View Full Version : Metric Silliness
About 10 years ago the Federal Highway Administration forced the State Highway Departments to go metric. Thank god that has been reversed but today I had the pleasure of reviewing a plan that was in design prior to changing back to english.
Normal lane widths are 12 feet but because we were forced to metric this plan shows lane widths at 3.66 meters. And the whole plan is like this. The thing that metric has going for it is even numbers but if you have to convert from english to metric you end up with odd numbers like 3.66.
Not as interesting as what everyone had for lunch but I always feel better after I've had my rant.
swede123
09-22-2005, 01:06 PM
Your post is labeled incorrectly. It should be called "conversion silliness." Of course it's going to be a big ass mess when converting from one system to another. However, the metric system is about 29087344982374534 times more consistant and effecient than the U.S. system with regards to volume to weight to distance relationships and so on. Can you count to ten? Good, you can grasp the metric system.
Swede
2planka
09-22-2005, 01:06 PM
Sheesh. Give you a centimeter and you take 2.2 kilometers.
Patrick del Poker Grande
09-22-2005, 01:07 PM
As much as it's a pain in the ass and how expensive it would be to do, I really wish we could just convert completely over to metric. Maybe you civil guys don't have to worry about much in the way of messy units, but it's hell on a stick sometimes for mechanical/aerospace engineers.
RunDownHouse
09-22-2005, 01:07 PM
I'd be pretty happy if the US converted to metric. Its far easier to use, and I got really used to it while living in Germany. Its also pretty stupid - but understandable, I guess - that the major reason we aren't using metric is inertia.
Patrick del Poker Grande
09-22-2005, 01:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Its also pretty stupid - but understandable, I guess - that the major reason we aren't using metric is inertia.
[/ QUOTE ]
Plus, there's a HUUUUUUGE cost associated with converting, not only in retooling every piece of machinery in the country, but also in all the standards and common practices of thousands of companies.
swede123
09-22-2005, 01:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh. Give you a centimeter and you take 2.2 kilometers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, give you 2.54 centimeters and you take 1.6 kilometers.
Swede
[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh. Give you a centimeter and you take 2.2 kilometers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you mean "Give you 2.54 centimeters and you take 1.6097561 kilometers.
mslif
09-22-2005, 01:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
As much as it's a pain in the ass and how expensive it would be to do, I really wish we could just convert completely over to metric. Maybe you civil guys don't have to worry about much in the way of messy units, but it's hell on a stick sometimes for mechanical/aerospace engineers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Coming from Europe, I use the metric sytem daily. It is also used in my field of study (cellular and molecular biology). I find the system used in the US unscientific and impractical.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh. Give you a centimeter and you take 2.2 kilometers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, give you 2.54 centimeters and you take 1.6 kilometers.
Swede
[/ QUOTE ]
Damn, I had my post all set to go and would have beat you to it but I got a phone call on our Bike Trail project which btw was designed metric and he needed the mounting height for the Stop signs. So i looked it up in the Manual for Uniforn Traffic control Devices and told him to mount it at 2.1 meters. Used to be 7 feet, now 2.1 meters. See what I mean.
swede123
09-22-2005, 01:30 PM
The standard (U.S.) system really starts to break down when you get down to smaller measurements. Woodworking, for example, is sooo much easier when dealing with millimeters instead of 16ths of an inch. Also, like I said, the standards system is pathetically arbitrary when it comes to comparing volume with weight, or weight with distance. Then again, perhaps I'm a bit biased.
Swede
I agree that in the chem lab and other sciences and for tooling, etc the metric system is superior. But for the applications I'm talking about where certain standards have existed for decades, it becomes impractical. When I retire in a few years they are welcome to change.
[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh. Give you a centimeter and you take 2.2 kilometers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me take another shot at Dan.
A "kilo" as in a kilo of grass is a kilogram which is 2.2 pounds. Is that maybe why the 2.2 got in there? /images/graemlins/grin.gif
2planka
09-22-2005, 02:03 PM
So much for me trying to be clever.
10/1 at my place, Toro. Tourney style.
I'm surprised no one has quoted this yet, so here it goes...
"Uhfg, the metric system is the tool of the devil." - Abe Simpson
Actually I like it. Good for science and engineering (myself being an engineer) as everyone has stated, and huge costs for going strictly to metric as Patrick said. I think we've settled in a nice little rut. I'm serious, it's like being able to speak more than one language...nothing wrong with that.
[ QUOTE ]
So much for me trying to be clever.
10/1 at my place, Toro. Tourney style.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it was very clever. Look forward to the tourney except that are we going to have to here about grandgnu's big win?
2planka
09-22-2005, 02:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
grandgnu's big win
[/ QUOTE ]
Nah. He's gettin' hitched that day. Not much to hear, anyway. He was 4.55% to win.
Enough talk of that game we play. This is OOT fer cryin out loud.
email to follow tomorrow.
Bigdaddydvo
09-22-2005, 04:49 PM
It's a shame those damn Stone Cutters keep the metric system down.
WE DO! WE DO!
MrTrik
09-22-2005, 05:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I find the system used in the US unscientific and impractical.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wish the entire planet used the same system. It would make things easier all around.
But the measurement system doesn't have anything to do with science. As long as accurate and precise measurement can be made it'll do fine in any scientific application.
As for practicality, well that would depend on your point of view.
The system used by America seems to have been effective in helping the country become the only remaining superpower. But I see others might see it as odd much like I think the German language is odd to me. Matter of perspective I think.
RunDownHouse
09-22-2005, 05:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The system used by America seems to have been effective in helping the country become the only remaining superpower.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on this?
razor
09-22-2005, 05:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The system used by America seems to have been effective in helping the country become the only remaining superpower.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a logic to this statement that I, as a non-american, am not able to comprehend...
Rather than try to understand your point of view, or simply take your word for it, I'll take my third option...
swede123
09-22-2005, 05:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The system used by America seems to have been effective in helping the country become the only remaining superpower. But I see others might see it as odd much like I think the German language is odd to me. Matter of perspective I think.
[/ QUOTE ]
The metric system used by Sweden seems to have been effective in the country launching and marketing one of the most famous disco groups ever in ABBA.
Come on man, please tell me this statement was some attempt of humor.
Swede
Patrick del Poker Grande
09-22-2005, 05:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system used by America seems to have been effective in helping the country become the only remaining superpower.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on this?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that what he's saying is that because we're obviously the best nation ever to have existed, that whatever we did on our way here was the best thing to do.
swede123
09-22-2005, 05:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system used by America seems to have been effective in helping the country become the only remaining superpower.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on this?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that what he's saying is that because we're obviously the best nation ever to have existed, that whatever we did on our way here was the best thing to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Surely you are forgetting Munchkinland. I mean, any nation that doesn't value lollipops and lullabies can't be the greatest ever.
Swede
MrTrik
09-22-2005, 05:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system used by America seems to have been effective in helping the country become the only remaining superpower.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on this?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that what he's saying is that because we're obviously the best nation ever to have existed, that whatever we did on our way here was the best thing to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, not exactly Patrick. I think the best thing would be to be on the Metric system. But you were exactly correct in pointing out the cost of a conversion for us. And it goes way beyond just mechanical and Aerospace engineering. Example: Billions of lines of functioning software would have to be changed and verified in many other areas. Take the Billions of $$ estimated for the Y2K conversion and multiply by huge numbers to arrive at the cost of converting completely to metric at this point.
My point was, we ended up on the English system and it has worked for us. Its worked for the US in science and all other disclipines such that we are a world leader with the highest standard of living on the planet.
stabn
09-22-2005, 05:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system used by America seems to have been effective in helping the country become the only remaining superpower.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on this?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that what he's saying is that because we're obviously the best nation ever to have existed, that whatever we did on our way here was the best thing to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, not exactly Patrick. I think the best thing would be to be on the Metric system. But you were exactly correct in pointing out the cost of a conversion for us. And it goes way beyond just mechanical and Aerospace engineering. Example: Billions of lines of functioning software would have to be changed and verified in many other areas. Take the Billions of $$ estimated for the Y2K conversion and multiply by huge numbers to arrive at the cost of converting completely to metric at this point.
My point was, we ended up on the English system and it has worked for us. Its worked for the US in science and all other disclipines such that we are a world leader with the highest standard of living on the planet.
[/ QUOTE ]
A************************************************* ***B
swede123
09-22-2005, 05:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
My point was, we ended up on the English system and it has worked for us. Its worked for the US in science and all other disclipines such that we are a world leader with the highest standard of living on the planet.
[/ QUOTE ]
You should have just agreed with Patrick's argument. You apparently don't realize that the US actually uses the metric system exclusively in all fields of science, the entire military uses the metric system, and so on.
Swede
Didn't NASA lose a space probe or two due to mistakes in converting between metric systems? Dumb scientists.
[ QUOTE ]
My point was, we ended up on the English system and it has worked for us. Its worked for the US in science and all other disclipines such that we are a world leader with the highest standard of living on the planet.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, methinks you are measuring not only length and weight, but also "standard of living", in your very own way.
[ QUOTE ]
Its worked for the US in science and all other disclipines such that we are a world leader with the highest standard of living on the planet.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a lot of stupid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States) stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States) going on in that sentence.
It's always made me wonder what crackpot decided that there should be 12 inches in one foot, 5280 feet in one mile, and don't even get me started on liquid measure thats another cruel jopke.
RunDownHouse
09-22-2005, 06:07 PM
I don't know why I held even a glimmer of hope that it would be anything other than confusing causation and correlation.
jstnrgrs
09-22-2005, 07:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It's always made me wonder what crackpot decided that there should be 12 inches in one foot, 5280 feet in one mile, and don't even get me started on liquid measure thats another cruel jopke.
[/ QUOTE ]
On a slightly unrelated note, I think we should convert to a base 12 system. It makes much more sense for 1/3 to be .4 rather than .3333333333333
Patrick del Poker Grande
09-22-2005, 07:37 PM
Nice (except how it fucks up the browser).
InchoateHand
09-22-2005, 08:09 PM
You don't know how to fix that, to truncate those posts so everything is still readable?
Maulik
09-22-2005, 08:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You don't know how to fix that, to truncate those posts so everything is still readable?
[/ QUOTE ]
how
jstnrgrs
09-22-2005, 11:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's always made me wonder what crackpot decided that there should be 12 inches in one foot, 5280 feet in one mile, and don't even get me started on liquid measure thats another cruel jopke.
[/ QUOTE ]
On a slightly unrelated note, I think we should convert to a base 12 system. It makes much more sense for 1/3 to be .4 rather than .3333333333333
[/ QUOTE ]
I think Dynasty's edit kind of ruins this post, but I guess I can understand, sort of.
MrMon
09-23-2005, 03:46 AM
Why 12? Think about it. It's the first number evenly divisible by 2, 3, and 4. Made things much simpler back in the old days when dividing be 2, 3, and 4 pretty much was all you needed to know in business.
Brainwalter
09-23-2005, 04:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It's always made me wonder what crackpot decided that there should be 12 inches in one foot, 5280 feet in one mile, and don't even get me started on liquid measure thats another cruel jopke.
[/ QUOTE ]
A mile was 1,000 paces of the Roman army. (And when they said paces, they meant that each pace was one step of each foot.) A foot was another arbitrary length (the King's foot or whatever). No one decided, this is a foot, and we'll make 5280 of them a mile. It just worked out that way.
Other poster explained why 12 inches in a foot.
Patrick del Poker Grande
09-23-2005, 10:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
A mile was 1,000 paces of the Roman army. (And when they said paces, they meant that each pace was one step of each foot.) A foot was another arbitrary length (the King's foot or whatever). No one decided, this is a foot, and we'll make 5280 of them a mile. It just worked out that way.
[/ QUOTE ]
On top of that, those [censored] Romans decided the size of the Space Shuttle booster rockets (http://www.astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html), too!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.