>> All that irritates me is the notion that one measurement system is better than another
And yet the rest of the world, the US military, the US scientific establishment, the US car industry and most poster in this thread have come to the conclusion that one system is better than the other.
You think the rest of the world is wrong. I am with them and I think you are wrong.
Well, I don’t believe they chose a superior system. I believe they chose the system whose customary uses suited their needs and/or chose the system that most other people were using to facilitate integration. I can suppose you can say that is what makes measurement systems “better” if you like. Myself, a “better” measurement system would do what it is supposed to (to wit, measure) better (in this case, a “better” measurement would be more accurate and precise). As this is not the case, I am simply left with your redefinitions of “better” to mean “customary” which, I suppose, has a certain attraction, except for the fact that custom is exactly what you struggle against in getting everyone to see your point of view. A lovely paradox. Have fun with it.
Better as in “people can work problems out faster and with fewer mistakes”. Yes, I would say that is “better”. I would say any tool which works faster and more reliably is a better tool. YMMV.
Very well. It is a tired and silly discussion.
Then c’mon over and check out our backyard garden! 
Have you ever tried to spell out “Fahrenheit” without copying-and-pasting it?
Well, people on this board manage to mis-spell Celsius all the time as “Celcius” which is “definately” pretty awful.
But I am sure someone will be along shortly to explain why English spelling is just as good as that of languages which have strictly phonetical spelling.
I’ll take that if you can find someone who will argue we should all switch languages because it is easier to write! 
So, what is up with those “metre” and “litre” spelling variants anyway? 
I can’t believe I’m posting in this thread, though it has been a good read.
Decimal is good. That’s why engineering has gone that way: with decimal inches. And the trend is to drop the fractional history of measurement. All of the drawings I’ve made used rounded decimal snaps, like .200 or .100. My brother, who is still in design, said that the trend is just that way, what with CAD and CAM dominating.
That being said, I tend to agree with erislover. People don’t have to convert 642000 yards to inches, except on message boards. Half the people who attempt the metric version of that problem without writing it down on paper will slip an order of magnitude in their answer, anyway.
My adolescent unease with fractional units was tempered by the sight of carpenters who shaved semi-weekly adding 3 7/8" and 8 15/16 faster than I thought possible. The point here is those who use any system frequently are good at it, and those who don’t aren’t.
Why is the window measured to 3’ 9+7/8" anyway? If I were designing a window, I’d use a nice round number.
In fact, on a few occasions I’ve gone around my house with a yardstick, noticing that nearly every measurement is a whole number of inches or feet.
Then you’ll have a hell of a time with railroads, where the standard distance between two rails is 4’ 8+1/2".
Why is this any more difficult than… oh forget it!
That’s what happens “frequently” in the german language, frequently being every 100 years or so. A couple of years ago we had a reform which adapted the foreign words to the German spelling, which keeps the spelling phonetic.
So, “Photo” is “foto” 
Yeah, I guess that’s always a solution. Just do everything in whole inches and never deal with fractions. Of course, you cannot have anything expressed in feet either so you are pretty much restricted to objects which are not large at all. Try building the space shuttle like that.
I find it appalling that anyone would suggest that the answer to the problem is to just always work in whole inches. I guess the answer to spelling correctly is also to just learn a few simple words and not use the rest of all those complex words.
The problem with having a lot of people like that is that they think they are entitled to make a good salary when their skills are only suited to flipping burgers, if that. A population who cannot understand and solve the most basic math problems is a population at the hands of those who do understand such basic things.
Oh sheesh, sailor, are you just trying to be obtuse? The idea isn’t that everyone who ever measures anything ever should just work in whole numbers, but that measurement is a much more varied activity than in the applications where things are time-sensitive or require incredible precision. Plus or minus an eight of an inch is good enough for plenty of applications, and plenty of people performing those applications. It doesn’t need to be good enough for you.
Actually, that can be an answer, yes, because not everyone in the world needs to spell right. Many immigrants do fine with a very limited vocabulary. What would it matter if you think they would have a “superior experience” if they learned the language properly? Living, measuring, speaking… these are all just activities that require a spectrum of concern and diligence from “almost none if it gets the job done” to “people will die if things aren’t within tolerances” and it is arrogance to assume you know what is best for them.
People, many people for many years, have done fine with what they are comfortable with. Why you feel they are idiots when it works for them and has worked for them and continues to work for them just eludes me.
Which is outside the scope of a measurement discussion, other than all measurement activity will involve mathematical manipulation other than “moving the decimal place” much like all speaking and writing is more than “putting words together”.
What works for people, people will use. You say they are stupid and it doesn’t work, I see a world that has functioned and continues to function pretty well, considering we are attempting to kill each other every few decades.
So did the imperial measuremant get us to the moon? Or was it metric? Or both?
erislover, it is very simple: humans need to measure things and the metric system has proven to be a better system for measuring and doing calculations. The suggestion that you can get by with measuring and calculating less is silly. The fact is that the decimal system is better.
erislover, it is very simple: humans need to measure things and the metric system has proven to be a better system for measuring and doing calculations.
sailor, it is very simple: humans need to measure things and they do it in a way that suits them.
Kinda-sorta Imperial, but not really.
While short distances were measured in feet, long distances were measured in nautical miles. (International natuical miles, mind you, not the slightly-longer British nautical miles.)
Velocities were always given in feet per second. While technically an Imperial unit, ft/sec is never used by normal folks. American speedometers are calibrated in statute miles per hour, for example.
Forces and masses were both in pounds, which I’m sure must have caused some confusion. For example, the standard measurement of rocket engine efficiency, called “specific impulse,” is defined as the amount of time one pound (mass) of burning fuel and oxidizer can produce one pound (force) of thrust. Worse, on the Lunar surface, 1 pound (mass) weighs about 1/6 of a pound (force), so the LEM’s thrust-to-weight ratio was 6 times higher on the moon than it was when tested on the Earth, even though its thrust-to-mass ratio was the same on both worlds.