should the u.s. submit to evil

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-02-10 12:22am

The average American citizen likes having different units of measurement, as it's a big middle finger to the rest of the world. "Ha, we're so good, we got our own way of measuring speed!"

But really, I would love using metric. No more need to remember how many ounces would go into a pint would go into a gallon...

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2003-02-10 12:48am

How about having some real balls and converting to a base 8 or base 16 system for everything? Not only do you get piss easy conversion factors but you also don't have round off your fractions in the computer (.1 has no intrinsic value ... especially on a binary computer).

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-02-10 01:15am

Switch, the sooner the better. I've been gettting Imperial measures screwed up my entire life and I'd rather have a nice handy metric base ten system in place of the convoluted and confusing Imperial measures.

Pistolero · Post by **Pistolero** » 2003-02-10 04:05am

Metric is the only civilized system in the world. I used it for the first 21 years of my life, and now I have no fucking clue if I read temperatures in centigrade, and if you tell me some city is 100KM away, I now think in miles. One thing that never got through my head, tho, is what the fucking use of inches is??? Centimeters are better for measuring. None of that fractional crap.

OC, TIJMO, ICBW

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-02-10 04:48am

Join us on the metric side...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-02-10 05:06am

Just to repost my argument from spacebattles, since I'm being utterly lazy and a bit distracted:

Clearly the metric system is preferable in science and for precision measurements, but in everyday use for common items, customary systems have evolved over centuries or even millenia and are much easier to use for the sorts of things being handled, since they are based specifically around a sort of "natural reckoning" of them and thus fit easily with the common perception, and are easier to learn and apply.

Hence, though Metric is preferable for science, the U.S. Customary System should always be in the primary and accepted standard for everything else in the country.

Note: The U.S. does not use the Imperial System, but the U.S. Customary System, which is different. Also, Myanmar and Liberia do in fact also use either the U.S. Customary or Imperial System (Myanmar, Imperial, Liberia, U.S. Customary, I believe).

So we're not quite alone, and there are very legitimate and reasonable desires for maintaining our system.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-02-10 06:04am

Gandalf wrote:Join us on the metric side...

As long as it leads to easy power. Seductive it is...

Post by **Edi** » 2003-02-10 07:19am

Switch, and quickly! Both the Imperial and the US Custom system of measurements are fucked up beyond belief. Distance conversion is easy enough, every 10 feet equals about three meters, so you can go roughly by that, but why the hell does an inch have to be 2.54 cm instead of 2.50? It gives a huge error over any large distance (and even a 3cm error on a distance of 6 feet, because that's 183 cm instead of 180).

The reason why US custom and the Imperial systems are different, specifically in volume measurements (an Imperial gallon is 4.5 liters, a US gallon is 3.

, dates back to before US independence if what my math teacher told was correct. Namely, he said that the customs personnel at the US end skimmed off a portion of stuff, especially alcohol and other such liquid stuff, from any shipments that came in and then sent them on marked, so there was a difference to the original. Whether that's an urban legend or not, it still doesn't change the fact that the Imperial/US measurement system is completely FUBAR.

Edi

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-02-10 09:04am

In school I did nothing but metric... one day a teacher gave us a problem in imperial and we were all scratching our heads trying to figure out "slugs".

Now, although still in Canada, I work in 99.9% imperial and scratch my head when I work with European customers... go figure.

But, yes, I think we should switch. Metric is superior, and would make a much better standard. Such a switch might have saved that Mars probe too

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-02-10 12:45pm

Exonerate wrote:Yes.
Hell, remember what made one of our Mars probes crash?!? Incorrect conversion from metric to imperial. Stupid.
Even England doesn't use Imperial anymore...

"Imperial"?! WTF? I've always heard it called "Standard."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-10 12:47pm

tharkûn wrote:How about having some real balls and converting to a base 8 or base 16 system for everything? Not only do you get piss easy conversion factors but you also don't have round off your fractions in the computer (.1 has no intrinsic value ... especially on a binary computer).

But how would creationists be able to count, without a system based on the number of fingers they have?

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-02-10 12:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:
tharkûn wrote:How about having some real balls and converting to a base 8 or base 16 system for everything? Not only do you get piss easy conversion factors but you also don't have round off your fractions in the computer (.1 has no intrinsic value ... especially on a binary computer).?
But how would creationists be able to count, without a system based on the number of fingers they have?

--I say screw base 10, base 8, and base 16. Base 8 and 16 have the same problem as base 10 (needlessly complicated fractions). I say we go with base 9, however, base 2, 3, 5, 7, ... would be fine.

Edit: Fixed fraction comment.
Edit2: For the more sadistic bastards out there you can use base root two or pie.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-02-10 01:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:But how would creationists be able to count, without a system based on the number of fingers they have?

Creationists can count? Wow, I'm impressed...

but O might Darth Wong how do you explain the Ark crap they spew out if you belief they can count?

[fundie equation]
Let's see, one gigantic rickety wooden boat + one big fucking global flood + no plausible source for the water that could cause such a flood is know + it is not know where the water went after the flood + about a million animals + loads of animal feces + not enough drinking water + not enough food + no steady sources of food after the flood + no record of the event was made by the Egyptians + no geological evidence of the event is know + the plants miraculously survived + the fish miraculusly survived + the insects miraculously survived + the Koala bears somehow ended up in Australia = a scientifically plausible scenario and a historical fact.
[/fundie equation]

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-10 03:57pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:--I say screw base 10, base 8, and base 16. Base 8 and 16 have the same problem as base 10 (needlessly complicated fractions). I say we go with base 9, however, base 2, 3, 5, 7, ... would be fine.

While not based on base-2, the US system for volume is based on powers of 2 (e.g. 1 gal = 2 half-gal = 4 qt, etc.)

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2003-02-10 04:13pm

But how would creationists be able to count, without a system based on the number of fingers they have?
Cut off their pinkies

While not based on base-2, the US system for volume is based on powers of 2 (e.g. 1 gal = 2 half-gal = 4 qt, etc.)
8 and 16 are based on base 2 ... it is piss easy to convert
digit conversion:
0 - 000
1 - 001
2 - 010
3 - 011
4 - 100
5 - 101
6 - 110
7 - 111

So to convert the base 8 number to base 2 you just replace the digits. 4560 becomes 100101110000. That is the real beauty of bases that are powers of 2 in nature. They are MUCH faster to convert to the actual bits and don't lead to anywhere near the rounding error. 8 and 16 mean you can express large numbers without having to make them a mile long.

"10" has no magical significance and only serves to slow down computers the world over.

DOWN WITH DECIMAL

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-02-10 04:37pm

Since I work in a pharmacy I run into a wide variety of measurements. Most are metric but we still have plenty of things ordered in gallons, tablespoons, teaspoons, drops (gtts), and ocassionally people drag out the old apothecary stuff like dram.

Almost all calculations regarding dosing are generally based on metric measurements. A lot of things are dose based on the patient's weight in kgs although most of our scales measure in pounds.

mg(s)/kg is also a common dosing practice.

One of my favorite units that others where I work never seem to get is "one gross".

It is the equivalent of one dozen dozen or 144units.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-02-10 11:47pm

I'll at least go along with metric to be used commercialy, but the ONLY way to properly measure breast size, or penis lenge, is inches!

Seriosly, the time being based on base twelve, and 360 degres in a circle, dovetalis deliberatly.
Navigation, and longitude and latitude coordinates, are measured in, degres, hours, minutes, and seconds. There is a direct 1 for 1 corelation to what time it is, and what your longitude is.
To change time to metric, you would also have to completely revamp the present system of navigation, and coordinates via longitude and latitude.
So everyone who navigates the ocean has to learn a completly new meathod, or BLINDLY trust theGPS navigation.

The TRUE solution is to convert to base twelve.(or base 2)
This makes time and geometry so much more user frienly, and removes the fraction/decimal conversion come out with SOOO few repeating decimals.

Trivia for our obscure ones: I used to know a system of calculation, that used your fingers, and base two, much like an abucus.
Anyone know how this works?
(to date myself, this was published in an "Analog" SF magazine, in the seventies, and was written by the late great Issac Asimov, and refered to as the "polish half wit hand calculator")

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-02-11 04:05am

Exonerate wrote:Yes.
Hell, remember what made one of our Mars probes crash?!? Incorrect conversion from metric to imperial. Stupid.
Even England doesn't use Imperial anymore...

IIRC it is was other sciencific measurement system from use in the conversion to or metric.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-02-11 05:11am

I feel we should convert to metric, and then change the name of the metric system to the Imperial system, because it sounds cooler.

Morat · Post by **Morat** » 2003-02-12 12:15am

I'd like to try a base i number system. After only a few weeks in Physical Chemistry, I'm starting to think that switching to base i would actually simplify some quantum mechanics equations...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-12 12:48am

Howedar wrote:
Durandal wrote:Yes, and we should also convert to metric time, as well, by the way.
Worked out great for the French.

I assume you're being sarcastic?

No, I'm not. The current time system is a fucking mess. 60, 60 and 24, 365? What the fuck kind of conversion factors are those? Powers of ten are infinitely more intuitive, and I dread having to convert the answer from a physics problem from years into seconds or something.

The French may be wrong about a lot of things (<cough>SECAM<cough>), but metric time is a good idea.

Oh, and I'd say keep degrees around simply because measuring in radians would be a complete pain in the ass.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-02-12 12:50am

Durandal wrote:No, I'm not. The current time system is a fucking mess. 60, 60 and 24, 365? What the fuck kind of conversion factors are those? Powers of ten are infinitely more intuitive, and I dread having to convert the answer from a physics problem from years into seconds or something.

Powers of 10 for seconds, minutes, and hours would be fine. But 365 days/year is based on the planet's rate of rotation. How are we supposed to change that?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-02-12 06:38am

Edi wrote:Switch, and quickly! Both the Imperial and the US Custom system of measurements are fucked up beyond belief. Distance conversion is easy enough, every 10 feet equals about three meters, so you can go roughly by that, but why the hell does an inch have to be 2.54 cm instead of 2.50? It gives a huge error over any large distance (and even a 3cm error on a distance of 6 feet, because that's 183 cm instead of 180).

The reason why US custom and the Imperial systems are different, specifically in volume measurements (an Imperial gallon is 4.5 liters, a US gallon is 3., dates back to before US independence if what my math teacher told was correct. Namely, he said that the customs personnel at the US end skimmed off a portion of stuff, especially alcohol and other such liquid stuff, from any shipments that came in and then sent them on marked, so there was a difference to the original. Whether that's an urban legend or not, it still doesn't change the fact that the Imperial/US measurement system is completely FUBAR.

Edi

The British intentionally standardized their customary system during the Victorian Era because it was so confusing (sort of like their currency before they made it the decimal pound), that the Metric system was gaining popularity because it was massively easier, and the Metric system was considered French, bad, and unpatriotic.

So the Imperial System was called that becaused it was standardized and instituted Empire-wide. Now the only country that still uses it, I believe, is Myanmar. Both Liberia (created by freed U.S. slaves and a New England abolitionist society) and, of course, the USA, use the U.S. Customary System, which is the UK's old customary system, even further diverged. It might have diverged like that, but it wouldn't have mattered after the Imperial codification.

Anyway, the end result is that when metric finally got to us, we let it enter for science and kept it out for most other things, and that's been working fine. There's no reason to change that, and so we won't, which is probably the end of the subject as long as the USA is the way it is today, leaving metric supporters in the US - sadly for me, since I am a libertarian, albeit with a small l - roughly in the same category as Libertarian Party voters.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-02-12 12:30pm

While you're at it, get rid of that silly Fahrenheit scale for temperature.

This is from here:

Dear Cecil:

Everybody knows 0 degrees on the Celsius scale is the freezing point of water and 100 degrees is the boiling point. On the Fahrenheit scale, however, freezing is 32 degrees and boiling 212.

How on earth were these numbers arrived at? Do 0 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit mean anything? --Leslie, Montreal, Quebec

Cecil replies:

Researchers have gone to their graves trying to figure out what old man Fahrenheit was up to, Leslie. Here's the story as well as I can piece it together:

Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (1686-1736) was a German instrument maker who invented the first practical mercury thermometer. Casting about for a suitable scale for his device, he visited the Danish astronomer Ole Romer, who had devised a system of his own.

As it turned out, it was a case of the blind leading the blind.

Romer had decided that the boiling point of water should be 60 degrees. This at least had the strength of numerological tradition behind it (60 minutes in an hour, right?).

But zero was totally arbitrary, the main consideration apparently being that it should be colder than it ever got in Denmark. (Romer didn't like using negative numbers in his weather logbook.)

In addition to the boiling point of water, the landmarks on Romer's scale were the freezing point of water, 7-1/2 degrees, and body temperature, 22-1/2 degrees.

D.G., simple soul that he was, thought this cockeyed system was the soul of elegance. He made one useful change: to get rid of the fractions, he multiplied Romer's degrees by 4, giving him 30 for the freezing point and 90 for body temperature.

Then, for reasons nobody has ever been able to fathom, he multiplied all the numbers by 16/15, making 32 freezing and 96 body temperature. Boiling point for the time being he ignored altogether.

By and by Fahrenheit got ready to present his scale to London's Royal Society, the scientific big leagues of the day.

It dawned on him that it was going to look a little strange having the zero on his scale just sort of hanging off the end, so to speak. So he cooked up the explanation that zero was the temperature of a mix of ice, water, and ammonium chloride.

At some point Fahrenheit figured out that the boiling point of water came in at 212 degrees. Over time this replaced body temp as the upper landmark on his scale. Meanwhile, as more precise measurements were made, body temperature had to be adjusted to 98.6 degrees.

In short, 100 means nothing at all on the Fahrenheit scale, 96 used to mean something but doesn't anymore, and 0 is colder than it ever gets in Denmark. Brilliant.

Lest we get too down on Fahrenheit, though, consider Anders Celsius, who devised the centigrade scale (0 to 100).

Everybody agrees Celsius's scale makes more sense than Fahrenheit's. Trouble is, the original Celsius scale had 100 for freezing, 0 for boiling. In other words, it was upside-down. (The numbers were reversed after Celsius's death.)

These thermometer guys, what gets into them? Must be too much mercury exposure.

OK, you're saying, very interesting. But what I REALLY need is a temperature trivia question that will make me the life of the party.

I have just the thing. At what temperature are the Fahrenheit and Celsius readings the same? People will look at you with newfound respect when you reveal the astonishing answer: minus 40.

--CECIL ADAMS

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-02-12 08:26pm

But how would creationists be able to count, without a system based on the number of fingers they have? - Darth Wong

Actually, I was under the impression that the ancient Minoans used the base 10 system because of the number of fingers they have. I forget the exact page but I believe Carl Sagan mentions it in his book Cosmos.

XPViking