Irrational people
Freddie Woo tells us "I'm having to drive 500 miles to pick up my son from the ex's house because she won't let him take the train in case he gets off at the wrong station. He's 19 years old and has A-Levels and everything." - Tell us about illogical and irrational people who get on your nerves.
( , Thu 10 Oct 2013, 12:24)
Freddie Woo tells us "I'm having to drive 500 miles to pick up my son from the ex's house because she won't let him take the train in case he gets off at the wrong station. He's 19 years old and has A-Levels and everything." - Tell us about illogical and irrational people who get on your nerves.
( , Thu 10 Oct 2013, 12:24)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Unit systems (as in imperial, metric, cgs, whatever) are not an issue.
That's just a case of basic conversion. It's not particularly any more difficult or easy to have 16 things in another thing than it is to have 10.
Gravitational unit systems are what you need to worry about, so I think we can all join together in slating the American Unit system.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 10:45, 2 replies)
That's just a case of basic conversion. It's not particularly any more difficult or easy to have 16 things in another thing than it is to have 10.
Gravitational unit systems are what you need to worry about, so I think we can all join together in slating the American Unit system.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 10:45, 2 replies)
I'd argue that multiplying and dividing by 10
is a lot simpler than doing so by 16.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 10:49, closed)
is a lot simpler than doing so by 16.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 10:49, closed)
Arguably on a day to day basis you totally have a point.
In so far as doing any of this stuff in your head.
However, in the reality of unit conversion in engineering it doesn't make that much of a difference. As opposed to having to introduce an inverse graviational constant into every single fucking law of newtonian mechanics, which does.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 13:14, closed)
In so far as doing any of this stuff in your head.
However, in the reality of unit conversion in engineering it doesn't make that much of a difference. As opposed to having to introduce an inverse graviational constant into every single fucking law of newtonian mechanics, which does.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 13:14, closed)
This must explain why I have such difficulty in putting up a set of shelves.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 13:29, closed)
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 13:29, closed)
I just love
pound-mass and slugs.
Luckily most engineering calculation involves tables and programs.
Basic calculations are something to harass students with.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 15:32, closed)
pound-mass and slugs.
Luckily most engineering calculation involves tables and programs.
Basic calculations are something to harass students with.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 15:32, closed)
No, it's the fact that it's 16 (or 20) of one, 14 of another, 220 of a third, 36 of something else and 1760 of yet another
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 10:53, closed)
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 10:53, closed)
I'd agree with you if you were doing this shit in your head or if you had to remember them
but in reality these days in most scenarios, no-one does, and no-one does.
When I lecture this stuff I do fall down in favour of the boy Panzer, in that imperial/US units are a bit of a pain compared to SI. But the conversions are really only a minimal inconvenience when everything is done with a computer.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 13:18, closed)
but in reality these days in most scenarios, no-one does, and no-one does.
When I lecture this stuff I do fall down in favour of the boy Panzer, in that imperial/US units are a bit of a pain compared to SI. But the conversions are really only a minimal inconvenience when everything is done with a computer.
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 13:18, closed)
It's true you would never have to really work them out
But it would be easier to do a miscalculation
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 20:03, closed)
But it would be easier to do a miscalculation
( , Tue 15 Oct 2013, 20:03, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread