Here's a map of countries that have not yet adopted the metric system

Since you always refer to the "British Engineering units" - could you please a link for them online?

Thanks for another misinterpretation. I didn't say that at all. I said that US units of length were long ago defined in terms of the meter, and I also said meter is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in vacuum. I didn't say that the two definitions occurred in the same century.

I don't think I'll bother. This is what they were called when I took physics in high school and college.

Well, thanks anyway for your attention.

Household usage.

You don't need cups and tablespoons and teaspoons for recipes. You'll just use the same measurements you use when filling up your car. You'll buy litres of milk, and kilos of sugar.

Yeah, the confusion and misunderstanding is clear alright. You come waltzing in arguing that the metric system is not "magical" when nobody is arguing that it is (way to take down that straw man though), and make a overstated claim about there being only one benefit to the metric system that you have to contradict in your next post by agreeing to another benefit.

Make up your mind as to how many benefits there are or learn to count (in any system).

I didn't come waltzing in, I came in just like you did and expressed an opinion that you don't agree with. I stated that the only benefit to the metric system is the powers of 1o thing, and then, when someone pointed out a very, very minor additional benefit, admitted that he was right. You really don't like dissent, I guess.

I've no qualm with dissent, but with daftitude.

So I guess so far, it has been established that the metric system has the advantage of

- being used in the rest of the world, making it the lingua franca of measurement
- is easier to handle because measurements are based on powers of ten
- is easier to handle because it allows for easier conversions between length, volume and weight

---

The discussion reminds me a bit of this here: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

I think I've just discovered my new sig line.

Not meaning to pick you in particular for this rant (I have a bit of a bone to pick with this as you may note) but there's a lot more than that, and the notion that the advantage is that it's based on powers of ten really groups most of the advantages into what is a difference between the systems. That it is decimalized is a key difference and brings about a host of advantages.

Now I don't get why there's ever a need to argue for them, the Imperial system is simply daft and this is a choice between something that makes sense and something that doesn't but if we want to list specific benefits here are some key ones:

- Network effect: the lingua franca benefit
- Conversion calculation reduction: self explanatory
- Easier to divide by 3: there is a very daft notion that the imperial system is easier to divide by 3, which is utter nonsense because you can still use fractions in the metric system. Watch. What's 1/3 of a kilometer in meters? 333 1/3. Now what's 1/3 of a mile in yards? 586 2/3. Which is easier?
- It's the only maintained standard: how do you measure non-mechanical things like electricity in the Imperial system? You don't, you just use the metric volt, ampere, watt, and ohm because the Imperial system hasn't been properly maintained in hundreds of years.

So it's frustrating to put up with nonsense that the metric system has to be "magical". It's a choice between daft and non-functional. A measurement system is supposed to do something pretty simple: measure things objectively. And the Imperial system doesn't do that. The inch varied from country to country till World War II forced a standard 25.4 millimeters.

Get it? The inch is defined by the metric system, and the Imperial system can't even support itself because there are no properly maintained standards to do so other than to use the metric system as reference.

The Imperial system is to take a metric system that makes sense and express its units through a system that makes no sense. If a retard were the president you don't need a magician to be a worthy replacement and the Imperial system is a retard. That the metric system is the only viable replacement makes all the wrangling over the scale of the benefits much ado about whether or not to replace a retard in charge.

The Imperial system is daft.

Even in 1866, the US Coast and Geodetic Survey has been using the metric system as definition of the inch, equating a meter to 39.37 inches. This "US Survey" inch (of about 25.4000508 mm) was confirmed for general use by the Mendenhall ordinance of April 5, 1893, but it's been restricted to US surveying since 1959. [Since January 1, 1959, the International inch has been defined to be exactly equal to 25.4 mm (0.0254 meter).]

Okay, you claim that it's not the dissent that you have a problem with, but the "daftitude." I suspect that it actually is the dissent. What is there about my statement that the inherent superiority of the metric system is minor that you consider daft?

I agree with your statement that it's of benefit to do what the rest of the world does, but my comments are mostly that, apart from that, the metric system itself is only slightly superior to the system we use now. As for conversions between length volume and weight, did we establish that it was easier for anything other than water?

I consider the Imperial system daft, as I explain above, and I consider the arguing about just how "magical" the metric system is daft altogether given that the Imperial system simply doesn't work. It is a bastardized translation of the metric system and ceased to be properly maintained hundreds of years ago when the system that made sense was created.

Arguing about just how magical the metric system is is daft, arguing that the US shouldn't be "forced" to conform to the rest of the world is daft. Because the Imperial system itself is daft and defunct.

So I'm not going to restrict my assessment of daftitude to one part of the greater daftitude of your arguments. It's daft on the whole because it argues against not just a clearly superior system but the only viable system.

Now you actually are proving my original point exactly, by claiming magical benefits to the metric system which don't exist. First of all, US units have been defined in terms of metric units since 1893, not World War 2. Secondly, you don't have to worry about standards for British imperial units related to electricity, because the British system has no separate units for voltage, current, etc.

Any British imperial unit of length can be measured just as easily as a metric one in terms of the speed of light. Since 1893, the inch has been defined as 2.54 cm exactly and the avoirdupois pound as 453.59237 kilograms exactly. Both systems use seconds for time. Force, power, etc. are defined in terms of mass, length, and time. The meter is defined in terms of the speed of light, and the kilogram is defined in terms of a particular platinum-iridium bar in a vault in Paris. The BI units don't have new independent definitions, only because they can easily be related to the metric definition. Practially speaking, one almost never needs the definition of a unit to work with it. Very few people doing engineering in either meters or feet have to calibrate anything in terms of the absolute definition of the unit, e.g. the speed of light or the bar in the Paris vault.

We are left with only the powers of 10 thing as a real inherent advantage. I'm fine and always have been with going metric, but the mysticism attached to the metric system by people like you (as demonstrated in your post) is simply stupid.

Oh, now this is really good. Please give me one, and only one, example of how the BI system "doesn't work." I assert that you cannot.

Okay. So what are your reasons against switching to a superior system?

As I've consistently stated, over and over in this thread, I am fine with switching. My only point is that the metric system really only has the powers of 10 thing as an advantage, and not the magical advantages attributed to it by people like RG.

That's just a plain lie. Name one magical benefit I claimed.



Which contradicts not a thing I said. I told you that the inch was globally standardized during WW2. This is daftitude as well.



That's not a "worry" it's an example of how the Imperial system is defunct.



No, it's because the Imperial system makes no sense and there's no globally recognized body that maintains such standards for the Imperial system.



Practically speaking, a measurement system that needs another measurement system to define itself isn't a standard measurement system anymore and is an arbitrary naming convention and bastardization of the real measurement system it relies on.



That's because their various "inches" are now standardized to the metric system. Before that one man's inch was often different from another's. The Imperial system doesn't maintain such standards on its own.



No we are not, that's an inherent difference that provides multiple advantages that you ignore to try to group them all into one difference being the "advantage".



What mysticism? You are just making stuff up and can't demonstrate one example of the "magic" and "mystical" straw men that is your stock and store in your politicized argument.