How Long is your... - Page 2

H Tower · November 19, 2002, 13:16

6'4"

I wonder if that guy who voted over 6'10" is Yow Ming

GePap · November 19, 2002, 13:34

Why are threads like this so common? We had this very same thing just a feew weeks back.

Winston · November 19, 2002, 13:37

Well, some posters may have grown a little since then.

loinburger · November 19, 2002, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
How stupid must a system be if you can't even exactly tell how tall you are, and you have to chose between the two most close values

That's why we have things like "half inches" and "quarter inches" and "eighth inches." Fractions are wonderful things.

Caligastia · November 19, 2002, 13:55

Metric is best though.

Bosh · November 19, 2002, 13:58

Quote:

are you american?

Mostly, being born in norway doesn't count for much when I've been away for the last 20 years...

Quote:

whats that flag?

Morocco, the subject of the thesis that consumed my sanity.

Gangerolf · November 19, 2002, 14:01

1,8 m or about 5'11

Dis · November 19, 2002, 14:27

sometimes I wish poll results could be shown in a nice little bell curve. It would look so pretty

Dis · November 19, 2002, 14:29

If metric is more practical than inches and feet why aren't we using it?

Caligastia · November 19, 2002, 14:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
If metric is more practical than inches and feet why aren't we using it?

Because you want so desperately to be different.

Thrawn05 · November 19, 2002, 14:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia

Because you want so desperately to be different.

Actualy, it's the otherway around.

You eurpeans think it's neater to drive down the road doing a 100km/h then 55mph (not that there is a damn cop in the world that would stop you from doing 200km/h, but then there was a tool both every 5 miles or so.)

Caligastia · November 19, 2002, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05

Actualy, it's the otherway around.

You eurpeans think it's neater to drive down the road doing a 100km/h then 55mph (not that there is a damn cop in the world that would stop you from doing 200km/h, but then there was a tool both every 5 miles or so.)

I'm not european.

The US is practically the only country that still clutches desperately at the old imperial measurements.

November 19, 2002, 14:48

Normal curve rising on the horizon

-Jrabbit · November 19, 2002, 14:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston

It's gotta be Ming.

Over 6 foot 10 inches?
Definitely not Ming. He slouches.

Bell curve shaping up nicely.

Need a few 5'9" folks to own up to their deficiencies tho...

Thrawn05 · November 19, 2002, 14:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia

I'm not european.

The US is practically the only country that still clutches desperately at the old imperial measurements.

No, it's becauces it's not that hard to remember the measurements.

Who doesn't know there are 5280 ft to a mile, or 16 oz to a pint, or 1 table spoon is 3 tea spoons.

November 19, 2002, 14:57

I dont see how we can still have this discussion...
In ANY scientific domain, metric is the way to go...
Not even Americans scientists dispute this
You can switch beetween type of measuremetn easily
1 joule = 1 Newton * 1 metre = 1 Ampere * 1 Volt * 1 second
and i could go on
now if you want to argue that you like measuring day to day stuff (your height, speed of your car, radius of the bolt that holds your cupboard etc) in imperial and why its better, go ahead, its disputable and theres no clr advantage since you can basically use anything as long as everyone uses the same thing or almost...
AS for me, I think the advantage of using day to day measurements that are the same as that used by scientifics is too great and actually helps to think in a scientific way.
For example I can use the fact that most liquids weight almost the same as water and calculate easily their weight give their volume and could even calculate the energy needed to accelerate in my head in metric
suppose you have 10 liters (dunno how many ounces) of blue kool-aid, thats 10 kilos, etc etc

Thrawn05 · November 19, 2002, 15:01

Quote:

Originally posted by LulThyme
I dont see how we can still have this discussion...
In ANY scientific domain, metric is the way to go...
Not even Americans scientists dispute this

I disagree... wholeheartly.

My father was a chemist, and he used the english system. You know that catalist converted underneath your cars that everyone hates? He did it.

Also, my chem classes in college... guess what... ENGLISH SYSTEM!

November 19, 2002, 15:03

Thrawn how many horsepowers do you need to accelerate 15 pounds for 2 miles in 10 seconds?
while the same question in metric
is plain multication
Im not saying imperial cant be used, just that arguing that its AS simple is non-sense.
Its not THAT complicated, it has conversion factors taht can be remembered as you are saying, the fact is those conversion factors in metrics are powers of 10 in a give measurement and 1's beetween them.
I bet even you, who are saying its ez, dont know half the conversion factors.
Dont forget you need to be able to convert not only same kind of measurement (feet to mile etc) but beetween them.
1 Watt = 1 kg*m*m/s*s*s
I remember that by heart
what about horsepowers?
how many pounds*feet*feet/s*s*s is that?

your father must be a smart man
I dont see why he couldnt have also done it in metric, once he had gotten used to it, he would have less conversion to do, and no new clear disadvantage..

November 19, 2002, 15:05

Thrawn it is entirely possible to do everything done with metric in Imperial
I will not dispute that
you could go to the moon with the Imperial
Its harder
You can argue Its just a bit harder
But you cant argue it just as easy, since you have an extra factor that they dont have in metric with no advantage.
Im sorry for the threadjack
I wont go long, Im too lazy to create a new thread for this, and this is the kind of discussion where nobody changes mind, for most ppl its deep in the culture.
Metric is like a better tool. Of course you can still use the old one, but its easier with the newer one.
Metric uses less conversion thats a FACT.
Now the only point proponents of imperial can bring up which I wont argue is they say imperial is easier to think in, because it relates to your body and such.
I wont say what I think about this, but the fact is in science that makes no difference.
Who cares if an atome measures 1.5 * 10^-8 length of your foot, that has no intuitive meaning.
Of course the math still works if you always convert properly but thats an extra step with no advantage.
Thraw, I challenge you to give me one advantage of Imperial in Scientific Measurement (not day to day stuff that i could measure using piles of books, and no arguing that see they used it, while they could have also used metric)

Thrawn05 · November 19, 2002, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by LulThyme
Thrawn how many horsepowers do you need to accelerate 15 pounds for 2 miles in 10 seconds?
while the same question in metric
is plain multication
Im not saying imperial cant be used, just that arguing that its AS simple is non-sense.
Its not THAT complicated, it has conversion factors taht can be remembered as you are saying, the fact is those conversion factors in metrics are powers of 10 in a give measurement and 1's beetween them.
I bet even you, who are saying its ez, dont know half the conversion factors.
Dont forget you need to be able to convert not only same kind of measurement (feet to mile etc) but beetween them.
1 Watt = 1 kg*m*m/s*s*s
I remember that by heart
what about horsepowers?
how many pounds*feet*feet/s*s*s is that?

First off... perhaps I should stated, that knowing the values of the english system is easy. I'm sure I can do this IF I KNEW FREAKING MATH!!! But I don't... even if this was in metric. :P

Sue me.

I passed Chem because I knew the diffenitions and such... not mindless math questions.

Ramo · November 19, 2002, 15:35

There's nothing special about the math in unit conversion.

Lul's point was that to know the English system, you'd have to memorize a rediculous number of constants of proportionality, while to know the SI or cgs systems, you don't have to memorize any constants of proportionality.

Winston · November 19, 2002, 15:38

Didn't NASA crash that probe into the Martian surface because they didn't realize during the critical landing phase that it was programmed using the imperial system? The control center took the altitude readings to be metric, but alas...

"Hey, maybe we should adopt one system and stick with it the next time we send one of those billion dollar gadgets out there."

November 19, 2002, 15:51

thrawn, Whats so mindless about multiplication ?

And knowing the values is NOT easy...
As I pointed out, you know the value for feet to miles as most ppl... But if you count conversion in same measurements and beetween them there are dozens of numbers to remember to be able to calculate anything...
It is possible and many ppl do it, sometimes using tables or somthing, but arguing that it is as easy is facing the other way when the facts come.

SlowwHand · November 19, 2002, 17:54

Winston
King
Denmark
Mar 1999
time: 22:51

19-11-2002 07:50
quote:

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
WHO THE HECK IS OVER 6'10" AROUND HERE???

It's gotta be Ming.

SlowwHand · November 19, 2002, 17:59

That's Hueij's new. Boann saw.
She is from Holland, measures a little
over 7'4" and weights 320 pounds...and not bad to be blocking out the sun.

WTG, Hueij !

SlowwHand · November 19, 2002, 18:02

Hueij at his lady's house.

Dis · November 19, 2002, 18:19

ROTFLMAO

MattyBoy · November 19, 2002, 18:35

Quote:

It's gotta be Ming.

Attachment: bigwoman.jpg

Hang on.
Which one is Ming?

loinburger · November 19, 2002, 18:37

Good lord! She must be 7'7 with the heels on!

Alex · November 19, 2002, 18:48