|
On December 09 2011 13:32 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Advantages of Standard
1. Standard goes more naturally with fractions - quarter of a pint, half foot, etc. Technically, you don't say half meter but rather 50 centimeters or 500 millimeters.
2. Standard units are more practical and convenient. No one goes to the grocery to buy 400ml drink, instead, they buy it in 12 ounces. No one buys 5 meters of wood, instead, they buy it is 1x1x12, all in feet.
both of these points are only true depending on were you live. if you grow up with the metric system, of course you're gonna say half a meter and you're gonna go buy 400ml drink (actually 500ml/half a liter, because that's how drinks are usually measured in areas where metric is the most common). for me that doesn't seem weird in english and it definitely doesn't sound weird in german. so to call these an advantage is flatout wrong imo.
|
Time cannot be based on a power of 10. The Earth spins a complete revolution roughly 365.25 (leap year takes into account the decimals) times per cycle around the sun.
In terms of breaking up a day into powers of 10, well I suppose it could be done.
|
On December 09 2011 13:32 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Advantages of Standard
1. Standard goes more naturally with fractions - quarter of a pint, half foot, etc. Technically, you don't say half meter but rather 50 centimeters or 500 millimeters.
2. Standard units are more practical and convenient. No one goes to the grocery to buy 400ml drink, instead, they buy it in 12 ounces. No one buys 5 meters of wood, instead, they buy it is 1x1x12, all in feet.
I wouldn't really call those advantages. I say "half a kilogram" or "third of a litre" ("kolmanneslitra" in Finnish) or "one and a half metres" (also sounds nicer in finnish: "puolitoista metriä") all the time. I think that this misconception of yours just comes from using the metric system for physics and stuff where you need to be precise instead of using them in everyday life.
The second one doesn't make any sense either. How is 12 ounces better than half a liter? When I do my groceries, I buy a litre of milk, a kilo of potatoes, and if I feel like it, a metre of liqourice. How is that inconvenient? I also remember always buying wood in metres/centimetres/millimetres. Also, 12 feet has as just many digits as 3.6 metres. And I buy the lenght of wood I want to, not some standard "12 feet" or "5 metres". The only standard with imperial units here - atleast that I know of - is "kakkosnelonen", standing for "two by four (inces)", a kind of plank wood. It's probably just a matter of culture, so I don't see it being an advantage. In fact, I would probably listed this one as a disandvantage.
The only "advantage" I can think of is that you can intuitively use your bodyparts for mesurement. But you can easily learn to do that with metres also, so it's not that big of a deal.
|
I grew up in Australia using Imperial weights and measures in the 1960s and 70s, which of course is before Australia finished converting to metric. But now I use metric weights and measures, as metric units are much easier and are used internationally. Though I haven't forgotten Imperial, as I learnt it as a child, and when Americans start talking in US Standard units, which are the same as Imperial except for fluid ounces, pints, gallons, and bushels (and who uses bushels?), I know what they mean and can make the conversion to metric if necessary. Still, I've trained myself to think in metric and metric is the first and foremost system of weights and measures I use.
|
Those "advantages" of standard seem pretty bs and subjective if you ask me.
How much harder is it to go buy 2L of milk? Instead of using fractions of "quarter gallon". =.=
|
On January 21 2012 08:47 lachy89 wrote:
Time cannot be based on a power of 10. The Earth spins a complete revolution roughly 365.25 (leap year takes into account the decimals) times per cycle around the sun.
In terms of breaking up a day into powers of 10, well I suppose it could be done.
Time Could be based on a power of 10, the issue is that there are naturally important units (day, year, month to a lesser degree)
and as the example notes, the
So you could say every 0.36525 kilodays the seasons repeat.
(of course days aren't the standard unit, and they vary anyways.. seconds are the standard time unit)
So you could go standard
A 'day-night cycle' is 86.4 kiloseconds
The 'season cycle' is 31.5576 megaseconds
Days would probably have to be the natural one, while seasons are important, they are less so than they were.
That being said I don't think days/years will likely go away for a Long time.
