Well, the English Inch and the American inch were both defined as 3 barley corns. But the lengths were slightly different. So in 1959 they set the international inch as 25.4 mm, which was between the two values and less than 1/1000 for the larger change from the old value.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:04 PM Bob Bridges <robhbrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This interests me. I'm sort of on Seymour's side on this one, Tony; I > learned the metric system in high-school chemistry and mildly prefer it. > While I gotta admire anyone with the stick-to-it-iveness it takes to call it > a "fad" after two hundred years and 192 out of 195 countries, I'm persuaded > by the practical value of decimal units. > > You say that's only "a small part of the 'standard' ", but I would have > said, if asked, that it was the whole point. What other reason would anyone > have to adopt SI units? Well, aside from the 192/195-countries thing, of > course, which I suppose ain't chopped liver - but that came later, so I > don't count it. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* A ship in harbour is safe. But that's not what a ship is for. */ > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Seymour J Metz > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 08:38 > > We are no more immune to Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of > Crowds than any other country, and our society has massive conformity in > many areas. Even many who want to rebel find a marginal group to rebel in > conformity with. People accept the most ludicrous claims because others in > their in group accept them. Koolaid, anybody? > > As to SI units, there are practical reasons for adopting them. Do we really > want to stick with a system of units that few of us understand, with the > same name denoting different quantities depending on context? > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Tony Thigpen > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 08:36 > > This is a fun Monday discussion. :-) > > I did not say anything about decimal arithmetic, either for nor against. > I was discussing this fad called SI and how it was a standard looking > for a base. The fact that it uses base-10 arithmetic may add to it's > popularity, but that is only one small part of the 'standard'. > > --- Martin Packer wrote on 7/20/20 8:13 AM: > > So you don't rate decimal arithmetic? :-) So how do you explain dollars > > and cents? :-) > > > > --- > > From: Tony Thigpen <t...@vse2pdf.com> > > Date: 20/07/2020 12:41 > > > > We are an independent sort of people. We don't blindly follow others > > after the latest fad, like SI units. SI units are not really built on > > something real, but instead are a unit that looked for a base item that > > 'fit' into the new perception of reality. > > > > --- Wayne Bickerdike wrote on 7/20/20 12:50 AM: > >> Odd how the USA hangs on to impractical learnings. Even the UK moved to > >> SI units while I was at school in the 1960s. > >> > >> Took me a while to get used to a gallon that isn't a gallon and a pint > >> that isn't a pint (16 oz vs 20 oz.). You also short changed the ton by > >> 240 lbs. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
