Metric

Page 15 of 16  

wrote:

9mm is actually closer to a .357
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So is a .38 Special.
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

So's a .38.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(sigh)
OK. What is it you don't understand, this time, Leon?
HINT: no one makes rules for bullet calibers, either.
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Get out your reloading manual and check the bullet dimensions for the more popular of the cartridges normally described as ".38".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, I am aware that actual sizes are different than indicated sizes. I thought you may have been referring to actual sizes. The 9mm is slightly smaller than .357 and the .38 family varies in size just slightly larger than the .357 but under the an actual .38 measurement. Way back in the EARLY 70's, when we were teens, a friend and I did a lot of target shooting. At the range we shot mostly .22, .38 Special, .357, AND .45. Because the .357 was a "cruel to the shooter" gun we often shot less agressive rounds through it. Typically we went through a couple hundred rounds weekly. We often ran wad cutter .38 rounds through the .357. We spent hours melting down wheel weights and pouring our own wad cutter bullets. Hot Job!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 05:32:40 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

Reason? Most people do not like this kind of change (nor the Obama kind.) Now we are stuck with two systems. Woodworkers are usually skilled in adding fractions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

I think that we should stop using both the 'English' system of measurements (which is used in the US) and the metric system. At the same time we should also stop using decimal notation for representing numbers.
All of the present measurements systems are based upon silly anthropomorphic considerations. Instead we should switch to using Planck units and hexadecimal.
Both the English and metric systems have too many funny constants and conversion factors. (The pro metric people claim that they don't but they are there. I.e. how many calories are there in a joule: 0.239005736 or erg: 2.39005736x10^-8 . How many calories are there in a Calorie: 1000 (Calling the kilocalorie a Calorie is really silly), etc.). Planck units simplify things. For instance, Einstein's famous equation e = m*c^2 is simply e = m. (The c^2 is in the equation simply because we measure energy and mass in different funny units.)
For more information on Planck units see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
Likewise the use of decimal (base 10) for representing numbers is based on the minor detail that people have 10 fingers. Since most people have stopped doing arithmetic on their fingers, we should switch to a more rational base for our number system. Ask any computer and it will tell you that binary is much more rational. The only disadvantage of binary is that it takes a bunch of digits to represent anything useful. Hexadecimal reduces the binary digit count by a factor of four. Most numbers take fewer digits in hex than in decimal.
Some of the other discussions in this thread have pointed out that the decimal system (and the metric system) is great if you want to scale by 10 but is a pain if you are only trying to scale down by 2. Binary (and hexadecimal) works well for scaling by 2, 4, 8, or 16, etc.
For more information on Hexadecimal see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Counter argument in support of base ten:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_9g-WoezG8

nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/9/2009 4:21 PM Dan Coby spake thus:

OK, I want to see how adept you are at hex arithmetic. Quick: what are
1. A09E + B1AF 2. 79 * AAAA 3. 2179 / 9D2
Show your work.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

11 A09E + B1AF ----- 1524D
AAAA x 79 ----- 5FFFA 4AAA6 ------ 50AA5A
3.6894 ______ 9D2 | 2179 1D76 ----- 4030 3AEC ----- 5440 4E90 ---- 5B00 5862 ---- 29E0 2748 ---- 298
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

A09E +B1AF ----- 1524D

(79 * A = 4BA)
4BA 4BA 4BA 4BA ------ 50AA5A

(division by repeated subtraction)
2179 -9D2
--
17A7
-9D2
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary arithmetic and those who can't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
krw wrote:

But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one arithmetic. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:

Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no? I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number must have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.
Unless you could represent unary numbers by something like this:
1 111 11 1111
but of course you still have two possible symbols (call them a mark and a space).
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.
Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals the number of marks made.
Duh.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 = IV has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"IV" is a relatively recent invention.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 = IV : has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII
The Roman system is an interesting example of an astonishly bad notation that arguably held the culture back. No way to divide or multiply, for example. Or even a general method for adding and subtracting.
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.