The Metric System

[Chapter 24]

Inches, feet, yards, miles. That's what I've taught by as a citizen of the U.S. and a current student in its educational system.
Currently there are only two other countries besides us - Liberia and Burma - that do not use the metric system.
So I guess my question is, is it vitally necessary that in post-revolutionary society we all use it?

[Kami]

Necessary? No. Useful and sensible? yes.
For one, the non-metric units used in various countries often have identical names, but differing values; Imperial units are often different from their US counterparts. It also aids in education; science and maths predominantly use metric units, and I'm sure having students learn two systems is inefficient.

[Lost In Translation]

I like the SI units and the metric system better than the imperial units. It makes more sense when converting, and you don't have to memorize weird numbers and names.

However, it might be highly encouraged that everybody move to metric in a post-revolutionary world. I can recall a few incidences where ships were sunk because people used American long tons rather than British long tons (or vice versa).

[Jazzratt]

I think that it is important for unification that we have a unified measuring system and the metric system is much quicker to learn and easier to use.

[Dr Mindbender]

To me i think its more sensible to have units easilly divisible by 10 so for the sake of practicality if nothing else yeah everywhere should adopt it.

In fact just phase out imperial altogether to remove textbook ambiguity.

[Comrade Rage]

I like the metric better, since it is a lot easier to use.

I think that we should use it here.

[Djehuti]

As far as I can see the U.S. customary units holds no advantage at all over the metric system, and thus it should be abolished as soon as possible.

I'm surpriced you haven't already.

[Chapter 24]

As far as I can see the U.S. customary units holds no advantage at all over the metric system, and thus it should be abolished as soon as possible.

I'm surpriced you haven't already.

Apparently we tried in the 70s, but apparently we rejected the use of metric units for highway distances, weather reports, and other common measurements. So it didn't work out too well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The reason the Metric System hasn't fully taken root in the US (except among scientists, but even then...) is because of American chauvinism - basically, "why use a fancy-pants Yurpeean system? We're Americans and we're the greatest country in the world, so we use our own system" - unfortunately, enough Americans believe this propaganda to make full establishment of the Metric system an impossibility at this time.

[Magdalen]

At least the United States has decided which system to use.

In Britain, there is an incredibly baffling mix of the two systems. The majority of goods are sold in metric units, such as fruit, vegetables etc., this system is taught in most schools. However, the imperial system is still used when it comes to speed and distance, the sale of milk and beer, and transaction in precious metals.

I've lived here all my life, and even I occasionally get confused as to which system is being used. I can hardly imagine how a foreign visitor would feel.

[Kami]

At least the United States has decided which system to use.

In Britain, there is an incredibly baffling mix of the two systems. The majority of goods are sold in metric units, such as fruit, vegetables etc., this system is taught in most schools. However, the imperial system is still used when it comes to speed and distance, the sale of milk and beer, and transaction in precious metals.

I've lived here all my life, and even I occasionally get confused as to which system is being used. I can hardly imagine how a foreign visitor would feel.



Thing is, we're not actually taught the imperial system, despite its common use here. I have no idea what the denominations are without looking them up or using a converter or something. I think the only thing I was ever taught regarding imperial is how many centimetres in an inch.

[MarxSchmarx]

At least the United States has decided which system to use.

In Britain, there is an incredibly baffling mix of the two systems. The majority of goods are sold in metric units, such as fruit, vegetables etc., this system is taught in most schools. However, the imperial system is still used when it comes to speed and distance, the sale of milk and beer, and transaction in precious metals.


Well, sort of. Officially, the US is on both systems. For instance, most booze is sold by the ml, and packing on all products is supposed to have both labels. Medicine is now almost entirely metric, and all government reports above a certain bureaucratic level need to be in both metric and imperial labelling. Up until a few years ago, weather reports on TV and radio were supposed to be on both systems. Road signage is in the imperial system but that is b/c in 1994 the legislature chose to save money by printing miles only signs. I see this schizophrenia in every "Anglo-saxon" country I visit, and I think the UK and US are probably points on a contiuum rather than extremes in this respect.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The more there is a shift towards the metric system, the better off everyone will be. :)

[spartan]

The majority of the world uses metric and it is easier to teach IMO then imperial measurements (both British and American) so yeah we probably should standardise on metric to measure things.

But if we decide to standardise on things based on it's popularity then would that mean that driving on the left side of the road (as is common in commonwealth nations and former territories of the British Empire) would be abolished in favour of the more common driving on the right side of the road?

[Invader Zim]

Well, sort of. Officially, the US is on both systems. For instance, most booze is sold by the ml, and packing on all products is supposed to have both labels. Medicine is now almost entirely metric, and all government reports above a certain bureaucratic level need to be in both metric and imperial labelling. Up until a few years ago, weather reports on TV and radio were supposed to be on both systems. Road signage is in the imperial system but that is b/c in 1994 the legislature chose to save money by printing miles only signs. I see this schizophrenia in every "Anglo-saxon" country I visit, and I think the UK and US are probably points on a contiuum rather than extremes in this respect.

You are quite right it is of course, similar in the UK. We pour by the pint, but do shots by the mil. We also do our roads by the mile, but our tracks by the metre.

[chimx]

You're all Godless Jacobins.

[mikelepore]

Don't most people in the U.S. who ever have a need to convert anything already use metric units? While most people use the mile of driving, the quart of milk, etc., they also go through life without ever making conversions. Although finding the number of centimeters in a kilometer (100 X 1000) is easier than finding the number of inches in a mile (12 X 5280), why would it matter which is easier if no one ever gets asked such a question? Most people who need to make conversions, including science and engineering, already went metric a long time ago. Their main problem is inconsistency between the MKS and CGS systems. Some people also found that decimal divisions of any kind are just as easy, so land surveyers in the U.S. are using the centi-foot instead of the fractions of an inch, and they have received the benefit of arithmetic simplification.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The majority of the world uses metric and it is easier to teach IMO then imperial measurements (both British and American) so yeah we probably should standardise on metric to measure things.

But if we decide to standardise on things based on it's popularity then would that mean that driving on the left side of the road (as is common in commonwealth nations and former territories of the British Empire) would be abolished in favour of the more common driving on the right side of the road?


I don't see how which side of the road one drives on has anything to do with using Metric or Imperial measurements. Methinks you've been listening to too much UKIP propaganda.

[534634634265]

well why not convert to a much simpler base12, like pusher robot advocates?:rolleyes:
im sorry, but i see the debate of our methods of measure to be moot and asinine. by and large the systems in place work just fine, and the only people who need to use one or the other already do and know how. its not THAT big of a deal is it?

[Cult of Reason]

crackedlogic: Standardisation is, in general, a good thing. Remember that Mars probe that was lost because of confusion between yards and metres (assuming the story is true)?

[Drink Activist]

It is one of things I can't understand in USA. Why they don't want to use metric system when almost whole world use it? Unfortunately USA in the capitalists world is one of the world imperials and using one metric system would be reasonable and make things easier.

[Red_or_Dead]

I don't see how which side of the road one drives on has anything to do with using Metric or Imperial measurements.

Standarization. Most people use the metric system - everyone should use the metric system (and because its practical as well). Most people drive on the right side of the road - everyone should drive on the right side of the road. Nothing wrong with it, imo. It would be much less confusing and much safer.

[spartan]

Standarization. Most people use the metric system - everyone should use the metric system (and because its practical as well). Most people drive on the right side of the road - everyone should drive on the right side of the road. Nothing wrong with it, imo. It would be much less confusing and much safer.
Yeah but driving on the left side of the road in a right hand drive vehicle (as is the done thing in the Commonwealth countries) favours a right eye bias which makes driving safer (as there are more right handers, and thus right handed drivers, then left handers in the world).

[Red_or_Dead]

Yeah but driving on the left side of the road in a right hand drive vehicle (as is the done thing in the Commonwealth countries) favours a right eye bias which makes driving safer (as there are more right handers, and thus right handed drivers, then left handers in the world).

First time I hear this, but it does make sense.

Anyway, I think that id there is to be a standarisation of driving sides somewhere in the future, it will be left-side countries going right-side.

[Sendo]

It'd be nice to retain some imperial units where it makes sense, like say people's height. To say I'm 1.88 m is rather dumb. It's much easier and works out very nicely to say someone is "six foot something......really short, just over five foot, etc." But for everything else it just makes sense to adapt to Metric. Well except for Celsius for the temps of days. But that's just because my hometown saw temps from 0-90 degrees fahrenheit at its sextremes throughout the year and worked nicely. The thought of saying "Today's high is minus 2" is a little funny to me.

[mikelepore]

I wish the TV documentaries on the History Channel and the Science Channel would stop indicating all land areas in units of "football fields" and indicating all large energy dissipations in units of "Hiroshimas". Those expressions irritate me.

[Chapter 24]

I wish the TV documentaries on the History Channel and the Science Channel would stop indicating all land areas in units of "football fields" and indicating all large energy dissipations in units of "Hiroshimas". Those expressions irritate me.

Irritating and Eurocentric though those expressions may be, they must be effective as the show's audience obviously must grasp the concept of there being an event, land area, or otherwise when it's related to proportions of a certain other event or land area, i.e. the palace was so large that fifteen Soldier Fields.

[Dystisis]

It'd be nice to retain some imperial units where it makes sense, like say people's height. To say I'm 1.88 m is rather dumb. It's much easier and works out very nicely to say someone is "six foot something......really short, just over five foot, etc." But for everything else it just makes sense to adapt to Metric. Well except for Celsius for the temps of days. But that's just because my hometown saw temps from 0-90 degrees fahrenheit at its sextremes throughout the year and worked nicely. The thought of saying "Today's high is minus 2" is a little funny to me.
There is nothing inherently odd, funny or weird about your examples. It is only a subjective preference in your case, I think.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Irritating and Eurocentric though those expressions may be...

They're not "Eurocentric". Nuclear weaponry is well within the grasp of a large number of non-Anglo-Saxon countries, and football (assuming we're talking about proper football, not that American rubbish where the ball isn't even shaped right) is played all over the world.

Please stop insulting the vast majority of the human species simply to gain some left-cred.

[Jazzratt]

It'd be nice to retain some imperial units where it makes sense, like say people's height. To say I'm 1.88 m is rather dumb. It's much easier and works out very nicely to say someone is "six foot something......really short, just over five foot, etc."

Don't be silly. It's just the case that you're used to saying "he's a lanky bugger - 6' 6" or whatever, there's nothing wrong with that (I generally express heights in feet and inches myself) it's no reason not to use metric measurements for height (as they do when I get check-ups at hospital).


Well except for Celsius for the temps of days. But that's just because my hometown saw temps from 0-90 degrees fahrenheit at its sextremes throughout the year and worked nicely. The thought of saying "Today's high is minus 2" is a little funny to me.

Fahrenheit is a fucking stupid measurement.

[Chapter 24]

They're not "Eurocentric". Nuclear weaponry is well within the grasp of a large number of non-Anglo-Saxon countries, and football (assuming we're talking about proper football, not that American rubbish where the ball isn't even shaped right) is played all over the world.

Please stop insulting the vast majority of the human species simply to gain some left-cred.

And you can stop assuming that I'm deliberately trying to insult the vast majority of the human species smply to gain some "left-cred". If I find that it's not proper to call it "Eurocentric" but rather that it's "American"-centric (assuming we're talking about the United States, and not all of the Americas, because I certainly don't want to set off your pissy attitude by assuming everyone in the world calls the United States "America"), then fine, I will. But I'm not going to bend over backwards to gain supposed "left-cred" from members of the board. So please stop trying to look like a hero from stopping my supposed "opportunist" ways in gaining "left-cred".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And you can stop assuming that I'm deliberately trying to insult the vast majority of the human species smply to gain some "left-cred".

I call them as I see them. Too many people seem to think that rhetoric wrapped in "red" or "non-Eurocentric" rags is a substitute for political substance.


If I find that it's not proper to call it "Eurocentric" but rather that it's "American"-centric (assuming we're talking about the United States, and not all of the Americas, because I certainly don't want to set off your pissy attitude by assuming everyone in the world calls the United States "America"), then fine, I will.

I believe the term you are looking for is "Anglocentric". But then, you would still be wrong as it is not only Anglos who build nukes or play football.

Lots of people call the USA "America" for short. There is no problem with this, as the continent upon which it is situated is called North America and not simply "America". The other continent is called South America and both continents can be collectively referred to as "the Americas"


But I'm not going to bend over backwards to gain supposed "left-cred" from members of the board. So please stop trying to look like a hero from stopping my supposed "opportunist" ways in gaining "left-cred".

