Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Metric system in the usa
- Thread starter Mac'nCheese
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I like my inches in centimetres, because it seems longer, and my pounds in stones, because it seems lighter.
Nicely put. Not only that, but there are some pretty neat relationships between different types of units, where one can be derived from another. For example, one litre of water weighs 1 kg and is contained within a 10 x 10 x 10 cm volume. That makes for some relatively simple mental conversions if you're ever stuck without your iPhone unit-conversion app one day.
For a country that prides itself on technological advancement, I find it truly perplexing that the USA can't fully embrace so brilliant a system.
Sure, change is painful… It's a bit like getting into cold water. But the best way is just to jump in and get it over and done with quickly, like Australia did back in the 70s.
Stop dabbling your toes in and fart-arsing around America! Just dive in and join the rest of the world! The water is great once you get used to it.
It's also easier in calculations - each unit is a derivative of the seven base units, each with a conversion factor of 1.
As for having a feel for the numbers, he's not alone. I have nearly 20 years of professional experience using Imperial units as a mechanical engineer, as does every mechanical engineer in the U.S. Switching systems (or, rather, making it mandatory) will require all of these engineers to re-learn the formulae they've known and used for decades. That's the equivalent of millions of man-years of engineering experience down the drain. That isn't progress, no matter how much you might want want to believe it is.
SI != metric.
I deal with both daily - our electrical system (Watts, Amperes, Volts, Ohms, etc.) are all metric and SI. Using Imperial units doesn't make understanding those SI units any harder.
I was an engineering student in the U.S., and I learned to use both systems - and yes, calculations using SI units were simpler. But the reality is that mechanical engineers here do not measure refrigeration in Watts, they use Btuh or tons of refrigeration. We don't use degrees Celsius, we use degrees Fahrenheit. We don't measure airflow in liters per second (which isn't even an SI unit; the proper convention would be cubic meters per second), we use cubic feet per minute. And as such, that's the system I've grown comfortable with as a professional.
Which translates to an incredible cost of switching, and a near-certainty of an avalanche of errors.
You'd make a great point if weather forecasts were all we used temperature measurements for.
For chilled water, a 12 degree (F) temperature differential equates to 2 gpm per ton of refrigeration. Every mechanical engineer knows that. Force him to use SI units, and the game changes completely; calculations that could once be done in your head now require a calculator. You would achieve the opposite effect.
Measuring or counting out two is always easier than measuring or counting out thirty.
I don't know that there are benefits to using customary units; but there are indeed benefits to not switching units. Not the same thing.
That's one opinion. Period.
If it were so damn easy, everyone would know it, now, wouldn't they?
I think that it's simply about money. It would just be too expensive to change over to the Metric system in the US at this point.
To change all of the highway signs alone would be a pricey undertaking.
To change all of the highway signs alone would be a pricey undertaking.
No, it wouldn't. Many non-American institutions do teach the Imperial system on the side, all you have to do it put the focus on the metric system to get a smoother transition. Two generations later, it'll already become familiar.
That doesn't put them off for replacing stolen, beat up or vandalized ones on a daily basis, and frankly, the U.S. government should put a lot more effort in subsidizing money for streets and traffic. For a country that emphasizes the use of private and corporate vehicles, you have a piss-poor way of supporting it.
I see no reason why 99, 99.5, and 100 are easier to track than 37.2, 37.5, and 37.7. As you said, we accept body temp to be 98.6 and 37.0 in Celsius. If decimals are difficult to remember, then clearly we should pick the scale that represents normal body temp as an integer, right?
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you?
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course.
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words?
Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them. You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml?
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
I don't know. I like the current system. The middle part of your pinky finger is about an inch. Your foot is about a foot. From your nose to the tip of your stretched arm is a yard.
The only way I know the metric system is 39 inches in a meter, centimeter is the width of a dime, and a kilometer is half a mile. I need something to help me visualize stuff like body parts. That is why the imperial system was developed.
Plus it is convenient if you don't have a ruler and you need to measure something, get your middle part of your pinky and start measuring. Real handy.
The only way I know the metric system is 39 inches in a meter, centimeter is the width of a dime, and a kilometer is half a mile. I need something to help me visualize stuff like body parts. That is why the imperial system was developed.
Plus it is convenient if you don't have a ruler and you need to measure something, get your middle part of your pinky and start measuring. Real handy.
Last edited:
Not progress because you'd have to relearn something? Mate, what progress would ever have been made if people always held to that argument? In the 80's/90's there were probably more than a few people in the design/publishing industry saying, 'Sorry, can't switch to Macs… Got 20 years experience rubbing Letraset down and maintaining my bromide machine.'
Last edited:
Too hard for some people to learn and there's already a system that works just as well in place.
This argument is just too funny. Right, people are going to suddenly start missing exits they've always taken once the metric system comes in. Oh, and all the old houses that were built to Imperial measurements will have to be torn down and rebuilt.
Guys, to anyone living in a country that's already made the switch, your arguments really do sound very Chicken Little. The switch won't be cheap or easy in the short term, but one thinks it's inevitable eventually. Why keep putting it off onto the next generation? Your kids WILL thank you if you switch today.
Growing up in a metric country (French speaking Switzerland) it was a canette, and Wikipedia reveals a veritable plethora of other colloquial terms in French depending on your location.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verre_à_bière
Including: Demi, Pinte, Distingué, Véritable, Baron, Mini-chevalier, Chope, Sérieux, Canette, ... (the bold one should look somewhat familiar
)It's just like I said earlier about the pound. In everyday use there's not much difference between a 454 g pound and a 500 g "pound".
B
You missed my point; it isn't progress because it's an enormous step backward. It's not the "learning something new" part, it's the "throwing away everything you already know."
I would see your point if switching everything to metric would actually make things more efficient, but it wouldn't. People who use Imperial units are already comfortable with it - the system already works, and isn't broken.
Adopting the metric system doesn't mean other more informal units of measurement will disappear from popular usage. In Australia you order a schooner or middy of beer. In some pubs it's a pint. Teaspoons won't suddenly disappear from your kitchen or your recipes. Fear not.
Semantics. Your argument boils down to the pain of change.
Again, the real crux of your argument is that people are 'comfortable' with what they already know. If you were to put that aside and judge between the two systems objectively, I can't see how anyone would actually choose imperial over metric. Metric is the future. No, check that — it's actually the present. You're living in the past Tomorrow.
The cost of change. There's a difference.
No, once again, it's not about comfort; it's about experience. I learned mostly SI units when I was in college, I'm quite comfortable with using those units - but the industry doesn't use those units. I learned, and became an expert in, the units used by the industry. You would ask millions of engineers, technicians, etc. to throw away years or even decades of experience simply to change a system that isn't broken.
Yes, it's a system that has its roots in the past, but the system still works. There's no compelling reason to change it. There's no efficiency to be gained.
This reminds me of the Dvorack keyboard layout vs the familiar QWERTY.
The Dvorack is objectively superior because it allows for higher wpm speeds than QWERTY. At the time of keyboard construction, however, Dvorack was prone to a lot more jamming by typists who were too fast for the physical limitations of the machine. Obviously that isn't a problem in the digital era, so logically we should switch to Dvorack if were had the option of starting from the beginning.
But, we're not starting from the beginning, are we? At this point switching to a new keyboard layout would be a huge undertaking for perhaps minimal gain.
The same applies to the metric system. At best it can offer minimal gains for the average person (something which, as I have pointed out above, may not be true in all cases) while costing a great deal. Even in the best of times, I think it would foolish to squander billions over such a petty thing when companies are free to shift production to be maximally efficient for themselves. If a company will make more money (or save it) using metric, then it will. There's no need to mandate it across every facet of life.
I mean, it's not as if we prevent companies from selling goods in metric quantities; if that was the case, then you'd have a good point.
I don't buy that for a second. As someone who works in the construction industry and has to deal with fractions of inches and materials that are odd nominal dimensions and even odder actual dimensions, I can tell you that there is a ****-ton of efficiency to be gained by getting away from bricks that are 3-5/8" deep, interior sheetrock walls that are 4-7/8" thick, and ceiling grids that are 15/16" wide.
Can a guy who's been working construction for 30 years add this stuff up in his head? Sure. But all along the way - from the architect, to the contractor, to the fabricator, to the installer - there is a chance for miscalculation because of our goofy system of measurement, and the savings from going to SI would be both in time spent designing and time spent correcting errors in the field.
Yes, there is a cost, both monetary and emotional - but we need to just rip the bandage off, already. "It's what I'm used to" is a tired excuse.
When the Mac first came out, with it's GUI and mouse, it wasn't a runaway success, although to those in the know it was vastly superior to PCs running DOS. The arguments for staying with DOS were no doubt similar to yours… 'I spent years becoming an expert in DOS. I am comfortable with it. It works just fine. There is no need to change. Besides, it would be too costly to change.'
When you say there is 'no compelling reason to change', you're ignoring all the point already made. Base-10. Derived units. Consistent prefixes. This makes for much simpler calculations and formula in practice. It might be harder for an old fella like you to have to relearn things, but for the next generation of children learning from scratch, the metric system simplifies things so much. Not only that, but the USA is increasingly out of step with the rest of the world in this regard. So not only is this generation of Americans making it more difficult for future generations of Americans, but it's really complicating things for everyone in this age of global communication.
Okay, imagine for a moment that one of the US states wasn't using the decimal system for counting. Instead, they had a system where letters were used to designate certain amounts, similar to Roman numerals, but instead of having a base of 10, it varied. So perhaps A is equal to 12. Then three As is equal to B. Two Bs is equal to C. 22 Bs is equal to a D, and so on with this kind of inconsistency. You have a friend living in this state who claims that the system works just fine — he spent many years studying this system and even more using it in his line of work and can't see why he or anyone else in the state should have to learn this dangfangled decimal system. What would you say to your friend?
I don't have the time to write an exhaustive response to this magnum opus, but I'm going to leave with a few concluding points:
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words?
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
The advantage you're talking about here is one of degrees. One may be slightly faster than the other, but it's not a revolutionary shift to a better system. I would compare this sort of change to a small upgrade in processing power. The advantages of the metric system over imperial run much deeper than that, so it's a poor analogy.