dismal said:
How many shit tons is it if you use 0.0 like I said instead of 0.1?
beero1000 was using 0.01, not 0.1. Given that you said 0.0, that seems compatible with its being 0.01, or - say -, 0.04, if you're approximating at 1 decimal points only. But okay, nitpicking aside, the context of your post was clear. Your 0.0 was actually 0 regardless of the number of decimals, so you have a point there.
dismal said:
barbos said:
Losing a space probe was a pretty big inconvenience for NASA.
And having got less fuel in the airliner due to the incorrect conversion was a big inconvenience for passengers when they were watching themselves gliding in the plane
How about we look at the systems used by various countries and the one which has landed the most people on the moon wins?
On the other hand, you don't have a point there. Even though the US landed people on the Moon and no other country did, that was not facilitated by US system of units, and other countries also didn't fail to put people on the Moon because of their use of the metric system.
However, a mistake because of conversions between units was the cause of the loss of a NASA probe, and that cost a lot of money.
There are replies to that, but pointing out that the US is doing better than anyone else in space exploration is not a good one. A better reply would be to point out that NASA has already switched to the metric system (
http://www.space.com/3332-nasa-finally-metric.html ), so that won't happen again, or argue that the problem wasn't the American system, but the use of two systems on the same mission.