US going metric?

alohacyberian wrote:

"MMcC" wrote in message
...
"alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
Can you tell the difference between 84 and 85 F ? I have enough
trouble

No, but, I can tell the difference between 70 and 72.

But can you tell the difference between 71 and 72?

If a 2 degree F difference is as low as you can go then Celsius would work
just fine as 1C is 1.8F


But, as I said, media weather reporting and forecasting is unlikely to use
decimals. KM

If their viewers cared enough for it to make a difference to them, they
probably would.

DMW (Current local temp -16.3°C)

alohacyberian wrote:

"Bob Myers" wrote in message
...
"alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
As I said, people in Hawaii may complain when it's 70 degrees, but, won't
if
it's 72. Some people who live in climates where there is very little
variation can certainly tell the difference. When it's 70 degrees, most
Hawaiians will wear jackets or sweaters. KM

OK, so they'll complain at 21 deg. C but not at 22 deg. C.
What's the problem?

There are already many, many examples of places with climates
very similar to Hawai'i, and yet the residents are quite at ease with
temperatures in Celsius. Why should we think Hawai'ians can't also
adapt to the other system?
Bob M.


I'm not acting as a spokesperson for Hawaiians or Americans, I'm merely
stating the way it is in light of the fact that Americans are slow or
resistent to accepting the metric system, particularly temperatures. If you
don't want to believe that, don't. I already stated numerous times that I
think the metric system has it all over the alternatives, but, the fact of
the matter remains that though you and I may be enamored with total metrics,
a good deal of the rest of Americans are not and will not be. If you want to
see that as a "problem" or live in the world of "problems", be my guest. If I
were to tell many, many Americans that at this moment it's 19 degrees celsius
where I live, they wouldn't have any idea if that's hot or cold. Is that a
problem?

Change takes adjustment. I remember in kindergarten (mid 70's) making a
"thermometer" out of cardboard and red string. The scale was in
Farenheit. Not too long after, maybe the same month, everything went
metric. I semi-adjusted. I understand Celsius over Farenheit, ml over fl
oz, km/h over mph, but grew up with and still have a better grasp of lbs
over kg (standing on the scale), ft over m (chalk marks on the wall as we
grew), and miles over km (but only in the country, where I was told early
on that the distance between two gravel roads is generally 1 mile). I'm
sure all those who started school after me had a greater and greater feel
and comprehension for metric. Give me a temperature in Farenheit and I
have very little clue how hot or cold it is. Except for -40F, I know
that's -40°C. I wish I had no use for ever knowing that. Other than that
Farenheit to me is in 10 degree ranges (60's somewhat cool, 70's
comfortable, 80's warm, and so on). Most of that is just being forced to
adapt to old Farenheit scale thermostats, and visits to the States and
wanting to have a general feel for what the temp was like outside before I
left the hotel room without a jacket.

DMW

Greg Johnson wrote:

Is my memory failing, or did NASA have a problem ten years, or so, ago
with a launch where some calculations were made in metrics and some were
not?

I believe that was one of the probes to Mars. One group used metric
(manufacturing/development end), the other (NASA) used Imperial. Oops.


DMW

In article ,
says...

"sammacel" wrote in message
om...
"Don Howe" wrote in message
news:HqmKb.969728$9l5.470462@pd7tw2no...

Teaching kids won't do it. You need laws to force manufacturers to
change their products to metric or really to produce separate product
lines to support all the old stuff for years. Tremendous expense
(think hundreds of billions) for no great benefit and certainly a
significant amount of chaos and shortages. Not politically feasible
and why mess with a system that works since all will slowly go metric
as needed?

The UK has proved that. We've been teaching kids metric since the 70's. It
hasn't really worked.
[snip]

The Seattle Times had a very interesting article on metric measurements a
few weeks ago. After receiving many letters from readers pointing out
the advantages of the metric system, the Times' home improvement reporter
visited a Home Depot near Vancouver (British Columbia, not Washington :-)
) and made a few observations, including:

- Dimensional lumber was sold in US sizes (e.g., 2x4, 4x6)
- He couldn't find a metric tape measure

There were others, but those are the two that stood out. Interesting
considering this took place in a country that officially went metric ~30
years ago.

===
Steve
Shoreline, Washington USA

6 Jan 2004, 1856 PST

(me) wrote in message om...
(Abe Kouris) wrote in message . com...

[snip]
Actually, even the Frenchies and other Europeans resisted the metric
system after it was introduced, but their 19th century authoritarian
governments (Does "Napoleon ring a bell?) made it happen. And even
today, Europeans apparently have some non-official, but core
convenient, units in common use: the German "pfund" (500 grams), and
German and Scandanvian plumber supposedly measure pipe diameters in
"thumbs" or "inches."


Strange belief that units should serve people, instead of people
serving units. They use the units that serve them.


Except, of course, that a Euro "pfund" or "livre" is based on the
metric system, no? It's nothing more than half a kilo, dressed up
with a nostalgic name. Its use just shows how stupidly senitmental
humans are.


My guess is that the Americans won't convert in common use until the
American Empire collapses and they won't be able to dictate to
suppliers like they do today. Until then, I don't see America going
metric in comman usage even though Americas, in reality, a metric
country.


It is sort of an interesting lesson in economics. When the economic
incentive is there, folks will change. There will be economic incentives
for a long time in some industries NOT to change.

Actually, most industrial specification in the US, especially for
products that are possibly going to be experted, are done in metric
already. The holdouts are things that would be too much of a pain
into the butt to change, like land surveying, or building standards.
But we don't export land or houses to Europe and Asia, so who cares?

Probably more
accurately, in some applications, there is little economic advantage
to metric units.

Both systems are equally accurate. Liknlater's book describes some of
the numerical advantages of the US customary units that are divisible
by 4. For activities that involve halving and doubling quantities by
hand, use of such as system can be highy accrate without resort to
mechanical aids. But now, almost eveyrhting commercial is measured
out mechanically, so that advantage is gone.

Metrics have won worldwide, the basic idea of the system is that it's
a standardized system of measures derived form easily reproducible
natural phenomena rather than based on the size of the king's personal
body parts. The meter was originally a fraction of a degree of
longitude (or maybe it was latitude), now it's the wavelenght of light
emitted by a certain gas, and the foot is defined in terms of the
meter. Jefferson, too, wanted to develop a metric system, but the
Frenchies beat him to it (and Congress dithered and dallied until it
was too late, and government land needed to be surveyed and sold to
the speculators, so they just continued with the traditional units.)

My personal suspicion is that by the time
any wholesale conversion takes place, you'll see a fairly basterdized
metric system around the world.

No you won't the basis is pretty standardized, even in the few
countries that don't use it in everyday life. Standardized weights
and measures are essential for any kind of globalized economy.

I'm already seeing "kilograms force"

That's just *******ized physics, not *******ized metric system.

I've heard of metric "bricks" that aren't multiples of 10 of any
metric unit.

Then they're not metric units. What are they? Are they based on
metric units or are they some non-standardized units that trademen use
to cheat their customers?

A guy I knew in snow removal measured in "trucks".
I asked him how many tons or cubic feet and he didn't know.
He knew how many trucks to the mile.


That's just a question of precision, and the miles, being based on the
foot, is, in the end, based on the meter, so he could estimate "trucks
per kilometer" very easily.

Those kind of "organic" units
are common and don't convert well to arbitrary metric values.

Trucks per mile * 1.6 = trucks per kilometer

If your snow removal guy lived in Europe or Canada, he'd be quoting
you "trucks per kilometer," too. So what makes "trucks per mile" so
organic? It's just an American quirk. By Gawd, we red-blooded
'Mericans ain't gonna use some pansy-assed system devised by a bunch
of Frenchies! Totally irrational.
The joke is that the US customary units are based entirely on the
metric system.

Abe
(who is just finished his 0.5 liter bottle of Coke. Now, if the US
goes metric, maybe we'll call it a "pint," but it will still be half
a liter.)

[snip]

The Seattle Times had a very interesting article on metric measurements a
few weeks ago. After receiving many letters from readers pointing out
the advantages of the metric system, the Times' home improvement reporter
visited a Home Depot near Vancouver (British Columbia, not Washington :-)
) and made a few observations, including:

- Dimensional lumber was sold in US sizes (e.g., 2x4, 4x6)
- He couldn't find a metric tape measure


The last statement would make me wonder about the accuracy of the rest
of the article since the vast majority of tape measures show both
metric and imperial. Perhaps he didn't count this as 'metric'

Richard wrote:
[snip]

The Seattle Times had a very interesting article on metric
measurements a few weeks ago. After receiving many letters from
readers pointing out the advantages of the metric system, the
Times' home improvement reporter visited a Home Depot near
Vancouver (British Columbia, not Washington :-) ) and made a few
observations, including:

- Dimensional lumber was sold in US sizes (e.g., 2x4, 4x6)
- He couldn't find a metric tape measure


The last statement would make me wonder about the accuracy of the rest
of the article since the vast majority of tape measures show both
metric and imperial. Perhaps he didn't count this as 'metric'

....and a 2x4 is not really a 2"x4" piece of wood, as a matter of fact
its closer to 1 1/2"x 3 3/8" or 42mm x 86mm. So what should we call it?

"Hey Bob, pass me up a couple of 42x86's, oh and a 6 pack, eh!" ;-)

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 04:02:40 GMT, Richard
wrote:


[snip]

The Seattle Times had a very interesting article on metric measurements a
few weeks ago. After receiving many letters from readers pointing out
the advantages of the metric system, the Times' home improvement reporter
visited a Home Depot near Vancouver (British Columbia, not Washington :-)
) and made a few observations, including:

- Dimensional lumber was sold in US sizes (e.g., 2x4, 4x6)
- He couldn't find a metric tape measure

The last statement would make me wonder about the accuracy of the rest
of the article since the vast majority of tape measures show both
metric and imperial. Perhaps he didn't count this as 'metric'

Huh. We have five tape measures around the house and not one has
metric on it at all. Maybe you should go to Home Depot and do a
survey.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Richard wrote:

[snip]

The Seattle Times had a very interesting article on metric measurements a
few weeks ago. After receiving many letters from readers pointing out
the advantages of the metric system, the Times' home improvement reporter
visited a Home Depot near Vancouver (British Columbia, not Washington :-)
) and made a few observations, including:

- Dimensional lumber was sold in US sizes (e.g., 2x4, 4x6)
- He couldn't find a metric tape measure


The last statement would make me wonder about the accuracy of the rest
of the article since the vast majority of tape measures show both
metric and imperial. Perhaps he didn't count this as 'metric'

My dad recently bought me a tape measure (I couldn't find mine one day when
he was visiting and needed it). It was Imperial only -- probably seemed
fine to him. I didn't realize that until the first time I went to use it.
I don't recall what I was measuring, but I needed metric (I needed to do
some algebra with the measurement and it was getting cumbersome with inches
and feet) and either found a ruler or had to convert the measurement to
cm. I've since found my two other tape measures, both of which have metric
and Imperial.

DMW

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 04:02:40 GMT, Richard
wrote:


[snip]

The Seattle Times had a very interesting article on metric
measurements a few weeks ago. After receiving many letters from
readers pointing out the advantages of the metric system, the
Times' home improvement reporter visited a Home Depot near
Vancouver (British Columbia, not Washington :-) ) and made a few
observations, including:

- Dimensional lumber was sold in US sizes (e.g., 2x4, 4x6)
- He couldn't find a metric tape measure

The last statement would make me wonder about the accuracy of the
rest of the article since the vast majority of tape measures show
both metric and imperial. Perhaps he didn't count this as 'metric'

Huh. We have five tape measures around the house and not one has
metric on it at all. Maybe you should go to Home Depot and do a
survey.

I checked my collection - of the four I could find three had metric on
them, the one that did not came from Virginia (I live in Vancouver
B.C.).


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *