Metric System and the USA

Fillitup

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Posts
12
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
The whole reason why measures were introduced was to ensure a STANDARD, so that stupid people like us can go about our daily lives oblivious. If that measurement happens to be a Royal Cubit, a Yard or a Metre it doesn't matter. The thing that really matters is that if I buy two similar items that are supposed to go together and find that when I get them home they don't it's because the measurement is flawed, ie: not standardised.

So essentially measurements are for consumer protection.

The reason why 94% of the global populace use Metric is because its simpler, not because we hate the USA. It's simpler to teach, grasp, remember and utilise. Conversion is difficult. We don't like doing it anymore than you do.

It would be nice to say you use your Unit of Measure and I'll use mine but unfortunately, it still comes back to standards.

The concept of standards indicates that you will change and by the sound of what you are saying, if you are currently buying merchandise which indicate two units of measure, you are well on your way towards that change but seem to be unaware of it. They even use it in Star Trek, so you've got about three hundred years to accustom yourselves to it.

Good Luck! Changing perception is very hard but take some advice for when it does come. Try to perceive measurements in the new system. Converting everything back to Imperial (whilst good for your mathematical abilities) does not help in the long run.

PS.
 

Fillitup

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Posts
12
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
Sorry,

Was going to say that Celsius is not Metric, it just seems that way because it separates the point of water freezing and boiling by 100 intervals (degrees) whereas Farenheit uses 180.

The Metric system was only designed for Distance, Weight & Volume.

When Australia underwent Decimalisation during the sixties and seventies, we changed Currency, then Units of Measure, then Temperature. It was done over a period of 10 years.

My father's speedometer in his car didn't change overnight but you only had to convert once then remember. The next vehicle was Metric. Whether you buy 2lb or 900gm of beef mince, its still the same amount, does it look the same?
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Sorry, Earl, this makes no sense. A sheet of paper in Metric using Canada is the same size as it is in Imperial using U.S.A.. The only difference is that we use a different set of units to describe it.

Take the colour Red, for example. The colour itself doesn't change in order for a French speaker to call it rouge, an Italian speaker to call it rosso nor vermelho in Portuguese. It is what it is. No physical item would have to change size.

Making sense has rarely proved to be a priority in this world. I say this as I take a sip from my 591mL bottle of Coca-Cola.

On the surface it may seem like it's not such a big deal changing the way we measure things and for consumer products where the weight or measure of a product can seemingly be set arbitarily. But for those of us who work with standards of measurement as the basis of our work it is another story.

It makes sense NOT to convert to a metric standard if you are a builder, architect or engineer where the standard of measurement of everything you produce has been set up and developed on an Imperial standard. EVERYTHING that has been built in this country: cars, houses, skyscrapers, sidewalks, bridges, is based on that standard and every drawing, calculation and land measurement and survey has been worked out in that standard. We would need to convert all those measurements and equipment to work accurately. Doable sure, but at a big cost. Difficulty working with odd figures like 591 ml instead of 20 oz, rounding inaccuracies due to conversion, and the defacto result of having to work in 2 standards forever are not appealing. All structural calculations, stress tolerances, heating and cooling loads are already standardized and understood here industry wide in Imperial measurements. There is no compelling reason to change something that isn't broken.

Why go through the needless expense and burden of designing a house in metric units when all the standardized building supplies are manufactured in imperial units? It just makes building something more difficult. Why calculate structural loads in metric when all your tables and material tolerences and stress loads are in imperial units? How do you economize on material use when you design in one unit system when your materials are produced in another? It all is just an extra needless expense converting.

If there comes a time when all our materials go metric and the whole world is on a metric standard why would we have a standard liquid volume of a Coke set at 591 ml? It would change obviously to 500ml so that the product's weight, volume, ingredient calculations can be done easier. It is set at 591ml (20 oz.) because it is produced most probably in America using an Imperial system of measurements, produces on a macro scale with ingredients bought and dispensed in Imperial measured quantities. Imagine the hassle and waste of cooking using a recipe that has a mixure of metric and Imperial measurements. Converted recipes are difficult to use because no one intentionally measures things like 591ml. Just imagine the difficulty of using a system on a macro scale of manufacturing products, ordering ingredients, calculating shipping weights. Not likely to happen.

Standard measurements make working with materials and liquids easier. They make designing and engineering things easier, make manufacturing things easier, reduce waste. But every part of that process needs to share that standard to be efficient. There is no advantage in working in quasi standard or mixure of metric and imperial.

Also being the richest and largest consumer nation in the world we have little need or pressure to conform to someone else's standard to get by.

On the bright side most American kids learn metric measurements in school and the scientific community in this country is, as far as I know completely metric.
 

Gillette

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
6,214
Media
4
Likes
95
Points
268
Age
52
Location
Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I hope you don't mind but I'm going to insert my text in blue to address your points.
It makes sense NOT to convert to a metric standard if you are a builder, architect or engineer where the standard of measurement of everything you produce has been set up and developed on an Imperial standard. EVERYTHING that has been built in this country: cars, houses, skyscrapers, sidewalks, bridges, is based on that standard and every drawing, calculation and land measurement and survey has been worked out in that standard. We would need to convert all those measurements and equipment to work accurately. Doable sure, but at a big cost. Difficulty working with odd figures like 591 ml instead of 20 oz, rounding inaccuracies due to conversion, and the defacto result of having to work in 2 standards forever are not appealing. All structural calculations, stress tolerances, heating and cooling loads are already standardized and understood here industry wide in Imperial measurements. There is no compelling reason to change something that isn't broken. If this were strictly true then no other country would ever have made the switch.

Why go through the needless expense and burden of designing a house in metric units when all the standardized building supplies are manufactured in imperial units? It just makes building something more difficult. Why calculate structural loads in metric when all your tables and material tolerences and stress loads are in imperial units? How do you economize on material use when you design in one unit system when your materials are produced in another? It all is just an extra needless expense converting. If the switch to metric were to occur the raw materials would be measured in Metric as well. There wouldn't need to be a conversion. Tables, material tolerances and stress loads would also be converted to metric units so again the conversion just needs to happen once, then no further conversion would be necessary.

If there comes a time when all our materials go metric and the whole world is on a metric standard why would we have a standard liquid volume of a Coke set at 591 ml? It would change obviously to 500ml so that the product's weight, volume, ingredient calculations can be done easier. It is set at 591ml (20 oz.) because it is produced most probably in America using an Imperial system of measurements, produces on a macro scale with ingredients bought and dispensed in Imperial measured quantities. Imagine the hassle and waste of cooking using a recipe that has a mixure of metric and Imperial measurements. Converted recipes are difficult to use because no one intentionally measures things like 591ml. Just imagine the difficulty of using a system on a macro scale of manufacturing products, ordering ingredients, calculating shipping weights. Not likely to happen. Actually for the purpose you describe here Metric becomes the ideal system of measurement. As it stands now for a company like Coca-Cola which produces such large volumes of product based on a particular recipe conversions must occur within the Imperial system from ounce, quart, gallon, possibly even barrel then back for bottling. Once using the Metric system all that would be needed is a mere slide of a decimal point.

Standard measurements make working with materials and liquids easier. Yes it most certainly does and what could be easier than using the base ten stardard of Metric? They make designing and engineering things easier, make manufacturing things easier, reduce waste. But every part of that process needs to share that standard to be efficient. There is no advantage in working in quasi standard or mixure of metric and imperial. I agree completely. Makes one wonder why there are still a few countries holding up the process.

Also being the richest and largest consumer nation in the world we have little need or pressure to conform to someone else's standard to get by. Ah, here would be the reason why. Ego. It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen if every Metric using country were to boycott those not using Metric.

On the bright side most American kids learn metric measurements in school and the scientific community in this country is, as far as I know completely metric.

Stress loads and material tolerances would fall under science, would they not?
 

liberalcynic

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Posts
249
Media
6
Likes
431
Points
393
Location
Sydney (New South Wales, Australia)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think that Americans feel The Metric System may be too cerebral in picturing it. A mile is a mile. An inch is an inch.

But, A kilometer...A centimeter. How do you picture these? Concepts? I have some recipes in metric and I have to convert them to American Standard because I don't truly picture or conceptualize the measurements in Metric.

The USA is the only country in the world which doesn't use the International System of Units (si) (Le Système international d'unités). too cerebral? if the rest of the world is doing, why isn't the US, maybe useing an outdated System, which most countries adopted in the 19th century, and early 20th. the US is lagging. the rest of the world has been useing the metre since the metre convention in Paris nearly 200 years ago; there must of been a reson for it!
 

raraa

1st Like
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Posts
70
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
151
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
its more impressive when you say i have a 27 cm cock, than saying 11 inches of a dick, i would rather say i have a 270,000 micrometer schlong
 

eddyabs

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Posts
1,294
Media
21
Likes
135
Points
193
Location
Little cottage in the stix
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
From an English perspective, made concise (I hope!)....the French I think started the metric system, 'systeme unitites' (??) back in the eighteenth century. From this we now have the metric system, (kilometres, centremetres, millimetres etc..)

Here in the UK we still use the Imperial system of units, which the EU started to impose restrictions on here in the UK. Imperial units are for example...Pints, Fathoms, Inches, Feet, Miles, Pounds, Stones...etc.

The US units used today are derived from Englands Imperial system, which was created early 19th century I think. (My Grandfather used to bore us to death about the Imperial/Metric system when we were kids!!).

Anyway, the recent news here in England made simple, was that the EU has given up on trying to stop us using the Imperial system, which was one in a catalogue of reasons that many English don't look on the EU system that favourably here.

So now we can go down the pub, and have our pint, travel 5 miles to the local market, weight 12 and a half stone, descend 5 fathoms into the murky ire, and still measure our cocks in good old English Imperial Inches...dahling!
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I'm starting to get that concept now and it's really not all that hard to grasp once you realize metric is more precise than American Standard.
As mentioned before, neither system is more precise, but metric is definitely more "user-friendly" to work with.
I've noticed most consumer goods are labeled with both weights and volumes in both systems. If we are indeed going to make a switch it will need to come as an edict from the federal government. The advantages would be that we as a world would share a common system of measurements. The disadvantages are that all standard measurements of all materials in the imperial system will no longer make sense and the cost associated into resizing them into measurements that make sense in the metric system.
Actually, I think the switch would be more successful if driven in the education system, rather than by federal edict. As soon as children start school, they should be taught both systems, but with more emphasis on the metric. And the transition in practical, everyday working and living would have to be gradual, not overnight. In the construction industry, I'm sincerely hoping that the architects and engineers have had at least a few classes in physics - and if so, they are familiar with the metric system. It shouldn't be too difficult for them to begin making their blueprints metric. Some re-tooling in the factories that make rivets and bolts and screws would be necessary, but it would not be a huge burden. Lumber and steel beams can easily be produced to whatever sizes are needed.

Auto manufacturers change their assembly line every year, so the transition there would not be monumental.

Large companies like Coca-Cola already have everything computerized and automated for the production process. The only real difficulty for them would be altering the bottles and labeling, and that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

For those who have said "I cannot conceptualize metric measurements" it is simply because you are unacustomed to it, and unwilling to become familiar.

I have been using both systems since age 13, when my 7th grade science class implemented a novel approach to science education. It was very "hand-on", and we learned a concept, then applied it. It covered mostly physics and chemistry. We learned about electricity, mass, weight, and work; then we actually built batteries, charged them, attached them to small electric cars, weighed the cars, ran them a short distance, then calculated the work done.

Since that time, the metric system has been permanently etched in my mind. It isn't more precise, but it's a hell of a lot easier to work with.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Congratulations, you have combined the idiocies of both of the first two posters: that the metric system is more precise than the English system, and that the metric system is somehow inherently -- and not merely in relation to the degree of a given practitioner's familiarity with it -- less applicable to estimates by eye and by feeling.

I find it really depressing that people can be so fucking stupid.

Then for your sake, I sincerely hope you either have a steady supply of prescription pharmaceuticals or a complete absence of mirrors in your home.

The accolades are all yours for being able to display a proficiency in the syntax of the language, while at the same time demonstrating a bafflingly obtuse inability to comprehend conversations being carried out in it...plus bonus points for not knowing what you're talking about in general.

In this one case. However... how many grains in a short ton?

What temperature (F) does water boil at?

How many drams in a gallon?

:rolleyes:

I understand that the USA isn't going to switch to metric because it's too much work, but don't pretend that the imperial system is easier. That's patently ridiculous.

14 million grains in a ton, and water boils at 212F. The dram is a measure of weight, not volume, so your last question makes no sesnse.

(EDIT: I stand corrected...like the ounce, the dram is apparently used in both weight and volume. I learn something every day.)

It's just relative, not ridiculous. For an example of ridiculous, please refer to calbonerhead's previous remarks.
 

Fillitup

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Posts
12
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
14 million grains in a ton, and water boils at 212F. The dram is a measure of weight, not volume, so your last question makes no sesnse.

It's just relative, not ridiculous. For an example of ridiculous, please refer to calbonerhead's previous remarks.


I understand that you are familiar with the Imperial system but I think the point is that other people are not. Therein lies the difficulty and the evasive point.

You're not suggesting that Imperial is simpler or more straight forward than Metric are you?
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I understand that you are familiar with the Imperial system but I think the point is that other people are not. Therein lies the difficulty and the evasive point.

You're not suggesting that Imperial is simpler or more straight forward than Metric are you?

No, just pointing out that the degree of difficulty in using different scales is a relative concept that varies by person.

The English system's units were put in place by the practitioners of industry who needed them and built around the fact that people naturally prefer to work in integers when possible.

The grain is a perfect example...most people weigh quantities of everyday items in pounds and ounces (although many Americans might feel better about their fat asses if they measured in kilos) because most things we encounter and work with on a daily basis can be expressed in these units without breaking 1000 and without resorting to fractions. The grain (1/7000 pound) came into use by skilled craftsmen who worked in small quantities and desired a more precise integral unit for their trades, such as jewelers, apothecaries, and blacksmiths. We still see bullets, medicines, and precious metals and gemstones weighed in grains...but relatively few people are involved in these crafts, so relatively few people are familiar with the scale.

The SI system takes the opposite approach and defines an arbitrary standard of mass and forces everyone to work around it numerically. Yes, the conversions are all base-10, but even that is a construct that seems simpler only because we've been conditioned to the usage of the Arabic numeral system. My point is that it's all relative...change is the only real point of difficulty.
 

invisibleman

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Posts
9,816
Media
0
Likes
491
Points
303
Location
North Carolina
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
This question has certainly brought forth an exemplary outpouring of stupidity and confusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invisibleman

I think that Americans feel The Metric System may be too cerebral in picturing it. A mile is a mile. An inch is an inch.

But, A kilometer...A centimeter. How do you picture these? Concepts?



What you say here is that there is something inherently more difficult to "picture" about kilometers or centimeters than there is about miles or inches. Have you no idea what an idiotic statement that is? They are all equally arbitrary measures. What enables someone to "picture" a given measure is his FAMILIARITY with it, and nothing else. Someone who grows up estimating distances in centimeters and weights in kilos will find it just as difficult to make estimates in inches and pounds as you find it difficult to make estimates in his system.



I find it really depressing that people can be so fucking stupid.

Well, I am sure that you don't know everything, baboon ass. Because I had a hard time with conceptualizing the Metric system of measurement doesn't make me stupid either.
 

Fillitup

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Posts
12
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
No, just pointing out that the degree of difficulty in using different scales is a relative concept that varies by person.

The English system's units were put in place by the practitioners of industry who needed them and built around the fact that people naturally prefer to work in integers when possible.

The grain is a perfect example...most people weigh quantities of everyday items in pounds and ounces (although many Americans might feel better about their fat asses if they measured in kilos) because most things we encounter and work with on a daily basis can be expressed in these units without breaking 1000 and without resorting to fractions. The grain (1/7000 pound) came into use by skilled craftsmen who worked in small quantities and desired a more precise integral unit for their trades, such as jewelers, apothecaries, and blacksmiths. We still see bullets, medicines, and precious metals and gemstones weighed in grains...but relatively few people are involved in these crafts, so relatively few people are familiar with the scale.

The SI system takes the opposite approach and defines an arbitrary standard of mass and forces everyone to work around it numerically. Yes, the conversions are all base-10, but even that is a construct that seems simpler only because we've been conditioned to the usage of the Arabic numeral system. My point is that it's all relative...change is the only real point of difficulty.

:confused:

Far be it for me to question such a wonder of 'keystroking ability'.

I pesume the answer is No?
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Metrification in the US has been a longer process than people here suppose. Congress passed a law making it acceptable as an alternative in 1866. The US Coast and Geodetic Survey Bureau of Weights and Measures began officially defining a pound as .45359237 Kg, and a yard as .9144 meters, etc, in 1893. All of our weights and measures have been since then been defined by international metric standards. Thus the country is on the metric system. Most people continue to use customary measure in most circumstances.

"Imperial" has never been an appropriate term for US measure. In 1821, Britain increased a pint of water so that it's weight was 1 LB, thus Imperial gallons are larger than the previous standard, 'Winchester Wine Gallons', which continue to be used in the US.

You will not find a non metric bolt on a new US car, otherwise there would be no foreign market.

Since the introduction of electronic calculators, use of any system other than base 10 is inconvenient. I have a calculator made for carpentry that does base 12, I have never gotten in the habit of using it. When I need to calculate, I use continuous inches, forget about feet. I have a yardstick and tape measures with inches with decimal divisions, rather than sixteenths and thirtyseconds etc. A lot of blueprints I receive and am supposed to work from have confusion as to whether they are using feet and inches, or continuous inches.

Canadian lumber and other building materials are the same standard sizes as US, some people here seem to be a bit ignorant of that.

Any standard system is better than the confusion of conversion and multiple systems. That was learned in Britain at the time of the industrial revolution, originally a bolt from one locomotive manufacturer was entirely unique, as were all the wrenches. Things were standardized within the country, now most markets are worldwide, things need worldwide standardization, the necessity of this will increase.
 

headbang8

Admired Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Posts
1,618
Media
12
Likes
809
Points
333
Location
Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Apologies for the long post, but this is actually quite an interesting subject.
The English system's units were put in place by the practitioners of industry who needed them and built around the fact that people naturally prefer to work in integers when possible.
You know, HazelGod, you raise a good point. Customary measures evolve for a reason. Standardised measures are imposed for a diffrent reason. They both have their place. Ideally, we can have one system that provides easy customary use and sensible standardised use.

Your observation about integers really stands at the heart of the discussion.

Science, commerce and the public at large will always try to round things up or down to the most useful integral unit.

Hence, both the litre and the imperial quart get a good run in their respective cultures. They're within a hair's breadth of each other in volume. And in abundant common use.

They hold about two day's worth of liquid for a couple; that is, around four servings of milk, juice, etc...

But what about the smaller two-serving size? Because there's less wiggle room in a smaller pakage, these cartons are a little more generous at 600 ml, rather than half a litre. In the USA, they're not a pint, but rather 20 fluid ounces, or 20/32nds of a quart.

Now, it seems to me that neither number is particularly demanding, but the 600 ml designation makes more sense and requires less mental arithmentic to compare it to its larger cousin.

(Plus, why measure anything other than water in fluid ounces, since that's the only fluid ounce of liquid that actually weighs an ounce? It's like measuring water in kilograms--which one could do if one chose, by the way.)

In the real world, little conforms to a precise integer measure. We will always need to deal in fractions, and the metric system makes dividing those fractions easier.

Further, customary measures become less useful as customs change. A grain was useful in pharmacy when there were fewer, less accurate scales--the pharmacist could measure it by eye. Nowadays, I'd be alarmed if my pharmacist used anything but grams and milligrams.

And oil in barrels? It makes no sense nowadays--the figures turn into telephone numbers. One might as well measure it in megalitres, tankers-full, or better, month's-supply.

And, please, somebody remind me. Why, in the 21st century, do we still use the quaint artefact of a nautical mile? Or do we?

Of course, the standard measures will never fully replace customary measures in the popular parlance. Why should they?

I wouldn't dream of ordering anything other than a pint in a British pub, which the pub police have decided equals half a litre. (They've given me a sip or two bonus, you'll notice). I ask the waitress for a cup of coffee, not 200 ml. My car gets decent mileage; 7.1 litres per 100 kilometres. And even here in highly metricated Germany, I order a Mass of beer rather than a litre.

That said, you'd be surprised how quickly language, culture and common practice adapts. Like Fillitup, I lived through the great metrication in Australia in 1975. Perhaps unlike fillitup, I was in my teens in 1975, so I'd already learned the imperial system. In my life, I switch betwen the two reasonably easily.

In helped that in 1966, the easiest and most useful "metrication" occurred. Australia switched from a base 12 currency (pounds, shillings, pence, soverigns, florins, and whatnot) to a base 10 currency (dollars and cents). To help with the transition, the money was colourful, cheerful and felt nice to use--Australians particularly love the $20 note, which because of its bright orange hue, is known as a Lobster.

It proved so easy, and such a boon, that many actually looked forward to the prospect of metrication proper in 1975.

Of course, people didn't abandon their habits of speech. Many are still short of a quid until payday. People are penny-wise and pound-foolish. Slow traffic inches along. A guy is big if he's ten stone. Directions still contain phrases like "a couple of miles down the road you'll see a sign on your left..." The Chrysler 300, say, didn't turn into a Chrysler 5000--though Australians were well versed cc's as as engine measurement, thanks to their experience with European, Japanese and British cars.

But where one needs to be precise, everyone began to use metric measures unselfconsciously. (Exactly how fast was I going, officer...120 kilometres and hour? How many grams of baking soda in this recipie? How many litres of duty-free am I allowed?)

It was a godsend to carpenters, builders and home-handymen. 5, 6 and 8 mm screws replaced tortuous measures like 1/8 and 3/16ths in. More sensible, since most tools come from Europe or Japan, in any case. And the size of a 2 x 4 was standardised at 50 mm x 100 mm--you may not realise this, but a so-called 2 x 4 measures substantially less than 2 inches by 4 inches, and it has varied from time to time and place to place. I have heard some Australians refer to this woodcut as a "metric two-by-four", curiously.

Some language adapted. "How many clicks was I doing, officer?" means how many kilometres per hour. "Mils" are used when speaking of ml or mm. Blokes buy a couple of kilos of prawns for the afternoon barbie.

That said, some measures still persist. Nobody can quite get the hang of hectares, for example, no matter how many times they see them used in official documents.

I understand that several Australian studies have shown that there have been considerable economic advantages to using a simpler system. Japan and China are Australia's biggest export markets, so going metric eases trade, too.

So listen up, America. The metric system makes more sense, and it ain't so hard to change. All it takes is an enlightened bureaucracy to work out the details beforehand, a positive attitude to progress, and a little goodwill.

(So I guess it's out of the question.)

That's sad, because the sheer size of the US market sometimes drags the rest of the world along with it.

The USA accounts for little less than one-third of all airline passenger-travel, but causes the world's frequent-flyer infrastructure to be denominated in miles. Even Lufthansa calls its FF program Miles and More.

I've just bought a Japanese TV here in Germany. It has an 81 cm screen*, or according to the literature, a "32 Zoll"--such a description makes sense of the model number, which refers to the screen size in inches for the US market. Zoll means "customs" or "tariff"--so the model number refers to its customs classification, rather than anything useful or intelligible to, say, a European, Asian, or Latin American. All because the US is still Japan's largest single export market--a situation that should hold for at least the next ten minutes til China gets here.

Again, sorry for the long post.



*small digression: measuring screens diagonally doesn't actually tell the consumer how big the TV is in any useful way...like, whether it will fit in the corner. A "customary" measurement useful for those who know that a screen is 4:3, or nowadays, 16:9, but makes little sense to the punter. Same with washing machines. What's a 5 kg/12 lb wash? Do I weigh my clothes to work out how big my washer has to be? Better to measure it in bedsheet equivalent or something. But I digress...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gillette

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Very good points, headbang.

When working on a home project several months ago, I had to use drill bits of varying sizes.

It would have been so much easier with metric tools. Trying to visualize that 3/8", 5/16", and 11/32" were consecutive sizes is counterintuitive. would have been easier if it had simply been 10mm, 11mm, and 12mm.

Calculating distances on a map would be simpler, too, if 1cm = 50km were the scale, rather than 1 inch = 10 miles.
 

kamikazee_club

1st Like
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
I agree with you. The English measurement system is stupid, clumsy, and just plain illogical.

It is indeed (as is the US system).

Clinging to an arcane system for almost entirely (so it seems to me) sentimental reasons and using that as an argument for worldwide standards is even less logical. It's especially so when the two main imperial systems in question are themselves largely incompatible anyway...:rolleyes:
 

kamikazee_club

1st Like
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
From an English perspective, made concise (I hope!)....the French I think started the metric system, 'systeme unitites' (??) back in the eighteenth century. From this we now have the metric system, (kilometres, centremetres, millimetres etc..)

Actually while the Metric system is generally deemed a French 'invention' it is actually, and ironically an English one - created by a John Wilkins, the very first secretary of the Royal Society. It didn't catch on in England. The French did as you say, take a lead role in it's wider adoption.

Look back a little further (about 80 years) and you will find Simon Stevin, a Flemish mathematician published the idea (in a leaflet) that such a system was inveitable.

The adoption by those remaining (imperial) nations of the metric system is, I believe also inevitable, nostalgic whining aside.:smile:
 
  • Like
Reactions: headbang8

viking1

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Posts
4,600
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
It is indeed (as is the US system).

Clinging to an arcane system for almost entirely (so it seems to me) sentimental reasons and using that as an argument for worldwide standards is even less logical. It's especially so when the two main imperial systems in question are themselves largely incompatible anyway...:rolleyes:

Yes, I was including the US system in that as well. It's basically the English system with a few differences in standards. I have always hated fractions and I always will. Why did machinists and mechanics come up with thousandths of an inch? Because decimals are so much easier to work with.