Most of the comments in this thread are talking about the units for personal height, weight, local road signs or for the weather forecast. Those are by far the least important things to be worried about. All of those things are local and there is no carrying cost for them. There would be a cost to change all those signs and forecasts - for no real gain. However, dimensions of physical goods are a constant recurring c…
Make the Metric system the standard in the United States
191–200 of 547 posts
Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States
#192Might as well start now - these things take time. In Norway, we introduced the metric system in 1889, but there's still a lot of non-metric measurements still around, at least in common speak. * Length of a boat are measured in feet. * Lumber is measured in inches, two-by-four and so on. * Most engines are measured in horsepower(though nowadays the kw/h is usually given as well). * Firewood have different measures, m…
Boat speed is measured in knots. Knots are non-SI, since they're based on the non-SI nautical mile (1 knot = 1nm/hr). But they are a good example of why context is important; the nautical mile is absolutely superior to the kilometer for use in navigation (at sea or in the air). Forcing the SI unit there would actually make the relevant tasks more complex and more difficult.
Why is that?
Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States
#193* date and time formats
* language
* time zones
* currency
Seems about as easy and has the same kind of benefits.
Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to get dismissive about having multiple units, until you run into the contexts where they really are useful. Following up the example in one of my other comments: adopt the meter and the kilometer, or the foot and the kilofoot, and it won't matter to navigators, because they'll still use the nautical mile unless you literally put a gun to their heads, and if you do put a gun to their heads they'll show you…
>they'll show you why it's a much more practical unit for what they do. Why? Why is it more practical? How is it better other than being more familiar? It blows me away that people can make the argument as it being "better".
Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States
#195Before we start with the standard junk about "imperial measures are better because they are easier to understand / better suited to human scale / etc." can I say nope . The only advantage that imperial measures have (for some) is that they are familiar. That's the sum total of it. People where were raised metric find these apologies for imperial measures to be pure gibberish.
You think there are no advantages to easy divisibility? 16 is divisible by 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16. 24 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24 10 just has 1, 2, 5, 10
Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States
#196I moved from Belgium to the US last year, and one of the things that surprised me was that metric measures actually see a fair amount of use in the States. It makes a convoluted system even more weird, but it's also just plain fascinating. 2L bottles of coke and 9mm bullets, miles except when people suddenly switch to kilometers, 50 meter pools and 5K jogging runs but a 120 yard football field, 2 oz shaving cream but…
To be fair, non-metric units are also use worldwide in some specific fields. In aeronautics, height is in feet. In a boat, distance are nautic miles (not even the same miles as Americans on the road). Quick quiz: what's the diagonal size of your laptop screen in centimeters? Your mobile phone? So it doesn't matter if you use completely unrelated metrics for different things. When you want to buy a laptop you know how…
I previously had a flight computer with two displays, each of which showed the distance to the next waypoint. One showed the distance in nautical miles, the other in statute. I could never remember which was which, and always had to look at both and see which number was bigger.
Silly measuring systems. We should measure everything in planck units.
Personally, I think the cost argument goes in the other direction. It's true that there would be costs to switching, even potentially lives lost. But there are constant, ongoing costs to having mixed units, potentially including lives lost (and certainly very expensive space probes lost). To me, that says that we should switch as quickly as possible to stop that ongoing cost. It may cost more up-front, but the cost of switching eventually ends, while the cost of staying as we are never stops.
Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
I only live in Metric-using country and I have no slightest idea how tall is five foot, whereas 155cm instantly comes to my mind as, ah, at around my eye level. It's all about familiarity.
Sure, but that's 3 digits versus 1; if the requirement is to express common, human sized-objects with rough accuracy in as few words as possible, it works just fine. Really, it's all semantics (as you say), but there are specific cases where one might be a better fit than the other. It's the inconsistencies in imperial that are truly horrible, not the arbitrary standard unit...
It isn't, really. If asked about my approximate height, I'd say 'eins-achtzig' ie 1.8m (notice me omitting the unit), which in practice also has only a single significant digit (or 2 if you account for tall people) and to me isn't any more unwieldy than '6 foot'.
Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States
#198"The United States is one of the few countries left in the world who still have not converted to using the Metric System as a standardized system of measurement. Instead of going along with what the rest of the world uses, we stubbornly still adhere to using the imprecise Imperial Unit - despite the fact that practically every other country that we interact with uses Metric."
This petition has the same problem most petitions submitted to the White House have--its factual premise is incorrect. I'm an American who has lived in another country (Taiwan) for years. The National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that "The United States is now the only industrialized country in the world that does not use the metric system as its predominant system of measurement."
http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/upload/1136a.pdf
But the same government report notes that
". . . . In 1866, Congress authorized the use of the metric system in this country and supplied each state with a set of standard metric weights and measures.
"In 1875, the United States solidified its commitment to the development of the internationally recognized metric system by becoming one of the original seventeen signatory nations to the Treaty of the Meter."
In other words, the United States has treated the Metric System as official and legal since before my great-grandfather was born. The customary measurement system is, by contrast, simply customary, not mandatory. The United States has been metric since 1866 "in the sense that Americans have been free since that time to use the metric system as much as they like."
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/usmetric.html
If a particular individual or corporation engaged in manufacturing or trade wants to use metric measurements to meet customer needs and gain a profit, no one in the United States is stopping that. If someone desires to use customary measurements out of sheer habit from long-established custom, no one is stopping that either. My late dad the industrial engineer was aware of plenty of industries in the United States that from the 1970s, at the latest, had gone fully metric simply because those industries were involved in vigorous international trade. Perhaps the best governmental nudge that can be given for more use of metric measurements in the United States is more encouragement of developing international markets for domestic businesses.
I note that customary measurements are often used in other countries even long after metric measurements are adopted officially. For example, the Republic of China (the regime that governs Taiwan at present) has been officially metric since before I was born. Japan (the former governing country in Taiwan) was metric from the 1920s. But the unit of weight for vegetables bought in an open-air market in Taiwan is still the traditional 斤 (jin "catty," or Chinese pound), although that is now standardized at 500g. Prices are given in monetary units per 斤 for most fruits and vegetables to this day in markets in Taiwan (and in China).
A Facebook friend with a scientific education recently told me about the saying "A pint's a pound, the whole world round." If the United States begins using metric-standard units more for selling foods and the like, then perhaps a half-kilogram (500g) package will be considered to be one new "pound," just as a half-liter (500ml) package will be considered to be one new "pint." It is interesting to me that traditional Chinese culture and traditional British culture both had weight units in that range, about a half kilogram even before standardization to metric units. How are grocery measurements treated in Britain these days?