And posted speed limits of 88 kph. In reality there would eventually be 500-gram (half-kilo) boxes of spaghetti, and the speed limit would be an even 90kph. The beverages industry went about it quite dispassionately: they just exhausted their stock of halfgallons, quarts and fifths and started selling only 2L, 1L and 750ml. It helped that these were “close enough” to the old measures. OTOH as pointed out, you still have the 7, 8, 10, 12, 16(yes, they exist), 20 and 40 fl.oz. containers, probably because the consumer is uncomfortable with fractional measures other than a half or quarter.
I’m wondering if any number of people would resolve a lot of body-image problems if suddenly their weight becomes “65”
I don’t think my statement is so ridiculous, chriszarate. What pressing need is there for Americans to stop buying gas by the gallon and measuring distances in miles? If it works here for most people, no problem.
Likewise, when I was living in Italy, I had no problem with kilometers and liters, because these units were plugged into the culture in a way they’re not here.
My point is that units used should be convenient for what is being measured, and this includes convenience for cultural reasons.
Even metric countries, when their ships go to sea, revert to measuring distances in yards and nautical miles. Anyone who knows navigation knows that this system is inherently simpler than metric for this purpose.
Thanks, Popup. “3 inch” didn’t sound right, but I couldn’t remember the right number.
Can I presume that in Europe, they’re actually labelled as 90mm, to distinguish them from 133.35mm floppies? (or were those 135mm?)
Anyway, you have made my point even stronger. If we can live with 2-liter soda bottles, and the high-tech diskettes are actually 90mm in size, why the heck does the box measure the diskettes in inches :rolleyes::rolleyes:
I seem to recall hearing that the main reason the liquor industry embraced the metric system was they realized they could swith from a fifth to a liter, a decrease of about 1/3 of the product, but then not drop their prices by 1/3.
A quick chance to find some extra margin, I guess.
The real question though, is why are American 2 liter bottles a different shape than European bottle. The American version is shorter and thicker around.
Seems like it would be easier for distribution to only have one size.
Maybe short bottles market-tested better here, and tall bottles tested better in Europe? Or maybe it has to do with refrigerator sizes. I know that if a 2-liter were any taller, it wouldn’t fit in my fridge.
And as far as the US converting to mostly metric by 2010… sure. snigger I laugh every time I open my kiddie educational books from the late 70’s and read about how the US will be completely metric by 1985. Prediction: If the US ever does switch to metric, it’ll be far, far in the future. While this annoys the engineer in me (english units are - let’s face it - cumbersome and annoying when you need to convert), the stubborn American in me is glad.
I think metric measures are becoming increasingly common in contexts where the translation is relatively painless. The liter soda bottles are a good example of that. Translating one linear type of unit from one to another is easy enough, but I think a lot of Americans are resistant to the idea of having to think of two-or-three-dimensional measures. We’re just so used to square feet,
and cubic feet or gallons. Where it really becomes a problem is when you have to think of one unit per another. Translating “miles per gallon” to “kilometers per liter” is going to be difficult. Not arithmetic wise, but just in getting the intuitive feel of it. Of course we could do it if we’d only try, but it seems that most of us in this country are extremely resistant to change of any type. Unfortunately, in my opinion.
“The metric system is the tool of the devil!!! My car gets 30 rods to a hogshead and that’s the way I likes it”
hhehe
I have been told by my engineering brother that most of the oil industry uses Imperial mesurments (PSI etc vs SI measurments)
and this isn’t exclusive to the US
“The metric system is an abstraction whose beauty lies in its indifference to the way human beings actually live their lives or feel comfortable measuring things.”
I’ve always found it amusing that the same people who criticize Americans for being mono-lingual turn around to criticize us for using multiple incompatible measurement systems. I’d think converting between inches and centimeters would be a lot easier (and more precise) than translating between French and English.
The difference between 80F and 40F is more obvious than the difference between 26C and 5C!!! I grew up with the metric system, and centigrade temperature makes a hell of a lot more sense, to me. I like the linearality of it - if something is 50C, then it’s half way to boiling from freezing, and 25 is a comforatble room temperature (actually, I like 22 more, but whatever) and 5 quite cold - need at least a sweater and probably a jacket…
212 for boiling and -32 for freezing? Doesn’t make all that much sense to me.
My point is that you are all sitting there saying its more intuitive, or “easier for Americans” , but thats only because its the only system you know.
As for other things…I drive km/hour and I know my weight in pounds, so there are probably benefits to both systems.
The US version of www.weather.com allows you to choose whether temperatures are displayed in “English” or “metric” units. As England now uses Celsius, does this mean you get Celsius no matter which option you choose?
Actually, it is strange that they use the term “English” as the units of temperature are not defined by the language used, but by the country. I wonder why they didn’t put “American”.
I think the proper name for the system of units used in the US is, yes, the US Customary System of Measure. It is not the same as the Imperial system of measurement that was used in Canada, the UK, etc.
For instance, the US gallon is 3.85 litres and the Imperial gallon is 4.5 litres. So 1 litre is larger than a US quart but smaller than a Canadian or English quart. I think one of the smaller units is the same in both systems (the fluid ounce?).
I didn’t realise till a couple of years ago that a “fluid ounce” is a measure of volume. Most of the things that the average person would see measured in fluid ounces on a daily basis are water-based (food, etc), so their densities would be roughly the same; treating the fluid ounce as a unit of mass for rough back-of-the-hand comparisons worked.
I think the point RealityChuck was trying to make was that the units of measurement in our scale of temperature are smaller, thus more precise, and also more in tune with day-to-day life.
For example, when I turn on my stove to boil some water, I don’t need to know that the temperature is 212 degrees. Hell, a lot of Americans don’t even know the boiling point of water. Most everybody (I hope) knows the freezing point, though (and that’s positive 32, not -32), especially those in the colder climates.
Turning my thermostat from 72 to 73 would produce a more subtle change than turning it from 23 to 24. I like that
Name me one reason the US will change to metric that hasn’t existed since the 1970s.
Trade? No, we seem to get on just fine with the rest of the world. When it suits our interests to use metric, we’ve used metric (scientific and biomedical), and when it doesn’t, the rest of the world simply copes (automakers).
Global community? We have no differences with the rest of the world that a switch to metric could possibly fix, and the countries we’re friendly with like us just fine complete with odd measurement systems.
Internal convenience? I think most Americans are aware of the metric system. Then they put gallons in their tanks, miles on their engines, and liters in their stomachs, in typical American split-brained fashion. Medical people already use the metric system extensively at work, then switch to Customary the minute they step outside the hospital or clinic. I think our mish-mash is convenient, whether you Europeans understand it or not.
:rolleyes:
