So I’m bored and will likely have to work all night in front of the computer.
As you know, there are different ways to describe how tall someone is, how much he weighs etc.
Most of these systems have a long history (feet), others are somewhat younger (metre).
Now I think some are better then others.
What do you think? If you’d be in charge and could unify or impose a new “metric” system, how would it look like?
Inches and feet suck. Metres and centimetres all the way. I’m 5’6’’ 1/2 is way more complicated and unprecise then 170 cm.
Is 1 000 000 000 a Billion or Milliard? Short scale all the way!
Lbs vs KG. A tie. Both are OK, while pounds are a bit more precise, I feel that KGs are better suited for describing human weight.
Loser: Stone
Celsius vs Fahrenheit; again, a tie. Fahrenheit are good for everyday use (0=freezing, 100= very hot) , and Celsius are better if things get more scientific, even when it’s just about boiling water.
I live in Canada so I need to know both, which I don’t. A little of this and a little of that, I get by. And the rule of Iron is a hundred pounds is a hundred pounds, I can live with that.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Celsius vs Fahrenheit; again, a tie. Fahrenheit are good for everyday use (0=freezing, 100= very hot) , and Celsius are better if things get more scientific, even when it’s just about boiling water.
[/quote]
One thing the imperial system has going for it: Construction material sold in feet or yards is very easy to divide in 2, 3, 4, 6, etc.
If you want to split a 1 meter plank in 3, you have to mark at 33.33cm… with a yard, you find the 12 and 24 inch marks. Divide by 6? Every 6 inches or every 16.66cm… argh.
Really short measurements (Ex. length of a C=C double bond) - nm or A
Short measurements (Ex. height) - feet and inches
Long Measurements (Ex. running distance) - m and km
Temperature - F (more precise than C)
Inches and feet suck. Metres and centimetres all the way. I’m 5’6’’ 1/2 is way more complicated and unprecise then 170 cm.
…
Being 6 feet tall is way better than being 1.8 meters.
And drinking a gallon of beer is better than drinking 0.0185 hogsheads. [/quote]
Hmm. Maybe it sounds nice when you’re exactly 6 ft tall. But since not many are exactly 6 ft but rather 6’2’'and 3/4, cm are better. Also, Metres has better benchmarks. over 95% of the pop live between 5ft, 6ft & 7ft which sound silly, while the same holds true for 1,5 m (western midget or female asian) and 2m (big dude or female freak).
@Gallon. It sounds good, yeah. But then again, let’s introduce you to our friend “Ma�?”…
Only 2 countries in the world don’t use the metric system as the standard. If you travel a lot, chances are you’ll need to be comfy with meters and grams.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
pookie wrote:
okaz wrote:
I got some cake mix yesterday, it said to add 60 cubic centimeters of milk o.O
Japan uses the metric system, but occasionally you’ll see something odd like that.
Since a milliliter is a cubic centimeter, isn’t that just a roundabout way of saying 60ml?
Hmmmmm…not 600ml?
Or have I missed some internet irony/sarcasm ?
Everyone I know in England uses good old fashioned stones for weight. 14lbs = 1 stone. Everyone knows that a big guy is around 18 stone and a skinny bugger is about 9 stone. Nice and simple.
Most people seem quite able to use feet and inches and miles alongside the metric system without going completely insane.
I also like a nice imperial pint of beer/milk/whatever, much nicer than 568ml in metric.
Metric all the way. I grew up on “standard” measurements, but metric is way more precise and standard.
Standard measurements are basically retarted. Yes, retarted, b/c its going backwards. There’s no real standard. measurements are base 12 eh? Weight is not. 16 oz = 1 lb? Who came up with this? Makes my head hurt. There’s a lack of logic here.
I’ll stick to metric. Its I use in the lab anyways.
