why can't i grasp metrics?

[2322]

Oh come on... I've traveled all over the place and lived in Turkey for seven years and I know lots of Americans here and in Europe and haven't met anyone or even heard any stories about Americans getting beaten. It might happen but it's not like it's commonplace or anything. I'm sure we could go digging and find some stories about innocent tourists getting whacked, but we'd find the same happens in the USA.

The insults we trade are teasing among friends anyways. The Yanks are just more likely to get huffy about it is all I'm saying.

My dick is 0.111 fathoms long

I know two who have been assaulted and that's not counting the UK army nearly shooting me and my friend.

I understand your jokes are among friends.

 

[MarkLondon]

I just emailed a professor whose specialty is in the history of weights and measures about why the stone is no longer (if it ever was) used in the US as a measure of weight. I'm hoping he might be able to shed some light on this interesting question as I can't find any explanation.

I will let everyone know if and when I receive an answer.

Hey, thanks Jason. I've wondered about this for a while.

 

[invisibleman]

I think the reason Americans don't like metric is because they can't spell the words. Litre Metre :wink:

Some Americans do like the metric system. And can spell it in British english. But we live in America and your litre is spelled liter in America. And your metre is spelled meter in America. :biggrin1:

If I spent my life with US Standard measure, concept-wise--I will have problems with thinking in terms of metric system.

 

[BiItalianBro]

I learned metrics first, THEN the US Standard. THAT was a brutal mindfuck.

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

Come on, metric is really easy! A metre is the distance light travels in free space in the duration of ~30.663 periods of the radiation of the hyperfine groundstate transitions in caesium 133. How simple do you want it to be? Jeez!

 

[invisibleman]

Come on, metric is really easy! A metre is the distance light travels in free space in the duration of 30.663 periods of the radiation of the hyperfine groundstate transitions in caesium 133. How simple do you want it to be? Jeez!

I learned metrics first, THEN the US Standard. THAT was a brutal mindfuck.

Oh, I dunno.

 

[dreamer20]

The metric system is in base 10, so it's much easier to do arithmetic with. Whereas, the imperial system is in base 12, which makes it much more difficult.

The imperial system is not "in base 12". It is chuck full of arbitrary units of measure e.g. ,as you yourself said, 1 mile= 1760 yards. I greatly appreciate the ease of using the metric scientific international units of measure and that monetary units are metric too.:biggrin1:

 

[Jovial]

It's just a matter of using it everyday over time. You're right about the stop translating bit. I still do it, but not so much. On long road trips I convert distances back and forth in my head, estimating the time to arrival and miles per gallon vs Litres per 100 kilometres. It passes the time.

I don't understand why we state fuel economy in Litres per 100 kilometres. K's per litre is so much more sensible.

It actually makes more sense to use litres per 100 km (or gallons per 100 miles). It makes it easier to calculate your real savings.

Switching from a 10 MPG car to a 20 MPG car saves you 5 gallons over 100 miles, but switching from a 20 MPG to 40 MPG only saves you 2.5 gallons. But if you look at the reciprocals times 100 miles it all becomes clear 10 vs. 5 vs. 2.5.

 

[Gl3nn]

and that's not counting the UK army nearly shooting me and my friend.

Were you teasing the guards at the palace again? You know...the ones that can't move. I thought we talked about that.

 

[Principessa]

It actually makes more sense to use litres per 100 km (or gallons per 100 miles). It makes it easier to calculate your real savings.

Switching from a 10 MPG car to a 20 MPG car saves you 5 gallons over 100 miles, but switching from a 20 MPG to 40 MPG only saves you 2.5 gallons. But if you look at the reciprocals times 100 miles it all becomes clear 10 vs. 5 vs. 2.5.

:rofl: That was as clear as mud Jovial. :lmao: ​

I'm sure it made sense to Canadians, Europeans and other metric countries. As well as those freaky-deaky people like my buddy, Tigger Poo who majored in math. :tongue: :smile:

 

[dong20]

Metric is a silly system invented by the French. The American system is far more colorful and occasionally more accurate. Viva cultural differences!

You're on your own with regard to the silliness aspect, but there's evidence that a Metric system was actually of British origin by Oliver Cromwell's brother-in-law - the Dean of Ripon, John Wilkins. To be more precise, the genesis of a decimal system originated by him well over 100 years before it was 'invented' by the (silly) French.

It was, unfortunately, intermingled with the myriad of arcane measures in use at the time, some of which still are. Certainly, James Watt advocated a global system in the early 1780s but the British Parliament later failed to take up an offer from the French National Assembly to collaborate on its creation. I can't imagine why ... :biggrin1:

On that theme, you may find this interesting, written by Wilkins in 1668:

An ESSAY Towards a REAL CHARACTER, And a PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE - John Wikins

It's a pdf, sorry.

Fahrenheit is more precise than Celsius because there are smaller increments. Why change to a less precise system just because water boils or freezes within the range?

But isn't the metric linear measurement scale is more precise than the imperial one in terms of whole units - which is I assume what your referring to? While technically more 'precise' wasn't the Fahrenheit scale based on an fundamentally flawed assumption by its creator. That doesn't render it invalid, merely something of an anachronism.

You're also incorrect about the accuracy. Both systems are equally accurate. Metric is simply more convenient to anyone too lazy to learn a more complex standardized system with arguably greater benefit of usability.

But the 'imperial' system is anything but standardised. And if both systems are equally accurate (as you said, at length) why would one benefit from a adopting a complex system over a simple one? It's not laziness, it's efficiency.

Besides, the imperial system is replete with exceptions, approximations and international variations that tend to render it inaccurate and unreliable other than for approximations. This may have had something to do with the inception of a standardised system and its subsequent adoption by 95% of the world.

The American system uses things we might see or know everyday to give us a rough approximation the way metric can't. It's much easier to imagine feet or yards and indeed, you can walk out feet yourself and not be terribly far off.

That's exactly the point, familiarity. It's easier for you because you are familiar with such measurements. As pointed out by a poster earlier they are equally comfortable with the metric system they grew up with, and use on a daily basis. To 'metricated' folk such measurements are equally intuitive and thus 'easier'.

Jason, you're entitled to your view, as is anyone - but have the decency to accept that's all it is - a personal preference, please don't try to dress it up as fact, makes you sound like Phil.

I couldn't care less what system the US (or any nation uses) because one is comfortable with measures one knows - but the inherent mathematical simplicity and harmony of the decimal system over the variable imperial system is surely undeniable, even by you. Personally, I'm comfortable with either and can interchange between the common 'measures' as necessary.

On a side note; perhaps as a nod to Mexico, I read that Interstate 19, the freeway running from Nogalez to Tucson, is posted in Km ... so perhaps there's hope for you yet.:wink:

The British dont use it anymore. The only country that uses the Imperial system is the USA.

As MB has pointed out, that's not really the case. As of 2007, in addition to the US, Myanmar and Liberia are the only countries yet to adopt the metric system as their official system of measurement. Many others are still in states of 'transition' and mixed usage.

 

[Deno]

What pisses me off is the liquor bottles that say .750 litre .750 quart, they are not the same measurement, get with it guys. Recently what used to be 12 oz bottles of wine coolers I have noticed are now 11.2 ounce, what the hell is with that. Not only did they raise the price, they lowered the quantity and also went from 5 percent alchol by volume to 4 percent. Whats going on here. Grrrr. Bartles and James can go to hell.

 

[dong20]

What pisses me off is the liquor bottles that say .750 litre .750 quart, they are not the same measurement.

No, but they're close (~5%).

The 40 ml shortfall in the imperial bottle being the approximate equivalent of a double shot. On the other hand, if you were in the UK you would be gaining 100 ml! Assuming they were priced the same ...

 

[kalipygian]

The US is in transition, though the government is not pushing it. The country would not export a single car if they did not use metric fasteners, this has been transitioning for 25 years, my 83 S10 blazer had everything on the engine metric, everything on the body inch, on my '89 dodge cummins pk , everything was metric. You will not find anything non metric on a new US car.

The transition is inevitable, it would be good to get it over with, having two systems is more confusing than any single system.

 

[Not_Punny]

Sorry everyone (and mostly especially Dong20), but I hope America never goes metric.

How the HELL are we to know what size boobs are if we lose inches?

Even cup sizes are based on inches.

Metrics would make me a 86 J .... ????

And as for sizing on LPSG, somehow, 8x5.5 sounds better than 20.3x13.9....

 

[Amber1]

The metric thing is a bit irritating...

Over here we've always used cms and metres when measuring aswell as feet and inches. But in height everyone still refers to feet and inches.

Because we are part of the European Union several years ago the government switched to the metric system for all food weight. So if you went to the Supermarket to get fruit and veg everything would now have price per kg.
Confusing when everyone was used to price per pound, but even stupider when you saw all the London market traders havin 2 switch to price per kg on the fruit and veg stalls.....

And hollering out "killogram" in a cockney accent in the street when tryin to sell fruit n veg just doesn't sound the same as "paaannnd"!

 

[Mem]

The transition is inevitable, it would be good to get it over with, having two systems is more confusing than any single system.

You can't go to metric without having both used for several years.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Sorry everyone (and mostly especially Dong20), but I hope America never goes metric.

How the HELL are we to know what size boobs are if we lose inches?

Even cup sizes are based on inches.

Metrics would make me a 86 J .... ????

And as for sizing on LPSG, somehow, 8x5.5 sounds better than 20.3x13.9....

That's right N_P, we europeans are far too stupid to convert the cup size measurement system to suit cms

The European dress-size standard EN 13402 defines bra sizes based on the following two body dimensions (measured in centimetres):

bust girth
maximum horizontal girth measured during normal breathing with the subject standing erect and the tape-measure passed horizontally, under the armpits (axillae), and across the bust prominence (preferably measured with moderate tension over a brassiere that shall not deform the breast in an unnatural way and shall not displace its volume)

underbust girth
horizontal girth of the body measured just below the breasts

Bras are labeled with the underbust girth (rounded to the nearest multiple of 5 cm), followed by a letter code that indicates the

cup size = bust girth − underbust girth

according to this table defined by the standard:
Code............... AA .....A ......B .......C ......D .. ...E...... F ......G
Cup size [cm] 10–12 12–14 14–16 16–18 18–20 20–22 22–24 24–26

Example: A woman with underbust girth 89 cm and bust girth 108 cm has cup size 19 cm (= 108 cm – 89 cm) or "D". Her underbust girth rounded to the nearest multiple of 5 cm is 90 cm. Therefore, her bra size according to the new standard is 90D.

Perhaps your cup sizes are based on inches because that's what you measure in - Naaaah, that's way too far fetched! :tongue:

 

[Xcuze]

You can't go to metric without having both used for several years.

Exactly. In the UK we still use both years after officially switching to metric. I think we will do for years more to come.

 

[kalipygian]

You can't go to metric without having both used for several years.

True. As the metric system was made legal by statute in the US in 1866, it has been an excessively drawn out process.

It is actually used a great deal in the US, and in countries where it has been 'officially adopted' there is still a good bit of use of traditional local measure.

Metrication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia