TSS wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

"Almost every nation on Earth has fallen under the yoke of tyranny—the metric system," Carlson said. "From Beijing to Buenos Aires, from Lusaka to London, the people of the world have been forced to measure their environment in millimeters and kilograms. "The United States is the only major country that has resisted"

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-tucker-car ... em-1442485

Has anyone considered that he's just trying to troll people?

That was my first thought exactly, but who am I to suggest that people have a chuckle over an obvious joke* when they'd much rather go off on long, hate-filled rants full of vitriol and mock righteous indignation?

*That is exactly the sort of joke that appeals to my sense of humor- Saying something utterly ridiculous in a completely serious manner just to see who catches on that you're being absurd for a laugh. Unfortunately nowadays so many people take anything and everything, no matter how far-fetched or utterly loony on it's face it might be, as the gospel according to whoever said it without ever stopping to think "Wait, is he just yankin' my chain to see if I'm really paying attention?".

How would you even discern the difference? "Trolling" is a catch all, get out of jail free card for the right every time they call for violence, shoot up a mosque/synagogue, say something a lil too Nazi-ish, are named Steve King, say dumb things like covfefe, double down on dumb things like covfefe, repeat long debunked conspiracy theories, tell their supporters the Jews are paying violent immigrants to flood the USA, venerating dictators, saluting North Korean generals, hanging up nooses, and on and on and on. Lolz just trolling!

TSS wrote:

That was my first thought exactly, but who am I to suggest that people have a chuckle over an obvious joke* when they'd much rather go off on long, hate-filled rants full of vitriol and mock righteous indignation?

*That is exactly the sort of joke that appeals to my sense of humor- Saying something utterly ridiculous in a completely serious manner just to see who catches on that you're being absurd for a laugh. Unfortunately nowadays so many people take anything and everything, no matter how far-fetched or utterly loony on it's face it might be, as the gospel according to whoever said it without ever stopping to think "Wait, is he just yankin' my chain to see if I'm really paying attention?".

If it is a joke, and I think this is the case, it's not a very funny one and it just that Tucker Carlson is just another bomb throwing talking head who offers nothing to the conversation. If it's not and he's serious it means Tucker Carlson is a moron.

Airstud wrote:

I've said it before; I'll say it again:

There are two kinds of countries: Those that use the metric system and those that have landed men on the moon.

but the Soviet Union used the metric system

Tugger wrote:

Yeah that's the claim. But it's not. It's not any better or more accurate or anything. It is just another system. I mean what would people say if aliens landed on earth and they used a base 16 numbering system? And based weights on helium atoms?

Well a base 16 numbering system would lend itself to a base 16 measurement system, if the reference material was, as you say helium then that would be also very easy and simple system in which to operate.

I think the Issue that the imperial system has (and why people are saying it is inferior to the metric system) is that it does not have a standard base from which it works.

Inches in a foot - 12
Inches in a hand - 4
Feet in a yard - 3
Feet in a fathom - 6 (different under water)
yards in a chain -22
Chains in a furlong - 10
Furlongs in a mile - 8
oz in a pound - 16
lb in a Stone - 14
lb in a 100weight 100/112 (who knows right?)
lb in a ton - 2000
fl oz in a pint - 16
fl oz in a real pint - 20
Pints in a gallon - 8
gallons in a firkin - 9 (8 to drink 1 of drips)
Square yards in an acre 4840

Independently all these measurements have valid reasons for being the way they are but collectively are not so good.

Millimeters in a meter - 1000
Meters in a kilometer - 1000
grams in a kilogram - 1000
Kilograms in a ton - 1000
Milliliters in a liter - 1000

a metric system that could be used if we had a base number system of 12 would be even better I believe.

Fred

I never heard of Tucker Carlson before, and despite the fact I disagree with his very liberally threaded narrative, I don't mind the US keeping their system. I used to think it was silly of them but now I appreciate there is some degree of autochthonous variety in these things.

Actually, where I find the US outright stupid and utterly full of it is in standards or measures that came about after globalization made coordination of measures more commonplace. Mainly in the technology and medical field but even in things like DVDs back in the day and even radio frequencies and electricity voltage. Why on almost every point of these modern age things it is almost always the US that is on a different wavelength, pun intended?

