|
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.
Ya, one degree in celcius isn't almost any change at all, you don't need it to be subdivided to be more descriptive because you won't feel the difference anyway.
When you leave your house and you can tell the difference between a 71F and 72F day, even ignoring all other factors like cloud cover at the moment you walk out the door, the breeze, etc, then you can say it might be "more descriptive."
You're just saying that purely on personal bias, lol.
|
On February 01 2012 03:22 danakaz 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? 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. Show nested quote +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?
Had to wiki the 12 hour clock because I never thought much of why we used 12 hour clocks, pretty interesting information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-hour_clock
It's funny we use the 24 hour clock at my job and the nurses and doctors have this inability to properly learn how to convert 12 hour times to 24 hour times. They can't "be bothered with learning army time."
|
On February 01 2012 03:48 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 03:22 danakaz 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? 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? Had to wiki the 12 hour clock because I never thought much of why we used 12 hour clocks, pretty interesting information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-hour_clockIt's funny we use the 24 hour clock at my job and the nurses and doctors have this inability to properly learn how to convert 12 hour times to 24 hour times. They can't "be bothered with learning army time."
Doctors aren't math geniuses, you can't expect them to be able to add 12 onto the time in the afternoon. Thats like, PHD level stuff there.
|
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.
Do you use the fahrenheit scale on the negative side? As in do you say -12F, since thats whats outside right now where I am... Dunno about others but I see it more practically when everything on the negative side of the scale means below the freezing point of water.
|
On February 01 2012 03:55 Hacksu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 03:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. Do you use the fahrenheit scale on the negative side? As in do you say -12F, since thats whats outside right now where I am... Dunno about others but I see it more practically when everything on the negative side of the scale means below the freezing point of water.
Yeah we do, if necessary. I just chose the 0-100 and -18-38 intervals half-arbitrarily and half- because comparing 100 to 56 is relatively easy to compare.
|
I'm 1.88 m or 188 cm tall and have a body mass of 100 kg. That's 6' 2" or 6 ft 2 in. and 220 lb or 15 stone 10 lb. Which is the easier notation do you think?
|
|
|
Lets properly think about what you are suggesting here:
"Advantages of Standard" ie Imperial Measurement
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.
Not true, half a metre, or 50 cm can be used in the metric world just as you would use 20 inches. This is because in the metric system there is always a small unit to convert down to which is the same in the imperial measurement system. What you mean to say is that this half or quarter of is more widely used, rather than the opposite ie half foot becomes 6 inches. Either system can be used to determine an amount of something, its just that more people on the whole use the metric system. Thats why it was invented to get rid of silly units like pint and foot which have difficult conversions into other such units in the imperial measurement system.
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.
This one is a bit silly, all it implies is that you are american or you have never used the metric system. What I mean to say is that if you went to a country where the metric system was used, you would find that the same amounts of material etc are sold in the other measurement, ie 3x3x12 feet becomes ruffly 1x1x4 metres you can do that in cm if you wish as well its just what you are used to and what the shop uses to measure its goods.
This also applies to the temperature system used in the USA, ie F. This is a difficult unit to use in physicial, chemical and biological eqautions as it does not translate well into other units. This is why the larger used C or in the sceintific world K is a far better unit.
EDIT: Please forgive the grammatical/spelling mistakes.
|
I'm a Physics major so I do most of my work in metric and for the most part have a decent grasp on units that I use frequently. Unfortunately, one that I've never been able to latch on to is km/h (or m/s, fundamentally, but conversion factor ezpz). Not sure why, guess driving for so long has MPH ingrained that much harder in my brain.
|
On February 15 2012 10:49 Duka08 wrote:
I'm a Physics major so I do most of my work in metric and for the most part have a decent grasp on units that I use frequently. Unfortunately, one that I've never been able to latch on to is km/h (or m/s, fundamentally, but conversion factor ezpz). Not sure why, guess driving for so long has MPH ingrained that much harder in my brain.
I'm still wondering why nautical miles and knots aren't used for land travel too. Would make so much more sense. Where did even land mile come from?
|
I use both; raised on Standard, trained to use Metric as a chemist. I typically use Standard in day-to-day life but won't hesitate to use Metric when it's faster or more convenient.
|
On February 15 2012 11:29 LittleJoeRambler wrote:
I use both; raised on Standard, trained to use Metric as a chemist. I typically use Standard in day-to-day life but won't hesitate to use Metric when it's faster or more convenient.
I'm studying chemistry as my major now Metric is so much easier for calculations involved in physics and chemistry but I was also raised with standard like judging liquids by relative cups/pints/quarts/gallons and relative distances by feet/yard/miles.
|
I use standard, it's American.
|
as an Australian we are taught Metric.
As such i use Metric for everything except when explaining someones height.
its easier to understand 5'11" or 6'3" then it is to say 181cm and such.
|
Lol I pity those who think the imperial system is better
|
If real life, I use imperial, like house is 100 yerds and bag is 20 lbs.
but in school and experiment, its always meters.
|
When I meet people from the US, I tell them I mass 5 slugs. When they don't understand, that's when you realise how fucking stupid this system is today. Americans, in general, have no idea how to measure mass.
|
The advantage with being used to imperial is that you can use both imperial and metric without really having to learn anything.
|
There's a mix of both systems where I live. Imperial for body weight/height. Food and material weight is usually metric. But cooking is done in imperial. Distance is measured in metric. School teach in metric usually. Science is always metric. Weed is measured in both systems. Construction is done in imperial. Land/area measurenets are done in both... Temperature is measured by Celsuis, unless it's pool water, then its Fahrenheit.
We're taught metric in school, but the USA isn't far from here. So most people have at least a basic understanding of both systems and can convert. You get used to it. 1 KG = 2.2 lbs, 12 FL ounces = 355 ML, 1 Metre = 3.3 feet, 0 Celsuis = 32 Fahrenheit. 1 Mile = 1.6 KM. 1 Ounce = 28grams. Nothing to it.
PS. Where is all this Imperial is "standard" coming from? Is that what you guys are taught? This is first time I seen people say that. Sounds ignorant.
|
The listed "advantages" of standard system are complete bullshit. I do all those things in metric in my country. I say, "give me half a meter of rope" and I say "give me 1x1x5 wood" all in metres. Actually this kind of stuff in my country is usually measured in weight, but if I want a certain area, I'll use metric system and it works perfectly.
Metric is just so simple. I'd say the only real disadvantage of being taught everything in metric is that Imperial measures are so goddamn alien it seems like it's users are from a different planet, while the reverse is not as hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
