Why Does the US Cling To Imperial Measurements? 2288
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?"
Not so bad to have different systems. (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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I disagree.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:4, 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 [wikipedia.org]" 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.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:4, Funny)
WTF? You Porsche drivers just need to shut the fu*k up!
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, Funny)
Well since you can ask ridiculous hypothetical questions: what happens if the aliens use metric?
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org].)
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.
Subtly untrue (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (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.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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 exa
Very Basic Physics (Score:3, 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!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
>I'm sure aliens would have their own "universal system" too.
Based on the Planck units if they have any sense.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
>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? :)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:4, 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. ;)
No! It is really, really bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No! It is really, really bad. (Score:4)
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.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, 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!
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (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.
Re: (Score:3)
So... how many yards in a mile? Quick now.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Not so bad to have different systems. (Score:4, 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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because.... (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.
Re:Because.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Real science is done non-dimensionally
Re:Because.... (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
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 keepi
Re:Because.... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
The US already adopted the Metric system (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The US already adopted the Metric system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The US already adopted the Metric system (Score:4)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
It's really quite simple (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 ;)
Re:It's really quite simple (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).
Liberia is a US offshoot (Score:3)
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.
Good Question (Score:3)
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).
Re:Good Question (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I use the metric system (Score:3)
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
Change the name! (Score:5, Informative)
Call them American units!
I mean, we don't use Imperial gallons here anyway
Don't know why - but I like it (Score:4, 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)
Re: (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.....
Arrogant Ignorance? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Building Industry (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.
Re:Building Industry (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Subconscious (Score:3)
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!.
One word: Culture (Score:3)
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
Why metric makes sense & base units don't matt (Score:4, Insightful)
This post is an example of autoplagurism [slashdot.org].
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 (a
Re:Easy answer (Score:4, 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.....)
Re:Easy answer (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.
Re:Easy answer (Score:5, Funny)
Yes there was. My favorite sign was on a local highway segment. It said "Metric Signs Next 100 Miles." I swear to God.
Re:Easy answer (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org]
We started a conversion to metric ... (Score:4, 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 [perpenso.com] does metric.
Re: (Score:3)
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".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Carpentry (Score:4, Funny)
I agree, much easier to cut a board in half than into 0.5 (seriously).
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ronald Reagan (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.edinformatics.com/investor_education/us_debt.htm [edinformatics.com]
Where does it start skyrocketing? Reagan.
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart-2004.gif [lafn.org]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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! - bu
Re: (Score:3)
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."...
Re:morons (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
They're criminals.
They don't obey any other rules, so why would they obey rules of measurement?
Re:morons (Score:4, 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 [wikipedia.org]
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 [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:morons (Score:4, 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.
Re:morons (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:morons (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:morons (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.
Re: (Score:3)