Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Make the Metric system the standard in the United States

petitions.whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 547 posts

Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States

#491

Post by YZF »

cglace wrote: post #389
Svip wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding of speed limits in the US is that each state defines it. There is no national speed limits (hence why Montana is famous for its high speed limits on motorways, but not much else). But I doubt that Washington D.C. uses kph on its speed signs, though.

Are you saying that Montana is not known for much else other than having high speed limits? There are two incredibly beautiful national parks there, Glacier and Yellowstone. Yellowstone is one of the best known parks in America.

Yellowstone for the most part is in Wyoming.

Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States

#492

Post by dreish »

DannyBee wrote: post #344
jacquesm wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you ever been inside of a hardware store? I believe so. Maybe a couple of times. Or maybe I practically lived in one for a couple of years. Would this do for you? http://pics.ww.com/v/jacques/trips/jansvisit/?g2_page=6 Yes, there is a section for metric in the hardware store. It's the bit at the back with about 1/2 the sizes missing and only the stuff that you don't need in stock. I've had a machine shop in Ca…

Outside of cars, roughly every power tool, piece of electronics, cabinet (35mm), etc needs metric sockets or hex keys. I have built plenty of complex machinery. It's actually significantly easier for me to source 50mm flywheels/pulleys, or v-belts, or whatever, than it is to try to get someone to give me reasonable tolerances on imperial. While it's true machining is done to thousandths of an inch in the US, most of…

What does it mean to say that "the 1/2-inch chuck/collet/whatever is really machined to 12.7mm"? 0.5 inches is exactly 12.7 mm, so what else would it be machined to?

Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States

#493

Post by fennecfoxen »

stephen_g wrote: post #324
fennecfoxen wrote: post #104

There's a couple of things you'd want to consider converting to metric: long distances, short distances/dimensions, volumes, weights, and temperature come to mind. Long distances: swap out a bunch of highway signs, consider that 60mph (a mile a minute) ~= 100km/h, not too hard on people but a lot of signage needs to change. Feasible. Volumes: people are used enough to 2-liter bottles of soda, expect the 3.78 liter mi…

Anyone in a country that uses the celsius scale knows that the temperature argument is rubbish... It's totally and completely what you're used to. I doubt people really think of temperature in more than about eight or ten increments anyway (bloody freezing, cold, pleasant, etc.) so having a range of forty or fifty integers really gives you more than enough precision. I suppose it doesn't really matter what people use…

My point is more "why should people have to change what they're used to for a small subset of the scientific class?" - of all the things that people do math with, and would benefit from decimalization and metrifying, temperature is pretty much the last.

Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States

#495

Post by masklinn »

TomAnthony wrote: post #432
Keyframe wrote: post #17

ISO 216 paper sizes while you're at it, please!

I'm surprised paper hasn't formed a larger part of this discussion. The 'A' system for paper has many advantages, and actually would be something that could be accessibly changed (all printers and scanners handle it just fine).

> The 'A' system for paper has many advantages

The ISO system in general, ISO 216 and 269 provide 3 series (A, B and C, A is the base series, B is the geometric mean between two sizes of the A series, C is the geometric mean between the A and B series at a given index, and is thus mostly used for envelopes for the A series: an envelope Cn will hold an An sheet without folding, and of course a Cn envelope will fit an A(n-1) folded in two)

Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States

#496

Post by dcminter »

jacquesm wrote: post #452
dcminter wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think in stone. But I don't need to know my weight very often and when I do it's usually for ski bindings at european resorts - so now I find myself thinking in kilograms. The only non-metric unit that I think in now is miles - and there are obvious safety/legal problems in switching our speed limit road signs to kilometers.

No, everybody will be going just a tad slow for a while.

Good consternoon affable. No, I thought this speedo was in KPH.

Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States

#497

Post by ciupicri »

jemeshsu wrote: post #463

The tech industry has to take the lead by renaming their products: MacBook Pro 33cm, Nexus 18. Using inch for display is a worldwide standard, not just US. It would be strange to look for a 35.5cm notebook or a 100cm HDTV.

Maybe in the US. People from other countries want a TV with a diagonal of one meter. It even sounds better because 1 meter is like a barrier unlike 40 inches which is just a number.

Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States

#498

Post by milkmiruku »

jerf wrote: post #273
tokenadult wrote: post #198

From the petitions.whitehouse.gov petition kindly submitted for comment here: "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…

"the imprecise Imperial Unit" The word "imprecise" is also factually incorrect. AFAIK, all Imperial units are now defined in metric. An inch is not "approximately" 2.54 centimeters, it is defined to be 2.54 centimeters, or, if you prefer, 2.540000000000... centimeters. A pound is defined as 0.45359237 kilograms. It may be very precise specification of a value that is unpleasant and hard to work with, but there is no…

The factoid I learnt in my childhood of an inch being 2.539954cm is now wrong?

Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States

#499

Post by georgefox »

alayne wrote: post #402
brudgers wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bunch of fictions. Americans with wrenches tend to have both SAE and metric sizes. The thread pitches of metric bolts differs from SAE standards, and drain pipes are sized on inside diameter not outside because ID is relevant to capacity. Tape measures have standard units because they're standard where tape measures are used - in construction. Where it makes sense, metric is common, e.g. soft drink bottles.

Two liter bottles are an anomaly. Every other pop container is in ounces. Cans are 16 ounces and bottles are usually 20 ounces. I can't think of a situation where "metric is common" for consumer items.

There's a pretty weird combination of liters and ounces in soft drinks. 2 L and 20 oz are very (most?) common for bottled soda. 1 gal is common for bottled water, but for individual bottles, 0.5 L (16.9 oz) is common. 1 L and 1.5 L bottles of various beverages are not unheard of. Cans of soda are generally 12 oz, though 16 oz and 24 oz are not uncommon among beers. Wine, as mentioned below, is often 750 mL, but liquor is often sold by the quart.

So I wouldn't say the 2 L bottle is the sole anomaly, but metric is definitely not the prevalent system for beverages.

Re: Make the Metric system the standard in the United States

#500

Post by hosh »

wyclif wrote: post #437
tadfisher wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you aren't a surveyor, that is... that industry has stuck with the previous American standard of 1/39.37 meters, for obvious reasons.

Land surveyor here. I understand the issues in play here deeply. Field calcs, just to name one thing, would be greatly eased by metric. But here's the thing: you can't make an old surveyor think in metric. The way I visualise distance is Imperial. This is deeply ingrained.

Only way to retrain is to either have the young generation abandon the old way, or to have the old guard exercise flexibility and neuroplasticity. You can change habits, but it takes effort and commitment.

I say that, and I still stick to my Vim and won't use Emacs keybindings :-D

Post reply on HN