Imperial or Metric system?

[gormonk]

Metric system is better...its just way more accurate....can mesure some thing thats les than a pictocenimeter(thats 0.000000000000000000000000001 cm))

[bben46]

@gormonk: The system you are using to measure with (Metric or Imperial) does not make a measurement either more or less precise. For example, one millionth of an inch is the same as 25.4 nanometers the nanometer measurement is NOT more accurate, just expressing the SAME accuracy using a different number.

 

I worked as a engineer for a company that built precision measuring instruments that were certified by the US National Bureau of Standards. 15 years ago every standard we used was based on a metric standard and not an imperial standard. For imperial we just converted. So in reality, The US has been on the metric standard for years, and most people don't even know it. And yes, at that time I did use a laser interferometer that was certified to one millionth of an inch precision, plus or minus a small amount, at standard conditions - when you need to measure that precice, you need to specify things like the temperature, air pressure and how long the object being measure has been at those conditions - usually 24 hours to minimize variation, and just being in the room or turning on a light nearby changes the measurement. The act of walking across the room can cause a variation of several HUNDRED millionths.

[LHammonds]

Which is better?

Depends on the person. Some people require things to be simple to understand. Some people can work with any set of numbers.

 

I say we get rid of both measurements and go with atomic measurements. Ok, now how many atoms wide is a Blender Unit? Anyone?

[grannywils]

Er... Um... Last I checked, the EU didn't decide policy or anything in the US even remotely related to the standard unit of measure, side of the street people drive on, which side of a boiled egg should be eaten first, how many episodes count as cannon for the original series of Startrek... ect. Ok, I think I lost myself in that thought somewhere, but hopefully you get the friggin point. Nobody can force a chance in beliefs, especially when they have little involvement in the matter, and the only thing which ever comes from meaningless arguments like this is conflict between global practicality verses local practicality, making sure all confused tourists are less confused, or having to temporarily confuse locals who now need to go through the drive-thru the other way around, the death of countless Lilliputians, and two fans of a series who would normally be good friends having an all-out, asthma inducing slap fight in the sci-fi section of a comics/collectibles store, to which a passing observer makes the comment "The force is not strong with these ones", causing the quarreling duo to become a threesome that was only put to an end when their names were removed from the local Magic tournament and were banned from the store for atleast a week*.

 

Has it ever occured to anyone that perhaps the reason for multiple units of measure is really just an evil plot by tool companies to sell you both tools and fittings for multiple standards, thereby doubling the amount of tools sold as well as increasing the size of storage systems for those tools?

 

*yes, it's a horribly offensive use of geek stereotypes, but that's why it works.

 

 

Vagrant0 - I have not been following this thread, and I only just read this today. This post was my first laugh of the day, and it was a full belly laugh. Thank you so much for it. You are truly the best! You calls em likes you sees em, and I just love it!

[SilverDNA]

There's a saying I know of that would fit for either metric or imperial system users here I think.

 

"What to some one is an owl, is to the other a nightingale."

I would chose the Imperial system for clothing, except shoes . (Funnily it seams to fits to me better than the metric stuff I bought. Trowsers are always not fitting in lengeth or wide when I buy them in metric system.)

Maybe there is a way that we can still have both but I'm thinking that the mixed up system.

Edited July 25, 2010 by SilverDNA

[Surenas]

No mixture with odd stuff is possible, for we're not living in the 19th century when everybody cooked his own national soup. The worldwide networked trend always goes to more comfort and speed, thus harmonization of the systems, esp. in the multilateral interaction, and two parallel systems just for the glorification of a provincialism are everything but comfortable, modern and fast for the consumer. What you need are metric inter-sizes in clothing. That's all. Think it over.

[SilverDNA]

Since the 60ies the scientists have measured two times thousands of people in my country and give the standardised results to Fashion so thy can make more fitting clothing. The last time they did that was about 2006 or 7 if I'm right with laser technology.

Before the second time it was just acceptable. Then for me in person I got of worse than before, cause it seams I don't have the standard buttocks size compared to the length of my legs, when I go with the metric system. They seam always to thigh/short at those spots or to wide/long.

So I really thought of wearing a potato sack all of the time, until it came to me that most of them are only have the size for shorts to undies and are mostly transparent. So I tried for some time to find a solution since. The solution I came up I posted her before. I thought it already over and I'm only aware of this problem when I'm going shopping.

Funnily for shoes it the other way around. It seams they fit in metric but are constantly ugly, because I've got exactly the standard size most people have and the good ones are always sold out in my size.

And I don't want to mention my problems for gloves and hats in sizes... that would drive anyone nuts in seconds....(like the killing joke from Monty Python)

I admit that I'm a nightmare in this matter to shop assistants. I try at least to laugh about size problems I have....now you can too.

Edited July 27, 2010 by SilverDNA

[ginnyfizz]

No mixture with odd stuff is possible, for we're not living in the 19th century when everybody cooked his own national soup. The worldwide networked trend always goes to more comfort and speed, thus harmonization of the systems, esp. in the multilateral interaction, and two parallel systems just for the glorification of a provincialism are everything but comfortable, modern and fast for the consumer. What you need are metric inter-sizes in clothing. That's all. Think it over.

 

We NEED whatever we choose to use, and not what we are TOLD we should use. Glorification of provincialism indeed, is it really necessary to use such rude and patronizing terms? No - as well as being quite mistaken, because, once more, with feeling, ad nauseam, we thick hicks (I know that there is a common misconception that the English are an ignorant and ill educated lot), are more than happy to deal with metric users in metric terms, whilst using Imperial measures at home, even if it means us having to knuckle our Neanderthal foreheads and bust out the calculator. We acknowledge, that with children being educated in metric measures these days, there may well come the time when there is an elective decision taken to switch. Fair enough. But we WON'T be dictated to, and my hasn't that proved to be a Good Thing in times gone by?

 

Should we REALLY suppress all quirks, regional variations,eccentricities and yes, provincialisms? For example, should we make MacDonald's the standard fare because such a lot of folks like it? And outlaw the fabulous regional cuisines of Europe and Asia and elsewhere? *Imagines the French giving that one a great big va te faire *&%$£+ and chuckles...* Exactly. It would be quite ridiculous. As a certain William of Orange once said when he tumbled off a ship onto a Devon harbourside one day in 1688, feeling a little green and seasick "The liberties of England...I will maintain." (Yes I know he said a little more than that, but it involves religion which is not allowed on here.)

[JimboUK]

No mixture with odd stuff is possible, for we're not living in the 19th century when everybody cooked his own national soup. The worldwide networked trend always goes to more comfort and speed, thus harmonization of the systems, esp. in the multilateral interaction, and two parallel systems just for the glorification of a provincialism are everything but comfortable, modern and fast for the consumer. What you need are metric inter-sizes in clothing. That's all. Think it over.

 

With all due respect you sound like the Borg, we don't need metric as we already have it and are quite capable of using it, we also have another system a lot of us prefer and we use that too. What difference does it make to you or anybody else what clothes sizes are in the UK? People here know what size they are in Imperial and that's all that matters.

[Vagrant0]

No mixture with odd stuff is possible, for we're not living in the 19th century when everybody cooked his own national soup. The worldwide networked trend always goes to more comfort and speed, thus harmonization of the systems, esp. in the multilateral interaction, and two parallel systems just for the glorification of a provincialism are everything but comfortable, modern and fast for the consumer. What you need are metric inter-sizes in clothing. That's all. Think it over.

Sorry, but no. While metric does have certain advantages as far as construction and fabrication is concerned, there will always be non-specific units used in certain trades simply because that is what is suited for that usage. A previous examples of a shot, or pint are good ones.

 

In the first example, the actual quantity of a shot is determined by either the area where the establishment is located and who their supplier is, or simply by who is pouring the drink, and is, despite apparent perceptions regarding the same unit meaning different qualities, very functional in its own way. In being something which is determined solely by the owner, supplier, bartender, the quantity of a shot is not up for debate or speculation and any attempt to do so will usually result in being ejected from the bar or told to "pipe down and drink what you're given you tightassed *** ** * ****** or go somewhere else". Furthermore, the art of tending bar can only be truly practiced in knowing how much to add to a mixed drink simply by feeling or by how much that patron has been tipping. To regulate this by means of an imposed system would disturb the power balance in the bars and nightclubs of the world, and would undoubtedly result in bartenders choosing less agreeable ways to ensure that the volume of fluid in a glass was up to regulation, and choose to add personal seasonings as required to suit the patron. As leaders and lawmakers the world over (ok, maybe not parts of France and the Middle East) are notorious alcoholics, this would be a very bad course of action.

 

In the second example not only is it a similar situation to the above, it's just damn awkward to ask for .67 liters of beer (give or take foam and the heavy-handedness of the one doing the pouring.

 

And that's just drinking related stuff... ALL trades have their own special units for measuring things related to that trade and standardizing all of it would not only be a long and complicated transition, but also remove some of the heart from that trade.

 

As for maintaining that such a standardization could ever be enforced unwillingly, especially by anyone who wishes to still have a house to return home to and a car which doesn't explode, that's just plain ridiculous. Going on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on about it won't make it any less ridiculous. While some standardization will undoubtedly occur as a part of becoming a global society, like it or not, understanding it or not, it will happen by choice, and will not be all-encompassing regardless of what any of the more strict minded persons may say about it. You are welcome to disagree, but for the purposes of the argument here, that end of things has been touched on more than anyone else would really like. There really isn't anything to say about it, it will happen gradually by choice or necessity, or not happen at all. And at both present and in the near future, there is no necessity, which has been rather explicitly explained by bben, myself, and others. Continuing on about it just to keep the same cyclical argument going only serves to suggest that there is nothing else to say about this whole topic.