Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > It's too damn hot

It's too damn hot (Page 3)
Thread Tools
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I'm saying is if the context is climate, C is in fact easier to work with than K.

Unless I misunderstand, this is in direct opposition to your claim.
Again, not sure what you're getting at here. C and K are the exact same thing, for all intensive purposes. I couldn't resist.

If you're comfortable saying "it's a chilly 273 out there today" instead of "it's 0 degrees" or "it's 32 degrees" then I'm not sure how it's "more difficult" to work with either K or C, or F. From a mathematical calculations perspective it's probably more convenient not to work with negative numbers but that's just another issue entirely.

Nothing directly. It's an artifact of how the systems developed. In theory, the fact you can carve up SI units into fractions or decimals is a huge advantage. In practice, it's rarely done. Likewise, you can create fractional units with decimal units, but if you split anything smaller than a meter, as useful a fraction as 1/8 is going to require greater than millimeter precision.
Once again I'm confused. What do you mean by 1/8 of a metre requiring greater than millimeter precision? There's nothing in the imperial system that's smaller than a millimetre, is there?? And 1/8 of a metre is what, 100cm/.125, which is 12.5 centimetres. How is that greater than millimetre precision? And furthermore, that figure can now easily be expressed in any degree of metric size you want to use it for comparison purposes, be it 0.00125km or 125 mm or whatever.

You're confused me.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You're confused me.
Subego'd!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Again, not sure what you're getting at here. C and K are the exact same thing, for all intensive purposes. I couldn't resist.

If you're comfortable saying "it's a chilly 273 out there today" instead of "it's 0 degrees" or "it's 32 degrees" then I'm not sure how it's "more difficult" to work with either K or C, or F. From a mathematical calculations perspective it's probably more convenient not to work with negative numbers but that's just another issue entirely
I don't see how anyone could be more comfortable saying "it's 273 out" versus "it's 0 out" when expressing the same temperature.


Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
What do you mean by 1/8 of a metre requiring greater than millimeter precision?
Less. I said less than a meter (i.e. decimeter or smaller).

Edit: I actually said "smaller than a meter".
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
For everything else, imperial measurements are actually more convenient and less awkward. For us.
But...less convenient, and less awkward, than using metric measurements.

Sooooooooo...we're back to more convenient and less awkward than actually changing, because we're used to it.

Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:06 PM
 
Is either of these nobler than the other?

We shouldn't switch from F to C because 'we've always done it this way'.

or

We should switch from F to C because 'everybody else is doing it'.

Folks, either way, it's arbitrary. Deal with it. In the context of climate, I like the fact that we have roughly a 0-100 scale, and 'in the 50s, 60s, 70s' has a very quick relatability. The only tangible argument I've heard suggesting a need for a switch is the aforementioned 'everybody else is doing it'. If ever a more compelling argument for change comes along, I'm sure we'll do it. Until then, the market has decided.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
subego'd!
I hate the fixed that for you thing, but I really did need to fix this.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Wow, I wish. 17 degrees in Vancouver and rain, rain, rain.
Quoted for Truth

RAIN RAIN RAIN RAIN and MORE RAIN....
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I hate the fixed that for you thing, but I really did need to fix this.
Tis alright. Respect the handle.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
But...less convenient, and less awkward, than using metric measurements.


You had just gotten done saying "It's no worse or better than any other temperature measurement in terms of "working with" it IMO", so which is it?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't see how anyone could be more comfortable saying "it's 273 out" versus "it's 0 out" when expressing the same temperature.
Ahhh, so by the same logic, you don't see how anyone could be more comfortable saying "it's 32 out" versus "it's 0 out" when expressing that temperature, right?

Right?
Can't believe you walked into that one.

Less. I said less than a meter (i.e. decimeter or smaller).
So? You're just doing the same thing Railroader did before you - converting 350F into 165.6445454545445 C or whatever and going "see?!? It doesn't make sense!" Do you not see that?

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Jul 21, 2011 at 03:28 PM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post


You had just gotten done saying "It's no worse or better than any other temperature measurement in terms of "working with" it IMO", so which is it?
...what? You're the one who switched the topic to "using imperial measurements." I was talking about F vs. C/K in that statement, not the general inconvenience of using imperial measurements.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Folks, either way, it's arbitrary. Deal with it. In the context of climate, I like the fact that we have roughly a 0-100 scale, and 'in the 50s, 60s, 70s' has a very quick relatability.
It's already been discussed that this comment makes no sense at all. You don't have "roughly a 0-100 scale." You've got, like, a "-40 to 115 scale". Which makes much less sense.

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Jul 21, 2011 at 03:42 PM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:30 PM
 
"Everyone else is using it" is a better reason than "We've always done it that way."

A good example of this is the Hubble Space Telescope. Different parts were built on either side of the Atlantic. One team used metric, one team used imperial. It cost a lot of time and money to put right. So the story goes.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
...what? You're the one who switched it to "using imperial measurements." I was talking about F vs. C/K in that statement, not the general inconvenience of using imperial measurements.

greg
To me, it's the same issue just at different scales. In neither case is either system objectively "inconvenient" except in terms of the ease of communicating to others, or the reference points at which they operate (Kelvin vs. Fahrenheit, for example). Where other units make sense, whether from an ease of calculation/representation standpoint, or an international intelligibility standpoint, we use them. Where they don't or it doesn't matter, we default back to imperial because that's convenient. CreepDogg said it best:

Originally Posted by CreepDogg
Is either of these nobler than the other?

We shouldn't switch from F to C because 'we've always done it this way'.

or

We should switch from F to C because 'everybody else is doing it'.

Folks, either way, it's arbitrary. Deal with it. In the context of climate, I like the fact that we have roughly a 0-100 scale, and 'in the 50s, 60s, 70s' has a very quick relatability. The only tangible argument I've heard suggesting a need for a switch is the aforementioned 'everybody else is doing it'. If ever a more compelling argument for change comes along, I'm sure we'll do it. Until then, the market has decided.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Ahhh, so by the same logic, you don't see how anyone could be more comfortable saying "it's 32 out" versus "it's 0 out" when expressing that temperature, right?

Right?
Can't believe you walked into that one.


Why wouldn't I see it? That was the point I was trying to make to you.

Can we consider your argument that there's no difference dead now?

Continuing on, the context we are talking about is climate. Since climate occupies temperatures other than the freezing point of water, I assume we can agree that the utility of any system is going to be determined by more than that single number, right?

Right?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
So? You're just doing the same thing Railroader did before you - converting 350F into 165.6445454545445 C or whatever and going "see?!? It doesn't make sense!" Do you not see that?
My turn...

What?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
It's already been discussed that this comment makes no sense at all. You don't have "roughly a 0-100 scale." You've got, like, a "-10 to 115 scale". Which makes much less sense.
How is this not the Railroader thing?

It's not even possible to determine the range of temperatures on the planet in perpetuity. We have ice ages and shit.

The scale is centered where it matters, and the examples you cite are outliers.

On top of it, it's not like that destroys the system. Let's ditch percentages because some of us give 110%.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:47 PM
 
Honestly, I have no idea where you're going with this. It seems like you think the usability of the C/K/F scale is based on...the climate? You've totally confused me here. What I'm saying is, what does it matter what the freezing point of water is? What does it matter whether it's 273 or 0 or 32 out? That's just a matter of what you're used to. Someone who's familiar with using K would say "It's 278 out" just like someone familiar with using C would say "it's 5 out" just as etc. etc.

It's exactly the same as you saying "but 1/8 doesn't convert down easily from a centimetre!" or Railroader saying "but 350F is so much easier to say than 176.834848348345783458734857!" Why or how do any of those things matter?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Continuing on, the context we are talking about is climate. Since climate occupies temperatures other than the freezing point of water, I assume we can agree that the utility of any system is going to be determined by more than that single number, right?

Right?
Exactly. If I were doing engineering equations for steam propulsion mechanisms, I'd probably find it more convenient to use SI units. That doesn't mean that tool is the 'best' for everything. Right tool for the job and all...
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 03:49 PM
 
In conclusion, it's even damn hotter today.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Exactly. If I were doing engineering equations for steam propulsion mechanisms, I'd probably find it more convenient to use SI units. That doesn't mean that tool is the 'best' for everything. Right tool for the job and all...
I think, in a nutshell, this is what everyone else is getting at.

