Slashdot Mirror


Astronauts Having Trouble With Tranquility Module

Coldeagle writes "Astronauts ran into trouble while trying to connect up the new Tranquility module onto the ISS. A critical insulating cover didn't fit quite right: 'The fabric, multilayered cover is supposed to go between Tranquility and its observation deck, but the metal bars are not locking down properly because of interference from a hand rail or some other structure at the hatch.' One has to wonder if this is another imperial/metric snafu."

300 comments

  1. In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Metric is better than Fahrenheit, and USA should get on with the times. But Fahrenheit is more accurate. But Celsius can be just as accurate, if you take decimals into the play.

    1. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another preemptive strike: for anyone planning to say Fahrenheit is better because you can think of it as "percentage of warm", I call b/s:

      • Warm is subjective - one man's warm is another's cool, and yet another's hot
      • You can't argue that the freezing point of water isn't cold - no-one would think of it as "32% of warm"
      • Celsius is better because it maps directly to percentage of the temperature difference between phase changes at STP, which is not subjective
      • Since we need to deal with temperatures for more than just weather and HVAC, Celsius is better, because it makes sense for lots of things. Cooking a stew? 85 degrees (almost boiling, but not quite). A roast? 160 degrees in a fan-forced oven. Meringue? At least 200 degrees - twice the boiling temperature of water. Soldering? A bit over three times boiling temperature (320 degrees). The Fahrenheit numbers don't make anywhere near as much sense.
    2. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least 200 degrees - twice the boiling temperature of water

      Any thermodynamics guy will tell you that "twice the boiling temperature of water" is 473.15 C.

    3. Re:In before... by djh2400 · · Score: 1

      Metric is better than Fahrenheit, and USA should get on with the times.

      It's not a matter of just "getting on with the times". Yes, the SI system is easier to work with, but there are immense costs in converting every system in use to another system. The government would have to replace all speed limit and mile marker signs across the country, roads would not line up with measured distances, as well as many other things. You also need to consider that every piece of software and every table of elevations and distances that engineers use when building such systems are not in metric. It is not just a matter of using a few conversions here and there; it's a matter rewriting software, referring to old designs, and many other factors. When my government is over $12,300,000,000,000 in debt, "getting on with the times" is the last thing on which I'd want it to waste more money.

      But Fahrenheit is more accurate. But Celsius can be just as accurate, if you take decimals into the play.

      I disagree with using Celsius; having a temperature of 0 equate to something that is /not/ equal to 0 energy in a system is one reason why so many students (and adults) have such trouble in basic science classes. Negative temperatures are Just a Bad Idea. As I'm sure you've guessed by now, yes, I am in favor of measuring temperatures in Kelvin; it is absolute and its value proportionally reflects the amount of energy in the system.

      Consider it from the other side: why doesn't the world convert to Impirial Units? I'm sure no country wants to incur the cost of converting everything to another system.

    4. Re:In before... by ctmurray · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to get to Kelvin to double the temperature of water? Water boils at 373 Kelvin x 2 = 746 K

    5. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Celsius? Fahrenheit? Who gives a shit? Both are just based around some physical referents. Neither is inherently "better" than the other. Both are equally descriptive of temperature. The main "selling point" is really the number of other folks using one or the other. For that reason alone, I would choose Celsius since more people use it. (And no, I don't natively use Celsius as I was born in, and live in, the US.) Oh, and both are the same at -40.

    6. Re:In before... by Jophish · · Score: 1

      Yes, and 746 Kelvin is about 473.15 Celcius.

    7. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      746 kelvin = 472.85 Celsius = 883.13 Fahrenheit

    8. Re:In before... by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 1
      Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (in Oz, coupla decades ago). Can't see any problems, even with hindsight.

      *REALLY* can't see any benefit at all in keeping the imperial system.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    9. Re:In before... by rockNme2349 · · Score: 1

      Metric is better than Fahrenheit, and USA should get on with the times. But Fahrenheit is more accurate. But Celsius can be just as accurate, if you take decimals into the play.

      I'm just waiting for everyone to realize the true superiority of Rankine. You don't have to settle! Want for something more: Rankine.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    10. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they'd be wrong for using Kelvins in a dumb way. It's 200.

    11. Re:In before... by quenda · · Score: 1

      You can't multiply a C or F value - it makes no sense as they use an arbitrary zero. 746K or 473C are correct.

    12. Re:In before... by quenda · · Score: 1

      Sure, almost every country on Earth has done it.
      But the US government seems to struggle to change even trivial things. As an example look at their coinage.
      Last I saw, they still had pennies in circulation, which everyone hates, and the biggest common coin was 25c, which buys just about nothing.
      After decades of inflation, every other developed nation has removed the smallest denominations from circulation, and introduced larger ones.
      How is the US, an otherwise capable bunch, unable to do this?
      Vending machines need banknote readers, which are expensive, awkward and unreliable, unless you have brand new notes.
      If they can't change the coins, what hope is there of metric? (And don't get me started on the US banking system :-)

    13. Re:In before... by ross.w · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...because the rest of us have ten fingers and count things in base 10.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    14. Re:In before... by Chris+Gunn · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You have forgotten to consider the costs of not converting to metric. This forces you to have two systems. workshops have to have a set of imperial tools and a set of metric. You lose sales to other countries who can't be bothered with your backward machines. Expensive mistakes (some famous) are made when you aren't sure which units you should be using. Are you sure you can afford not to give up imperial?

    15. Re:In before... by selven · · Score: 1

      I prefer my Kelvin inverse scale.

      300' = hottest day on Earth
      320' = average Las Vegas summer day
      350' = average temperature on Earth
      375' = average Toronto winter
      400' = very cold
      450' = normal day in Antarctica
      500' = very cold day in Antarctica
      540' = coldest day on Earth
      1000' = what we'll be seeing when we colonize Jupiter

      It actually makes quite a bit of sense.

    16. Re:In before... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      I raise one kilokelvin.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    17. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *whoosh*

    18. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    19. Re:In before... by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      The government would have to replace all speed limit and mile marker signs across the country, roads would not line up with measured distances, as well as many other things. You also need to consider that every piece of software and every table of elevations and distances that engineers use when building such systems are not in metric. It is not just a matter of using a few conversions here and there; it's a matter rewriting software, referring to old designs, and many other factors. When my government is over $12,300,000,000,000 in debt, "getting on with the times" is the last thing on which I'd want it to waste more money.

      That sounds like a whole lot of jobs to me.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    20. Re:In before... by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      ...because the rest of us have ten fingers and count things in base 10.

      Thanks for finally explaining why machinists are so anti-metric.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    21. Re:In before... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Say what you want, this winter is twice as cold as the previous one.

      (...now twist your head around this.)

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    22. Re:In before... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      roads would not line up with measured distances

      Are you suggesting the sign saying "Chicago 128 miles" is exactly 128 miles from Chicago? I'm sure if it said "Chicago 206km" no one would care about the few metres difference.

      You also need to consider that every piece of software and every table of elevations and distances that engineers use when building such systems are not in metric.

      Are you sure? Whether that's correct or not, it doesn't have to be. In the UK the roads are signed in miles (and yards), but they are built using metres. Some of the official requirements for positioning signs even say that the "exit 300 yards ahead" sign should be 300 metres from the exit.

      I'm sure no country wants to incur the cost of converting everything to another system.

      Except for your country, and for a couple of uses in the UK (displayed road distances and speeds, informal body measurements) those other countries have already converted.

    23. Re:In before... by davidsinn · · Score: 1

      In the midwest the county roads are built on even fractions of miles apart(1, 1/2, 1/4, usually, although I know of one at 1/8.) Our address system is a grid based on the mile roads. If we were to change to metric the whole system stops making sense.

    24. Re:In before... by Ibn+al-Hazardous · · Score: 1

      You also need to consider that every piece of software and every table of elevations and distances that engineers use when building such systems are not in metric. It is not just a matter of using a few conversions here and there; it's a matter rewriting software, referring to old designs, and many other factors. When my government is over $12,300,000,000,000 in debt, "getting on with the times" is the last thing on which I'd want it to waste more money.

      Bullshit. That software is already sold outside the US, and thus it already supports SI units (unless it's written by the boss' nephew, which is one more reason to throw it out).

      And really, do you think the conversion snafus don't cost anything?

      --
      Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
    25. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why actual scientists use Kelvin. 0K is Absolute zero. None of this touchy-feely or watery crap :-P

    26. Re:In before... by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The main "selling point" is really the number of other folks using one or the other.

      That might be a good way to sell it to the public, but it is not the main benefit of a system. People should understand that a "degree" really does have meaning.

      In America, every household appliance seems to use a different unit. My water heater is in BTUs, my electronic devices are in watts, and my air conditioner has na EER which is something stupid like BTUs per Watt - a horrible combination of systems. Even within one fieldd - say, cooking - they use different units. My microwave is in watts while my stove is in BTUs.

      If we switched to Metric, this would become much simpler. And then you could compare your lawn mower, your car, your horse, and your TV all using the same units. Suddenly, things that were in the realm of complex math become accessible to the average person,

    27. Re:In before... by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Consider it from the other side: why doesn't the world convert to Impirial Units? I'm sure no country wants to incur the cost of converting everything to another system.

      Every other country has already incurred this cost. We're waiting on you!

    28. Re:In before... by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

      Actually 200 Celsius is not twice the temperature of boiling water, as zero Celsius is not absolute zero. The Kelvin scale is the measure of absolute temperature.

      100 C = 372 Kelvin (approx)

      200 C = 472 Kelvin (approx)

      So 200 C is less than a third more than 100 C.

  2. Metric Everywhere by elzurawka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Atleast in scientific application there is no reason to use Imperial. Metric makes all calculations simpler, and is accepted by a much larger portion of the world, and should be the standard in all science.

    --
    -EL
    1. Re:Metric Everywhere by profplump · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He means that metric makes prefix-changing calculations easier, even though no one ever does those outside of middle school science classes. And he's assuming that you'll ignore the fact the most real-world calculations involve a coefficient that isn't a multiple of 10 because the physical world is not dictated by our measurement system, even when using SI units -- is 6.67300 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 somehow easier to use than 1.06891206 × 10^-9 feet^3 pounds-force^-1 s^-2?

      Used by a large portion of the world is a good point. There's great value in having everyone use the same system. Of course there's also an enormous cost in switching between systems, and little direct benefit to anyone who was happy with the old system, which is why no one does it.

    2. Re:Metric Everywhere by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're absolutely right, but I detect in your voice that you think some people disagree with you. This is something I see a lot, especially from Europeans: the assumption that Americans are actually fanatical supporters of the Imperial system. The truth is, we don't like it (can't speak for the UK, but I suspect it's similar). There isn't anyone in America who actually believes that the Imperial system is easier or more useful. The reason it persists is simply one of tradition, and the enormous expense (in terms of money and headaches) it would take to move the entire country over to a new system.

      For example, I have basically no concept in my mind of how far a "kilometer" is. Oh, I know it's .62 miles, and I can usually do the conversion in my head, but I don't have an intuitive, subconscious sense of how far a kilometer is, like I do for a mile. I suspect most people raised on the metric system are the same way for Imperial units, it's just not easy to get a natural sense of the units you didn't grow up with. An entire country of people who don't have an intuitive sense of the units they're using would be chaos.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    3. Re:Metric Everywhere by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Maybe not in temperatures, but in i.e. measuring distances all names are at powers of ten of a base measure. Inches, feets, miles, are not so regular, in proportion and in names. How many feets is a mile? How many meters is a kilometer? How many different names of units you must know?

      And yes, it makes math easier, if you have numbers of different units... a mile + 3 foots is harder to do than a kilometer + 3 meters.

    4. Re:Metric Everywhere by socceroos · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to mention movies like "the Green Kilometer" - doesn't have the same ring to it.

    5. Re:Metric Everywhere by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 1

      Most Chinese/asian made components are metric, but these sort of high tech/super high quality American made components are usually only Imperial. "Scientists" can do their maths in whatever units they like, but at some point they have to use components that actually exist. And even many of these metric parts have fun values like "2.54 mm" as standards... A big part of the reason high quality components are Imperial is because that is what all the shop equipment used to make them are designed for, and replacing them all would be impractical since they are very expensive and now too low volume for a re-investment to ever see returns.

    6. Re:Metric Everywhere by ircmaxell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am an american, and I do believe the Imperial system is a lot easier to use. For me. Because that's what I learned from day 1. Do I think it's better? No way. Do I think it should be changed to metric? Absolutely. But the fact that most people would have a very hard time with switch is why it hasn't happened. The only way it would be able to happen is with a (possibly multiple) decade long "dual usage"... That way kids would be taught from the beginning, and regular people would have time to learn the new system...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    7. Re:Metric Everywhere by Pentium100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He means that metric makes prefix-changing calculations easier, even though no one ever does those outside of middle school science classes. And he's assuming that you'll ignore the fact the most real-world calculations involve a coefficient that isn't a multiple of 10 because the physical world is not dictated by our measurement system, even when using SI units -- is 6.67300 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 somehow easier to use than 1.06891206 × 10^-9 feet^3 pounds-force^-1 s^-2?

      Prefix changing calculations are used a lot even outside middle school. If you have measurements in smaller units (mL, cups) and need to convert them to larger units (m^3, ft^3) because you have some table which only lists the larger units (for example a table of volume densities of various materials), then you need to do more complex calculations in the imperial system.

      1mL=1e-6 m^3
      1cup = 0.00835503472 ft^3

      and here is when you get the extra complexity.

      that's the point. While the coefficients that were observed in the real world rarely match our units evenly, with metric system at least the units themselves are a power of 10 of larger and smaller units.

    8. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh well, re-adjusting your intuition to new units of measure isn't nearly as hard as it seems at first, before you actually have to do it. I say this as an european, who not that long ago switched from a national currency to an european one. Back then, many people were scared of the very same thing, but it really didn't take long for people to adapt. I guess it would be pretty much the same for any physical unit relevant for people's everyday lives.

    9. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There isn't anyone in America who actually believes that the Imperial system is easier or more useful.
      Well unless your buying weed, selling weed or busting weed dealers...

    10. Re:Metric Everywhere by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      It's mainly educated people. There is a large percentage of our populous that wants creationism in schools and thinks that telling teens to abstain works.

      When visiting other countries switching over to metric for time and distance takes all of a week to get into my head. It helps that all those countries are in Metric. So when I want to go from Delhi to Agra. I know it's X km and trains travel about X km/hr, so it'll take X hrs.

      It's like Americans that point at manual transmissions and claim that takes too much thinking. After you do it for a while, it's just instinct. If every Weather forecast was given in C tomorrow, it would be 'chaos' for a week. Then everyone would figure it out. Packaged food is already sold with SI units. Grocery store patrons would take all of a week to need to order 2kg instead of 1lb.

      After a week in the new system, the only time I have to 'convert' is when I have to explain distances from the USA, but even then 100km/hr is a good speed. I know it takes 5 hours to get home. Home is 500 km from here, no converting the mi -> km.
      -
      I work for a Fortune 50 company, ALL of our engineering has been metric since the late '90s. I bet most actual companies are.

    11. Re:Metric Everywhere by skirmish666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's also useful for conversion of units - 1,000 cm^3 is equivalent to 1Litre(of water) which weighs 1 Kilogram, 1 Joule = 1 Newton over 1 Meter = 1 Watt Second etc.

      --
      Sigger than your average
    12. Re:Metric Everywhere by peragrin · · Score: 0

      the solution is to convert all signs to say both while that is being done over a period of 20 years to start with 5 year olds and only each them metric units in school. by the time they are grown up they will be used to both. 50 years of doing that. and everyone should be converted quite easily.

      indoctrination starting with the young. the dream of every religion.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    13. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the most part metric eliminates the need for fractions. Not having them makes calculations of fractions a LOT easier.

    14. Re:Metric Everywhere by vlm · · Score: 1

      Not to mention movies like "the Green Kilometer" - doesn't have the same ring to it.

      I can see my ipod now, "Aerosmith" "Toys in the Attic" "Big 25.4 Centimeter Record"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    15. Re:Metric Everywhere by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      There's absolutely no reason to think this has anything do do with units conversion, that's just a silly strawman.

    16. Re:Metric Everywhere by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Well, we changed our currency in a couple of years. I know it's not the same, but it hardly caused any major issues. And the Spanish didn't have a nice conversion: an Euro is 166.386 Pesetas. Doing conversions in your head was troublesome!

    17. Re:Metric Everywhere by vlm · · Score: 1

      And even many of these metric parts have fun values like "2.54 mm" as standards

      Thats not a metric part, thats a 0.100 inch pin spacing expressed metrically.

      Thats like reporting the length of the space shuttle in cubits, then using that number to describe it as a "biblical" spacecraft, since it was reported in cubits.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    18. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never said switch between systems,, he said make it standard for science applications.

    19. Re:Metric Everywhere by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 1

      That's exactly my point. Even the most popular standard "metric" parts in design use today are really Imperial.

    20. Re:Metric Everywhere by epp_b · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to mention movies like "the Green Kilometer" - doesn't have the same ring to it.

      *ahem*

      "The Green 1.6 Kilometres"

    21. Re:Metric Everywhere by dronkert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny as always. Still, 3 l in a two-liter bottle?

    22. Re:Metric Everywhere by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed. I'm an American, but I'm familiar with SI units. If I tell a friend that something is about two meters long, he's surprised, but he understands what I mean. That goes for everyone. Even in the US, people intuitively grasp how much a liter is, how heavy a kilogram is, and how long a kilometer is. We seem to have more trouble with temperature and speed though. I'm still a little taken aback when I drive into Canada and see speed limits far higher than what I'm used to.

    23. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That is pretty much how it is in the UK. We are effectively a "dual" nation, however we are a Metric nation when it comes to new implementations. Milk can be bought in Pints, however it has to be primarily labelled in Litres. We buy pints of Beer, Petrol is sold in Litres, Sugar/Flour etc is sold in Grams/KG's. Products are measured in mm/m, but almost anything on the road is done in Yards and Miles. Temperature is all listed as Celsius, but almost every weather broadcast translates that into Fahrenheit also. Our currency is pretty much metric to, working in 1's 2's 5's 10s and 100's. We have no quarter of a £ like you have with the $.

      The only possible benefit to the Imperial systems is it's workings on numbers divisible by 2, 3 and 4. You can half it, third it and quarter it easily - great when people worked with small numbers all the time. Otherwise, Metric systems are fantastic - its far easier to work in 10s/100s and to add/remove 0's quickly and easily when the numbers get bigger.

      Personally, I doubt in my lifetime i'll see the Pint disappear as it's too much of a tradition; both in Beer and Milk. The roads will no doubt stay the same for a long time through cost of sign replacement. Seems quite difficult to see us moving from the status quo we are in at the moment where things are all officially Metric, but the Imperial system is digging in it's heels.

    24. Re:Metric Everywhere by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Whenever they attempt to introduce metric here, the first thing you see is old ladies on the TV news bitching about the road signs being wrong.

    25. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it's a THIRD WORLD problem...
      The more third worlders in your country, the more of a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY it becomes, i.e. a hellhole, where nothing works.

      Anybody care to refute this with FACTS rather than liberal wishful thinking?

    26. Re:Metric Everywhere by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Funny

      When visiting other countries switching over to metric for time...

      How are those ten day weeks working out for you, anyway? :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    27. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, it makes math easier, if you have numbers of different units... a mile + 3 foots is harder to do than a kilometer + 3 meters.

      Hmm, no: both are easy to compute: "a mile + 3 foots" (feet?) is... a mile and 3 feet, and 1 km + 3m is 1.003km, 1003m or 1 kilometer and 3 meters :-)

      But yes, the metric system is a lot more regular than the Imperial one.

    28. Re:Metric Everywhere by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Green Klick (Click?)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    29. Re:Metric Everywhere by maxume · · Score: 1

      Aren't the speed limits about the same?

      Or do you mean the numbers used to represent the limits are higher?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    30. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was born in a pure metric country and lived in the UK for a year. I now have a concept of how much 1, 2, 4, 6 pints are - both beer and milk. I also know from driving how far 100 ft and a mile are. However I have absolutely no concept of an ounce or a stone, of a distance of say 1 ft, or of any volume units besides the pint (and the 1/2 pint).

    31. Re:Metric Everywhere by Jazzbunny · · Score: 1

      Here in Europe most countries changed their currency from something else to Euro lately. Learning new currency took some time but in the end the change from using one unit to another wasn't that painful, and it certainly didn't take decades to learn.

    32. Re:Metric Everywhere by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I'm an American, but I'm familiar with SI units. If I tell a friend that something is about two meters long, he's surprised, but he understands what I mean.

      I've seen signs posted using metric dimensions (mainly boats, expressing lengths in meters) and somebody would scribble on the sign "This is America, we use feet here." Probably the same stubborn type that blames anything and everything on those "damned commie liberal pieces of shit."

      Some argue that Imperial units work better, since things designed and built are built to nice round Imperial values. The point that I try to make (and fail at) is that if we used metric, things would STILL be designed to convenient increments. That 100-foot wall? Maybe only to 30 or 30.5 meters (not 30.48 meters necessarily). Eight-foot (not a nice increment of anything in itself already) ceiling? An extra 2.5 inches gets you to 2.5 meters. Instead of buying a gallon of milk, buy four liters instead.

      I personally prefer metric, since it makes many conversions easier (1000 cc = 1 liter to me is easier remember and calculate instead of 231 cubic inches = 1 gallon) but in the end, it's a matter of what you are used to that ultimately determines what is easier.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    33. Re:Metric Everywhere by skine · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, metric is easier to convert between different types of units (cups to ft^3, as in your example), and often different units within a single measure (inches to miles). This is why it's the customary measurement for scientific purposes.

      However, in daily life, it's rare for any extremely difficult conversion to come up. Cooking is an example where it may prove difficult, but when I started cooking as a child I memorized "3 tsp to a tbsp, 4 tbsp to 1/4 cup," and "8 fl oz to a cup, 2 cups to a pint, two pints to a quart, four quarts to a gallon." As I know the powers of two, this means that, off the top of my head, there are 768 tsp in a gallon, which again is 128 fl oz.

      Distance can be tricky, but I would say that, again, it works in practice. Also, I'll claim that it's much more interesting (to a certain kind of nerd, at least).

      The history of Standard (US Customary) Units of course comes from Britain, and most of them are in some way organic. The foot, of course, should be fairly obvious. The inch has been postulated to derive from words meaning one-twelfth, or thumb. Either way, in English law, it was defined as three widths of a barleycorn. The yard is generally considered to be half a fathom (ie half a "wingspan").

      The mile has a stranger history. It comes from the miles used by Ancient Romans, which was exactly 5000 Roman feet (which, with the increase in foot size over time, would be about 4500 feet today). However, the English compared a mile to eight furlongs, where a furlong is about how far a horse could pull a plow before needing to rest. The difference between common measures and measures used specifically for surveying led this to be 5280 ft.

      Wikipedia finds it important to mention that Abe Simpson claims “My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!” That is, where a rod is 1/40 furlong, or 1/320 mi and a hogshead is roughly 63 gallons. This means that the fuel economy is .002 miles per gallon.

    34. Re:Metric Everywhere by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1

      Do Italians even use Imperial units? The Tranquility module and the cupola were both designed and built through the Italians and the European Space Agency. I seriously doubt conversion had anything to do with it. I'm sick of people making such dumb statements as the submitter did without checking simple facts beforehand.

    35. Re:Metric Everywhere by CharlieG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, Aircraft , and for that matter, almost all machine shop work is done in decimal inches (of course except for fastener sizes, which are their own odd 'wire gage' sizes, but are not really added/subtracted), and measurements are usually NOT reduced to feet and inches, so you'll see things like 78.50 inches (and yes, the significant figures matter for tolerances, so 78 1/2 - which yes is sometimes used in old drawings is different than 78.5, 78.50 and 78.500)

      So, yes, metric IS easier, but the inch system is not as bad as you think in doing industrial work )and yes, I have scales (what most of you would cale a ruler) that have 1/32nds, 64ths, 10ths and 100ths all on the same scale

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    36. Re:Metric Everywhere by jfruhlinger · · Score: 1

      Of course there's also an enormous cost in switching between systems, and little direct benefit to anyone who was happy with the old system, which is why no one does it.

      This sentence is correct if by "nobody" you mean "everyone on Earth at some point in history except for Americans." It's not like everyone in the world outside the US has been on metrics since time immemorial; they all managed to make the switchover at some point.

    37. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. I use a hybrid system. It tends to go by the gram as the decisive number in less than an ounce, though fractions of an ounce are used: 1/8, 1/4, 1/2. And then it does kind of a similar thing ounce to pound, but that's more imperial. What I'm saying is, if you only mess around with the smaller offerings, getting it by the gram is pretty common...

    38. Re:Metric Everywhere by darthflo · · Score: 1

      take all of a week to need to order 2kg instead of 1lb.

      Are you sure this switch hasn't happened yet? All those obesity problems sure make it look like it did. ;)

    39. Re:Metric Everywhere by line-bundle · · Score: 1

      "The Green 1.6 Kilometres"

      You might laugh at this, but this is part of what made the metric system fail in the US. Instead of putting new signs at point like 10Km from a destination they would put a metric sign at the same location as the imperial sign. So a lot of signs had "16.09 Kilometers to destination". This led people to believe that metric is complicated with the obvious result.

    40. Re:Metric Everywhere by GIL_Dude · · Score: 1

      Changing currency is easy compared to dealing with conversions in things like maintenance. "We need some new bolts to replace these old ones on the bridge. The manual says they are 7/8". What, we can only get 19 cm ones? Those don't fit." Equipment in refineries, pipelines, trucks, etc. all have long lifetimes and need replacement parts. I think we SHOULD change over, but it isn't simple and it isn't easy.

    41. Re:Metric Everywhere by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Grocery store patrons would take all of a week to need to order 2kg instead of 1lb.

      Well, if I wanted a pound, I think I'd order 0.5 kg rather than 2 kg. Why buy four and a half pounds of meat when you need one?

      Oddly enough, I've never had any problem dealing with either SI or Imperial. Contrary to rumour, there's no real ease of use difference - it's not like we do our math with sliderules anymore, and my calculator can divide by 12 (or 5280 or whatever) as easily as it can by 10.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    42. Re:Metric Everywhere by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      Ah sure it's childsplay to switch over.

      Just gradually use km on new road signs. Sure it's no big deal if people get a bit confused as to whether the distances are miles or kilometres. Then 20 years later you can finally change the speed limits to km/h overnight. Admittedly this is a bit of a more major cost/manoeuvre, but sure by now people will just want an end to it all, and most people would agree a mix of km/h and mph speed limits is not good.

      I kid you not, this is pretty much what happened here in Ireland. Fortunately, it's all over and done with now, bar the small issue of the north of the island not being metric as it's part of the UK!

      We are supposed to be fully metric now, but I think Imperial survives on the railways (mileposts and even some obscure measures like chains or something). Also people use Imperial for everyday stuff like height (although weight is increasingly referred to in kg due to official use in hospitals/doctor), pints (of course it's actually 576 ml - and because Germany doesn't include the head of the beer in their 0.5 litre measures, and we include the head in the pint measures, we can use the same glasses as Germany for their beer) and for meat a lot of people still ask for pounds (although again, it's priced in kg and they'll give you something approximating 454 g). People are switching over to referring to distances in km now, although sometimes you'll hear people use miles especially for made-up distances (ah sure it's a few miles down the road).

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    43. Re:Metric Everywhere by BKX · · Score: 1

      I find it kind of bizarre that in a discussion about the origins of and standard usage of units, you used a non-standard unit for fuel-economy. Well, sort of. Generally, fuel-economies less than 1 mpg aren't reported in mpg, but instead in gallons/mile, which would make 40 rod/hogshead = 504 gallons/mile. Holy shit would that be bad.

    44. Re:Metric Everywhere by Da+Cheez · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing that xkcd bothers to define -40 degrees Celsius as, "Spit goes 'clink.'" I know it's trying to offer intuitive ways to make the switch without having to reference Imperial units, but -40C and -40F are exactly the same.

    45. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Ireland, everything changed from using miles everywhere to kilometers a couple of years ago. It caused no problems for anyone, there was no whine and people got used to it in no time. I have no idea why you think it would be difficult for anyone. How long does it take you to familiarise with local currency when you go abroad? For me its weird at first - not sure what you're spending but after a day or two it becomes normal. Same thing, it feels natural in no time.

    46. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes an 'entire country' say the UK for example, didn't manage the transition from Pounds, Shillings, Pence and rods to the much simpler decimal system in 1971. Man it's been chaos ever since then so most of us barter and have an intuitive sense of how to convert live chickens per litre of unleaded fuel, but handling the small change can be troublesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling#Decimal

    47. Re:Metric Everywhere by M8e · · Score: 0

      1 mile = 5280 feet
      "a mile + 3 foots" = 5283 feet = 1.00056818 miles :)

      The land speed record(over 1km) is 760.343 miles per hour. What is that in miles and feet?

      760 miles and 1811.04 feet per hour...easy with google...

      The tallest building is 2,720 feet, what is that in miles and feet? 1/2 mile and 80 feet?

    48. Re:Metric Everywhere by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Even in the US, people intuitively grasp how much a liter is, how heavy a kilogram is, and how long a kilometer is.

      I don't, except for the liter since that's how soda is sold. I guess that weighs about a kg, but that doesn't help much. There may be athletic events measured in meters, but that also doesn't help with my intuition!

    49. Re:Metric Everywhere by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Do you like 22.8 Centimeter Nails?

    50. Re:Metric Everywhere by HiThere · · Score: 1

      One could make an argument on a base twelve measure system...but then everyone would need to learn a new set of multiplication tables.

      Still...it would have advantages. But you'll never convince everyone to change the way they count. You'd need to have started back in Babylon, and convince them that base 60 was too complicated to catch one.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    51. Re:Metric Everywhere by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      ...to order 2kg instead of 1lb.

      Actually, 1 pound = aprox. 0.45 kg.

    52. Re:Metric Everywhere by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      We took the big bang approach in Australia for most things in the early 1970s. Speed limits changed overnight. Signs changed over a couple of weeks before the change. People who claimed they couldn't cope were pretty much told to STFU. I have a friend who went to a private school which stuck it out teaching imperial units as long as they could do it legally and he had a lot of trouble later at college when people wouldn't understand what he was talking about when he talked about inches, feet, etc.

    53. Re:Metric Everywhere by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      In the U.S., where the pint is a little smaller than in the UK, a pint is basically half a liter. The only time we ever mention liters, though, is when buying soft drinks, like Coke or 7-Up (which all come in two-liter bottles). Seriously -- I can't think of any other product that we'd buy in liters. We'd say quarts (and then two quarts is a half-gallon, etc...)

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    54. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I suspect most people raised on the metric system are the same way for Imperial units, it's just not easy to get a natural sense of the units you didn't grow up with.

      On that you're right IMHO.

      > An entire country of people who don't have an intuitive sense of the units they're using would be chaos.

      I'm not sure about the chaos part; but even if you're right, wouldn't worse if it affected an entire world?

      Because that's what happening _now_: lots and lots of articles (including scientific) with more feet and inches than a buffet at a cannibal party...

    55. Re:Metric Everywhere by DarkofPeace · · Score: 1

      they make medicine for that.

    56. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That this strip exists reveals how deep we are into sh...

      It should be drawn to explain US units (not imperial, UK already switched to metric) to the rest of the world -- not to be useful to less than 5% of the world's population.

    57. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right!

      1/3 of a mile is 5,280 ft / 3 = 1,760 Feet
      1/3 of a kilometer is 333.33333333333333333333333333333333333... Meters

    58. Re:Metric Everywhere by DarkofPeace · · Score: 1

      but the more expensive drugs are sold by the gram or kilo.

    59. Re:Metric Everywhere by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Honestly? I've been living on metric for as long as I can remember and I have no concept of a "kilometer" either. Why? Because it's just "a few minutes of walking" or "a few seconds of driving". 1 or 1.6 kilometers isn't a big difference there.

      What I have trouble with when I'm in the US is mostly with more "handy" values. I know a can here is 0.33 or 0.5 liters. A bottle is 1, 1.5 or 2 liters. And, curiously, the cans and bottles have the same size in the US. So picking one up isn't so much of a problem. The problem is that I wouldn't know from an ad whether I'd take it or not, not knowing what that amount compares to. Is that a 0.33 or a 0.5 can? Is that a 1.5 or a 2 l bottle? Or even 2.5?

      It's less distance, it's more amount that confuses me every time I'm in the US. Whether a distance is 10 kilometers or 10 miles makes little difference when you're in a car.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    60. Re:Metric Everywhere by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

      An entire country of people who don't have an intuitive sense of the units they're using would be chaos.

      Quick, time travel back to Canada circa 1973 and warn them of impending doom!

    61. Re:Metric Everywhere by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      We (the Spanish) didn't have a truly terrible time with it, because 6 Euro happened to be damn near 1000 Pesetas (it's actually €6.01, but no one cares), so we were saved by the inverse relationship. That was the reference point that everyone used during the transition, and in fact most people still think of large amounts of money in terms of millions of pesetas. This is why you'll often hear people calling €6000 "un kilo" (1 million pesetas used to be called a "kilo" - no, it doesn't make sense).

    62. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hows that working out for you guys?

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1250433/Greece-debt-bailout-EU-leaders-split-euro-crisis.html

    63. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, in every story, does someone have to make a post referencing xkcd? I've been there, it's a fun site... but seriously, quit sucking the dude's dick.

      Captcha: marble... quit sucking those too.

    64. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I am an american, and I do believe the Imperial system is a lot easier to use.

      Sorry, pal, but IMHO you're mistaken.

      > For me.

      I still believe even for you it's not easier.

      > Because that's what I learned from day 1.

      That means you're used to it, not that it's easier. What if you learned to drive first a truck? Would you not find a car easier?

      > Do I think it's better? No way. Do I think it should be changed to metric? Absolutely.

      Then don't delay. If it's not a good thing, then don't adopt it -- but if it's a good thing, and you're not busy now, why not make the entire country use it?

      > But the fact that most people would have a very hard time with switch is why it hasn't happened.

      No, it's because people believe they will have a hard time. That fear is the culprit of people's paralysis.

      > The only way it would be able to happen is with a (possibly multiple) decade long "dual usage"... That way kids would be taught from the beginning, and regular people would have time to learn the new system...

      Well, try to jump into the water: for some time, say, 5 hours -- on a weekend -- try to read some material on the internet, in English or otherwise, with metric units. I don't know why, but I strongly suspect your life won't end...

      Just as an example, the McDonald's cups:

      In USA:

      12 fluid ounces (child)
      16 fluid ounces (small)
      21 fluid ounces (medium)
      32 fluid ounces (large)

      In Brazil:

      300 ml (small - about 10 fl oz)
      500 ml (medium - about 17 fl oz)
      700 ml (large - about 24 fl oz)

      Now, just think what is easier: 12, 16, 21 or 300, 500, 700?

      Besides there's a lot of distorted reasoning. No one ever thinks about getting used to 500ml, or 30km or 2m... people think "Hey, let's see, 12 fl oz is 354.88 ml -- wow, this metric thing is way too complicated!"

    65. Re:Metric Everywhere by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "That's exactly my point. Even the most popular standard "metric" parts in design use today are really Imperial."

      And that surely has nothing to do with the fact that USA goes Imperial.

      Change USA to metric and you'll see what happens with all those 25.4mm components.

    66. Re:Metric Everywhere by Rorschach1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I picked up a camper van in Auckland and started driving around New Zealand (and once I'd gotten over my initial terror at driving on the wrong side of the road) I found it was really easy to adapt. I made a game of it for an hour or so, trying to pick an object in the distance when I thought it was 1 km away and watching the odometer to see how close I was.

      The only time it nearly caused a problem was one evening when I came to a turn that was marked <<<< 45 <<<< and I instinctively slowed down to about 50. 50 mph, that is.

      So if you need a rule of thumb for metric speeds, remember that 45 kph is the speed at which you can negotiate a sharp bend on a wet road in a top-heavy camper van without crapping your pants.

    67. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't anyone in America who actually believes that the Imperial system is easier or more useful.

      Carpenters, actually. And I say this a measurement-bilingual Canadian. The materials and methods in the building trades are deeply bound to the twelve-inches-to-a-foot system. Explaining this sufficiently for someone on the outside to really get it would take a few pages of education, so please just trust me. This is why the building trades persist with Imperial although we now also have to add a lot of ugly conversion because all government documentation like Codes are in Metric. It's not just plain stubbornness, though the trades do have plenty of kvetchers that would make it sound like that.

      Interesting geek sidelight: in the 80s I knew a woodworker who made himself a set of ancient Egyptian measurement devices to see what subtle proportion changes would happen to his furniture designs. Method and result are entwined, and woodworking is one of the old trades where you can view this fairly fascinating process as it regards to measure. Highly recommended for your nerd moments.

    68. Re:Metric Everywhere by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      Bad example. Pin spacing in multiples of 1/10th of an inch was the standard for through-hole electronics components, but with the switch to surface mount everything is being switched over to mm. The first and largest surface mount packages (SOIC, PLCC, etc) used 1/200 in spacing, but pretty much everything smaller is using fractions of a mm. And connectors smaller than your standard humongous (these days) pin headers are also done in mm: flat flexible cables, tighter pitch connectors (e.g. the pin headers on laptop IDE HDDs are 2mm), etc.

      I'm European and I was initially annoyed when I started using SMT components and things wouldn't match up on my grid (since I was used to a grid in mils from through-hole design), but these days I just default to a metric grid and use the relevant auto-snap features of layout programs to make traces seamlessly switch from the metric grid to being aligned to a one-off through-hole component. It's really just a base unit change, as the old "imperial" components were just measured in mils (thousandths of an inch), which is already a metric-style subdivision applied to an imperial base unit.

    69. Re:Metric Everywhere by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      That should be 1/20 in spacing, not 1/200.

    70. Re:Metric Everywhere by barzok · · Score: 1

      The only way it would be able to happen is with a (possibly multiple) decade long "dual usage"

      It was tried 30 years ago and some small-scale attempts are still in progress. The problem is that it's all small-scale so it won't really make inroads.

    71. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Canadian I grew up with the Imperial System and starting in seventh grade the country switched to the Systeme Internationale (S.I.) aka Metric System. While I understood the Imperial System I found the Metric System made much more sense and was much easier to use.

    72. Re:Metric Everywhere by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I'd be fine if we picked one or the other and stuck with it. My biggest problems are the interactions between the two systems.

      The other day, I couldn't get the damned oil pan drain plug out of my Chrysler car. Why? It's a Chrysler car, build in the Americas (well, Mexico, close enough), but the damned drain plug is a *metric* size. (Size 13... 13mm? I guess?)

      I had to borrow a wrench for it... in a million years, I'd never guess Chrysler would use a metric size. (In retrospect, I'm guessing they standardized this so the vast number of oil changes places don't have to constantly change their tools.)

    73. Re:Metric Everywhere by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When visiting other countries switching over to metric for time and distance takes all of a week to get into my head.

      No countries use metric time.

      Grocery store patrons would take all of a week to need to order 2kg instead of 1lb.

      And get four times as much as they wanted?

      While I get the point of your post, you're not really demonstrating a good fundamental knowledge of metric here. :)

    74. Re:Metric Everywhere by jessemaurais · · Score: 1

      I think the better system depends on the context in which it is used. Measurements with units that break down into nice fractions are convenient for baking (I'm a baker) and for cooking generally. Woodworking is also made easier by fractions like a third, quarter, or eighth. And while I like the idea of having a standard system, perhaps it should be done per industry, rather than across all industries in all countries.

    75. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, most manufacturing is performed in the metric system, including our automobiles. Engine displacement, for example, has been in liters for years. I do believe that most people could handle the metric system in everything except temperature.

    76. Re:Metric Everywhere by karnal · · Score: 1

      I've been around Ford and Chevrolet vehicles for the past... oh, as long as I've been driving. As long as I've been changing my oil, they've always used metric (14mm to 16mm, depending on vehicle).

      --
      Karnal
    77. Re:Metric Everywhere by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Well, it's good to know that even though it's all metric, the easily-standardize-able component still isn't standardized. We wouldn't want things getting too easy.

    78. Re:Metric Everywhere by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      "14 cm = penis" you poor bastards.

    79. Re:Metric Everywhere by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Here in the Australia contruction industry, there's sort of a hybrid. Everything is measured in metres or mm, but sizes are commonly in units of 300mm which is close to a foot. If you buy timber it might be a moninal length of 2.4m, or any other multiple of 300mm. Same for ceiling heights - 2.1 or 2.4 metres.

       

    80. Re:Metric Everywhere by Cmdrm · · Score: 1

      Grocery store patrons would take all of a week to need to order 2kg instead of 1lb

      Hmm, there might be lots of stock left on the shelf after the first week. 1lb roughly 500g or .5kg. It is actually 453g per pound, but who's counting anyways?

    81. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh? How much is a kilo in metric?

    82. Re:Metric Everywhere by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      My lab students get that wrong *all* the time. 1 meter = 1000 cm, therefore 1 cubic meter "must" equal 1000 cubic cm.

      Its very simplicity makes it "difficult."

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    83. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American, the thing that bothers me most about the imperial system is trying to use it to follow recipes for cooking. Just try adjusting a recipe that calls for 1 3/4 teaspoons of something.

      Oh, and don't even get me started about "ounces" - it's often ambiguous as to whether something is meant to be measured by ounces of volume or ounces of weight...

    84. Re:Metric Everywhere by stumblingblock · · Score: 1

      I have often though of how unfortunate were are to live in the transition from a smoking to a nonsmoking society. Lots of friction. Another example is the Monty Python skit about England switching over from driving on the left to driving on the right. To ease the transition, the changeover would be done gradually.

    85. Re:Metric Everywhere by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      You're right, I forgot about car engines. But that just further proves my point, which was that we'd certainly be capable of using the metric system -- and in fact a liter and a quart are practically the same volume -- but we don't.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    86. Re:Metric Everywhere by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      This is something I see a lot, especially from Europeans: the assumption that Americans are actually fanatical supporters of the Imperial system. The truth is, we don't like it

      It depends. For cooking, I much prefer the system of cups, teaspoons, and tablespoons. The system was largely designed around proportions, and cooking is all about proportions so the system works. Having to use milli-liters for everything wouldn't work (and in fact I believe many recipes in European countries still use something like tablespoons, teaspoons, and cups).

      For temperature, Is centigrade really any better than Fahrenheit? For distance, how often do I really need to convert miles into feet? Nobody ever does, and we use 10ths of a mile when we need a smaller unit. When I buy bulk items, it's always displayed as a decimal anyway, not in Pounds/oz. So what's the real advantage?

      The only time I REALLY think the imperial system is stupid is when measuring inches. I detest having to figure out if the marker is 1/2, 3/8, 5/16, etc. Converting between them is stupid, and I really which I just had millimeters. Decimalization doesn't really work either, since the materials are all set sizes that are based on a power of two fraction. It can't really go away either, since the studs in my house are always going to be 16 inches on center and the thickness of the drywall is going to remain 1/2 inch.

      --
      AccountKiller
    87. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is fine and I agree some jerks won't change just because... but...

      > I personally prefer metric, since it makes many conversions easier (1000 cc = 1 liter to me is easier remember and calculate instead of 231 cubic inches = 1 gallon)

      That's the point.

      > but in the end, it's a matter of what you are used to that ultimately determines what is easier.

      No, it's not. This is only one factor.

      SI is a lot easier than imperial by itself.

      At one point, everyone was not used to breathing.

    88. Re:Metric Everywhere by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    89. Re:Metric Everywhere by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      The other day, I couldn't get the damned oil pan drain plug out of my Chrysler car. Why? It's a Chrysler car, build in the Americas (well, Mexico, close enough), but the damned drain plug is a *metric* size. (Size 13... 13mm? I guess?)

      Where have you been? "American" cars have had metric parts for the last 20 years or so. I couldn't say which is more common, but both cars I've had in the last 15 years have been largely metric. One was a Chrysler product, the other a Chevy.

      (In retrospect, I'm guessing they standardized this so the vast number of oil changes places don't have to constantly change their tools.)

      They standardized it so they can sell the same car in Europe, or at least change parts throughout their different models.

      --
      AccountKiller
    90. Re:Metric Everywhere by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      The only way it would be able to happen is with a (possibly multiple) decade long "dual usage"... That way kids would be taught from the beginning, and regular people would have time to learn the new system...

      Well, no, that wouldn't work on its own. If you think about it, we already have a dual system. Weights and measures of all packaged foods and beverages are printed in both Imperial and metric units. The problem is that the amounts are chosen based on convenience. So "a 12-ounce can of Coke" makes sense, but "354 mL of Coke" sounds off. Similarly, if you went to a butcher and wanted to ask for the same amount of bacon that you get when you buy it prepackaged at the supermarket, 0.454 kilos sounds funny, but a pound sounds about right.

      It would be possible to make it so that the metric units were more favorable, but you really do have to pick one and stick with it. If the soft drink makers switched to 500 mL bottles, for example, it would make more sense to go buy a half-liter of Coke than to say "a 16.9 ounce bottle." Similarly, they could package bacon in half-kilo packages. But as it stands, our culture favors the Imperial units, so when the soft drink companies wanted to come out with a larger-sized decanter, they chose 20-ounce bottles instead of half-liters. A 591-mL bottle sounds appealing to no one.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    91. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My lab students get that wrong *all* the time. 1 meter = 1000 cm..."

      You sure about that?

    92. Re:Metric Everywhere by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      d'oh. Proofread too quickly.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    93. Re:Metric Everywhere by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Used by a large portion of the world is a good point. There's great value in having everyone use the same system. Of course there's also an enormous cost in switching between systems, and little direct benefit to anyone who was happy with the old system, which is why no one does it.

      Apart from the aforementioned "rest of the world" which was largely not using the metric system 60 years ago (especially in the former British Empire for which "Imperial" is named). We even switched to decimal currency from the 12 pennies = 1 shilling, 20 shillings = 1 pound system.

      Anyway, this discussion has happened many times before, the same arguments have come up in UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. and have gone just as quickly.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    94. Re:Metric Everywhere by theanticool · · Score: 1

      Atleast in scientific application there is no reason to use Imperial. Metric makes all calculations simpler, and is accepted by a much larger portion of the world, and should be the standard in all science.

      I fully agree, I am in physics, and unless something is given to me in imperial form, I will always use metric. That goes for everyone I have ever partnered with. Further more, if data was given in imperial, we would convert it first thing anyway. If this was a case of mix up, at least this one will cost a great deal less.

    95. Re:Metric Everywhere by camperdave · · Score: 1

      ... or buying ammo for your nine.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    96. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the solution is to convert all signs

      It is not about the signs. Go to a hardware store as your education appears to be lacking. Read some building codes. Try reading all of them. Our tooling, engineering, codes tend to be imperial. Calling something 1.27 cm that was 0.5 inches is not a solution. Rather, it is converting that part or tool to the equivalent metric which is actually 12 mm (a far cry from 12.7 mm as far as tooling is concerned - try to use your metric hex wrenches on an imperial screw or vice versa).

      There is a great deal of expense and I suspect education/signage is 5% of the issue. Also, we are bilingual as concerns scientific units of measurment. The Europeans are not. They tend to be bilingual in language. Why is one looked down upon and the other exalted. I hate to be cliche, but I do believe many Americans hate this country and do hate freedom. Fact is, I can call shit whatever I want - that's what makes this country great and government-certified organic foods gay.

    97. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/8 ounce = ~3.5 grams is good enough for me. of course my favorite dealers always round up to 4 or 4.5 :)

    98. Re:Metric Everywhere by dryeo · · Score: 1

      And while I like the idea of having a standard system, perhaps it should be done per industry, rather than across all industries in all countries.

      In practice that is what happens. Here in Canada we went metric in the '70's. Lumber is still measured in imperial and cooking is also done in imperial while most everything else is metric though many also use feet and miles for distance and elevation.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    99. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key to change, is CHANGE! Just fucking do it! Like ripping a patch from your skin, it wont hurt less becausef you do it slowly (providing enough hair is involved).
      Expenses is a bullshit argument since everything important is already done in metrics (that which isn't will simply be converted as-needed). You won't have to run out and buy a new ruler just because it changes from inches to centimeters. Just change the official units to metrics and in a few year, you won't remember you were ever using imperials.

    100. Re:Metric Everywhere by DavidRawling · · Score: 1

      For comparison, here in Aus, flavoured milk is often sold in 300, 500, 600 and 1000/2000 (1L, 2L) containers. Coke and Pepsi lines are sold in a 250ml small can, a normal 375ml can, a 300ml small bottle, a 600ml large bottle, and 1.25, 2 and 3 litre bottles.

      600ml in particular is very close to your "20 oz" (591ml) bottle - so much so that it would be trivial to label and sell the 600ml version as a 20 oz bottle (woo hoo, 9ml for FREE). Perhaps they already do! And the 375ml can is a natural fit to the 12 oz can you have in Bizarro-World^W^W^W the USA.

      In summary the metric units are generally "close enough", with the possible exception of recipes which might need more careful treatment.

    101. Re:Metric Everywhere by dryeo · · Score: 1

      We (Canada) converted about 35 years ago. Lumber is still measured in inches and feet. At the grocery store the prices on signs are per pound with the metric in small print, potatoes etc come in 10 lb bags. Distances and elevations are usually referred to in feet and miles and I have no idea how many cm tall I am or how many kilos I weigh.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    102. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the great movie super troopers... I need a liter of cola! whats a liter of cola?

    103. Re:Metric Everywhere by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      It's already happened in virtually all industries outside of the US.

    104. Re:Metric Everywhere by dryeo · · Score: 1

      All that happens is that you have 2 bins in the hardware store. Metric and imperial. Much like today where some equipment is metric, some is standard (split between fine and course threads) and pipe threading is still whitworth.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    105. Re:Metric Everywhere by dryeo · · Score: 1

      They actually use 16 mm? I was just talking to a friend who was bitching about a Jeep that used 15 mm somewhere. I commented that I had never needed a 15 and we both agreed that we'd never needed a 16.
      My '88 F150 seems to use a 9/16ths for the oil drain.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    106. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An entire country of people who don't have an intuitive sense of the units they're using would be chaos.

      What you actually get is people who grew up with the old system keep using it (converting as necessary), one generation that does the conversions easily having learned the imperial from their parents and metric at school (that's me), then the next generation on metric.

      Here in Oz, you can still buy tape measures with metric on one side and imperial on the other, although I resist buying US machinery because I don't want to buy a set of imperial spanners and sockets. Most workshops will have both, many sets are sold with some of each, I prefer to get a wider range of sizes and get all metric. However I would not be at all unable to work with imperial tools and have done so professionally working on machinery imported from the US. Basically you're looking at a 2 generation changeover but it's not that hard.

    107. Re:Metric Everywhere by Blejdfist · · Score: 1

      I lived in the US for a year while working, and I had no problem getting a mental concept of how far a "mile" was. But I had a problem once, trying to find the correct cap for a pipe that I had measured. I had the measurement in millimeters, thinking I could just convert it to inches in my head in the store, but all the caps were specified in fractions!

    108. Re:Metric Everywhere by tibman · · Score: 1

      The US Army makes heavy use of Metric over Imperial. Especially when it comes to measuring distance. There are zero Maps that are measured in miles. Shooting is done at 50m to 300m targets or 400m to 1km with larger weapons. Flash to bang is metric.. you see a flash and start counting seconds.. multiply that by 340m (or 333m) and you get distance to the target. Round sizes are in millimeter, m16/m4 rifle is 5.56mm, m9 pistol is 9mm, m242 auto-cannon is 25mm, mk19 automatic grenade launcher is 40mm, Abrams tank is 120mm.. the exception is of course the M2 .50cal machine gun because it was made in 1920's and still heavily used today.

      Height and Weight are still Imperial. The 2-mile run PT event is still imperial... land-navigation and ruck marches are metric though.

      You get a really good feel for kilometers when you walk them over and over and keep tabs on distances to everything. You also get a good feel for 50meters, 100meters and so on by shooting at man-sized targets for those distances. Though i don't recommend these methods of learning metric to the general us public.. it does work.

      What really drives me nuts is when people talk in football fields... gah! the horror!

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    109. Re:Metric Everywhere by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      600ml in particular is very close to your "20 oz" (591ml) bottle - so much so that it would be trivial to label and sell the 600ml version as a 20 oz bottle (woo hoo, 9ml for FREE). Perhaps they already do!

      Nope, it really is labeled 591mL. Nobody pays any attention.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    110. Re:Metric Everywhere by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I am not a baker, so I can't say it with full confidence, but wouldn't it be just the same to measure, say 7g of something as it would 0.25oz? I can give you half, it would be easy to get a half of a cup (not the unit) but 1/4 or 1/8 seems kinda difficult, unless you have a measuring cup (in which case you can measure any arbitrary volume smaller than the cup itself, for example 115ml) or you have a cup that is the same volume as the volume you are trying to measure.

      Woodworking - If you have a log that is 1m in length and you want to cut in to 3 equal pieces you end up with ~33.3cm length pieces (you will lose twice the thickness of your saw) - if your tape measure has mm grades, you can put a mark just as easily as you would with other units. 1/4 and 1/8 are 0.25 and 0.125 and can be measured exactly (1m/8 = 12.5cm). Now, let's say there was a new unit of length, equal to 33.3cm (or 1/3m). Would it make cutting the 1m log in three equal pieces simpler?

      Using different units for different industries would be OK as long as the end user would not have to deal with the different units. As my country only uses metric units (and has been for a long time) I fail to see what would be gained by adding more units.

    111. Re:Metric Everywhere by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      In my country fuel economy is measured in L/100km. I guess it is because this is easier to measure (measure the amount of fuel in the car, drive 100km, measure the remaining fuel, subtract if from the original) accurately than would be if, for example, we used km/L (which would mean pour 1L of fuel to your car and see how far you go), because shorter distances would cause inaccuracies (say, the fuel in the carburetor, the fuel needed to start the engine and so on). Not that it's not possible to convert the units, it's just how it is here.

    112. Re:Metric Everywhere by mrboyd · · Score: 1

      Well.. for baking I like it better when the quantity are given in baker's percentage instead of fixed size whether in cup or grams. Somehow it makes more sense to me to have everything expressed in percentage of the mass of flour, particularly when I need to make more or less dough.

    113. Re:Metric Everywhere by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      However, in daily life, it's rare for any extremely difficult conversion to come up.

      Not particularly. Any area becomes a conversion nightmare.

      If you want to tile a room that's 6' by 4'3", how big an area are you tiling? If we do gross simplification, that's 180 cm by 130 cm = 23,400 cm^2 or 1.8 m by 1.3 m = 2.34 m^2.

      Imperial you can either do it as (6 foot * 12 inches/foot) * (4 foot * 12 inches/foot + 3) = 3,672 inch^2 OR 6 foot * 4.25 foot = 25.5 foot^2 OR 2 yard * 1.4167 yard = 2.833 yard^2. But you pretty much need a calculator to translate from one to the other.

    114. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grocery store patrons would take all of a week to need to order 2kg instead of 1lb.

      it seems introducing metric would help increase grocery sales something awful...

    115. Re:Metric Everywhere by Jerslan · · Score: 1

      To quote a college instructor of mine: "I thought we won that war?"

      He was an astronaut working on some of the Hubble Repair missions, and this quote was from one of his stories on working with Russians on joint missions in the early 1990's. It was his response to the on-going Imperial/US vs Metric system argument they were having. Given that the Cold War was barely over... Yeah, it ruffled some feathers, but got his point across. The "ISS" is still mostly US made. The US uses Imperial (for the most part), therefor the ISS should use the same system.

      Don't force your Commie Metric System down my throat just because I don't want to use it ;)

    116. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I think L/100km is used because it makes more sense for what people want to know: how much will it cost me to get to work and back every day. (Rather than "how far can I travel with X amount of fuel".)

      6.4 L/100km, and a 34km commute. That's 6.4L / 100km * 34km = 2.18L. That's £2.44 (£1.12/L).

      43 miles/gallon, and an 18 mile commute. The conversion is a little more complicated, it's 18mi / (43mi/gal) = 0.42gal.

    117. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had since the Kasson Act back in 1866 to seriously adopt metric, what makes you think we'd get on board now?

      (To be honest, the only place where having both systems be an everyday pain in the ass is on some cars and bicycles where mixed unit fasteners are used. Especially when you have a mm size that's close to an inch size, and then you wonder why your socket gets stuck or a bolt rounds out. But other than that, keeping the imperial system isn't that big a problem for most folks. Miles, yards, and feet, as well as pounds seem intuitive enough for most purposes.)

    118. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      There's no reason you can't use numbers that divide easily, if you want to. For instance, fitted kitchen units here are often made in multiples of 300mm, a standard for that industry. That has a good number of factors (two units, 600mm wide, has even more factors).

      For general cooking (not baking) quantities don't really matter much. For baking, a recipe usually uses numbers like 500g, 250g, 125g, 50g, -- multiples of 25g. A metric teaspoon is 5ml, a metric tablespoon 15ml (and 1ml of water has a mass of 1g, which is very convenient for measuring water/milk).

      It does help when things tie in though. For instance, the British standard maps (produced by the government) are obviously metric -- the gridlines are e.g. 10km or 100km apart, the contours at 100m intervals, etc. But, since the road signs show miles, many maps based on them don't bother to point this out, which removes one easy way of estimating a distance (counting the squares crossed). Of course, you could reprint with 10 mile gridlines, but there are significant benefits to having only one system, such as giving a position in a remote area in an emergency, or even just lowering the barrier between scientists, engineers and "normal" people.

    119. Re:Metric Everywhere by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      That won't be a problem. The rest of the world already deals with some the equipment using metric bolts, screws etc. and some using imperial ones. Even if we switched to metric manufacturing all the way we'd still keep manufacturing imperial stuff for decades as a legacy tech.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    120. Re:Metric Everywhere by jdigriz · · Score: 1

      Dude, a football field is just a decikilometer. Or a hectometer if you prefer.

    121. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      What country are they from? (Meter = USA?)

      Here, that kind of conversion is covered several times in school, starting at age 5 when we'd play with "unit" bricks -- 1 cm plastic cubes -- that arranged nicely into 10-block (10cm) strips, 100-block (10cm^2) squares and 1000-block (10cm^3) cubes. There were also liquid containers that measured cm^3 i.e. mL. (Search-in-page for base 10, only my school had thousands of them, so they clearly don't need to cost that much).

      Presumably, it also helps that all my education has been metric, and most of everything else. I don't think I've ever taken a serious measurement in inches, square inches (?), or cubic inches / fluid ounces (?). (Except measuring my penis. For some reason, 14 year old British boys do that in inches, even if it means working out the conversion since the ruler only has centi/millimetres. At least, they did 10 years ago.)

    122. Re:Metric Everywhere by GNious · · Score: 2, Funny

      Was easier for the Germans: Stuff that cost 1 Deutchmark suddenly cost 1 Euro.

    123. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      It's also an argument raised in the UK when people suggest we stop selling "pints". But in reality, people just like the word "pint", and I doubt most care if, when using it in a pub, it means 568mL, 500mL, or 600mL, so long as it remains consistent, or is clearly advertised. After all, we do exactly the same thing with "shot". One "shot" is 25mL, 30mL, or 35mL, depending on how cheap the bar is, and is clearly written on all the spirit measures and on a sign by the side of the bar.

      I understand that in France "livre" (i.e. pound, lb) in common use means 0.5kg.

    124. Re:Metric Everywhere by GNious · · Score: 1

      as a child I memorized "3 tsp to a tbsp, 4 tbsp to 1/4 cup," and "8 fl oz to a cup, 2 cups to a pint, two pints to a quart, four quarts to a gallon."

      You're saying that cups and quarts and sticks are real meassurements?!? Whenever I google a recipe and see "mix 2 cups of flour with 3 sticks of butter and a quart of cream", I always wonder what the heck the Americans are on...
      (1 package of butter is usually 250g, but not always - but if thatis a "stick", that is a LOT of butter!)

    125. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      You already have two systems. At the moment, plenty of American engineers buy metric parts to fit various machines designed or made in the rest of the world (or in some US industries).

      (For an everyday example, look at the fastening sizes on a bicycle.)

    126. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I was born in a pure metric country and lived in the UK for a year. I now have a concept of how much 1, 2, 4, 6 pints are - both beer and milk. I also know from driving how far 100 ft and a mile are. However I have absolutely no concept of an ounce or a stone, of a distance of say 1 ft, or of any volume units besides the pint (and the 1/2 pint).

      That's pretty much the same as most British people under age 40~50.

      (Although I don't notice the difference between the metric and fake-metric "1.05L = 2 pints" milk containers.)

    127. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      In the UK it's the reverse. The only liquids we don't buy in litres are beer in pubs, and milk in (some) supermarkets. (It used to be milk in all shops, but all the smaller ones have realised that they can sell 1L of milk in a bottle that looks more-or-less like a 2-pint one, and no one notices.)

    128. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      1L of water weighs "exactly" 1kg (for all non-scientific purposes). This works fine for weighing (rather than measuring volume) of most liquids in cooking, except for oils.

    129. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a few differences between being bilingual and bi-measurement. Firstly, they're inherently incompatible. If I start writing in French, people will instantly know I'm writing in french, they won't think I'm talking in English. But if I start talking in pounds without expressly saying so, people will think I'm talking in metric (or visa versa). Hell, speak in creole (eg, spanglish) to someone biligual in both languages, and they'll grok your screed. Now try speaking in measurement-creole to a bi-measurement capable person, and watch their eyes spin. Secondly, I don't have to do calculations in languages. I don't have to add "troix francais" and "four english", but I have to add "5 foot" and "2 meters". And we haven't even STARTED talking about complicated things like volume.

      many Americans hate this country and do hate freedom. Fact is, I can call shit whatever I want

      You can call a meter a wing-ding-dang-doodle in ANY country, you jackass. The problem is no-one will have a clue what you're on about. Do you honestly think other countries have "metric police" coming around and arresting people for daring to talk imperial? Or are you just tacking "freedom" and "I love America" on to your argument because it sounds nice, thereby gravely insulting the intelligence of your fellow countrymen by trying to distract them with the verbal equivalent of jangling keys? Sounds like you're the one that hates America, bub.

      As for the jist of your argument (that America can't convert to metric) - other countries have done it. Are you implying American industry is somehow inferior to other countries? That they can't handle a changeover as gracefully other countries have? How much do you hate America? Burnt many flags today, terrorist? (see, I can take my argument to absurd extremes, too).

    130. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Well, no, that wouldn't work on its own. If you think about it, we already have a dual system. Weights and measures of all packaged foods and beverages are printed in both Imperial and metric units. The problem is that the amounts are chosen based on convenience. So "a 12-ounce can of Coke" makes sense, but "354 mL of Coke" sounds off. Similarly, if you went to a butcher and wanted to ask for the same amount of bacon that you get when you buy it prepackaged at the supermarket, 0.454 kilos sounds funny, but a pound sounds about right.

      Over here you don't buy 0.5 kg, because you can't easily weight in advance a steak. You have to cut it and _then_ weight it. So one gets e.g. 0.392kg, 0.787kg etc. of meat. Is it so where you live? People can cut a steak of precisely at 1 pound?

      Also in some places certain foods are prohibitively expensive (like meat in Japan), so one buys a precise amount -- like 2.5 pounds instead of 2 or 3. Same thing in metric: people will go for 1.2kg, for example. 2.5 or 1.2: see, no difference in practice.

      > It would be possible to make it so that the metric units were more favorable, but you really do have to pick one and stick with it. If the soft drink makers switched to 500 mL bottles, for example, it would make more sense to go buy a half-liter of Coke than to say "a 16.9 ounce bottle." Similarly, they could package bacon in half-kilo packages. But as it stands, our culture favors the Imperial units, so when the soft drink companies wanted to come out with a larger-sized decanter, they chose 20-ounce bottles instead of half-liters. A 591-mL bottle sounds appealing to no one.

      That what you say, as I understand it, amounts to: "metric is hard because we want to make our braindamaged unit system look easier". To what end? Just for the sake of no change? Or to pester the rest of the world with papers and graphs in unreadable units?

      Come to think, along with translating services, could Google do a demoronizer to get imperial units automatically converted to SI?

      That would be really helpful.

      > But as it stands, our culture favors the Imperial units

      There is little point in proving metric better, if people wants to do things the wrong way. If you can't organize yourselves and act together to get to a better place, all advice in the world will not help you.

    131. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I think Imperial survives on the railways (mileposts and even some obscure measures like chains or something.)

      I read a report of a small accident near London (train hit an engineer's trolley) that happened because the engineer read a distance plate on a catenary post (power line support) and assumed it was the distance in miles from the start of the line, like the distance-posts showed. It wasn't, it was the distance in km, and they were close enough to the start of the line that the number seemed reasonable.
      Luckily, they were also close enough to the start of the line that the express train was still going very slowly, and the engineers jumped clear, but it's obviously something that could be avoided by converting everything to metric. Probably someone has done a cost-benefit analysis and doesn't think it's worth it yet.

    132. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      [...cooking...] Having to use milli-liters for everything wouldn't work (and in fact I believe many recipes in European countries still use something like tablespoons, teaspoons, and cups).

      Incorrect, at least for cups. A teaspoon is defined to be 5mL, a tablespoon 15mL, and it's 50:50 whether the recipe will say "30mL" or "2 tbsp". Cups are a crap measure of dry things anyway, there's so much variation depending on packing. Dry amounts are given in grams, wet ones in litres (although unless it's oil, L = kg is near enough for most liquids used in cooking.)

      If I search for a recipe online and the result uses cups I tend to find a different one, as there are several different cup measures, with significant variation between them. (US, AU, JP and more, IIRC.)

    133. Re:Metric Everywhere by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      What's a quarter of something 3 ft long? Well, a foot are 12" so it's 3*3=9". That's not something outlandish and everyone's done something like that lots of times in their lives. It's not even an especially hard case for the imperial system because the numbers are nice and the foot to inch ratio is not braindead (how about a quarter of half a mile in yards?).

      But the calculation is nevertheless clunky because we're not operating in a base-12 system no matter how much better than base-10 it would be.

      A quarter of 3 meters is 75 cm. A lot nicer because it's base 10.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    134. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember as a kid in grade school (I'm not going to say how long ago that was) we were taught both because the government was trying to change us over to metric. Then they saw the cost involved... Guess they wanted our tax dollars to support some over funded, useless pet project instead of doing something intelligent. Holding on to this old, hard to use, Imperial system in the US is crazy. Metric is a heck of a lot easier to use since we are all taught to think in base-10 mathematics.

    135. Re:Metric Everywhere by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You can thank reagan for that. The nation was prepared to make the switch-over, including road signs, car speedometers, packaging, etc. He was SUCH a bad leader. I can not believe that W chose to emulate him, rather than his father.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    136. Re:Metric Everywhere by RealErmine · · Score: 1

      The only way it would be able to happen is with a (possibly multiple) decade long "dual usage"

      Finally I can market my line of centiyard rulers and kilofoot odometers!

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    137. Re:Metric Everywhere by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It's been that way cince 1985. you don't work on cars much do you.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    138. Re:Metric Everywhere by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      And short of spices the exact amount of the ingredients means nothing.

      If you are obsessing about he inaccuracy of a cup measurement, you need to stop cooking. You can go over by 20% on major parts of a recipe and have almost no effect other than yield amount. When I bake bread, I dont use a recipe or even measurements, I dump in what I think is the amount I want to make and go from there. you can be off by 40% in the flour in bread making and still come out with a perfect loaf. French bread you can be off by almost 200%!

      Bake or cook by taste, not exact measuring. you'll end up with a better product.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    139. Re:Metric Everywhere by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 1

      Grocery store patrons would take all of a week to need to order 2kg instead of 1lb.

      2 kg is about 4 and a half pounds, so there are bound to be a few 'surprises' at the end of that first week.

    140. Re:Metric Everywhere by skine · · Score: 1

      Cups and quarts are measurements, yes. A cup is 8 fl oz, a quart is a quarter-gallon (tricky, huh?).

      As for stick, butter here in the US can often be found in tubs, but usually we use standardized sticks. The sticks are almost always labeled with tick-marks at each tablespoon, with at least the 1/4 cup (4 tbsp) and 1/2 cup (8 tbsp = 1 stick) labeled.

      http://www.thehungrymouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dscn1169.jpg

    141. Re:Metric Everywhere by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      There isn't anyone in America who actually believes that the Imperial system is easier or more useful

      Imperial is entrenched in the construction industry and it's not something that will convert to metric any time soon because building codes and materials are all based on inches. It's industry-wide. For example wood studs commonly come in units of 8, 10, 12, and 14 feet. The height of ceilings is guided by these units. Building codes mandate 2x4s 16 inches on center or 2x6s 24 inches on center which means insulation comes in 16 or 24 inches width. It's all those little things that will keep us on imperial for quite some time.

      Also 12 is a magic number in construction. This is due to the ease of integer division by 2, 3, 4, 6 which makes for nice round divisions of 1/2, 1/3, 1/4. This is invaluable when your tools are primitive.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    142. Re:Metric Everywhere by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

      Your example is crappy, and you're pointlessly badgering the OP by ripping his sentences out of context. He explained that he thought it was easier because he was used to it. You don't need to pick it apart.

      And to address your example, easier would be small, medium, and large, not dealing in hundreds of some arbitrary unit. People never refer to the "fluid ounces" in a drink anyway, unless to express that's it's especially large somehow (omg 32. oz! Holy shit, 64 oz!)

      If you had to have numbers, 1, 2, 3, and 4.

    143. Re:Metric Everywhere by skine · · Score: 1

      Honestly, if you told almost any American to add 0.25 oz of salt, they would just stare at you blankly.

      If you instead asked them to add 2.25 tsp of salt, they would go grab the spoon labeled "1 tsp" and the spoon labeled "1/4 tsp," and measure it out (that is, unless they're lazy like me and realize that that 1 tablespoon = 3 teaspoons, so I can just mostly fill up the "1 tbsp" spoon).

      Americans just use volume when measuring food instead of weight while cooking, except, for example, potatoes and meat.

      Basically every American kitchen has a set of measuring spoons (usually 1/8 tsp, 1/4 tsp, 1/2 tsp, 1tsp, 1/2 tbsp, 1 tbsp), a set of measuring cups (1/4 cup, 1/2 cup, 1 cup), and a liquid measuring cup with scales in cups, fl oz and mL ( http://www.all-creatures.org/recipes/images/u-meascup-liq.jpg ).

    144. Re:Metric Everywhere by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The various cup sizes on Wikipedia are between 180mL and 284mL. They're inconvenient for me for several reasons:
      - unfamiliarity, I can't visualise them
      - lack of equipment -- nothing I own is calibrated in cups
      - inaccuracy. I'm quite happy to guess when it doesn't matter, but I was always told by my mother (who was a trained to cook) that it does matter for baking. I remember screwing stuff up when I was a child so I'm sure she's not completely wrong.

      I also find it much more convenient to measure weight rather than volume. I stick my favourite bowl on the balance, hit "zero" and add butter until it says 125g, then add sugar until it says 250g. Mix, add the eggs, mix, and return to the scale, hit zero. Add flour until it says 125g. Total washing up: 1 bowl, 1 spoon, and the mixer things.

      Incidentally, Cooking for Engineers says Most American kitchens have a set of measuring cups, but don't have a kitchen scale. I think most European kitchens have a scale, but no cups.

    145. Re:Metric Everywhere by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I'm interested in the comment earlier that science should only be done in metric.

      Even in high school in the early 70s, we used metric in any lab. I've never seen ounces used in any lab class.

      And getting used to metric is indeed a pain, and one I would need total immersion to succeed at. My wife uses a digital scale to measure food with that turns on in metric mode. She knows her gram equivalents now, but I just haven't bothered. I can grok ski jumping at 100m being about a football field long, but working out home runs in metric is no fun at all. Ninety feet is what, 27.43 meters? This doesn't improve my understanding of baseball. Rounding the distance to first base to 27m would destroy the game, unless maybe you reduced the distance from the pitching rubber to home plate to 17m, since the current distance is the subject of some conjecture on measuring errors, and shortening it some 2 1/4 ft might give the pitchers an advantage to equalize the shorter distance to first, but we are distubing the rules too much and will just have to live with 27.43m, and 17.98m. More problems. Ask the Toronto Blue Jays.

      But the metric question in the U.S. is slowly becoming moot. Most of my car's fasteners are metric, certainly the electronics stuff I putz with is metric, and metrci will win, Some day. We wi\ll adapt

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    146. Re:Metric Everywhere by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      My second and third car had both metric and imperial (standard) parts on it. It was a pain to do an oil change and a tune up at the same time. I need metric for the oil change and both to do the tune up.

      I guess the car maker was phasing in metric. They would have been better off picking one.

    147. Re:Metric Everywhere by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      A reasonably equipped toolbox already contain *both* metric and standard tools. We've been a dual-system nation for quite some time now. Imperial units in manufacturing will go away eventually, and I look forward to the day I don't need to pull out my 11/16 socket anymore.

      You're right, not simple and not easy. It's a process that's happening naturally already, but we'd sure as hell appreciate some official push that direction. Availability of imperial nuts and bolts won't be an issue for a long time.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    148. Re:Metric Everywhere by swillden · · Score: 1

      I say this as an european, who not that long ago switched from a national currency to an european one. Back then, many people were scared of the very same thing, but it really didn't take long for people to adapt.

      Duh... that's because the Euro was calibrated against the US Dollar which, as everyone knows, is the true, natural and intuitive unit of currency. I'm sure that as the Euro has drifted away from the dollar it's become harder to use.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    149. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years back. I worked in a programming shop that used IBM Script for documentation.

      A friend said he was dissatisfied with the skinniest line he could draw around a section of text.

      One day, someone sent him a doc with very thin lines around a block of text. My friend ran over to the other guy's desk to find out how to make the thin line.

      It turned out the other guy was German and routinely took metric as his default measurement system in Script. The small lines were easy when scaled in parts of a millimeter instead of an inch.

    150. Re:Metric Everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mile has a stranger history. It comes from the miles used by Ancient Romans, which was exactly 5000 Roman feet (which, with the increase in foot size over time, would be about 4500 feet today). However, the English compared a mile to eight furlongs, where a furlong is about how far a horse could pull a plow before needing to rest. The difference between common measures and measures used specifically for surveying led this to be 5280 ft.

      Dead wrong on the derivation. Mile comes from Latin "milia pasuum" -- "a thousand of paces". A pace is two steps -- the distance between where a marching soldier's heel strikes the ground and where the same heel strikes the ground again. Ancient Roman soldierrs were a bit shorter than most modern soldiers, so a pace was about five feetr. Hence the modern aqpproximation to 5,280 feet or 1,760 yards.

      For what it's worth, as an amateur radio operator, I often need a quick approximation of the size of a 1/4 wavelength antenna. Since a meter (39.36 inches) is almost exactly 1.1 yards, the in-the-head calculation (for 10 meters) goes -- 10 meters = 10 yards plus ten percent = 11 yards = 33 feet -- half of 33 is 16.5 feet, half of that is 8.25 feet = 8' 3".

      Maybe it seems overly complicated, but with very little practice, it only takes a few seconds -- far easier than multiplying by some odd constant that lumps together all the factors involved.

  3. Don't these people carry toolboxes? by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    Tape? SS wire (what's used for tying down hoodpins on racecars and securing critical bolts) or aircraft cable (used with crimping connectors for tamperproof seals), some velcro bands, rope?
    Didn't they learn anything from the apollo missions?

    1. Re:Don't these people carry toolboxes? by Tablizer · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Don't these people carry toolboxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick fixes aren't human rated.

  4. duck tape by mikey177 · · Score: 2, Funny

    it can fix anything!

    1. Re:duck tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you must mean duct tape.

      duck tape can only fix ducks.

    2. Re:duck tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't mind him. he's a shill for http://www.duckbrand.com/

    3. Re:duck tape by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Not quite. If at first it doesn't fit then get a bigger hammer! THEN you patch with duct tape and baling wire.

    4. Re:duck tape by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      No, duct tape, a sawzall and pliers can fix anything. Duct tape by itself can only fix 1/3 of anything.

    5. Re:duck tape by Leebert · · Score: 1

      How could you leave out WD-40?!

  5. Um, no one doesn't by afabbro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One has to wonder if this is another imperial/metric snafu.

    Uh, why? Yes, NASA made that mistake once, ten+ years ago. Aren't there plenty of other mistake categories that are just as if not more likely?

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:Um, no one doesn't by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      NASA made that mistake once [metric conversion], ten+ years ago. Aren't there plenty of other mistake categories that are just as if not more likely?

      Probably, but they are not all as entertaining to poke fun at.

      One of my favorites is making a latch on the Galileo Jupiter atmosphere probe *almost* symmetrical such that it was accidentally put on backward. It almost caused a mission failure by preventing a parachute from opening. NASA got lucky in that turbulence vibrations eventually triggered the chute just in time. I hoped they learned that lesson and now make parts either entirely symmetrical or too different to "half fit".

      The failures and their human cause would make a fascinate book with diagrams etc. Do you hear that tech authors? Example Title: "Space Fails! Rocket science gone wrong."
         

    2. Re:Um, no one doesn't by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this sounds much more like an issue of not thinking through interferences and tolerances well enough. Those problems tend to be hard to find in a computer model, since its all perfectly precise in those cases.

      Of course it could also just be that something else was attached improperly and causes everything else to be messed up. There are a huge number of issues that this could be, and I think maybe the poster just has an axe to grind with Imperial units.

    3. Re:Um, no one doesn't by maxume · · Score: 1

      The Mars Climate Orbiter crashed because some software loaded data from a file and made (incorrect) assumptions about the units of the data.

      Only allowing data to be stored in metric units would likely reduce the likelihood of such a mistake, but it would not eliminate it altogether.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Um, no one doesn't by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Only allowing data to be stored in metric units would likely reduce the likelihood of such a mistake, but it would not eliminate it altogether.

                  Unfortunately you are about 50 years too late. In the aerospace industry, virtually ALL the data about most components is already "stored" in conventional units, no Metric. Forcing it to all be converted to Metric just creates the problem you are trying to solve.

            BTW, the MRO incident may have *started* with a units conversion error, but the real flaw was with the lack of due dilligence. The trajectory was diverging for months, and the problem could have been detected and solved easily if the normal checks and balances were applied.

              Brett

    5. Re:Um, no one doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about all CAD software includes tolerance as an option. Several types, in fact. But it has to be used.

    6. Re:Um, no one doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the aerospace industry, virtually ALL the data about most components is already "stored" in conventional units, no Metric.

      Just to be sure, we're only talking about the US-American aerospace industry, right?

  6. Hubble by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Hubble misfocusing problem wasn't due to English-metric stuff. A contractor was assembling an optical apparatus and was supposed to be adjusting the focal length to a point inside some hollow cylindrical cap with a hole bored in its center. When adjusting their eyepiece they missed the hole, and centered instead on a shiny point near the edge of the cap that was also reflecting laser light, because the paint had been scratched there. They couldn't get the focus knob to rotate far enough as they would need to get this paint scratch into focus, so they drove out to a hardware store, bought some flat washers, inserted them on the threaded rods holding up the laser, and elevated the focusing section out a bit so they could dial the focus length to properly get the length to the scratch right.

    1. Re:Hubble by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I also heard that they skipped an integrated (final) test to save money, relying on unit tests instead (like the paint scratch story you give). As we in the software biz know, unit tests are not a true replacement for the real thing. Unit tests merely reduce the problems in the final contraption, not prevent them.

    2. Re:Hubble by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      True but then NASA pretty much invented formal interface definitions, and as a result integration tests of hardware go much smoother than might be expected. And it is only hardware anyway. Its a bit like what my wife does as an architect. She specifies this type of wall and this type of fitting and expects them to work on site.

    3. Re:Hubble by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      But they didn't actually test the completed scope on a real target, such as a star or far off test pattern. They used only stand-in tests, which as we know now are flawed. As they sang in 1968, "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing, Baby".

    4. Re:Hubble by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about Hubble?

    5. Re:Hubble by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      I did.

      It's probably the most famous example of a misconstructed space module, and ordinarily one might have to wonder if it was an imperial/metric snafu.

    6. Re:Hubble by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Uh, it's not in the article and it's not in the summary, and Hubble's flaw had nothing to do with imperial/metric. That was a reference to Mars Climate Orbiter.

      So, in short, fail.

      I love the use of passive voice, instead of saying "I'm the one idiot who thinks the Hubble has anything to do with this story" you can say "one might have to wonder."

    7. Re:Hubble by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      I love the use of passive voice, instead of saying "I'm the one idiot who thinks the Hubble has anything to do with this story" you can say "one might have to wonder."

      The "wonder" phrasing was just making fun of the article summary that you didn't read.

    8. Re:Hubble by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > True but then NASA pretty much invented formal interface definition

      I've simply no idea why you think this. While NASA has perfected them to a high art form, international manufacturers of railroad components have been doing work to extremely tight international and cross-compatible tolerances since the invention of railroads, and the British did it across their empire since they actually had one on which the sun never set, and it doubless came up repeatedly in the days of Rome when they ordered marble from other countries. The level of detail NASA uses may be relatively new, because of the highly stressful environment in which the machinery absolutely _must_ work. But even mil-spec standards far, far, far precede NASA, and much of their engineering is military based.

      Now, the _Russians_ would doubtless have their own solution for this. "Comrade, unbolt the handrail first!" Their aerospace manufacture tends to be very simple, very robust, and admittedly more massive than American, partly because they couldn't afford the fancy versions, and partly because they've always built larger launch vehicles to work with. But that simplicity improves its reliability, even though it's less likely to spin off new industries. (Does anyone remember "space pens"? The Russians just used pencils.)

    9. Re:Hubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you *please* stop spreading that space pen urban legend?

      Thank you.

  7. Mock ups by koan · · Score: 1

    Don't they have mock ups on the ground and quality control for these issues?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Mock ups by skirmish666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or for that matter did they not think to try testing the actual module on the ground prior to launch?

      --
      Sigger than your average
    2. Re:Mock ups by maxume · · Score: 4, Funny

      Step 1: Land ISS.
      Step 2: Test Fit
      Step 3: Spend 20 years and billions of dollars reorbiting ISS.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Mock ups by 4181 · · Score: 1

      Or for that matter did they not think to try testing the actual module on the ground prior to launch?

      Lead ISS Flight Director Bob Dempsey was asked that during the most recent mission update briefing. (He discusses the problem in his initial remarks at 5:00, and answers the fit test question at 12:50.) He replied, "The main reason is the Center Disk Cover that we are installing was on orbit for many years before it could be fit checked on the module. Similar Disk Covers were fit into the module, but not the actual flight hardware, and not exactly in the configuration with the Cupola mated to the Node 3 as well." He later said that "every Center Disc Cover is a little bit different" (while discussing the Cupola relocation at 17:15) but didn't elaborate on it any further.

      ISS commander Jeffrey Williams removed two bolts from a Cupola handrail mount which gave just enough clearance to install the center disc cover, but at the time of the briefing the ground engineers were still determining if the clearance was sufficient to proceeded with the relocation of the Cupola to the Node 3 nadir port, or if they should remove additional pieces and delay the relocation by a day. They eventually decide to go ahead with the relocation as is, and shuttle pilot Col. Terry Virts and lead robotics mission specialist Capt. Kathryn Hire will be relocating it in a couple of hours.

      Watch it all live on NASA TV.

    4. Re:Mock ups by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Mock ups can only be done with the parts you have in stock, with the last set of diagrams. Unfortunately, far too many components are being manufactured in far too many different states and being manufactured at the last moment, and not enough of these things get built for the kinks of that approach to get worked out.

      The multi-state manufacture has to do with how the US Congress often winds up funding a big project in as many states as possible to get as many Congresspeople as possible to vote for it. And the result is this.

    5. Re:Mock ups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a better idea:

      1) Build two or three new 10 meter diameter modules for a totally new space station and test fit their prototypes together on the ground.
      2) Build a 100mT-to-LEO Shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle with a 10m payload fairing.
      3) Assuming steps 1 and 2 are done simultaneously, you should be able to get ISS 2.0 assembled in orbit in less than 15 years.
      4) Develop a lunar lander and go to the Moon by 20 years.
      5) Deorbit the now useless ISS.

      Yes, I know he was joking, but I wanted people to know that with the proper launcher, a station can be built with less money (including launch vehicle costs), less time and fewer launches.

  8. asdfasdf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you arent a mechanical designer if you dont say atleast once a day: "but it looked perfectly fine in the cad!"

    thats the regular excuse to lack common sense where i work anyway

    1. Re:asdfasdf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you work in India? That's the sort of attitude we get from them when their software they've written doesn't integrate properly.

      One of the funniest I've seen was when we requested a web app targeting SQL Server 2000. They recommended we use SQL Server 2005 instead. We agreed. They wrote a web app targeting MySQL.

      Thankfully, that sort of an attitude would get somebody fired in America or Europe.

  9. What problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read the article, you'd see that there's no problem.

  10. Correct about Hubble. Mars Climate Orbiter however by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    They aren't talking about Hubble. The classic example of an imperial-metric snafu is the Mars Climate Orbiter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter which was lost because the software measured force in pounds while the thrusters gave results and throttled accordingly by newtons. This is not the only time an Imperial-Metric screwup has occurred but this is the most expensive. There have been multiple minor issues in the past on the ISS related to units issues.

  11. Not an issue by pyrrhonist · · Score: 5, Informative

    One has to wonder if this is another imperial/metric snafu.

    Probably not. From the article:

    The $27 million, Italian-built observation deck sports the biggest window ever flown in space. In all, there are seven windows that will offer 360-degree views.

    The 11 astronauts aboard the shuttle-station complex opened the door Friday to the $380 million Tranquility, also made in Italy for the European Space Agency. The door leading from Tranquility into the observation deck was opened soon afterward, and that's when shuttle pilot Terry Virts and Kay Hire encountered the cover problem.

    So, now even submitters aren't reading the article? Damn...

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    1. Re:Not an issue by dgatwood · · Score: 0

      I guess it will require some work with a standard NASA adjustment tool before any replacement part will fit.

      So basically it's just like Italian automobiles, then? :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Not an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the problem was hair under the hinges?

    3. Re:Not an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $27 million, Italian-built observation deck

      There's your problem, right there! ;-)

    4. Re:Not an issue by omuls+are+tasty · · Score: 1

      The $27 million, Italian-built

      Ah, that explains it. You know the old joke:

      Heaven:
      The police are British
      The cooks are French
      The engineers are German
      The administrators are Swiss
      The lovers are Italian
      Hell:
      The police are German
      The cooks are British
      The engineers are Italian
      The administrators are French
      The lovers are Swiss

    5. Re:Not an issue by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      As was the insulation. This was simply an issue of poor QC by Italy. I wonder how many other issues are there? Just thankful that poor QC did not cost ppl their lives. OTH, I do wonder who will pay for this.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  12. According to NASA, there's no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After further analysis of the center disk cover interference issue, the teams determined that there wasn't an issue with relocating the cupola. The crew will spend time today preparing the cupola for its relocation. Source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html

  13. Problem fixed as of Sunday by chelberg · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem has been fixed, it was interference by some bolts.

    "Late Saturday, the space station's commander, Jeffrey Williams, reported that bolts seemed to be causing the interference. He removed all eight bolts, saying the clearance would be tight but that the cover likely would fit. It did, with some coaxing Sunday."

    http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100214/D9DS3UOO1.html

    1. Re:Problem fixed as of Sunday by d474 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...bolts seemed to be causing the interference. [b]He removed all eight bolts[/b], saying the clearance would be tight but that the cover likely would fit. It did, with some coaxing Sunday."

      ...And in other news, the International Space Station exploded and fell apart for some [i]unknown reason[/i] today.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    2. Re:Problem fixed as of Sunday by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      He removed all eight bolts, saying the clearance would be tight but that the cover likely would fit. It did

      But aren't the bolts there for a reason? Launch and fuel costs being so high, It's not likely the bolts are extraneous.
         

    3. Re:Problem fixed as of Sunday by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't say if the eight bolts were reinstalled or if the bolts are necessary. I doubt that there would just be a bunch of unnecessary bolts on the International Space Station, and yet...

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    4. Re:Problem fixed as of Sunday by oljanx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Awesome. Now I have some ammunition for the next time my wife insists something I've assembled is a "death trap" because there are leftover parts.

    5. Re:Problem fixed as of Sunday by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      The problem has been fixed, it was interference by some bolts.

      Ah, these...

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    6. Re:Problem fixed as of Sunday by selfsealingstembolt2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

  14. Better coverage? by vlm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's another mystery. Why does the headline link to a story at USATODAY.COM ?

    You wanna know whats up with some peculiar internet routing? OK, we get quotes from the guys with hands on the SSH session keyboards right off the NANOG mailing list.

    You wanna talk about apple stuff, Woz himself posts here, although all he talks about is his Prius accelerating.

    You wanna talk about amateur space exploration, John Carmack himself posts here about his peroxide motors.

    You wanna talk about star trek, you get CleverNickName posting, although not since October.

    I figure Don Knuth, linus, and RMS probably post here too, although AC.

    Here is a very interesting spacecraft story, and we get a hyperlink to USA-freaking-today.com. USA-freaking-today.

    Slashdotters you should be ashamed of yourself for slashdot linking to USA-freaking-today, I know theres a genuine NASA console jockey out there whom can post the real goods, AC at least...

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Better coverage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb fucking ass.

    2. Re:Better coverage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haaaaaaaa

  15. Re:why is this article red in my browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes

  16. Re:Correct about Hubble. Mars Climate Orbiter howe by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    There are two valid solutions to the classic problem of accidentally mixing imperial and metric.

    One solution is to use only metric.




    The other solution is to use only imperial.


    I blame the rest of the world for trying to force their system of measurement upon us.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  17. Think of The Children by PPH · · Score: 0, Troll

    You are the lost generation. If you can't figure out how long a kilometer is, who cares? Think of the children. Or would you rather have them say, "Well, I have no sense of how long a kilometer is" and hope your grandchildren will straighten it all out?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Re: Another Imperial-metric issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another reason why America should only use the metric system. It's taught in the classroom, but rarely is it used instead of the Imperial system. The most well-known example is a 2-litre bottle of soda. Units:
    Volume/Capacity - ounces, cups (8 ounces), pints (2 cups or 16 ounces), quarts (2 pints or 4 cups or 64 ounces), gallons (4 quarts or 256 ounces), ...perhaps more?
    Length - inches, feet (12 inches), yards (3 feet or 36 inches), miles (5280 feet or 176 yards)
    Weight - ounces, pounds (16 ounces), short tons (2000 pounds - often referred to simply as a "ton" with no idea that there is in fact a long ton which is 2240 pounds, nevermind knowing about the metric ton that is equivalent to 1000 kg and is often known simply as a "tonne")

    I don't mind knowing that stuff by heart, but I wish it was as simple as the metric system. Capacity/Volume reminds me of the powers of 2, so it isn't too terrible, but the units of length are annoying. Give me centimetres and kilometres any day! Vehicles already have km/h on the speedometer, so it would just be a matter of getting people used to it. Of course, now is hardly the time for the change. The country would need to replace so many road signs, which costs a lot of money, and the country already has no money. >_

  19. This is already a solved problem by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even if this gets modded up to +5, it's going to be buried under a dozen pointless and irrelevant posts about imperial vs. metric ...

    From the ISS Flight Director briefing on NASA TV at 1:30pm today:
    http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5693:sts-130-iss-flight-director-update-fd-7-8&catid=1:latest
    [transcribing] "Crew was able to use their eyes and hands and gave good info on interference along with photos, Jeff has had a lot of hands on the hardware and he's given us the best info. His info allowed us to validate what he's seeing with our records on the ground. Actual interference is just a bolthead, that caused us to question our clearance analysis. We went back and looked at it since we don't want clearance issue when we install Cupola on nadir, and found that we have more clearance than originally expected."

    From the Flight Day 8 "execute package" sent up around 3pm to the Endeavour astronauts:
    ( http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/426345main_FD08.pdf )
    "Because of your excellent work in checking interferences, we are now comfortable with
    proceeding with cupola depress and relocate today!!! Thanks so much!!!"

    From the NASA TV schedule, Tuesday:
    CUPOLA MLI REMOVAL 10:39 PM EST / 03:39 UTC

    After that the windows can be opened, which is what we're all waiting for!

    1. Re:This is already a solved problem by Gudeldar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is Slashdot, the articles are just an excuse to argue about our pet issues. Just look at the article about the proposal to create a national climate service. It had absolutely nothing to do with whether anthropogenic global warming was valid or not yet the vast majority of comments were arguing for or against it.

    2. Re:This is already a solved problem by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Crew was able to use their eyes and hands and gave good info on interference

      And this is why our successful Mars colonization efforts won't be done solely with robotics.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  20. Re:Correct about Hubble. Mars Climate Orbiter howe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're already using the metric system. It was an actual, global standard before the "imperial" units were standardized. This is why, for example, the definition of an inch (as currently used in USA) is exactly 25.4mm. When you say "inch" you actually mean "25.4mm".

  21. More problems for NASA by physburn · · Score: 1
    But its the reports that like to post the problems not the successes, its like there biases against NASA. Tranquillity is the worlds biggest glass out house, plenty to see there and plus there put the gym in there. Its usages to science is probably quite low. But when it comes to space tourism and making videos of astronauts in space, its the businesses. When they get it working, and i'm sure the will. The ISS can boost its film rights and tourism value, to get new heights hopefully enough to keep it in space, for decades to come.

    ---

    Space Colonization Feed @ Feed Distiller

  22. Cliche mushup by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Houston, this is Tranquility Base here, we have a problem."

    Actually, when Apollo 11 landed and announced, "Houston, this is Tranquility Base, the Eagle has landed", mission managers were initially confused because they'd never heard the phrase "Tranquility Base" in training. Neal threw that in as a surprise. That teaser, Neal.
         

    1. Re:Cliche mushup by maxume · · Score: 1

      They should have aborted. He wouldn't think it was so funny after that.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Cliche mushup by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      They should have aborted. He wouldn't think it was so funny after that.

      Only the crew had access to the abort button and I doubt any of the crews would have used it if they had a small chance of making a landing. There is some discussion in the ALSJ of what would have happened if the radar altimeter had failed to lock after high gate, preventing automatic throttle control during powered descent. Generally, engineers felt that a landing would be impossible and pilots felt that it was worth a go.

      And the engineers are probably right. Pilots tended to fly too high, and too slow while the computer saved fuel for a final deceleration close to the ground. If a pilot stopped the descent at 10000 feet to organize the landing he would run out of fuel.

    3. Re:Cliche mushup by maxume · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the joke? GP quotes Armstrong's words from after they had already landed .

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Cliche mushup by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Actually, when Apollo 11 landed and announced, "Houston, this is Tranquility Base, the Eagle has landed", mission managers were initially confused because they'd never heard the phrase "Tranquility Base" in training. Neal threw that in as a surprise. That teaser, Neal.

      Who? I thought there were only two of them, Neil and Edwin.

    5. Re:Cliche mushup by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      "Houston, this is Tranquility Base, the Eagle has landed"

      No. "Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed."

      "Roger, Tranquillity, we copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue, we're breathing again. Thanks a lot."

      Transcript

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  23. Screwup, but not an units problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked at a machine shop inspecting oilfield parts. We would get drawings from all over the world. Texas, Saudi Arabia, Pennsylvania, Egypt, you name it. The drawings from the US were always imperial (inch), and the drawings from everywhere else were in metric (usually millimetre). Not a problem. Because our biggest customers were American, we would normally make all parts in inches, but if a drawing from somewhere else came along, one of the first things done was to convert it from millimetres to inches. Every dimension was converted prior to doing anything else. There are 25.4 millimetres to the inch, or 2.54 microns per ten thousandth of an inch. Never, ever had a problem converting. The only problem we ever had was tolerences. In inch, they were usually always there. In metric, usually none were given. You had to guess at what was an acceptable amount of deviation from perfection. You can banter all you want about conversions and whatnot, but from what I saw, if there was a problem with the part, and it doesn't fit, then both the guy who made the part and also the guy who inspected the part screwed up. Whenever we would ship anything out of country, 3rd party inspectors would inspect the part too. Assuming shipping to space is much more expensive than shipping by rail or truck, I would assume that 3rd party inspectors would, for insurance reasons at least, inspect the part as well. If after that, it still doesn't fit, either the engineer who designed it screwed up badly, the drawings on hand are wrong and the previous engineer screwed up, or the guy who made the part (and all of the quality control people) screwed up. There are reasons why you put infrastructure in place to avoid these kind of screwups. You make sure only as-built drawings are on hand, you make sure subcontractors destroy old drawings (so they only build the part as required), and you test-build an exact copy of the iss on the ground out of plastic (or some other cheap, easy to machine material), so you can be certain that this kind of screwup doesn't happen.

    1. Re:Screwup, but not an units problem... by joh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Every dimension was converted prior to doing anything else. There are 25.4 millimetres to the inch, or 2.54 microns per ten thousandth of an inch. Never, ever had a problem converting.

      That's because, ironically, the inch now is DEFINED as being 25.4 millimetres, so a clean and exact conversion is no problem since the inch is already based on metric units. Saying "one inch" is just another way of saying "25.4 millimetres". Other units are less clean and exact.

  24. Inside Scoop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work for Boeing (the main contractors for the ISS) and the problem is that the cover will not retract over one of the CBM (common berthing mechanisms) where they wish to install the Cupola. It is actually no impact to Tranquility which is working wonderfully so far. This issue has at this time already been resolved and the Cupola is being relocated to this area, while PMA-3 (Pressurized Mating Adapter #3) is being relocated to where the Cupola used to be. This was done so that the Cupola could face the earth and create all those fantastic views everybody envisioned from the ISS, while being able to be launched in the shuttle payload bay.

  25. Re:Metric Everywhere (Viva Base 12) by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Europeans: the assumption that Americans are actually fanatical supporters of the Imperial system. The truth is, we don't like it (can't speak for the UK, but I suspect it's similar). There isn't anyone in America who actually believes that the Imperial system is easier or more useful. The reason it persists is simply one of tradition

    One thing that Imperial units have going for them is that they better divide by 3 and 4. 12 and arguably 60 make a "nicer" unit base mathematically. Ten is merely a happenstance of tetrapod evolution. A "smart" god would have given us 12 digits instead of 10.
     

  26. Re:Metric Everywhere (Viva Base 12) by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    One thing that Imperial units have going for them is that they better divide by 3 and 4. 12 and arguably 60 make a "nicer" unit base mathematically. Ten is merely a happenstance of tetrapod evolution. A "smart" god would have given us 12 digits instead of 10.

    By that argument a power of two should surely be best, but I expect that fourteen fingered aliens would favor base fourteen anyway.

  27. Anyone else think this is 41 years late by syousef · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else glance at the headline and think they were talking about the Apollo mission, then feel a fool when they read the story properly? ;-)

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Anyone else think this is 41 years late by k2r · · Score: 1

      > then feel a fool when they read the story properly?

      On Slashdot, nobody reads the story properly....

    2. Re:Anyone else think this is 41 years late by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No, but good point. I doubt that most here really have a sense of what that was about.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  28. Americans are just mental wimps by bussdriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The rest the world has to deal with english, American technical terms, corporations, IP laws, military bases, a hysterical anti-terror crusade and occasionally our messed up measurement system. Yet Americans can't handle having to transition to metric because it would be too hard and too difficult. The greatest generation could have done it, but not the current ones - its beyond their abilities.

    Legacy parts? live with it. Eventually, they stop being produced anyhow. It can take decades to move hardware but a ton of stuff can be moved quickly.

    Bunch of wimps. I know, I live here.

    1. Re:Americans are just mental wimps by dominious · · Score: 1

      The rest the world has to deal with english, American technical terms, corporations, IP laws, military bases, a hysterical anti-terror crusade and occasionally our messed up measurement system.

      So true, mod parent up!! Although you dropped an "of" before "the world" and a "y" before "our messed up"

    2. Re:Americans are just mental wimps by dissy · · Score: 1

      Legacy parts? live with it. Eventually, they stop being produced anyhow. It can take decades to move hardware but a ton of stuff can be moved quickly.

      Don't you mean:
      Legacy parts? live with it. Eventually, they stop being produced anyhow. It can take decades to move hardware but 907.18474 kilograms of stuff can be moved quickly.

    3. Re:Americans are just mental wimps by iNaya · · Score: 1

      In the metric system 1 ton = 1000kg. 1 ton = 0.90718474 tons.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    4. Re:Americans are just mental wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muddling up Tons and Tonnes?

    5. Re:Americans are just mental wimps by xaxa · · Score: 1

      In British English (not sure about anything else) we usually write "tonne" (1000kg), just to be clear. (Tonne never means the Imperial/US one.)

    6. Re:Americans are just mental wimps by dragonbutt · · Score: 0

      a ton of stuff

      Obviously you are talking in metric tonnes here.

      --
      it was like that when I got here.. I wasen't here when that happened... second shift musta done that....
    7. Re:Americans are just mental wimps by iNaya · · Score: 1

      In NZ, tonne and ton are used interchangeably to mean 1 metric tonne.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    8. Re:Americans are just mental wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the greatest generation tried to do it in 1975, when I was but a wee lad, and failed. http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/metric-week.html

    9. Re:Americans are just mental wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The greatest generation could have done it

      But, in fact, they didn't do it.
      :-)

  29. Maybe it's the screen door? by kawabago · · Score: 1

    All space craft have trouble with them.

    1. Re:Maybe it's the screen door? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least Italian spacecraft do

  30. Re:Metric Everywhere (Viva Base 12) by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    If we have a weighting system that gives the lowest integers the higher weights and also gives credit to the lowness of the number (5 is better than 500 as a base, for example), then 12 and 60 will likely be top candidates. We as humans do a lot of division by the lower integers (2, 3, 4, etc.). A base that reflects this would make life easier.

  31. Re:Metric Everywhere (Viva Base 12) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, because you can't divide those by 3.

    14 even less so, divisible only by 2 and 7.

  32. you're smarter than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trust me, after 3 months you'll be as intuitive in using metric like riding a bike/ using GPS while driving/ learning CSS. I don't find myself to be a genius but around the average intelligence, and I could pickup Imperial System after living with metric for 12 years. Really, don't sell yourself short. The chaos would be inhibited by the dire idiot who can't even properly tie his own shoes. The fact that you have a slashdot acct, and can probably setup your own email account on gmail/ hotmail/ whatever, the world is not going to end.

    Why do I hate IS? The conversions make no sense at all - from ounces to cups to teaspoon; inches to miles to acres - makes no sense. I love cooking and industrial design/ architecture, and I always setup the system in metrics because it's easily scalable in the head, whereas with IS I'd need to have the calculator handy. It just adds unnecessary hurdles.

    Live with metric for a few months and it'll be more than just "logical" - it'll be intuitive.

  33. Open the windows? Oh, noes! by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure we don't want them to open the windows. I would rather they just open the window covers. If they open the windows, it will be very, very windy....for a little while.

  34. Funny how the goofes make the news by physburn · · Score: 1
    Its a small problem and i bet there fix it. Then the station has a observation and excerise room which will do wonders for space tourism. No point paying for the ride, if you don't get a great view which is exactly what tranquillity with give astronaunts and space tourists. ---

    --- Space Craft Feed @ Feed Distiller

  35. Re:Correct about Hubble. Mars Climate Orbiter howe by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    The classic example of an imperial-metric snafu is the Mars Climate Orbiter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter which was lost because the software measured force in pounds while the thrusters gave results and throttled accordingly by newtons.

    WRONG. The data was supplied to the mission analysts was in lb-seconds. The program they used to do the mission analysis expected the data in newton-seconds. And, once again, that particular error was far from the most damning part of the issue. With even the most basic due dilligence on the part of the mission analysis it would have been corrected. And in any case, the units WEREN'T SPECIFIED in the interface, and *all*, repeat, *ALL* the data associated with this thruster has been for decades and will continue to be in the future, in conventional units.

            Please read this : http://www.jamesoberg.com/mars/loss.html before spouting more tiresome drivel on this topic.

  36. Take MY space module, will you?!? by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    "Take that NASA!"

    Stephen Colbert's revenge!

    --
    [End Of Line]
  37. it isn't hard, point is, people dont want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    they're sick and tired of having to learn new things just because some asshole decides they have to, they just want to live their lives in the environment they grew up in

  38. bravo USAToday, wonderfully lucid explanation..not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what I gather is that the cover is a temporary protection for Tranquility's port between the time the lookout is moved and when a permanent docking adapter is installed.

    But then you get gems of sagacity from the article such as:

    The fabric, multilayered cover is supposed to go between Tranquility and its observation deck

    which make it sound like it's a permanent item for a lookout that isn't being moved.

    Houston we got a problem...in our news writers.

  39. a bloody cover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess pre-testing before flight of space qualified components is now considered over-rated and being anal.

  40. Another Imperial/Metric SNAFU by hey! · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that thermal exhaust duct that's only supposed to stretch from the exhaust port at the surface 621/1000s of the way down to the main reactor.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Another Imperial/Metric SNAFU by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that thermal exhaust duct that's only supposed to stretch from the exhaust port at the surface 621/1000s of the way down to the main reactor.

      But they are two meters across.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  41. Re:Metric Everywhere (Viva Base 12) by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Please clarify. Where did you get 14? The more root integers a candidate matches, the higher the score. 14 ain't match much in terms of quantity.

  42. Re:Correct about Hubble. Mars Climate Orbiter howe by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    Ok. I read it. According to what you linked to, other problems occurred also. In particular, they ignored initial evidence that something was wrong. This, and the initial failure to find the problem resulted, in according to that piece, systemic problems at NASA. I fail to see how anything in that piece justifies responding to the statement that the craft was lost due to software working on imperial and throttle as working under metric is at all "wrong" given what you've stated, much less "WRONG."

  43. Yah scientists can't do fractions. by SittingUnderBridge · · Score: 0

    So they need decimal points they can move around. That is 20 decimal points if they take their socks off.
    MODERATE THIS FUCK NUT.

    --
    Poop stinks and so do you=:)
  44. Re: Another Imperial-metric issue by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    A gallon is 128 ounces, not 256.

  45. Re:Correct about Hubble. Mars Climate Orbiter howe by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

    All things being equal, the latter solution is inferior to the former. Metric is logical and much easier (powers of ten, same decimal prefixes in all units). The only thing holding the imperial system is legacy; it has no inherent advantages.

    --
    17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
  46. Re: Another Imperial-metric issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pints (2 cups or 16 ounces), quarts (2 pints or 4 cups or 64 ounces)

    Um, 2 * 16 = 32, as in oz in a quart. Fail. Ditto for 4 * 8 which is also 32. Double fail.

    Similarly

    miles (5280 feet or 176 yards)

    5280 / 3 = 1760 yards in a mile. Triple fail.

    I guess "no student left behind" didn't work out so well.

  47. Not necessarily a unit of measure issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having worked with lots of cable assemblies, this sounds like someone spec'd *just* enough length for the sheath on the bill of material, instead of allowing a bit extra for trimming errors.

  48. Idiot by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    If you want a refutation that uses facts, why don't you try making an argument worthy of one instead of drooling all over your keyboard and parroting meaningless bi-partisan cliches?

  49. Metric/Imperial snafu not likely by Dr+La · · Score: 1

    Both the Tranquility unit and the observation deck are Italian built

    So it is not very likely this is a Metric / Imperial mixup problem, as Italy uses Metric only and built both objects.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
  50. They had the REAL THING by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Tranquility, Cupula AND the insulation were all made in Italy.

    Basically, Italy should have tested this in a low atmosphere chamber. Had they done so, then they would have found this issue. This is going to turn out to be BAD QC on Italy's part.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  51. Imperial/Metric Snafu by dredwerker · · Score: 1

    "One has to wonder if this is another imperial/metric snafu."

    I am wondering if its a postage stamp vs metres snafu.

    --
    On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
  52. The longer you wait... by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It's not a matter of just "getting on with the times". Yes, the SI system is easier to work with, but there are immense costs in converting every system in use to another system.

    True, but every other country in the world has already paid those costs. The metric system isn't terribly old. The longer the US waits the more expensive and difficult it becomes to switch.

    You also need to consider that every piece of software and every table of elevations and distances that engineers use when building such systems are not in metric.

    Most of those bits of software are already capable of metric (or easily made so) and generating new tables is trivial. Most engineering companies are quite capable of working with metric. Any company that does business outside the US (which is a LOT of them) already deals in metric whether they want to or not. It's a global economy and the US is intentionally incurring an unnecessary cost and burden on its own businesses.

    Yes, the conversion would have some significant difficulties but the real difficulty is getting people to just accept metric as the standard. The biggest obstacle is simply people (older people especially) not wanting to bother - not the financial cost.

    When my government is over $12,300,000,000,000 in debt, "getting on with the times" is the last thing on which I'd want it to waste more money.

    As a percent of gdp the US has been in more debt as recently as 65 years ago. The conversion costs of going to metric, expensive as it would be, would be tiny in comparison. You could pay for the whole thing with a relatively modest cut in your choice of Defense, Social Security or Medicare. Of course good luck getting that done...

    Consider it from the other side: why doesn't the world convert to Impirial Units? I'm sure no country wants to incur the cost of converting everything to another system.

    Because the other 95% of the world's population has grasped the concept that using standard units saves money in the long run and makes it easier to communicate as well. Are you seriously arguing that 95% of the world's population should switch to a measurement system that even you admit is more difficult to work with? That's a bizarre way to convince someone...

  53. Re:Metric Everywhere (Viva Base 12) by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

    He was addressing the person that suggested 14-fingered aliens would prefer base 14, much the way that we as 10-fingered aliens prefer base 10.

  54. Re:Metric Everywhere (Viva Base 12) by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Ten is merely a happenstance of tetrapod evolution. A "smart" god would have given us 12 digits instead of 10.

    Your god gave you 12 knuckles on the grasping fingers of each hand. Egyptian and Babylonian children were taught this at an early age. It seems his children are the idiots here.

    Dozenal or bust.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  55. Re:Metric Everywhere (Viva Base 12) by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Nothing a hatchet can't fix.