|
On October 16 2012 01:06 canikizu wrote: So are we using foot/feet because that makes it easier for alien? Besides that, is there any other benefit?
I don't really see any overwhelming benefits to imperial over metric.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
now that we have a clearer understanding of the flaws of american measurements let's discuss the flaws of cooking measurements.
the standard cup is pretty small and it's not cool to have to buy a measuring cup and spoons etc just to use recipes.
|
On October 16 2012 01:01 Matoo- wrote: We could rename "meter" in "leg", "liter" in "bladder" and so on and the metric, erm legic system would combine the best of both worlds and Americans can finally join us without looking back. I'd like a bladder of milk please, and give me a quarter leg of that bacon.
Is this really what Europeans think? We don't change to metric because we enjoy the imperial system? I don't think you'll find an American in this thread who will (seriously) say that the Imperial system is more intuitive or easier to understand. It's not. But it's the system we have, and it's so far ingrained that it would be hugely cost ineffective and impractical to change it, especially in our financial state.
I'll say it again, since all the "Murcans r dum" Europeans are ignoring it: I am an engineer and deal with the Imperial system because that is what irrigators in my state historically recorded their water rights by. If we were to change, it would require revising millions of unique state records so that they are in the metric system as opposed to the imperial system. Completely impractical.
|
On October 16 2012 01:09 oneofthem wrote: now that we have a clearer understanding of the flaws of american measurements let's discuss the flaws of cooking measurements.
the standard cup is pretty small and it's not cool to have to buy a measuring cup and spoons etc just to use recipes. 1 tea spoon 1 cup
How dafuq does a tea spoon of stuff look like? I don't think I've ever use a tea spoon for tea in my whole life.
|
On October 16 2012 00:51 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 00:49 Prog455 wrote:On October 15 2012 22:57 micronesia wrote:On October 15 2012 19:37 Prog455 wrote:On October 15 2012 12:29 micronesia wrote: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" . I don't see why you think I made such a claim. All I meant was a 'foot' is somewhat self explanatory... it's roughly the length of a human foot. A 'meter' by itself doesn't mean anything as recognizable. I'm not saying feet are better than meters lol... you all need to calm down. Why is this such a touchy subject? Do we need to add it to the list with religion and the like? The thing is that your statement is grossly inaccurate as 1 foot is 30.48 cm long. If you were to gather 50 men and 50 women from your workplace, school, etc. i hardly doubt that you would find more than a few people among those 100, who has a foot that is 30.48 cm +/- 5mm. The average US woman uses a size 9 shoe, which is approximately equal to a foot length of 25.3 cm (or 10 inches). This makes for a 15.3% difference between the average female foot length and the measure 1 foot. In other words: If an average american woman was to measure 10 feet (3.04 meter), based on the length of her own feet, she would 20.4 inches (51.8 cm) off. This means that if you were to measure 3 meters based on your foot size, you would be closer to 4 meters than 3 meters. I think the reason that this is somewhat of a touchy subject, is because of the fact that americans from time to time tend to claim that the american way of doing things is the best, even though it is obviously not. And that is pretty much the case when it comes to measurement systems. Even though the metric system is by far the most convenient, and most widespread, americans still claim that the "standard" system is the best. Needless to say this is not the case for all americans. sources: http://www.i18nguy.com/l10n/shoes.htmlhttp://www.statisticbrain.com/shoe-size-averages/ How is my statement grossly inaccurate. I didn't say "a foot is exactly the length of one foot, and everyone's foot is exactly the same length so this is great!" I said "an alien wouldn't have much trouble understanding feet.... can't say the same for meters." A foot is roughly the length of a human foot. If an alien didn't know what a meter was, I couldn't just say "a meter is roughly the length of a meter!" So after reading my post again, i find that i should not have used the phrase "grossly inaccurate". That statement was somewhat exaggerated. However, my point still stands that the notion of feet as a measure being more intuitive than the metric system, is limited to people who has grown up using feet and inches rather than centimeters and meters. And even in this case, it may aswell be just as intuitive to say that a distance is equal to 1 step, rather than 1 foot. In addition to this, it is also worth mentioning that the metric system will be more intuitive, or at least easier to understand, at certain distances. For instance, if you ask for the distance between your home and the nearest supermarket. If i tell you that the nearest supermarket is approximately 300 meters away from your home, you will know that it is just short of 1/3 kilometer. In comparison you could ask the same question. What is the distane to the nearest supermarket. If i told you that the distance is 1760 feet, it is nowhere near as intuitive that the distance is exactly 1/3 mile. What I have grown up with isn't really relevant. A foot is similar in size to the thing it's named after. A meter is far less obvious. I don't see why you keep trying to convince me that the metric system is better than the system we use in the USA... I don't even disagree with you about that. But I don't see how you've invalidated the one point I've made.
My point just is that the length of a foot barely is anymore obvious than the length of a meter. The reason is that either you need an accurate measure, and in those cases the length of an actual foot is just too inaccurate to even matter. Alternatively you just need a vague conception of a distance, and in those cases you might aswell just say that something is the lenght of a hand, an arm or a step etc.
And even if you find 1 foot to be the most obvious measurement, i still find that to be a very minor advantage over the metric system, considering how everything else about the standard system is very counter intuitive.
P.S
I am sorry if i came off as a rude person, that was of course not the intention.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i still don't know what tablespoon is used for.
|
On October 16 2012 01:13 oneofthem wrote: i still don't know what tablespoon is used for.
tables
|
what's retarded in cooking is that a teaspoon doesn't even remotely match up to an actual teaspoon (the metal utensil), same goes with a tablespoon, or a cup...
|
On October 16 2012 01:18 foxmeep wrote: what's retarded in cooking is that a teaspoon doesn't even remotely match up to an actual teaspoon (the metal utensil), same goes with a tablespoon, or a cup...
what? tablespoon is pretty accurate imo, same with teaspoon
|
On October 16 2012 00:36 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 00:30 Toadesstern wrote: Noone cares about D/M/Y or M/D/Y though. If I type 16.10.2012 everyone knows I'm referring to tomorrow. If you're typing 10.16.2012 I immediately know you're referring to tomorrow. :p
What's really maddening is people using the AM/PM-system, especially when referring to 00:00AM and 00:00PM in combination with dates. No idea which out of those 2 is the one that stands for 24:00 and if it says 00:00 DAY-X I have no idea if it's on the start of DayX (between DayX and Day(X-1)) or at the end of DayX (between DayX and Dax(X+1)). THAT'S just stupid. Any day before the 13th of a month, and you're screwed. + Show Spoiler [other people who asked the same] +On October 16 2012 00:35 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 00:30 Toadesstern wrote: Noone cares about D/M/Y or M/D/Y though. If I type 16.10.2012 everyone knows I'm referring to tomorrow. If you're typing 10.16.2012 I immediately know you're referring to tomorrow. :p
What's really maddening is people using the AM/PM-system, especially when referring to 00:00AM and 00:00PM in combination with dates. No idea which out of those 2 is the one that stands for 24:00 and if it says 00:00 DAY-X I have no idea if it's on the start of DayX (between DayX and Day(X-1)) or at the end of DayX (between DayX and Dax(X+1)). THAT'S just stupid. Well, most cases you have like 8.7.2012 or 1.4.2012, then you just lost On October 16 2012 00:36 nebula. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 00:30 Toadesstern wrote: Noone cares about D/M/Y or M/D/Y though. If I type 16.10.2012 everyone knows I'm referring to tomorrow. If you're typing 10.16.2012 I immediately know you're referring to tomorrow. :p What about for example 8.5.2012? On October 16 2012 00:37 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 00:30 Toadesstern wrote: Noone cares about D/M/Y or M/D/Y though. If I type 16.10.2012 everyone knows I'm referring to tomorrow. If you're typing 10.16.2012 I immediately know you're referring to tomorrow. :p
What's really maddening is people using the AM/PM-system, especially when referring to 00:00AM and 00:00PM in combination with dates. No idea which out of those 2 is the one that stands for 24:00 and if it says 00:00 DAY-X I have no idea if it's on the start of DayX (between DayX and Day(X-1)) or at the end of DayX (between DayX and Dax(X+1)). THAT'S just stupid. Yeah, and if I write 03/04/2013 do you know off the bat if I'm talking about March 4th, 2013 or April 3, 2013? Because I sure as hell don't. Most comprehensible way, for me, is Y/M/D (largest unit to smallest unit), but no one uses it here.
I didn't choose 16.10. for it being a number bigger than 12, I chose it for being tomorrow.
That's simply where reading comprehension /context kicks in. I really never had a problem with that at all. Of course it's impossible out of context but it usually isn't a problem at all and frankly speaking when talking english to friends I'm usually saying Oct 15 as well although I'm used to 15ter Okt from german.
Although I'd never write 10.15.2012 lol. Not even when chatting english.
|
On October 16 2012 01:13 oneofthem wrote: i still don't know what tablespoon is used for.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition of tablespoon
Nailed it.
(Why do so many people say "I don't even know what X is" when they can just look it up >.>)
|
On October 16 2012 01:11 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 01:01 Matoo- wrote: We could rename "meter" in "leg", "liter" in "bladder" and so on and the metric, erm legic system would combine the best of both worlds and Americans can finally join us without looking back. I'd like a bladder of milk please, and give me a quarter leg of that bacon. Is this really what Europeans think? We don't change to metric because we enjoy the imperial system? I don't think you'll find an American in this thread who will (seriously) say that the Imperial system is more intuitive or easier to understand. It's not. But it's the system we have, and it's so far ingrained that it would be hugely cost ineffective and impractical to change it, especially in our financial state. I'll say it again, since all the "Murcans r dum" Europeans are ignoring it: I am an engineer and deal with the Imperial system because that is what irrigators in my state historically recorded their water rights by. If we were to change, it would require revising millions of unique state records so that they are in the metric system as opposed to the imperial system. Completely impractical.
Yeah but you will have to change at some point, the amount of data to convert will only get worse. That or you're stuck using it forever. The only 3 countries not using SI are Burma, Liberia and the US. Did you know that fields like medecine, science, most parts of the government, most industries and also the army uses the metric system in the US? I'm sure it could be introduced for the rest of the US and be learned in one or two generations.
|
On October 16 2012 01:09 oneofthem wrote: now that we have a clearer understanding of the flaws of american measurements let's discuss the flaws of cooking measurements.
the standard cup is pretty small and it's not cool to have to buy a measuring cup and spoons etc just to use recipes.
Man, you're so right about that.
Those measurements are relics of a time when only women would cook and bake and every woman had a firm grasp of how much stuff would fit onto a tablespoon or how large cups are.
When talking about "cups" in a cooking sense, they really mean half a human sized coffee cup, which ruined my first experiments with baking...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19943590
they give the record in feet, then approximate in miles. okay, but why not yards? this is a very serious problem with imperial distance measurements in that yards are harder to visualize on a large object scale. the best trick is to turn it into meters, but maybe americans do it differently or are great at dividing by 1.6
suppose you are only allowed to use medium level measurements and no approximation is given. an american would be at a distinct disadvantage because his conversions are much harder and more frequent.
|
On October 16 2012 01:19 NeonFox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 01:11 ZasZ. wrote:On October 16 2012 01:01 Matoo- wrote: We could rename "meter" in "leg", "liter" in "bladder" and so on and the metric, erm legic system would combine the best of both worlds and Americans can finally join us without looking back. I'd like a bladder of milk please, and give me a quarter leg of that bacon. Is this really what Europeans think? We don't change to metric because we enjoy the imperial system? I don't think you'll find an American in this thread who will (seriously) say that the Imperial system is more intuitive or easier to understand. It's not. But it's the system we have, and it's so far ingrained that it would be hugely cost ineffective and impractical to change it, especially in our financial state. I'll say it again, since all the "Murcans r dum" Europeans are ignoring it: I am an engineer and deal with the Imperial system because that is what irrigators in my state historically recorded their water rights by. If we were to change, it would require revising millions of unique state records so that they are in the metric system as opposed to the imperial system. Completely impractical. Yeah but you will have to change at some point, the amount of data to convert will only get worse. That or you're stuck using it forever. The only 3 countries not using SI are Burma, Liberia and the US. Did you know that fields like medecine, science, most parts of the government, most industries and also the army uses the metric system in the US? I'm sure it could be introduced for the rest of the US and be learned in one or two generations.
But to serve what purpose, exactly? Using the metric system for medicine, science, and similar fields (including other engineering disciplines) makes sense to me because in many cases they can be internationally collaborative efforts. My job, however, is not internationally-based, and barely extends outside the state of Colorado. What practical purpose would it serve to switch to metric? To make it easier for college graduates coming into the industry? That was no problem at all, it didn't take me very long at all to get used to using imperial units in engineering.
That's the biggest thing that pisses me off about this discussion. The Imperial system is cumbersome and counter-intuitive, but it's there. In some cases, especially when it involves working with other countries, it makes sense to switch to the metric system in the U.S. In other cases, it does not. Why is it so essential that the entire world use the exact same standard of measurement, in all cases, without exception, even when it would cost huge sums of money?
It's easier said than done to "change your system, it's stupid," and just makes people look short-sighted and arrogant.
|
As an engineer living in America, I use standard units when I am forced to. I usually convert into metric as soon as possible though and convert back for finalized work. Unless I'm drafting because then it just becomes a pain converting, though there is less need to.
|
On October 16 2012 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 01:19 NeonFox wrote:On October 16 2012 01:11 ZasZ. wrote:On October 16 2012 01:01 Matoo- wrote: We could rename "meter" in "leg", "liter" in "bladder" and so on and the metric, erm legic system would combine the best of both worlds and Americans can finally join us without looking back. I'd like a bladder of milk please, and give me a quarter leg of that bacon. Is this really what Europeans think? We don't change to metric because we enjoy the imperial system? I don't think you'll find an American in this thread who will (seriously) say that the Imperial system is more intuitive or easier to understand. It's not. But it's the system we have, and it's so far ingrained that it would be hugely cost ineffective and impractical to change it, especially in our financial state. I'll say it again, since all the "Murcans r dum" Europeans are ignoring it: I am an engineer and deal with the Imperial system because that is what irrigators in my state historically recorded their water rights by. If we were to change, it would require revising millions of unique state records so that they are in the metric system as opposed to the imperial system. Completely impractical. Yeah but you will have to change at some point, the amount of data to convert will only get worse. That or you're stuck using it forever. The only 3 countries not using SI are Burma, Liberia and the US. Did you know that fields like medecine, science, most parts of the government, most industries and also the army uses the metric system in the US? I'm sure it could be introduced for the rest of the US and be learned in one or two generations. But to serve what purpose, exactly? Using the metric system for medicine, science, and similar fields (including other engineering disciplines) makes sense to me because in many cases they can be internationally collaborative efforts. My job, however, is not internationally-based, and barely extends outside the state of Colorado. What practical purpose would it serve to switch to metric? To make it easier for college graduates coming into the industry? That was no problem at all, it didn't take me very long at all to get used to using imperial units in engineering. That's the biggest thing that pisses me off about this discussion. The Imperial system is cumbersome and counter-intuitive, but it's there. In some cases, especially when it involves working with other countries, it makes sense to switch to the metric system in the U.S. In other cases, it does not. Why is it so essential that the entire world use the exact same standard of measurement, in all cases, without exception, even when it would cost huge sums of money? It's easier said than done to "change your system, it's stupid," and just makes people look short-sighted and arrogant.
So that everyone who is internationally based doesn't have to use two different systems? Also I'm not sure why it would cost "huge sums" of money. huge compared to the money you have available or huge compared to the military expenses of the US?
|
Worst thing about cooking measurements is. Even if you manage to find a standard teaspoon or tablespoon. How high should you stack salt or sugar or spice or whatever on it? Should you build as high a mountain as can stand on the spoon without falling? Or be a cheap fuck and leave it absolutely flat?
|
On October 16 2012 01:34 claybones wrote: As an engineer living in America, I use standard units when I am forced to. I usually convert into metric as soon as possible though and convert back for finalized work.
You have to be careful about that though, because depending what you're working on and how many calculations/conversions you are making, it can actually become difficult to retain accuracy across the systems of measurement. I won't speak for your job, but that's just what I've noticed when I've tried to do it that way. For me, it's just easier to get used to Imperial and stick with it throughout since that's what the final result needs to be.
|
On October 16 2012 01:24 oneofthem wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19943590 they give the record in feet, then approximate in miles. okay, but why not yards? this is a very serious problem with imperial distance measurements in that yards are harder to visualize on a large object scale. the best trick is to turn it into meters, but maybe americans do it differently or are great at dividing by 1.6 suppose you are only allowed to use medium level measurements and no approximation is given. an american would be at a distinct disadvantage because his conversions are much harder and more frequent.
If you dont live and breathe football, you aren't nearly american enough. Thats why you're having trouble with yards.
|
|
|
|
|
|