It is allowed to used an encrypted connection to administer a remote repeater, like for amateur satellites. Only the control link may be encrypted. The repeated signals may not, just like any other amateur transmissions.
Radio spectrum is a limited and shared resource. It makes sense that it's licensed and regulated. But compared to other parts of the spectrum, the license is cheap and easy to get and the regulations are minimal. It's a public space for experimentation. If you don't want to be seen in public, go to some other area of the spectrum.
That's not hard to imagine. Quick, what's 1/3 of a meter? The sometimes problem with metric is it's base-10. The prime factors of 10 are 2 and 5. Feet are in base-12, which has the prime factors 2 and 3. Three is much more useful than five. There are marks on your measuring tape at exactly 1/3 of a yard or 1/3 of a foot.
Metric is often easier and more convenient, but not always. So, in the US, we tend to use metric or customary units depending on which is more convenient for the task at hand. Actually, it's a lot like the UK and other countries where older systems still exist alongside metric. The difference with the US is that we don't have as many unnecessary laws mandating metric. You're an adult. You're working with other adults. You're perfectly capable of figuring out what to do without the input of lifelong politicians who've never measured a thing in their lives. Except for the amount of your money that they're going to spend. They like measuring that.
My wife's family, who almost all have university degrees, who were all born and raised in the US, and who are very familiar with the imperial system NEVER seem to be able to do math with it. They ask me, a European raised with the metric system, for help.
Find out how many fl oz of milk are in a measuring cup graduated in units of cups? Ask mrb.
Convert my daughter's height from feet/inches to inches? Ask mrb.
Convert a package's weight from oz to lb/oz? Ask mrb.
Need to know how cold it needs to be outside in farenheit for water to freeze? Ask mrb.
I lost count of the number of times they accidentally mix up for example 1.3 feet with 1 ft 3 in. Sometimes it's due to miscommunication, eg. I have seen "six pound five" interpreted as 6 lb 5 oz by one when the speaker meant 6.5 lb. Or vice versa.
It's just comical to see someone trying to argue that the imperial system is "sometimes easier."
This is also just an anecdote, but I'll second thomk's opinion on woodwork/manual measurement of most kinds. Twelve has one, two, three, four, six, and twelve for divisors, and that is incredibly handy when you're trying to do manual measurement. Even sixteen has one, two, four, eight, and sixteen, making for easier division of pounds to even numbers of ounces; compare this to ten, which has only one, two, five, and ten. People can't eyeball or measure tenths or fifths nearly so easily as thirds and fourths. Even eights are easy to get from measuring a quarter and taking half; good luck eyeballing a fifth. And before all the "we have computers to do it for us" people come out of the woodwork: 1. Not always and 2. High-precision floating-point arithmetic is still computationally expensive and often hard to get right. I think every one has, at one point or another, hit some weird numerical glitch due to floating-point error.
Every schoolboy learns basic unit conversion; I'm not convinced by your tales of hapless relations. It's not that hard to remember eight fluid ounces per cup. It's not that hard to multiply the feet times twelve, add the inches, and divide by twelve to get just feet. It's not that hard to divide the ounces by sixteen to get pounds and ounces. It's not hard to remember that water freezes at thirty-two degrees. I've also never heard someone describe weights as "six pound five" with either meaning; the closest I've heard are descriptions of height as, say, "six foot two". This means six feet and two inches in every case, and everyone understands this.
At this point,
In conclusion, it is sometimes easier. It's just comical to see someone trying to argue that there are literally zero cases where the customary system is sometimes easier.
150mm has 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 15, 25, 30, 50, 75 so that works very nicely if you want something that can be combined with many combinations. European kitchen cupboards and appliances are designed with a width of N×150mm.
I once worked with a guy who had just bought a surplus cylindrical water tank, and wanted to get an idea of what it would weigh when filled. I asked him for the dimensions and multiplied each by 2.5 to convert to approximately centimeters. Then I multiplied the diameter by 3, approximating pi. I converted each to the nearest power of 2 so I could multiply by adding the exponents. Assuming 1 cubic cm of water is 1 gram, I had the log2 weight in grams. Then I subtracted 10 to divide by 1024, getting approximate kilograms. Then added 1 to get approximate pounds. Finally took 2 to the power of the result. By the time he finished telling me the dimensions, I had an answer for him.