But a for standard v. metric in other matters, metric is better... but the cost of changing over is great compared to the benefit (like different languages or operating systems)
|
Thanks you SO MUCH for changing the title of this thread, it was really bugging me.
Personally I think metric is superior to imperial, but if you're used to one, I don't think I would change to the other for non-scientific purposes.
|
Advantages of Standard
1. Standard goes more naturally with fractions - quarter of a pint, half foot, etc. Technically, you don't say half meter but rather 50 centimeters or 500 millimeters.
2. Standard units are more practical and convenient. No one goes to the grocery to buy 400ml drink, instead, they buy it in 12 ounces. No one buys 5 meters of wood, instead, they buy it is 1x1x12, all in feet.
These are not advantages, they are simply conventions people are familiar with and use when using Imperial/US Standard units.
I say half a kilo of meat all the time when shopping. And 2 litres of milk or a half a litre of something or a 2-litre bottle of soft drink. Even when I used Imperial/US Standard up to adulthood, I had never said or used half a foot or half-foot, it was always 6 in., and I had never ordered 12 [fluid] ounces of drink or a 12-ounce can or bottle of drink in a shop, anyway the Imperial and US Standard fluid ounce are quite different, as I've already said. In cans, I would order by the size of the can being small, medium, or large. And yes, people in metric countries can and do buy wood or timber by the metre length, even millimetre length, and centimetre in square thickness or height or depth by breadth or width, e.g. 5 x 10 cm, which is 2 x 4 in. in the US or 4 x 2 in. in the UK, and formerly in Australia, etc.
|
Theres no point in comparing them they are fundamentally the same. They both measure the same things just as effectivly as the other and can be converted back and forth. People just feel like they have to back up what they learned and no one else can do differently or they are "Weird." For all the people saying metric makes so much more sense do you relise where they derived the mass of a gram? Its just a hunk of alloy in Paris that they entitled a kilogram.
|
On February 01 2012 01:18 Roban wrote:
Thanks you SO MUCH for changing the title of this thread, it was really bugging me.
Personally I think metric is superior to imperial, but if you're used to one, I don't think I would change to the other for non-scientific purposes.
I did, and I'm glad I did. Metric is a far better system and if an old codger like me can learn metric and think in metric as an adult, so can anyone else. Those Americans that don't want to change to metric don't want to change because they are very familiar with Imperial/US Standard units and can't be bothered learning something different. This is just mental inertia.
|
Lalalaland34503 Posts
The UK is such a weird place since half the people here use metric and the other half uses imperial. I've only ever used metric.
|
On December 09 2011 13:35 Navillus wrote:Since when was the continental or imperial system called standard? That seems very US-Centric, and as to the question I use imperial because I'm in the US and we do dumb things like teach kids this system but I think we should 100% switch to metric. Edit - Also those reasons to use standard seem to be based on having been taught standard in the first place, it's only more intuitive if it's what you grew up with, I'm sure 400 ml could be just as intuitive as 12 ounces if it's what you're used to. Also relevant - The Oatmeal
Calling traditional English weights and measures used in the United States as US Standard or just plain Standard is another convention to differentiate it from Imperial. The US "Standard" system ought to be called the US Customary Weights and Measures. Imperial weights and measures are identical with US Customary units except for fluid ounces, pints, gallons, and bushels, as again I've already said.
|
Metric, Celsius, 24 hour clock. It's the way to go, really. 
|
On February 01 2012 03:08 Maxie wrote:Metric, Celsius, 24 hour clock. It's the way to go, really.
You know that Americans use a 24 hour day too, right?
|
|
|
On February 01 2012 03:15 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 03:08 Maxie wrote:Metric, Celsius, 24 hour clock. It's the way to go, really. You know that Americans use a 24 hour day too, right?
LOL. 12 or 24. But similar enough.
For what it's worth, Fahrenheit is a lot more descriptive when talking about temperatures here on Earth too. Maybe not as helpful in all of science, but definitely when it comes to our weather.
But metric >>> imperial all the way (coming from an American math educator).
|
On February 01 2012 03:15 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 03:08 Maxie wrote:Metric, Celsius, 24 hour clock. It's the way to go, really. You know that Americans use a 24 hour day too, right?
What? You didn't decide it was just easier to have 20 hours a day?
While it is true that you still adhere to 24 hour days, you mostly use the 12 hour clock with am and pm as indicators of which half of the day it is. While most of europe (I believe, at least in scandinavia) uses a 24 hour clock, and I think you (americans) sometime refer to it as military time.
On February 01 2012 03:08 Maxie wrote:
For what it's worth, Fahrenheit is a lot more descriptive when talking about temperatures here on Earth too. Maybe not as helpful in all of science, but definitely when it comes to our weather.
How do you figure that?
|
On February 01 2012 03:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 03:15 Chargelot wrote:On February 01 2012 03:08 Maxie wrote:Metric, Celsius, 24 hour clock. It's the way to go, really. You know that Americans use a 24 hour day too, right? LOL. 12 or 24. But similar enough. For what it's worth, Fahrenheit is a lot more descriptive when talking about temperatures here on Earth too. Maybe not as helpful in all of science, but definitely when it comes to our weather. But metric >>> imperial all the way (coming from an American math educator).
Why would Fahrenheit be more descriptive? If you've heard temperatures in Fahrenheit your entire life ofc you'll understand what the weather feels like at a temp in that system. Just like hearing Celsius, i know exactly how hot/cold it'll be out.
|
On February 01 2012 03:26 ThaZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 03:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2012 03:15 Chargelot wrote:On February 01 2012 03:08 Maxie wrote:Metric, Celsius, 24 hour clock. It's the way to go, really. You know that Americans use a 24 hour day too, right? LOL. 12 or 24. But similar enough. For what it's worth, Fahrenheit is a lot more descriptive when talking about temperatures here on Earth too. Maybe not as helpful in all of science, but definitely when it comes to our weather. But metric >>> imperial all the way (coming from an American math educator). Why would Fahrenheit be more descriptive? If you've heard temperatures your entire life ofc you'll understand what the weather feels like at a temperature. Just like hearing Celsius, i know exactly how hot/cold it'll be out.
That does make sense (that being brought up learning one system means you'll be fine hearing it). I just mean that there is a larger scale of numbers to work with in Fahrenheit (as far as regular Earth temperatures are concerned)... going from 0 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit only covers from to -18 to 38 degrees Celsius. A range of 56 degrees is far less descriptive than a range of 100. I'd rather be more accurate in integers than need to resort to decimals colloquially. Perhaps that's just a personal preference though, and (as I said before) that probably takes a backseat to any important, objective scientific applications.
|
On February 01 2012 03:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 03:26 ThaZenith wrote:On February 01 2012 03:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2012 03:15 Chargelot wrote:On February 01 2012 03:08 Maxie wrote:Metric, Celsius, 24 hour clock. It's the way to go, really. You know that Americans use a 24 hour day too, right? LOL. 12 or 24. But similar enough. For what it's worth, Fahrenheit is a lot more descriptive when talking about temperatures here on Earth too. Maybe not as helpful in all of science, but definitely when it comes to our weather. But metric >>> imperial all the way (coming from an American math educator). Why would Fahrenheit be more descriptive? If you've heard temperatures your entire life ofc you'll understand what the weather feels like at a temperature. Just like hearing Celsius, i know exactly how hot/cold it'll be out. That does make sense (that being brought up learning one system means you'll be fine hearing it). I just mean that there is a larger scale of numbers to work with in Fahrenheit (as far as regular Earth temperatures are concerned)... going from 0 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit only covers from to -18 to 38 degrees Celsius. A range of 56 degrees is far less descriptive than a range of 100. I'd rather be more accurate in integers than need to resort to decimals colloquially. Perhaps that's just a personal preference though, and (as I said before) that probably takes a backseat to any important, objective scientific applications.
I don't think 0.5 degrees celsius would ever change your perception of the weather regarding for example what to wear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