Some have told me this is mainly due to controversies at the time of inception of new technologies, where several nations were competing and the US simply choosing the system some American company just happened to be using, simple patriotic economics.. That still doesn't explain why the rest of the world eventually seems to agree on a standard and the US always remains outlier. This aloofness now has gone beyond the practical and into the geopolitical, the US often at odds with everyone else and this attitude is even spilling into American society itself: any idea good or bad from overseas must invariably be anti American or communsit or Illuminati - NWO inspired or directed. It is that mentality and attitude that is laughable and puerile and honestly hints at deep insecurities. But more and more the world is moving on with or without the US . And while it maybe able to ignore the world for a few more decades, eventually the US will wake up and see itself outpaced and surpassed. Because it refused to even consider that some foreign concepts might just actually have some practical merit, and were not some proverbial ideological Trojan horse.

Derico wrote:

Actually, where I find the US outright stupid and utterly full of it is in standards or measures that came about after globalization made coordination of measures more commonplace. Mainly in the technology and medical field but even in things like DVDs back in the day and even radio frequencies and electricity voltage.

Can you expand on this? What is the problem with electricity voltage, for example? DVD's?

LMP737 wrote:

TSS wrote:

That was my first thought exactly, but who am I to suggest that people have a chuckle over an obvious joke* when they'd much rather go off on long, hate-filled rants full of vitriol and mock righteous indignation?

*That is exactly the sort of joke that appeals to my sense of humor- Saying something utterly ridiculous in a completely serious manner just to see who catches on that you're being absurd for a laugh. Unfortunately nowadays so many people take anything and everything, no matter how far-fetched or utterly loony on it's face it might be, as the gospel according to whoever said it without ever stopping to think "Wait, is he just yankin' my chain to see if I'm really paying attention?".

If it is a joke, and I think this is the case, it's not a very funny one and it just that Tucker Carlson is just another bomb throwing talking head who offers nothing to the conversation. If it's not and he's serious it means Tucker Carlson is a moron.

Yeah, this was a dumb comment/topic even for Carlson.

I mean the foresight of the French, after the revolution and throwing off the yoke of the aristocracy, to so long ago think of trying to establish a more scientifically based, non-king-decreed universal measurement system! Truly impressive for them to so long ago begin and lay the plans to become overlords of the USA...

mham001 wrote:

, for example? DVD's?

Oh don't me started on "universal standards" for DVD's. I cannot stand that we allow differnt "regions" for DVD's (and BluRay's) to limit sales etc. If the manufacturers get to shop the world to makes such things then we consumers should be allowed the exact same benefit to shop the world for the best price as well (pharmaceuticals the same). These artificial blocks drive me mad.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

mham001 wrote:

, for example? DVD's?

Oh don't me started on "universal standards" for DVD's. I cannot stand that we allow differnt "regions" for DVD's (and BluRay's) to limit sales etc. If the manufacturers get to shop the world to makes such things then we consumers should be allowed the exact same benefit to shop the world for the best price as well (pharmaceuticals the same). These artificial blocks drive me mad.

There are two issue there. If you are talking about region blocking, that is a manufacturer and content provider restriction, not a government standard.

If he is referencing the PAL/NTSC video standards, who said the US has it wrong? I suspect it was the largest TV market when this was established, just as many of the other things he mentioned, such a tech (where is most of that invented again?). I fail to see why it would be incumbent on the US to change and "outright stupid and utterly full of it " for not doing so. His electric comments are also off-base, there are good reasons why things are the way they are, often having to do with a very large, already installed base.

One of those is the construction industry where there are hundreds of millions of home built using the imperial system. Renovating and updating those homes using metric would be a nightmare. I worked construction in Europe and have often rued imperial system at home, (what is 1/2 of 3 5/8", quick!) but it does shine at times, (what is 1/4 of 3mm, quick!). Now I know that is just takes time and the only people who complain about either are simply unaccustomed to it.

mham001 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

mham001 wrote:

, for example? DVD's?

Oh don't me started on "universal standards" for DVD's. I cannot stand that we allow differnt "regions" for DVD's (and BluRay's) to limit sales etc. If the manufacturers get to shop the world to makes such things then we consumers should be allowed the exact same benefit to shop the world for the best price as well (pharmaceuticals the same). These artificial blocks drive me mad.

There are two issue there. If you are talking about region blocking, that is a manufacturer and content provider restriction, not a government standard.

If he is referencing the PAL/NTSC video standards, who said the US has it wrong? I suspect it was the largest TV market when this was established, just as many of the other things he mentioned, such a tech (where is most of that invented again?). I fail to see why it would be incumbent on the US to change and "outright stupid and utterly full of it " for not doing so. His electric comments are also off-base, there are good reasons why things are the way they are, often having to do with a very large, already installed base.

One of those is the construction industry where there are hundreds of millions of home built using the imperial system. Renovating and updating those homes using metric would be a nightmare. I worked construction in Europe and have often rued imperial system at home, (what is 1/2 of 3 5/8", quick!) but it does shine at times, (what is 1/4 of 3mm, quick!). Now I know that is just takes time and the only people who complain about either are simply unaccustomed to it.

Yes understood. I do know they are separate issues.
Regarding the technology difference, like PAL/NTSC, when originally implemented these were very separate markets and honestly neither sought the input of the other as each wanted it optimized for their served population. So they did that (and then there is the French with SÉCAM).

And he may be referring to cellular standards too. Which follow along similar lines. Each region had different available spectrum so that is what they managed to. And now slowly the world is beginning to come to more global standards.

Tugg

mham001 wrote:

(what is 1/4 of 3mm, quick!).

0.75mm (3*0.25 easiest shortcut, done in almost anyone's head very easily), how it that difficult in comparison to:

mham001 wrote:

(what is 1/2 of 3 5/8", quick!)

1 13/16" if anyone was wondering, but much harder math to get to it:

5 not divisible by 2, so double to 10/16, divisible by 2
10/16
+48/16 (3)
58/16
divide by 2
29/16
1 13/16

Now of course if you just asked 0.5*3.625 in the first place...

Fractions will always be more complicated math... lowest common denominator is a much more drawn out process than base 10. Yes you can annoy the metric system with things like 1/3... but 1/3 is rarely used even in the US Imperial system, especially to levels where using 0.333 wouldn't be as/more accurate anyways.

I really don't care if you want keep both, but the world would not break if everyone switched the metric. The problem is the costs involved in changing everything and re-education... and the transition period can cause issues as well... but it has nothing to do with a "better" argument.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

[...]I am not aware of any area where the imperial system has an advantage, but no doubt someone will find an obscure reference if they search long enough.[...]

Right you are and here I am! Oh yes, there is one elegant correlation in the imperial system: 1 (one) arc minute of Earth`s great circle circumference equals to 1 (one) nautical mile. Thus, 1 (one) knot is 1 (one) great circle arc minute per hour. Assuming that an arc minute is 1/60 of o degree.

But the metric system used the same method by defining the original metre as the one millionth part of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator. On that base, the unit Gon had been introduced: 100 gon make a right angle, 400 gon are a circle. It is not part of the SI, very rarely used but still a legal unit in many countries. Recently the Gon experienced some kind of renaissance in the robotics sector: many actuators really operate in a 1/400-stepping. More often than not those Gons are called „centigrades“.

northstardc4m wrote:

mham001 wrote:

(what is 1/4 of 3mm, quick!).

0.75mm (3*0.25 easiest shortcut, done in almost anyone's head very easily), how it that difficult in comparison to:

mham001 wrote:

(what is 1/2 of 3 5/8", quick!)

1 13/16" if anyone was wondering, but much harder math to get to it:

5 not divisible by 2, so double to 10/16, divisible by 2
10/16
+48/16 (3)
58/16
divide by 2
29/16
1 13/16

Now of course if you just asked 0.5*3.625 in the first place...

See, I do the second one in 2 steps, matching exactly the metric problem.

3.5/2 = 1 3/4 + 1/16 = 1 13/16. Made my point, it is just a matter of what you're used to using but no doubt, it takes longer to get to that point and things are going to get dicey dividing 1 13/16 by anything.

Airstud wrote:

I've said it before; I'll say it again:

There are two kinds of countries: Those that use the metric system and those that have landed men on the moon.

+2 pts!

flipdewaf wrote:

fl oz in a pint - 16
fl oz in a real pint - 20

I see what you did there!

scbriml wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

fl oz in a pint - 16
fl oz in a real pint - 20

I see what you did there!

Actually, that's "real problem" around here. You never know when you walk into a restaurant if you get that strange pint, the legal half liter or the real pint. You'll only find out when you check the drink menu. I know, first world problems

mham001 wrote:

There are two issue there. If you are talking about region blocking, that is a manufacturer and content provider restriction, not a government standard.

If he is referencing the PAL/NTSC video standards, who said the US has it wrong? I suspect it was the largest TV market when this was established, just as many of the other things he mentioned, such a tech (where is most of that invented again?). I fail to see why it would be incumbent on the US to change and "outright stupid and utterly full of it " for not doing so. His electric comments are also off-base, there are good reasons why things are the way they are, often having to do with a very large, already installed base.

Actually, If you don't want to use a North American TV set to receive a terrestrial signal in Europe or vice versa, the artificial zoning is nowadays the only restriction that remains. With digital formats that are standard nowadays the difference in TV systems seized to be a problem. Good news for those of us who want to watch something other than Hollywood production.

And you forgot to mention another problem that used to be extremely annoying in the past. Different power voltages and frequencies in different countries. All that combined with different receptacles. Fortunately, nowadays all new travel items come with switching power supplies capable of handling anything between 100 and 240V. But having to have all those adapters for different receptacles is still annoying (Way to go Thailand!). So some standardization would be great in this area too.
.

WildcatYXU wrote:

And you forgot to mention another problem that used to be extremely annoying in the past. Different power voltages and frequencies in different countries. All that combined with different receptacles. Fortunately, nowadays all new travel items come with switching power supplies capable of handling anything between 100 and 240V. But having to have all those adapters for different receptacles is still annoying (Way to go Thailand!). So some standardization would be great in this area too.
.

Whilst the UK seems to have an issue with which system we want to adopt with regards to metric vs imperial we do, I have to say, have the best power sockets of anywhere in the world, everywhere else just seems so flimsy in comparison. When the nuclear war comes there will be nothing left but cockroaches, Nokia 3310's and British plugs.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

. When the nuclear war comes there will be nothing left but cockroaches, Nokia 3310's and British plugs.

Which will probably leak oil.

LMP737 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

. When the nuclear war comes there will be nothing left but cockroaches, Nokia 3310's and British plugs.

Which will probably leak oil.

Bah, Vault-Tec will save us! Well some of us... and many of those for experimentation sure... but hey... in 500 years we can all use bottle caps for currency and shoot giant flies with guns made out of pipes!

northstardc4m wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

. When the nuclear war comes there will be nothing left but cockroaches, Nokia 3310's and British plugs.

Which will probably leak oil.

Bah, Vault-Tec will save us! Well some of us... and many of those for experimentation sure... but hey... in 500 years we can all use bottle caps for currency and shoot giant flies with guns made out of pipes!

Ever since Lucas designed it's systems to always let the smoke out, Britain has been safe!
Quite innovative those Brits...


Tugg

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

, the simple fact is that the metric system is superior.

In deed it is..

Also:



Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

, the simple fact is that the metric system is superior.

In deed it is..

Also:



Best regards
Thomas

It really is easier to open bananas from the other end.

cledaybuck wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

, the simple fact is that the metric system is superior.

In deed it is..

Also:



Best regards
Thomas

It really is easier to open bananas from the other end.

You mean the right end.

That i think, is the point. You would evangelise more if the result is useful.....

Best regards
Thomas

Tugger wrote:

Ever since Lucas designed it's systems to always let the smoke out, Britain has been safe!
Quite innovative those Brits...


Tugg

Lucas, the prince of darkness.

tommy1808 wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

In deed it is..

Also:



Best regards
Thomas

It really is easier to open bananas from the other end.

You mean the right end.

That i think, is the point. You would evangelise more if the result is useful.....

Best regards
Thomas

I guess I am missing the usefulness of one kind of socks then.

cledaybuck wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

It really is easier to open bananas from the other end.

You mean the right end.

That i think, is the point. You would evangelise more if the result is useful.....

Best regards
Thomas

I guess I am missing the usefulness of one kind of socks then.

No sorting after doing laundry ....

Best regards
Thomas

cledaybuck wrote:

But, it is superior to the imperial system.

Really?

Start looking at those areas where the average Joe gets screwed.

Politicians can now increase your Gas (Petrol) taxes by 5¢ a liter instead of 5¢ a Gallon.

