The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

It make no sense to bring english currency like dollars or pounds into the picture.
1 ton = 1000kg. End of story.

RevMike · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

osp70:
RevMike:
Maurits:
Anonymous:
More exactly is:
"The real WTF here is that people from USA still don't use the metric system."

the rest of the americans(yeah the american continent start in alaska and end in the patagonia): mexicans, cubans, peruvian, chilenian, etc use it !

So sad. Every year thousands of USA-nian children are forced to learn an obsolete system of measurement, which isolates them from the rest of the civilized world, all so that Detroit doesn't have to retool its factories.

The metric system was created by the French revolutionary government while they executed tens of thousands. The metric system was used by the Nazis during the holocaust, the Bolshevicks during their purges, and the Chinese during the Culteral Revolution.

Is this a coincidence? The metric system demands absolute conformity from its weights and measures. Measures that do not conform are ruthlessly eliminated. These authoritarian regimes demand absolute conformity from the people under their yolk, ruthlessly eliminating any who would not conform.

I, for one, am glad to live in a land where fractions of inches are measured in sixteenths, 12 inches make up a foot, and 3 feet make a yard. Give me furlongs and acre-feet. Give me rods and chains. Give me ounces, both dry and fluid. But give me liberty. When my units are free I can be free.

And those in that again dark continent... I'll keep a candle lit for you that you will eventually throw of the yoke of your new masters in Brussells. Today you conform in currency. You are growing in legal conformity. Soon they will come to make you conform in all ways, at risk of your very life.

I was part of the first set of students that were taught the metric system because the Canadian government decided to drop the Imperial System, the system created and forced upon by the British Monarchy, the same Monarchy that you Americans fought to achieve freedom from. Hmmm, yet you continue to use the antiquated system they forced upon most the the world they ruled, yet most of those countries upon leaving the commonwealth chose to move to the Metric system. So who is it that choses freedom? I think if you leave aside your patriotic rhetoric you would actually see the significance of using the Metric system.

But do we really conform? We don't use imperial gallons. We don't use long tons. We've kept what we liked and discarded the rest.

And it is disingenuous or ignorant to cast Britain has a monarchy. The last British Monarch to claim absolute power was, IIRC, Charles II. The Civil War put the last nail in that coffin. We colonies didn't so much as reject British influence as reject the idea that British rights only applied to people in Britain.

marvin_rabbit · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

rogthefrog:
You haul 16.0000017637 tons, and whaddayaget

(yes, I did compute it based on those factors)

Another 0.997269566 days older... I asume that we're converting to sidereal days, of course.

kipthegreat · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

dabocla:
Maurits:
Anonymous:
More exactly is:
"The real WTF here is that people from USA still don't use the metric system."

the rest of the americans(yeah the american continent start in alaska and end in the patagonia): mexicans, cubans, peruvian, chilenian, etc use it !

So sad. Every year thousands of USA-nian children are forced to learn an obsolete system of measurement, which isolates them from the rest of the civilized world, all so that Detroit doesn't have to retool its factories.

Hrm, I think I would rather keep using the numbers like 5280, 1.54, (9/5)+32, 12, 3, 2000, 2200, 3.785 etc, than by factors of 10. See - the metric system just doesn't make sense to me. It sounds WAY too complicated, give me the standard system any day.
.jc

Just think how confused all you metric-loving commie terrorists will be when the world switches over to a base-16 numeric system. You'll be all "A mm in a cm? 64 cm in a m? 3E8 g in a kg?? wtf??" Americans, because we have been trained to use a system based numbers other than 10, will fare much better than, say, the French.

dubwai · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

RevMike:
But do we really conform? We don't use imperial gallons. We don't use long tons. We've kept what we liked and discarded the rest.And it is disingenuous or ignorant to cast Britain has a monarchy. The last British Monarch to claim absolute power was, IIRC, Charles II. The Civil War put the last nail in that coffin. We colonies didn't so much as reject British influence as reject the idea that British rights only applied to people in Britain.

Like the right to make metal shovel blades. No shit. The British said it was illegal to make metal goods in the colonies. Imagine having to dig up stumps with a wooden shovel blade. Then some American started making them anyway and improved the design. That must have really burned the brits's asses.

I don't know why everyone is all up in arms about how the metric system is better. Of course it is. Do you seriously think that people are seriously arguing that it's not? And brits think Americans don't understand irony...

RevMike · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

scpoRIch:
dubwai:
Maurits:
Anonymous:
More exactly is:
"The real WTF here is that people from USA still don't use the metric system."

the rest of the americans(yeah the american continent start in alaska and end in the patagonia): mexicans, cubans, peruvian, chilenian, etc use it !

So sad. Every year thousands of USA-nian children are forced to learn an obsolete system of measurement, which isolates them from the rest of the civilized world, all so that Detroit doesn't have to retool its factories.

Huh? Last time I looked by socket set has metric and 'standard'. That's not the reason. Even if it were, Detroit won't have any factories soon.

The problem is that old people don't want to have to learn a new system.

Also, not all tons are equal. Some tons are heavier than others.

I believe the term for wrenches, sockets, etc. is SAE. At least I'm 14mm sure. Now there is an interesting question - what IS our system called?

On the subject of software design: I wonder what his function for conversion from feet to miles looks like... And if the programmer would have taken a nautical mile or a statute mile...

Well, I can't predict what someone with a CS degree might do :), but a good programmer would probably do something like...

public static decimal NautMileToFeet(decimal nautMiles)
{
  decimal feetPerNautMile = 6076.11549m;
  return Decimal.Multiply(nautMiles, feetPerNautMile);
}

public static decimal StatMileToFeet(decimal statMiles)
{
  decimal feetPerStatMile = 5280.0m;
  return Decimal.Multiply(statMiles, feetPerStatMile);
}

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

"ton" is not an unit. it's a construct somebody invented in order to cover his inability to write 10³

and yes, i was quite surprised to discover that a ton doesn't necessarily refer to 1000kg. it's a bad practice to name the measures similarly if they are not the same. look at miles for instance

RFlowers · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Maurits:
Anonymous:
More exactly is:
"The real WTF here is that people from USA still don't use the metric system."

the rest of the americans(yeah the american continent start in alaska and end in the patagonia): mexicans, cubans, peruvian, chilenian, etc use it !

So sad. Every year thousands of USA-nian children are forced to learn an obsolete system of measurement, which isolates them from the rest of the civilized world, all so that Detroit doesn't have to retool its factories.

Actually, we refuse to use the metric system because it is the result of the bloody French revolution. All those beheadings!

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
It make no sense to bring english currency like dollars or pounds into the picture.
1 ton = 1000kg. End of story.

No. 1000kg = 1 tonne

osp70 · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

kipthegreat:
dabocla:
Maurits:
Anonymous:
More exactly is:
"The real WTF here is that people from USA still don't use the metric system."

the rest of the americans(yeah the american continent start in alaska and end in the patagonia): mexicans, cubans, peruvian, chilenian, etc use it !

So sad. Every year thousands of USA-nian children are forced to learn an obsolete system of measurement, which isolates them from the rest of the civilized world, all so that Detroit doesn't have to retool its factories.

Hrm, I think I would rather keep using the numbers like 5280, 1.54, (9/5)+32, 12, 3, 2000, 2200, 3.785 etc, than by factors of 10. See - the metric system just doesn't make sense to me. It sounds WAY too complicated, give me the standard system any day.
.jc

Just think how confused all you metric-loving commie terrorists will be when the world switches over to a base-16 numeric system. You'll be all "A mm in a cm? 64 cm in a m? 3E8 g in a kg?? wtf??" Americans, because we have been trained to use a system based numbers other than 10, will fare much better than, say, the French.

Why do you think it will base 16, we've seen enough evidence on this sight that we will soon be under the rule of the 3's, {true, false, FileNotFound}. It's only a matter of time that we switch to base 3. Then we'll all be in a mess of trouble.

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
More exactly is:
"The real WTF here is that people from USA still don't use the metric system."

the rest of the americans(yeah the american continent start in alaska and end in the patagonia): mexicans, cubans, peruvian, chilenian, etc use it !

Thanks to those "other" americans the metric system will never catch on in the USA -- grams and kilos are the lingo of the illegal drug trade!

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

kipthegreat:
I was confused by those m's as well. They have to be a language feature. What language is this code in? C# maybe? Looks kinda like Java but Java doesn't have a "decimal" type.

It's C#.

To quote Eric Gunnerson's, "A Programmers Introduction to C#", page 228:

    Real literals are used for the types float, double and decimal. Float literals have "f" or "F" after them; double literals have "d" or "D" after them, and decimal literals have "m" or "M" after them. Real literals without a type character are interpreted as double literals.
    Exponential notation can be used by appending "e" followed by the exponent to the real literal.
    Examples:

1.345            // double constant
-8.99e12F        // float constant
15.66m            // decimal constant

HTH,

Rob

RevMike · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

dubwai:
I don't know why everyone is all up in arms about how the metric system is better. Of course it is. Do you seriously think that people are seriously arguing that it's not? And brits think Americans don't understand irony...

I learned a long time ago that many many people from the metric parts of the world are seemingly insecure about the metric system. It makes it very easy to bait them for my own amusement.

Seriously, most standard measure is inferior to metric, and only continues to be used due to habit. There is only one place I find standard measures superior - the kitchen. The measures typically found in recipes factor very well in twos, fours, etc. Thus it is easy to modify a recipe that serves eight to serve four or two and vice versa. The natural factoring of ten to metric measures does not serve here nearly as well.

Rank Amateur · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

He has to use metric conversion. He's using Decimal.Divide and Decimal.Multiply. So you have to use a system based on decimals.

--Rank

dubwai · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Xepol:

It is almost as if they MISSED having royalty. Tell ya what! We've had plenty of that up here in Canada, and we can afford to be generous. You can have our Queen in our place. Heck, we'll even throw in the governer general who THINKS she's the queen (of what, we are not quite sure, since she's clearly an anti-queen seperatist who comes from a cuture that KILLED all their regents in the past few hundered years, no matter what the liberals were forced to lie about after they got caught blindsided by the whole affair).

Ahhh, Canadian politcs. I get CBC and CTV and I still have no idea WTF you are talking about.

Xepol:

In fact, you can even have Adrien Clarkson... Her delusions that she's the queen from her time as the governer general are so strong that they probably still persist.

She's the one that spent a bunch of money decorating a mansion snd that's basically all she did, right?

Xepol:

Geeze, that's some threat! Go metric or we'll send in the queen!

Yeah, David Burne wrote tha American money is the ugliest money in the world. But I'm not sure. A lot of Canadian money has a picture of the queen on it. It's hard to compete with that for ugliness. The inbreeding should eventually be dilluted but it seems to be taking a long time.

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

osp70:
... the Imperial System, the system created and forced upon by the British Monarchy, the same Monarchy that you Americans fought to achieve freedom from. Hmmm, yet you continue to use the antiquated system they forced upon most the the world they ruled, yet most of those countries upon leaving the commonwealth chose to move to the Metric system. So who is it that choses freedom? I think if you leave aside your patriotic rhetoric you would actually see the significance of using the Metric system.heh

We had nothing in particular against the British, other than we didn't want to be ruled by them. National acts of defiance against former rulers (e.g. switching to metric) are really only accepted by the populace right around the time of rebellion (or in the case of Canada or Australia, permission from their British masters to rule themselves). Unless you force the population, as they did in France, people are unlikely to change their ways. There was no established metric system at the time of the american revolution, and the major upshot of the revolution was about not forcing people to do things anyway (the treatment of the whiskey rebellion was just good agricultural policy, if you ask me).

dubwai · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

RevMike:

Seriously, most standard measure is inferior to metric, and only continues to be used due to habit. There is only one place I find standard measures superior - the kitchen. The measures typically found in recipes factor very well in twos, fours, etc. Thus it is easy to modify a recipe that serves eight to serve four or two and vice versa. The natural factoring of ten to metric measures does not serve here nearly as well.

Beer too. A pint is a much preferrable amount of beer than a half-liter of beer.

Anonymoose · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Anonymous:
It make no sense to bring english currency like dollars or pounds into the picture.
1 ton = 1000kg. End of story.

No. 1000kg = 1 tonne

Nope.

As long as we're being technical,
1000Kg = 1 tonne.

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
RevMike:
Anonymous:
The real WTF here is that Americans still don't use the metric system.

No, the real WTF is that the rest of the world has been duped into using that inferior system.

Because a system based on density of water is pure madness.

It's not "based on" the density of water. The only relevance of that statement is that a gram is the weight of a cubic centimetre of water.