While you guys seem to think that "switching tools" depending on usage is totally normal, the rest of the world shakes their head. Why?

Why is Farenheit the "right tool for the job"? Why not Kelvin? Your answer is some head-scratching explanation that "but 75% of our land mass experiences temperatures roughly ranging from 0-100 and thus this is logical", when in fact it's no more logical than using any other scale - it's just what you're used to. And that's exactly the same as saying "but feet can easily be divided into inches using fractions!" or "but my oven easily sets to 400 degrees!"

I see zero reason for using miles "IRL" and then switching to SI units when you go to your stream propulsion mechanisms. Why not just use SI and be done with it? Oh, right...you're just more comfortable with miles.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Honestly, I have no idea where you're going with this. It seems like you think the usability of the C/K/F scale is based on...the climate? You've totally confused me here. What I'm saying is, what does it matter what the freezing point of water is? What does it matter whether it's 273 or 0 or 32 out? That's just a matter of what you're used to. Someone who's familiar with using K would say "It's 278 out" just like someone familiar with using C would say "it's 5 out" just as etc. etc.
You're reversing it. I'm saying that when discussing climate, one is superior to the other, just as one is superior to the other when discussing astrophysics.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
It's exactly the same as you saying "but 1/8 doesn't convert down easily from a centimetre!" or Railroader saying "but 350F is so much easier to say than 176.834848348345783458734857!" Why or how do any of those things matter
I don't get it. Are you asking why dividing something into eighths can be useful? (likely unneeded hint: 8 is a power of 2).

All the units smaller than a meter can't be divided into eighths without greater precision than what is normally avalable.

The fact it can be represented in fractional units doesn't mean dick if I can't readily get a ruler with those markings on it. If I want to divide a decimeter into eighths, I'm sort of screwed. If I need it in sixteenths, I am actually screwed.

Note the opposite is true if I need inches divided into tenths. I'm just as screwed. You could make inches decimal, but they don't, so I'm equally screwed.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:08 PM
 
Then look at it with a economic point of View. Stuff made in the US is not compatible with tools the rest of the world uses. Stuff imported to the US is not compatible with the tools in the US. Means 2 sets of tools. My Prelude uses all metric bolts, I wonder if my Ford is using all American sizes. Look at the extra cost to Car companies. US version of cars get miles while Canadian and Mexico versions get KM. Just seems backwards to me.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I see zero reason for using miles "IRL" and then switching to SI units when you go to your stream propulsion mechanisms. Why not just use SI and be done with it? Oh, right...you're just more comfortable with miles.

greg
Right, it's cultural. Why is that something to scoff at?

It's like people making fun of each other for liking/not liking soccer. Soccer will never make it "big" in the United States (though they'll never cease trying). Baseball will never make it "big" in China (though they'll never cease trying). Just part of life.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Then look at it with a economic point of View. Stuff made in the US is not compatible with tools the rest of the world uses. Stuff imported to the US is not compatible with the tools in the US. Means 2 sets of tools. My Prelude uses all metric bolts, I wonder if my Ford is using all American sizes. Look at the extra cost to Car companies. US version of cars get miles while Canadian and Mexico versions get KM. Just seems backwards to me.
Unsurprisingly, you've missed the entire focus of the conversation.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:15 PM
 
Is the UK on metric yet?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Unsurprisingly, you've missed the entire focus of the conversation.
Commenting on the last 4 or 5 posts I saw. No I have not read every post from start to end. Enlighten me please.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Commenting on the last 4 or 5 posts I saw. No I have not read every post from start to end. Enlighten me please.
The top of the page will do.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:30 PM
 
Can we stay on the topic of units, please?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:34 PM
 
My point is still valid its a pain in the ass now the world is internationally smaller. Personally I wold like to see Either Canada should adopt US CSM or the US should adopt the Metric system to make trade and life easier for both. Canada is stuck with Metric officially, Imperial out of tradition and US CSM and its confusing as hell. Offically everything is Metric, but because of proximity with the US CSM is often used and because of our British History old timers and our version of Miles per Gallon when measuring fuel economy is based on imperial instead. US Travellers and business people get hit up with this problem all over the world too. What would be best is if the US just got with the rest of the world and started the transition would would take decades to complete.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Can we stay on the topic of euncuchs, please?
I bow to your knowledge on the subject.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Then look at it with a economic point of View. Stuff made in the US is not compatible with tools the rest of the world uses. Stuff imported to the US is not compatible with the tools in the US. Means 2 sets of tools. My Prelude uses all metric bolts, I wonder if my Ford is using all American sizes. Look at the extra cost to Car companies. US version of cars get miles while Canadian and Mexico versions get KM. Just seems backwards to me.
Once again, an Athens post coming from complete ignorance. American car companies switched over to Metric long ago. Speedometers read in both units, digital readouts are often configurable so one unit is universal.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Can we stay on the topic of units, please?
No, I demand that we stay on the original-original topic of how hot it is.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
My point is still valid its a pain in the ass now the world is internationally smaller. Personally I wold like to see Either Canada should adopt US CSM or the US should adopt the Metric system to make trade and life easier for both. Canada is stuck with Metric officially, Imperial out of tradition and US CSM and its confusing as hell. Offically everything is Metric, but because of proximity with the US CSM is often used and because of our British History old timers and our version of Miles per Gallon when measuring fuel economy is based on imperial instead. US Travellers and business people get hit up with this problem all over the world too. What would be best is if the US just got with the rest of the world and started the transition would would take decades to complete.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Once again, an Athens post coming from complete ignorance. American car companies switched over to Metric long ago. Speedometers read in both units, digital readouts are often configurable so one unit is universal.
complete ignorance my ass, one speed is LARGE one is SMALL. In some states if you import a car from Canada you have to convert at great cost. In Canada if you import a Car from the US you have to convert it at great cost. Digital readouts are the only ones not affected. Still 2 sets of speedometers between Mexico, Canada and the US. Who's the ignorant one?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You're reversing it. I'm saying that when discussing climate, one is superior to the other, just as one is superior to the other when discussing astrophysics.
...no. I'm saying exactly the opposite of that. I'm saying one is not superior to the other when discussing climate. I'm saying that C and K are exactly, totally, the same, except in C the freezing point of water has been arbitrarily set at 0, instead of 273. There is zero, zero, zero difference in saying "it's -32 out" than "it's 241 out", just like there's zero difference in saying "it's 273 out" than "it's 0 out" than "it's 32 out".

None. Zero. Nada. Unless you're used to saying one or the other. I'm used to saying "It's 0 degrees C" and so I think saying "it's 32 out" is just as weird as saying "it's 273 out." And you're used to saying "it's 32 out" and you think it's weird to say 0 or 273. but there's no difference, and neither of them are "superior" in any way shape or form when discussing the climate.



I don't get it. Are you asking why dividing something into eighths can be useful? (likely unneeded hint: 8 is a power of 2).

All the units smaller than a meter can't be divided into eighths without greater precision than what is normally avalable.

The fact it can be represented in fractional units doesn't mean dick if I can't readily get a ruler with those markings on it. If I want to divide a decimeter into eighths, I'm sort of screwed. If I need it in sixteenths, I am actually screwed.

Note the opposite is true if I need inches divided into tenths. I'm just as screwed. You could make inches decimal, but they don't, so I'm equally screwed.


Are you being facetious? Putting me on? This is exactly the point I've been making: dividing inches into eighths no more useful than dividing centimetres into tenths. It's just what you're used to doing.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Again, not sure what you're getting at here. C and K are the exact same thing, for all intensive purposes.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:52 PM
 
Was that a comment?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I think, in a nutshell, this is what everyone else is getting at.

While you guys seem to think that "switching tools" depending on usage is totally normal, the rest of the world shakes their head. Why?

Why is Farenheit the "right tool for the job"? Why not Kelvin? Your answer is some head-scratching explanation that "but 75% of our land mass experiences temperatures roughly ranging from 0-100 and thus this is logical", when in fact it's no more logical than using any other scale - it's just what you're used to. And that's exactly the same as saying "but feet can easily be divided into inches using fractions!" or "but my oven easily sets to 400 degrees!"

