METRIFICATION! Why not?

Who's for metrification? Who's against metrification? For those of you against it, can you tell us why?

But then Republicans.... SI is way too "French" for them......

I'll always walk in furlongs and pour my beer in firkins (!), you commie bastards. :D

So, we're agreed, metrification it is!

once you get the hang of it?

Or rather it depends on one's purpose.

In scientific work - it is easier because the overriding concern is the ability to apply formulae.

In terms of practical realities, for example cooking - it is far less convenient.

I was taught metric only at school, and for the physics &c. it was ideal - but for other purposes imperial measure just work 'better'. Imperial measures are derived from practical experience rather than from interchangeability.

We've been taught metric in schools here since before I was born but I know nobody who uses grams and litres in their own kitchen. Ounces and pints are far far easier.

for cooking and such. I suppose when you use it like that, your mind adapts. Personally, I thought imperial was supposed to be the clumsy one for practical purposes - it just dawned on me that that was because I am not used to it)

I was taught it in school from day-one. It's far too artificial to be good for cooking.

I also grew up with imperial - it's elegant and simple for practical purposes.

I can use both, and am "fluent" (to borrow a linguistic term) in both - but for non-scientific purposes I always use imperial because it is genuinely more practical.

is how my mind works when I do practical things.

I suppose no-one ever said that people had to think in the same way! :D

That's why Brazilian, Mexican, Spanish, Italian, and French cuisines suck ass. :sarcasm:

what is that, some kind of bloody Englisch kitchen?

It is teaspoons, tablespoons, cups and dashes.

The pint is only there to keep the baker refreshed, it is not part of any recipe.

Ounce being the basic measure of weight. Pint being the basic measure of volume, though fluid ounces are used far more often as pints are pretty large.

They are both part of just about every recipe I've got.

Teaspoons and tablespoons certainly - but cups are for drinking out of, and dashes are grammatical devices.

I used to work in bookstores. One time a guy came in and asked if we had a book that would tell him how much of something he had in his hands. "Like if I'm holding spices and I want to know how many grams I'm holding, do you have a book that will tell me how much I'm holding?"

I had to tell him what he needed was a scale, not a book. I had to tell him several times before he got it.


Spices indeed. :rofl:

Like dude, this dorito kind of looks like a giraffe...ha ha ha..

Pack another bowl of those spices man.

You're just more used to them.

I was exposed to both from the very beginning and realised quite rapidly that it's more natural to use imperial measures for cooking &c. and that metric is far better for scientific purposes.

If I'm more used to imperial it's simply because having used both I decided which I prefered.

That means that when you learned to cook, you learned to cook in Imperial measures, and when you talk about cooking to other cooks, you talk in imperial measures, and so on. So yes, you are simply more used to it.

I'm also in the generation which was taught exclusively metric at school (including home economics lessons).

But when it came to cooking at home it became obvious to me that working with the imperial measures is quite frankly easier. This is why when talking to others about cooking we all talk in imperial measures.

This despite the fact that metric is being pushed hard - very hard indeed - here, to the great chagrin of many many people.

As I say - I'm fluent in both systems, can use either without trouble, but strongly prefer imperial.

But I'm glad that you know my personal history so much better than I.

system mostly for cultural reasons. Which is probably why you still prefer it. That's not an insult, so there is no need to get angry.

for cultural reasons?

I have stated several times that I know both, so I'm arguing from a position of knowledge, that I find in practical applications, the imperial system to have far greater facility of access.

You seem not to grasp this, but insist that I'm only basing it on a cultural throw-back. I'm not angry, I'm just bemused at how you know far more about me than I do.

Most Countries who use the metric system, have switched to it from the Imperial system, because of it's sheer practicality.

Why are we even fighting about this, what is this GD?

Because you disagreed with my point that imperial (having been devised for exactly these purposes) has greater facility of access for cooking and other practical purposes.

background.

I pointed out why it is wrong. You still disagreed though.

convince you of that. I've studied this sort of thing enough. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

to those who are trying to force to turn metric, I'd be most grateful.

I'm more than happy to agree to disagree - I know what I find easier from long use.

I've worked in the laboratory field for almost 20 years now, and I simply can not think in imperial measures anymore. Sure I can grab a measuring cup and make do, but I have no feel for those terms anymore. Tell me to estimate 150 mLs, and I'll nail it every time. A pint, however.... I'll be way off.

Obviously what one uses will become familiar to one - but I do still maintain that imperial is easier to use for practical purposes.

I used to be vehemently pro-metric - it was a nice logical system, all very neat and rational, I thought it was merely inertia that prevented everybody going metric.

But once I started to cook on a frequent basis (my mid-teens) it became apparent that things just "fitted" better. I should note, at the same time I was doing mainly science subjects at school - I was working entirely in metres, kilograms, litres, newtons, ohms, and the rest of them.