Tell me how imperial is better in this case: what's half of 7/32"? It's 7/64". Half of that? 7/128". You're multiplying when you should be dividing.

RevMike · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

GeneralPF:

Tell me how imperial is better in this case: what's half of 7/32"? It's 7/64". Half of that? 7/128". You're multiplying when you should be dividing.

Are you telling me that you are on TheDailyWTF and you don't know the powers of two? It is generally considered something kind of important for a programmer to know.

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Anonymous:
RevMike:
Anonymous:
The real WTF here is that Americans still don't use the metric system.

No, the real WTF is that the rest of the world has been duped into using that inferior system.

Because a system based on density of water is pure madness.

It's not "based on" the density of water. The only relevance of that statement is that a gram is the weight of a cubic centimetre of water.

Tell me how imperial is better in this case: what's half of 7/32"? It's 7/64". Half of that? 7/128". You're multiplying when you should be dividing.

What is dividing other than just multiplying by its inverse.

I say we get rid of dividing all together, multiplying makes so much more sense, and don't get me going on subtracting, thats just a lazy way of adding by its negative.

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymoose:
Anonymous:
Anonymous:
It make no sense to bring english currency like dollars or pounds into the picture.
1 ton = 1000kg. End of story.

No. 1000kg = 1 tonne

Nope.

As long as we're being technical,
1000Kg = 1 tonne.

Ya gotme.

In Canada, we're sort of metric. Toilets flush 3.8 litres per flush :). A gas tank might be 76 litres. Fasteners for GM products are metric.

Sheets of plywood are 4' by 8'. That'll never change. You use your units were they are suitable.   In aviation, distance is in nautical miles, visibility is in statute miles. Fuel is measured in pounds. Adiabatic Lapse Rate is 1.98 Celsius degrees per 1000 ft elevation.

It goes on. . .   and on.

Gene Wirchenko · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
and yes, i was quite surprised to discover that a ton doesn't necessarily refer to 1000kg.

One childhood surprise was that a ton does not necessarily refer to 2000 lbs. I recovered with no scarring.

it's a bad practice to name the measures similarly if they are not the same. look at miles for instance

Or ounces. Which weighs more: an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Actually there is no such thing as the "American Continent" There is North America and South America. Neither one is 'America', and no other country goes by 'Americans'. Get over it.

scpoRIch · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Rank Amateur:
He has to use metric conversion. He's using Decimal.Divide and Decimal.Multiply. So you have to use a system based on decimals.

--Rank

I'm really hoping that this is tounge-in-cheek...

osp70 · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

to continue on this weighty subject, why is it that NASA uses metric?

brazzy · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
USA *is* the civilized world.

For suitably small values of "civilized" and "world" or suitably large values of "USA", certainly.

tdog · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Agreed

RevMike · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:

In Canada, we're sort of metric. Toilets flush 3.8 litres per flush :). A gas tank might be 76 litres. Fasteners for GM products are metric.

Sheets of plywood are 4' by 8'. That'll never change. You use your units were they are suitable. In aviation, distance is in nautical miles, visibility is in statute miles. Fuel is measured in pounds. Adiabatic Lapse Rate is 1.98 Celsius degrees per 1000 ft elevation.

It goes on. . . and on.

I have no first hand knowledge, but I've been told that in Europe construction materials like plywood and gypsum board are sold in multiples of 120cm - which is short of 4 ft by only 3/4 inch. And, as an added bonus, 120 factors easily with 3, 4, and 6 just like standard measures. So that plywood is sold as 120x240, studs can be 40cm on center, and everything works just like it would in the USA (except that it take at least two Europeans to count to forty, and they both have to remove their boots!)

tdog · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

YEAH! And WhyTF do Bakers need their own dozens. It is about time we stand up for this non-sense.

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymoose:
> and disabled rounding for debugging purposes.

WTF?

Explain. Both 'how?' and, well, 'why?'

Obviously, in true wtf style, it would have been implemented like this:

public static decimal PoundsToTons(decimal pounds)
{
  decimal poundFactor = 0.4535924m;
  decimal tonFactor = 907.1847m;
  return Decimal.Divide((Decimal.Multiply(pounds, poundFactor)), tonFactor);
}

public static decimal PoundsToTonsRounded(decimal pounds)
{
  decimal roundFactor = 100.0m;
  return Decimal.Divide(Decimal.Truncate(Decimal.Multiply(PoundsToTons(pounds), roundFactor)), roundFactor);
}

public static decimal HowMuchDoIWeight(decimal age, boolean debug)
{
  decimal ageFactor = 1234.5m;
  if isTrue(debug) { 
    return PoundsToTonsRounded(Decimal.Multiply(ageFactor, age));
  }
  else {
    return PoundsToTons(Decimal.Multiply(ageFactor, age));
  }
}

public static boolean isTrue(boolean truth)
{
  if (truth == true) {
    return true;
  }
  return false;
}


asking 'why' is like asking bush why we went to war with iraq, he just did it cause he didn't know better.

kipthegreat · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Anonymous:
RevMike:
Anonymous:
The real WTF here is that Americans still don't use the metric system.

No, the real WTF is that the rest of the world has been duped into using that inferior system.

Because a system based on density of water is pure madness.

It's not "based on" the density of water. The only relevance of that statement is that a gram is the weight of a cubic centimetre of water.

Tell me how imperial is better in this case: what's half of 7/32"? It's 7/64". Half of that? 7/128". You're multiplying when you should be dividing.

I think it was originally "based on" the distance from Paris to the North Pole. One meter was defined as 1/??th of that distance. But I think they changed that because continents drift a few centimeters every year. Or maybe I'm just repeating a myth. I think I read that in a book somewhere once though.

Sincerely,
Napolean Bone A Part

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

And, of course, suitably small values of "is".

kipthegreat · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

kipthegreat:
Anonymous:
Anonymous:
RevMike:
Anonymous:
The real WTF here is that Americans still don't use the metric system.

No, the real WTF is that the rest of the world has been duped into using that inferior system.

Because a system based on density of water is pure madness.

It's not "based on" the density of water. The only relevance of that statement is that a gram is the weight of a cubic centimetre of water.

Tell me how imperial is better in this case: what's half of 7/32"? It's 7/64". Half of that? 7/128". You're multiplying when you should be dividing.

I think it was originally "based on" the distance from Paris to the North Pole. One meter was defined as 1/??th of that distance. But I think they changed that because continents drift a few centimeters every year. Or maybe I'm just repeating a myth. I think I read that in a book somewhere once though.

Sincerely,
Napolean Bone A Part

Well I was a little off-- it was defined as 1/10,000,000th of the distance from the north pole to the equator originally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter

Gene Wirchenko · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

kipthegreat:
I think it was originally "based on" the distance from Paris to the North Pole. One meter was defined as 1/??th of that distance. But I think they changed that because continents drift a few centimeters every year. Or maybe I'm just repeating a myth. I think I read that in a book somewhere once though.

It was one ten-millionth of the distance from the south pole to the equator along the zero degree longitude line. The world is not a sphere though, and an update was necessary.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Paul Abraham · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

dubwai:

And brits think Americans don't understand irony...

It's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anyone who voices an extreme opinion on Metric vs. Standard should be shot, in the face.

RevMike · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Gene Wirchenko:
kipthegreat:
I think it was originally "based on" the distance from Paris to the North Pole. One meter was defined as 1/??th of that distance. But I think they changed that because continents drift a few centimeters every year. Or maybe I'm just repeating a myth. I think I read that in a book somewhere once though.

It was one ten-millionth of the distance from the south pole to the equator along the zero degree longitude line. The world is not a sphere though, and an update was necessary.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Wow! And all along I thought the kilometer was 1/10,0000th of the earth's pole-equator distance.

Gene Wirchenko · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Gene Wirchenko:
kipthegreat:
I think it was originally "based on" the distance from Paris to the North Pole. One meter was defined as 1/??th of that distance. But I think they changed that because continents drift a few centimeters every year. Or maybe I'm just repeating a myth. I think I read that in a book somewhere once though.

It was one ten-millionth of the distance from the south pole to the equator along the zero degree longitude line. The world is not a sphere though, and an update was necessary.

Either I am misremembering, or my data source was wrong. It was one ten-millionth of the distance along some meridian of longitude from one of the poles to the equator. Which ones is the problem.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

RevMike · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Paul Abraham:
dubwai:

And brits think Americans don't understand irony...

It's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.

But do the Brits understand aliminumy or just aluminiumy?

RevMike · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Gene Wirchenko:
Gene Wirchenko:
kipthegreat:
I think it was originally "based on" the distance from Paris to the North Pole. One meter was defined as 1/??th of that distance. But I think they changed that because continents drift a few centimeters every year. Or maybe I'm just repeating a myth. I think I read that in a book somewhere once though.

It was one ten-millionth of the distance from the south pole to the equator along the zero degree longitude line. The world is not a sphere though, and an update was necessary.

Either I am misremembering, or my data source was wrong. It was one ten-millionth of the distance along some meridian of longitude from one of the poles to the equator. Which ones is the problem.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

That was indeed the intent, but there were several problems. First, the earth is not fixed in size. At the dawn of the 19th century it was not easy to mesure that value with sufficient precision. So scientists made a good estimate. The standard meter was set as the distance between two lines engraved on a metal bar which was stored in a special vault in Paris. Standards authorities from countries throughout the world would make their own standard meters, verify them against the standard in Paris, and take them to their home country where they would be used to calibrate additional standard meters. In this way the meter was standardized to an acceptable margine of error for one and a half centuries.

The the meter is defined as a mutliple of the wavelength of the light emited by a certain atom, which allows anyone to establish a standard meter with any degree of accuracy required.

For the record, all the weights and measures have been redefined based on intrinsic physical properties except one. The standard kilogram is still in a vault in Paris, although many physicists throughout the world are working on a good physical definition of a kilogram.

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

RevMike:

I learned a long time ago that many many people from the metric parts of the world are seemingly insecure about the metric system. It makes it very easy to bait them for my own amusement.

RevMike, you are just a shithead and forum troll.

RevMike · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

RevMike:
Gene Wirchenko:
Gene Wirchenko:
kipthegreat:
I think it was originally "based on" the distance from Paris to the North Pole. One meter was defined as 1/??th of that distance. But I think they changed that because continents drift a few centimeters every year. Or maybe I'm just repeating a myth. I think I read that in a book somewhere once though.

It was one ten-millionth of the distance from the south pole to the equator along the zero degree longitude line. The world is not a sphere though, and an update was necessary.

Either I am misremembering, or my data source was wrong. It was one ten-millionth of the distance along some meridian of longitude from one of the poles to the equator. Which ones is the problem.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

That was indeed the intent, but there were several problems. First, the earth is not fixed in size. At the dawn of the 19th century it was not easy to mesure that value with sufficient precision. So scientists made a good estimate. The standard meter was set as the distance between two lines engraved on a metal bar which was stored in a special vault in Paris. Standards authorities from countries throughout the world would make their own standard meters, verify them against the standard in Paris, and take them to their home country where they would be used to calibrate additional standard meters. In this way the meter was standardized to an acceptable margine of error for one and a half centuries.

The the meter is defined as a mutliple of the wavelength of the light emited by a certain atom, which allows anyone to establish a standard meter with any degree of accuracy required.

For the record, all the weights and measures have been redefined based on intrinsic physical properties except one. The standard kilogram is still in a vault in Paris, although many physicists throughout the world are working on a good physical definition of a kilogram.

My bad...
A meter was redefined in 1983 as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. A second is defined as the time needed for a cesium-133 atom to perform 9,192,631,770 complete oscillations.

WTFer · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

osp70:

Why do you think it will base 16, we've seen enough evidence on this sight that we will soon be under the rule of the 3's, {true, false, FileNotFound}. It's only a matter of time that we switch to base 3. Then we'll all be in a mess of trouble.

Well I am a believer of the tri-logic can be applied in several places. For example, the posts int TDWTF seems to follow that pattern. Some in favor (Metric, Artificial Keys, VB sucks), some against, and the rest of us post pure randomness.

Grimoire · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Gene Wirchenko:
Which weighs more: an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?

An ounce of gold, obviously...

OneFactor · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

RevMike:
Gene Wirchenko:
Gene Wirchenko:
kipthegreat:
I think it was originally "based on" the distance from Paris to the North Pole. One meter was defined as 1/??th of that distance. But I think they changed that because continents drift a few centimeters every year. Or maybe I'm just repeating a myth. I think I read that in a book somewhere once though.

