Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think I want to jump on my favorite public policy hobby horse and talk about the metric system. Obviously, if you live outside of the United States, this isn't a problem for you, and depending on what country, probably hasnt been for a century.

I believe the US needs to go metric. I don't mean signs in Imperial units with SI in small font underneath. What I mean is that the government needs to phase in, over five years or so, a complete change to metric for all public uses. This would include weights and measures, roadsigns, schools, etc. It would surely be ruinously expensive to do this, but I think in the long run it would hold significant advantages.

First and foremost, it would mean the US would be using the same units as the majority of the world. This isnt just jumping on the bandwagon, it's important. It would facilitate everything from trade ( such as importers not having to do conversions ) to making US tourists comfortable with units they will see abroad. It would even keep expensive spacecraft from crash landing on mars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States#Mars_orbiter " target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States#Mars_orbiter .

Metric units are simply easier to use. Why remember how many feet are in a mile, or how many pints in a gallon, or even how many yards in a furlong. Everything is simply powers of ten, which is much more convenient.

What does the Dakka community think of that?

Don't like it.

But I'm a stubborn Dark Angels player.

And really, it's not THAT hard to do unit conversion. I think you pegged it on the nose as to why it won't happen. Too much $$$ involved in fixing something that's not broken. It can be a tad INCONVINIENT, but it's not broken.

As for people abroad, there will always be conversions involved. Until all the world becomes 1 unified entity, with common currency, there will always be conversions involved for tourists abroad... and I don't think the difference between a litre and a pint are foremost in their heads.

Australia has been using metric system since the 1960's. (1966 IIRC)

I was born in 1977 and still refer to people's height in feet and inches.

Having holidayed in the US you guys have some bizzare measurements- what is a fluid ounce?

Go for it and go metric.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Australia has been using metric system since the 1960's. (1966 IIRC)

I was born in 1977 and still refer to people's height in feet and inches.

Having holidayed in the US you guys have some bizzare measurements- what is a fluid ounce?

Go for it and go metric.

This really illustrates the problem, as I can tell you what it means as far as how much cola I'm getting from a can, but the actual meaning is confusing. I actually had to look this one up, and it didnt help me much. For one thing, there is a fluid ounce, which is a volume measurement, and the ounce, which is a mass measurement. It just so happens that 1 imperial fluid oz of water is roughly equal to one mass ounce in the avoirdupois system. This is confusing however, because in the US at least, a fluid ounce can legally mean several slightly different units. For instance, I'm guessing the ounce you saw was probably on food labeling. The US has a food labelling ounce which is exactly 30mL which is slightly larger than the imperial ounce AND the US customary ounce. The US customary ounce is slightly larger than the imperial ounce, because of differences between the US gallon and imperial gallon. I didnt realize there were three different ounces in use in the US until right now. That is a real problem, I think, because I'm somebody who uses volume and mass measurements daily ( Metric, mind you) and I wasnt aware of that.

This becomes more complicated when you consider that there are four or five different ounce units for weight. The most commonly used ounce, incidentally, is not directly related to the US customary or food labeling ounce volume unit. Also, we often talk in the US about converting pounds ( 16 avoirdupois ounces) to kilograms. This is a problem because there is a pound-force and pound-mass. Now, in common usage, there isnt really a difference between the pound force and mass units, but for precise measurement, it could make a difference ( say, that spacecraft, where the problem was in using the pound unit). Makes much more sense to have kilograms for mass, and newtons for force, to me.

I'm all about America uber alles, but am ok with adopting metric weights and measures. We'll only start using them if everything is enforced (all signs switched to that etc). I just fear, somehow, that I'm going to get price gouged in a big way.

Not to nitpick, but the lb-f vs lb-m issue is only going to be a problem if in a gravitational field of something other than 1 g. I don't see us colonizing the moon or mars in my lifetime, so I don't really see the problem.

And even then, you'll still have the same problem with metric.

There's really no valid argument for not having a metric system (though it's quite amusing to see people trying to justify non-metric measures )

Here's a question. How do you note people's height. Lets say I'm 5 foot 11 inches tall (or "5 11"). How would you say that in metric? 2m? 195 centimeters? Whats the vernacular?

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:what is a fluid ounce?

1 Fluid ounce =

1/128 gallon
30 cubic centimeters (ml)
1/30 liter
1/8 cup
1/16 pint
2 table spoons
6 tea spoons

Screw the metric system! That crap is too complicated! You'll never pull me from my bubble!

I guess my question would be simple: what's the cost of switching, and what is the cost of retaining the current US system.

Non-americans are often (and perhaps rightly) shocked at the self infatuations americans have. Some of it is simple narcissism, but a lot of it comes simply from being in a very different physical and cultural environment then europeans. I mean, It's farther from New York to LA then it from Paris to Moscow. The US isn't quite as unique and special as some of our apologists claim, but there are some differences between the US, the EU,and the Commonwealth (the three major axes of Western Civ) that can't be easily glossed over.

Jazz is for Losers wrote:There's really no valid argument for not having a metric system (though it's quite amusing to see people trying to justify non-metric measures )

Actually there is. America is a capitalist country. Its basis of government is money.

In order to convert to metric, every manufacturing company would have to spend an inordinate amount of money to retool thier machines and the products they make in order so that Europeans wont be confused when visiting this country.

Thats the bottom line.

I am not defending it, but thats how it is.

Grignard wrote:I think I want to jump on my favorite public policy hobby horse and talk about the metric system. Obviously, if you live outside of the United States, this isn't a problem for you, and depending on what country, probably hasnt been for a century.

I believe the US needs to go metric. I don't mean signs in Imperial units with SI in small font underneath. What I mean is that the government needs to phase in, over five years or so, a complete change to metric for all public uses. This would include weights and measures, roadsigns, schools, etc. It would surely be ruinously expensive to do this, but I think in the long run it would hold significant advantages.

First and foremost, it would mean the US would be using the same units as the majority of the world. This isnt just jumping on the bandwagon, it's important. It would facilitate everything from trade ( such as importers not having to do conversions ) to making US tourists comfortable with units they will see abroad. It would even keep expensive spacecraft from crash landing on mars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States#Mars_orbiter " target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States#Mars_orbiter .

Metric units are simply easier to use. Why remember how many feet are in a mile, or how many pints in a gallon, or even how many yards in a furlong. Everything is simply powers of ten, which is much more convenient.

What does the Dakka community think of that?

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!
BLASPHEMER!

Someone call the Inquisition! Call the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the TSA! Call Oprah Winfrey!!!!
We have a bogey in our midst.

Eliminate with extreme prejudice!
I repeat, EXTREME prejudice!


That being said, I think Hellfury said it best.


Eric

Two words: Metric time.

Hellfury wrote:

Jazz is for Losers wrote:There's really no valid argument for not having a metric system (though it's quite amusing to see people trying to justify non-metric measures )

Actually there is. America is a capitalist country. Its basis of government is money.

In order to convert to metric, every manufacturing company would have to spend an inordinate amount of money to retool thier machines and the products they make in order so that Europeans wont be confused when visiting this country.

Thats the bottom line.

I am not defending it, but thats how it is.

To my mind, "Update costs money" isn't valid. The argument could be applied to almost any type of progress in any field, and still would not be valid. imho.

You obviously have never had to deal with accounting

Business wise, unless you can show me a profitability reason, there's no reason for business to switch.

Hellfury wrote:

Jazz is for Losers wrote:There's really no valid argument for not having a metric system (though it's quite amusing to see people trying to justify non-metric measures )

Actually there is. America is a capitalist country. Its basis of government is money.

In order to convert to metric, every manufacturing company would have to spend an inordinate amount of money to retool thier machines and the products they make in order so that Europeans wont be confused when visiting this country.

Thats the bottom line.

I am not defending it, but thats how it is.

Also to be clear, if I had to make an argument in favour of Metric, it would not be "So that Europeans visiting America don't get confused"

I'm sure it would be ruinously expensive, no question. But retooling an assembly line to create a new, better product is expensive too. I don't know how long it would take American businesses to recoup the expenses. If anyone has an estimate on that, please feel free to share.

The thing that gets me is that the argument I often get is that people don't want to learn the units. They have a "feel" for how far a mile is, but not a kilometer. I can't understand this because I use the SI whenever I can because it is easier to work with. Imperial and US units drive me nuts. I never can remember how many cups in a pint, or yards in a mile, or whatever. Sure, I could convert from units I can remember, but why?

About the pound force/mass thing. This is not just relevant for space travel. Apparently there is a measurable difference in the acceleration of gravity between where I am, and say, Denver CO. It is very slight, but it is there, and I imagine that it could make a difference for very precise equipment.

SI units are based on fundamental, unchanging ( Actually, maybe not, but that is another topic altogether) constants of the universe, with the exception of the kilogram. For instance, the meter is based on the speed of light in vacuum. Imperial units are based on......well, I really don't know, but it is probably a lot more arbitrary.

Even more benefits:

It is terribly confusing being a student and being exposed to the plethora of units and their conversions that you have to know. How many American students have been dissuaded from studying math and science because of this? I dont know if that is even measurable, but why force the next generation to waste valuable time learning antiquated units, when fewer, simpler metric units would do the job.

Firearms and the military: Being a firearm enthusiast, I am completely aware of how confusing the different units can be. Americans measure bullet diameters in inches, EXCEPT for certain rounds like the .38 special, which is a case diameter, not a bullet diameter. This is different than the .380 which is a true .38, being .38 inches in diameter. Note that from what I can tell, the extra significant digit means nothing at all except to differentiate the caliber from the .38 What happens if US arms manufacturers are supplying Europeans, or anyone else for that matter? The European system makes so much more sense. An example: The 9x19 parabellum. That is a 9mm bullet diameter with a 19mm case. It is consistent for all their modern chamberings for the most part, with the exception that they'll add an R for rimmed rifle cartridges, etc. The US military, from what I understand, has gone over to metric. As far as I know, the military doesn't refer to the .223, it is the 5.56x45mm NATO.

Teaching metric has the added benefit of simultaneously introducing other basic mathematical concepts such as exponents and logarithms.