I say "to-MAH-to"...

Since becoming truly familiar with the metric system (and I should add that that was only through use at work- the piddling instruction and use in school and college was almost entirely useless), I've personally found that it works just as well as imperial in everyday uses. I cook quite a bit, myself, and can't really say that one system is superior to the other (other than metric's more logical nature).

No disrespect intended, of course... The right answer in this case is whatever works for ya!

This is one of the funniest threads I've ever read! :rofl:

Went cold turkey onto metric over a decade ago, get along with it fine. The "Imperial" specs are not my cuppa tea, in more ways than 17. ;-) I have NO CLUE what pecks, gills, fluid (as opposed to dry) drams or minims are. :rofl:

We would lose the imaginary milestone of "below zero" on really cold days. It just would not seem the same to have 5 degree days and 20 degree days. With fahrenheit it goes from 41 to 68 and we can understand that better.

Although I wonder if some of the speeders would be happier if they could go 100 kph.

Canada has been using Celsius since well before I was born, and no one is confused about the temparature. When they say it's over 30, you know it's fucking hot and when they say it's below -20, you know it's fucking cold.

to destroy our ancient traditions. If King Edward II said an inch was equal to three grains of barley placed end-to-end, and King Henry I said a yard was the distance from the tip of his nose to the tip of his thumb with his arm outstretched, then that should be good enough for us...why should we change just because a bunch of scruffy unbathed Frogs came up with something based on logic?

:D

Why can't we all just get along?

Why the hold up?

anyone at all?

We've had the metric system forced down our throats - but people still don't use it.

it's a part of culture (especially English culture). The change will happen over a number of generations. That Québec for example, we measure almost anything in metric, yet a lot of us sitll don't know how they weigh in kilograms.

Outside the realm of science (where metric is infinitely superior) why should we force people to move across?

I speak as one who is fluent in both systems.

easily grasp the basis of every measurement because they are all based the same way. The Imperial system, however is completely aribtrary, and therefore harder to teach and grasp.

The linkage is purely about science. It is central and essential there - which is why I fully support to use of S.I. units in all scientific work (pretty obviously).

But in practical applications how a gram relates to a litre relates to a metre is utterly irrelevant. One learns that a gram is a measure of weight (in common parlance), that a litre is a measure of volume, that a metre is a measure of distance.

Imperial isn't any harder (like I've said many times, I've learned both, I know what they're both like) - it's just the same as metric but one learns that an ounce is a measure of weight, a pint of volume, and an inch of distance.

From the practical perspective both are arbitrary - that's just how things are.

I also know both systems, and it is clear to me that it is a lot easier to grasp measurements of any kind, especially in realtion to eachother, in the metric system. It all works by multiples of 10.

1 kilometer = 1000 meters = 1000 milimeters. That works not only for distance, but for everything short of temperature.

Helpful I suppose - just in exceedingly rare cases.

The point about imperial is that it doesn't have to deal with orders of magnitude - when thinking about small distances one has the inch - in my experience one of the most useful measures (it being based on the human body), then the foot, then the yard, then the mile. How often does one really need to switch between these orders of magnitude?

When those changes are made in imperial they're usually done with base 12 - which due to it's ability to be divided by 2, 3, 4, and 6 rather than just 2 and 5, makes reckoning much simpler. Do you have trouble working out time - a fundamentally "imperialesque" system with it's 24, and 60s?

Like I've said - metric is better for science, that's the only point you've addressed. Everything is forced together in base 10, the individual units become more cumbersome because every single measurement has to be based on an inaccurate guess at the circumference of the globe.

It's the triumph of the rational over the reasonable.

the metric was much simpler to grasp, exactly because there is a clear relation. I still can't remember how many feet are in a yard, and how many yards are in a mile.


That is why I say preference in this domain is based on cultural factors.

I ask because that wasn't clear in your points above.

Culturally, we're still right into the change over here. I still measure my weight in pounds, by sheer habit for example. But for almost everything else I use the metric.

You're preference for metric is preference by use; but my preference for imperial is cultural?

I'm just wondering how long a case-study you carried out on me and the history of my usage to decide that. :eyes:

and evokes no cultural ties in the U.K.? :eyes:

value - especially in a place which has been the scene a significant struggle between French and British based culture?

I've never said that there isn't a cultural element to it for many people - what I've said is that whilst I was raised on metric, and indeed as a young teenager was vociferously pro-metric - I came to realise that facility of access is the most crucial part of weights and measures.

But I think that the metric system is generally much easier to access.

I'm sure in France there is a cultural element to it, but over here the switch only started about two generations ago. Most of my parents generation (Baby Boomers actually) even in Québec use the Imperial still, so the cultural aspect of the metric system is very limited here. Yet most of us find it much easier to measure distance, height, and, increasingly, weight in metric.

Those of you who find it culturally easier can use metric.

But why should other countries be forced (and it really does take force) to switch over?

This is what I really don't understand - there has been compulsion over here, there has had to be - I really don't understand why there is such a necessity to change.

But I', afraid I don't have time to discuss this any more at the moment - I've only got 2.4ks (that's kilo seconds - time should be turned metric too surely), or should that be 27md (milidays)? - before it's time for me to leave work.

:hi:

I know in the US, it's taught as a three day unit in second grade, and then forgotten until high school science electives. In the UK, there's a huge backlash because of big-brother-EU and those insideous French. I'd like to hear a real reason to keep the US and UK off metric, other than, "I just prefer it."

I've been saying constantly, and somewhat repetitiously, why I find imperial to have far high facility of access.

If that isn't a reason, then I'd like to know what criteria are deemed to be acceptable?

You have a lot of English cookbooks. I get it. How many teaspoons in a pint? How many gills in a bushel? How many links in a pole? It's asanine and arbitrary. Why would you want to continue using that? To me, this is just like being against decimalisation of the currency...

But you know what - I've never needed to know it.

It is arbitrary - but in this case that which is arbitrary is totally removed from what is asinine. It is utterly asinine to think that the number of teaspoons in a pint is relevant to cooking. The quantities used are those which are genuinely used, the quantities fit the purpose they are not forced to fit some grand scheme which adds nothing to their purpose. That, to my mind, is an elegant system.

When are you going to start lobbying for the decimalisation of time?

Which is relevent to cooking, and completely arbitrary and completely asanine. Were you against currency decimalisation?

I wasn't born when currency decimalisation came in.

it's half a pint, or two nogins :-) Seriously though, I personally don't understand the resistance, and to me it's a lot like being against decimalisation. It doesn't take that long to get used to (just go to Canada (or France) for a week), and it makes life a Hell of a lot easier, IMHO.

Perhaps there is some prideful view that metrification will kill sovereignty, sort of the attitude that the UK has concerning the euro. I personally think this is a silly argument, as it was used to rail against standardised railroad time (until the late 19th century every city on Earth had its own set time!). Conforming to time zones didn't kill sovereignty, it made life easier, and it made a lot of sense once you got used to it.

R.E. the decimalisation of currency - if the two are related, I ask again why not decimalise time? The French tried to after the revolution - it didn't get far at all. Are we to work on a 10 hour day, or perhaps a 1000 second hour (we could scale it either way).

R.E. the Euro - popular concerns about loss of sovereignty are certainly apparent. But can I ask your views on the nature of asymmetric shocks given the prevalence of variable interest rate household debt in the U.K.? Or put another way - just because there are silly arguments for or against a change doesn't mean that there aren't good ones.

Most of all, you seem to miss my point. I WAS RAISED ON METRIC, until I was about 15 I was vehemently in favour of full metrification - but then as I started to cook more and more (i.e., used weights and measures in a practical rather than scientific environment) I realised the the imperial system "fitted" better. I don't have to travel anywhere to experience the metric system - I've used it, I've turned to imperial - it makes nothing easier at all. I'm not postulating some hypothetical argument, I'm talking about the reality which I've faced in the past 26 years.

:evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

I mean, why change? Obviously, it's very useful in science. I've worked in labs quite a bit, and we'd go insane without mills and grams.

But everywhere else? I know what a mile is. I don't know what a kilometer is. And that's the way it's always going to be, for me. I grew up learning that system. Few people, if any, will be willing to just drop everything they grew up with and learn a new system.

As long as science is matched with the rest of the world, who the hell cares if we use the metric system of not?

It takes a number of generations to become complete. Miles drive me crazy :D

but unless they are FORCED to, NO generation will voluntarily give up something fundamental like that. I think in miles :shrug:

(though, actually, i think in TIME for driving, as in "30 minutes to town X")

distances.

is for everything to be published in Metric and it will come by itself. A bit like the way Canada now uses Celsius instead of Farenheits.

The metric one is Kelvin.

Both C and F have facility of access in that the temperatures which one faces in a daily basis are in a moderate range.

I've yet to meet somebody who says "my it's a cold day today, only about 270 kelvins".

the scale is numbered differently.

The necessity of an absolute scale is fundamental.

In being measures of degrees rather than absolute, celsius and farenheit are profoundly opposed to the intricate nature of metric.

0C is 273K (I can't remember the exact figure)

If you know that figure, you can convert anywhere in the scale, because 1C and 1K are the exact same measure.

Everything being absolute and interchangeable is the purpose of the metric system.

