Re: Metric etc

[bearbvd@domain.elided (Greg Hermann)]

>The most ironic confusion surrounds a long ton, short ton, and tonne. Long
>tons are 2,240 pounds each, short tons (used in the USA) are "metric" in
>that they are 2,000 pounds. A true Metric Tonne is 1,000 kg or 2,200
>pounds, point is heavy materials are measured in big units of approximately
>the same amount , and smaller items are also measured in convenient units
>of approximately the same amount, all around the world. The supposed
>"inherent" advantages of the metric system are not that at all, it's just
>as arbitrary and jumbled as any other system in common use. BUT converting,
>now that's where the excitement starts.

If one were going to be a benevolent dictator, and mandate conversion of
units, the best place to start would be with the numbering system! And,
along with our current system of numbers, out would go the metric system of
measurement!

In my mind the only justification for using a base ten system of numbers is
that is how many fingers and toes most of us have! There are decent
arguments for base eight and sixteen numbering systems, on account of the
(relatively) new digital world, but the most rational system on a numerical
basis would be base twelve, no question. Simply consider how many more
integral divisors twelve has than ten, eight, or sixteen! It would be easy
enough to figure out something else to use the stray four digits for in a
hexadecimal oriented computer.

There was more than a small amount of real world practicality to the
imperial related use of the dozen and the gross in this regard!
And--gee--we could start fresh, using the inch and the foot as the basis
for a new, twelve base, system of units!

And furthermore--mandate capital punishment for anyone trying to name a
unit after a person, rather than in a rational, unit based manner, in the
new system!

Greg
>
>
>Michael Smith
>Calgary, Alberta
>Canada
>91 Alfa 164L, White, original owner

------------------------------