|
The other day at Safeway I wanted to buy cashew nuts. I could choose between two offerings:
- Premade packages sold at a fixed price per unit. The price was indicated in $ (for one package) and in $/oz.
- Cashew nuts sold without packaging. Put as much as you want in a plastic bag and pay based on the weight of your bag. The price was indicated in $/lb.
How the fuck am I supposed to compare $/lb and $/oz?
... ok before posting I decided to google it. So 16oz = 1lb it seems. So I need to multiply the $/oz price by 16 and then compare with the $/lb. Great. Thankfully just before that I was able to buy my 59oz of orange juice instead of an awkward 1L, saved the day. >_>
Also my feet must be like nearly twice longer than my gf's so thank God we don't rely on that to guess anything measured in feet.
Anyway imperial units are unpractical but definitely charming, it's like living in a fantasy novel where they use all kinds of weird, exotic or outdated units. Outside of the occasional fuckup like the cashew nuts it hasn't been much of a nuisance to my life here.
Edit: Forgot the human heights in feet and inches. Really annoying getting used to because two units are being used instead of one. I have no problem with weights in lbs now, can even "feel" how much it makes without converting to kg, but heights in feet and inches? Damn. Only thing I know is that > 6 feet is quite tall.
|
On March 23 2012 12:01 Mr Showtime wrote:
It's just not reasonable to make the change when you build an entire country on an inferior system.
The British Commonwealth seemed to transition from old currency quite smoothly.
What was it something like 4 farthings to the penny, 20 pennies to the shilling, 12 shillings to the pound, two shillings to the florin etc etc just ridiculous.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
Oh speaking of natural, why does an ounce of water not weigh one ounce? I want to know, seriously. Is there another liquid that does weigh an ounce?
|
On October 15 2012 20:19 zatic wrote:
Oh speaking of natural, why does an ounce of water not weigh one ounce? I want to know, seriously. Is there another liquid that does weigh an ounce?
One ounce of water does weigh one ounce. One "fluid ounce" of water does not weigh the same as one ounce, because "fluid ounces" measure volume, not weight.
Note, however, that using the imperial system, 1 fluid ounce of water does weigh 1 ounce (because the volume system was based on the weight system for water).
|
I really think Metric is the more proper once just because of the scaling it allows. You could argue the fact that what would be the imperial equivalent of a byte, kilobyte, megabyte and gigabyte? given how the imperial system approaches it, you might have four different names for those "metrics" which have no direct relationship to each other in terms of how it is spelled.
Imperial was nice in the scheme of things where things seemed a bit more compact and we could keep it in context. However, what is next after a mile? How about after that and beyond?
As for temperatures, I think the most proper metric is still kelvin which is directly related to Celsius as 0kelvin is considered absolute zero (as far as I know) in terms of how "cold" we can physically get. However, it might seem too hot if I say the temperature is 300 Kelvin as opposed to its celcius equivalent.
|
On October 15 2012 20:38 17Sphynx17 wrote:
However, what is next after a mile? How about after that and beyond?
League. Doh.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
On October 15 2012 20:37 netherh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 20:19 zatic wrote:
Oh speaking of natural, why does an ounce of water not weigh one ounce? I want to know, seriously. Is there another liquid that does weigh an ounce? One ounce of water does weigh one ounce. One "fluid ounce" of water does not weigh the same as one ounce, because "fluid ounces" measure volume, not weight. Note, however, that using the imperial system, 1 fluid ounce of water does weigh 1 ounce (because the volume system was based on the weight system for water).
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ounce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce
28.41g != 28.35g
Anyone else?
|
On October 15 2012 20:19 zatic wrote:
Oh speaking of natural, why does an ounce of water not weigh one ounce? I want to know, seriously. Is there another liquid that does weigh an ounce?
Zatic, you are not looking at real Natural Units.
On October 15 2012 18:50 googolplex wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 18:41 semantics wrote:
quick someone make this thread cyclical
Point out the just as arbitrary choices used for the base of the measurements. Making no real distinction There is of course the Natural Unit of measure for non-arbitrary constants.
Natural Units are much more natural than Metric or Imperial systems! 
|
On October 15 2012 13:52 Xenocryst wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 12:06 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 15 2012 12:04 micronesia wrote:On October 15 2012 12:01 GT350 wrote:
What irritates me is how NASA and other established institutions use 128,097 feet/24 miles during the Felix Baumgartner's record skydiving.
Why? I learned that metric is efficient and universal from grade school. But why are institutions still using other forms, especially the hideous imperial unit of measurement? People know how big a foot or a mile is (in fact, even an alien wouldn't have much trouble understanding feet.... can't say the same for meters XD) but they don't know how big a meter or a km is. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but that's generally what it is. I would argue your opinion is wrong. You are equating because of your specific knowledge that an alien would be able to easily understand imperial. Imperial is an absolutely astoundingly awful system of measurement. You can't possibly argue that an alien would find moving up by 10's harder than "Well this is 12, that is 24 and here is 1000 and well 4 make a x and 5 make a z" . But what if the alien's numerical system didn't use 10 as a base? say it used 12?
Wouldn't matter. I never made the assumption that they were in base 10, in fact in CS you're taught the transition of bases (or at least I was) based on the idea that aliens had 16 fingers and 16 toes and worked in base 16.
But there is no way you can say transitioning between base 10's and 16's is harder than going from 1 ridiculously randomly assumed number to another.
the measurement for a foot was decided after Henry the eighths foot was measured!
the measurement for a chain wad decided after... you guessed it! they measured a chain.
So yes it would be more difficult for them, but it would even be harder running around in circles with inches/feet/miles/furlongs/pounds. than incriments of 10
|
On October 15 2012 20:47 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 20:37 netherh wrote:On October 15 2012 20:19 zatic wrote:
Oh speaking of natural, why does an ounce of water not weigh one ounce? I want to know, seriously. Is there another liquid that does weigh an ounce? One ounce of water does weigh one ounce. One "fluid ounce" of water does not weigh the same as one ounce, because "fluid ounces" measure volume, not weight. Note, however, that using the imperial system, 1 fluid ounce of water does weigh 1 ounce (because the volume system was based on the weight system for water). Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouncehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce28.41g != 28.35g Anyone else?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce
In 1824, the British Parliament defined the imperial gallon as the volume of ten avoirdupois pounds of water. The gallon was divided into four quarts or eight pints. Each pint was divided into four gills or twenty fluid ounces, that is, five ounces for each gill. Thus, the mass of an imperial fluid ounce of water is one avoirdupois ounce (28.4 g). The US ounce is based on the earlier definition of one gallon equalling 231 cubic inches.
Anyone else?
|
On October 15 2012 20:38 17Sphynx17 wrote:
I really think Metric is the more proper once just because of the scaling it allows. You could argue the fact that what would be the imperial equivalent of a byte, kilobyte, megabyte and gigabyte? given how the imperial system approaches it, you might have four different names for those "metrics" which have no direct relationship to each other in terms of how it is spelled.
I guess the imperial equivalent of kilobyte, megabyte, etc... is to just measure everything in terms of floppy, cdrom and dvd.
"To install this game, you need at least 2 dvds, 6 cdroms and 23 floppies of storage space"
(Conversion factors: 451 floppies to the cdrom, 7.2 cdroms to the dvd)
|
explain to me how, in any way, the Imperial system is better. Itäs impossible
|
On October 15 2012 22:22 nebula. wrote:
explain to me how, in any way, the Imperial system is better. Itäs impossible
jdseemoreglass covered it in depth two pages ago 
|
On October 15 2012 22:22 nebula. wrote:
explain to me how, in any way, the Imperial system is better. Itäs impossible
It isn't. The only arguments for the imperial system that people give are:
- "I'm used to it" / "I was raised with it" / "I can tell how big something is from its imperial measurement because I have much experience with it"
- "Common objects in field X (usually engineering) are measured in imperial units out of tradition"
Both arguments are basically providing a conservative viewpoint where the way of least resistance, keeping things the way they are, is preferred over a solution that would ultimately be better in the long run.
If everyone changed to metric today, the current generation of Americans (and couple of other nations that still use imperial) would be confused for a bit, but one or two generations from now, it'd all be fine and everyone would have a system of measurement that makes sense.
|
On October 15 2012 22:29 Rannasha wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 22:22 nebula. wrote:
explain to me how, in any way, the Imperial system is better. Itäs impossible It isn't. The only arguments for the imperial system that people give are: - "I'm used to it" / "I was raised with it" / "I can tell how big something is from its imperial measurement because I have much experience with it" - "Common objects in field X (usually engineering) are measured in imperial units out of tradition" Both arguments are basically providing a conservative viewpoint where the way of least resistance, keeping things the way they are, is preferred over a solution that would ultimately be better in the long run. If everyone changed to metric today, the current generation of Americans (and couple of other nations that still use imperial) would be confused for a bit, but one or two generations from now, it'd all be fine and everyone would have a system of measurement that makes sense.
what common objects in engineering or any kind of science are measured in imperial units out of tradition? :p
|
On October 15 2012 22:30 nebula. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 22:29 Rannasha wrote:On October 15 2012 22:22 nebula. wrote:
explain to me how, in any way, the Imperial system is better. Itäs impossible It isn't. The only arguments for the imperial system that people give are: - "I'm used to it" / "I was raised with it" / "I can tell how big something is from its imperial measurement because I have much experience with it" - "Common objects in field X (usually engineering) are measured in imperial units out of tradition" Both arguments are basically providing a conservative viewpoint where the way of least resistance, keeping things the way they are, is preferred over a solution that would ultimately be better in the long run. If everyone changed to metric today, the current generation of Americans (and couple of other nations that still use imperial) would be confused for a bit, but one or two generations from now, it'd all be fine and everyone would have a system of measurement that makes sense. what common objects in engineering or any kind of science are measured in imperial units out of tradition? :p
Well.. Guinnes is meassured in Pints .
|
On October 15 2012 22:22 nebula. wrote:
explain to me how, in any way, the Imperial system is better. Itäs impossible
Allow me.
On October 15 2012 15:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Compiled reasons why the Metric system (*cough gay*) sucks and why Imperial is better.
1) When I measure, I measure like a man. Not like some girly European socialist. "Ooh, let's have some crumpets and walk a kilometer holding hands!" Pfff.
2) Kids love Fruit By The Foot. You want to give kids Fruit By The Meter? We already have an obesity epidemic you insensitive pricks.
3) Would you rather have your circumcised dick measured in manly inches or centimeters? That's what I thought.
4) Would you rather say you drank a fucking GALLON of Red Bull or 3.78 liters of English tea? Pfff again Europeans...
5) One meter is equal to the distance that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. WHAT IN THE ROYAL FUCK? An inch is about the length of your thumb, and a foot is about, you guessed it, your foot. You can put away your particle accelerator now.
6) One degree Celsius is equal to the fraction of 1/273.16 “of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water.” .... I... just... No. Fuck you celsius. Fuck you.
7) "Cause I would walk 500 kilometers and I would walk 500 more, just to be the man who walked 1000 kilometers to end up at your door." Hey, that's catchy!
8) I know what pounds per inch means. It makes sense. Who knows what the fuck a "Pascal" or a "Newton per meter" is? Enjoy having your tires blow out while you try to figure it out. That's tyres for people with small dicks.
9) Hey, Metric lovers. When are you gonna switch to a base-10 clock to measure time? Hypocrits.
10) Edit: Actually, no. Fuck number ten.
11) How many apostles did Jesus have again? 10? Even God uses Imperial.
12) "OMG it's SO hot, it's 38.4 degrees outside!" Again, fuck you celsius.
USA, Liberia, Myanmar 1-0 Rest of the world.
|
On October 15 2012 22:13 netherh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 20:47 zatic wrote:On October 15 2012 20:37 netherh wrote:On October 15 2012 20:19 zatic wrote:
Oh speaking of natural, why does an ounce of water not weigh one ounce? I want to know, seriously. Is there another liquid that does weigh an ounce? One ounce of water does weigh one ounce. One "fluid ounce" of water does not weigh the same as one ounce, because "fluid ounces" measure volume, not weight. Note, however, that using the imperial system, 1 fluid ounce of water does weigh 1 ounce (because the volume system was based on the weight system for water). Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouncehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce28.41g != 28.35g Anyone else? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounceIn 1824, the British Parliament defined the imperial gallon as the volume of ten avoirdupois pounds of water. The gallon was divided into four quarts or eight pints. Each pint was divided into four gills or twenty fluid ounces, that is, five ounces for each gill. Thus, the mass of an imperial fluid ounce of water is one avoirdupois ounce (28.4 g). The US ounce is based on the earlier definition of one gallon equalling 231 cubic inches. Anyone else?
Did you just diss zatic?
|
Standard = Metric.
Imperial = U.S.A. Standard.
No scientists, doctors, or anything in that direction use Imperial. It's a random bunch of numbers, seemingly just made up on the spot the moment the need for a measurement system arrived.
|
based on jdseemoreglasses's logic we should switch to base 5,280 clocks, like the good old imperial system x)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