In metric, the weight of water in grams is equal to the volume in cubic centimeters, by definition. The volume of a cylinder is the area of the circle times the length. The area of a circle is pi * r^2. So my description above skipped a step or two.
> In metric, the weight of water in grams is equal to the volume in cubic centimeters, by definition.
Just to clarify this is not exactly true. It was the original idea, but pretty quickly they realized that it wasn't a practical definition and kilogram ended up being defined by a standard reference object which was carefully stored in a vault in Paris and thus being disconnected from the meter and the density of water. Finally in 2019 kilogram was redefined again in terms of natural constants in the great SI unit upheaval. Although sadly the new definition is not very intuitive to understand.
I'm sure the updates to the Kilogram definition tried to keep it as close to the original as possible, right? The difference pales in comparison to the other shortcuts I was taking.
I have no idea what the GP is doing but you would just do
Pi * D^2 / 4 * H * 62.4
Where D is tank diameter in ft H is tank height in ft and 62.4 is the unit weight of water in lbs per cubic foot. Divide by 144 of D is in inches and 12 if H is in inches.
Or if you want to be real lazy you can see Pi/4*62.4 is ~49 and round to 50.
The unit weight of water being 62.4 pcf is probably not known by most people - most people don’t think in cubic feet. The more likely (and less useful) number most people know is ~8 lbs per gallon.
> Find out how many fl oz of milk are in a measuring cup graduated in units of cups? Ask mrb.
8. Volume is base 2. Two tablespoons in an ounce, 8 ounces in a cup, (there used to be other units in between, but nobody used them, like deci in si) two cups in a pint, two pints in a quart, four quarts in a gallon.
If you were going to sell me on switching units, it would be based on hexadecimal instead of base 10.
> Convert my daughter's height from feet/inches to inches? Ask mrb.
5' is 60". Add and subtract from that. 5'6” is 60"+6" = 66" inches, 4'4" is 60"-8"=52", etc. "Normal" humans cluster around 5' so this takes you pretty far.
> Convert a package's weight from oz to lb/oz? Ask mrb.
Again, base 2. As a programmer this is easy because it leverages all the same neural pathways that I use for converting between base 10 and base 2/16. Hell, maybe learning to cook in base 2 has made me a better programmer.
> Need to know how cold it needs to be outside in farenheit for water to freeze? Ask mrb.
This is definitely the worst example. 0°F is really cold. 100°F is really hot. Fahrenheit is objectively better than Celsius as a common parlance unit.
> I lost count of the number of times they accidentally mix up for example 1.3 feet with 1 ft 3 in.
I've never seen anyone do this ever. I've seen dumb computer systems do shoddy conversions on inputting numbers into a program, but that's why you normalize your inputs and show it back to the user. I've never seen or heard of a living breathing human make this mistake.
> "six pound five"
That's like saying "100 centi 57 meters". Those words have meanings on their own, but they don't have a meaning in that order. The only meaningful response to that is to be confused, and then realize they're confused.
How long did they live in the US and how long have they lived where they are now? This sounds like someone who lived in the US until they were ten and moved somewhere where they not only didn't use customary units but didn't speak English. Then spent the next few years scrambling to master the language and hit adulthood understanding neither US customary units nor metric units.
Honestly, culture, customs, and normality run deep. Those handful of nations that use , as the decimal separator and . as the thousands (or otherwise) separator would have a much easier time and much more benefit swapping their separators than the average American would switching from customary units to SI. Nearly everybody uses a 24 hour day, 60 minute hour, 60 second minute. 3600 second hour, 86400 second day, etc.
Oh did I say 24 hour day? Well I lied but it's close enough.
Astronomers happily use astronomical unit, light-year, parsec, and z= redshift to measure distance all in the same context. For me, having "dumb, arbitrary" units is way less important than having familiar units. Despite the fact that humans are dumb and arbitrary, we're still pretty clever.
Most of the people who complain strongly about customary units, which are dumb and arbitrary, speak languages where inanimate objects have gender. (for the record, I also think grammatical gender is dumb and arbitrary in English) "Auto" (meaning car) is neuter and "Wagen" (meaning car) is masculine. If one considers a scale where 100°F is really hot and 0°F is really cold a dumb, arbitrary system, you should stop to consider whether to_lower(str) and to_lower(to_upper(str)) yield the same results.
Humans are dumb, arbitrary creatures. The fact that US customary units are tend towards base 2 units instead of base 10 is way less arbitrary than daylight savings time, or the fact that France is in the wrong time zone, or the fact that Denmark has enshrined in law its own national time basis and then completely ignores it and then refuses to change the law which is ignored by literally every single person in Denmark.
What makes you believe that nobody uses them? Where I'm from, "decimeter" is in use, for example. Centimeters are way more common, sure - but it does come up when eyeballing distances, or in well-established terms such as "decimeter band".
The conversion techniques you explained, I use them myself (that's why they always ask for my help, I can do it in my head.) But the fact many Americans are unable to do that is, in itself, evidence the imperial system doesn't work that well for them.
> This is definitely the worst example. 0°F is really cold. 100°F is really hot.
This might be a sufficient explanation to give to a 5-year-old, but as soon as you need to do actual work with temperatures, this doesn't work so well. Case in point: many Americans don't know the freezing and boiling point in ⁰F. So, no, it's not "objectively better."
> That's like saying "100 centi 57 meters"
No European ever says this. In contrast, many American routinely say "six pound five".
> How long did they live in the US and how long have they lived where they are now?
American here. I've never once in my 40 years on this earth heard someone say "six pound five". That parlance is often used for feet and inches (almost always in reference to human height), but I've never encountered anyone using it for pounds and ounces.
I'm American, have lived in many parts of the US, and I agree: "six pound five" is not something that we say. As Gormo says, this construction is frequent for feet and inches ("six foot five"), but would not be standard for weight.
And personally, if I were to use this nonstandard construction, I'd probably pluralize "pounds". I don't know why "foot" is usually singular in the parallel construction.
The most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that your relatives are from the American South, and are actually saying "six point five", meaning 6 and half pounds, and you are mishearing them.
> But the fact many Americans are unable to do that is, in itself, evidence the imperial system doesn't work that well for them.
The set of anecdotes you have put forward about Americans you know could be evidence of any number of things. You hypothesis is that the US customary system doesn't work well for them. An equally valid hypothesis is that public education doesn't work for them.
You keep asserting that your anecdotes are broadly indicative, but multiple people are telling you the opposite (and presenting an equivalent level of anecdotal evidence with similar limits in broad applicability).
For my part, I've lived in several parts of America my entire life and never met another American:
* who says "six pound five" for weight.
* who doesn't know that water freezes at 32°F.
* who would express length/distance as tenths of feet (e.g. 1.3). [1]
But I wouldn't therefore conclude anything about Americans generally.
In fairness, you could probably take a camera and get an 'average man on the street is dumb' effect if you looked hard enough and cut a bunch of disparate interviews together. I suspect you are encountering selection bias. All the people who are bad at math (independent of measuring system or educational background) have found and glommed onto you for help. All the people who don't have trouble with unit conversion (who possibly outnumber the former group) don't trouble you with their unit conversions.
[1]: I have seen halves and quarters (X.25, X.5, X.75) of feet expressed in decimal.
NB your fluid calculations are for US customary measures. The Imperial system has 20 fl oz in a pint, and people never use cups or quarts. Take care if you come across an old British recipe, or drink beer in pints in Britain.
0°F is colder than the coldest temperature I've ever experienced, your definition seems very arbitrary.
I do agree with you that base-12 is easier to work with, but I think it's worth pointing out, appropos of the article, that U.S. surveyors actually talk about feet in "tenths" and "hundredths" - so, quick, what's one third of a foot? About 33 hundredths of a foot. ;)
Yeah, woodworking is so much easier when using feet and inches. It's so incredibly useful to be able to divide a foot into half, thirds, quarters, sixths, and twelfths.
nah, a mm is an incredibly useful unit for woodworking, it's a little less than the width of a saw cut, it's just about the right precision for most woodworking
It's not the precision. It's the divisibility. 10 can only be divided in half. It can't be divided into thirds, quarters, sixths or twelfths evenly and that ability is invaluable.
This is the same reason why, in the old days of grid layouts, grids were 12 columns wide and not 10.
Specifically, twelve is a superior highly composite number.[1] In plain (and probably over simplified) English, it has more factors than other numbers in a similar range.
Historically, problems of division have been harder to solve than problems of multiplication. You can observe counting systems and their radices develop in multiple civilizations to make dividing easier by providing more factors. Twelve inches to the foot. The long hundred. 360 degrees in a circle. Ancient Mesopotamian sexagesimal arithmetic.[2] The fact that 'dozen' is a word.
