we mostly use in metric system for everyday things. Nothing strange and magical about it, and you're familiar with all but one of them.
The computer literate are certainly familiar with mega-, giga-, and tera- by now. More sciencey types are sure to know micro-, nano-, and possibly pico-, and generally deci-, deka-, and hecta- are mentioned in school, at least in passing. Other measurements are much more obscure; I happen to know femto- offhand, but I'm weird like that. All the others are a mystery to me, and I would certainly have to look them up if I saw it printed on something.
To be honest, apart from the deci- (and sometimes the hecto-) those aren't used in everyday life. You don't need to know them any more than you need to know how many furlongs there is in whatever furlongs are used with. They're there if you need them, but they aren't everyday units. I don't get your reasoning either. First you think that we only use the extreme ends oft he scale, i.e millilitres and litres. But now the scale is suddenly too complex because you think we use every prefix somewhere and you'd have to know them all. Make up your mind already. the truth lies in between the two extremes you're pushing for.
Also, it's somewhat ironic that you use an English unit to describe one of the more obscure metric ones. Perhaps you're not as free of the system as you'd like to believe.
Um, yeah. The Scandinavian Mile must be connected to the English mile, it surely can't be a remnant of the old Swedish and Norwegian systems, wherein you'd have a Swedish foot, a Norwegian foot and so on. Because before metric, naturally we all used English units. It's not like the metric system arose because every nation have their own version of inches and feet and we needed to get a standardized measurement... This is an interesting comment though, and says a lot about the danger of making assumptions. for what, like the third time in this thread? ml and l, everyone using pints, mile being only an English thing. Maybe you should stop and think a bit about this?
In Norway and Sweden, the old "land mile" or "long mile" was 36 000 feet: because of the different definitions of foot then in use, in Norway this was 11 295 m and in Sweden 10 688 m. (Had the imperial foot been used, the distance would have worked out to 10 972.8 m.)
Not sure what that has to do with improper use of punctuation in math. but hey,
About the same that it has to do with the use of archaic conventions I suppose
Also, in regards to how you pronounce lengths, you might all want to note that this is connected to the language. In English I say that I'm 178 cm, because that seems to be the way the English use their system. in Finnish or Swedish, you can just as well use 1,78 m. I suspect this is due to the fact that most English people are still using their own units, they haven't figured out how to do things in an easy way in metric. I wonder how much of the confusion regarding metrics arises from stuff like that. What about the Candaians, do they say 178 or 1,78?
And this is a nice topic, but what's the objective here? Do the metric users want Americans to switch? Why? It's been working fine for America. All international science is done in metric, what's the difference?
I can't speak for anyone else, but my objective is mostly to point out to people who use the English system that this:
Metric is most useful for measuring very large or small quantities, whereas the English system seems to be designed around being useful for everyday tasks.
is ignorant and wrong. I'm just giving examples on how metrics is used, in case there are more people out there who think we have like two units and are always stuck with dozens of zeroes or really small fractions in everyday life. Draxas on the other hand, is arguing my examples as unnecessary for some reason. 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 23, 2009, 10:36:19 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
|
jaychant
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 432
Please visit my homepage
|
This is a bit random, but...
What is the difference between a metric ton and a ton?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alvarin
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 802
|
From Wikipedia :
"In the U.S. an unqualified mention of a "ton" almost invariably refers to a short ton of 2,000 pounds (907.1847 kg)."
And thanks for making me read it - interesting article .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But yes, as I said (twice?), it would make things easier if there was just one system in use. Wikipedia keeps confusing me with feet, miles and pounds, for example.