This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Not in any functional sense by ndtnguy

The base units are---or were in the first iteration---derived from particular relationships to real-world measurements, but they're abstracted: nobody needs, in a practical sense, to have the earth's circumference be an even number of units, or a unit of mass that equals the weight of water of such and such a volume at sea level. It wasn't as if the people who invented it assigned names to a standardized version of units already in use: they intentionally departed from that kind of system.

Which makes sense, given that the goal was to achieve scalability through decimalization. And that, in its way, is a sensible approach to a system. But it's sterile and inhuman in many ways, too.