Slashdot Mirror
David Cameron Says Brits Should Be Taught Imperial Measures
00_NOP writes: Children in the U.K. have been taught in metric measures in school since (at least) 1972, but yesterday British Prime Minister David Cameron suggested that they should actually be taught in Imperial measures (which are still in use officially to measure road distances and speeds, but not really anywhere else). Is this because he hasn't a clue about science or because he is catering to a particular political base?
It's time for national units to finally be put out to pasture. Both US units and UK units.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Does not deserve to hold a place in office.
What, a fucking idiot.
No other way to put it, sorry.
unfortunately the Conservatives and UKIP are stuck in that mindset, they haven't moved on yet.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The reason is, 125ml and 250ml have no practical relationship, while "1 cup" and "1/2 cup" do. So when a recipe calls for 1 cup of anything, you can measure that quickly. If it's half a cup, then you use half a cup, or if you have it calling for 1.5 cups, you use the 1/2cup 3 times.
Actually, cooking is the one place that US imperial measurement drives me up the fucking wall. 1 cup of something trivially measured by volume isn't so bad, though 100ml is just as easy to measure. The big issue is when you get to "1 cup of flour" or "1 cup of butter" - things that are much more easily measured by mass, or things like "1 cup of cherry tomatoes" where the amount you get will vary based on the size and density of the particular tomatoes you have today.
Basically, no, the kitchen is exactly the place I want metric measurement - it is if anything the best example around a house of where you need accurate scientific style measurement.
...The very point of the Fahrenheit scale is its comprehensibility, and it is indeed good for that...
Beyond the reason of 'that's what I grew up with', how is the Fahrenheit scale more comprehensible than the Celsius scale?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Water freezes at zero and boils at one hundred.
What could be simpler?
A change of 2 degrees fahrenheit is approximately 1.1 degree change in centigrade.
So why would you ever use a decimal? Yet, that is how it's done.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
0 is a cold winter day, and 100 is a hot summer day.
0 C is a freezing winter day, 8 C is a cold winter day, at 35 C it's a hot summer day and at 100 C I'm getting severely burned.
So what is the difference exactly, except that you learned a set of numbers in Fahrenheit trough your experience, and we learned another set in Celsius trough ours?
1 cup of flour is trivially measured by volume: Just grab the "1 cup" cup from your set of measuring cups, scoop up flour from your storage container, level.
And if you do that you are going to get a different amount of flour every single time. Flour is a powder with a LOT of air in between. If you are looking for consistency you MUST measure flour by weight because you'll get different packing densities by the method you recommend. Sometimes it doesn't matter but when it does you have to use weight, not volume. ALL professional bakers measure flour by weight and never by volume.
US recipes usually don't use "cups" of butter, they use "sticks" of butter. If you live where butter isn't sold in US sticks (113.4 grams), you're screwed.
A stick of butter is 8 tablespoons or approximately 120mL. You're only screwed if you are clueless.
To understand the past, including literature and some old science and engineering, people ought to know what the old units were, about what the metric equivalents are! And where to find exact conversions. Going forward, things ought to be metric; but we still will need inch based tools to work on old stuff.
Do you really think changing to metric means we'll stop using d/m/y dates?
Of course not. I'm just demonstrating the hypocrisy of the argument. A lot of people in this discussion aren't really arguing that we should all use SI/metric units across the board, they're just saying they want everyone else to use them when they do.
And for liquids, I've been buying 2L bottles for decades now, and you don't order "0.28L," you order (in Germany/Åustria) "kleine" (0.3L) or "grosse" (0.5L).
So do we, when we buy soft drinks. But in my country, we order beer as a half-pint or a pint, and everyone knows what they're getting. Are you suggesting not only that we should change our units to fit your preference but also that every drinking establishment in the country should buy a complete new set of glassware that will hold different volumes that are more convenient in the new units as well and presumably that everyone's prices should slightly change to match?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So what is the difference exactly, except that you learned a set of numbers in Fahrenheit trough your experience, and we learned another set in Celsius trough ours?
There's no difference -- it's all arbitrary. I think that's what the GP's point was. The Fahrenheit range of 0-100 is roughly the range where it's possible for humans to actually be outside for a while and be okay. (I said "roughly" -- I know it isn't precise.) 0 C is also a meaningful number for weather purposes, etc., but 100 C is not.
All the scales are arbitrary, and they all have advantages and disadvantages.
Personally, other than noting roughly where 0 C is for the purposes of knowing whether I'm likely to see rain vs. sleet vs. snow, I find the whole concept of temperature used for weather forecasts nearly useless. Between wind chill, effects of humidity, effects of cloud cover vs. full sun, etc., temperature is just one factor that really isn't all that relevant -- since, to our bodies, what matters is rate of heat transfer, not temperature.
When I've lived in a relatively warm, humid climate, for example, the number I MOST cared about in weather forecasts was dewpoint. If the dew point is above 70 F, I'm going to be perspiring like crazy outside, no matter whether the temperature is 72 F or 95 F. If the dewpoint is 55 F, it's possible for me to be comfortable even if it's in the 80s or even higher. In other situations, it might be some other factor that's most important.
Point is -- the temperature scales are all based on arbitrary references points, so who cares? The only reason to argue is just so we all work on the same standard. And the main reason to argue for Celsius over Fahrenheit is that most of the world has adopted Celsius, not because it has some wonderful features that make it superior. (I'm all in favor of dropping Fahrenheit, by the way -- even though I grew up with it. It doesn't matter to me. But, on the other hand, there's also no real good "scientific" reason to make the switch other than ensuring consistency internationally.)
Science uses the metric system universally, even in the UK and the US, and outside science, it hardly matters. In particular, while the thought of dealing with non-metric units may seem daunting to people raised on metric, to people raised on imperial units, it's just another unit; if you have inches, miles, feet, and acres, having one more length unit hardly makes a difference.
Advocacy of the metric system seems to be more a kind of political shibboleth. Keeping non-metric units is a matter of national pride, an expression that a country is rich and powerful enough not to have to give in to international uniformity. Advocating metricization is something people use to appear more rational and more scientific, and people from countries who are already metricized like to use it to express their silent resentment at the fact that other countries have been able to maintain a larger level of independence.
Is the "conservative" party the party of "stupid"?