In the modern industrial era, we have computers (mechanical then electronic) to help with problems of division, but for most of history we didn't have those tools.
What's so special about ten? Probably that we have as many fingers, so some counting systems developed as base-10 and spread across the world for reasons that have more to do with geopolitics than utility for mathematics. Of course, you can count to twelve on your knuckles.
I'm surprised that people are finding the benefits of divisibility to be so hard to understand. Does using the metric system create this blind spot? I've heard of language creating blind spots in what people can easily understand and think about. I hadn't thought about mathematical things, like the metric system, also creating blind spots, but I guess it makes sense.
I remember when we built our holiday home - yelling out the lengths of dwangs in millimeters - they were perfect for the job, we never needed to divide them in 3
You've flummoxed me with this. The internet seems sure that "octameter" is a "metrical foot", which in this context is quite a pun. Without a link to confirm an architectural connection, I'll take this as a fairly obscure joke...
Haha, no, it's not a joke as I can tell you as an architect.
Sadly there are no english links, but have a look at Wikipedia [0] and you will see, that I've not dreamed that up :)
Of course it has a referenece norm: the DIN 4172, which calls it the "oktametrisches Maßsystem" (_octametric system of measurement_). It is made since a brick would be 11.5 cm and the mortice 1 cm = ∑ 12.5 cm. Eight bricks with mortice are a meter. Pretty easy actually!
Are the police not able to run away? No, not really. To threaten somebody with deadly force is a felony. You or I would have a duty to run away if possible. A police officer has a duty to apprehend the suspect. What if the officers ran away and their assailant went on to assault and kill others?
As for how much risk a blunt weapon poses, a pipe can easily cave in a person's skull with a single blow. Successfully blocking the strike could result in a compound fracture of the forearm ... and then a caved-in skull. Broken ribs can cause punctured lungs and death from a pneumothorax. And it can all happen in a fraction of a second.
Real life violence is not a dance, like those long drawn-out fight scenes in movies. It's not about throwing punches and inflicting pain until somebody gives up. It's about breaking bodies so thoroughly that it's irrelevant whether the other person wants to give up or not. It's sudden, fast, confusing, brutal, and often horrific. The survivors of real world violence often come away knowing the smell of brains or freshly spilled bowels.
Before second guessing the police, it's important to know just what they really face. Read some books on real life violence. It's sobering. Rory Miller is a good place to start.
I believe you are under a mistaken assumption. It's never ok to kill the suspect. Still, one can be justified in using lethal force. It's a very subtle distinction. You never shoot to kill. That's simply murder. You shoot to stop the attack -- even if that's very likely to result in the death of the person you're shooting at. It can be justifiable to shoot somebody running at you with a deadly weapon. Shutting down the circulation is a fairly quick and reliable way to stop somebody from taking actions that threaten your life. But, once they stop running at you and crumple to the ground, you have to stop shooting. If you continue shooting, that's murder. If somebody turns to run, a civilian must stop shooting or it's murder. (In certain circumstances, the police can and should continue shooting.) Again, it's subtle.
So, it's not ok to intentionally kill the suspect, but it can be ok to use deadly force. I'll assume you're really asking why deadly force might be acceptable. A pipe in the hand is a lethal weapon. If a police officer is duty-bound to apprehend a person who is using lethal force against him, it would be insane to use anything less than lethal force in response. If an officer attempts to use less effective non-lethal means, but fails and is killed, then he is not only dead, but also has failed in his duty to protect the public just as if he had run away.
It's important to remember that these situations can happen extremely fast, under enormous stress. A routine encounter can turn deadly serious in a fraction of a second. The whole thing can be over in under three seconds. There is no time to think or reason. To think is to hesitate, and to hesitate is to die. You must have a trained reflex: if they use deadly force, then I shoot at center-of-mass. Seeing a pipe in the hand of an approaching person might be the trigger for that reflex. It's not quite so simple, though. It's best to prime the reflex by thinking it through before-hand. Police officers must constantly maintain situational awareness, thinking through possible scenarios and priming their reflexes based on who is around and how they're acting. It's a very difficult and dangerous job.
Websites are like salespeople and the police: they can and will use your data against you.
The first time I was told about Strava, I immediately dismissed it as useless. (After all, what service could they possibly provide when I'm unwilling to tell them precisely where I go to work out?) I almost gave a quizzical look to my conversation partner, but that would have given him more insight into my thoughts than I cared to share, so I surpressed the expression.