I'm actually trying to encourage you to think for yourself rather than simply repeat the jargon of bourgeouis pseudo-leftist American university students. Calling something "Eurocentric" adds nothing to the discussion, which is probably why the word was invented, most likely to cover up those aforementioned students' lack of political experience.

[Psy]

Necessary? No. Useful and sensible? yes.
For one, the non-metric units used in various countries often have identical names, but differing values; Imperial units are often different from their US counterparts. It also aids in education; science and maths predominantly use metric units, and I'm sure having students learn two systems is inefficient.

Don't forget you have many non-metric units as each nation created their own increasing languages barriers and some units sound like each other to non-natives for example sun (Japanese unit of length that is 30.30mm) and cùn (Chinese unit of length that is 33.33mm).

There is also a huge problem with archiving with non-metric units, most engineering documents from even the 19th century are hard to interrupt as the exact dimensions of a non-metric units regularly change over the centuries and in the 19th century there was 16 different standard units of the inch in use by engineers on Earth with no common way to differentiate them.

[Mute Fox]

There is a very interesting article which I found that argues against metrification, and although it's apparently coming from the mouth of a strange breed of bourgeois ideologue (I have read the entire website of this fellow and still haven't managed to figure out exactly what his political views are, except that they aren't leftist), it nonetheless makes a lot of sense to me. I recommend reading the website where I found this article, as well - it's a confusing but interesting amalgamation of articles railing against the "decline of western civilization." Just google "ourcivilisation.com" (yes, "civilisation" with an "s", for my fellow North Americans.) I don't agree with the chap's outlandish worldview, but his argument against the metric system seems to be pretty sound. Read it and tell me what you think, comrades. Since I haven't reached 25 posts yet, the site won't let me post links, so I will reproduce the entirety of the article here:

"The Impact Of Decline Upon Weights And Measures, by Anonymous (8/12/1996)

Our community is discarding the useful weights and measures learnt by centuries of experience by replacing Imperial with Metric measure. The following article is from Keefe university, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, England. It is about the proposed metrication of the United Kingdom but it clearly reveals the defeat of commonsense that metrication entails.


SURELY the most irritating excuse produced for the European Commission's banning of British Imperial weights and measures is the claim that feet and inches, gallons and pints, pounds and ounces do not belong in the "modern world". This claim has never cut much ice. The USA put Neil Armstrong on the moon using Imperial measurements and continues to use feet and inches in designing space satellites. The most modern desk-top publishing computer programmes use fractions of an inch to measure letter sizes, and electronic weighing scales in supermarkets display pound and ounces on digitalised readouts. What is not so well known is that it is in fact the metric system, which is outmoded and flawed, seriously hampering efficient practices of measuring, division and tallying.


The problem with metric is that every unit is based on the number ten. In weight, for example, there are 10 mg in 1 cg, 10 cg in 1 dg, 10 dg in 1 g, 10g in 1 Dg, 10Dg in 1hg, 10 hg in 1 kg, 10 kg in 1 Mg, and so on. Although metric's decimal structure is much acclaimed by supporters of conversion, the rigidity of constant multiplications of ten frequently means that metric measures overshoot desirable or useful proportions. Take the experience of the metric system in the building industry as an example. Metric fails to produce any intermediate unit between the decimetre (4 inches) and the metre (40 inches) and so deprives builders of the Imperial foot, used throughout history and suitable for a wide range of building needs such as planning grids. As a result, the building trade sector, both in Britain and in Europe, has created the "metric foot" of 30 centimetres together with larger units of 120 or 90 centimetres (metric yards) into which metric feet may divide. Metric in the building industry survives because the metre can be discarded in favour of measures that reproduce the very Imperial units metric was intended to replace.


Cans of soft drink provide another example of metric inefficiency. Drink cans cannot be produced in metric units because there are no metric measures available that reflect normal drinking quantities. The litre is much too big and the centilitre is much too small. Instead, the canning industry has had to divide the litre by about a third and produce a non-standard metric measure of "330 millilitres" in order to produce a suitable quantity. The figure of 330 millilitres does not constitute an exact third of a litre because no metric measure can be divided by three without producing an infinitely recurring decimal(3.333333 etc). Thus, three cans of Coke make 0.99 litres, not one litre. Rather than streamlining our system of measurement, metrication disrupts it.


Metric's inappropriate divisions are compounded by the fact that metric is based on abstract scientific principles which are aloof from everyday uses. The metre is defined as "The length equal to 1,650,763.3 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the levels 2p to base 10 and Sd to base 5 of the krypton 86 atom." As fascinating as such equations are to atomic scientists, metric measures do not bear any relevance to the vast diversity of human activities such as commerce, construction, surveying, cooking and weighing new-born babies. Whereas the British system has evolved around the essentials of what people carry, drink or work with (producing the pound, pint and foot), the metric system is a combination of unergonomic units based on a number that can seldom be cleanly divided and from which important proportions cannot be expressed as single units. Metric is workable only by abandoning its standard measures, the metre, kilo and litre, and replacing them with units of different sizes based on human needs and totally unrelated to "wavelengths in a vacuum". And because of metric's decimal structure, desirable quantities can only be represented by larger numbers of numerous digits: the logical unit of one pound of tinned food therefore becomes the metric standard of 420 grams; one gallon of engine oil becomes five litres of oil; a straightforward foot of fabric becomes twenty-five centimetres of fabric; two inch wide masking tape becomes fifty millimetres; a pint of milk becomes five hundred millilitre units; and roof-boxes, baths and tables previously measured as five or six feet explode into hundreds of centimetres or thousands of millimetres.


Such conversions do not make numbers more logical or streamlined, just bigger. There is no magic process by which measuring the world in metric improves it. Selling petrol by litres instead of gallons does not improve efficiency or solve world pollution. Enforcing metric measures in the building industry does not make houses faster to build or ensure superior quality. Nor is there any evidence that converting clothing sizes from inches to centimetres will make clothes easier to fit.


Any glance at history will confirm the use of metric does not ensure success. Whereas Britain's industrial growth during the 1800s was at a time of Imperial measurements, Britain's decline from the 1960s was during the very first move towards metric. Going decimal in 1971 did not prevent the period of inflation that followed, nor has the metrication of school education improved the level of learning. During the Second World War, countries that used Imperial measures were victors while losers used metric. If metricators only studied the metric countries they are so keen to copy, they would find that most have adapted the metric system to reproduce Imperial measures that existed prior to their own metrication. Examples include the French "livre"and the German "Pfund" (500 grams, about one pound in weight), and the Swedish inch (25 millimetres). Numerous European industries have not yet converted to metric: the German gun industry, the Dutch plumbing trade and the Swedish timber industry all use Imperial measures. Belgium, home of the European Union, uses acres, not metric hectares. And it should not be forgotten that the most powerful economy in the world uses Imperial measures: the United States of America.


The lack of closely-argued research by the British Government to demonstrate the supposed "benefits" of metrication is even more astonishing considering that the costs of transferring to metric amounts to a staggering 12 billion. Having lost the technical argument, metricators resort to the claim that Imperial measures are "complicated and difficult to understand". This is rather like suggesting people are unable to grasp the concept of a right angle because right angles consist of ninety degrees rather than 100. It is a simple fact that we all live in an "irrational" 365 or 366 day year in which the measurements of hours, days and months involves units as diverse as 60, 24, 7,14, 28, 30, 31, 12 and 52. Although there is not a single ten involved in measuring the passage of time, this writer has yet to meet anyone who cannot tell the time because of the "confusing" division of hours into 60 rather than 100 minutes, or who is unable to remember the day because there are seven days in a week instead of a logical "ten".


The entire metric attack on Britain flies in the face of European Union President Jacques Santer's assurance in May 1995 that European Union did not threaten the UK's national identity or cultural traditions. The reality is that the European Union is intent on abolishing almost every British measure by means of European Union directives 89/617 and 80/181 which have compelled the metric conversion of a vast range of packaged foods, liquids, carpets and commercial documents affecting industry, local authorities and public sector administration. Small concessions such as the printing of Imperial measures in small print along metric on food packaging are likely to be withdrawn in 1999, and the few areas to escape this year's imposition, in particular the weighing of loose fruit in pounds and ounces, will be banned on January 1st 2000.


But surely, argue the supporters of European Union, Britain is now a part of Europe and should accept European ways. Here in lies the Great Euro-Lie. If the European Union regarded Britain as much a part of Europe as France and Germany, then it necessarily follows that pints are just as European as litres, and miles as European as kilometres. The European Union's hostility to the European way of life which has developed in Britain reveals that its definition of "Europe" is a strictly selective one. It defines what is European and what is not — and its campaign against European culture in Britain reveals that British people have no place in Europe other than as 57 million featureless numbers to add to the growing Euro-bureaucratic machine. An English village sweet shop can no longer sell four ounces of butterscotch but has to say "113 grams" and 9 by 4 inch envelopes will be re-labelled "229 x 102 millimetres" in a clumsy attempt to show how accurate metric can be. The British people, who have been quite happy with pints and pounds, will be forced instead to learn words like "decagram" and "hectalitre". But nowhere are the effects of metrication more ludicrous than in our courts. Any witness who refers to a six-inch knife will be told by the judge to say a "152 millimetre" knife and instructed to speak only in terms of centimetres and metres. Thus, even to speak in non-metric language will be banned by the European Union in some circumstances.


The sheer unpopularity of European Union directives 89/617 and 80/181 may be gauged by the Government's threat of £5,000 fines and six month prison sentences for those who use Imperial measures. Due to the Government's attempt to sneak the changes in unnoticed by the public at large, confusion and contradiction has surrounded just who and what is affected by the directives. Doorstep milk pints may stay (for the time being) but milk cartons have to go metric. Shandy in pints is banned but pints of beer may remain. Pizza restaurants may continue to refer to seven inch pizzas rather than "177 millimetre" pizzas, but it remains unclear whether bicycle shop assistants risk prosecution if they say that a cycle has an 18-inch wheel instead of an European Union approved "457 mm" wheel. And will the police be guilty of a criminal offence should they refer to a suspect's height in some official document as "six feet"? The classification "criminal" is a serious one and should be reserved for people who rob, assault and kill. That people like grocers and tailors can go to prison for failing to observe surreal metric-diktat is an indication of the mad Euro-whirlpool into which we are all being sucked.


Metrication is not the only form of uniformity being imposed by the European Union. Brussels has already phased in European Union passports and is now pushing the idea of a Euro-driving licence (complete with mugshots). This is likely to be followed by some sort of Euro-identity card. Perhaps Brussels might like to also consider scrapping British Bank Holidays and replacing them with Euro Holidays? Or introducing a Euro-wide telephone box design, or a single Euro-uniform for postmen, or the abolition of the British legal system? Or triangular tea-bags?


It defies belief that when there are so many real problems confronting Europe such as the war in Bosnia, Brussels finds time to fiddle about with such issues as whether manufacturers from outside Cornwall and Yorkshire should be permitted to call their products Cornish pasties and Yorkshire puddings. The European Union is presently considering a proposal by the European Parliament to set up a "European Observation Station" to monitor flying saucers. No less than 20,000 directives interfering in every conceivable subject from carrots and cucumbers to carpets and coffins have flooded out of Brussels. One of the European Union's most recent directives has been its historic decision to forbid the use of a harmless colouring dye in frozen mushy peas. As a result, frozen mushy peas will be sold yellow in colour from June 1996. "I don't know what we're going to do," says John Clark, sales director of frozen mushy pea producer, Lockwoods of Ambergate, which employs 24 people. "We have been producing mushy peas for thirty years . . . We feel this is a case of the big boys in Brussels pushing around small British firms. "Lockwoods of Ambergate will stop production in December 1995.


Other firms to feel the pressure of Euro-remoulding include rural garages which make small sales of petrol and have found it difficult meeting the cost of spending thousands of pounds on metric pumps. According to garage owner Frank Robertson from Cloughton, North Yorkshire, "It's uneconomic to lashout on new pumps serving litres." Mr Robertson's Orchard Garage opened in 1929 and has now closed as a result of metrication. According to a motor trade estimate, four thousand rural garages have closed. All thanks to the streamlined beauty of "European Union".


Europe has a long history of producing regimes and ideologies committed to the concept of the European superstate: Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia. Now we have the Brussels Bureaucracy, intent on invading every nook and cranny of our national life and imposing conformity and obedience on 365 million people. But there remains —just—a glimmer of hope. Although the European Union can force unpopular directives by means of legal and bureaucratic coercion, it has failed to realise that forcing people to measure their height in centimetres does not make people like centimetres. Forcing people to use kilometres instead of miles will not make them like kilometres. And forcing British people to carry European identity cards will not make people feel European.


Rather than forging a new European identity, the European Union's constant pushing is more likely to increase resistance, and it is in this that the seed of the European Union's future destruction will lie. "Metric Day" has cut Imperial measures down in swathes and has been a devastating defeat for commonsense. Yet anti-metric sentiment can be heard in pubs, offices and supermarkets across the country. Here and there individuals are turning to face the metric onslaught. Property consultant Mike Natrass of Birmingham's Natrass Giles, recently turned down a merger proposal when he learnt that the other company was going metric. He said, "We are British and don't want to see things that are British being lost." Another businessman, Bruce Robertson, owner of the Trago Mills Store Group in Devon and Cornwall, has made public his intention to risk fines in order to resist metrication. And spearheading the fight is the British Weights and Measures Association established by Vivian Linacre. Mr Linacre has vowed to stop metric absorption at all costs and is to challenge compulsory metrication in the European Court of Justice. Britain has four years before the current wave of metrication is completed. This period must be used to bring urgent pressure on our Government to halt the process it has so negligently permitted by giving the people of Britain a clear assurance that the mile and the pub pint will remain. The Government must decriminalise Imperial measures, resist the European Union's banning order on pounds and ounces on January 1st 2000, and, most important of all, restore the teaching of Imperial measures in education. Such a stand will at last tell the bureaucrats of Brussels that Britain is not about to be stamped, streamlined and standardised according to specifications decided by officials the British people did not elect. Otherwise, for every inch we give the European Union, they will take a mile, or, as the European Union would prefer to say,
"Give us 25.4 millimetres and we will take 1.609 kilometres. "

[mikelepore]

Cans of soft drink provide another example of metric inefficiency. Drink cans cannot be produced in metric units because there are no metric measures available that reflect normal drinking quantities. The litre is much too big and the centilitre is much too small.

Normal drinking quantities!? Does the author think the people took a vote to adopt the common 12 ounce soda can? People in industry decided upon the sizes arbitrarily.


Instead, the canning industry has had to divide the litre by about a third and produce a non-standard metric measure of "330 millilitres" in order to produce a suitable quantity. The figure of 330 millilitres does not constitute an exact third of a litre because no metric measure can be divided by three without producing an infinitely recurring decimal(3.333333 etc). Thus, three cans of Coke make 0.99 litres, not one litre. Rather than streamlining our system of measurement, metrication disrupts it.

The author doesn't even consider the possibility of packaging the beverage in units of 1/3 L, which would make three of them equal 1 L. The article says industry "has had to" choose 330 ml, as though it were a law.

[mikelepore]

Metric's inappropriate divisions are compounded by the fact that metric is based on abstract scientific principles which are aloof from everyday uses. The metre is defined as "The length equal to 1,650,763.3 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the levels 2p to base 10 and Sd to base 5 of the krypton 86 atom." As fascinating as such equations are to atomic scientists, metric measures do not bear any relevance to the vast diversity of human activities such as commerce, construction, surveying, cooking and weighing new-born babies.

The author seems uneducated about the history. The meter was originally defined so that there would be ten million of them in the distance from the north pole to the equator, via a certain longitude. Later the policy was changed to make definitions independent of any particular artifacts, so that independent laboratories could reproduce them. Then the meter that was already in use was translated into a universal physical measurement. (The kilogram is now the only unit that is still based on an artifact, being defined as the mass of a certain metal cylinder that is stored in a vault in France.)

In addition to that, the use of krypron atom is an obsolete suggestion. Since 1983, the method has been is to define the second as the time required for a certain atomic event, and then, using that second, define the meter as the distance that light travels in a vacuum in a certain fraction of a second.

[Psy]

There is a very interesting article which I found that argues against metrification, and although it's apparently coming from the mouth of a strange breed of bourgeois ideologue (I have read the entire website of this fellow and still haven't managed to figure out exactly what his political views are, except that they aren't leftist), it nonetheless makes a lot of sense to me. I recommend reading the website where I found this article, as well - it's a confusing but interesting amalgamation of articles railing against the "decline of western civilization." Just google "ourcivilisation.com" (yes, "civilisation" with an "s", for my fellow North Americans.) I don't agree with the chap's outlandish worldview, but his argument against the metric system seems to be pretty sound. Read it and tell me what you think, comrades. Since I haven't reached 25 posts yet, the site won't let me post links, so I will reproduce the entirety of the article here:

It assumes all civilizations used the British imperial measuring system even though Asia never used it till they become client states of imperial empires. It ignores in the metric system was born out of thousands measuring systems in France alone as each French lord had their own definition of a stone, inch, mile, chain,ect as by definition a foot was the distance of the foot of the lord under French feudalism as with all imperial measuring the unit is abstract to the workers as it is not their foot but the foot of their "glorious imperialist master" which since is never at hand in any work shop they have to use measuring instruments and if you are going to go that route you might as well use the metric system.

They are also false thinking modern measuring uses the imperial system, in reality every computerized measuring system on planet Earth measures in the metric system then calculates into the measuring system the users wants so a survey crew doesn't need to care if their equipment measures in international miles or U.S. survey mile (there is a difference) as all survey equipment measures in meters then converts it to what ever the user wants.

Computerized measuring also means their arguments of metric numbers being too large are laughably out of date as modern computers don't mind very large numbers. Also computers don't understand fractions only decimals so the only way computers understand the imperial system is to convert fractions into decimals, then there is the problem that there is no uniform units of power in the imperial system as 1 link is 7.92 in, then you have the foot then the rod (25 links), 4 rods makes a chain, 10 chains make a furlong and 8 furlongs makes a US survey mile. This is why no computerized survey equipment use the imperial system other then to calculate it after the fact since there is no uniform formula for moving back and forth between powers of the base unit.

As for the idea that imperial is easy, it is really hard. How many people know how many US stones are in a catty or chains in a rod? Scottish miles are in a Irish mile? UK nautical miles are in a US nautical mile? Cables are in a fathom? Links in a furlong? Barrels in a oil barrels (I have no idea why oil is measured in a different barrel unit when it uses bbl that is also used for the unit barrel that is also a legal unit of measurement in the USA). In reality the imperial unit of measurement is so confusing most people only know a fraction of it.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by mikelepore


Originally Posted by the article posted by Mute Fox
Cans of soft drink provide another example of metric inefficiency. Drink cans cannot be produced in metric units because there are no metric measures available that reflect normal drinking quantities. The litre is much too big and the centilitre is much too small. Normal drinking quantities!? Does the author think the people took a vote to adopt the common 12 ounce soda can? People in industry decided upon the sizes arbitrarily.Would you be so kind as to give a source for that? Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you. I also believe the author's point was more or less that no matter who decided them, imperial units of measurement are more analogous to everyday, ergonomic quantities than metric units, which by definition are meant not to be ergonomic but rather to be scientific, which is different. From where I stand (and I may simply be biased, as an American who has grown up with the Imperial system) metric units have absolutely nothing to do with human proportions (or proportions of things that humans are familiar with day to day) - and a useful system of measurement must necessarily also be a convenient one, that is, it must be adapted to the perspective of the creatures using it. If we were larger or smaller or differently proportioned (on average), our measurements would necessarily have to change to reflect that fact. Metric measurements never change, because they are based on arbitrary measurements of every part of the physical universe except human beings. Metric may be great for science, but it's rather awkward for everyday use, don't you think? Just my opinion.


Originally posted by mikelepore


Originally Posted by Mute Fox
Metric's inappropriate divisions are compounded by the fact that metric is based on abstract scientific principles which are aloof from everyday uses. The metre is defined as "The length equal to 1,650,763.3 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the levels 2p to base 10 and Sd to base 5 of the krypton 86 atom." As fascinating as such equations are to atomic scientists, metric measures do not bear any relevance to the vast diversity of human activities such as commerce, construction, surveying, cooking and weighing new-born babies.The author seems uneducated about the history. The meter was originally defined so that there would be ten million of them in the distance from the north pole to the equator, via a certain longitude. Later the policy was changed to make definitions independent of any particular artifacts, so that independent laboratories could reproduce them. Then the meter that was already in use was translated into a universal physical measurement. (The kilogram is now the only unit that is still based on an artifact, being defined as the mass of a certain metal cylinder that is stored in a vault in France.)

In addition to that, the use of krypron atom is an obsolete suggestion. Since 1983, the method has been is to define the second as the time required for a certain atomic event, and then, using that second, define the meter as the distance that light travels in a vacuum in a certain fraction of a second.Again, regardless of what specific experiment these measurements are based on, they are ultimately arbitrary and have no relation to ergonomic human proportions. Or do they? Perhaps I am just missing something. It's quite likely, as I am relatively thick when it comes to science. Care to enlighten me on the reasons why metric is designed the way it is?

Originally posted by Psy

Originally Posted by Mute Fox
There is a very interesting article which I found that argues against metrification, and although it's apparently coming from the mouth of a strange breed of bourgeois ideologue (I have read the entire website of this fellow and still haven't managed to figure out exactly what his political views are, except that they aren't leftist), it nonetheless makes a lot of sense to me. I recommend reading the website where I found this article, as well - it's a confusing but interesting amalgamation of articles railing against the "decline of western civilization." Just google "ourcivilisation.com" (yes, "civilisation" with an "s", for my fellow North Americans.) I don't agree with the chap's outlandish worldview, but his argument against the metric system seems to be pretty sound. Read it and tell me what you think, comrades. Since I haven't reached 25 posts yet, the site won't let me post links, so I will reproduce the entirety of the article here:
It assumes all civilizations used the British imperial measuring system even though Asia never used it till they become client states of imperial empires. It ignores in the metric system was born out of thousands measuring systems in France alone as each French lord had their own definition of a stone, inch, mile, chain,ect as by definition a foot was the distance of the foot of the lord under French feudalism as with all imperial measuring the unit is abstract to the workers as it is not their foot but the foot of their "glorious imperialist master" which since is never at hand in any work shop they have to use measuring instruments and if you are going to go that route you might as well use the metric system.

They are also false thinking modern measuring uses the imperial system, in reality every computerized measuring system on planet Earth measures in the metric system then calculates into the measuring system the users wants so a survey crew doesn't need to care if their equipment measures in international miles or U.S. survey mile (there is a difference) as all survey equipment measures in meters then converts it to what ever the user wants.

Computerized measuring also means their arguments of metric numbers being too large are laughably out of date as modern computers don't mind very large numbers. Also computers don't understand fractions only decimals so the only way computers understand the imperial system is to convert fractions into decimals, then there is the problem that there is no uniform units of power in the imperial system as 1 link is 7.92 in, then you have the foot then the rod (25 links), 4 rods makes a chain, 10 chains make a furlong and 8 furlongs makes a US survey mile. This is why no computerized survey equipment use the imperial system other then to calculate it after the fact since there is no uniform formula for moving back and forth between powers of the base unit.

As for the idea that imperial is easy, it is really hard. How many people know how many US stones are in a catty or chains in a rod? Scottish miles are in a Irish mile? UK nautical miles are in a US nautical mile? Cables are in a fathom? Links in a furlong? Barrels in a oil barrels (I have no idea why oil is measured in a different barrel unit when it uses bbl that is also used for the unit barrel that is also a legal unit of measurement in the USA). In reality the imperial unit of measurement is so confusing most people only know a fraction of it.

The fact that old Imperial measurements differed from place to place, and still do today, does not seem to affect the author's argument. If Imperial measurements vary and cause confusion, then standardize them. Standardization is different than metrification. The author's objection to metric units is not that units shouldn't be standardized; it's that units shouldn't be standardized in metric, because metric units are grossly inconvenient for use by laymen (I'm sure he'd go as far as saying that Imperial measurements should be used for scientific purposes as well, though I wouldn't necessarily agree.)

The fact that computers can only recognize decimals is an excellent argument for the use of metric in computer systems; but that still doesn't affect the argument that Imperial is better for use by human beings in everyday situations. As you said, computers are quite capable of converting figures into Imperial, just as they are capable of converting binary into a display onscreen. Quite inefficient from the computer's point of view, but necessary for us slow-minded humans.

As for Imperial measurements being difficult, most people only ever have to deal with a limited set of measurements in order to function in society...miles, feet, yards, pounds, ounces, gallons, etc. No one I know in the U.S. Knows how many stones are in a catty, etc, and they don't really care, since they never have to use them.

[Psy]

The fact that old Imperial measurements differed from place to place, and still do today, does not seem to affect the author's argument. If Imperial measurements vary and cause confusion, then standardize them. Standardization is different than metrification. The author's objection to metric units is not that units shouldn't be standardized; it's that units shouldn't be standardized in metric, because metric units are grossly inconvenient for use by laymen (I'm sure he'd go as far as saying that Imperial measurements should be used for scientific purposes as well, though I wouldn't necessarily agree.)

If you are going to standardize units you might as well go with metrification since imperial system have no common way to increase or decrees unit of power, while in metrics moving from unit powers is unified so you can easiler go from yoctometre to yottametre since all you have to do is move the decimal.

Here is a common problem with the imperial system, say you have X feet Y inches, you have to convert it to a single unit before you can do anything with it while in metric it is improper to mix unit powers, you'd never see X meters Y millimeters since that is the point of the decimal point. Meaning metrics are better for laymens.



The fact that computers can only recognize decimals is an excellent argument for the use of metric in computer systems; but that still doesn't affect the argument that Imperial is better for use by human beings in everyday situations. As you said, computers are quite capable of converting figures into Imperial, just as they are capable of converting binary into a display onscreen. Quite inefficient from the computer's point of view, but necessary for us slow-minded humans.

Metric is also easier for humans for the reasons above.



As for Imperial measurements being difficult, most people only ever have to deal with a limited set of measurements in order to function in society...miles, feet, yards, pounds, ounces, gallons, etc. No one I know in the U.S. Knows how many stones are in a catty, etc, and they don't really care, since they never have to use them.
That is the problem in practice the Imperial has far fewer units when you include units of power in the metric system, the metric system goes from 10^-24 to 10^24 in bases 10 giving 20 bases of power from the yocto to the yotta.

[mikelepore]

Would you be so kind as to give a source for that?

Give you a source for the fact that it was the managers at such companies as Coke and Pepsi who decided that the size for a can of soda should be 12 ounces, as opposed the people voting on it? I don't see how I could cite a source for such an everyday fact. _Everything_ that industry does, if it's not a matter of law, is based on the personal opinion of the management. It was the personal decision of some manager in industry that this computer should have exactly 12 "f" keys on the top row. It was the personal decision of some manager in industry that a car should have four wheels, rather than three or six. There is no other place for design criteria to come from. No one ever asks the people what we want. They make whatever they want to make, and we either have to buy it or go without having anything.

[mikelepore]

Again, regardless of what specific experiment these measurements are based on, they are ultimately arbitrary and have no relation to ergonomic human proportions. Or do they? Perhaps I am just missing something. It's quite likely, as I am relatively thick when it comes to science. Care to enlighten me on the reasons why metric is designed the way it is?

I don't see how the traditional (imperial) units are related to human proportions either. If I say the average adult person's height about 2 meters, or I say about 6 feet, the number 6 isn't any easier to handle than 2. If the length of my house is about 45 feet, or about 15 meters, saying 45 isn't any easier than saying 15. If I say my weight is 184 pounds, or I say I'm 84 kilograms, the number 184 isn't any easier to handle than 84. Where's the ergonomics in any case?

You can always pick one or two things to be convenient, but then that throwns off other things. When they invented metric, they decided that a cube that's 10 cm on a side would be the volume called a liter, and 1 liter of water would have a mass of 1 kilogram, nice round number. But you can't do that with everything. The next person might say: I don't care about the mass of water, I care about the mass of oil or alcohol, so you can only normalize for a few things, and for every other application it will seem arbitrary.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by Psy
If you are going to standardize units you might as well go with metrification since imperial system have no common way to increase or decrees unit of power, while in metrics moving from unit powers is unified so you can easiler go from yoctometre to yottametre since all you have to do is move the decimal.

Here is a common problem with the imperial system, say you have X feet Y inches, you have to convert it to a single unit before you can do anything with it while in metric it is improper to mix unit powers, you'd never see X meters Y millimeters since that is the point of the decimal point. Meaning metrics are better for laymens.

Well that actually does make sense...


Originally posted by Psy
That is the problem in practice the Imperial has far fewer units when you include units of power in the metric system, the metric system goes from 10^-24 to 10^24 in bases 10 giving 20 bases of power from the yocto to the yotta.

...but then you lost me :D
What I get from this is that metric actually has more intermediate units than Imperial, and so can cover a wider range of measurements. Also, metric is easier to convert, since it only involves moving a decimal point rather than trying to convert X feet Y inches into a single unit. This makes sense to me.


Originally posted by mikelepore
Give you a source for the fact that it was the managers at such companies as Coke and Pepsi who decided that the size for a can of soda should be 12 ounces, as opposed the people voting on it? I don't see how I could cite a source for such an everyday fact. _Everything_ that industry does, if it's not a matter of law, is based on the personal opinion of the management. It was the personal decision of some manager in industry that this computer should have exactly 12 "f" keys on the top row. It was the personal decision of some manager in industry that a car should have four wheels, rather than three or six. There is no other place for design criteria to come from. No one ever asks the people what we want. They make whatever they want to make, and we either have to buy it or go without having anything.

Well as an anarchist I understand that we have no choice in how things are designed and measured...to clarify, I was asking for a source on exactly why they decided thusly, to have 12 ounces in a can. But I suppose that's not relevant to the discussion, so I'll drop it. I was just curious.

Also, the universal adoption of the metric system wasn't voted on, either. It has nothing to do with the relative merits of metric vs. imperial, but I thought I'd point that out. Presumably, in a post-revolutionary society, people would be able to decide for themselves what measurements should be standard. Which brings us to...


Originally posted by mikelepore
I don't see how the traditional (imperial) units are related to human proportions either. If I say the average adult person's height about 2 meters, or I say about 6 feet, the number 6 isn't any easier to handle than 2. If the length of my house is about 45 feet, or about 15 meters, saying 45 isn't any easier than saying 15. If I say my weight is 184 pounds, or I say I'm 84 kilograms, the number 184 isn't any easier to handle than 84. Where's the ergonomics in any case?

You can always pick one or two things to be convenient, but then that throwns off other things. When they invented metric, they decided that a cube that's 10 cm on a side would be the volume called a liter, and 1 liter of water would have a mass of 1 kilogram, nice round number. But you can't do that with everything. The next person might say: I don't care about the mass of water, I care about the mass of oil or alcohol, so you can only normalize for a few things, and for every other application it will seem arbitrary.

...this. Very good point. I suppose you can't try to come up with a specific unit for every application. Hmm. I suppose I was just a bit prejudiced. Although you have to admit, it's fairly cruel that the E.U., or any other elite body, gets to decide people's affairs without their consent, even if metric is better. Anyway, I officially rescind my position that metric sucks. :blushing:

[Psy]

...but then you lost me :D
What I get from this is that metric actually has more intermediate units than Imperial, and so can cover a wider range of measurements. Also, metric is easier to convert, since it only involves moving a decimal point rather than trying to convert X feet Y inches into a single unit. This makes sense to me.

It means the metric system is far more scalable for example for space travel it is easy to go from Megameters between planets down to millimeters when it comes to landing on planet surface. Hell it even easy to go from Yoctometers that is subatomic to Yotometers that is the scale of the Universe so it possible for a human to understand the relationship between the scale parts of inside atom to the scale of the universe itself.

Capitalists have adopted the metric system over time because it has made engineering far easier since the imperial system doesn't have units small enough to measure the distance between transistors in even CPUs of the 1970's thus why engineers view imperial system as a useless obsolete measuring system as what is a good measuring system that can't even be used to engineer integrated circuits let alone micro processors. Scalability also help engineers as it means engineers can work in micrometers for processes and ICs then zoom out to millimeters to see how it would fit on a board and zoom out to meters to see how it would fit in a supercomputers.

[Buffalo Souljah]

You're all Godless Jacobins.
Amen.

[MarxSchmarx]

It means the metric system is far more scalable for example for space travel it is easy to go from Megameters between planets down to millimeters when it comes to landing on planet surface. Hell it even easy to go from Yoctometers that is subatomic to Yotometers that is the scale of the Universe so it possible for a human to understand the relationship between the scale parts of inside atom to the scale of the universe itself.

Capitalists have adopted the metric system over time because it has made engineering far easier since the imperial system doesn't have units small enough to measure the distance between transistors in even CPUs of the 1970's thus why engineers view imperial system as a useless obsolete measuring system as what is a good measuring system that can't even be used to engineer integrated circuits let alone micro processors. Scalability also help engineers as it means engineers can work in micrometers for processes and ICs then zoom out to millimeters to see how it would fit on a board and zoom out to meters to see how it would fit in a supercomputers.

If this were the case, it is rather striking that that arguably most fundamental of units, TIME, is still governed by amazingly arbitrary babylonian astrological calendars with their pesky base 12 operations.

The metric system has advantages because of its enormous standardization and the easy of calculating at base 10. But at the end of the day, it really comes back to human convenience, and the counter-example of time shows that we are so accustomed to certain mores that "convenience" itself is in some sense arbitrary.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Americans love to refuse to submit to foreign customs. Why should they do something differently just because other people say it's better.
They're very ostentatiously independent and hegemonic and therefore have no reason to listen to anybody.

[Revy]

I could see a switch to metric going well as long as body weight, height, and temperature measurements are left alone or very slowly phased out. There would be a lot of resistance to changing that. Just like how the British still say stone for weight.

[Holden Caulfield]

At least the United States has decided which system to use.


I think its strange that even thought in England I was educated in school to learn metric I still order drinks in pints, measure distance in miles, measure my penis is inches, measure hight in feet, etc etc etc.

I can use grams, metres, kilometres but I usually don't, I think it is partly to do with cultural residue that will fade away when our parents and grandparents get old and die.

Until then I will always have to be the one to tell my mother how many cm in an inch and how many feet in a metre

[Psy]

If this were the case, it is rather striking that that arguably most fundamental of units, TIME, is still governed by amazingly arbitrary babylonian astrological calendars with their pesky base 12 operations.

Yet when you are measuring accurately you use a metric of the second (millisecond, microsecond, picosecond), also computers measure in metric time with seconds as the base.



The metric system has advantages because of its enormous standardization and the easy of calculating at base 10. But at the end of the day, it really comes back to human convenience, and the counter-example of time shows that we are so accustomed to certain mores that "convenience" itself is in some sense arbitrary.

Yet time is already standardized, if you know the time in Hong Kong you can quickly figure out the time in New York so time doesn't have the same problem the imperial measuring system has, it is also easier to convert seconds to minutes to hours as it has a constant base of 60 unlike the imperial measuring systems that have no constant base system where you have a link being 7.92 inches a the rod 25 links, a chain 4 rods, a furlong 10 chains and a US survey mile (not to be confused with a international mile) is 8 furlongs just so you can understand US survey maps. Everyone knows a minutes has 60 seconds, and hour has 60 minutes and a day has 24 hours, yet few people knows the defined length of the complete US imperial measuring system.

Also scientists have already concluded metric time would be problamatic since humans tend guage time based on the sun.

[mikelepore]

It annoys me that NASA uses feet per second, miles per hour, pounds of fuel, etc. If you don't get the NASA-TV channel, you can see and hear it on
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html . You can hear the mission controllers. I never hear them say MKS or CGS units.

[Psy]

It annoys me that NASA uses feet per second, miles per hour, pounds of fuel, etc. If you don't get the NASA-TV channel, you can see and hear it on
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html . You can hear the mission controllers. I never hear them say MKS or CGS units.

And NASA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter in 1998 because NASA JLA engineers didn't notice the engineers at Lockheed Martin gave their figures in pound force not newtons.

[MarxSchmarx]

Yet when you are measuring accurately you use a metric of the second (millisecond, microsecond, picosecond), also computers measure in metric time with seconds as the base.



Yet time is already standardized, if you know the time in Hong Kong you can quickly figure out the time in New York so time doesn't have the same problem the imperial measuring system has, it is also easier to convert seconds to minutes to hours as it has a constant base of 60 unlike the imperial measuring systems that have no constant base system where you have a link being 7.92 inches a the rod 25 links, a chain 4 rods, a furlong 10 chains and a US survey mile (not to be confused with a international mile) is 8 furlongs just so you can understand US survey maps. Everyone knows a minutes has 60 seconds, and hour has 60 minutes and a day has 24 hours, yet few people knows the defined length of the complete US imperial measuring system.

Also scientists have already concluded metric time would be problamatic since humans tend guage time based on the sun.

Central to the ease of engineering, it would seem, is the concept of base ten, because it doesn't entail memorization and can be readily applied and scaled. Why isn't time like this? Precisely because it is too engrained in our culture that even capitalist social pressure cannot dislodge this bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For those who are interested, there is a Metric Clock (http://www.metricclock.com/) online.

Is it just me, or does the metric second seem a touch faster than the Babylonian?

EDIT: There is also an apparently different metric time system (http://zapatopi.net/metrictime/) as well.

[IcarusAngel]

What do you mean? It's by hunredths. You could use hundredth of a minute for our time as well.

[Luís Henrique]

So I guess my question is, is it vitally necessary that in post-revolutionary society we all use it?

No. It is vitally necessary to use it in pre-revolutionary societies.

Luís Henrique