Should America Start Using the Metric system?

[kulade]

No. Optimally speaking, the entire world along with the United States should switch to a duodecimal system of measurement and counting for its vast comparative simplicity in arithmetic.

 

[LucyDuke]

The USA is very prone to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in these things.

Except it is broke.

 

[BasketCase]

Because when try to calculate how much long something is in metres and in kilometres, you only need to move the decimal place. It saves the person a lot less frustration in calculation.

Frustration is a subjective thing that can't be measured. What measurable disadvantage lies in the Imperial system? How much money does America's construction industry lose every year building a skyscraper whose height and structural components are measured in feet? How much does the Imperial system cost the food processing industry when food is packaged by the pound? Does your car have lower gas mileage when it's built using Imperial measurements instead of metric?

What is the actual benefit of the metric system? There isn't one.

I, on the other hand, just thought up one definite benefit of keeping the Imperial system: when a U.S. military plane crashes somewhere outside the U.S., it's much more difficult to reverse-engineer if nobody else on the planet has tools that will fit...... (well, except the British, but since the British and the U.S. are allies, the only thing we Americans worry about when a U.S. plane crashes in Britain is that the crash could hurt or kill somebody )

Furthermore, the smallest unit for the Imperial system is inch, (because nobody uses thou, which is smaller than a millimetre) That means inches are your smallest unit. Meanwhile, metric systems have lengths that go down to the size of quarks in atoms, all based on unit values of 10s. Scientist are unable to use the Imperial system for any work and research. And also because it's so darn clunky.

A proton is 1^-15 yards across. There. Just did it in Imperial measurements. "Millimeter" doesn't mean anything by itself; it's simply a fraction of a meter, and is useless unless you have a meter around for reference. The only reason the Imperial system doesn't have "milli-inches" is because nobody bothered to coin the term. I could simply create the word "femtoyard", and there we have it: the proton is 1 femtoyard across.

I'll like to see you try work out molar quantities in Imperial for chemistry.

One mole of iron weighs two ounces. One mole of lead? Seven ounces. Next up: cure for the common cold---errr, never mind. Cured that last week.

 

[History_Buff]

Frustration is a subjective thing that can't be measured. What measurable disadvantage lies in the Imperial system? How much money does America's construction industry lose every year building a skyscraper whose height and structural components are measured in feet? How much does the Imperial system cost the food processing industry when food is packaged by the pound? Does your car have lower gas mileage when it's built using Imperial measurements instead of metric?

What is the actual benefit of the metric system? There isn't one.

You talk like everything in the U.S. is actually measured in Customary. It's not. Probably close to a quarter of it is done in metric, then converted as needed. It's unnecessary, and inefficient.

I, on the other hand, just thought up one definite benefit of keeping the Imperial system: when a U.S. military plane crashes somewhere outside the U.S., it's much more difficult to reverse-engineer if nobody else on the planet has tools that will fit......

Except for the part where it's pretty trivial to make metric equivalents...

One mole of iron weighs two ounces. One mole of lead? Seven ounces.

Not really, no. Crude approximations don't really help you in any meaningful calculation, especially when you could just do it right the first time.

 

[azzaman333]

What is the actual benefit of the metric system? There isn't one.

Umm... for one, unit conversion is way easier. Moving from cm to m to km is extremely simple, moving from inches to feet to yards to miles is not. The simplicity saves time, and reduces the possibility of error.

 

[Truronian]

Frustration is a subjective thing that can't be measured. What measurable disadvantage lies in the Imperial system?

$125 million dollars in 1999 in one event alone.

 

[BasketCase]

You talk like everything in the U.S. is actually measured in Customary. It's not. Probably close to a quarter of it is done in metric, then converted as needed. It's unnecessary, and inefficient.

There are two solutions to that problem--and one of them is to simply do everything with Imperial measurements. The problems inherent in using two systems does not address the question of which one we should be using.

$125 million dollars in 1999 in one event alone.

Same mistake here, Tru. That example with the crashed satellite only illustrates the problem of working with two systems--your example doesn't answer the question of which system is better. Will a satellite work better if it's built/programmed entirely in Imperial, or entirely in metric?

Umm... for one, unit conversion is way easier. Moving from cm to m to km is extremely simple, moving from inches to feet to yards to miles is not. The simplicity saves time, and reduces the possibility of error.

As a former programmer, I can testify personally: such conversions are not a problem, and the Imperial system really doesn't produce greater risk of error. When converting from one unit of (por ejemplo) length to another, you need to multiply or divide by a specific value--and that factor still has to be exactly right. It's just as easy to drop a zero, type in "METERS = MILLIMETERS / 100", and end up with a program that screws up all the distance measurements. In fact, dropping a zero is a much easier programming error to make, because a string of zeroes is harder to read--whereas the error in "FEET = INCHES / 13" is a lot easier to spot.

The real, actual benefit from the scenario you describe is miniscule, and the fact that American industries have not already converted wholesale to metric is testimony to this. If Imperial was costly, greedy corporations wouldn't use it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What will always boggle my mind, and I probably point this out every time this topic has a thread, is why all you non-Americans even care one way or the other?

Maybe it will help if you project. Lets try that

VRWC commenting on Greece.

Does Greece still have the monarchy in any way legally? If not, then they are not princes and kings, they're just average joes pretending to be something they are not.

VRWC commenting on some island's boats

In your reply to glassfan here, why did you conveniently ignore The Falklands, which he mentioned right alongside Gibralter, where an aircraft carrier would most assuredly come in handy. Just as having carriers in the fleet came in quite handy in the 80s when their citizens were attacked and sovereign territory invaded thousands of miles away from the British Isles?

VRWC's most kick ass post this decade.

Hey have you all seen Maru's latest box adventures??


Link to video.

 

[azzaman333]

As a former programmer, I can testify personally: such conversions are not a problem, and the Imperial system really doesn't produce greater risk of error. When converting from one unit of (por ejemplo) length to another, you need to multiply or divide by a specific value--and that factor still has to be exactly right. It's just as easy to drop a zero, type in "METERS = MILLIMETERS / 100", and end up with a program that screws up all the distance measurements. In fact, dropping a zero is a much easier programming error to make, because a string of zeroes is harder to read--whereas the error in "FEET = INCHES / 13" is a lot easier to spot.

Except no one needs a program to convert metres to millimetres, because it's so simple. In some respects, you're actually hurting your own argument with the implication that programs are required to do the conversions for imperial.

The real, actual benefit from the scenario you describe is miniscule, and the fact that American industries have not already converted wholesale to metric is testimony to this. If Imperial was costly, greedy corporations wouldn't use it.

The reason greedy corporations don't change is because the cost of being the first to change is too great, due to the necessary interaction with other corporations that will still be using imperial.

 

[Patroklos]

Why would we take crap off of Europeans about decimal movement when you can't even count to a billion correctly? :angry:

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why would we take crap off of Europeans about decimal movement when you can't even count to a billion correctly? :angry:

If you have decimal movement, you should eat more fibres.

 

[Truronian]

There are two solutions to that problem--and one of them is to simply do everything with Imperial measurements. The problems inherent in using two systems does not address the question of which one we should be using.


Same mistake here, Tru. That example with the crashed satellite only illustrates the problem of working with two systems--your example doesn't answer the question of which system is better.

Metric's better as you only ever have to multiply and divide by powers of 10. It's easier to learn to use.

Will a satellite work better if it's built/programmed entirely in Imperial, or entirely in metric?

It will work equally as well, however it will be easier and quicker to do in metric. That's why the scientific community uses metric.

 

[Silurian]

VRWC's most kick ass post this decade.

Originally Posted by VRWCAgent
Hey have you all seen Maru's latest box adventures??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTwb2LG-2dU

This was a brilliant reply to a previous post

 

[kochman]

Thus far, roughly 83% of respondents support the US switching... so why isn't it happening?

I'm blaming the 1%, they're an easy target!

It reminds me of the Simpsons episode with the "Stonecutters", modeled on the Free Masons of course...

 

[LucyDuke]

Only 73% of Americans. I blame the 27%.

 

[Hygro]

So BasketCase, if one system had 273 short units (vaguely inch scale) for every medium unit (vaguely yard scale), and 465.9 medium units for every long unit (vaguely miles), would that be just as good as metric or imperial? Because that's what your logic suggests.

I will say one thing, it's much nicer to say something is "two miles away" than having to say "it's three kilometers away". Extra syllables and all that.

 

[History_Buff]

There are two solutions to that problem--and one of them is to simply do everything with Imperial measurements. The problems inherent in using two systems does not address the question of which one we should be using.

So you agree then that we should all just switch to one system?


Once you get there, the fact that the system should be metric is obvious. Everyone else in the world is already using it, as are many American scientific and engineering companies.

And as a programmer who writes positioning software, /1000 vs. /100 is incredibly easy to spot.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I will say one thing, it's much nicer to say something is "two miles away" than having to say "it's three kilometers away". Extra syllables and all that.

That's actually a good, and maybe a more important point that what it first appears to be. (At least to me it did). I even think you might have hit on the very reason why people will defend the imperial system so vigorously.

Language is far more important and influential than the way we decide to measure stuff.

edit: Damnit, you made me change my mind. Although metric is clearly the better system, imperial is far more romantic linguistically. Don't ever change your system!

 

[Danielion]

It's not difficult working with American measurements. Still I prefer Newton over Force Pounds. I voted: Non-American, no. Why? I think they may, but should? I don't think it's such a big deal they're not using the SI.

 

[azzaman333]

I will say one thing, it's much nicer to say something is "two miles away" than having to say "it's three kilometers away". Extra syllables and all that.

Dunno about elsewhere, but normally we'll shorten kilometres to kays when speaking.