In fact that's why one can speak of the metric system properly whereas to speak of the imperial system is not technically correct, imperial being a set of system rather than a single whole.

My point is that both celsius and farenheit operate within moderate parameters for day-to-day purposes - this basing measures on what is "reasonable" rather than forcing them to fit within a rational whole is the whole basis of imperial.

0 being the temperature at which water freezes and 100 being the temperature at which water turns to vapor gives it a clear, rational base, albeit not an absolute one.

kind of weird...:D

that's still being forced. I doubt that everyone in canada voted to switch to metric. Thus, they were forced. Not with guns or anything, but still.

to get, say driver's licenses, and to go to school, and to need a social insurance number, and I think you get my meaning.


The argument is moot.

those pictures are of - especially the thing under the three glass bell jar thingies?

It's mathematically straight forward.

10 dl=1 liter

0 =freezing
100=boiling

Sure beats the heck out of learning 12"=1ft., 3ft.=1yd
etc.

Oh, I forgot the totally rational cups,quarts and gallons
and ounces and pounds.

something else, aren't you?:P

and the lady in line at the A&P taught me a very useful rule about interchangeability in the Imperial system.

I will agree that if you don't know how many miles it is from Richmond to Hopewell, you might as well not know how many kilometers it is.

However--I have to agree with TJ that for cooking, the Imperial measurements seem more useful to me as they seem to me to be based on the human body. An ounce is about the same as a swallow (8 in a cup) and a cup of flour is about the size of my fist. I could be trained to recognize that 750 units is the same size as my fist but before I could estimate 750 units of something, I think I would find myself estimating that amount as three-quarters of some larger unit.

Metric for science, of course. No question about it.

We use the system that PREDATED the Imperial system, the one based on "Queen Anne's gallon" which is a different size than yours. The interrelationships between the units in the U.S. system are quite different than in the Imperial system, and unlike the Imperial system, there is no relationship between the fluid ounce and the ounce avoirdupois in the U.S. system.

Google "U.S. Customary System" for a rundown on our system and how it differs from the Imperial system.

FWIW, the metric system/SI makes MUCH more sense to me than the U.S. customary system. Some people may think it's cool that we use the same measurements the Roman Caesars did (unciae, librae, the mille passus), but IMHO the Roman system of measurement needs to go the way of Roman numerals...

I know metrics and all the conversions back and forth from English measures. To me, i could function in either, and don't really care. If people don't want to change, it's ok by me. I don't really think it's holding up progress.

3.27 feet is still the same distance if we call it a meter. 1000km and 620 miles are the same distance. It still takes 11 hours to get there by car!

So, me i figure that it's much ado about nothing.
The Professor

1 day = 0.002745367 Metric Solar Cycles.

:shrug:

Everything has to be a multiple of ten - lame. Give me 43560.17 square feet per acre any day.

after i'm dead, ya'll can do whatever you want.

They are extremely inconvenient for doing estimates in your head while driving.

less than a mile from the goal...

we just need to put one foot in front of the other...

but it will take our last ounce of strength to get there...

we'll celebrate with a couple of yards at the finish...







:yoiks:

September 30, 1999
Web posted at: 1:46 p.m. EDT (1746 GMT)


(CNN) -- NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because one engineering team used metric units while another used English units for a key spacecraft operation, according to a review finding released Thursday.

For that reason, information failed to transfer between the Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft team at Lockheed Martin in Colorado and the mission navigation team in California. Lockheed Martin built the spacecraft.

"People sometimes make errors," said Edward Weiler, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Science in a written statement.

"The problem here was not the error, it was the failure of NASA's systems engineering, and the checks and balances in our processes to detect the error. That's why we lost the spacecraft."




http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric

We were all told that this was going to be the system we'd be using by the time we became adults (30 years ago). Pah!

Just do it.

Grew up metric, had to learn the English system. Let me tell ya, it was a pain.

Metric is so simple, and I love how all of the measurements are interrelated, all based on the meter.

1 meter = 1/10,000,000th of the distance from the north pole to the equator.

100 square meters = 1 hectare (measure of land)

1 cubic meter or water = 1 ton of weight = 1,000 kilos = 1,000 liters.

1 degree centigrade = 1/100th temperature difference between freezing and boiling point of water.

1 kilo-calorie = energy required to heat one liter of water by one degree centigrade.

It is Sooo beautiful!

And if someone's interested in a science-related career, knowledge of the system is a must.

I'm sure the only thing that's holding us back is the fact that manufacturers are too cheap to convert.

who teach men how to dress and decorate? :evilgrin:

I have driven on French highways and you burn through kilometres *much* quicker than miles.

Let's go for it.

they take 1.609344 kilometers.

Redstone

Due to some not-so-legal experiences of my youth, I am rather handy at using grams and ounces interchangeably.

Ha.