I’m an analog man in a digital world, unfortunately, but digital is all my son has ever known - he can’t believe I used to have to get up every time I wanted to change channels or volume - like prehistoric times, to him…
President Jefferson wanted to switch to metric. They said it was too French. President Ford wanted to switch to metric. Only whiskey & wine makers paid attention. 750 millileters is less than 1% different from a 5th of a gallon, they just changed the label. Scientists don’t count, they’re heathens. Precious metals still use 12 ounce pounds.
The English and Metric systems reveal a huge philosophic difference between the British and the originally French metric systems.
The British system was man-centered, with the units of length relating directly to human beings. The inch was a finger joint, the foot was – well, obvious, the yard was an arms-length, and a mile (thanks to the Romans) was a thousand paces.
But the French invented the meter as one-millionth of the supposed distance from the North Pole to the equator. And the meter was then multiplied and divided by 10 regardless of usefulness, yielding measures that were often too large or too small, with some of them seldom used at all.
So the British system related to man and the real world while the French, reflecting their rationalistic philosophy since Descartes, picked an arbitrary methodology that people are expected to match, not the other way around.
Who was it said, “Man is the measure of all things”? But not in the metric system.
The Imperial system is more arbitrary than the metric system, because not all feet, finger joints, arms, and paces are uniform. To get uniformity and precision, a standard still has to be imposed. Is the length of your own foot exactly 12 of your finger joints? Is your own arm’s reach exactly three times the length of your foot? Measuring things in foot-lengths, knucklespans, paces, and so on is great for rough estimates, but useless for engineering, architecture, surveying, tailoring, and so on.
The great thing about the metric system is that the basic units are interrelated: 1 liter is 1000 cubic centimeters. The mass of 1 milliliter of water is 1 gram. The heat required to raise 1 milliliter of water 1 degree centigrade (the scale where water freezes at 0 and boils at 100) is 1 calorie.
Edcole1961 over 14 years ago
88 minutes of detention would be appropriate, since that’s 5,280 seconds.
lohaces over 14 years ago
I do like English units for explaining unit conversions to my classes, but after that we stick with the new “global” measuring system.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
Wouldn’t the Imperial equivalent of detention be detwelvetion?
Ushindi over 14 years ago
I’m an analog man in a digital world, unfortunately, but digital is all my son has ever known - he can’t believe I used to have to get up every time I wanted to change channels or volume - like prehistoric times, to him…
ChukLitl Premium Member over 14 years ago
President Jefferson wanted to switch to metric. They said it was too French. President Ford wanted to switch to metric. Only whiskey & wine makers paid attention. 750 millileters is less than 1% different from a 5th of a gallon, they just changed the label. Scientists don’t count, they’re heathens. Precious metals still use 12 ounce pounds.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
You forgot one sector, ChukLitl; the drug trade is mostly metric.
I live my life on the Tufnel system. When everyone else is satisfied poking along at ten, I turn it up to ELEVEN!
pschearer Premium Member over 14 years ago
The English and Metric systems reveal a huge philosophic difference between the British and the originally French metric systems.
The British system was man-centered, with the units of length relating directly to human beings. The inch was a finger joint, the foot was – well, obvious, the yard was an arms-length, and a mile (thanks to the Romans) was a thousand paces.
But the French invented the meter as one-millionth of the supposed distance from the North Pole to the equator. And the meter was then multiplied and divided by 10 regardless of usefulness, yielding measures that were often too large or too small, with some of them seldom used at all.
So the British system related to man and the real world while the French, reflecting their rationalistic philosophy since Descartes, picked an arbitrary methodology that people are expected to match, not the other way around.
Who was it said, “Man is the measure of all things”? But not in the metric system.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
The Imperial system is more arbitrary than the metric system, because not all feet, finger joints, arms, and paces are uniform. To get uniformity and precision, a standard still has to be imposed. Is the length of your own foot exactly 12 of your finger joints? Is your own arm’s reach exactly three times the length of your foot? Measuring things in foot-lengths, knucklespans, paces, and so on is great for rough estimates, but useless for engineering, architecture, surveying, tailoring, and so on.
The great thing about the metric system is that the basic units are interrelated: 1 liter is 1000 cubic centimeters. The mass of 1 milliliter of water is 1 gram. The heat required to raise 1 milliliter of water 1 degree centigrade (the scale where water freezes at 0 and boils at 100) is 1 calorie.