I see zero reason for using miles "IRL" and then switching to SI units when you go to your stream propulsion mechanisms. Why not just use SI and be done with it? Oh, right...you're just more comfortable with miles.

greg
That's actually pretty much all I've been saying. All the systems are arbitrary - none is inherently 'better' than another. So it comes down to preference/comfort!

Question is, why do you have your panties in a bunch about it? Why is it a problem for someone to see merit in a system you don't use? You don't see merit in the 0-100 thing. Fine. But some do. So what?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 04:57 PM
 
Looking at how hot it is in the East I think im going to stop complaining about the 17c (62F, 290K, 522R) im stuck with. I don't like extreme heat.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
That's actually pretty much all I've been saying. All the systems are arbitrary - none is inherently 'better' than another. So it comes down to preference/comfort!

Question is, why do you have your panties in a bunch about it? Why is it a problem for someone to see merit in a system you don't use? You don't see merit in the 0-100 thing. Fine. But some do. So what?
That's not exactly what I've said. I've said that F/K/C is fairly interchangeable, but that the imperial system makes no sense when compared to the metric system, which is far superior for calculations.

But my other point was just, in general, making fun of you all.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I've said that F/K/C is fairly interchangeable, but that the imperial system makes no sense when compared to the metric system, which is far superior for calculations.
This makes no sense. If they're interchangeable, then what makes one superior? Does not compute.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
This makes no sense. If they're interchangeable, then what makes one superior? Does not compute.
accuracy and range of measurement is superior. Just because something is interchangeable does not mean its the same.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 05:12 PM
 
Accuracy? I gotta hear this.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I bow to your knowledge on the subject.
NetBSD, Linux, you name it.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
accuracy
Accuracy is not a characteristic of a measurement scale. Try again.

and range of measurement is superior.
Every scale measures the same range. There's no difference here. Try again.

Just because something is interchangeable does not mean its the same.
Well duh.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
But my other point was just, in general, making fun of you all.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
...no. I'm saying exactly the opposite of that. I'm saying one is not superior to the other when discussing climate. I'm saying that C and K are exactly, totally, the same, except in C the freezing point of water has been arbitrarily set at 0, instead of 273. There is zero, zero, zero difference in saying "it's -32 out" than "it's 241 out", just like there's zero difference in saying "it's 273 out" than "it's 0 out" than "it's 32 out".

None. Zero. Nada. Unless you're used to saying one or the other. I'm used to saying "It's 0 degrees C" and so I think saying "it's 32 out" is just as weird as saying "it's 273 out." And you're used to saying "it's 32 out" and you think it's weird to say 0 or 273. but there's no difference, and neither of them are "superior" in any way shape or form when discussing the climate.
I'm not gonna budge on one number (and the number being zero at that) being easier than three.



Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Are you being facetious? Putting me on? This is exactly the point I've been making: dividing inches into eighths no more useful than dividing centimetres into tenths. It's just what you're used to doing.
Repeating now, if I need to divide a unit into eighths, a ruler with units divided into eighths is what I want. If I need to divide a unit into tenths, a ruler with units divided by tenths is what I need.

What the unit is is irrelevant. Whether I want to divide something into eighths or tenths is dictated by the application, not the choice of units.

I'm not "more comfortable" dividing into eighths (in fact, I'm less comfortable because I think in base 10), sometimes the application demands it (say, eight evenly spaced screws). If the application demands it and I'm using inches, I'm set. If I'm using decimeters, it's difficult.

Again. This problem is not inherent in the units, it's an artifact of what people have standardized for rulers.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
sometimes the application demands it (say, eight evenly spaced screws).
This strikes me a completely arbitrary. I imagine somehow our European friends get by when such a situation arises.

Edit: I also think the Base 10 argument favors the Fahrenheit scale, because, as was previously mentioned, within it we tend to think of temperatures as sets of 10. If people do this with Celsius, I am unaware.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This strikes me a completely arbitrary. I imagine somehow our European friends get by when such a situation arises.
Obviously it's possible, just like us 'mericans can deal with 0.6 inches.

However, it's not like fractions with divisors which are powers of two aren't common, or their need is dependent on choice of units.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2011, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Was that a comment?
"For all intensive purposes?"
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,