Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 5]
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
I think the real question is. "Why don't we have base 12 for everything?".
OK I know it's supposed to be to do with counting on fingers, but someone, may an early abacus maker, should have said 'why stick to 10 beads, let's make it 12?'.
But apparently even the words 'eleven' and 'twelve' derive from words meaning 'one left over' and 'two left over'. Even the romans who didn't really have number bases counting in 5s 10s 50s etc.
Didn't the Babylonians or Mesopotamians or someone in that neck of the woods use a base 12 system ? (Too lazy atm to bother winding Google up).OK I know it's supposed to be to do with counting on fingers, but someone, may an early abacus maker, should have said 'why stick to 10 beads, let's make it 12?'.
But apparently even the words 'eleven' and 'twelve' derive from words meaning 'one left over' and 'two left over'. Even the romans who didn't really have number bases counting in 5s 10s 50s etc.
Just to add to the consternation/ confusion - There are 90 degrees of latitude between equator & pole, each degree covers 60 nm ( nautical miles, one of which = 1.852 km). 1 normal ( road) mile = 1.609 km
There are, therefore, 5400 nm from equator to pole, 1 nm per minute of latitude, 60 minutes per degree = 1 mile per minute.
To "decimalise" all of that throws up some funny numbers. eg 5400x1.852=10000 km. oh wait, that's a nice round decimal number.
I still measure wind speed in knots.
All calcs to 3 decimal places
There are, therefore, 5400 nm from equator to pole, 1 nm per minute of latitude, 60 minutes per degree = 1 mile per minute.
To "decimalise" all of that throws up some funny numbers. eg 5400x1.852=10000 km. oh wait, that's a nice round decimal number.
I still measure wind speed in knots.
All calcs to 3 decimal places
Clockwork Cupcake said:
glazbagun said:
Had a google and think I was thinking of Unix, yeah- just how many seconds since 1970. Decimal time (10 hours of 100 mins of 100 seconds) is what the French tried. 1624310926 seconds since 1970 (says google, I didn't count them!) is metric.
I don't want to be pedantic, but an large number of seconds is not metric, it is just a large number of seconds. You can divide that by 60 to get a decimal number of minutes, but that's still not metric.The system that the French tried is, though.
Anyway, I think we're broadly in agreement plus I'm off to bed now.
The only metric unit for time is the second, as defined by the caesium standard. 124003 seconds is a metric measure thus a metric measure of time.
The OP used the word metric, but described decimal time which when the French introduced it, was both.
glazbagun said:
The only metric unit for time is the second, as defined by the caesium standard. 124003 seconds is a metric measure thus a metric measure of time.
Ah, ok, I see where you are coming from in that case. You're defining metric as being any SI unit, and since a second is an SI unit then a datetime expressed as a number of seconds from an epoch is metric. Ok, that's *really* pedantic! 
I was taking a looser (and more colloquial) definition within the context of the OP's question about redefining time to have units in Base 10, like most of the rest of the metric system.
So, yes, I can see where the confusion came.
captain_cynic said:
Because multiples of 12 are more divisible.
12 can be divided into 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and itself. 10 can only be divided into 1, 2, 5 and itself.
As we tend to divide time quite a bit it makes sense to keep it on a base 12 system.
Time keeping units (second, hour, day, et al) are considered SI units.
I think it's only seconds that are SI units for time, all the others are SI-derived but not SI themselves.12 can be divided into 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and itself. 10 can only be divided into 1, 2, 5 and itself.
As we tend to divide time quite a bit it makes sense to keep it on a base 12 system.
Time keeping units (second, hour, day, et al) are considered SI units.
V8mate said:
Halmyre said:
Our company uses 'decimal' time when logging your hours, so 8.3 would be 8 hours and 18 minutes. This goes right back to the days of stamping a time card, you'd see people walking a bit slower as they approached the machine, waiting for the clock to tick over into the next 'block' of time.
