Slashdot Mirror


Petition For Metric In US Halfway To Requiring Response From the White House

fsterman writes "Without any prompting from the U.S. Metric Association, a We The People petition to standardize the U.S. on the metric system has received 13,000 signatures in six days. That's half the number needed for an official response from the White House. It looks like ending the U.S.'s anti-metric alliance with Liberia and Burma (the only other countries NOT on the metric system) might rank up there with building a death star."

145 of 1,387 comments (clear)

  1. US Metric System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Liberia and Burma (the only other countries NOT on the US metric system)"

    Right. And now the Metric system itself is from the US? Who writes this stuff.

    1. Re:US Metric System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Right. And now the Metric system itself is from the US? Who writes this stuff.

      Do you really expect that most American will accept the metric system if it is somewhat unamerican? I don't mind it been presented as an american invention if it can help bring the US in the 20th century.

      Also, I suspect this is exactly the idea behind this article. So shut up about it, and let this US metric system get root.

    2. Re:US Metric System by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The weights and measures system you use doesn't make you more advanced or retarded (yes, retarded literally means the opposite as advanced) any more than say Chinese glyphs make them more primitive than using an alphabet. Metric is every bit as arbitrary as imperial, it's just a bit easier to do unit conversions with them.

      There are many things that almost everybody does which are harder than other ways (the English language is full of all sorts of inconsistencies and things that just plain don't make sense,) but we just keep doing them because it's what we're used to.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    3. Re:US Metric System by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, you're right. Metrics of 10 are much simpler than orders of 16, 32, 34 or any other random selection. You really have to think about how many inches are in a yard, but it's not hard to know that it's 1000 mm in a meter. The trend continues with 1000m making a kilometer, rather than yards to furlongs.

      Not to mention how many inches are in a meter.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    4. Re:US Metric System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      So? There are 1000 mInch in an Inch. There are 1000 inch in a kiloInch. There is nothing special about the meter.

    5. Re:US Metric System by Ian+A.+Shill · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right. And now the Metric system itself is from the US? Who writes this stuff.

      Do you really expect that most American will accept the metric system if it is somewhat unamerican? I don't mind it been presented as an american invention if it can help bring the US in the 20th century.

      Also, I suspect this is exactly the idea behind this article. So shut up about it, and let this US metric system get root.

      Once you convert over to metric, it's the 21st century.

      --
      For hire.
    6. Re:US Metric System by fsterman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who writes this stuff.

      Me.

      Sorry, the thing went through several revisions : )

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    7. Re:US Metric System by Cinder6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honest question here: Assuming you're an American, how would the US switching to the metric system enhance your life? Most people don't run around doing dimensional analysis, and people who have grown up with the current system don't have trouble with it. If you like the metric system, there's nothing stopping you from using it. For my own way of thinking, we have a lot of bigger problems to tackle before we spend money switching everything over to metric. Such a switch would have short-term negative effects (due to confusion and misunderstanding of how different units relate to each other), and I just don't see there being much benefit for the average person in the long-term.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    8. Re:US Metric System by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's nothing special about the meter. The "special" part is meter and liter are related, as are kg and liter, so everything is related. That and the relation for increasing and decreasing units or prefixes is the same base as our counting system. Not special about any particular unit, but better for large and small numbers being related. Or do you know how many inches in a furlong off the top of your head?

    9. Re:US Metric System by NFN_NLN · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Metric is every bit as arbitrary as imperial, it's just a bit easier to do unit conversions with them.

      The metric system is not arbitrary. There is only one unit each of length, mass, volumes, etc. It is also coherent.

      Coherence"

      "Each variant of the metric system has a degree of coherence – the various derived units being directly related to the base units without the need of intermediate conversion factors. For example, in a coherent system the units of force, energy and power are chosen so that the equations

              force = mass × acceleration
              energy = force × distance
              power = energy / time

      hold without the introduction of constant factors. Once a set of coherent units have been defined, other relationships in physics that use those units will automatically be true - Einstein's mass-energy equation, E = mc2, does not require extraneous constants when expressed in coherent units.[18]

      The cgs system had two units of energy, the erg that was related to mechanics and the calorie that was related to thermal energy so only one of them (the erg) could bear a coherent relationship to the base units. Coherence was a design aim of SI resulting in only one unit of energy being defined - the joule.[19]

      In SI, which is a coherent system, the unit of power is the "watt" which is defined as "one joule per second".[20] In the US customary system of measurement, which is non-coherent, the unit of power is the "horsepower" which is defined as "550 foot-pounds per second" (the pound in this context being the pound-force), similarly the gallon is not equal to a cubic yard (nor is it the cube of any length unit).

      The concept of coherence was only introduced into the metric system in the third quarter of the nineteenth century; in its original form the metric system was non-coherent - in particular the litre was 0.001 m3 and the are (from which we get the hectare) was 100 m2. A precursor to the concept of coherence was however present in that the units of mass and length were related to each other through the physical properties of water, the gram having been designed as being the mass of one cubic centimetre of water at its freezing point."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system

    10. Re:US Metric System by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Metric is every bit as arbitrary as imperial

      0 C - point at which water freezes, 100 C - point at which water boils.

      Yep, totally arbitrary. Lets not even start with Kelvin.

      it's just a bit easier to do unit conversions with them.

      By "a bit" you mean an imperial shitload (2.4358 Metric fucktons) easier. I know there is 1000 millimetres in a metre, 1000 millilitres in a litre, 1000 milligrams in a gram. Same with centi, deci, kilo, mega and so forth. How many furlongs are there in a mile, inches in a furlong? How do we start dealing with tiny fractions of an inch or many hundreds of thousands of miles?

      It's also a lot easier to convert between different measurements in metric. 1 millilitre is 1 cubic centimetre (CC) of water (1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm), 1 litre is 1000 CC's.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re: US Metric System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to disagree with your point. But I would say that the main problem with units like foot and inches is not the base per se, but the inconsistent bases across the spectrum.

      If it used base 16, for example, across the board, then it would be just as sane as metric. Eg 1/16 inch, 1 inch, 16 inch to a feet, 16 feet to a yard, 256 yards to a mile, etc.

      Instead, we have a mishmash of lengths that used different base at every level. If base 16, or 12 or whatever, really has some good, why not apply such goodness across the board?

    12. Re:US Metric System by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you don't understand the term "arbitrary". Some people got together, decided that this system is "better" than any other system, and now the world wishes to impose this system on everyone in the world.

      Arbitrary.

      I'll agree that a base 10 system is much easier to use, and to convert into other measurements than imperial measurements. But, "easy" doesn't preclude "arbitrary".

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:US Metric System by fsterman · · Score: 3, Funny

      I little piece of my soul dies every time I have to measure something in 1/32th's of an inch.

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    14. Re:US Metric System by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We've had the metric system since day one. Ten pennies equal a dime. Ten dimes equal a dollar. Ten dollars equal a ten. Ten tens equal a C-note. People who can make change without relying on a computer understand the metric system perfectly. We had metric before most of Europe. How many shillings in a pound are there, anyway?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:US Metric System by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What pair of Imperial units is a factor of 34?

      You should be able to see that 16 and 32 aren't "random" at all, they're powers of 2. Another extremely common ratio of Imperial units is 12, which is a highly divisible number.

      Metric is particularly suited to decimal notation. Imperial units are particularly suited to fractions.

      Yes, there are some weird Imperial units. No, nobody really uses them. There are lots of weird units, period.

      All systems of units are arbitrary.

    16. Re:US Metric System by quacking+duck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Economics and timing is a poor but convenient excuse, it's only been used for the last three decades to justify not doing anything.

      It would have been more economical to start phasing out imperial 30 years ago, but instead millions of additional dollars have been wasted making, for example, signposts in miles and speed limit signs in mph.

      It will *never* be a "good time" to change to metric, but the longer you *don't* change, the more money you've wasted and the more it will cost when you finally do change over.

      Hell, it would've been more economical to stop printing $1 bills years ago, seeing as $1 US coins have been available for ages. But no, new $1 bills are still made, and so people continue using them.

      Instead of saying it's not economical or bad timing, just say some of the real reasons: Americans on the whole are resistant to change, don't want to learn a new and generally better way of doing things, or just want to be different somehow from the rest of the world (except such nice company as Liberia and Burma).

    17. Re:US Metric System by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      The rest of the world just isn't smart enough to learn the US Standard system. It really confuses them, and the only way they can maintain any sort of smug sense of superiority is by belittling the way we measure cups and feet.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    18. Re:US Metric System by EdIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      Besides, that is what God created conversion programs for.

      God crashed a multi-billion dollar research craft into Mars?

    19. Re:US Metric System by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I'm fishing in my pants to figure out what all the "fur" is about... that means I have been away from it for far too long.

    20. Re:US Metric System by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Inches in a league? Feet in a knot (47 feet 3 inches)? Square inches in an acre? ounces in a ton? Heck, most people wouldn't pull out 128 oz in a gallon without help, though you'll find a half-gallon milk on a shelf next to a 16 oz cream, and comparing them natively is difficult.

    21. Re:US Metric System by mjwx · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would much rather arbitrarily use Mercuries melting and boiling point...Actually I'd like to use the point between it's freezing and when it turns to plasma. WTF is so non-arbitrary about water?

      It's abundance. The fact water can be found everywhere and purified easily makes it a good point to start with.

      Besides using an object as reference, be it water or mercury is the exact opposite of arbitrary.

      arÂbiÂtrarÂy
      1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

      An arbitrary system has the boiling point at 21 and the freezing point at -453.

      Also, "Mercury's" not "Mercuries".

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    22. Re:US Metric System by gagol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All systems of units are arbitrary.

      Some are arbitrary and logical, easy to work in your head... Some are a bunch of disparate measurement systems that makes almost no logical sense what so ever. If I have to choose, I take the logical one, thank you.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    23. Re:US Metric System by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The costs involved in producing parts and machines that need to be done in both metric and imperial is reduced thus reducing consumer costs on imported items. Costs involved for producing items for export are also reduced, reduced confusion all around for a small amount of short term confusion.

    24. Re:US Metric System by kharchenko · · Score: 2

      Metric is every bit as arbitrary as imperial, it's just a bit easier to do unit conversions with them.

      Sure, but the point is that the rest of the world has been able to unify behind a reasonable unit system, and we're the weird kid in the corner that insists on calling everyone by a different name.

    25. Re:US Metric System by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Simple would be relative. In the west, we use Arabic numerals, which are base 10, or powers of 10. Systems such as binary are base 2, or powers of 2, and after working with it for a while you can figure those numbers in your head as easily as anything else. We divide those into nibbles, bytes, words, dwords, qwords, etc. A kilobyte is 10 bits, which doesn't fit into those divisions, but we stick that label on it anyways.

      Imperial lengths work in a similarly awkward way, and are countable in powers of 3. For example, 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 1780 yards to a mile. Mass appears to go into powers of 14. I don't think that was by design, but it is one way to look at it.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    26. Re:US Metric System by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      Err I'd disagree. Doing something better and more efficiently is by definition more advanced.
      Hence the easier unit conversions are by definition more advanced.

      Metric helps you not crash mars rovers in to the ground at a stupidly high speed.

    27. Re:US Metric System by fsterman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Metric is every bit as arbitrary as imperial

      Imperial units internal relationships = arbitrary
      Imperial units external relationships = mostly-arbitrary (generally measures of someones body parts)

      SI internal relationships = non-arbitrary
      SI units external relationships = semi-arbitrary (generally measures of physical phenomena that are roughly universal)

      The metric system is at least 1 unit of arbitrariness less arbitrary than the imperial system.

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    28. Re:US Metric System by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is value in standards though. If the rest of the planet was using Imperial units, I would support any stragglers to convert to that. As it is, most of the world uses metric, so I support the move to metric.

    29. Re:US Metric System by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would wager that 1/3 of a meter is "1/3 of a meter"? How much is 1/5 of a foot?

    30. Re:US Metric System by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      That is why I support the change. The system used is less important than standardization.

    31. Re:US Metric System by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Economics and timing is a poor but convenient excuse, it's only been used for the last three decades to justify not doing anything.

      So you think a choice of measurement units is more important than an economy?

      I addressed such false dichotomy already.

      Hell, it would've been more economical to stop printing $1 bills years ago, seeing as $1 US coins have been available for ages. But no, new $1 bills are still made, and so people continue using them.

      Dig that grave deeper. It'd have been more economical to just drop the dollar coin altogether. Somehow your little opinion on such things is more important than the blatantly obvious consensus of hundreds of millions of people.

      The blatantly obvious consensus of hundreds of millions of people is that Internet Explorer is a great browser, and Windows XP remains a great operating system for 2013. That is obviously as false as your statement, because it's inertia, familiarity, and habit that keeps them going, not because they remain the best option years after their introduction.

    32. Re:US Metric System by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Informative

      This whole article is based on a common (and false) myth.

      The U.S. is a signatory to the international treaty of the meter. Our yards, pounds and gallons are defined on the meric scale and have been since the 1890s. The problem is not that the Gov't hasn't adopted the meter, its that the public has decided not to use metric measurements and has openly opposed efforts to convert public signage to metric.
      see, e.g.http://science.howstuffworks.com/why-us-not-on-metric-system2.htm

    33. Re:US Metric System by Twinbee · · Score: 2

      I use 'turns' in trig most of the time and am trying to encourage people to do the same. Compare:

      ' Trig based on radians
      sin(0) = 0
      sin(1/8*2pi) = 0.70710678
      sin(2/8*2pi) '1/4 turn = 1
      sin(3/8*2pi) = 0.70710678
      sin(4/8*2pi) '1/2 turn = 0

      ' Turn based trig (much better for many apps)
      tsin(0) = 0
      tsin(1/8) = 0.70710678
      tsin(2/8) '1/4 turn = 1
      tsin(3/8) = 0.70710678
      tsin(4/8) '1/2 turn = 0

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    34. Re:US Metric System by Viceice · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, In temperatures, 0'C is Freezing point of water, 100'C is boiling point.

      In Volume/ Mass/ Weight, 1000sq/cm = 1 Litre = 1 kg of water.

      All these have practical applications in real life.

      --
      Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    35. Re:US Metric System by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it isn't. Lumber is the biggest example of a screwed up measurement system. It isn't even Imperial. A 2x4 isn't 2"x4". A 4x8 isn't 4"x8". If switching to metric would fix the screwed up measurements of lumber, that alone would make it worth while.

    36. Re:US Metric System by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2

      The coherent angular unit is called the Radian. It is perfectly reasonable (but generally not done) to talk in metric kilo- and milli- radians. Angular degrees are generally used because of the nice trigonometric properties of triangle (from which we get the trig- of trigonometry), and allow for rational expressions of angles in convenient ratios. However, angular degrees are not coherent and serious engineering often necessitates using radian measurements - an example is helicopter design (my field), in which the tip velocity of a rotor blade is the length of the blade times its rotational velocity in radians per second.

      See also Gradian

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    37. Re:US Metric System by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      If Imperial units were ALL related by A factor, such as 12 or 16, you might have a point. The problem is, they're not. 12 inches in a foot, three feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile. Never mind that Americans seem to use yards for football and that's it, so you have to remember five thousand and some odd feet in a mile. Then there are things like fluid ounces.

    38. Re:US Metric System by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      Well, why water? Why not nitrogen? We encounter a lot more of that in our daily lives than water, and it is simpler than water (binary atom rather than an odd shaped dipole molecule with two different atoms in it.)

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    39. Re:US Metric System by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not having to have two sets of wrenches and not crashing landers into Mars come to mind.

    40. Re:US Metric System by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I see a distance of a multiple of 60 one can quickly determine how many hours it will take to get there when driving. :-)

      Until time is also switched over to base 10 using miles/hr has a very nice 1:1 mapping with time! (assuming one drives 60 mi/hr.) The metric is a nice scientific system; the imperial system is a "nice" organic system. There is no reason BOTH systems couldn't be kept on the signage.

      Ummm, yeah. I'm assuming you either just forgot your sarcasm tag or had a massive brain fart....

      Last I checked km / hour was 1:1 as well. 1 hour @ 65 km/hour = 65km traveled.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    41. Re:US Metric System by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      E= mc2 certainly does have an arbitrary constant embedded within it -- if expressed in metric units the speed of light is an arbitrary constant. For this reason most high energy physics uses so called 'natural units' where the speed of light = 1 and units of mass are the same as units of energy (i.e. the electron rest mass is 511 kilo-electronvolts). And what is an electronvolt of energy? -- it's the energy which one electron-charge gains accelerated through one volt. Notice that the only metric unit referenced in this usual measure of mass is the volt; no kilograms or units derived from kilograms. So once you get deep into the 'hardest' of the hard sciences you don't find metric units used for much -- that says something about the arbitrariness of metric units (and their more exactly defined successors, the SI units).

    42. Re:US Metric System by hawguy · · Score: 2

      As much I as like the consistency and simplicity of metric there is still one area where the imperial system makes sense:

      When I see a distance of a multiple of 60 one can quickly determine how many hours it will take to get there when driving. :-)

      Until time is also switched over to base 10 using miles/hr has a very nice 1:1 mapping with time! (assuming one drives 60 mi/hr.) The metric is a nice scientific system; the imperial system is a "nice" organic system. There is no reason BOTH systems couldn't be kept on the signage.

      If the speed limit is 100km/hr (62mi/hr), then wouldn't the same convenience apply to distances that are a multiple of 100?

      Just like how if something is 120 miles away, you can estimate 2 hours @ 60 mi/hr, if it's 200 km away, you can also estimate 2 hours @ 100 km/hr.

      Likewise, a 45 mile drive takes 45 minutes @ 60mph, it's not that hard to look at a 75km drive and see that it's .75 hours, or about 45 minutes @ 100km/hr

      Dealing with odd distances like 37 miles might make the conversion easier when dealing with mph, but when you see a distance of 59 km, you know that's .59 hours, or a bit over half an hour, which is about as accurate as saying "37 minutes", since it's really just a rough estimate -- few people drive a steady 60mph for long distances - in my commute, the speed limit varies from 35 mph on surface streets jumping up speeds that vary among 50mph, 55mph, and 65mph on the freeway. (which, if in km/hour would be around 80km/hour, 90km/hour and 100km/hour).

    43. Re:US Metric System by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Aside from the earth not being spherical, its size isn't static either.

      That's why the meter is no longer defined by a distance of a physical object - it was defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum, until 1983 when it was defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1299,792,458 of a second. (more info here)

      And water at what temperature?

      Unless you're a scientist, you generally don't need to account for the small change in density over temperature. If you are a scientist, then you know it's 4 degrees C and you're already using the metric system.

    44. Re:US Metric System by xenobyte · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would wager that 1/3 of a meter is "1/3 of a meter"? How much is 1/5 of a foot?

      One toe?

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    45. Re:US Metric System by ratbag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      250ml, 500ml, 1l, 2l and 4l are typical sales units for dairy products in the UK. And before you say "look, they're using powers of two, metric is all a sham", those particular sizes map quite closely to the old sizes, making it easier for uber-conservative (and ardently anti-European) Britons to accept and understand metric.

      I'm not conservative or anti-European and I prefer to work in base 10, with consistent ratios, not having to remember the different number of ounces in a pound, vs the number of pounds in a stone, vs the number of fluid ounces in a pint. I like that I can think of a litre of water and have an immediate feel for what a kilogram weighs, or what 100mm looks like.

      I'm 43 years old, so I went to school post-initial-metrication, but there are still plenty of hold-outs my age and older who "can't stand metric", including my otherwise-sane wife. But at least we're 30 years further along the metrication process and can report that the world won't end if you do get with the program(me).

    46. Re:US Metric System by hvdh · · Score: 2

      When you go to the grocery store [..] I'll bet calculating cost/gram or cost/liter is as much of a challenge in Metric countries as cost/ounce is in the US.

      Sorry to interrupt you here, but at least in Germany, shops must state the price per kg or liter on the price tag.

    47. Re:US Metric System by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Add to this paper measurement, letter being 8,5x11 inches in north america but 15cm x 30 cm in Europe.

      Really? At least 90% of the letters I receive are A4, which is 29,7cm x 21cm. I don't know any European paper format that has an aspect ratio of 2.

    48. Re:US Metric System by afgam28 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason that the metric system is better than the imperial system is because of its advantages in scientific and industrial applications. And so the reason that the US should adopt the metric system is so that future scientists and engineers have an intuitive feel for the units.

      But there are a few day-to-day advantages. The biggest one that comes to mind is unit pricing at the grocery store. The whole point of unit pricing is to make it easy to compare the price of products that are sold in different volumes, and in countries that use the metric system this is easy. But in the United States, you'll often see products side-by-side that cost $X per pint, $Y per quart, and $Z per ounce. It's not easy to compare these prices because the unit conversions are not simple to do in your head.

    49. Re:US Metric System by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      A kilobyte is 10 bits

      That's you off the next Mars probe team.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    50. Re:US Metric System by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      If you need to calibrate a thermometer you just made (and don't have a known good thermometer to do it against) freezing and boiling water is a lot easier than messing around with liquid nitrogen.

      This is also a decentralized solution. Someone far from France, where they came up with this stuff, can do an experiment and get the same results, to an (at the time) acceptable degree of precision. The kilogram was likewise initially defined in terms of an experiment with water - but there they pretty quickly decided that wasn't accurate enough, and stored a "standard kilogram" in a vault for many years.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    51. Re:US Metric System by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Funny

      How much is 1/5 of a foot?

      One toe?

      Dude, what the fuck is wrong with your feet?!?

      Even my big toe is less than one tenth the size of my sole.

    52. Re:US Metric System by jandersen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...Chinese glyphs make them more primitive than using an alphabet...

      If I may pick up on this one: The Chinese writing system is in fact very far from being 'primitive' in any sense of the word - it is uniquely suited to the Chinese language and continues to this day to be better than all the alphabetical systems that have been attempted over the years: Bopomofo, Wade-Giles, Pinyin and several others. There are two reasons for this, in my view.

      One is that the Chinese language doesn't have the same grammatical need for expressing different word forms - there are no inflections etc, so the same word form is used throughout, unlike in English (e.g. 'be', 'am', 'is', 'are' ...). Thus you can use the same character for a word everywhere without the sort of modification you see in Japanese, and there is no incentive to get away from the writing system.

      The most important reason, however, is that the Chinese writing system allows you to write all the different dialects in the same way; this means that you can communicate things like common legislation and culture over the whole of that vast country. When you compare things like spoken language or local culture across Chinese, the differences are at least as great as the differences you find in Europe, but all Chinese feel they belong to the same nation - that is ultimately because of the writing system. It is also interesting to note, that the groups that want to break away from China are exactly the ones whose languages are not compatible with the writing.

      And of course, once you master Chinese writing, it turns out to be hugely convenient, because it is so compact and concise.

    53. Re:US Metric System by jkflying · · Score: 2

      The UK switched their money to decimal in 1971 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_Day - imagine if the US hadn't been decimal to start with, how much resistance there would be to changing now!

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    54. Re:US Metric System by MrNiCeGUi · · Score: 2

      You seem to act as if the metric countries don't have any builders. Guess what, they do, so your argument that metric is hard is pretty damn weak, too.

      In fact, I think your argument boils down to "American builders are stupider than those in the rest of the world". They are not. If the rest of the world can use metric, I guarantee they they can too.

    55. Re:US Metric System by DrXym · · Score: 4, Informative
      Ireland went one step further and went metric on their roads. Similarly civilization did not collapse. In fact most of the major road signs were switched overnight and the whole transition took a few days. Most speed limits went up or down to the nearest multiple in KPH. So we drive at 50KPH (31MPH) instead of 30MPH, 120 KPH instead of 70MPH etc. I still drive a car which a speedometer in MPH but it has KPH on the inner dial. Ireland still keeps pints as a unit of measurement in bars but imperial is pretty much gone elsewhere.

      I'm sure it would not stop right wing newspapers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Express from freaking out if ever the UK went the whole hog but it really is no big deal.

      Switching from driving on the left to the right could be a tad harder though...

    56. Re:US Metric System by Jappus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This from an idjut country that can't even spell 'METRE' correctly.

      I know you're fishing for karma with that opening, but may I remind you that the ORIGINAL spelling for the primary units is french:

      Mètre, kilogramme, seconde and ampère.

      I don't see a single anglo-saxon "idjut" on either side of the Atlantic use the accents or the double-m or the final "e".

      For that point, neither so do the Germans: Meter, Kilogramm, Sekunde, Ampere.
      The Dutch also don't get it quite right: meter, kilogram, seconde, ampère.
      The Catalans are much weirder: metre, quilogram, segon, ampere
      And the Spanish finally top it all: metro, kilogramo, segundo, amperio.

      One might even get the funny idea, that pretty much every country in the world tried to make the measurements sound "natural" to their citizens. Crazy, isn't it?

    57. Re:US Metric System by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative

      letter being 8,5x11 inches in north america but 15cm x 30 cm in Europe.

      That would be a very elongated piece of paper.

      A4 paper is 210x297mm, and is never called "letter", always A4. The odd lengths are because the ratio of the sides is 1:sqrt(2), which means an A4 sheet cut in half (called A5) or doubled (called A3) has the same ratio as the A4 sheet, so a document can be very easily scaled or reduced to a sheet twice/half/etc times the size.

      A0 has area 1m^2. Paper weight is measured in g/m^2, i.e. the weight of a piece of A0 paper. Since A4 is (A1-half, A2-quarter, A3-eighth) a sixteenth of that, I know that each sheet of A4 paper in the ream by our printer (80g/m^2) weighs 80/16 = 5 grams.

    58. Re:US Metric System by fatphil · · Score: 3, Funny

      So the Texans will have Meedurs?

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    59. Re:US Metric System by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Depends. If you're just doing back of the envelope work the figures he tossed out are fine.

      If not, then there are a bunch of factors that matter, including composition of the water (chemical and isotopic purity), air pressure (altitude actually doesn't matter, except insofar as it influences air pressure), and so on.

      There is a reason that we still depend on that lump of irridium to define the kilogram. The meter is defined based on physical constants - if we could actually reliably relate the meter to the kilogram then we wouldn't need that lump of metal.

    60. Re:US Metric System by jcdr · · Score: 3, Informative

      letter being 8,5x11 inches in north america but 15cm x 30 cm in Europe.

      Completely wrong. Here is the reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216

    61. Re:US Metric System by quantumphaze · · Score: 2

      We use Base10 instead of Base20 because most of us wear shoes these days.

    62. Re:US Metric System by dintech · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and straight into a cushy job at Seagate or Western Digital.

    63. Re:US Metric System by TapeCutter · · Score: 2
      They did the same here in Oz in the 70's, everything is in metric except tools for old cars.

      Switching from driving on the left to the right could be a tad harder though

      Oh come on, I've driven on Irish roads, most of them are only wide enough for one car anyway.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    64. Re:US Metric System by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      No it isn't. The litre, for instance is a metric unit but not an SI unit.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    65. Re:US Metric System by usuallylost · · Score: 2

      If we ever want the US to go to the metric system we have to realize a couple of things. The first is that it can't be the chaotic mess it was the last time they tried back in the 70's. It was poorly planned and executed and failed horribly. Realistically it set the effort back at least 30 years. The second is that the US is a large country changing is going to cost a fortune. I wouldn't be surprised if we aren't talking billions of dollars worth of road signs alone. I suspect that just about the only hope of getting this country to change is to spend the next few decades preparing for it. Doing things like having a mandate that after X date all new signs, gas pumps, scales etc must have both metric and Imperial measures displayed on them. So that the infrastructure can be put into place without bankrupting the country. It will also get people used to seeing the metric equivalent next to the imperial measures they are used to. So that people will realize, for example, that 1 gallon is roughly 3.78 liters without thinking about it. Because they have seen both values on the gas pump for the last 20 years. Then after people are used to it you just start dropping the Imperial measures from things. I just don't see a fast way to transition that dose not cost vast sums of money or result in chaos and confusion. You have, at least, a couple of hundred million people who are ingrained with the imperial system. You are going to have to ease them into the metric system.

    66. Re:US Metric System by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      but the difference between a real pint and a US pint is quite noticeable

      Actually, the US pint is more sensible than our pint.

      Imperial: 16 oz / lb, 1 fl oz = 1 oz water, 1 pint = uh 20 floz.

      US: 1 pint = 16 fl oz = 1lb water.

      Oh and for extra fun, 1 US floz != 1 Imperial fl oz since the reference temperature is different!

      Also, I've seen 568ml bottles and 500ml bottles, but never 550.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    67. Re:US Metric System by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      a) You should wear a cooling suit. The human body is most comfortable around 37 degrees C, and 40 puts you in danger of overheating.

      b) Almost every country on the planet converted from some other system to SI. Every other country decided it was worth the effort to convert, simply so that citizens could use more logical units, and so that science was accessible. The situation in the US isn't special; you're just lazier and more stubborn. Your excuses are bad and you should feel bad.

      c) Here is a guide that will help you get more familiar with SI units.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    68. Re:US Metric System by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You missed the whole point. "E=mc^2" works in metric because the units are coherent. Use the SI base units (kg, m, s) and everything works out. If you use old stuff like slugs or pound-force for mass and btu for energy, you're going to need some arbitrary conversion factor in the equation depending on which particular units you used.

      The "10" business is a very small part of it; that's just to make it easier to do the math when you scale stuff. What DOES matter is that the unit of Force (for example) is exactly related to the base units: F=ma, so the base units are kg*m/s^2, and that is how you define the Newton.

      In the bad old days you had to decide what units "mass" was (slugs? oz? lb? tons?) and then acceleration (ft/s? yards/s? inches/s?) and in the end you end up with some funny conversion factor depending on what you want "Force" to be in. So instead of "F=ma" you end up with "F=kma", where "F" is "poundforce", "m" is "oz", "a" is "ft/s" and "k" is some stupid conversion factor just to make the numbers work out with the units you happened to choose. And so you'll get a different conversion factor depending on which particular units you chose for mass and acceleration. Ouch.

      "Slugs" are in fact the old unit of mass created to try to sort out this idiotic mess for mass, but hardly any Imperial fanatics even seem to be aware of it. In the end it was best to throw out all that garbage and realize that you only need three basic measurements: mass, distance, time. Everything else can be derived from that through physics equations. And so SI was born: "kg, m, s". Everything else is a derived unit, and so no conversion factor is EVER necessary. The multiple of 10 stuff is just to make it easy to scale numbers, and you can scale the meter down as tiny as measuring atoms to as big as measuring galaxies, but it's still just a meter with a prefix for an exponent.

    69. Re:US Metric System by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
  2. UK as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see how a country that drives in miles, weighs in stones (pounds for other things), and sells things by the gallon counts as metric.

    1. Re:UK as well by locofungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, we drive in miles. Stones and pounds are on the way out, ditto feet and inches which are only used to measure people. Anyone born before about 1960 tends to use stones and feet exclusively, anyone born after about 1980 uses metres and kilos. Those of us on the cusp tend to switch depending on who we are talking to.

      Fahrenheit (I even had to go and look up the spelling) has completely disappeared. I have absolutely no idea what the weather in Fahrenheit means other than doing some mental arithmetic.

      The mile will probably stay for motoring. Much like the guinea and furlong for horse racing and the chain for cricket. I don't know if the pint will finally disappear in the pub. I suspect not but the gill has gone. L.s.d. is not even on the radar of most people born before about 1980. With the replacement of the shilling coin in 1990 and the florin in 1992 the final links and reminders of our old money system escaped from public consciousness.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    2. Re:UK as well by FireFury03 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't see how a country that drives in miles, weighs in stones (pounds for other things), and sells things by the gallon counts as metric.

      I've not seen anything weighed in stones/pounds or sold in gallons for a loooong time. However, I will agree that using miles on the roads and pints for beer (which are both units that haven't been taught in schools for *decades*) is insane. Even more fucked up is that british law relating to road signs states that for short distances, such a sign should be placed multiples of 100 metre away from the hazard but must say "yards" on it - i.e. a "low bridge 200 yards ahead" sign is actually 200 metres from the low bridge. (Placing metric units on the sign, or selling beer in half-litre measures is, of course, illegal).

  3. US metric system? by tsa · · Score: 2

    I can not believe that the metric system was invented by the US. I guess you meant IS metric system.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:US metric system? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, these editors, sheesh. You give them an inch, they take a mile.

    2. Re:US metric system? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... The other way lies committees and madness.

      But you repeat yourself.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:US metric system? by clarkn0va · · Score: 2

      The clear solution then, is to call it not the metric system, and not SI, but "The Freedom System (TM)".

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    4. Re:US metric system? by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Yeah, these editors, sheesh. You give them an inch, they take a mile.

      Give them an inch, they take 25 millimetres.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:US metric system? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2

      Yeah, these editors, sheesh. You give them an inch, they take a mile.

      Give them an inch, they take 25 millimetres.

      Wait, the editors are working on NASA Mars missions now?

  4. Never underestimate familiarity by eksith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For this to even remotely succeed, at least two generations of kids need to grow up with the metric system (or at least have it along side imperial). Then, when they enter the workforce, metric will seep into common usage.

    Meanwhile, what of the generations of existing trades that rely on imperial? I.E. Carpentry, plumbing etc... It isn't just a simple matter of teaching metric either. All these industries and their supporting industries must switch or provide parallel measures (of course, the old timers will stick to imperial in that case, since it's there too). That's very, very, very expensive both in material and time.

    --
    If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
    1. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It isn't just a simple matter of teaching metric either. All these industries and their supporting industries must switch or provide parallel measures (of course, the old timers will stick to imperial in that case, since it's there too). That's very, very, very expensive both in material and time.

      That sounds like something that will require a lot of work, and will require hiring a lot of people to do that work.
      If only there was an unemployment problem in America...

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    2. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by c_sd_m · · Score: 3, Funny

      It creates jobs and gives every red-blooded male an excuse to double his tool collection (at least the stuff like socket sets where you can get great bargains), what are we waiting for?

    3. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many countries that have officially gone metric still use local units for things like building materials.

      Your objection really isn't an issue.

    4. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      For good reason too. Those square drive things cam out like crazy. Use torx next time, please.

    5. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      We were already teaching metric in school (actually in grades 1-4) back when I was in school 20 years ago. The thing is that it doesn't really matter as for the most part its something kids learn and then when they get out into the real world unless they're in specific industries they don't use anymore and they end up getting used to customary units afterwards.

      I specifically remember being about 13-14 and going to work with my dad who was a construction worker. He asked me a take a measurement of something and I remember reading it back in cm instead of in (up until that point I hadn't needed to measure anything in the real world and they said to use metric in school). After he cut the wrong size of material I was thoroughly chewed out and it was made clear that I don't EVER use that side of the tape measure again :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by SydShamino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even printed circuit boards are designed in "mils" - which are one-thousands of an inch. It's not just "things like building materials", it's "things like building materials and all the associated tools and hardware, and all of their associated tools and hardware, and also cars and all of their associated liquids and meters and infrastructure, and also electronics and their associated infrastructure, and also temperature and its associated infrastructure and cultural understanding".

      If you're going to label "building materials" as not really an issue, you might as well label all of those things the same. And then you have the current system as "not really an issue", which for most Americans it isn't. End of discussion.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    7. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      The part that will blow people's minds that relatively new, high tech industries (like PCB design) also still use imperial. We use mils here (1/1000th of an inch) for specifying PCB geometry. Then you merge silicon and package substrate geometry which is always in um, and nobody knows what the hell the other guy is talking about.

    8. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by fsterman · · Score: 4, Informative

      The rest of the world uses metric, the efficiencies of mass manufacturing mean that it costs more to create version using imperial units. Switching is a one time cost, the savings are cumulative so eventually (given a ROI higher than inflation) you should make your money back.

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    9. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      How exactly do you think the UK went metric? By killing everyone who grew up on imperial, and forcibly breeding the children in 1969? Seriously mis-understand how this is done dude..

      they legislated the problem away 73-80. I was in the cohort who left school friday being taught inches/ft and came back monday alive on cm/meter. I've never regretted learning the 12 and 20 times table.

      You'll be telling us people can't learn to drive on the other side of the road next (despite two economies having made the transition in the last 50 years)

    10. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by swillden · · Score: 2

      It isn't just a simple matter of teaching metric either. All these industries and their supporting industries must switch or provide parallel measures (of course, the old timers will stick to imperial in that case, since it's there too). That's very, very, very expensive both in material and time.

      That sounds like something that will require a lot of work, and will require hiring a lot of people to do that work. If only there was an unemployment problem in America...

      So your solution is to make it worse?

      This is just the common broken window fallacy. Adding jobs by reducing productivity doesn't work. If you reduce productivity and increase the number of workers needed to produce the same output, you increase the cost of whatever they're making, which increases the price, which reduces demand. End result: fewer jobs, not more.

      The way to create jobs is to create new production, making stuff that wasn't being made before, either because it was made somewhere else, or because it was more expensive and you found a way to make it cheaper which increased demand, or because it didn't even exist before.

      Otherwise, we could just solve the unemployment problem by breaking everyone's windows and hiring all the unemployed to replace them. Whenever the number of broken windows begins to dwindle, just break more.

      Actually, going to the metric system would likely increase productivity by a non-trivial amount, in the long run. In the short run, though, it would be mildly harmful, depending on how aggressively it was enforced.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 4, Funny

      Could you pick up some robertson screwdrivers as well? Last time I shipped a crate to the US, they used crowbars to open it up.

      Whenever I ship something big to the US, I make a point to attach a note to the outside of the crate warning them about the Robertson screws, and informing them that for their convenience, I have included a pack of Robertson bits inside the crate.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    12. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by robot256 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, we run our CAD programs in imperial, but guess what? That Chinese fab house rounds all your drill sizes to the nearest 0.1 mm, and that 1/16" board is probably only 1.5mm. And any machine shop worth its salt has a full set of tools in both imperial and metric, because anything we import is metric and they have to make compatible parts. I'm pretty sure at least foreign makes of cars use all metric parts even when assembling in the US, so they are compatible with the rest of the supply chain--it is U.S. makes that suffer by requiring "special" parts, or metric-imperial adapters and crap, unless they switched already too (ha!). It ought to be an obvious business decision even without government intervention, but there is just too much inertia for everyone to switch unless they do it at the same time.

    13. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I live in an officially metric country. I can get a 2 by 4, it's just labeled 45x90 on the shelf. Everyone knows what I'm talking about, it's just called the new name. It's not like they made it a round number like 50x100.

    14. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Informative

      For this to even remotely succeed, at least two generations of kids need to grow up with the metric system (or at least have it along side imperial). Then, when they enter the workforce, metric will seep into common usage.

      Meanwhile, what of the generations of existing trades that rely on imperial? I.E. Carpentry, plumbing etc... It isn't just a simple matter of teaching metric either. All these industries and their supporting industries must switch or provide parallel measures (of course, the old timers will stick to imperial in that case, since it's there too). That's very, very, very expensive both in material and time.

      And yet, somehow, the other 180 countries in the world managed to do it.

      In Australia, it was in the 1970s. A few years of "soft" conversions, where you just have to give a metric equivalent, then "hard" conversions where various official weights and measures go to solely metric, "rounded" quantities (e.g. 25 mm instead of 25.4 mm to replace one inch; 100 km/hr instead of 60 mph. Once weather reports stopped giving Fahrenheit equivalents supermarkets and butchers etc all started using kilos there was a burst of resentment but people got over it. The building trade went to mm early on. Rulers still often have inches on one side, but are needed less and less.

      But Mexicans already know how to use use metric, so I guess you'll probably go metric about the same time you change your official language to Spanish.

    15. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by adolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      AFAICT, American cars are metric and have been for some time.

      The only "Imperial" stuff I come across are those used in construction: Plumbing, electrical, steel building components, and other of that sort of ilk, none of which is frequently exported.

    16. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by theedgeofoblivious · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's bizarre to me is that we learn that the human body is 98.6 and that water boils at 100. When I was young I thought that human body temperature was close to boiling. I really doubt that I'm the only person in the U.S. who didn't know.

      Most people in the U.S. probably couldn't tell you that human body temperature is ~37 Celsius or that water boils at 212 Fahrenheit.

    17. Re:Never underestimate familiarity by Alioth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's worse than that. Half the packages are in mils (such as SOIC, 0603 passive components, SOT-23 etc) and the other half are in mm (TSOP and TQFP with 0.5mm pitch, various LQFPs with 0.4mm pitch etc). So on one board it's quite possible to have some components in mils, and some in imperial, and you have to choose one grid (either a mils grid or a mm grid). Since the PCB fabricators seem to be using mm, I use a mm grid and the PCB layout tool can make traces snap to the component pins of things that are in mils.

  5. That's a lot! by Cruciform · · Score: 5, Funny

    13,000 American signed? That's like 20,000 in metric! (or airplane seats)

    1. Re:That's a lot! by fredgiblet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. But we should do something smart to help the entire population.

    2. Re:That's a lot! by swilly · · Score: 3, Funny

      So one American is equivalent to approximately 1.5 metric people. Yes, we Americans know we are overweight compared to the rest of the world, but that doesn't mean you have the right to poke fun. We just made a "different life choice", that's all.

      I actually once got disciplined as a kid for calling another kid fat. We can't help who we are and it isn't right to focus on peoples flaws as it prevents us from feeling good about ourselves. I wonder how much of our overweight problems and poor health is a direct result of all that PC garbage that was crammed down our throats as children.

  6. Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People do a couple calculations in college and then they think they know something. It's not simple like multiplying by 25.4. Start with a quarter inch bolt of which there are several thousand on an airplane. Then consider the hole for that bolt. Then consider the drill bit for that hole. Then think about the washer and the thickness of the sheet metal used to make the washer. Work your way back to the rollers that press out the sheets. Think about all the mistakes that are not made due to well understood measurement systems. There is so much to change.

    Metric is nice. No doubt about that. Changing over is a gargantuan undertaking. Don't underestimate the difficulty.

    1. Re:Good luck with that by fredgiblet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All but three countries in the world have done it. Are you saying we're unable to cope with an issue that nearly every country has managed to handle?

    2. Re:Good luck with that by Nimey · · Score: 2

      Oblig XKCD:

      http://xkcd.com/526/

      tl,dr: it's better to visualize each measurement than to convert into familiar units.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:Good luck with that by Marcika · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup. The UK metricated in the 1970s, long before they started having railways or steam engines or spinning jennies.

    4. Re:Good luck with that by fsterman · · Score: 2

      Well, the auto industry converted to metric and they reduced cost overall. Part of Boeings Dreamliner outsourcing nightmares have been due to it's dependence on the old system. Getting their partners to work in imperial is costly, their increased mistakes are costly, and the mix of metric and imperial standards is very costly.

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
  7. advantages of metric by belmolis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Adopting the metric system will eliminate a lot of confusion and ease standardization of container sizes and other such things, which in the long run will save a lot of money. Indeed, the Death Star will be cheaper to design and build, and more likely to work, if all of the work is done in metric.

    1. Re:advantages of metric by Bieeanda · · Score: 2

      It'd also prevent it from going the way of that Mars orbiter back in '99...

    2. Re:advantages of metric by fsterman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here are a couple dozen examples.

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    3. Re:advantages of metric by fsterman · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, the Death Star will use imperial units, duh!

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
  8. Pints by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would hate to see the other units disappear as well but, as far as I'm concerned, someone should always be able to order a pint of ale. Any metric twaddle that threatens that should be thrown out with the other trash.

    Cheers,
    Dave

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
    1. Re:Pints by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

      Australia went metric in 1970, and I can still order a pint in most pubs today (though middys and schooners are more Aussie).

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:Pints by donscarletti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can buy a pint of beer in Australia too, despite the country being otherwise completely metric.

      You call it a pint because it is seved in a "pint glass", which by law holds 570 mililitres of beer, rather than the beer served one imperial pint of liquid (which, for historical reasons, it also happens to be).

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    3. Re:Pints by Krishnoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      'I arst you civil enough, didn't I?' said the old man, straightening his shoulders pugnaciously. 'You telling me you ain't got a pint mug in the 'ole bleeding boozer?'

      'And what in hell's name is a pint?' said the barman, leaning forward with the tips of his fingers on the counter.

      'Ark at 'im! Calls 'isself a barman and don't know what a pint is! Why, a pint's the 'alf of a quart, and there's four quarts to the gallon. 'Ave to teach you the A, B, C next.'

      'Never heard of 'em,' said the barman shortly. 'Litre and half litre -- that's all we serve. There's the glasses on the shelf in front of you.

      'I likes a pint,' persisted the old man. 'You could 'a drawed me off a pint easy enough. We didn't 'ave these bleeding litres when I was a young man.'

      'When you were a young man we were all living in the treetops,' said the barman, with a glance at the other customers.

      You and this guy. I think Orwell was trying to make a point about history being altered or lost when he wrote this part.

    4. Re:Pints by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      Lots more to do with the culture of ordering a "pint" then the quantity.

      I suspect it'll be like the US liquor industry though (which mostly IS metric) - even though they don't sell actual pints if you walk into any liquor store and ask for a "pint" they know you want a 375ml bottle. And a "half-pint" is a 250ml bottle (yes, even though that's a lot more than half of 375).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Pints by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Or you can say pint and get a half-liter, the customer won't complain!

    6. Re:Pints by c0lo · · Score: 2

      I would hate to see the other units disappear as well but, as far as I'm concerned, someone should always be able to order a pint of ale. Any metric twaddle that threatens that should be thrown out with the other trash.

      Sorry, Dave, ale's getting slightly better with metric.
      If you order "half-an-L" it will be approx one shot more of ale.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    7. Re:Pints by quacking+duck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a Canadian who has ordered beer in most of the provinces, I can confirm that we order it in pints.

      And that's OK. because it's a set size and it's not something that further conversion is going to be done on. You are never going to have to know how many mL of beer you just received.

      Actually, as a Canadian you have probably been scammed on pints. The US pint (473 mL) is less than a imperial pint (568 mL), and there's a "metric" pint that's exactly 500 mL. In Canada there hasn't been consistency or regulations as to which "pint" bars need to serve, so you might expect a British pint when ordering but actually get beer in an American-sized pint glass. 100 mL difference isn't a lot in absolute terms, but we're talking up to 20% difference in expectation vs. reality.

      So no, a pint of beer in Canada is NOT a set size.

    8. Re:Pints by FireFury03 · · Score: 2

      You just stop ordering "a pint of brand X" and order "a brand-X". If Canadians can do it, you'll be okay.

      Go into a British pub and ask for "a coke" and you could end up with either a half or a pint, which seems odd given that "a beer" will always get you a pint. However, nothing wrong with the European model of "a large beer" (500ml) or "a small beer" (250ml)...

  9. Good luck with that. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't have much of a problem with metric, but I don't think in metric. My children might be young enough to make the transition to metric thinking but this isn't going to happen in their lifetime because...

    1. Baby boomers are the biggest demographic group and they will reject a metric transition.
    2. If we have to wait for the baby boomers to die off, Gen X and Gen Y will be too entrenched in imperial thinking to make the transition.
    3. When the baby boomers die off Gen X and Gen Y will be the demographic groups driving elections and when we're in our 50s, there's no fucking way we'll go along with a metric transition.
    4. A lot of Americans like to keep doing things our way precisely because the rest of the world doesn't.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Good luck with that. by kwerle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't understand why there is a problem. We should require metric and allow both. Done.

      Eventually (in 3 generations, I figure), companies will stop bothering with imperial. In the meantime, everybody wins.

    2. Re:Good luck with that. by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      1. Baby boomers are the biggest demographic group and they will reject a metric transition.

      I'm a boomer; an early boomer, born in '49. I learned metric in school and if I have to do calculations or unit conversions, I'd rather everything were in metric because it's easier. I still think in terms of inches, feet, pounds and so on because I got used to them long before I was exposed to the metric system, but that doesn't mean I think it's better. Gradually, as more and more things that I buy come in metric units only, I'm adapting, and I suspect that most other boomers are too.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  10. Re:Trouble with that... by fredprado · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Governments impose standards all the time, because it is necessary. Entities like the FCC exist in great part to do this. Imagine for example what would happen if every US city had a different measure system. Nothing would match. Ever. Gee, you can break it down even more, imagine if everybody had his own measure system.

    Keeping using one badly designed measure system while the whole world use another clearly superior is not only stubbornness but stupidity.

  11. Too Late. by edibobb · · Score: 4, Informative

    Too late, we're already on the metric system. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and designated the metric system as the "preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce."

  12. Re:Metric . . . the liberal's tool by bmo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If we are going to adopt a decimal system of weights and measures at least we should go with an American one.

    From your link:

    "Jefferson proposed to divide the foot into 10 inches, 100 lines, and 1000 points"

    This is exactly how land surveying is done today in the US. Steel and fiberglass land surveyor's tapes and leveling rods are graduated in 10'ths and 100'ths of a foot as the standard. It has carried over from the land surveying electronics revolution in the 80s to be incorporated into total stations.

    On a total station, you can switch between metric and English at the press of a button, but since land surveying is "1/3rd measurement and 2/3rds law" as one former boss put it, doing measurements in metric when a deed calls out English is just nuts.

    --
    BMO

  13. It won't happen now by Nimey · · Score: 2

    hell, it probably won't happen in my lifetime bar a major change in our political zeitgeist that will put "American Exceptionalism" to bed for good.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  14. Re:Metric . . . the liberal's tool by Phrogman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And this is the death knell of US Metrification as a likely future event: The irrational bigotry and hatred of the French exhibited by so many Americans, solely because when the US waged an illegal war based on false premises and deliberate lies, the French decided not to participate based on their own interests and their own democratic system.
    Anything French must seemingly be spat upon the moment it is mentioned. Anything French must be inferior, cowardly, belittled etc, simply because its French, and they didn't want to come play in the first Gulf War when the US told them to. Its sad.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  15. Re:Trouble with that... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    > every US city had a different measure system.

    It used to be that way. That's why the Constitution has this thing about Congress establishing standard units.

    Fast forward 240 years and now the time to go from one continent to the next is shorter than the time it used to take to travel between cities.

    So guess what. If you want to sell your stuff outside your village (the US) you have a problem.

  16. 3 reasons this will fail by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    1) the White House never responds substantively to any of these stupid petitions. They are to convince the gullible about "change".

    2) everyone that needs metric uses it already.

    3) 14,000 300 million. Like, by a lot. Like, not EVEN a drop-in-the-bucket amount.

    --
    -Styopa
  17. Re:Trouble with that... by fsterman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Uhh, the government just has to mandate use within it's own sectors and for contracts. Everyone will switch over very quickly and the only choice you will have to make is how much more you want to spend on an imperial unit version of a given tool.

    --
    Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
  18. Why? by sootman · · Score: 2

    Why even have stories about these petitions anymore? The government has proven repeatedly they don't give a shit about them and they will NOT give a meaningful response. In theory they're a great idea but in practice they are a complete waste of time.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  19. Stop Acting Like These Petitions Mean ANYTHING. by MrLizard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time I read one of these articles, I sense this bizarre attitude that getting 25,000 signatures somehow means that a law will be passed or that something meaningful has been accomplished or that it's important to sign/not sign whatever bit of garbage is being bandied about at the moment. The "We The People" site is about as important, useful, or relevant as a pop-up poll promising you a free iPad for responding. The "response" from the White House is virtually always "We've read your stupid petition. Here's your response: It's stupid.". Laws are not passed in America by direct democracy, and, even if they were, you'd need about a hundred million votes, give or take, not 25,000. 25,000 signatures -- in a population of 300+ million -- are nothing. You can get 25,000 people to sign virtually anything. To get a law to the President's desk, you need to convince 50% of Congress to do something -- actually, more than 50%, given the many procedural obstructions that exist. Absolutely NO MEANINGFUL, CONCRETE, OR SIGNIFICANT ACTION WILL EVER BE TAKEN SOLELY AS A RESULT OF A PETITION ON THAT WEB SITE. Every time a web site or news service acts as if signing a petition on "We The People" is somehow different from writing "I wish the magic fairies would give me a pony!" on a scrap of paper and then keeping it under your pillow, it adds to the "slacktivism" of the American people and undermines any actual progress towards any desired goal, regardless of your political leanings. THE SITE IS A JOKE. It means NOTHING. It will not influence a single vote in Congress. It will not cause the President to take any action he was otherwise not going to take. Every moment wasted signing a petition, asking someone else to sign a petition, asking someone NOT to sign a petition, etc, is a moment wasted from your life (yes, like the moments I wasted writing this). You would accomplish more for yourself watching "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo", because at least you'd be entertained. (I assume, I've never actually watched it. If I want to see drunken redneck idiots, I can drive a mile to my local Wal Mart.)

  20. Imagine the bad timing by onemorechip · · Score: 2

    Suppose the death star gets about halfway done, and the requirement to convert to metric kicks in. All those parts machined to imperial units will have to be scrapped and the whole thing rebuilt.

    --
    But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
  21. Re:Trouble with that... by shinzawai · · Score: 4, Informative

    Europe is 5.9 times larger than Alaska.

    Europe has an area of 3,930,000 sq miles.

    Alaska has an area of 663,268 sq miles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska

  22. Re:Metric . . . the liberal's tool by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

    We were mocking the French long before the Gulf war.

    FOR SALE: Used French rifle, only dropped once.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  23. Convince Americans ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... that the New York Soda Law doesn't apply to soft drinks served in metric sized containers and they'll switch in a flash.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. Re:Will the rest of the world use the metric syste by robot256 · · Score: 2

    Metric is better not because of some terribly intrinsic quality but because it's everyone else uses it. That's the whole point of a standard--cnce a unit system becomes standard, it is no longer arbitrary. Metric was invented by scientists to do physical calculations more easily, and everyone else changed to match them because there wasn't any point in maintaining separate standards for science or engineering or everyday life.

    There are benefits for the engineers and technicians who design and build machinery. Not having to convert units every time you get a drawing from a supplier overseas. Not having to re-train employees to work on a foreign-market version of your product. Not having to plan ahead to make sure your domestic foreign suppliers are using the same units, or pay extra for one of them to use one system or the other. Not having to stock your machine shop with two complete sets of tools, and waste mental effort switching back and forth, because half the stuff you do is in metric anyways.

    Then there are the ancillary benefits, like not having our citizens look like complete idiots when they try to read roadsigns in kilometers in Europe. Or the ridiculousness of having to divide by 5,280 feet to get miles, or how our roadsigns say "1/2 mile" and then "1500 feet" (0.284 miles).

  25. Occam's Razor says, yes. by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since the simplest answer to every question is "It was God's will.", Occam's Razor says, yes. It was God that crashed the craft into Mars.

    1. Re:Occam's Razor says, yes. by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      Beats me. It is still a simpler answer than trying to figure out who did bad math. I'm not saying Occam's Razor isn't stupid. I'm just saying that according to Occam's Razor God crashed the multi-billion dollar craft.

  26. c is an arbitrary constant by r00t · · Score: 2

    In a coherent system, the mass-energy system is just E = m. There is no c.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

    If we're going to change, we ought to change to something fundamentally correct. We could be the first nation using Plank units.

  27. Metric isn't superior... it's simple by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    This isn't to say I'm for or against metric. I really don't care. The only point I'm making is that its a unit of measure and the system you use for measuring units doesn't make you more or less advanced.

    The US designs autonomous space probes in imperial units that are superior to anything any other country could produce in metric.

    I have nothing against metric. It's fine. But neither do I have a problem with pounds, inches, horsepower, or fahrenheit. It's just units of measure and one is generally as good as another so long as they communicate the needed information.

    I had a room mate once ask if I had a tape measure. He needed to know if something was roughly the same size as something else. I handed him a bit of string. He didn't understand. I put the string against one side of the first object and then measured it against with that same piece of string against the second object. How big was each object? I'm not exactly sure but it didn't matter. What mattered was their relation. And that bit of string showed us exactly how the two items related to each other.

    You have to understand that that is all units of measure are really. It's not important where you divide them into units. How big an inch or how heavy the pound. How they divide or how many makes another. It's just not important. You can make it simpler but it's not better if it isn't actually more useful. And it isn't. It's the same.

    As someone that deals with metric and imperial units all the time... let me tell you... I don't care. I've got it down. You could honestly add a dozen more measurement systems and it still wouldn't matter to me. Get a conversion table and use it. It's not a big deal. No one is suffering technologically or scientifically for lack of a conversion table.

    If THAT is what is holding you back you're either stupid or lazy.... and you'd fail in science and engineering regardless.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  28. Re:*Cough* United Kingdom *cough* by FireFury03 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's convenient for political organizations to pretend everyone agrees with them.

    As of this writing (January 2013) the United Kingdom still uses MILES to measure distance, MILES PER HOUR to measure speed, STONES and POUNDS and OUNCES to measure weight, and FLUID OUNCES to measure volume.

    Certainly not true. I've not seen stones, pounds and fluid ounces used in years. I guess people born before the mid-60s might still use them in conversation, but younger generations don't and you won't find them being used in any kind of technical or commercial setting.

  29. Re:Hectare-age ? Your Kilometer-age may vary ?? by Vintermann · · Score: 2

    The whole point of metric is that your mileage does not vary.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  30. Re:The meter is unfriendly. by JavaBear · · Score: 2

    I'm not entirely sure what it is you are trying to prove here.

    You are supposing that an arbitrary unit based on the stamina of an ox is a better basis for area calculations than the meter?

  31. You are already on the metric system by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 3, Informative

    Without knowing it, Americans are already on the metric system, albeit indirectly, as the US customary units are defined in terms of metric units. The inch is formally defined as being exactly equal to 25.4 mm. There is no "standard inch" or an independent definition in terms of so many wavelengths of light or something like that. Same for the pound, which is defined as 453.59237 g.

  32. The real problem. by sjbe · · Score: 2

    But I would say that the main problem with units like foot and inches is not the base per se, but the inconsistent bases across the spectrum.

    I agree that is a very real problem. Base 2 or Base 16 or Base 8 is not inherently less logical than Base 10. But that is not the main problem with using feet and inches. The main problem is that it simply is not the same units used anywhere else in the world. This means there is a very real and significant cost to maintaining the tooling, signage, engineering time, documentation, conversions, mistakes etc between the two systems. It is a completely unnecessary and pointless cost. It means that we have to buy unnecessary tools, have engineers spend time on pointless unit conversions and rounding problems, we have to worry about unit conversion mistakes, we have to make extra gauges to measure the second measurement system. The real problem is needless cost, wasted labor, mistakes and confusion.

    Now this could be solved by the rest of the world converting to the units used in the US but it makes a LOT more sense for those of us in the US to stop being a bunch of arrogant dickheads and switch to match the other 95% of the world population.