Given the amount of international air travel, it would be best if everyone was measuring things, fuel for instance, in the same units. This may already be the way the US does it, I dont know. How am I supposed to know when the schools still teach imperial units as correct and current.

I find your lack of faith disturbing Grignard. Clearly we did not conquer enough countries to enlighten them on the proper series of weights and measures

To think the world ruled by the French (measurement system). Oh how the mighty have fallen...

As Wellington said when seeing the Old Guard marching resolutely towards his massed batteries and troops "Napoleonic code my A$$!"

"Update costs money" isn't valid?!?!?!

I recall, when living in hawaii, that 1 day, the airport decided to unveil their new signs. They were yellow with flowers around the borders, said "drop off" and "pick up" (as opposed to "Arrivals" and "Departures") and it was published in the local paper that the project of changing the road signs at JUST 1 airport (and a small one at that) cost $50,000.

Now just imagine what it would cost to change JUST the speed limit signs in the United States. Now imagine adding all the signs posting the distance to the next city. Now imagine changing every single mile marker.

Now imagine getting this past the taxpayers to "fix" something that's not broken. It's merely inconvenient to all the tourists.


And that's just for changing to metric distances.


The United States is nothing if not pragmatic about certain things, money being a prominent one. If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to someone that there is money to be made, or to be saved, by changing to metric... they would. As of right now, it's just not worth it to change.

Of course it is expensive, and Rome wasnt built in a day. It would have to be phased in over years, perhaps many. I'm sure it was expensive for the UK too, and they still have some resistance over there with all their quaint units still in common use. And the Brits invented imperial units. I'm willing to pay my share for metrification.

Incidentally, if the Brits were able to suck it up and use SI, anyone can

Jazz is for Losers wrote:
Also to be clear, if I had to make an argument in favor of Metric, it would not be "So that Europeans visiting America don't get confused"

Fixed your typo.

The UK has a population roughly equal to the combined population of California and New York. California alone is larger than the UK.

We have another 48 states to cover. It would be MUCH more expensive to change than for the UK. Show me a good cost benifit analysis, and I might be swayed. As it is right now... it's not.

Would it be up to individual states to determine going metric
or could the Fed mandate it? Because if you can get key
commercial states to go metric then the rest would follow
suit.

I'm sure it would be a states rights thing. So yes, it might actually complicate things that way. The Federals would unfortunately have to step in. I dont know how that works legally.

KiMonarrez wrote:"Update costs money" isn't valid?!?!?!

I recall, when living in hawaii, that 1 day, the airport decided to unveil their new signs. They were yellow with flowers around the borders, said "drop off" and "pick up" (as opposed to "Arrivals" and "Departures") and it was published in the local paper that the project of changing the road signs at JUST 1 airport (and a small one at that) cost $50,000.

Now just imagine what it would cost to change JUST the speed limit signs in the United States. Now imagine adding all the signs posting the distance to the next city. Now imagine changing every single mile marker.

Now imagine getting this past the taxpayers to "fix" something that's not broken. It's merely inconvenient to all the tourists.


And that's just for changing to metric distances.


The United States is nothing if not pragmatic about certain things, money being a prominent one. If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to someone that there is money to be made, or to be saved, by changing to metric... they would. As of right now, it's just not worth it to change.

Of course it would not make sense to change every sign over night. It wouldn't be possible without conscription.

/Also, I probably wasn't clear when I said "Also to be clear", so to be slightly clearer, I'm not suggesting that any country still using Imperial measurements change to metric to benefit the confused, bewildered, metric loving trespassers that wash up on their shores from time to time.

Ah. That cleared it right up.

Jazz is for Losers wrote:

To my mind, "Update costs money" isn't valid. The argument could be applied to almost any type of progress in any field, and still would not be valid. imho.

I love ya, Jomi. But better minds than ours have been struggling with this problem since the 70's when it was proclaimed that by X year the whole world would convert to metric.
Metric indeed smarter, there is no doubt whatsoever about that.

But the bottom line is what the bottom line is.

This is not to say that new progress couldnt be made to slowly integrate metric into this country. I think it should, but as pointed out earlier in this thread, if there is no clear reason to make money from it (or save money) it simply wont be instituted.

Sad.

It is sad because it is not progressive thinking on the part of major corporations which could make this change.

Only now do you see adverts for how petroleum companies are our eco friendly buddies, so we know that they will be there when the big corp decide to make the change to alternate fuel sources. *rolleyes*

If more pragmatic progressive thinking for the future was instituted, we wouldnt have many of these problems we have today.

But this is a capitalistic society, and again, the bottom line is the bottom line.

I am most certainly not a "progressive". It is just that metric is smarter, easier, and I believe ultimately worth the cost of transition.

I don't think it will happen in the US (Hell a lot of people in the UK still insist on using Imperial, even people of my younger generation. I always relate my height in Imperial, simply because most people don't understand 180cms in relation to height. That's as far as I will go though. I would never tell someone that I'm 196lbs).

I'm only saying that it should be changed. The benefits are self evident, which is one reason that I've not bothered to repeat them.

Yes it would be expensive, but nothing good was ever cheap.