A previous employer of mine did that. 37 hour week equated to 7.4 hours per day for payroll purposes (and 7 hrs 24 mins for those with an eye on the door)Dr Jekyll said:
captain_cynic said:
RosscoPCole said:
Why isn't time metric? I understand why there are 365 days in a year, but why 24 hours, 60 minutes and 60 seconds? Why not 10 hours, 100 minutes and 100 seconds?
Because multiples of 12 are more divisible. 12 can be divided into 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and itself. 10 can only be divided into 1, 2, 5 and itself.
As we tend to divide time quite a bit it makes sense to keep it on a base 12 system.
Time keeping units (second, hour, day, et al) are considered SI units.
OK I know it's supposed to be to do with counting on fingers, but someone, may an early abacus maker, should have said 'why stick to 10 beads, let's make it 12?'.
But apparently even the words 'eleven' and 'twelve' derive from words meaning 'one left over' and 'two left over'. Even the romans who didn't really have number bases counting in 5s 10s 50s etc.
With 10 X 10 were just adding another 0 and the same for subsequent multiplications. 12 X 12 is 144, multiplied by 12 again is 1728.
By and large, we do more multiplication in life than division with time being the big exception.
captain_cynic said:
Base 10 is a lot easier for multiplication.
With 10 X 10 were just adding another 0 and the same for subsequent multiplications. 12 X 12 is 144, multiplied by 12 again is 1728.
By and large, we do more multiplication in life than division with time being the big exception.
But if we had base 12, then 12 X 12 would be just adding another 0. 144 in base 10 is 100 in base 12. Best of both worlds.With 10 X 10 were just adding another 0 and the same for subsequent multiplications. 12 X 12 is 144, multiplied by 12 again is 1728.
By and large, we do more multiplication in life than division with time being the big exception.
RosscoPCole said:
Why isn't time metric? I understand why there are 365 days in a year, but why 24 hours, 60 minutes and 60 seconds? Why not 10 hours, 100 minutes and 100 seconds?
Swatch tried with with 1,000 beats a day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_TimeOne of the Ericsson phones had a Beat watch feature.
This question was asked in New Scientist: https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg25033344-2...
Psycho Warren said:
21st Century Man said:
Why do the RSPCA wear paramilitary uniforms?
Epaulettes on a jumper or shirt counts as paramilitary? Is it possible to use self defence laws to mitigate against a wrongful arrest or excessive force used by the police?
Say a case of mistaken identity, the police are looking for a terrorist, your vehicle matches the description. Due to it being a counter terror op, they are plain clothed in unmarked vehicles.
They do a hard stop on you, to all intents and purposes it looks like you are being attacked by assailants unknown so you floor it, ram through the barracade and flee the scene. The cops fire at you in the process assuming you may try and run one of them over.
When they eventually catch up and arrest you (presumably with marked units so you stop as might be reasonably expected), they will very quickly realise they have got the wrong guy. Would you be able to use the self defence laws to cover the fact you rammed your way out of the road block on the grounds you felt your life was in danger - reinforced by the fact they opened fire.
In any other situation had it not been cops, it would be "reasonable" to use a vehicle as a weapon in that way to save your life as long as you believed you were in danger.
Do you loose that right to claim self defence just because they were cops?
Or would it come down to finer details like "should you have reasonably assumed they were cops" or was it reasonable for you to hear any shouted warnings or see the chequer on a police baseball cap they would have donned as they exited the vehicle all the while in a high stress situation?
Asking for a friend obviously........
Say a case of mistaken identity, the police are looking for a terrorist, your vehicle matches the description. Due to it being a counter terror op, they are plain clothed in unmarked vehicles.
They do a hard stop on you, to all intents and purposes it looks like you are being attacked by assailants unknown so you floor it, ram through the barracade and flee the scene. The cops fire at you in the process assuming you may try and run one of them over.
