The Technology Vent and Rant Thread

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by issybird

I prefer the imperial system for two reasons, both related to its utility for the average person. The units are useful gradations; e.g., inches, feet, yards and cup, pint, quart, gallon, as opposed to going from too small to too large. They’re also readily divisible by two, three and four as opposed to two, five and ten.

Anthony Burgess argued that LSD was preferable to decimal coinage because it also allowed for division by seven, as in the days of the week, but I’m not prepared to go that far!

I suspect you prefer imperial because it's what you're used to. I am familiar with both.

Americans can't complain about ISO units going from too small to too large so long as they continue to only measure their weight in pounds.

£1 = 20 shillings = 240 pennies. No divisibility by seven that I can see.

[CRussel]

As a former American, now Canadian, I've had to switch from imperial to metric, and for most things it's gone well. Temperature, speed, etc, make sense in metric for me now. But two things still cause problems - fuel consumption and grocery store prices. Canada doesn't use miles per gallon, but rather litres per kilometre. Which involves an "upside-down" calculation in addition to the change in units. And price per kg. just seems wrong, somehow.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by issybird

I prefer the imperial system for two reasons, both related to its utility for the average person. The units are useful gradations; e.g., inches, feet, yards and cup, pint, quart, gallon, as opposed to going from too small to too large. They’re also readily divisible by two, three and four as opposed to two, five and ten.

Anthony Burgess argued that LSD was preferable to decimal coinage because it also allowed for division by seven, as in the days of the week, but I’m not prepared to go that far!

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I suspect you prefer imperial because it's what you're used to. I am familiar with both.

Americans can't complain about ISO units going from too small to too large so long as they continue to only measure their weight in pounds.

£1 = 20 shillings = 240 pennies. No divisibility by seven that I can see.

Using a base of 10 (and powers of 10) is one of the weaknesses of the Metric System since it only has the factors of 1, 5, and 10, you end up with fractions for the common divisions except for one-half.

With Customary Units, I think the main issue is the inconsistent between the units, not that they are not based on 10. The other complicating factor is when it comes to ounces since there are so many versions of them.

In my opinion, 12 is a better base for a measurement system since it has so many factors, but 6 is also a good option.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I suspect you prefer imperial because it's what you're used to. I am familiar with both.

It’s easier because it’s what I’m used to, but I also think there’s an argument in favor of it. Sometimes things developed for just that reason; utility. I don’t think the argument about divisibility can be dismissed out of hand just because it’s what I know. I also don’t have a problem converting when necessary.

Americans can't complain about ISO units going from too small to too large so long as they continue to only measure their weight in pounds.

Perhaps the exception proves the rule? Or we could always switch to Archie Goodwin’s preferred unit for measuring Nero Wolfe’s weight.

£1 = 20 shillings = 240 pennies. No divisibility by seven that I can see.

That was the point of guineas, according to Burgess. I wasn’t persuaded.

[4691mls]

I have a pretty good idea of how a pound relates to a kilogram or an inch relates to a centimeter, but for some reason I can never keep the Fahrenheit/Celsius comparison in my head.

One thing I've always wondered is why don't countries that use the metric system use the decimeter to avoid using large numbers of centimeters? When I studied the metric system in elementary school a decimeter was one of the size units we learned, but I never see it used.

For example, in the US a person usually gives their height in terms of feet + inches - i.e. "five foot four" or "six feet tall" but from what I've seen in online discussions, in a country that uses the metric system that six-foot person would describe themselves as "182 cm". Why don't they say "18.2 decimeters"?

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by CRussel

As a former American, now Canadian, I've had to switch from imperial to metric, and for most things it's gone well. Temperature, speed, etc, make sense in metric for me now. But two things still cause problems - fuel consumption and grocery store prices. Canada doesn't use miles per gallon, but rather litres per kilometre. Which involves an "upside-down" calculation in addition to the change in units. And price per kg. just seems wrong, somehow.

Re fuel consumption, litres per 100 kilometres is common here e.g. 11.5 litres per 100km, rather than 150ml (8 tablespoons) per km

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I have a pretty good idea of how a pound relates to a kilogram or an inch relates to a centimeter, but for some reason I can never keep the Fahrenheit/Celsius comparison in my head.

One thing I've always wondered is why don't countries that use the metric system use the decimeter to avoid using large numbers of centimeters? When I studied the metric system in elementary school a decimeter was one of the size units we learned, but I never see it used.

For example, in the US a person usually gives their height in terms of feet + inches - i.e. "five foot four" or "six feet tall" but from what I've seen in online discussions, in a country that uses the metric system that six-foot person would describe themselves as "182 cm". Why don't they say "18.2 decimeters"?

Why would anyone use 'decimetre' it to describe their own height when it is not used to refer to the length of anything else.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Why would anyone use 'decimetre' it to describe their own height when it is not used to refer to the length of anything else.

I was just using height as an example. In school we were taught that decimeter was a unit of length but I never actually see it used and wondered why

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Re fuel consumption, litres per 100 kilometres is common here e.g. 11.5 litres per 100km, rather than 150ml (8 tablespoons) per km

Yes, I know it's common elsewhere, but it's really hard to wrap my head around, having grown up with higher numbers are better in the Miles/Gallon scenario of the US. I don't claim any virtue for either, notice. Merely my own consternation trying to figure out what 8 litres/100km actually means in MPG. (29.4 miles/gallon, actually, but not something I can do in my head.)

[issybird]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

rather than 150ml (8 tablespoons)

Uh, no. 50 ml is 1.7 oz, so 150 ml is 5.1 oz or 10.2 tablespoons.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I have a pretty good idea of how a pound relates to a kilogram or an inch relates to a centimeter, but for some reason I can never keep the Fahrenheit/Celsius comparison in my head.

One thing I've always wondered is why don't countries that use the metric system use the decimeter to avoid using large numbers of centimeters? When I studied the metric system in elementary school a decimeter was one of the size units we learned, but I never see it used.

For example, in the US a person usually gives their height in terms of feet + inches - i.e. "five foot four" or "six feet tall" but from what I've seen in online discussions, in a country that uses the metric system that six-foot person would describe themselves as "182 cm". Why don't they say "18.2 decimeters"?

I suppose we could start a campaign for metric hands to be used for the heights of all creatures, including humans, not just horses.

(1 hand == 4 inches which is damn near 10 cm)

Hmm.. I'm 18 hands high.

I think we have about as much chance of this catching on as American starting to measure their weight in stones and pounds instead of just pounds.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by issybird

Uh, no. 50 ml is 1.7 oz, so 150 ml is 5.1 oz or 10.2 tablespoons.

A metric tablespoon is 15ml, so 150ml is 10 (metric) tablespoons

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by issybird

I don’t think the argument about divisibility can be dismissed out of hand just because it’s what I know.

If divisibility is so important, it's odd that I've never come across complaints about the US decimal currency.

[pdurrant]

Given that the US pint is so small (a mere 16 fluid ounces), I'm surprised metrication hasn't been more popular - 500ml > 1 US pint!

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I suppose we could start a campaign for metric hands to be used for the heights of all creatures, including humans, not just horses.

(1 hand == 4 inches which is damn near 10 cm)

Hmm.. I'm 18 hands high.

I think we have about as much chance of this catching on as American starting to measure their weight in stones and pounds instead of just pounds.

LOL., to this day, I can do a hands->US Feet conversion faster than almost anything else. :-) The top of my head is almost exactly 17.2hh and that is, coincidentally, exactly the height (17.2hh) of every horse that I've owned--or which has owned me--since I was 15, LOL.

Having reached that age in life where I just don't bounce the way I used to, I've retired from equine dare devilling, but...dang, those were the days.

Hitch