It was one ten-millionth of the distance from the south pole to the equator along the zero degree longitude line. The world is not a sphere though, and an update was necessary.

Either I am misremembering, or my data source was wrong. It was one ten-millionth of the distance along some meridian of longitude from one of the poles to the equator. Which ones is the problem.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

That was indeed the intent, but there were several problems. First, the earth is not fixed in size. At the dawn of the 19th century it was not easy to mesure that value with sufficient precision. So scientists made a good estimate. The standard meter was set as the distance between two lines engraved on a metal bar which was stored in a special vault in Paris. Standards authorities from countries throughout the world would make their own standard meters, verify them against the standard in Paris, and take them to their home country where they would be used to calibrate additional standard meters. In this way the meter was standardized to an acceptable margine of error for one and a half centuries.

The the meter is defined as a mutliple of the wavelength of the light emited by a certain atom, which allows anyone to establish a standard meter with any degree of accuracy required.

For the record, all the weights and measures have been redefined based on intrinsic physical properties except one. The standard kilogram is still in a vault in Paris, although many physicists throughout the world are working on a good physical definition of a kilogram.

The definition of metre as in terms of wavelengths of light ended only lasted from 1960 to 1983. After 1983, The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

ComputerGuyCJ:
Anonymous:
The real WTF here is that Americans still don't use the metric system.

The real problem is that 90% of our stuff is still mass-produced in the old English system.

Everything but cola! Hooray for 2-liters!

CAPTCHA is "freedom" -- I bet it won't work...

2005-11-17 Reply Admin

RevMike:

The metric system was created by the French revolutionary government while they executed tens of thousands. The metric system was used by the Nazis during the holocaust, the Bolshevicks during their purges, and the Chinese during the Culteral Revolution.

maybe, metric is the way communists plan to invade US!

RevMike:

I, for one, am glad to live in a land where fractions of inches are measured in sixteenths, 12 inches make up a foot, and 3 feet make a yard. Give me furlongs and acre-feet. Give me rods and chains. Give me ounces, both dry and fluid. But give me liberty. When my units are free I can be free.

When your units are mad, who can blame you for insanity?

RevMike:

And those in that again dark continent... I'll keep a candle lit for you that you will eventually throw of the yoke of your new masters in Brussells. Today you conform in currency. You are growing in legal conformity. Soon they will come to make you conform in all ways, at risk of your very life.

I keep a candle lit that the US will someday conform to the rest of the world. (And I don't mean just the numbers)

hank miller · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Anyone who voices an extreme opinion on Metric vs. Standard should be shot, in the face.

That would be a good start.

I use either system.   Either works, though there are clear advantages to the "standard" system from time to time, while I've found less advantages to metric.

It comes down to this: metric was designed by scientists using the world knowledge of the late 1700s, while the "standard" system was designed over the years by people with real world problems. The scientists never needed to use measurements in the messy real world, so they never asked why the measurements were so messy.   The people who did the "standard" systems (who were above common) didn't care about things looking nice on paper, they needed to get a job done.

The "standard" system doesn't use base-10, which is about the worst choice you could make.   Base-12 is common in the "standard" system because the standard system was made for the real world where you need to take thirds and fourths often, and 12 allows both.   Base-10 doesn't give you either.

Yes in metric you can change units by moving the decimal.   Nobody does that though, so it is a moot point.

However nearly everyone else uses metric, while there never was a single "standard" system that everyone used (Which is why I carefully put standard in quotes).   Thus metric is important and useful in the real world.

I find it ironic that most Europeans are able to speak 2+ languages, but cannot deal with 2 systems of measurements, while Americans only speak English, but can handle 2 systems of measurements.

Bustaz Kool · 2005-11-17 Reply Admin

Anonymous:

National acts of defiance against former rulers (e.g. switching to metric) are really only accepted by the populace right around the time of rebellion... There was no established metric system at the time of the american revolution, and the major upshot of the revolution was about not forcing people to do things anyway.

Actually, the reason that American spelling is different from British (e.g., Color vs Colour, etc.) was a direct reaction, promulgated by Noah Webster, to recent autonomy. Webster wanted to instill a sense of "Americanism" in the former colonies. It's also, by the by, why we drive on the opposite side of the road.

The 2,000 Pound Question

Leave a comment on “The 2,000 Pound Question”