When they eventually catch up and arrest you (presumably with marked units so you stop as might be reasonably expected), they will very quickly realise they have got the wrong guy. Would you be able to use the self defence laws to cover the fact you rammed your way out of the road block on the grounds you felt your life was in danger - reinforced by the fact they opened fire.
In any other situation had it not been cops, it would be "reasonable" to use a vehicle as a weapon in that way to save your life as long as you believed you were in danger.
Do you loose that right to claim self defence just because they were cops?
Or would it come down to finer details like "should you have reasonably assumed they were cops" or was it reasonable for you to hear any shouted warnings or see the chequer on a police baseball cap they would have donned as they exited the vehicle all the while in a high stress situation?
Asking for a friend obviously........
Psycho Warren said:
Is it possible to use self defence laws to mitigate against a wrongful arrest or excessive force used by the police?
Say a case of mistaken identity, the police are looking for a terrorist, your vehicle matches the description. Due to it being a counter terror op, they are plain clothed in unmarked vehicles.
They do a hard stop on you, to all intents and purposes it looks like you are being attacked by assailants unknown so you floor it, ram through the barracade and flee the scene. The cops fire at you in the process assuming you may try and run one of them over.
When they eventually catch up and arrest you (presumably with marked units so you stop as might be reasonably expected), they will very quickly realise they have got the wrong guy. Would you be able to use the self defence laws to cover the fact you rammed your way out of the road block on the grounds you felt your life was in danger - reinforced by the fact they opened fire.
In any other situation had it not been cops, it would be "reasonable" to use a vehicle as a weapon in that way to save your life as long as you believed you were in danger.
Do you loose that right to claim self defence just because they were cops?
Or would it come down to finer details like "should you have reasonably assumed they were cops" or was it reasonable for you to hear any shouted warnings or see the chequer on a police baseball cap they would have donned as they exited the vehicle all the while in a high stress situation?
Asking for a friend obviously........
Yes and no. Say a case of mistaken identity, the police are looking for a terrorist, your vehicle matches the description. Due to it being a counter terror op, they are plain clothed in unmarked vehicles.
They do a hard stop on you, to all intents and purposes it looks like you are being attacked by assailants unknown so you floor it, ram through the barracade and flee the scene. The cops fire at you in the process assuming you may try and run one of them over.
When they eventually catch up and arrest you (presumably with marked units so you stop as might be reasonably expected), they will very quickly realise they have got the wrong guy. Would you be able to use the self defence laws to cover the fact you rammed your way out of the road block on the grounds you felt your life was in danger - reinforced by the fact they opened fire.
In any other situation had it not been cops, it would be "reasonable" to use a vehicle as a weapon in that way to save your life as long as you believed you were in danger.
Do you loose that right to claim self defence just because they were cops?
Or would it come down to finer details like "should you have reasonably assumed they were cops" or was it reasonable for you to hear any shouted warnings or see the chequer on a police baseball cap they would have donned as they exited the vehicle all the while in a high stress situation?
Asking for a friend obviously........
Not self defence laws per se but if you've been found to be unlawfully arrested in a court of law, they can't stick you with the other charges like resisting arrest or assault (which is what you'd need the self defence defence for). It isn't carte blanche though, you won't get away with murder, broken bones are fair game though.
captain_cynic said:
Yes and no.
Not self defence laws per se but if you've been found to be unlawfully arrested in a court of law, they can't stick you with the other charges like resisting arrest or assault (which is what you'd need the self defence defence for). It isn't carte blanche though, you won't get away with murder, broken bones are fair game though.
Cool I wondered as a few years back I foiled a car jacking attempt on a nice offroader I had by pushing one car enough out the way so I could drive onto the pavement to escape. The police at the time had no problem with that as long as i didn't endanger people using the pavement. Not self defence laws per se but if you've been found to be unlawfully arrested in a court of law, they can't stick you with the other charges like resisting arrest or assault (which is what you'd need the self defence defence for). It isn't carte blanche though, you won't get away with murder, broken bones are fair game though.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff