Buried 0 #51 September 8, 2005 Quote- Photographers shoot 35mm film. what's 35mm film? we shoot digital now. now 8mm amateur vids.. that's the ticket Where is my fizzy-lifting drink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #52 September 8, 2005 my carriage gets 17 rods to the bushel and that's how I likes it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #53 September 8, 2005 Quotewhat's 35mm film? we shoot digital now. Do you shoot with a quarter inch lens? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverton 0 #54 September 9, 2005 QuoteI dont get why other countries are sticking with the metric system. what are these "mm" or "cm" or "m". why haven't they converted yet? GET WITH THE TIMES. I mean america has been a preceived world power for over 50+ yrs! We should force other countries to use the american standard and if not invade them until our system is used. HAHAHA, You want to invade the rest of the world?? By the way, If I remember correct even some american brand cars use metric fasteners I agree with GET WITH THE TIMES, only the future is metric. Oh wait a minute we use lbs/sqft for wingload ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habit, Especially when you are jumping a sport rig Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buried 0 #55 September 9, 2005 QuoteQuotewhat's 35mm film? we shoot digital now. Do you shoot with a quarter inch lens? Actually I just use some photo paper and a pin hole camera.. no lens needed Where is my fizzy-lifting drink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverbc 0 #56 September 9, 2005 my electronics professor just mentioned the other day that americans were suppose to convert to using the metric system back in the 1960's. us Americans, we're so thick headed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BASE813 0 #57 September 9, 2005 QuoteDifferences between American and British Systems Many American units of weights and measures are based on units in use in Great Britain before 1824, when the British Imperial System was established. Since the Mendenhall Order of 1893, the U.S. yard and pound and all other units derived from them have been defined in terms of the metric units of length and mass, the meter and the kilogram; thus, there is no longer any direct relationship between American units and British units of the same name. In 1959 an international agreement was reached among English-speaking nations to use the same metric equivalents for the yard and pound for purposes of science and technology; these values are 1 yd=0.9144 meter (m) and 1 lb=0.45359237 kilogram (kg). In the United States, the older definition of the yard as 3,600/3,937 m is still used for surveying, the corresponding foot (1,200/3,937 m) being known as the survey foot. Just something I found........... Who came up with this method.... why so complex?! edit to add: In fact, it seems the USA also changed the imperial system for themselves, so you are not even using the British Version! hahahaha - just like our language I guess! example: 1 U.S. gallon (basic unit of liquid capacity in the United States)=231 cubic inches 1 imperial gallon (basic unit of liquid capacity in some Commonwealth nations)=277.4 cubic inches 1 U.S. bushel (basic unit of dry capacity in the United States)=2,150.4 cubic inches 1 imperial bushel (basic unit of dry capacity in some Commonwealth nations)=2,219.4 cubic inches Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #58 September 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd why go metric? Because the units aren't arbitrary! Hmmm. How is the wavelength of hydrogen any less arbitrary than the length of a king's foot? Out of the billions of possible things to base a measurement on, the wavelength of hydrogen seems rather arbitrary to me. I actually believe that the Fahrenheit system, etc., are pretty good for everyday life. The meter is defined the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. So the meter has NOTHING to do with hydrogen. The hydrogen spectrum has no lines with wavelength 1m. The common lines are: Series Designation Transition (Levels) Wavelength Lyman (UV) Lya 2-1 1215.7 A Lyb 3-1 1025.7 A Lyg 4-1 972.53 A ... limit infinity-1 911.5 A Balmer (visible) Ha 3-2 6562.8 A Hb 4-2 4861.3 A Hg 5-2 4340.5 A ... limit infinity-2 3646.0 A There is also a 21cm line used in radio astronomy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #59 September 9, 2005 Prof - can you convert all that to cubits? I'm having trouble following. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #60 September 9, 2005 QuoteThe meter is defined the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. So, then, would you agree that the meter is also an arbitrary number? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #61 September 9, 2005 I'm a huge fan of the metric system, and the fact that I have to work with both systems always makes me love metric more and more... What the main issue between Metric and Imperial isnt the fact that one has an arbitrary base and tyhe other doesnt. Its the fact that all the units ahve a relationship between them, and that they all follow the same decimal rule. THATS the value of metric vs. imperial.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #62 September 9, 2005 QuoteIts the fact that all the units ahve a relationship between them, and that they all follow the same decimal rule. THATS the value of metric vs. imperial. And there I see the best explanation for why the metric system is superior! I wholeheartedly agree. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #63 September 9, 2005 Quotemy electronics professor just mentioned the other day that americans were suppose to convert to using the metric system back in the 1960's. us Americans, we're so thick headed I remember back in the early to mid 1990's, the state of Alabama erected kilometer marker signs on all highways (mainly interstates) to supplement the mile markers that have been out there forever. The Km signs didn't stay up long. They messed up a lot of people's minds as to where the fuck they thought they were in miles... "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #64 September 9, 2005 there is still one sign I know of that says.... distence measured in kilometer... next 25 milesSudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeordieSkydiver 0 #65 September 9, 2005 Quotedamn and i thought Bush and blaire were fucking each other Its fuck all to do with them. The UK is pretty much 'inbetween' systems just now. We buy fuel in litres, but measure consuption in 'miles per gallon'. We measure technical distances in 'mm, cm, M' but use 'miles per hour' Its pretty wacky when you get right into it. In my job I work on the Apache Attack helicopter, which is quite obviously made by the US, so all the nuts, bolts, tools are in US Imperial. However the powerplants are made by Rolls Royce, which uses metric. Our tool boxes are the most confusing fucking things... We also refuel by the litre, the pilots want to know the weight by KG, but the aircraft states quanity in LBs. haha. try work out your fuel requirements when you know there was 1350LBs in the tanks, they put 400 litres in, and you need 1100KGLee _______________________________ In a world full of people, only some want to fly, is that not crazy? http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #66 September 9, 2005 ummmm I am so confused right now.... Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #67 September 9, 2005 Quoteummmm I am so confused right now.... I am pretty sure those in the aviation business over there keep a conversion calculator handy to keep themselves from brain-locking... "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #68 September 9, 2005 Y'just cannt beat Chains and Furlongs (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeordieSkydiver 0 #69 September 9, 2005 Yeah, its me. Pilot: "How much fuels is in it staff?" Me: "its full, just like the last one, the one before that and the next one, you fucking retard, ...sir."Lee _______________________________ In a world full of people, only some want to fly, is that not crazy? http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumprunner 0 #70 September 9, 2005 Quotedrugs have taugh a whole generation of Americans the metric system... Funny, but true! 1gm coke = $90, quarter = $35, kilo = $50000 Metric system sucks! Countries should be bombed until they accept the English system. And as far as the meter being based on length of a hydrogen atom...so what? The yard was based on the length of King Henry Vs' arm....more accurate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeordieSkydiver 0 #71 September 9, 2005 QuoteMetric system sucks! Countries should be bombed until they accept the English system. Stop blaming us. It was a Frenchman who invented the metric system. We've been fighting against it since before Agincourt.Lee _______________________________ In a world full of people, only some want to fly, is that not crazy? http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 September 9, 2005 QuoteI think its interesting in how it has changed, without people even noticing. - Beer and soda bottles are measured in mililiters, not ounces. Come again? The large soda containers come in 1l and 2l containers, and booze is sold in 750ml and 1.5l bottles typically, but individual soda and beer is still quite based on ounces, be it the 12, the 20, or the 40. Very very rarely do we see a single in a rounded number of milliliters. There's no reason why it couldn't be changed over - the 350 could replace the 12oz, and anything between 16 and 20oz would do just fine. 600ml probably ideal. But changes people would notice - like miles to kilometers won't go over well because it adds little to daily lifes other than annoyances. Same with pounds. 3 generations don't want to spend their lives with constants like 2.2 or .621 just so the youngest generation won't have to learn to do unit conversions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #73 September 9, 2005 Quote And why go metric? Because the units aren't arbitrary! It's all based upon the Meter, which is the wavelength of Hydrogen, the simplest and most common element in the universe! Mark -- I can't tell if you're joking or what, but the Metric system is -absolutely- as arbitrary as the Imperial system. Absolutely. Let me say that again. Absolutely. You might as well be measuring things based on the size of the King's thumb because the Metric system -was- based on the supposed distance between the Pole and the Equator of the Earth. AND they figured THAT wrong. You're certainly smart enough to know that the Earth ain't NOTHING special.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #74 September 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteIts the fact that all the units ahve a relationship between them, and that they all follow the same decimal rule. THATS the value of metric vs. imperial. And there I see the best explanation for why the metric system is superior! I wholeheartedly agree. A. Only because we have 10 fingers. B. Not really anyway. Using ONLY the basic units displayed on a meter stick, please divide it into exactly 3 equal pieces. Now, I know what you MUST be thinking, "Why the F is THAT important?" This goes all the way back to the ancient architects, Pythagorus and how to go about building really neat and really -square- buildings and laying out things like the Pyramids. If you take rods the lengths of 3, 4 and 5 units and make a triangle out of them you end up with one of the angles being an -exact- 90 degree angle. What you want is a measuring stick that is not only divisible by 1/2, but also 1/3, 1/4 just to make things "simple". So, if you want a really nice measuring stick, you make it so that one of the basic units has the numbers 3 and 4 in it evenly divisible; 12 and 36 for example; our foot and yard. Ok, flash forward to the founding fathers of the U.S. and you'll see that most of them belonged to the Masons, who, among other things, really dig the concepts of ancient Egyptian architecture and use it as a metaphor for life; things being "on the square". NOW, take a gander at the back of a one dollar bill. BTW, even though it may sound like it, this is NOT some wack-job conspiracy theory; it's all fact.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #75 September 10, 2005 Sorry, I was pretty hammered when I made my initial reply.... Here's a crib: The Meter The meter has a most interesting history. The original definition was one ten-millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator. From that, French scientists made a bar of 90% platinum and 10% iridium and put two marks on it to signify the meter distance. This particular alloy was used because it resisted expansions due to temperature very well and it could take a high polish, resulting in the ability to take a very fine line. This reduced the error due to the width of the lines. As science moved into the 1900s, it was becoming apparent that wavelength measurements were among the most accurate ones in all of science. In 1907, the red line of cadmium at 6438 Å was adopted as a new meter standard, however many continued to advocate the green line at 5460 Å in mercury's spectrum. By the way, using a particular wavelength of light as a standard for measurement was made as early as 1829. It took almost 80 years for the technology of measurement to become exact enough for use as an international standard. In 1960, the orange line at 6058 Å of krypton-86 was adopted. The wavelength was specified as : lvac = 6057.802106 Å so that one meter equaled: 1,650,763.73 Hz¯1 If you want to be really technical, this is the 2p10 to 5d5 transition (following the notation of Paschen). It can also be written: 2P10 to 5d5. So there! The definition was changed once again, in 1983, to the following: The meter is the length of path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 / 299,792,458 of a second. By the way, this definition depends on the fact that the speed of light is defined (not measured) as exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
