America needs to finally adopt the metric system.

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   


Simple, they are not Americans, they don't have the "super power" mentality preventing them to adopt something "not invented here". That is what it boiled down to.


True. What's funny, though, is that the English system wasn't invented here, either. I wonder how people would feel if they knew their pounds and miles came from the country against whom we fought for our independence heh.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Totakeke]




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   


I wonder how people would feel if they knew their pounds and miles came from the country against whom we fought for our independence heh.
reply to post by Totakeke
 


When the Americans discover their English measurement system wasn't an American invention they will be outraged for sure! Those so and so Limeys trying to take all the credit!


Now there's a thought, why didn't the English stick stubbornly with the English system like the Americans did?



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The problem with changing to the metric system is changing all of the road signs. However, imagine all of the jobs that would create.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Joker_12
 


Keep both for a while, so that all of the people who are afraid of change don't have to worry about it. Have all the signs and cars MPH and KPH.

Problem solved.


Creating the signs would be expensive, but yes, it would create jobs, and it doesn't have to be done immediately either.

*Edit:

The ONLY real problem I have with a switch:

Football

They'd have to keep yards for football.

[edit on 2/14/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure yards would live on in football; I think that's how they do it in Canada.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Totakeke
 


It has nothing to do with the system not being invented here. It's got nothing to do with people being too stubborn to adopt something from another country. However; it is unnecessary. You seem to be thinking that we're all scientists and doctors or pharmacists and whatnot. Well, we're not. We don't NEED to use the metric system when the only time it becomes really helpful is when you need to measure something colossal or something microscopic.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   


It has nothing to do with the system not being invented here. It's got nothing to do with people being too stubborn to adopt something from another country. However; it is unnecessary. You seem to be thinking that we're all scientists and doctors or pharmacists and whatnot. Well, we're not. We don't NEED to use the metric system when the only time it becomes really helpful is when you need to measure something colossal or something microscopic.


Having multiple measures for the same physical quantity is unnecessary. Metric is far easier and more logical; that's what it's about. True, we aren't all scientists and doctors, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy the benefits of the metric system. Science can use a modern system, so can the public.

It's almost like saying that the United Kingdom shouldn't have adopted decimal currency (which works just like the metric system) simply because they'd been using non-decimal currency for so long. This just isn't true. Decimal currency (which the UK adopted in 1971) is so much easier to work with than non-decimal currency (the old pound had 12 pence in a shilling, 20 shillings in a pound, 240 pence in a pound). The same thing applies to measuring systems. Decimal measurement systems just work better. People might not have to measure things very much in everyday-life, but when they do, metric works better.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by Totakeke]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Totakeke
 


While you have a point with the money thing, you're still not making a whole lot of positive arguments for the metric system. It makes no sense to call it a "modern" system seeing as how it's idea first came about in the late 1500's and was actually proposed in London in the mid 1600's.

Now, money is something that the average person deals with all the time every day. It's also something that NEEDS to be broken up in to very small units.

The average person doesn't deal with measuring all the time...true...however, when they do need to measure things, they are not normally going to be very very small or very very large...which is the only time that the metric system has any true benefit.

However; if you want to bring money into this at all, by your logic, we should all just adopt one kind of money for the entire world.

That is just ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   


The average person doesn't deal with measuring all the time...true...however, when they do need to measure things, they are not normally going to be very very small or very very large...which is the only time that the metric system has any true benefit.


True, people don't normally have to measure the size of a molecule or the circumference of the galaxy, but the metric system isn't just for very small and very small things. The millimeter, centimeter, meter, and kilometer are all very convenient for everyday life.



which is the only time that the metric system has any true benefit.


Metric isn't just good for measuring with extreme precision, it's good because you can switch prefixes with a simple shift of the decimal point.



However; if you want to bring money into this at all, by your logic, we should all just adopt one kind of money for the entire world.


You missed my point. I wasn't talking about currency, I was talking more about number systems; mainly the decimal system. My point is that money is metric because it uses base-10, the same number system metric uses and the same system we use to count. We've adopted decimal currency, so we should adopt a decimal measuring system. Decimal money is easier to work with, just like a decimal measuring system.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Totakeke
 


I'd be interested in why you are personally invested in the metric change for the US. Beyond the fact that in many ways metric is superior. Why should America make the huge monetary and personal effort to do the conversion? Why now when seemingly every other value Americans hold dear is under attack and the monetary system is going south?

Personally, I've lived overseas, worked extensively with both systems and feel that everyone else should do the same and not complain. What's the big deal?

There is one area of the English system that I couldn't or wouldn't change and that is the measurements used in construction, building and mechanics (I'm also a machinist and do construction). Most builders would complain bitterly if they had to change. Construction standards would be in termoil for years if conversion was mandated. Any politician that would suggest change in these areas would be guaranteed defeat.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


It would help create jobs. They could put some of the stimulus package towards it.


I have an idea! Bring our troops home, save the 300 million per month (or whatever ridiculous number it is), and use that money towards the new signage and such.

Then, when all that is done, save that money per month, put it in the bank, earn compounded interest, and pay off the #$*#&$ national debt.

Win!



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Totakeke
 


another thing america should change is its maritne navigation. true most of the markers and bouys are the same but there read when leaving port not arriving at port like everywhere else. reding a technical read out the other day and a lot of european manufacturers are starting to use kelvin instead of celsius. i know its the same but when i fit a boiler a 65c rise is all i need to know not 338 k



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   


I'd be interested in why you are personally invested in the metric change for the US. Beyond the fact that in many ways metric is superior. Why should America make the huge monetary and personal effort to do the conversion? Why now when seemingly every other value Americans hold dear is under attack and the monetary system is going south?


It's a measuring system. Replacing it doesn't change any of our values or make us any less American. (Remember now, it's the English system that came from England. America didn't even have a measuring system before the Europeans got here.)

We also just signed in a nearly $800 billion dollar stimulus package to help the economy. I think we've proven that money is no object. The amount of money it would take to implement a metrication program would be so small compared to $800 billion.

And it's not like it's difficult, either. Australia is a great example of what can happen when metrication is done correctly. It would happen like digital television. People would be informed that a national transition is going to happen, people would be educated as to how the metric system works (either on TV or in the workplace), and a national date is set to change all of the road signs, weather broadcasts, etc.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by Totakeke]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   


I think we've proven that money is no object.
reply to post by Totakeke
 

If and when we have proven THAT we can eliminate the US as a viable economic entity! Go back to Economics 101 please.


(Remember now, it's the English system that came from England. America didn't even have a measuring system before the Europeans got here.)

Is there anyone (seriously) in America with any education who doesn't realize that the English system didn't come from England??
My goodness!


And it's not like it's difficult, either. Australia is a great example

Australia is a relatively small country population wise but admittedly a large land mass. They more or less had to join SW Asia and do the metric system. Bad news otherwise!

Not comperable to the US. We can adapt whatever system we want. We are too big to be affected significantly by our neighbor's metric preferences.


People would be informed that a national transition is going to happen,


And who would do the informing? Some political figure? I doubt it. Too risky.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   


If and when we have proven THAT we can eliminate the US as a viable economic entity! Go back to Economics 101 please.


I'm not here to debate wasteful spending.
I don't necessarily agree with the idea of a bailout, but if we're allocating billions of dollars we might as well put a few hundred million into switching to the metric system.



Is there anyone (seriously) in America with any education who doesn't realize that the English system didn't come from England?? My goodness!


You're saying the English system doesn't come from England or did I misread that?

If I misread it, then yes, you'd be surprised; there are people who aren't familiar with the origins of our system. One of the main arguments against metric is that it's "too foreign" or something like that. It's clear that people don't know it came from England because they hail it as an "American tradition" and reject metric, even though both systems came from Europe.



And who would do the informing? Some political figure? I doubt it. Too risky.


It would be similar to a digital television transition. People like the ones who produced the DTV commercials, perhaps. They'd also teach it in schools and inform people in the workplace. It's a national, coordinated effort that wouldn't be headed by just one individual.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Totakeke]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
They do teach it in schools. Everyone hates it. Few understand it. That's how I ended up doing tutoring sessions in the library after school. It's not as easy as just producing a bunch of commercials like the did with DTV (mistake). There's a lot more to it than just that. Aside from switching the roadsigns over, you'd have to change all the cars because most cars now don't switch between both. I know my fathers Buick does, but it's some silly luxury model from a few years back.

I don't really think it would create jobs, we already have road workers. The only accomplishment that would come out of FORCING the nation to make the unnecessary switch is this:

The majority of people would be heavily annoyed.

There's a reason that this didn't work in the 70's.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Totakeke
 



You're saying the English system doesn't come from England or did I misread that?

If I misread it, then yes, you'd be surprised; there are people who aren't familiar with the origins of our system. One of the main arguments against metric is that it's "too foreign" or something like that. It's clear that people don't know it came from England because they hail it as an "American tradition" and reject metric, even though both systems came from Europe.
lmao just try telling an american that your from jersey and see what happens?
NEW york, NEW hampshire, NEW jersey. where do people think the settlers got there names and skills from



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   


You're saying the English system doesn't come from England or did I misread that?
reply to post by da pickles
 


Sorry about my confusing statement. Apparently "English System" means different things. Here's something from Wiki:

English units refers to the historical units of measurement in medieval England, which evolved as a combination of the Anglo-Saxon and Roman systems of units. They were redefined in England in 1824 by a Weights and Measures Act, which retained many but not all of the unit names with slightly different values, and again in the 1970s by the SI subset of the Metric system. In modern UK usage, the term is considered ambiguous, as it could refer either to the imperial system used in the UK prior to metrication, or to the US customary system of unit. The usual term used in the UK for the system immediately prior to metrication is imperial units.

From English units



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   


They do teach it in schools. Everyone hates it. Few understand it. That's how I ended up doing tutoring sessions in the library after school. It's not as easy as just producing a bunch of commercials like the did with DTV (mistake). There's a lot more to it than just that. Aside from switching the roadsigns over, you'd have to change all the cars because most cars now don't switch between both. I know my fathers Buick does, but it's some silly luxury model from a few years back.

I don't really think it would create jobs, we already have road workers. The only accomplishment that would come out of FORCING the nation to make the unnecessary switch is this:

The majority of people would be heavily annoyed.

There's a reason that this didn't work in the 70's.


People hate it because they don't understand it, which really isn't fair to metric because metric is so much easier.

Second, most cars have mi/h and km/h on the speedometers. The people without it would have to get new speedometers. I'm sure the government would give out coupons just like they did with the DTV receivers. (Not that I'm here to debate this, but how is DTV a mistake? It frees up parts of the analog band for emergency services.)

People would be annoyed for a small period of time, and not even everyone. Science teachers, math teachers, engineers, doctors, etc. would all be very comfortable. And after a few weeks of actually using metric people will find that it's much easier not to have to deal with fractions or 50,000 different units.

Yes, there is a reason it didn't work, but not because metric was unpopular. Back then people were all for it. Metric failed because Reagan dissolved the metric board and because the metric board itself didn't plan very well. They knew the goal, but they didn't actually know how to achieve it. They didn't say, "We're going to be metric in 10 years and here's how it's going happen." That's pretty much where it stopped.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Totakeke]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   


the metric board itself didn't plan very well. They knew the goal, but they didn't actually know how to achieve it. They didn't say, "We're going to be metric in 10 years and here's how it's going happen." That's pretty much where it stopped.
reply to post by Totakeke
 



Tell us more about this if you can.

I was a liberal back then, just out of the Peace Corps and ready and willing for the change to metric. (not that I'm not now also)





top topics
 
3
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join