A car traded in for a new car that has 60,000 miles on the clock will, instead, have 100,000 Kms. - that psychological 100,000Km barrier is far worse than the 60,000 mile barrier. I learned that when we traded in a car with the 100,000 Km on the clock and even the salesman admitted that we were getting hit with the metric penalty.

Of course there is that "joy" of driving 100 Kms per hour . . .

Ken777 wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

But, it is superior to the imperial system.

Really?

Start looking at those areas where the average Joe gets screwed.

Politicians can now increase your Gas (Petrol) taxes by 5¢ a liter instead of 5¢ a Gallon.

Well, the people that fall for that trick will also be the ones that will be happy that a litre is just 70ct ....

I learned that when we traded in a car with the 100,000 Km on the clock and even the salesman admitted that we were getting hit with the metric penalty.

and that wasn´t just a clever line to use psychology to lower your asking price/justify what they offered?

Of course there is that "joy" of driving 100 Kms per hour . . .

whats the joy in driving excruciating slow?

best regards
Thomas

I think the A321xlr threads on the main forum illustrate perfectly the problem with the imperial system. People that try to downplay that new option are (voluntarily ?) confusing nautical and statute miles. 8700 km is always 8700 km

Well, FOX needs filler as they NEVER air news on Trumps...issues. To say Imperial is more accurate than Metric is pure bull shit. 10 is TEN....no more..no less. Many of the fractions in Imperial are not exact, and we usually have to round to drop the repeating portion..or worse the infinite non repeating portion. The only reason the measured meter has changed is because we have become MORE accurate...when you base a measurement of a SPECIFIC frequncy in a vacuum..pretty absolute....

Besides, all Americans are familiar with base 10 systems....money....

bhill wrote:

Well, FOX needs filler as they NEVER air news on Trumps...issues. To say Imperial is more accurate than Metric is pure bull shit. 10 is TEN....no more..no less. Many of the fractions in Imperial are not exact, and we usually have to round to drop the repeating portion..or worse the infinite non repeating portion. The only reason the measured meter has changed is because we have become MORE accurate...when you base a measurement of a SPECIFIC frequncy in a vacuum..pretty absolute....

Besides, all Americans are familiar with base 10 systems....money....

Which is why the Imperial system has also become "more accurate". Neither system is "more accurate" than the other. Both are equally accurate.

Tugg

Odd question but is "dozen" used in many other countries? It is very common in the USA but I don't know about the rest of the world. (Yes I could probably google it but I enjoy the discussion and personal take people provide.)

Tugg

It's astounding that you don't recognize the goofiness of a base 12 system.

Spar wrote:

It's astounding that you don't recognize the goofiness of a base 12 system.

Why do you think it is goofy?

If man had been born with 6 fingers on each hand.
He'd probably count: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, dek, el, doh
"dek" and "el" being two entirely new signs meaning ten and eleven
Single digits!
And his twelve, "doh", would be written 1-0
Get it?

But actually I think base 16 is better and will be widely used.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

But actually I think base 16 is better and will be widely used.

Tugg

Just as soon as we breed children who can memorize base 16 multiplication tables.

Tugger wrote:

Odd question but is "dozen" used in many other countries? It is very common in the USA but I don't know about the rest of the world. (Yes I could probably google it but I enjoy the discussion and personal take people provide.)

Tugg

It is common in the USA for the obvious reason the word came from English. Hence you will most probably find it is also common in Australia, New Zealand and probably other parts of the old empire.

IMO the acid test is in what quantities do you buy eggs?
The basic unit for many is the half-dozen (six), or a dozen.
These days supermarkets often sell them in 10's, but they haven't found a satisfactory way of packaging up half that quantity (five)
Meanwhile roadside stalls invariably offer them by the dozen, which suggests you are in a country where the word has relevance.

And of course the term is used in France on a daily basis, in the form of "douze", the French word for twelve. Clearly that's where the British got their word from.....

However, that doesn't automatically mean that the French agree with the idea of packaging eggs in boxes of six (half dozen) or 12 , and it's been a long time since I was last in a French supermarché, so I dug out this image....

Thx to artofthehome.com

So there you go; you can buy your oeufs individually, in sixes, or for €2.00 la douzaine

Spar wrote:

Tugger wrote:

But actually I think base 16 is better and will be widely used.

Tugg

Just as soon as we breed children who can memorize base 16 multiplication tables.

You do realize all computers operate using a hexidecimal (that's base 16 in case you didn't know) for all programs and computations, right? And they are fairly widely used!
The "base" doesn't matter ultimately. The math all works out the same. You just are not familiar with it.


Tugg

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

IMO the acid test is in what quantities do you buy eggs?
The basic unit for many is the half-dozen (six), or a dozen.
These days supermarkets often sell them in 10's, but they haven't found a satisfactory way of packaging up half that quantity (five).

Thanks for the great response, and I think you are right that the packaging is driving "the dozen" as much as anything. Never actually though of it but it is true.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Spar wrote:

Tugger wrote:

But actually I think base 16 is better and will be widely used.

Tugg

Just as soon as we breed children who can memorize base 16 multiplication tables.

You do realize all computers operate using a hexidecimal (that's base 16 in case you didn't know) for all programs and computations, right? And they are fairly widely used!
The "base" doesn't matter ultimately. The math all works out the same. You just are not familiar with it.


Tugg

You're arrogance is beyond belief, I've been working with hex for over fifty years, since the time I first began to learn machine microcode language which is one layer below assembly language in case you don't know. If you're too out of touch to see that a base 16 system is too cumbersome for everyday use that tells me that you don't have much math aptitude or experience beyond balancing your checkbook. The fact that you don't understand the utility of a base 10 system shows the same.

You have no business lecturing anyone about computers or math or probably much of anything else.

BTW
What's seven times dog?

You have to do arithmetic in your head to get the answer.

Spar wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Spar wrote:

Just as soon as we breed children who can memorize base 16 multiplication tables.

You do realize all computers operate using a hexidecimal (that's base 16 in case you didn't know) for all programs and computations, right? And they are fairly widely used!
The "base" doesn't matter ultimately. The math all works out the same. You just are not familiar with it.


Tugg

You're arrogance is beyond belief, I've been working with hex for over fifty years, since the time I first began to learn machine microcode language which is one layer below assembly language in case you don't know. If you're too out of touch to see that a base 16 system is too cumbersome for everyday use that tells me that you don't have much math aptitude or experience beyond balancing your checkbook. The fact that you don't understand the utility of a base 10 system shows the same.

You have no business lecturing anyone about computers or math or probably much of anything else.

BTW
Your cartoon is another indicator of your limited intellect.

All Computers operate on Binary.
Hexadecimals are only an abstraction to deal with bytes ( 8 bit words that have 256 possible values) We use 1 hex digit for every 4 bits( 16) or A-F).
No one needs to multiply with them as all of that is just a bit shift of binary memory.

Spar wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Spar wrote:

Just as soon as we breed children who can memorize base 16 multiplication tables.

You do realize all computers operate using a hexidecimal (that's base 16 in case you didn't know) for all programs and computations, right? And they are fairly widely used!
The "base" doesn't matter ultimately. The math all works out the same. You just are not familiar with it.


Tugg

You're arrogance is beyond belief, I've been working with hex for over fifty years, since the time I first began to learn machine microcode language which is one layer below assembly language in case you don't know. If you're too out of touch to see that a base 16 system is too cumbersome for everyday use that tells me that you don't have much math aptitude or experience beyond balancing your checkbook. The fact that you don't understand the utility of a base 10 system shows the same.

You have no business lecturing anyone about computers or math or probably much of anything else.

BTW
Your cartoon is another indicator of your limited intellect.

You obviously actually don't understand "base numbering systems". The fact that you don't understand "the utility" that can exist with ANY base numbering system and that the reason "base ten" is great/best for humans is because it is something we are physically blessed with is glaring. You just can't seem to get around your own arrogance of superior intelligence.

You can try to come off as "smarter", belittling me etc. and making mocking statements but as before (in other threads), it isn't effective. It just shows others what you do not actually understand. But hey, keep it up. I'm good.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Spar wrote:

Tugger wrote:

You do realize all computers operate using a hexidecimal (that's base 16 in case you didn't know) for all programs and computations, right? And they are fairly widely used!
The "base" doesn't matter ultimately. The math all works out the same. You just are not familiar with it.


Tugg

You're arrogance is beyond belief, I've been working with hex for over fifty years, since the time I first began to learn machine microcode language which is one layer below assembly language in case you don't know. If you're too out of touch to see that a base 16 system is too cumbersome for everyday use that tells me that you don't have much math aptitude or experience beyond balancing your checkbook. The fact that you don't understand the utility of a base 10 system shows the same.

You have no business lecturing anyone about computers or math or probably much of anything else.

BTW
Your cartoon is another indicator of your limited intellect.

You obviously actually don't understand "base numbering systems". The fact that you don't understand "the utility" that can exist with ANY base numbering system and that the reason "base ten" is great/best for humans is because it is something we are physically blessed with is glaring. You just can't seem to get around your own arrogance of superior intelligence.

You can try to come off as "smarter", belittling me etc. and making mocking statements but as before (in other threads), it isn't effective. It just shows others what you do not actually understand. But hey, keep it up. I'm good.

Tugg

I don't doubt that you use your fingers to do math. I kinda suspected that back when you showed that you didn't "get" the metric system..

casinterest wrote:

All Computers operate on Binary.
Hexadecimals are only an abstraction to deal with bytes ( 8 bit words that have 256 possible values) We use 1 hex digit for every 4 bits( 16) or A-F).
No one needs to multiply with them as all of that is just a bit shift of binary memory.

Yes, I know. It is just an example of an extensively used base numbering system that is not base ten. I am only using it for that reason, to show that base ten is not the only widely used number system nor is it superior to other base numbering systems. For humans it is best/"superior" due to the physical ability to easily count "ten" using our fingers and thumbs. But even though it is great for us, for "little twelve toes" (does anyone remember that one?) base 12 would likely best and would be no less effective and accurate as base 10 is for us (nor would it be any harder to multiply using it).

Bit's, Byte's, Hexadecimal code, it works and is an effective base system for computing with. But it all does come down to binary in computing.... It would be interesting to do a base 2 numbering system...

Tugg

Spar wrote:

I don't doubt that you use your fingers to do math. I kinda suspected that back when you showed that you didn't "get" the metric system..

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

casinterest wrote:

All Computers operate on Binary.
Hexadecimals are only an abstraction to deal with bytes ( 8 bit words that have 256 possible values) We use 1 hex digit for every 4 bits( 16) or A-F).
No one needs to multiply with them as all of that is just a bit shift of binary memory.

Yes, I know. It is just an example of an extensively used base numbering system that is not base ten. I am only using it for that reason, to show that base ten is not the only widely used number system nor is it superior to other base numbering systems. For humans it is best/"superior" due to the physical ability to easily count "ten" using our fingers and thumbs. But even though it is great for us, for "little twelve toes" (does anyone remember that one?) base 12 would likely best and would be no less effective and accurate as base 10 is for us (nor would it be any harder to multiply using it).

Bit's, Byte's, Hexadecimal code, it works and is an effective base system for computing with. But it all does come down to binary in computing.... It would be interesting to do a base 2 numbering system...

Tugg

Yeah I get ya.
I never understood why the Christians never adopted the base 6 number system. 666 and 69 are not possible

If American hate decimals then why 1 USD=100 cents?

c933103 wrote:

If American hate decimals then why 1 USD=100 cents?

To my knowledge Americans don't hate decimals. Heck, I'd say we love 'em!

Guess we're just multi-talented and able to handle both fractions and decimals!

Wish we still had the Bit around as a coin denomination!

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Odd question but is "dozen" used in many other countries? It is very common in the USA but I don't know about the rest of the world. (Yes I could probably google it but I enjoy the discussion and personal take people provide.)

Tugg

In Finland we know the word dozen (tusina) but we don't use it. Maybe thirteen in a dozen as a prhaise bur we can also say eleven in ten.

For example, if you like to buy eggs in Finland, you can get anything from 4-30. Its based on package and market analyst. So here are the most common package size:

4 - 2*2
6 - 2*3
10 2*5
15 3*5
20 4*5
30 5*6

We also can buy 12 and sometimes 18 but that is not because imperial system but demand.

Hope this answered your question.

Airstud wrote:

I've said it before; I'll say it again:

There are two kinds of countries: Those that use the metric system and those that have landed men on the moon.

Except that behind the scenes NASA was using metric units in the Apollo spacecraft.

The moon mission were metricised:

https://ukma.org.uk/why-metric/myths/metric-internationally/the-moon-landings/