Slashdot Mirror


Why Does the US Cling To Imperial Measurements?

PhunkySchtuff writes "As one of only three countries on Earth that hasn't converted to a metric system of units and measurements, there is a huge amount of resistance within the US to change the status quo. Whilst the cost of switching would be huge, there is also a massive hidden cost in not switching when dealing with the rest of the world (except for Liberia & Burma, the only other two countries that don't use the metric system) With one of the largest organisations in the US, the military, using metric units extensively, why does the general public in the US still cling to their customary system of units?"

144 of 2,288 comments (clear)

  1. Not so bad to have different systems. by suso · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think its alright to have a few different systems in the world. Sure, there is an attractiveness to consolidation. But what are we going to do when we encounter aliens? Demand that they switch to the metric system? I'm actually serious. I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow or even in the next decade or century, but eventually it will. There is a lot to be said for having a tolerance for the differences among cultures and retaining those differences.

    1. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by log0n · · Score: 3, Funny

      I disagree.

    2. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well since you can ask ridiculous hypothetical questions: what happens if the aliens use metric?

    3. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by mywhitewolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its much more intuitive for an advanced civilization to have a base(x) counting system with measurement standards being built of the counting system. so aliens are more likely to understand a metric system better than imperial. Aliens should be able to understand the true nature of mathematics and use that to classify sizes, not the average size of a foot.

      However i disagree with America conforming "just because". we haven't even moved to a base 10 timing metric yet, who are we to judge?

    4. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by jbengt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing is, even if they are both based on arbitrary fundamental measures, SI units are self-consistent, while imperial measurements are not. So a lot of arbitrary constants are required in the US that are not needed elsewhere.

    5. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Malica · · Score: 2

      Well that would be an amazing coincidence.

      But TV and movies have already taught us that all aliens speak English, so is it really that far fetched that they'd use the metric system too?

    6. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are missing the point. The main argument for the metric system is NOT because it is standard, regardless of what TFA says. The reason we should switch to the metric system is the same that the rest of the world has already -- it simply makes a whole lot more sense. Everything is base 10, and if you know what the basic unit of measurement is you can very easily figure out how to go between units simply by moving a decimal place. Imperial measures, on the other hand, are totally psychotic. 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 5,280 feet to a mile. It is the type of nonsense that we would expect to see in Dr. Seuss story, not it real life.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    7. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes some of those rules of thumb break, but you end up with different and new rules of thumb instead. For instance, 100km/h is a pretty standard speed on many roads (don't be daft, they wouldn't convert 60 mph to 96 km/h ... they'd make it 100). So the distance to your destination in 100s of km is the number of hours until you get there (e.g. 300km = ~3 hours, 425 km = ~4 hr, 15 min). I personally use that rule of thumb all the time when driving.

      Also wouldn't approximately 1 foot be approximately 30 cm (why convert exactly to 30.5 if you're only talking 'approximately' in the first place?) 30 cm divides cleanly by 15, 10, 6, 5, 3 and 2. Kinda nice actually.

    8. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by mug+funky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      so that's your argument? "what would the aliens think?"

      SI is a planetary standard. the only (ONLY) arbitrary measure in it is the actual length of the metre, because at some point someone had to choose something.

      everything else relates to that one measurement, and mass measurements relate back via water at 4 degrees celcius (water is most dense at this point). 1Kg of water is equal to 1 litre in volume, which fits into a cube 10cm to a side.

      or if you prefer, 1 cubic metre of water at 4 degrees weighs exactly one metric tonne.

      now give me the above in ounces, furlongs, feet, and pints and we can discuss what the aliens would think.

    9. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Approximately one foot is also, coincidentally, approximately 30 centimetres. Tacking on half a centimetre to an approximation is ridiculous. What if the length is 30 cm, and the imperial length is 11.7 inches?

      60km/h: standard residential street where I live. One kilometre per minute.

      The imperial standard isn't used because you honestly genuinely think it's better: it's because you have an irrational fear/hatred of the metric system than your country so sorely needs.

    10. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by seyyah · · Score: 4, Funny

      Miles make for easy measurement of rate-of-motion and gallons make for easy measurement of fuel usage when traveling. Going the average street-value 30mph? Two minutes per mile to destination. Going the average highway 60mph? One minute per mile to your destination off-ramp.

      Thanks! I tried to do an example where I was going 60km/h but I couldn't figure out how many minutes to my destination. Then I did it in mph and it was so much easier! Thanks dude. Imperial is better.

      By contrast, meters/centimeters make for a pain in the ass to divide by anything but multiples of 5 or 10, not to mention that common everyday occurrences that are approximately "one foot" long are then 30.5 centimeters, a measurement that divides cleanly by precisely Jack and Shit.

      Yeah, I've got tons of stuff which all measures exactly 1 foot but nothing that measures 30cm long. Thanks for pointing out how much better Imperial is because stuff is usually 1 foot long and not 0.5cm shorter. You rock... just like Imperial units!

    11. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Metric is a heck of a lot easier to explain than imperial.

      Lets see, 2.5 cm per inch, 12 inches per foot, 5 foot per fathom, but its also 5280 feet per mile...and its 3 feet to a yard, which is kind of like a meter, but not quite...

      As opposed to simple powers of 10 for metric. If we could today snap our fingers and have everything switched over, with no conversion costs, it would be a no brainer.

    12. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 2

      So... how many yards in a mile? Quick now.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    13. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 5, Funny

      You rock... just like Imperial units!

      It's a common misconception that Americans use Imperial units. Actually, they measure short distances in car lengths and long distances in football fields.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    14. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, there are some.

      Sometimes it's a matter of scale -- for instance, units based on electron-volts are useful when you want to talk about the energy in a single photon or electron, or things on that scale, while the Joule is a much more accessible unit when you're at the scale where metric units make sense -- can't get much simpler than a kilogram meter per second. It's not just a matter of a nano-Joule vs a Joule -- it's a matter of the electron-Volt being based on how elementary particles actually behave, while the Joule is based on fairly arbitrary (but convenient) metric units.

      Sometimes it's a matter of who is using the unit, and what they're using it for. I often talk shit about the Kilowatt Hour -- Watts are Joules per second (energy per time) and the Kilowatt Hour is Kilowatts per Hour (power per time, where power is energy per time) -- so you end up back at energy. The Kilowatt hour is basically a really clumsy multiple of the Joule -- or at least, it's really clumsy if you're dealing with Joules, which would imply you're dealing with physics and engineering. The fact that electrical appliances are rated in watts means that a kilowatt hour is still quite convenient if you want to know, say, how much it's going to cost to run a box with a 250-watt power supply 24/7, or a 700-watt, 70-inch HDTV for a few hours a day, or how long it'll take for a CFL to pay for itself, and so on.

      Degrees Celsius vs Kelvin. Kelvin is a lot more useful if you need to do actual calculations -- again, physics/engineering -- but the difference between 273 kelvin and 313 kelvin doesn't really mean as much as the difference between 0 degrees Celsius and 40 degrees Celsius.

      Or angle measures -- degrees are much easier for humans to work with than radians when just trying to figure out the angle, but radians are a much more natural angle to do any sort of calculations in, especially since they technically aren't even units. You can do crazy things like take that 7200 RPMs your hard disk spins at, convert it to radians/second, and multiply it by the radius of your hard disk in whatever units you want, and you'll get the linear velocity of the edge of that disk in those same units.

      That is, 45 degrees is a lot easier for humans to learn than pi/4 radians, but if you know you've got pi/4 radians, that's a lot easier to apply to almost anything.

      I could go on, and that's just off the top of my head, from what is theoretically a freshman physics course.

      None of this, by the way, is a justification for imperial measurements. Those are just retarded. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to learn Celsius for temperature -- I know what 40 degrees Fahrenheit feels like, but I have no idea (until I convert it) what 5 degrees Celsius feels like. Still, I'd be the first to suggest any shift towards better units -- maybe while we're at it, we can fix the whole minute/hour/day weirdness and start dividing the day by powers of 10 instead.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    15. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      In metric, you have different sized panels - 2400mm x 1200mm - which are designed to make carpentry math easy. They retain the easy divisibility by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, etc., while adding 10 and 5 to the list. Measuring tapes are done in mm only.

      This is why the US hasn't converted - both systems, if used extensively, have a great deal of internal logic, but switching from one to the other instantly obsoletes everything that came before.

    16. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Randle_Revar · · Score: 2

      >I'm sure aliens would have their own "universal system" too.

      Based on the Planck units if they have any sense.

    17. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Stoutlimb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speaking from experience, as someone forced to use both measurement systems for length and area in the construction and design industry, I prefer imperial for some work. And I don't live in the USA. Why?

      The fractional measurement system with a base-12 number system is the reason. For design purposes. Specifically division, which is common. It's frustrating to divide things and get lengths with fractional or repeating decimals. It clutters up the design space with unnecessarily large numbers, sometimes for small measurements. Often space is precious on blue prints on documents, and this actually makes a big difference.

      For example, suppose I have a wall, that I need to break up to place things like doors, windows, or interior partitions. With the metric system, I can only divide by either 2, 5, or 10 and reasonably expect to get nice round numbers for my measurements. With the imperial system, with being able to revert to feet and inches, it's possible to divide by 2, 3, 4, 6, or 12, and reasonably expect a simple number in return. I'm especially fond of being able to divide by 3 and 4, which the metric system doesn't do very easily compared to the imperial.

      Despite these benefits which I enjoy, I would still sacrifice the imperial system for the metric. In the big picture, it still makes more sense and is better overall. Personally I do believe it's the strong construction industry in big part that clings to the imperial system for their own legitimate reasons.

    18. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by drfreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      WTF? You Porsche drivers just need to shut the fu*k up!

    19. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by calidoscope · · Score: 2

      Light travels 0.984 feet in one nanosecond - too bad that the definition of the foot is so well entrenched that it couldn't be adjusted to equal the distance light traveled in one nano-second (call it the light-foot). This would be a much more logical unit of length than the meter, which is a mis-measurement of one ten-millionth the distance from the north pole to the equator at the longitude of Paris. For mass, I would like to see something on the order of 10E26 hydrogen atoms, etc.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    20. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      valid points.

      but if you'd look briefly at the history of SI, as these things were discovered, the units were gracefully adapted to the new knowledge without breaking the old stuff, and new units added where appropriate (look at the Sievert measure that is being throw around so much at the moment. it's made up of joules per kilogram of mammal meat).

      whereas the philosophy behind imperial measurements (even the name! the fiercely independent Americans are using the system of their former oppressors!) is that it is the way it is because it is the way it is, and if it wasn't the way it is it wouldn't be the way it is.

    21. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hello,

          Using minute/hour/day thing isn't so irrational, really. 60 seconds per minute and 60 minutes per hour, 60 is a very nice number.
          1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30 all divide into it without fractions.

          For 10, you have 1, 2, 5, and that's it.

          24 is a pretty nice number for dividing too, you have
      1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12.

      --PM

    22. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by vell0cet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damn! Mile is a foreign language?! We should change it to 1776 yards in a mile and change the name to a "Freedom"!

    23. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 2

      We will be able to tell if the Aliens are rednecks pretty fast.
      Here are some signs....
      A large dead alien life form is tied to the front or back of their spaceship.
      If when they land, one of the landing struts ends with a concrete block.
      They don't land in Paris, New York, DC, or any major power center and instead land at a Nascar event.
      Their spaceship backfires constantly.
      Their spaceship has a front porch with a rocker and a fridge on it.
      When approached by the President of the United States, the Aliens point at the Presedents dog and ask "You gonna eat that?"

    24. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's crap - why is the fractional representation inclined towards arbitrary amounts at each order of magnitude? why are there 12 inches to a foot, but 3 feet to a yard, and 1760 yards to a mile?

      I think you are picking and choosing your units. There are 12 inches to a foot, and 12 feet to a rod.... if you want consistency. Going smaller there are 12 points to a pica and 6 picas to the inch (used in typography). Units like a mile come from the Romans, so don't blame a lack of consistency.

      For liquids, there are 2 ounces to a shot, 2 shots to a gill, 2 gills to a cup, 2 cups to a pint, 2 pints to a quart, 2 quarts to a jack (yes, it exists, but is usually called a half gallon), 2 jacks to a gallon. I'd call that pretty consistent too, although it is a binary system and not decimal. That takes getting used to, but explains a whole lot. There is even a nursery rhyme about Jack and Gill fetching a pail of water, explaining how some English king got in trouble with parliament and those units stopped being used in common practice.

      An advantage of the imperial system is that you can take 12 units and divide them in half, into thirds, into fourths, and sixths. With 10 units, all you can do is to divide them in half or into fifths (or tenths). This concept was known to the Babylonians, but subsequently forgotten by the French who loved the decimal system so much more. BTW, this is why a clock is divided into 60 seconds and minutes, because 60 can be divided by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30. If you are having to chop something up into smaller pieces, it really helps to use a numerical base other than 10 for that division. For a quick & dirty system, base 12 really is very useful, hence why things are often sold by the dozen for the same reason.

    25. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by arkenian · · Score: 2
      No. Its because imperial units did not start out as a 'system' at all. They're a mish-mash of measurement standards pulled together based on prevailing preferences when England chose to standardize measurements, plus usage over time for which ones are in common use. They took these measurements, generally based on simple measuring techniques (such as the length of a booted foot (feet), the length of a piece of cloth if held from shoulder to end of outstretched arm (yard) etc.) that you would generally use for rough measure, combined with things like the link/chain/rod/furlong method of standard measures (and when you cross these with a traditional 5k foot roman mile, you end up with the 8 furlong 5280 foot imperial mile....)

      That said, things (like feet) which are divided into 12 are absolutely for the convenience of fractional measures because it is the first number divisible by 1, 2, 3, and 4, so it makes arithmetic very easy for fractional measures, as you said. Metric is a much better system when you're doing detailed calculations with pen and paper or by computer, or when you're trying to change order of mangitude (but seriously, outside of an engineering calculation, why would you even really care how many feet are in a mile?)

      In the modern world metric is far superior for nearly every use, and I'd totally support the US switching over. However, you can make a strong argument that for practical every day purposes, the imperial units are more often than not easier to visualize and measure at logical breaks when accurate tools are not available.

    26. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Also, how big are your "two by fours"? Because they aren't two inches by four inches. If you've got names for things that don't fit, you have no reason to hold onto the old measurement system.

      Actually, two-by-fours start off (are raw cut) to be 2" x 4". It's just they are run through a planer that removes 1/4" off each side, leading to a 1.5"x3.5" block of lumber.

      You can get unfinished 2x4s which really are that, but they're rough and splintery. The planer makes them nice and neat and pretty.

    27. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are self-consistant and use a fixed base. Imperial units do not use a fixed base. They're expressed in decimal, sure, but fractions of an inch are measured in fractional powers of 2 (exceptr for mils, which are measured in thousandths), inches are measured in base 12, nails are measured in base 16, hands are measured in base 4, palms are measured in base 3, feet are measured in base 3, yards are measured in base 22, chains are measured in base 10, furlongs are measured in base 8, miles are measured in base 3.

      Imperial units are "natural" measures - you will find that most (if not all) natural phenomena will work out to an exact integer number of some measure or other. This made them great when making exact measuring devices was extremely difficult. Far and away easier to use a measuring device that occurs all around you. If you're sneaky, you can even use Imperial Units from different countries. (A foot in Belgium is not the same distance as a foot in America.)

      Some of the units I've given above are now only used in specialist cases. Since people tend to go from yards directly to miles, you now have yards measured in base 1760. (This would obviously be useless if you were using a tally sheet of any kind, 22s, 10s and 8s are far more practical and far more easily counted manually.)

      However, none of these units are remotely useful EXCEPT when measuring natural phenomena (which never happen in convenient SI units). Trying to program a computer in eleven different base systems would be horrible. Trying to get it bug-free would be impossible. Trying to get anything remotely intelligent to display would be ludicrous. Sure, computers can convert between Imperial and SI and then do all the SI internally. And this would be useful how? You're adding extra layers of complexity on the human end (which is naive at best) and adding extra layers of complexity into the code (which is downright stupid and irresponsible).

      I was one of the few generations in England to be taught both Imperial AND Metric systems in school, simultaneously. This was in the transition period in the early 70s (before half the current Slashdot readership was born). I also had to learn both the decimal and pre-decimal currencies. Trust me, modern English schoolkids are missing NOTHING by being wholly metric. Well, so long as they understand the history as well. The history is valuable because without it you cannot understand historic descriptions accurately. The numerical values would make no rational sense without the context in which the units were created.

      Of course, things not making sense has never stopped US schools or school boards in the past, hence the proliferation of creationist textbooks in science classes.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    28. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by hawk · · Score: 2

      >It's 40 miles to my mother-in-law's house. Why would
      >I possibly care that it's also 201200 feet?

      To make it seem farther? :)

    29. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      360 is also a very nice number too in terms of is factors:

      1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, and 180.

      That was well known to the Babylonians, which is why it was used in their numbering systems. By sheer coincidence, it also fit very closely to the number of days in a year, which is perhaps why the number was used for circles and other similar calculations. To include a way to chop things into seven pieces, you would have to ramp up to 1260 divisions, which really becomes unwieldy. Still, 60*60 seconds can be divided into 10 or 100 pieces as needed if you really want to go decimal.

    30. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2

      Weight is measured in kg, force in Newton. There is a difference between the two, you know.

      No actually there's not. Weight is force. That's why you "weigh less" on the moon.

      You're both wrong. You're wrong in saying there's no difference, and he's wrong in saying grams are a measure of weight. Grams are a measure of mass: the amount of matter an object contains. Weight is essentially a measure of the pull of gravity upon a particular object. Something that is 45kg weighs 99.21lbs on Earth. That same object weighs 16lb on the Moon, but it is still 45kg. We use weight as an easy way to measure mass, but your scale must be recalibrated for your monthly business trips to Venus.

    31. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It took me all of about 2 hours overseas to get used to Celsius. I think it's stubborn pig-headednes more than anything else. We can't possibly be wrong about ANYTHING, so we'll probably be stuck with this awkward-ass system for generations to come. Or until our Chinese overlords force us to change...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    32. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by 517714 · · Score: 2

      They state their weight in stones, even though the unit was obsoleted for trade in the 80's. A stone = 14 lb. 8 stones = 1 hundredweight = 1cwt = 112 lb and people bitch about gigabytes.

      And every country continues to use Knots for velocity of ships and aircraft.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    33. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The UK and Ireland went metric sometime in the early 80s iirc (EU standardisation). All weights and measures used in at least consumer trading had to be given primarily in metric. Speed and distance on the road is one of the few places where imperial is still used in the UK. In Ireland, for quite a while, you had the interesting situation that speed limits were in mph while distances on sign-boards were in km (except for the very old black & white ones out in the country). Ireland finally fixed that inconsistency 6 or 7 ish years ago and changed speed limits over to km/h overnight (though, the odd black & white old signpost in miles still remain). When you drive in Ireland, you know you've crossed the border when the posted speed limits suddenly change by a large amount. ;)

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    34. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Bredero · · Score: 2

      As the speed limit in most areas is 120 or 130 km/h your real world average speed is actually about 100 km/h. Transportation planners use this as a rule of thumb and from my own experience I can tell that it is surprisingly accurate.

    35. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

      Well, cool, but how useful is it, really? Of the factors you mentioned, I don't know of anyone using 5, 10, 15, or 30 -- that is, no one talks about needing exactly twelve minutes, or four minutes, etc. That leaves us with intervals of 5 minutes, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 60.

      Of those, the problematic ones are 5, 10, and 20, and I contend that the 5 and 10 minutes are less about dividing the hour into one sixth or one twelfth, and more about multiplying the minute by the very decimal values of five or ten. I could make the same argument about twenty, but we actually _do_ see people wanting to divide the hour into thirds -- though here, 3.3 and 6.6 (or 33 and 66) would be close enough. After all, if we want to go by number of factors alone, 60 only buys us two more factors than 100.

      60 seconds per minute seems even less useful, aside from the symmetry with sixty minutes per hour. Problem with that argument is that there aren't 60 hours in a day, there are 24. So, again, it seems entirely archaic and arbitrary, and if we're going with archaic and arbitrary, why not go with a convention that's intuitively easy, well understood, and cuts across all standard units? We have the language already -- instead of hours, we could use decidays. Instead of minutes, millidays, and so on. Definitely easier to go that way and come up with anything meaningful than to start with the current SI unit of a second and go the other way -- a day is then just over 86 kiloseconds? That's not terribly useful.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    36. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      I think we should go for 100-day years too. Much easier.
      We'll just have to find a way to speed up earth orbit.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    37. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Water boils at 100 celsius and freezes at 0.

      And humans are unbearably hot at 100F and unbearably cold at 0F. Fahrenheit is useful for measuring human comfort (and human internal temperature differences) which is how the vast majority of people use temperature measurements.

    38. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Assuming a species will not switch a perfectly functional, valid and accurate number system to something else, it's hard to see how they discovered prime numbers and the details about quarks BEFORE discovering a practical number system.
      There's something fundamental about those base(n) systems; take 1 thing, add another 1 thing and you have double the things in total. Every culture that would be capable of space flight would have gone through a phase where such fundamental problems would the primary topic of math.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    39. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by georgesdev · · Score: 2

      Why some French used 10 is beyond me!

      That's because in France we have 10 fingers! Not in the US?

    40. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by SharpFang · · Score: 2

      A meter is my hand plus my chest width, about my waist height, I can rest my palms on walls 1.5m apart. Doors are about 2m tall. There's about 10cm from my knuckle to index finger tip, and the index finger nail is about 1cm wide. Standard office paper is 0.05mm thick.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    41. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Phillip2 · · Score: 2

      Have you been to the UK recently? What you say is just not true. While the standardization is now largely in metric
      the sales are often still in imperial. You can still buy milk by the 568ml (that is 1pint), likewise beer. And the population in general
      still talk in imperial ("go 100 yards up the road"). Baby milk is still given in fluid ounces, weight is given in pounds and ounces. Adult
      weight is usually given in stones, even though the medical community uses metric for all of these.

      It's a great pity. We should just grow up. But, unfortunately, there are many sad, sad people out there who think that being different
      makes us better and that a unit of measure defines us as British, and besides it's all a plot from the EU that will end up with us all
      speaking French. After all, look what happened to Australia and Canada when the EU forced them to use metric.

    42. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by NJRoadfan · · Score: 2

      The UK requires that beer is measured in pints if I recall. Customary units are still used casually in speech every day as well. Vehicles also must have speedometers with MPH markings too. Despite being metric, the UK is still "in transition".

    43. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      It may be the system of weights and measures of our former oppressors, but then we remember that word "former" and it reminds us that we still handed out a first-rate beatdown at Yorktown.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    44. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Moryath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I tried decimal time.

      Decimal measurement makes things really cute and easy for the scientists.

      It also makes things a royal pain in the ass for humans, since the real world is analog. The watchface; separated into a 360 degree circle (ever noticed even the scientists can't bring themselves to decimalize the circle?), divides cleanly into 12 hours, that divide cleanly into 60 minutes, 60 seconds, etc. It all remains whole units. It's divisible easily and cleanly by 2,3,4,5,6,8... USEFUL.

      What the hell, the decimal trolls already modded a post I had up to 5 down to -1 once, so I'll continue and if they don't like it they can go fuck themselves.

      The basic problem with metric vs imperial is that they both spawn from two different environments.

      Metric spawned from scientists in a lab. It works great in a lab. Everything is very precise, very orderly, and while they're in the lab they don't have to give a crap about the real world. They need to divide something in half and it comes out with a .5 in it, then they need to cut it in thirds afterward? What the hell, they don't care about a few repeating decimals here or there, they're scientists.

      "Imperial" spawned from everyday people using the relatively standard things they had on hand to measure with. It even had the good sense to obsolete measurements when they became irrelevant (we don't measure by "rods" or the "hogshead" anymore).

      Want to know why we use tablespoons/teaspoons for cooking? Because it could be assumed that just about every household had at least one "Table Spoon" and "Tea Spoon" on hand already. No need to go out buying special measuring devices (get a dinnerware set from IKEA and compare the table and tea spoons in it to standard, you'll find they are close enough to handle rounding error). Need a 1/2 teaspoon or 1/4 teaspoon? Measure a full one on the chopping board, slice it with the back of your kitchen knife. This is how most home cooking operated.

      A standard cup? Guess what - a standard cup.

      Everyday devices for everyday measurement. No need to go buying special, laboratory-grade equipment specially tailored to exacting specifications just to make your fucking breakfast. No need to try to measure out the quantity of applesauce you're putting into your latkes in a graduated cylinder.

      I find it funny - every metric superiority troll running around here starts screaming "well we make it easy because then we just play with the units till they come out cleanly", making new "standards" that instantly obsolete old ones and make maintenance a royal pain in the ass and require new equipment or retooling of existing equipment. And the cost of buying/retooling everyone's equipment is not negligible.

      What's even funnier is that these metric superiority trolls will do a quick 180 (see, gasp, a non-metric unit again!) when it comes time for them to argue over whether customers are getting full value when marketing uses a Metric Gigabyte (1GB=1,000,000,000 bytes) instead of a "Real Gigabyte" (1Gibibyte=1,073,741,824 bytes) when stating the capacity of storage media.

    45. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      You are right regarding dividing.
      But what most people are doing is adding stuff up.

      While the "imperial" system is used for lengths, your money is counted and calculated just metric. Seems to be no problem for you.

      Can you quickly calculate in your mind:
      (2 miles) + (321 yards, 1 foot, 5 inches) + (2 yards, 1 foot, 1 inch) + (5 feet, 9 ich) + 6 inch?

      In metric ... it is a no brainer.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    46. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by markhb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with you and the GP. In school in the '70s, I learned about the metric system / SI. PBS even had an entire series called "The Metric System"... I still remember part of the theme song. As time has passed and wholesale conversion didn't happen, I realized something: for everyday private life, SI has no clear advantages over the US customary system. There is nothing compelling about a kilometer or a meter that makes it a clear and necessary replacement for the mile or foot. The same goes for the kg vs. the pound (I know, that's comparing mass vs. weight, but if we don't need to allow for gravitational fluctuation then the difference is meaningless), or the liter vs.the quart. Yes, it's easier to convert from liquid measure to linear-cubed in SI, but you know what? Do you know why almost no one knows how many gallons are in a cubic foot? Because no one cares. It sounds nice on paper but for everyday life that's not a conversion people need to make. Yes, using the same system as the rest of the world makes commerce easier and I do believe that all Americans should at least have a passable understanding of SI and how its units compare to US customary. But in this instance the expense, disruption, and anti-convenience of a mass conversion at the personal level trumped the benefits to international commerce.

      --
      Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
    47. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by slapout · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you seen the official definition of a meter? The distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second.

      Frankly, I'd rather use a yard because I can easily estimate it at three of my feet.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    48. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2

      In old times the King decided how long an inch is (usually the width of his thump, he decided what what the length of a foot is, usually the length of his foot) and so on. if a king died the next king got "measured" and the units got changed in size. So roughly every 20 - 30 years you had a new inch, a new foot, a new ell a new yard (roughly one step length) a new mile etc. Two steps a re a "double step" and 1000 double steps are a mile. Wow, why that sudden 1000 ...

      I've seen this in Math book whent hey try and sell you on the Metric system, but I've yet to actually encounter this in a History book. Do you have actual examples, or are you simply repaeting the propoganda without thinking about it?

      Later the length of a mile (especially a nautical mile) got defined by the length of an arc minute of the equator... Your calculating examples make not much sense either.

      How does basing a unit of navigation directly on one fo the variables of navigation not make sense? 1" = 1 Mile seems like a much smarter method of navigation than 1" = 1.852 Kilometers.

      Of course the entire point to the discussion is that US system make better sense in the actual world in which we live. If you really want to convert the US metric, call the meter a yard, the kilogram a pound, a liter a quart and be done with it.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    49. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Moryath · · Score: 2

      Frankly, I'd rather use a yard because I can easily estimate it at three of my feet.

      You three-footed mutant, you ;)

      Speaking to the weirdo above however:
      E.g. how do you divide a yard by tow? Basically you can't: you come up with 1.5 feet.

      One and a half feet is a perfectly usable and functional 18 inches, which is divisible cleanly and easily by 2,3,4,6,and 9. In other words, you're an idiot.

    50. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by arth1 · · Score: 2

      BTW, this is why a clock is divided into 60 seconds and minutes, because 60 can be divided by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30.

      Unlikely and speculation.

      The base system for the minutes and seconds is the Sumerian/Babylonian sexagesimal system, true, but the clock got that way because that was the leading system, not because of a need to divide.
      Besides, the Sumer system isn't ideal for a clock that does hours and minutes, because it only goes from 1 to 59.

      And, we have 24 hours in a day and 7 days a week. If divisibility was a goal, you'd think both would be factors, no?
      In reality, our time system is a holy mess mixed with an unholy mess -- whatever was in use at the time, and wouldn't get you killed for heresy. (Thus no 0 on the dial, because the early Abrahamic religions didn't allow zero as number.)

    51. Re:Not so bad to have different systems. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2

      What I'm looking for is that every time a new Monarch was crowned that his entire realm was thrown akilter as every last measurement was changed. I get you're not from the US and am guessing you're German. In teh US the only citation I have ever seen similar to what you posited is in Math books. Specifically, Math books in the section discussing the Metric System. I have not seen references to Kingdoms, Empires, or any other Political unit having engineering difficulties because of a new ruler having short feet. That's what I'm looking for. Did units evolve over time? Sure. How long is a Cubit after all? It is the extremeness of the example that I find doubtful.

      The mere fact that the USA call their measuring system imperial is a kind of joke or not?

      I mean you make a kind of revolution to get rid of the empire ... and 200 years later you still use "empire" units. Albeit badly transmogrified ones. And on top of that you call the "empire" units now "imperial".


      In all honesty we don't think of them as Imperial at all. We think of them as the measures we know and use and grok. They are only referenced as "Imperial" in discussions like this as a way to differentiate them from the Metric System (which is what I was raised to call it) or the SI measurments.

      The USA, the land of miracles ... no one wil ever understand you.

      Obviously I'm from the US and there is much, much truth to what you say. This is a land of miracles in many ways. It is also a land of ignorance. A land of hate. A land of fear. And a land of beauty, and kindness, hard-work, and charity. It is a great many things which really have no business co-existing next to each other, but somehow do.

      I'm guessing from the ".de" that you're German. I would also be very surprised if much of what I just wrote isn't also true to your country. Sure we have our stereotypes of what Germans are like, but I would be shocked if Germany did not ahve just as many contradictory levels as the US. Or any other country.

      Generally speaking, the reason why the US has never embraced the Metric System is that there has never been a need to. We are also a very fundamentally practical people. And tend to be more individualist, too. Our units work. Why change?

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  2. Because.... by H0D_G · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It'd smack too much of you giving in to the French.

    Seriously, it's really frustrating when watching American science documentaries and all of the units aren't SI units. Scientists should always, always use metric.

    --
    Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
    1. Re:Because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Real science is done non-dimensionally

    2. Re:Because.... by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is even worse, is scientific shows like Mythbusters use BOTH systems. Usually they use metric, usually it's F but sometimes it's C. Weighs usually pounds, but they also have used (kilo)grammes. Distance is usually inches and feet, but when bouncing a baseball they were measuring the bounce in cm - while other parts of the same experiment were using inches and feet.

      There is no consistency, and that alone can give rise to errors. It doesn't really matter whether one uses cm or inches, or C or F as long as it's consistent. Forget to write down the unit once, and it's guesswork that's left. Have a thermometer with both scales - oops which scale were we using again this time?

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

      Hi, American scientist here. We do use metric.

      When things are done for the media (documentaries, etc), they are translated into Imperial units, because the majority of the (American) audience would have no idea how big or small of things we were talking about when talking in some strange units they aren't familiar with.

    4. Re:Because.... by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 2

      It's frustrating for us though when you air your documentaries in Canada, and are quoting ounces, Fahrenheit, yards, etc, since I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. I think it would be a nice gesture for us if you could at least subtitle the imperial measurements in metric or use both, if you must.

    5. Re:Because.... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      What is even worse, is scientific shows like Mythbusters use BOTH systems.
      ...
      There is no consistency, and that alone can give rise to errors

      It's a pre-recorded show. How can there be any errors?

      They're just trying to introduce the metric system to viewers. If they were to use completely Imperial units, viewers wouldn't be learning anything about the metric system. If they were to use completely metric units, U.S. viewers would be discouraged and stop watching. By mixing the units up, they're keeping people engaged and interested, while throwing the occasional metric curve their way to get people acclimated and interested in the different units. (That and I suspect some of the cast use metric while others use Imperial units.)

      Forget to write down the unit once, and it's guesswork that's left.

      Speaking as an engineer, if you forget to write down a unit, that in itself is a critical error completely independent of your measurement system. You're only thinking of the case of forgetting to write down a measurement in inches or cm. But you can also forget to write down a measurement in cm or mm. Both Imperial and metric systems are vulnerable to errors originating from forgetting to write down a unit.

  3. The US already adopted the Metric system by cob666 · · Score: 5, Informative
    I found this online somewhere:

    In 1988, Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, which designates "the metric system of measurement as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce." Among many other things, the act requires federal agencies to use metric measurements in nearly all of their activities, although there are still exceptions allowing traditional units to be used in documents intended for consumers. The real purpose of the act was to improve the competitiveness of American industry in international markets by encouraging industries to design, produce, and sell products in metric units.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    1. Re:The US already adopted the Metric system by OpenYourEyes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what this means, in reality, is that if you're doing work for the Federal Government, you do all your work in Imperial Units, and then convert them to Metric. So you don't actually get "standard" metric sizes... you get "standard" Imperial sizes with metric units labeling them.

    2. Re:The US already adopted the Metric system by smellsofbikes · · Score: 3

      I found this online somewhere:

      In 1988, Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, which designates "the metric system of measurement as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce."

      Try 1893: the Mendenhall Order said that the United States English system of weights and measures was fundamentally based on the Metric System. We've officially been on the metric system for over a hundred years: we just use really, really stupid units.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  4. That's easy by Schlemphfer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because we're a bunch of idiots. Next question?

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
  5. It's really quite simple by matty619 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Americans like monosyllabic or abbreviated words wherever possible. Especially in commonly used words, like those involving measurements. We've got pound, inch, foot, yard, pint, quart, and gallon....gallon being one of the few multisyllabic words. Most metric metrics (lol...ya, I just did that) are multi syllable compound words, and most of them don't have any obvious way of being shortened. Americans just don't want to say "Kilometer" when they can say "mile. They don't want to say "centimeter" when they can say "inch".

    The Metric System is elegantly simple and beautiful, in everything but the English pronunciation of said metrics. What a shame.

    1. Re:It's really quite simple by Cimexus · · Score: 2

      To be fair, in casual speech, people in metric countries say "k" for kilometres. As in "it's about 5 kay down the road". Similarly for millimetres they tend to say 'mil' (this could also be millilitre, depending on context).

      No short-form of cm as far as I'm aware though.

    2. Re:It's really quite simple by matty619 · · Score: 2

      Very true. But it's still one of the reasons the public at large has resisted every attempt to convert. Imperial measurements are just more comfortable in everyday speech. This is just my personal theory of course, but I believe it holds water. Perhaps a gallon or so ;)

    3. Re:It's really quite simple by Randle_Revar · · Score: 5, Funny

      A couple of redneck friends of mine started using "klick" as a distance because they found out the US military uses it. Imagine their reaction when they found out (from me) that it was metric (almost as bad as being French, as far as they are concerned).

  6. Liberia is a US offshoot by JeffSh · · Score: 2

    The interesting thing about this is that Liberia is comprised of US ex-pats; slaves who populated the country when "Back to Africa" was embraced by ex-slaves. It's really amazing to study this area of history. Even their flag is Red White and Blue. It's weird that they share the same addiction to imperial measurement also.

    1. Re:Liberia is a US offshoot by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2

      The interesting thing about this is that Liberia is comprised of US ex-pats; slaves who populated the country when "Back to Africa" was embraced by ex-slaves. It's really amazing to study this area of history. Even their flag is Red White and Blue. It's weird that they share the same addiction to imperial measurement also.

      And its capital city Monrovia is named after the US President who championed returning freed slaves to Africa. Ironically, the freed slaves were generally of mixed race and set themselves up as the minority masters of a race-based social hierarchy, which only crumbled in the last few decades, and was followed by a succession of civil wars.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  7. Re:Easy answer by Ksevio · · Score: 2

    In a way. The US is a big country so it takes a while to change things. All the signs would need changing, all the measurements in laws, all the schools, and much of the culture. For a smaller country it's more practical to change those all over in a short period, but for a larger country like the US it would be very expensive and take a long time. Such a move wouldn't be politically popular (people don't like change).

    Even the UK still hasn't converted over to kilometers yet, and it's much smaller.

  8. Good Question by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 2

    I've often wondered this very same thing. I grew up having learned both systems but it wasn't until I joined the Army that I realized how much easier the metric system is to actually use, not just on paper. Fractions are quite possibly the dumbest incarnation of math we humans could have ever invented; I could understand if it actually made things easier, but it does not.

    Perhaps there are jobs created or money to be made with continuing to use Imperial and metric at the same time e.g., tools created in both systems.

    On the other hand, how can we Americans continue our ethnocentric ways if we were to join the rest of the world? (ok that was a troll, but come on...it holds some truth).

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Good Question by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fractions are quite possibly the dumbest incarnation of math we humans could have ever invented; I could understand if it actually made things easier, but it does not.

      Fractional units come from back in the days when you couldn't buy a calibrated ruler at the corner store. If you don't have a ruler, the best you can do is take an object of known measure (say 1 yard of cloth) and divide it into equal parts (fold it into thirds to get three 1-foot segments). This is probably easiest to see with measures of volume. The English system goes by powers of 2. 1 gallon is 4 quarts (missing unit in between). 1 quart is 2 pints. 1 pint is 2 cups. 1 cup is 2 gills. Why powers of 2? If you don't have calibrated beakers, how do you divide a volume of liquid into even parts? You split it in half (by weight) over and over. So it makes sense for your units of measurement to coincide with dividing in half over and over.

      So back in the day when measuring was the hard part, fractions made sense. Today, measuring is the easy part, and calculating with the measurements afterward is the (relatively) hard part. So metric units (powers of 10) make more sense.

    2. Re:Good Question by Cassander · · Score: 2

      The English system goes by powers of 2. 1 gallon is 4 quarts (missing unit in between).

      The in-between unit isn't missing, it's "half". Perhaps you don't realize "quart" is just shorthand for "quarter gallon"?

      --
      Knowledge != Intelligence
  9. I use the metric system by devphaeton · · Score: 2

    Dunno about you guys, but whenever I have to actually design or build something, I use the metric system. I have foreign cookbooks where everything is metric, and my scales and measuring equipment all accommodate. Sure, sometimes i have to use imperial, such as when working on older cars, fixing someone else's handiwork, etc., but I also know a lot of common conversions off the top of my head. I've actually been called a "communist" once because of this. I consider it an accomplishment.

    Besides, all the engineering, manufacturing, scientific and medical sectors in the U.S. have been using the metric system for decades. /dev/phaeton

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  10. Change the name! by Thagg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Call them American units!

    I mean, we don't use Imperial gallons here anyway

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  11. Re:Easy answer by Deaths+Proxy · · Score: 2

    My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.

  12. Re:So everyone else pays a tax... by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually you are the one paying the tax for your mistakes.

    When NASA lost the US$125 million Mars Climate Orbiter for example.

    And here are some more examples of where the US is paying for not being consistent.

    And when the mistakes include possible loss of life, it's quite a heavy tax you are paying.

    ran out of fuel in mid-flight because of two mistakes in figuring the fuel supply

    and

    confusion between grains and grams is sometimes the reason for medical errors

  13. Re:Subway by Bill+Dog · · Score: 2

    Not to mention "Four dollar and ninety two cent thirty centimeter" doesn't make for a very memorable jingle.

    --
    Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
  14. Re:Easy answer by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 2

    In a way. The US is a big country so it takes a while to change things. All the signs would need changing, all the measurements in laws, all the schools, and much of the culture

    There was an abandoned project in the 80's (I think) where highway signs in parts of the US were using metric and imperial measurements on it, however as these signs have aged they're getting replaced with imperial only versions.

    I also understand that in US schools they're taught metric measurements as well as imperial measurements (however I'm sure the focus is vastly in favour of imperial units)

    The laws, that's a big issue, but one that can change gradually. If the speed limit is 100km/h or 60mph, it's (almost) the same, and if you're caught going 75mph or 125km/h, it's still the same amount over the limit...

    Culture - now, there's one thing that's going to be harder - hence the posting of this question...

  15. Re:Easy answer by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Australia fully converted in a relatively short space of time in the early 70s. Different areas of life were changed at different times, but they were changed very quickly (e.g. a particular date was set for road signs to be taken down and replaced across the country, a different date for weights and measures in supermarkets, etc). The younger generations don't even understand imperial measurements now (it's not like the half-converted situation that the UK finds itself in).

    Australia is almost exactly the same size as the lower 48 US States. So I don't think it's necessarily hard for big countries to do it. Having said that, there are some obviously differences between Australia and the US such as the smaller and generally more urban population, so it's not a perfect example. Still there's lessons there to be learnt, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Australia

  16. Don't know why - but I like it by ugen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was born and raised in a country that is firmly and decidedly "metric". I finished school and college knowing nothing but metric system. So, you could say that metric would be my "natural choice".

    Then I moved to US. At first non-metric units were a PIA. Admittedly, conversions are not nearly as convenient - you can't just shuffle a decimal dot around.

    After a while, though - it really started to "grow on me". The first shift occurred when I started driving a lot - both in US and in Europe. For reasons, that are purely subjective, I began to feel like a mile (statutory or nautical, your pick) is a more "natural" unit of distance. Kilometer always fell short. In a way mile represented what I feel a "decent distance" should feel like.

    Then, as I took up a hobby (or a waste of money, depending on your take on it) that required significant amounts of engineering, machining and manual work - I started to feel the same way about other units. Inch is exactly what a "small but human scale" distance should be (it is unusually pretty close to what you'd get if you were to show a "very short distance" by making a semi-circle with your thumb and index fingers, like a slightly opened O), so did the foot, the ounce for "a small amount of weight" etc. I also began to appreciate division of inches into powers of two (rather than centimeters into powers of ten etc).

    In time, conversions became a non-issue. In fact, it probably helps keep my "doing arithmetic in my head" skills less rusty.

      I still occasionally use metrics as a way to do "thru conversions", in particular between volume and mass (because one deci-meter of water is one liter of water is approx 1 kg). I also use metrics where they are the only units - such as electricity, for example.

    But at this point, I would not voluntarily go back to metric system for anything that's related to weights and dimensions.

    YMMV. That said, perhaps there are other people who feel like me. If so - that's your answer as to why Imperial units are still here (and, hopefully, going to stay for a while)

    1. Re:Don't know why - but I like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's complete and utter hogwash. You think imperial is "natural" simply because you are more used to it. Any non-American (except for a few Brits, Aussies and Kanuks) think metric units are more "natural".

      Now, there is no question that computing with metric units is way more natural. Here is an example: you need to put 12 equally-spaced fence posts along a particular length, say 13 feet 5 inches and 3/8. How far apart should the fence post be? You need to divide 12'5''3/8 by 11. Go ahead, I'm waiting..... still computing? OK the imperial answer is 1 foot, 2 inches and 2/3. Oh wait, you can't have 2/3! you can only have binary fractions! What's the closest
      binary fraction to to 2/3? Errr, 43/64?

      Here is the metric equivalent: the length is 409.9 cm. Divide that by 11 = 37.36 cm. Done.
      OK, you don't need that kind of accuracy for fence posts, but you need it for everything mechanical.

      Wanna hear something *really* screwy about the Imperial System?
      Looks at how bizantine the American way of measuring screws and taps is: http://lecun.org/blog/index.php?entry=entry080825-015412

          -- Prof Shadoko

    2. Re:Don't know why - but I like it by Coryoth · · Score: 2

      The Fahrenheit scale in particular is extremely good for weather in most of the world, much better than C. 10 degrees F seems to roughly correlate to a unit of comfort for most people (60-cool, 70-just right, 80-warm, 90-hot).

      That's just because you are usede to it. Look, at a conversion rate of 5/9 you get 10 degrees F roughly equal to 5 degres C. Which makes 5 degrees C roughly correlate to a unit of comfort for most people -- which really seems no more onerous.

      Now, just to give you an example that perfectly reasonable arguments can be made the other way: How much temeperature change ina room does it take before you can really notice the difference at all? Most people can tell if a room goes from 20 C to 21C, but only just. The much finer gradations of Fahrenheit just aren't needed. I mean, do you really care if it is 81 F or 82 F? While a degree C does make a difference.

      The point being you can make silly arguments either way, neither of which caryy much real weight. It is simply what you are used to that you judge as more natural.

  17. Re:..and the UK? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2

    Road signs are in miles, beer comes in pints (proper ones, too, none of this 473ml rubbish) but that's it, officially speaking; packaging and so forth is all in metric. Obviously there are plenty of people who still think in Imperial, and strangely much more so than most other countries I've visited (maybe just that I have more experience with older British people, maybe it was more ingrained; it's not something I've though a lot about), but in terms of official business the change has long since succeeded, and in terms of public perception it crawls further towards metric with every generation. For what it's worth, I'm from the UK and when you say 'gallon' my brain says 'about 4 litres'.

  18. Arrogant Ignorance? by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was taught metrics in 1st grade, that was back in the 70s, and it's so easy a 7 year old can master it.
    This imperial crap almost everyone else in the US uses is rather incomprehensible.
    Your foot is divided by 12 inches, which are divided by 16ths, yet it's 3 foot to the yard, and god only knows how many yards in a mile. Here's a fun trick to do, ask some of your friends or relatives how many yards are in a mile. How many of them will actually give you an answer, much less the right one. Bet more than half can't, at least without someone else how many feet are in the mile. And let's not forget the long delay as they try to divide by 3. Not very impressive is it.
    Now, ask some kid who knows metric how many meters are in a kilometer. How many centimeters are in a kilometer. Bet you that prepubescent child that know metric will give you an answer really fast, and be right every time. It's because metric is a concise system based on 10 that even an imbecile can understand it, and smart people make far fewer mistakes because it's a consistent system.

    You want to screw over the country when dealing with the rest of the world, keep using imperial.
    We've lost people and multi-million dollar machines because of imperial, is it really worth it?

    1. Re:Arrogant Ignorance? by gQuigs · · Score: 2

      If you think dividing by three is difficult, I can't say that I'm impressed...your argument makes it sound like "SI is the ideal measurement system for dolts who can't handle division and multiplication"....

      Right.. so we really need this in America.

  19. Re:Easy answer by wvmarle · · Score: 2

    Very simple reason: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    And while I'm a metric guy myself, and hate having to work with imperial units, I can't say it's exactly "broken".

  20. A new system of measurement - by CougMerrik · · Score: 2

    As a side note, you could probably create a rough metric for measuring time based solely on the frequency of posts about why the US doesn't fully embrace the metric system. I swear these posts are like clockwork.

  21. Re:Carpentry by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Funny

    I agree, much easier to cut a board in half than into 0.5 (seriously).

  22. Re:Adoption is going to be a bitch by IsaacD · · Score: 2

    In these parts we call 2x4's "studs". My wife goes out at night to get them. I haven't seen much in terms of progress, but with all the banging I hear when she gets back I figure she's building up some big surprise for me, so I don't bother her.

  23. We started a conversion to metric ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The US is a big country so it takes a while to change things.

    We started teaching the metric system to kids in elementary school in the 1970s.

    All the signs would need changing ...

    I recall a lot of the signs were changed, displaying both imperial and metric for a while, then a decade or so later they went back to just imperial. Also if we had only changed signs on the normal replacement cycle we would probably have been done by now.

    , all the measurements in laws ...

    Trivial effort is required to convert, far less than what is expended interpreting the law. Also note that in many contexts, units on packaging, imperial and metric are still side by side.

    , all the schools, ...

    Done in the 1970s.

    and much of the culture ...

    If we had stayed on course it would be over by now.

    The sig doesn't mention it but yes the calculator does metric. :-)

  24. Re:Ronald Reagan by LurkerXXX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yep. Just to give more background for the young-uns, I was a very young school kid in the 70's. We were told to learn the metric system and get used to it, because before we were out of high school, the country was going to be converted over entirely to the metric system.

    That proclamation from our teachers was after congress passed The Metric Conversion Act in 1975. They created the U.S. Metric Board to oversee the conversion.

    1979 - The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms required wine producers/importers to switch to metric.

    1980 - The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms required required distilled spirits producers/importers to switch to metric.

    1982 - Reagan disbands the Metric Board, and fires everyone associated with it.

    So we have Reagan to thank for our reliance on an outdated system of measurement. As well as the new trend for Republicans to deficit spend like mad, ballooning the National Debts as never before, and getting religious nut wings involved in politics like never before.

  25. Re:Easy answer by deapbluesea · · Score: 3, Informative

    I also understand that in US schools they're taught metric measurements as well as imperial measurements (however I'm sure the focus is vastly in favour of imperial units)

    Actually, all of my classes were in metric. They don't teach imperial in school. At least, not in Texas (anti Texas rants in 3, 2, 1.....)

    --
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
  26. Re:Easy answer by Silvermistshadow · · Score: 2

    My Chemistry teacher preferred Metric and I learned to live with them. However, I'm a poor judge of length and distance and often have to use a ruler on maps to get any sense of distance, and couldn't tell you the length of this computer screen without looking it up. Hell, I don't even know how many centimeters tall the average ten-year old is, something I would like to know due to Trauma Center using metric all over the place (charts mostly- I guess I understand since it's medical stuff)

    --
    Any comments made by the owner of this signature should be disregarded as irrelevant, uninformed, and idiotic.
  27. Re:Carpentry by perpenso · · Score: 2

    How so? Seriously, I'm interested why Imperial is better for carpentry only.

    A foot, 12 inches, is easily divided by 2, 3, 4 and 6. The first three seem quite practical. At least that's what I recall hearing once before.

  28. Building Industry by digitect · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm an architect, and I'll tell you that the building industry is so entrenched in imperial measurements I haven't used my metric scale in five years. Every single product is based on imperial dimensions, meaning design, coordination, and calculation require the same.

    Some examples: joist spacing tables display span lengths for 16" and 24" on center spacings. These tables are everywhere and they've been around unchanged forever. All the plywood sub-flooring is in 48" x 96" sheets. Works great for either joist spacing and in either horizontal or vertical orientation. If you buy a house in the US, standard is an 8' ceiling, "up scale" is 9', exclusive is 10'. (Who would know the status of a 2600mm ceiling?!) Studs are already available and pre-cut to accomplish these heights. Drywall is sold in these lengths. Concrete and soil are measured in cubic yards, roofing by square, carpeting by yard, ceiling tiles in 24" squares, etc. The International Building Code (what most of us use) gives dimensions in Imperial dimensions, including sprinkler head spacing, floor loading requirements, floor-to-floor, allowable areas, etc. Think about it, every plumbing, gas, and sanitary drain system connecting your building to infrastructure is calculated in imperial from engineering tables more than fifty years old. Tape measures are all imperial as is surveying equipment. The entire commercial real estate market is in imperial, changing to metric would crush every agent and developer trying to calculate pro-forma for all real estate in the country. Lumber mills and woodworking equipment that has been around for years and that produce moldings, doors, boards, handrails, furniture, etc., are all imperial. Existing surveys, architectural drawings, engineering calculations, and every other kind of specification, calibration, documentation, regulation, etc. in the building industry is imperial, doing a simple renovation or addition (actually >50% of the building industry) would require the overhead of converting all existing information prior to proceeding.

    I've worked on several metric buildings. It takes about two days to get into the swing of it. From an architect's view, scaling and plotting drawings is much simpler than imperial. Not having to deal with foot-inches is easier, too. (Although everybody seems to disagree about whether to use m, cm, or mm. We have native metric users that can't even agree on that.) But it doesn't take long before somebody starts discussing "hard" vs. "soft" metric and wondering if buying 900 mm doors will cost 50% more than 36" doors, if a wheelchair can still fit through it, and where they might come from in the local market if they can even be found. About a day later the whole endeavor goes down the tube when one party in the process gets nervous. We usually switch to "soft" metric for a few weeks (designing in imperial but also stating metric on the drawings) and then abandon the entire metric effort in favor of imperial. The only way a project will stay in true hard metric is if it is being built overseas.

    We're going to have to go metric one system at a time. First was soda bottles. Then automobiles. Science is there, and a lot of SI units are becoming comfortable on food packaging. The building industry is going to have to do the same, I predict in places where highly manufactured components interface with imperial ones in a relatively unimportant way. (Think windows cut into a wall.) Commercially, roof membranes are specified in mm and many other components are manufactured in hard metric dimensions with proximal imperial values (like thicknesses of drywall and plywood). But things like bricks, lumber, and plumbing pipe may take a while.

    --
    There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
    1. Re:Building Industry by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 2

      If you buy a house in the US, standard is an 8' ceiling, "up scale" is 9', exclusive is 10'. (Who would know the status of a 2600mm ceiling?!)

      You're making the standard mistake that many Americans do: you use one or two significant digits in imperial units and four of them for the metric units. It's not a 2600mm ceiling, even if you wanted you wouldn't be able to achieve that precision. It's 2.6 m. And if you're a decent architect, even in the US, you should know very well how high that is.

      --
      There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
    2. Re:Building Industry by jeffrey.endres · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The International Building Code (what most of us use)

      Is this the same sort of thing as your World Series baseball which is only valid for very small values of world? Worked in a sawmill here outside of the US and I'm pretty sure that you can get timber in metric sizes and the only tape measurements I saw were all metric.

    3. Re:Building Industry by tm2b · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bucky Fuller wrote about this, in the context of how quickly humans adopt new technologies. The sequence you describe is exactly what he believed: in essence, the more frivolous a technology is to our live and safety, and the shorter the product cycle, the faster humans can adopt that technology. Thus, food - fast product cycle, beverages - fast cycle and purely luxury, we can change quickly over a matter of years. Automobiles have a medium life cycle and are of varying criticality to our lives (compare rural Texas with Manhattan or urban Chicqgo), so they will be a medium length of time tomadopt - decades, plus or minus. But housing? That's a very long product cycle and we have a very strong emotional connection to our shelter, so we are very conservative about how we build them. It'll take a century (let's say, from 1960-1980ish) to change.

      It was a very interesting discussion in his book, _Critical Path_, where he concluded that for certain kinds of inventions, the inventor wishing to help humanity should publish his housing inventions (the geodesic dome and the dymaxion house, in this case), perhaps work to promote them for some special purposes to get them into intellectual circulation (he worked to get them used by scientific and military organizations), and then move on to other topics - because without a specific adaptive pressure (eg, (my example) PEX to replace now-expensive copper plumbing) housing inventions would take more than a lifetime to go into general use.

      Bucky Fuller was a dozen kinds of awesome.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    4. Re:Building Industry by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 2

      ...Although everybody seems to disagree about whether to use m, cm, or mm. We have native metric users that can't even agree on that.

      Yes, and the whole point of the metric system is that things like this just don't matter as you just move a decimal point, the numbers are all the same.

  29. Re:Ronald Reagan by lennier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now, of course, the US has trouble exporting to a world where nobody has Imperial-sized tools or fasteners.

    Not to mention your weird "Letter" size which is inexplicably the default in all your word processing programs when all the rest of the world uses A4.

    I don't think I've ever seen Letter paper in my life, but I just installed LibreOffice and whoops, Letter, and measurements in inches. Grrr.

    Don't worry, we don't think the less of you all in the States for it. Well, that's not actually true, we think it's kinda cute and sweet that you have your precious little antique measurement systems - aww, how retro! - but we figure eventually you'll grow out of it and become a proper country.

    Then we think about all the nuclear reactors and rockets you built using feet and inches and get night sweats.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  30. Subconscious by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

    The real reason is that, subconsciously, US citizens woe the day they left the British empire. They have a deep, age-old yearning to go back into the fold, and thus cherish this last remnant of britishness.

    Last I heard, they are also starting to have those quaint tea parties, too. I'm holding out for the day they trade pancackes for scones!.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  31. Mod up by spopepro · · Score: 2

    Manufacturing also. Most pcb etchers require and do business in imperial measurements. Many extrusions and dies are imperial. Just look at cyclists who get their fancy Italian bicycle parts and are all confused about if their 31.8mm handlebars will fit in their 31.7mm stem. Well... they are both the same size: 1.25 inches. Big money is tied up in manufacturing equipment and will dictate what industry uses. Common people are really irrelevant here.

  32. Re:Ronald Reagan by zippthorne · · Score: 2

    Seriously?? A "Metric" board???

    Look, all US measurements are already based on SI units. The so-called, "standard" units are defined as constant multipliers of the SI ones. We're already metric, we've just "customized" it a little...

    But since our measurements are all just constant multipliers of SI units, why should we need a whole bureaucracy to implement it? Just make it the law that all new official business will be done using SI units, and have a period where road markers and so forth are posted with both.

    The only real difficulty is with tooling: bolts, screws, and other parts designed for Standard units that are a close, but not quite, match up with preferred number metric counterparts, and no nationally funded "board of metrics" is going to solve that problem....

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  33. Very Basic Physics by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Informative

    Weight is measured in kg, force in Newton. There is a difference between the two, you know.

    Weight is a force and is measured in newtons. Mass is measured in kilograms. There is a difference between the two but clearly you did not know!

  34. One word: Culture by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    In the US, the spirit of rugged individualism is held up an an ideal to aspire to. In the US, the government imposing mandates saying "You WILL use THIS system." is likely to result in a backlash. More so than in many other places.

    Look at the recent health care legislation. There are arguments pro and counter, but Americans hear that they won't have a choice and they freak the fuck out. So much so that they gave one house of Congress to the opposition party just to slow that kind of thing down.

    Personally, I still don't *think* in metric. I am 6'1". I would have to do math to figure out exactly how many meters that is.

    I have to mentally convert km to miles to get a mental picture of distances.

    I don't expect the US to convert in my or my childrens' lifetimes.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  35. No! It is really, really bad. by formfeed · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It is really bad.

    But I admit it doesn't matter whether you call it centimeter or inch or measure the distance by the eyebrow length of the great communicator Ronald Reagan.
    Call it the freedom fighting anti-communist inch of the greatest empire on earth, if you wish. And make it twice as long as every other country's unit.
    Doesn't really matter.

    What matters, is the fucked up unit system within the imperial system.
    Let's say you want to convert 1/8 inch rainfall to gallons per square yard? Yes, doable, sure. In the metric system however it's just counting zeros and shifting a decimal point.
    A meter has 100 centimeter, so a square meter has a 100x100 square centimeter, or 10000. Easy, just count zeros. Liters in a cubic meter? Easy. Kilograms per square centimeter to tons per square meter? Easy, just counting zeros.
    But square inch to square feet? Square miles? floz to gallon?
    And if that isn't bad enough, add all the competing units used in the US. Air pressure is a different unit when the air is in the atmosphere or in the tire. For energy, there are different units depending on whether it is an air conditioner, a furnace, a car, what company I get the energy from, and whether the second Friday after Lincoln's birthday falls on a full moon.

    The difference to the metric system is not, that inch and cm are different. The beauty of the metric system is that you have a consistent system. And that's why scientific calculations are usually done in metric and the result is then transfered back to imperial, so the US public won't get worried that the French took over, communists gained control of the class room, or that their politicians betrayed the greatest conceivable nation on earth.

    1. Re:No! It is really, really bad. by VendingMenace · · Score: 3

      The imperial system units only appear fucked up to our modern perspective.

      Right now, measuring things is a relatively simple procedure. We have tools to divide thing up as we wish. Want to saw a 1 meter board into 1/3rd of a meter? No sweat, just divide it by 3 and measure out 33.333... cm to whatever precision you wish. Doesn't mater that this is a rather difficult number to deal with in the real world. We have gates we can dial in the distance we want with digital readouts and whatnot.

      But now consider being a dude trying to build a house in 16th century. You would like to make sure that your corners are square and you happen to know that a 3-4-5 triangle will give you a right angle. Cool. Not too hard to divide a rope into three equal sections or four equal sections either. Just fold it into thirds for the "3" unit and in half twice for the "4" unit. However, what this means is that your desire for square corners dictates that the natural units that you are working in are 3 and 4. Thus, it makes sense that the "total" unit should be divisible by 3 AND 4. So...12. This is why the foot is twelve inches -- some dude a long time ago wanted to build a house with square corners.

      The metric system would have been totally unnatural for a person in the 16th century -- as it is only divisible by 2 and 5. In our world where machines handle both the math and the measurement, this is OK. If you don't have these fancy instruments, it is not.

    2. Re:No! It is really, really bad. by hey! · · Score: 2

      Look, the deficiencies of the customary measurement system aren't *moral* failings. They're what you get when you take a system designed for one task and use it for a completely different task.

      A modern economy is *vertically integrated*. The chain of buyers and sellers between when a customer purchases a widget and when the various raw materials for that widget were dug out of the ground or harvested is long. Furthermore, it branches out like a tree to encompass all kinds of specializations. And at every node on that tree where a lump of matter is handed from one party to another, some kind of unit conversion is apt to take place. The metric system is designed to reduce the number and complexity of conversions, and performs that particular task well.

      "Customary units" (the US does NOT use imperial units, which are similar but different in an arbitrary way) are designed to optimize certain measuring *tasks*. It's a pretty good system for a low tech economy. Suppose you are plowing a field with an ox team:

      1 rod == length of typical ox goad (16.5 feet)
      1 surveyor's chain == 4 rods == width of typical field to be plowed.
      1 furlong == 10 chains == longest continuous row a typical ox team can plow without needing rest.
      1 acre == 1 furlong x 1 chain == area a typical ox team can plow in one day.

      This is actually pretty cool. You take your ox goad, lay out length of rope equal to ten of them, and you have the basic tools to lay out an optimal day's work. Your rows aren't so long you've got to stop to rest in the middle, nor so short that you waste time unhitching your team and turning everything around. You plow a straight line until the animals need a rest, then you unhitch them and turn the plow around.

      This admirably handy system only becomes a problem when you start using to completely unrelated things like lay out a spur for a suburban railroad. Then you've got to reckon the number of railroad ties which are manufactured using length measures that are convenient for building crude timber framed houses, or tell the foundry how much rail you're going to need (who knows what customary units *they* find "natural").

      So when everyone switches to metric, suddenly materials planning and cost accounting becomes a lot easier, at the cost of convenience for specific tasks. For example, customers for your suburban rail spur know the distance is 2 leagues; that tells them that walking the distance would take them two hours because a league is defined as the distance one can typically walk in one hour at a comfortable pace (nominally a bit less than three and a half miles). Now you will be telling them that the length of the spur is 11 km, and they have to do the conversion into walking hours by dividing by 5.5 km/hr.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:No! It is really, really bad. by flashingcurser · · Score: 2

      I don't care one way or another about this holy war. That said, you named one calculation that is much easier in metric. There are simple calculations in imperial. How about home heating?

      The reciprocal of the R value of your insulation by the square footage of the outside of your home by the difference of the temperature inside to outside in fahrenheit. The difference should be based on the lowest temp you expect.

      (1/R * Sqr foot)* delta T With that you can size a home furnace/boiler in btu's with a few minutes and a tape measure. You may have different R-values for roof, wall, floor, etc.. but I'm sure most slashdoters can handle it. Air conditioning uses the same calculation and units. Though with air conditioning you are also dealing with radiant energy from the sun so the calculations become more dynamic and complicated. But air conditioners are still sized in BTU's

      Want to size a water heater? No problem. One pound of water one degree fahrenheit is one btu. A pint is a pound. Pretty easy to come up with a formula from that. And, yes, I understand that there are different standards as to what a pint is. But not in water-heaters.

      There are other simplifications that aren't based on calculations. Like the mile. Ever wonder why a mile is 5280 feet? A grown man's stride is is just about 5.28' long. Counting one thousand strides will get you pretty damned close to a mile. Pretty handy thing if you don't have GPS or a transit. My boss, a civil/structural engineer, tells me that back in the day surveyors often used this for a rough idea. You *could* work that out in metric but wouldn't simple or useful.

      A gallon is pretty handy too. With four equal one gallon containers you can derive at every measurement below a gallon. Take a gallon of liquid and pour it evenly between two of the containers and then again between two of the other containers and you have a quart. If you pour back into the original container you can keep doing this. Again that could be done with liters but it wouldn't be as simple or elegant.

      There was a study done by ASHRAE years ago, I read it in one of their news letters, that we subconsciously check air temperatures every time enter a room, enter or leave a building, or our cars. It's an evolutionary defense mechanism. For thousands of years (millions maybe?) life and death depended on shelter and what clothes we wore. You will subconsciously check air temperature 50-100 times on a typical day. Why not have a scale that starts at the lowest air temperature you would normally expect and ends at the highest? That would be handy for something we will do 50-100 today. It doesn't matter what the inventor of such scale was trying to do when he created it. It's handy regardless.

      Imperial scales were a matter of evolution and not creation. I don't care one way or another but dismissing them out of hand is intellectual dishonesty

  36. Because we can by butchersong · · Score: 2

    Same reason I spend 15-20 minutes shaving every other day with a straight razor rather than use a 20 cent plastic blade. Because we can. What is this fervor for homogeneity in every aspect of our lives? Countries have differences. Maybe there is some hidden cost adding up to billions but the same argument could be made to those stubborn European countries refusing to switch to English as their national language... If nothing else think of it as adding little local flavor to your trip should you come to visit us in the states...

  37. Re:Ronald Reagan by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    As well as the new trend for Republicans to deficit spend like mad, ballooning the National Debts as never before, and getting religious nut wings involved in politics like never before.

    I call shenanigans here. EVERYONE deficit spends like drunken sailors. Bush doubled the debt in 8 years. Obama is on target to double it again in 4. If McCain had won, the debt would be going up as well.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  38. Re:Subway by zippthorne · · Score: 2

    Quiznos is way better, and their "small, regular, and large" sizes mean they don't have to change their menus!

    I don't think subway even has a size between "not quite enough" and "really, that's too much."...

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  39. Re:Easy answer by tchuladdiass · · Score: 2

    That's because everything else was already sold in half / whole gallon prior to the time metrification was attempted in the 70's/80's. But Soda was sold in bottles and cans. So when the larger jugs of soda came about during the middle of metrification, the softdrink bottlers figured they might as well start out their new product size in liters instead of having to convert later on (which would involve re-tooling the bottling plants). Hence we have 2-liter (and in some cases 1-liter) soda.

  40. Re:Easy answer by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem is that people think that, if we switch, they're going to have to do math every time they see a metric value to make into a value they can make sense of. But that's just not true. What you need to do is just create new reference points. When I see a Celsius temperature, I don't try to convert it to Fahrenheit. I simply remember that 0 is freezing, I need a jacket at 10, 20 is comfortable if it's calm and sunny, 30 is comfortable if it's shady, dry, and breezy, and so on. That's what we've all instinctively done with Fahrenheit, and it's all you really need to do to be comfortable with using a different unit system in your daily life.

    --
    Then the winter came, and the Grasshopper died. And the Octopus ate all his acorns. Also, he got a racecar.
  41. Re:morons by mywhitewolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    that's funny, because in ours (Australia uses metric) our drug dealers sells in ounces and pounds.

  42. Re:morons by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would think that working in metric would be much easier and less error prone especially in engineering and construction:

    Off the top of your head which set is faster:
    1/4" + 3/16"
    24" + 6.5'
    7/8" + 1/2" - 1/4"

    Or
    6.5mm + 4.5mm
    60cm + 2m
    2.2cm + 1.2cm - 63mm

    Given that you can convert millimeters to centimeters to meters by just moving the comma or adding 0's I would recon it's much faster than calculating/remembering how many inches is in a foot, how many foot is in a mile or how many miles in a hogshead.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  43. Re:Ronald Reagan by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2

    http://www.edinformatics.com/investor_education/us_debt.htm

    Where does it start skyrocketing? Reagan.

    http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart-2004.gif

    Obama is spending to try stave off another Great Depression brought on by deregulation and shenanigans pulled by a previous administration that started 2 wars and tried to keep them off the books.

  44. Re:Carpentry by demonlapin · · Score: 2

    I, too, thought this was a nearly ironclad argument until someone pointed out that standard metric drywall and plywood are 1200mm x 2400 mm - just as easy to divide.

  45. Re:Easy answer by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    there have been horribly expense accidents because of that necessary conversion business, including lost spacecraft.

  46. Re:Easy answer by fuzznutz · · Score: 5, Funny

    There was an abandoned project in the 80's (I think) where highway signs in parts of the US were using metric and imperial measurements on it

    Yes there was. My favorite sign was on a local highway segment. It said "Metric Signs Next 100 Miles." I swear to God.

  47. Re:morons by causality · · Score: 2

    I was considering this comment rude before I read other comments about pros and cons and finally it is somewhat accurate.

    Accuracy is often rude, at least to some.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  48. Re:morons by Morpork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But that's just familiarity. If you grew up under a metric system, were taught metric in school and saw metric measurements in everyday objects (other than the 2 liter soda bottles...) then you'd be able to visualize 1 kilometer just as easily as you could visualize 1 mile today.
    The issue here is that it will take a generation (or more) to make that transition, during which time all the big nobs will feel increasingly isolated as they're more quickly overtaken by these 'new math' thinkers. Inertia is comforting.

    --
    -- Always borrow money from a pessimist; they don't expect to be paid back.
  49. Re:Ronald Reagan by OakDragon · · Score: 2

    Obama is spending to try stave off another Great Depression brought on by deregulation and shenanigans pulled by a previous administration that started 2 wars and tried to keep them off the books.

    How does deregulation bring on a Great Depression? Wait, don't bother - I don't even accept your premise that far. As far as spending to prevent a depression....WTF?

  50. Re:morons by Technician · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Metric is easier. The big thing that put a big halt on the adoption was the gas crisis in the 1970's when gas creeped to $1.00 gallon. The difficulty was having to compare two standards against each other and the new standard was much more expensive for consumers. As gas pushed $1.00 per gallon. the display on many pumps could not display the higher prices. To prevent buying new pumps, some switched to Liters. Consumers soon found the cheap 35 cent / Liter gas was more expensive and later quit trying to compare prices as common knowledge was the metric gas was more expensive.

    In products where we are not comparing metric and US, the metric standard has become the standard. Soda pop is only sold in metric sizes now. 12 and 16 oz are pretty much gone with 1 Liter 500 ml, 2 Liter etc sizes. Most bottled water is now in the 500 ml bottle. All hardware for mounting your flatscreen TV is all metric. Car engines are almost all metric. Serous, when was the last time you wanted to know how much your soda was in price per gallon? All comparison shopping is done is price per Liter for soft drinks except at the soda fountain where the cups are still 16, 32, 48, 64 oz.

    The slow conversions is in entrenched measurements such as gasoline, kitchen recipes, temperature, etc where one is the standard and people still try to convert units. You tell them it is 24 degrees out and they want to know what that means in F. Having lived in another country I'm fine with metric as I was immersed in it and did not bother to convert. 21-24 is comfortable. 30 is really hot and 10 is time to grab a warmer coat.

    If we started tearing down miles signs and mile markers and replacing them with Metric KM signs and changed the speed signs to 90, the country would soon adopt it. Most cars now can display either clicks or miles.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  51. Re:morons by Graff · · Score: 2

    1/4" + 3/16"
    24" + 6.5'
    7/8" + 1/2" - 1/4"

    If you know a little VERY simple math these are nearly instant.

    4/16 + 3/16 = 7/16
    2' + 6.5' = 8.5'
    7/8 + 4/8 - 2/8 = 9/8

    It took me about the same amount of time to do as the metric examples. If it takes someone any significant time to work out these examples then they should go back to school and re-learn basic math.

  52. Re:Ronald Reagan by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 2

    Conventional wisdom is that when your debt is as high as your GDP and you're budget deficit is still 20% of GDP that you have problems. There may be "bad things" happening in banks but frankly I'm a little more afraid of the bad things happening in government. $120,000 in debt for each taxpayer (rich and poor) is not something we should just ignore in the name of preserving fantasy spending land.

  53. Re:morons by smash · · Score: 2

    The "real world" includes every other person outside of the US. Most metric users have an understanding of feet and inches too, but as far as scientific stuff goes, trying to make imperial work is the old square peg/round hole situation.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  54. Why metric makes sense & base units don't matt by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This post is an example of autoplagurism.

    A good system of units needs:
    1) Base units which are well defined and independently reconstructible (i.e. a suitably equipped lab can calibrate their equipment purely from the definition of the units.)
    2) Logically constructed compound units (e.g. units of force are derived from the units of mass, time and distance.)
    3) Logically constructed convenience units (e.g. kilometres for use for distances which would be an inconveniently large number of metres.)
    4) To be widely used.

    The initial choice of your base units is largely arbitrary - whether it was a from a not-very-accurate measure of a king's foot size or from a not-very-accurate measure of the Earth's circumference. Item (1) can be satisfied equally well (or, in the case of mass, badly) by the metric or imperial systems. The definition of the metre has long since changed from the size of the Earth to quantities measurable in a lab (as has the definition of the foot.)

    The SI system (based on metric measures) beats the imperial system hands down on items 2 and 3, and because of this now has a large advantage also on item 4.

    Item 2: In Imperial you might measure (heat) energy in BTU and mechanical energy in some mixture of foot-pounds-seconds, but then you need a conversion factor to compare the two. Such conversion factors are never needed in SI.

    Item 3: Imperial also messes up the convenience units by having lots of weird conversion factors (e.g. an acre is (I think) a furlong by a chain. How many square feet is that? How many ounces in a ton?*) Metric uses convenience units constructed from base units via consistently named factors of 10 or 1000.

    One could go a step further, and define your fundamental units in terms of fundamental physical constants (i.e. the Plank mass, Plank time and Plank distance, charge on an electron, etc.) In such a system of units, the speed of light is 1, the formula for the energy of a photon doesn't need a constant in it etc. In practice, we can't use such a system, because we can't measure (in particular) the universal gravitational constant G with sufficient accuracy. Every time we got a better measure of G, our entire system of units would need to be updated. (I.e. with current technology, this system can't satisfy requirement (1) above.)

    * And how many different sorts of ounces and tons are there? It is quite a few.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  55. Re:morons by smash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except you're incompatible with the rest of the world. Metric also gives you easy conversions between say, cubic metres and litres. Rather than cubic feet to gallons.

    1 cubic meter = 1000 litres. 1 cubic foot = 7.4805 US gallons or 6.2288 Imperial gallons. I know what I'd much prefer to work in.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  56. Re:morons by westlake · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The truth is that in the U.S. politicians are afraid of offending the majority of people, and a significant amount of them are just a bunch of redneck morons.

    Making friends everywhere you go. Just making friends.

    This passage from the Wikipedia seems relevant:

    In his 1998 monograph Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, James C. Scott argued that central governments attempt to impose what he calls "legibility" on their subjects. Local folkways concerning measurements, like local customs concerning patronymics, tend to come under severe pressure from bureaucracies. Scott's thesis is that in order for schemes to improve the human condition to succeed, they must take into account local conditions, and that the high-modernist ideologies of the 20th century have prevented this. Scott cites the enforcement of the metric system as a specific example of this sort of failed and resented "improvement" imposed by centralizing and standardizing authority.

    Metrication opposition

    The geek tends to see himself as anarchic-libertarian. But technocratic and elitist would be closer to the truth.

    The solution imposed from on high.

    The vast majority of U.S. customary units have been defined in terms of the meter and the kilogram since the Mendenhall Order of 1893 (and, in practice, for many years before that date).

    United States customary units

    The question then becomes why it should anyone but the architect or mechanical engineer particularly care that room temperatures continue to be displayed in degrees Farenheit.

  57. Re:morons by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

    They're criminals.
    They don't obey any other rules, so why would they obey rules of measurement?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  58. Re:morons by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

    Yes, we old-timers all know how to add and subtract fractions, and convert feet to inches. And it's pretty easy if you're good at maths, and particularly if you're typing into a text box rather than doing it in your head.

    It's not easier than metric though. With imperial you have to find the lowest common denominator AND add or subtract. With metric you just have to add/subtract. And metre/centimetre/millimetre conversion are obviously easier to do in the head than yard/feet/inches conversions.

    And even if it's not too challenging for you, it's challenging for the average person. You know shop assistants today have trouble working out the change to give it the till doesn't help them. A few days ago one had a lot of difficulty giving me change from â3.27 out of a â5 note.

  59. Re:morons by Instantlemming · · Score: 2

    The stupid thing is that we here in the Netherlands measure TV and monitor sizes in inches. I know what to expect from a 32" TV, but when they advertise it as '81cm' I need a calculator...

  60. Re:morons by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

    Actually, in the UK, beverages are served in millilitres except for beer in pubs which will always be served in pints even if legally it has to be priced in units of 0.568261485 litre.

    No, in the UK draft beer legally has to be sold (and priced) in multiples of 1/2 or 1/3 or a pint. Price it in any SI unit and it's a finable offence.

  61. Subtly untrue by RichiH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > This made them great when making exact measuring devices was extremely difficult.

    No. As you pointed out yourself: A foot in Belgium is not the same distance as a foot in America

    People were forced to create exact measuring devices for all units. Else, they will be cheated. There's a reason why every old church in Europe has circles etched on their front-side. People could hold bread to them to verify they were bought the correct amount. Etc pp.

    > However, none of these units are remotely useful EXCEPT when measuring natural phenomena (which never happen in convenient SI units).

    Celsius comes to mind.

    > then do all the SI internally

    Last I checked, computers used base 2, not SI units.

    1. Re:Subtly untrue by GauteL · · Score: 2

      "Celsius is not SI."

      True. But since the kelvin unit is directly derived from celsius, using the same unit increment, centigrades are trivial to use with SI-units. Celsius are thus "SI-conforming" for all intents and purposes.

  62. Re:morons by DrXym · · Score: 2

    The anonymous post that is the parent of this comment is marked as a troll, but, honestly, it's just a statement of fact. The truth is that in the U.S. politicians are afraid of offending the majority of people, and a significant amount of them are just a bunch of redneck morons. We tried this in the 1970s, when the President was from Georgia and we thought we might be able to sell it to the rednecks, but they went apeshit. The only thing we got out of that was soda in two-liter bottles. (Glass in '76 ... plastic in the early 80s.) But you can't blame this problem on urban drug dealers. They sell their coke in grams and kilos.

    Britain is quite resistant to metric too. It still maintains miles, pints, acres but most other things are now in metric. One can understand that pints (as in pints of beer) and acres have little significance to international trade. I would think that miles do though, especially for tourism. Ireland converted from miles to kilometers virtually overnight (all speed limits changed instantly and road signs were changed in under a week). Civilization didn't collapse as a consequence.

    The funny part is watching so-called "metric martyrs" in Britain. It's usually market traders getting themselves fined or thrown in jail by selling goods in pounds & ounces on illegal scales. In Britain weights & measures are set by law (so traders can't sell people short with dodgy scales) and if you use illegal scales you can be prosecuted. FFS how stupid do you have to be to do this? It's not like the law requires customers to ask in Kgs, they can ask for goods in pounds and the trader weighs out the equivalent in grams.

  63. love this by ElephanTS · · Score: 2

    The geek tends to see himself as anarchic-libertarian. But technocratic and elitist would be closer to the truth.

    That's brilliant. Should be the footer on every slashdot page.

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
  64. Re:morons by Ironhandx · · Score: 2

    The first one, by a long shot.

    Now I have to qualify this.

    I'm from Canada. I learned everything coming up through school in metric. Absolutely everything. Imperial is still easier. For programming computers etc, metric is easier. For engineering, Metric is easier.

    I work in the contsruction industry and on a job site, Imperial blows metric completely away. Not because of understanding/lack thereof, but because of how everything is built.

    A roof has a 12:3 pitch. Ok, thats fine, it goes for 12 feet and goes up 3. Now jackasses, do that in metric. It goes for 4 meters and goes up 1? Nope. It'll be something like 22.6 degree roof pitch. You have to be pretty damned good at math to figure it out from there. I can, most job site foremen can't, and not just the old ones, the younger ones too. Adding 3/4 + 1/16 is faster in your head than adding 2.7 + 17.8. I'm used to both, I use both on a regular basis. 3/4 + 1/16 is faster, and thats about as complicated as it gets for those measurements.

    Everything with metric is full of decimal points and fifteen different units of measure, which self important engineer assholes seem to want to use all of at every turn(yes, this is pretty much ALL of them). Imperial? 2 and then fractions thereof. Engineers don't have a choice except to keep it simple as there are no other units of measure available.

    Its getting so bad I'm seriously about to start a company where I do nothing but charge a fee to fix engineered plans into easy to read proper measurements for job site construction.

    The actual cost to the Canadian people of switching to metric was estimated at 3-4 billion(up from what they called a looney bin maximum cost of 1 billion) back in 2000 or so. The rate of cost is only increasing and I can completely understand why Americans don't want to switch. Other than purely scientific or mathematical pursuits, metric is by far the inferior system. IMO Metric should be reserved for trained professionals in super high precision practices.

    As an aside, for construction purposes. MM lines on a tape measure are actually hard to distinguish from each other because they're so small. Imperial has even smaller ones if you really need them but 1/16th is as far down as you get on most measuring tapes, and is 50% larger than a MM, making it easier to identify by eye. In my opinion, this and things like it are the prime cause of the US not switching. People actually tend to listen to their work force down there. Crazy thought, I know.

  65. Terseness and strong mnemonics. Really: Freedom. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Americans like monosyllabic or abbreviated words wherever possible.

    It's about quick clear communication, not just a fetish for monosyllables. Polishing things down to single syllables without obscuring them is the ideal. But a two- or three-syllable term that rolls from the tongue rather than twisting it, and that doesn't collide with something else, is quite acceptable.

    Metric PREfixes a power of ten to the unit. This doesn't just lengthen the term. It also puts the designation of WHAT KIND of unit you mean at the end, rather than the beginning. Bad enough that you have to work through the count before you get to the unit in "United States customary" (NOT Imperial, by the way) units. With metric you also have to get past the power of ten before you find out what you're talking about. Notice that, when abbreviating metric units, they shorten differently: A kiloMETER is a "K" or "klick", for instance, while a kiloGRAM is a "key". The tendencies of language and the centrally-planned systematization are at odds.

    Then there's the issue of scale: Imperial and US customary units are mainly human-sized. A pound, for instance, is something that you can hold in your hand, with just enough heft to give you the impression of weight, while a gram is an anonymous pebble that has to be scaled up by three orders of magnitude to be comparable (about 2.2 lb). Yet a litre is about a quart - a handy bottle size for serving four. (And a litre is a cubic DECImeter? Why isn't it a cubic METER? So much for consistency...)

    Then there's the use of the decimal system when scaling. Convenient for doing arithmetic for scaling. But the cardinality of the human brain is about six, not ten. So the scaling also is not easily imagined. Meanwhile the common units jump in steps that take you from a human-scaled unit convenient for one purpose to one convenient for another: Inches and feet for measuring objects, miles (a thousand paces) for distance travelled. Quart, gallon, barrel - convenient sizes for trade in liquids. Peck and bushel for dry farm produce. And so on.

    But those are just possible reasons for popular distaste for metric units. The core issue is freedom.

    The metric system was IMPOSED by governments. The people of the US tend to resist such impositions. As was pointed out in other postings, Regan canned the Metric Board and let the market decide - which means let the people chose which they prefer. The people preferred to stick with the common units. So the common unit markings on food packaging grew big and the metric units grew small and hid inside parenthesis. The states stopped re-signing the roads and the car manufacturers marked the speedometers with MPH in big numbers and a little metric scale inside for reference. And so on.

    Seems to me the FOSS ideology fits right in with the one that led to the people of the US sticking with common units.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  66. Re:morons by lwsimon · · Score: 2

    Actually, we say "reckon" - as in "I reckon that's not the way you spell that word."

    --
    Learn about Photography Basics.
  67. Re:Easy answer by Fourpole · · Score: 2

    And yet the kilogram is a measure of mass, not of weight. Perhaps you should have told them your baby weighed 35N instead.

  68. Not true about the military by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 2

    I worked for the military for 10 years and only stopped working for them about 5 months ago. They use non metric all the time so I'm not sure what this post means.
    Aircraft altitude and speed are measured in ft and nothing else, unless there is some kind of international operation, etc etc..

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  69. No Missing Unit by Venner · · Score: 2

    Fun, useless fact of the day:
    There's an old English unit called the Pottle that is two quarts. :-)
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pottle

    --
    A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.