Liam Devlin

Philip® wrote:
> "Scott M" <smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F0EEC39.72324AA0@delete_this.yahoo.com...
>
>>Wooduuuward wrote:
>>
>>>I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
>>>The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
>>>nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
>>>as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
>>>guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing
>>
> with his calculator.
>
>>>Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
>>>of .2 meters square.
>>
>>Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".
>>
>>What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager simply
>
> didn't
>
>>open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.
>>
>>--
>>Scott
>
> Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters here.
> 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.

Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3 m, and
0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").

Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"

Philip®

Liam Devlin wrote:
> Philip® wrote:
>> "Scott M" <smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F0EEC39.72324AA0@delete_this.yahoo.com...
>>
>>> Wooduuuward wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
>>>> The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
>>>> nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
>>>> as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
>>>> guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing
>>>
>> with his calculator.
>>
>>>> Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
>>>> of .2 meters square.
>>>
>>> Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".
>>>
>>> What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager simply
>>
>> didn't
>>
>>> open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Scott
>>
>> Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters here.
>> 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>
> Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3 m,
> and
> 0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").
>
> Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"

Misunderstandings. In linear measurements:

0.2 meters figures to 7.87 inches (agreed)
30.0 centimeters figures to 11.811 inches (not 1 foot)
(double check this at http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/EASYlength.html )

30.48 centimeters equals 12 inches.

Radio Shack stock intact. ;^)

--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Liam Devlin

Philip® wrote:
> Liam Devlin wrote:
>
>>Philip® wrote:
>>
>>>"Scott M" <smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3F0EEC39.72324AA0@delete_this.yahoo.com. ..
>>
>>>>Wooduuuward wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
>>>>>The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
>>>>>nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
>>>>>as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
>>>>>guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing
>>>>
>>>with his calculator.
>>>
>>>>>Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
>>>>>of .2 meters square.
>>>>
>>>>Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".
>>>>
>>>>What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager simply
>>>
>>>didn't
>>>
>>>>open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Scott
>>>
>>>Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters here.
>>>12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>>
>>Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3 m,
>>and
>>0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").
>>
>>Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"
>
> Misunderstandings. In linear measurements:
>
> 0.2 meters figures to 7.87 inches (agreed)
> 30.0 centimeters figures to 11.811 inches (not 1 foot)
> (double check this at http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/EASYlength.html )

No need to verify anything, I posted the conversion factor I was using
and you agree that 0.2 meters = 7.87" plus 12" = 30.48 cm.

> 30.48 centimeters equals 12 inches.

I understand all that, but you posted:

12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.

The way I read that is 12" equals 0.30 meters (which is false) equals
30.48 cm (also false) = 12". It's a given that 12" = 12 inches, but the
middle stuff is not right.

> Radio Shack stock intact. ;^)

Still time to reconsider

Wooduuuward

People! Who cares what the true conversion was. The point was
they couldn't figure it out and I couldn't get a mental picture of
size, using metric. I ended up buying a large piece bigger than I
needed from a different package. If the manufacturer did their
job for the consumer, they should have put both on the package,
anyway the people in the store still think .2 meters = 12" and who
cares? It just shows that metric (for some people) is like listening to
latin.



"Philip®" wrote:
>
> Liam Devlin wrote:
> > Philip® wrote:
> >> Liam Devlin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Philip® wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Scott M" <smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:3F0EEC39.72324AA0@delete_this.yahoo.com...
> >>>
> >>>>> Wooduuuward wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
> >>>>>> The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
> >>>>>> nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
> >>>>>> as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
> >>>>>> guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing
> >>>>>
> >>>> with his calculator.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
> >>>>>> of .2 meters square.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager simply
> >>>>
> >>>> didn't
> >>>>
> >>>>> open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Scott
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters
> >>>> here. 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
> >>>
> >>> Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3 m,
> >>> and
> >>> 0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").
> >>>
> >>> Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"
> >>
> >> Misunderstandings. In linear measurements:
> >>
> >> 0.2 meters figures to 7.87 inches (agreed)
> >> 30.0 centimeters figures to 11.811 inches (not 1 foot)
> >> (double check this at
> >> http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/EASYlength.html )
> >
> > No need to verify anything, I posted the conversion factor I was using
> > and you agree that 0.2 meters = 7.87" plus 12" = 30.48 cm.
>
> So now, 7.87" -plus- 12" should equal 19.87, right? (0.504698 meter)
> ;^)
>
> >> 30.48 centimeters equals 12 inches.
> >
> > I understand all that, but you posted:
> >
> > 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>
> Loop verification. Try it.
>
> > The way I read that is 12" equals 0.30 meters (which is false) equals
> > 30.48 cm (also false) = 12". It's a given that 12" = 12 inches, but
> > the middle stuff is not right.
>
> 12" DOES equal 0.3048"meter (or 30.48cm if you prefer). You may not
> dispute this further.
>
> >
> >> Radio Shack stock intact. ;^)
> >
> > Still time to reconsider
>
> Not.
> --*
>
> Philip
>
> "If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
> the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
> wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
> - John Locke (1632-1704)

Philip®

Wooduuuward wrote:
> "Philip®" wrote:
>>
>> Liam Devlin wrote:
>>> Philip® wrote:
>>>> Liam Devlin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Philip® wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Scott M" <smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3F0EEC39.72324AA0@delete_this.yahoo.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wooduuuward wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
>>>>>>>> The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
>>>>>>>> nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
>>>>>>>> as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
>>>>>>>> guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes
>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> with his calculator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
>>>>>>>> of .2 meters square.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager
>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters
>>>>>> here. 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3
>>>>> m, and
>>>>> 0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").
>>>>>
>>>>> Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"
>>>>
>>>> Misunderstandings. In linear measurements:
>>>>
>>>> 0.2 meters figures to 7.87 inches (agreed)
>>>> 30.0 centimeters figures to 11.811 inches (not 1 foot)
>>>> (double check this at
>>>> http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/EASYlength.html )
>>>
>>> No need to verify anything, I posted the conversion factor I was
>>> using and you agree that 0.2 meters = 7.87" plus 12" = 30.48 cm.
>>
>> So now, 7.87" -plus- 12" should equal 19.87, right? (0.504698 meter)
>> ;^)
>>
>>>> 30.48 centimeters equals 12 inches.
>>>
>>> I understand all that, but you posted:
>>>
>>> 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>>
>> Loop verification. Try it.
>>
>>> The way I read that is 12" equals 0.30 meters (which is false)
>>> equals
>>> 30.48 cm (also false) = 12". It's a given that 12" = 12 inches, but
>>> the middle stuff is not right.
>>
>> 12" DOES equal 0.3048"meter (or 30.48cm if you prefer). You may not
>> dispute this further.
>>
>>>
>>>> Radio Shack stock intact. ;^)
>>>
>>> Still time to reconsider
>>
>> Not.
>> --*
>>
>> Philip

> People! Who cares what the true conversion was. The point was
> they couldn't figure it out and I couldn't get a mental picture of
> size, using metric. I ended up buying a large piece bigger than I
> needed from a different package. If the manufacturer did their
> job for the consumer, they should have put both on the package,
> anyway the people in the store still think .2 meters = 12" and who
> cares? It just shows that metric (for some people) is like listening
> to latin.

It should be a no brainer coming from the English measure to figure 12"
is a 1/3 of a foot and that since a meter is (roughly) 39" that 12" is
going to be at least a 1/3rd of a meter (0.3 sumthin').... not a quarter
(0.2 sumthin'). Duh. How's that for gymnastics? LOL


"They" should be drummed out of office who forced the metric system on
ANY endeavor outside of medical laboratories and possibly the tooling
industry. You might recall one unmanned Mars landing resulted in a
crash because of a software failure to convert measurement systems. But
I digress.

Also, Top posting sucks, so I moved you to your rightful location in the
established continuum. So there. Nya! ;^)
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Philip®

Philip® wrote:
>
> It should be a no brainer coming from the English measure to figure
> 12" is a 1/3 of a foot and

PARDON ME..... correction: 12" is a 1/3 of a *yard*. Must proof read
better with this thread. ;^)

--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Ricardo

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:37:28 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>Firstly I note you have followed the society in using a made-up word
>"dozenal".

It's a simpler word than "duodecimal" and also signifies twelve as a
sacrosanct cardinal rather than pandering to ten ("duodecimal"
pertains to two upon ten).

>Metric rules (outside the USA), ok?

Metric isn't the problem; decimalization (kind of) is. Now
personally, I don't have any problems working in base ten; one of
the strongest cases given for switching to base twelve is the fact
that it is neatly divisible by three and therefore reflects the real
world more accurately (idem the "awkwardness" of working with five
in base twelve). However, given that [ten]^n / 3 MOD [ten] = 1 where
n>0, and [ten]^n / 3 always yields 3[...].3 recurring, it isn't that
hard to handle threes in decimal base. Plus, decimal makes fives a
breeze (fancy 0.2497249724972497... in base twelve? Neither
decimal nor dozenal make sevens any easier to work with; 1/7 is a
full period prime in both bases, although the dozenal fraction
0.186T35 makes drawing a hexagram freehand on a "clockface" circular
diagram a whole lot easier, for what that's worth. :}

All in all, while a dozenal metric system could arguably be
considered "easier" and more convenient and suitable for everyday
use, it is much tougher to make a concrete case for actually
wholeheartedly converting to it from our current decimal system.
Otoh, maybe people could get used to using both side by side...

--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada
e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply
for liability purposes: I *always* obey the law.
'89 grand am le, garaged; '91 mx6 gt

Wooduuuward

If you want to debate top posting over bottom posting, I'm game.
Bottom posting is lazy. As I read through the posts I'm able to remember
what was said in the previous post, I don't need to scroll through it again and again.
Time. the new stuff's at the top. If you look through google you will get to see
the real 'meat' of the posts rather than the same stuff over and over.

"Philip®" wrote:
>
> Philip® wrote:
> >
> > It should be a no brainer coming from the English measure to figure
> > 12" is a 1/3 of a foot and
>
> PARDON ME..... correction: 12" is a 1/3 of a *yard*. Must proof read
> better with this thread. ;^)
>
> --
>
> Philip
>
> "If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
> the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
> wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
> - John Locke (1632-1704)

Philip®

Ricardo wrote:
> A rod? Actually names aren't that critical; my point is that a
> dozenally based metric system is still a metric system. And such a
> system based on ft. and in. is really easy to conceive.
>
> Using base twelve (10=twelve, 100=gross, 1000="liriad", etc.):
> 10 inches = 1 foot 3 feet = 1 yard
> 10 feet = 1 rod = 4 yds 100 ft = 10 rods = 40 yds
> 100 rods = 1 furlong = 1000 ft = 400 yds
> 3 furlongs = 1 mile = 3000 ft = 300 rods = 1000 yds
>
> Now, here cometh the interesting comparison between this and the
> imperial system:
>
> 1 imperial mile = decimal 1760 yds = decimal 5280'
> 1 dznl metric mile = 1000 yds = dec. 1728 yds = 3000' = dec. 5184'

Where's my Pyramid "inch" and "cubit?"
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Philip®

Ricardo wrote:

> Metric isn't the problem; decimalization (kind of) is. Now
> personally, I don't have any problems working in base ten; one of
> the strongest cases given for switching to base twelve is the fact
> that it is neatly divisible by three and therefore reflects the real
> world more accurately (idem the "awkwardness" of working with five
> in base twelve). However, given that [ten]^n / 3 MOD [ten] = 1 where
> n>0, and [ten]^n / 3 always yields 3[...].3 recurring, it isn't that
> hard to handle threes in decimal base. Plus, decimal makes fives a
> breeze (fancy 0.2497249724972497... in base twelve? Neither
> decimal nor dozenal make sevens any easier to work with; 1/7 is a
> full period prime in both bases, although the dozenal fraction
> 0.186T35 makes drawing a hexagram freehand on a "clockface" circular
> diagram a whole lot easier, for what that's worth. :}

I bought this *kewl* hand held converter from Radio Shack. Does volume,
weight, length, area, temperature, square and cubic conversions. It
*also* does decimal to fraction and back conversions. Limited to 8
digits left of the decimal and 7 to the right of the decimal. :^) Only
$9.
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)






>
> All in all, while a dozenal metric system could arguably be
> considered "easier" and more convenient and suitable for everyday
> use, it is much tougher to make a concrete case for actually
> wholeheartedly converting to it from our current decimal system.
> Otoh, maybe people could get used to using both side by side...

Philip®

Wooduuuward wrote:
>> Philip® wrote:
>>>
>>> It should be a no brainer coming from the English measure to figure
>>> 12" is a 1/3 of a foot and
>>
>> PARDON ME..... correction: 12" is a 1/3 of a *yard*. Must proof
>> read
>> better with this thread. ;^)
>>
>> --
>>
>> Philip
>>
> If you want to debate top posting over bottom posting, I'm game.
> Bottom posting is lazy. As I read through the posts I'm able to
> remember
> what was said in the previous post, I don't need to scroll through it
> again and again. Time. the new stuff's at the top. If you look
> through google you will get to see
> the real 'meat' of the posts rather than the same stuff over and over.

Top posting is "lazy" because in most news readers, the cursor defaults
to the top. Some readers have a switch to automatically place the cursor
at the end of all quoted text. Bottom posting also *encourages* readers
to trim the oldest quotes before scrolling down as the oldest quotes
become tedious and or repetitive. PERSONALLY, I've come to a neutral
place. If the existing top or bottom format already exists, then I just
continue in that format. The *pogo-posters* are the real *lazy* ones.
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Liam Devlin

Philip® wrote:
> Liam Devlin wrote:
>
>>Philip® wrote:
>>
>>>Liam Devlin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Philip® wrote:

(snip)

>>>>>Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters
>>>>>here. 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>>>>
>>>>Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3 m,
>>>>and
>>>>0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").
>>>>
>>>>Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"
>>>
>>>Misunderstandings. In linear measurements:
>>>
>>>0.2 meters figures to 7.87 inches (agreed)
>>>30.0 centimeters figures to 11.811 inches (not 1 foot)
>>>(double check this at
>>>http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/EASYlength.html )
>>
>>No need to verify anything, I posted the conversion factor I was using
>>and you agree that 0.2 meters = 7.87" plus 12" = 30.48 cm.
>
> So now, 7.87" -plus- 12" should equal 19.87, right? (0.504698 meter)
> ;^)
>
>>>30.48 centimeters equals 12 inches.
>>
>>I understand all that, but you posted:
>>
>>12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>
> Loop verification. Try it.

What's that supposed to mean?

>>The way I read that is 12" equals 0.30 meters (which is false) equals
>>30.48 cm (also false) = 12". It's a given that 12" = 12 inches, but
>>the middle stuff is not right.
>
> 12" DOES equal 0.3048"meter (or 30.48cm if you prefer). You may not
> dispute this further.

That's exactly what I said. My problem is with:

"12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches" (from your original post).

12" \= 0.30 meters, nor does 0.30 meters = 30.48 cm. 12" = 12 inches, no
argument here.

Liam Devlin

Philip® wrote:
> Wooduuuward wrote:
>
>>"Philip®" wrote:

(snip)

>>People! Who cares what the true conversion was. The point was
>>they couldn't figure it out and I couldn't get a mental picture of
>>size, using metric. I ended up buying a large piece bigger than I
>>needed from a different package. If the manufacturer did their
>>job for the consumer, they should have put both on the package,
>>anyway the people in the store still think .2 meters = 12" and who
>>cares? It just shows that metric (for some people) is like listening
>>to latin.
>
> It should be a no brainer coming from the English measure to figure 12"
> is a 1/3 of a foot

Oh, please, not again!!!

Philip®

Liam Devlin wrote:
>
> 12" \= 0.30 meters, nor does 0.30 meters = 30.48 cm. 12" = 12 inches,
> no argument here.

Oh the "delightful" vagaries of mathematical shorthand not carried out
suffiently past the decimal point. ;^) Is this thread dead now?
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Philip®

Liam Devlin wrote:
> Philip® wrote:
>> Wooduuuward wrote:
>>
>>> "Philip®" wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>> People! Who cares what the true conversion was. The point was
>>> they couldn't figure it out and I couldn't get a mental picture of
>>> size, using metric. I ended up buying a large piece bigger than I
>>> needed from a different package. If the manufacturer did their
>>> job for the consumer, they should have put both on the package,
>>> anyway the people in the store still think .2 meters = 12" and who
>>> cares? It just shows that metric (for some people) is like listening
>>> to latin.
>>
>> It should be a no brainer coming from the English measure to figure
>> 12" is a 1/3 of a foot
>
> Oh, please, not again!!!

I immediately posted a correction for my proof reading oversight.

Replace "foot" with "yard."
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)