[geeks] RE: [SunRescue] OT: CA: It's Our Turn

Tue Apr 3 18:38:41 CDT 2001

At the risk of starting a metric/Imperial holy war, I respectfully
disagree. :)  I think the Imperial system of measurement is about as
braindead as they come.  Example: 1 mi = 5280 ft; why not 5000 or 1000?  I
know there are historical reasons for how the imperial system is set up,
but that's not my point.  We use a decimal number system (i.e based on
10), the metric system is also decimal based (i.e. 1 m = 1000 mm = .001
km).  That makes it trivial to convert between quantities of the same
measure (divide by 10, multiply by 100, etc.).  The metric system also has
a far greater range (like exameter or nanometer) than the imperial
system.  Overall it seems like a much more natural measurement system
(which it was designed to be).  Granted, as you say it's difficult to
separate quantities by halves or fourths and get a nice simple "integer
unit", but if the processing power is there to convert between metric and
imperial, surely it can't be that much more difficult to divide or
multiply by powers of ten instead of two or just say 25 cm =1 m.  The
greatest strength of the metric system is it's basis on powers of 10 (I
will agree that sometimes the units themselves can be oddly large or small
- Farads are a good example - but then you just switch to pico or
micro...).  Of course I have known about the metric system for quite a
while and use it everyday in my field of study (Physics), so I'm as biased
as anyone. :)  The Imperial system is just too unwieldy for any sort of
number crunching, and I've *never* understood the odd conversion factors.

-Cyrus

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, David Cantrell wrote:

> [taken to geeks list, please reply there if at all]
> 
> "Chris Byrne" <chris at chrisbyrne.com> wrote:
> 
> > Honestly I do wish we were metric if only for the fact that it would make
> > life easier when dealing with the rest of the world. But 350 some years of
> > tradition dont get changed overnight.
> 
> I personally wish that .UK *wasn't* gradually switching to metric.  It's
> trivial in this age of ubiquitous computing power to convert from Imperial
> to metric and vice versa when needed.  Imperial measurements like ounces
> and feet and pints work far better on every-day scales than metric does.
> Grams and millimeters are too small; kilograms and metres are too big.
> The Imperial system also has the advantage that large amounts can be far
> more easily divided reasonably accurately into their constituent smaller
> amounts without equipment than in the metric system.  It is, for example,
> *really* easy to fairly accurately divide a foot into inches by eye
> (divide by two twice - easy; divide by three once - easy); now try that
> going from metres to centimetres.  Not only that, but it divides nicely
> into useful small integer amounts for thirds (four inches) and quarters
> (three inches).
> 
> I do tend to use metric for measurements of the very large and the very
> small, because that tends to be the realm of science.  Distances from
> place to place, for example, are miles*.  Distances from star to star are
> parsecs or kilometres.  Thickness of books is inches, thickness of sheets
> of paper is microns.
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems that the government has decided to make a big push
> towards metrication, so it is now illegal to - for example - sell cloth
> by the yard or meat by the pound.  I make a point of asking for yards and
> pounds.  I expect to be served the exact right amount too, to within a
> half-inch or half-ounce just like I used to be.
> 
> > Hell officially the UK has been metric for more than 20 years and still most
> > people I know of think of things in miles, pounds, and ounces. And how long
> > did it take to switch from shillings to new-pence?
> 
> It was over twenty years before the old shilling and florin stopped being
> legal tender.
> 
> > And we in the US are a lot more stubborn about the government telling us
> > what to do. Under the Carter Presidency (jan 1977- jan 81) a law was passed
> > requiring all highway signs to be metric within five years. 20 years so far,
> > and very few metric signs out there.
> 
> NONE in .uk that I am aware of.  Instead we have bi-lingual signs
> throughout Wales and Scotland.
> 
> > I personally drive a Saturn 1999 SC2M which weighs in at 2400 lbs
> 
> That's something I find weird about .us weight measurements.  You seem to
> use pounds for everything, where in .uk it is common to use tons, cwt**
> and stone.
> 
> A .uk ton is 2240 lbs; a cwt (hundred-weight) is 112 lbs so there's
> twenty to a ton, just like twenty shillings to a pound; a stone is 14
> lbs.
> 
> To add to the confusion, a .us ton is 2000 lbs and a .us cwt is 100 lbs
> although they appear to not be used.
> 
> Tonne is metric - 1000 kg
> 
> A tun is a unit of liquid (usually beer) capacity, 210 gallons.  That's
> .uk gallons, not .us gallons :-)
> 
> * I measure height to orbit in miles too for satellites, but the distance
> to the moon in kilometres.  It seems that my cut-off is around about geo-
> synchronous orbit, anything above that isn't on an easily comprehensible
> human scale so goes metric.
> 
> ** cwt isn't so common any more, but you still see it used for weighing
> vehicles, farm equipment, stonework, and bells.
> 
> -- 
> David Cantrell | root at alphacomplex.org | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/
> 
>     This is a signature.  There are many like it but this one is mine.
> 
> ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important **
> _______________________________________________
> rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
> 