None of what you wrote changes the fact the second is the time unit in the metric system.
And if you are going to post a link at least read what the page says:
The ephemeris second (defined as 1/86400 of a mean solar day) was made one of the original base units of the modern metric system, or International System of Units (SI), at the 10th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) in 1954. The SI second was later redefined more precisely as 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 caesium-133 atom.
Oh, please, just because you use minutes and hours in everyday life doesn't make the second, kilosecond or milisecond an less metric. There is nothing about any measurement that makes it unusable in a decimal system. If you want to argue the point please look this stuff up first.
How's about a paper size that is a decent multiple of the base centimetre
The base unit is a metre and A0 is a square metre. The A series is the most elegant way to figure out paper size, the odd numbers aren't a problem in practice, the ability to up and downsize without any modifications on the other hand is gold.
Let's say you eliminated all calculators from Earth and asked a bunch of random people to divide 5 by 8 (or equivalently, divide a sheet into 5 parts of 8). Trivial with fractions, but most people (albeit not Slashdotters) would struggle with decimals.
Writing it as 5/8 doesn't actually solve anything, and WTF do you mean by "into 5 parts of 8"? You divide into 8 parts and pick 5, do you actually understand why fractional division is useful in this case? Either way, factions as such aren't the problem, decimal is after all just a different notations for fractions of ten, it's that the imperial system can't make up it's mind on how many parts to divide into and requires you to either switch to point notation, round prematurely or deal with large divider fractions if you run into the wrong numbers (e.g. 5' 7 3/8").
As far as metric is understood to refer to the International System of Units it is and the system wouldn't work without it. In fact, I can't think of any measurement system that could be called metric and doesn't have the second.
Of course, hardly anyone ever converts from feet to miles or vice versa once they get out of school.
Of course they don't. Not because it's pointless, but because it is hard. You might not convert 40 miles, but once you get under a mile or over 6000 feet (I'm looking at you aviators) you really should start.
The kelvin is completely arbitrary as is the second. And the kilogram is not actually defined through volume (though it is a very close approximation).
It's not the power of ten that gives metric it's power, any numeral system would do with adjusted prefixes, it's the unit interrelationship. As long as you only measure volume (and ignore teaspoons) imperial measurements work just fine (if you know your powers of two's, many people seem to have a hard time converting between the units). However the moment you want to figure out how many gallons it will take to fill that pool you are in a world of hurt. Not only do you need to basically stick to one length measurement, you can't easily convert cubic anything to volume anything. Multiplying even by the approximate 7.5 (gallons per cubic foot, you used feet, right?) is a pain and this is one of the simplest conversions.
You forgot the most important one. There are no double blind tests. Audio codec development has matured to the point that no one will take anything else as concrete evidence, video has a long way to go. What we need is a double blind test that compares *only* video (no stills) with participants who are not familiar with current codecs (and have no preconceived notions of what is supposed to look better). The current situation of people developing the codecs declaring a victor based on how much over-sharpened detail (or noise, as it may be) can be seen when you zoom in on some stills is silly.
The latter two, originating in 1995/1996, obviously predate H.264 and/or the novelties that make H.264 what it is (bidirectional inter-frames, variable-size blocks used in motion compensation etc)
It does have some interesting features like alternative reference frames though. Of course it has gone largely unexplored so far, I hope at some point there will be non-Google people who try to sqeeze every bit out of it in the way that x264 developers are doing with H.264 and xvid with MPEG4 part 2.
Slashdot Mirror
Woz is saying it publicly 40 years later, if you know what he was thinking then though...
Can you buy non-profits?
It does, however, require that the invention in question be non-obvious to someone skilled in the art, e.g. Woz.
Which of course has a person giving the impression that a non-modified egg is to be used, then promptly modifying their egg.
OTOH they decided to put the workspaces about as far as possible from the top left corner...
There is no online real-time version of Nethack...
And Canonical beat Amazon...
Now go and troll somewhere else.
Oh, please, just because you use minutes and hours in everyday life doesn't make the second, kilosecond or milisecond an less metric. There is nothing about any measurement that makes it unusable in a decimal system. If you want to argue the point please look this stuff up first.
The base unit is a metre and A0 is a square metre. The A series is the most elegant way to figure out paper size, the odd numbers aren't a problem in practice, the ability to up and downsize without any modifications on the other hand is gold.
0.(3)
Writing it as 5/8 doesn't actually solve anything, and WTF do you mean by "into 5 parts of 8"? You divide into 8 parts and pick 5, do you actually understand why fractional division is useful in this case? Either way, factions as such aren't the problem, decimal is after all just a different notations for fractions of ten, it's that the imperial system can't make up it's mind on how many parts to divide into and requires you to either switch to point notation, round prematurely or deal with large divider fractions if you run into the wrong numbers (e.g. 5' 7 3/8").
There is nothing "natural" about base 2 for computation besides the fact that we haven't switch to balanced ternary yet.
Yet inches are divided by sixteen for small measurements and larger ones get to be in three feet increments, not twelve.
An interesting side effect is that most people have a good grasp on how two kilograms feel, however, they might not realize this.
That doesn't change that this pull of gravity is properly measured in newtons.
As far as metric is understood to refer to the International System of Units it is and the system wouldn't work without it. In fact, I can't think of any measurement system that could be called metric and doesn't have the second.
Sounds like a golden opportunity for a party willing to sell a golf game with a gyroscope laden club handle.
Of course they don't. Not because it's pointless, but because it is hard. You might not convert 40 miles, but once you get under a mile or over 6000 feet (I'm looking at you aviators) you really should start.
The kelvin is completely arbitrary as is the second. And the kilogram is not actually defined through volume (though it is a very close approximation).
It's not the power of ten that gives metric it's power, any numeral system would do with adjusted prefixes, it's the unit interrelationship. As long as you only measure volume (and ignore teaspoons) imperial measurements work just fine (if you know your powers of two's, many people seem to have a hard time converting between the units). However the moment you want to figure out how many gallons it will take to fill that pool you are in a world of hurt. Not only do you need to basically stick to one length measurement, you can't easily convert cubic anything to volume anything. Multiplying even by the approximate 7.5 (gallons per cubic foot, you used feet, right?) is a pain and this is one of the simplest conversions.
You forgot the most important one. There are no double blind tests. Audio codec development has matured to the point that no one will take anything else as concrete evidence, video has a long way to go. What we need is a double blind test that compares *only* video (no stills) with participants who are not familiar with current codecs (and have no preconceived notions of what is supposed to look better). The current situation of people developing the codecs declaring a victor based on how much over-sharpened detail (or noise, as it may be) can be seen when you zoom in on some stills is silly.
It does have some interesting features like alternative reference frames though. Of course it has gone largely unexplored so far, I hope at some point there will be non-Google people who try to sqeeze every bit out of it in the way that x264 developers are doing with H.264 and xvid with MPEG4 part 2.
So they have "high precision" full body tracking and aren't doing games that would benefit the most?
Where does gravity fit into this pattern?