General > General Technical Chat
why is the US not Metric
forrestc:
--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on November 15, 2019, 03:16:47 am ---The explanation that it costs a fortune to change is not convincing. If the US were an impoverished country, full of starving children, I'd agree with that argument.
But the fact is that the rest of the world converted to metric, proving that it is not so expensive, much less difficult, as the US claim.
--- End quote ---
I think you're still under the mistaken impression that the US hasn't adopted the metric system. And also under the mistaken impression that all other countries have not only adopted the metric system but converted every last thing in their country to metric.
Just because the US has not seen fit to replace all of their street signs with metric, and still use degrees F does not mean that we've not adopted the metric system.
When I go to the doctor (in the US) I'm weighed in kilos and it's entered in the computer that way. Yes, my scale at home still reads pounds, and most people know their weight in pounds instead of kilos, but that's because people are more familar with that scale. But the medical profession uses kilos. Note that other countries are similar. For some reason in the UK, humans are weighed in stones....
Airbus still builds planes (in the EU) using inch hardware.
Automobiles built in the US use metric hardware pretty much exclusively.
De-facto standards are hard to replace. The problem isn't the 'cost' to do it in the US. It's the "cost/benefit" ratio. And for things like our road signs and ambient temperature, I can pretty much guarantee that the amount of savings (i.e. benefit) to switching all of the signs from miles to km is pretty close to zero, with an enormous cost. What is it *costing* the US to continue to use miles on our road system? Well, maybe cars are a tiny bit more expensive because they have to have US instrument panels and metric instrument panels. But since this is either a couple of lines of software (for a digital display) or a bit of printing difference, it's only going to be a tiny amount. I can guarantee that the rest of the system (other than the display) is identical worldwide. So there is little economic benefit to do so, for this example.
Anywhere there is a strong economic benefit to do so, the conversion has been done. And as technology marches on, things which are simpler when implemented in metric are going to get done that way. And things (like the road signs) which don't end up saving us money, in the long run, won't be done. Technology is actually making this divide wider - things which are done *inside* the technology are being done in metric, and the displays are staying in customary units because the cost to do so is marginal, even though the calculations under the surface is 100% metric.
Cerebus:
--- Quote from: forrestc on November 15, 2019, 07:24:46 am ---For some reason in the UK, humans are weighed in stones....
--- End quote ---
Not universally true in the UK any more. Here, as probably everywhere, kilos are used by the medical profession and the man in the street seems more and more comfortable with expressing corporeality that way. I can tell you what I weight in kg, if I wanted to tell you in stone I'm have to convert via pounds. What you'll never heard a Brit saying is 'so-and-so weighs 180 lb'. Stone, by the way, is one of those peculiar units that doesn't take a plural - someone will say "9 stone 12 pounds" or just "9 stone 12", never "9 stones 12 pounds".
For those not familiar with the unit: 1 stone = 14 lb = 1/8 hundredweight = ~ 6.36 kg. A hundredweight (112lb, 1/20 ton, ~ 50.9 kg) used to be the standard size for sacks of flour, coal and similar commodities - the amount a man could shoulder until the Europeans came along and told us that a man could only carry 25 kg on his own. :)
bsfeechannel:
--- Quote from: forrestc on November 15, 2019, 07:24:46 am ---I think you're still under the mistaken impression that the US hasn't adopted the metric system.
--- End quote ---
The US haven't. We can see by the replies in this forum that people are still attached to imperial units and won't let go of them.
--- Quote ---And also under the mistaken impression that all other countries have not only adopted the metric system but converted every last thing in their country to metric.
--- End quote ---
The fact that you can find imperial nuts in metricated countries doesn't mean that those countries adopted imperial.
--- Quote ---Just because the US has not seen fit to replace all of their street signs with metric, and still use degrees F does not mean that we've not adopted the metric system.
--- End quote ---
If the US have not seen fit to replace customary units with metric units, the US have not adopted metric.
--- Quote ---When I go to the doctor (in the US) I'm weighed in kilos and it's entered in the computer that way. Yes, my scale at home still reads pounds, and most people know their weight in pounds instead of kilos, but that's because people are more familar with that scale. But the medical profession uses kilos. Note that other countries are similar. For some reason in the UK, humans are weighed in stones....
Airbus still builds planes (in the EU) using inch hardware.
Automobiles built in the US use metric hardware pretty much exclusively.
De-facto standards are hard to replace. The problem isn't the 'cost' to do it in the US. It's the "cost/benefit" ratio. And for things like our road signs and ambient temperature, I can pretty much guarantee that the amount of savings (i.e. benefit) to switching all of the signs from miles to km is pretty close to zero, with an enormous cost. What is it *costing* the US to continue to use miles on our road system? Well, maybe cars are a tiny bit more expensive because they have to have US instrument panels and metric instrument panels. But since this is either a couple of lines of software (for a digital display) or a bit of printing difference, it's only going to be a tiny amount. I can guarantee that the rest of the system (other than the display) is identical worldwide. So there is little economic benefit to do so, for this example.
Anywhere there is a strong economic benefit to do so, the conversion has been done. And as technology marches on, things which are simpler when implemented in metric are going to get done that way. And things (like the road signs) which don't end up saving us money, in the long run, won't be done. Technology is actually making this divide wider - things which are done *inside* the technology are being done in metric, and the displays are staying in customary units because the cost to do so is marginal, even though the calculations under the surface is 100% metric.
--- End quote ---
Either the cost is "enormous" or "marginal". Make up your mind. All road signs have to be replaced from time to time. If you were really willing to convert to metric, you would have already put a plan into action decades ago to gradually convert those signs and by now you wouldn't have to repeat those paradoxical explanations that no one buys.
As I said REPEATEDLY, all other nations have been successful in converting to metric generations ago (that's not a figure of speech). So there's no excuse.
Cubdriver:
No one is making paradoxical explanations. The question was posed - "Why is the US not metric?" It has been answered repeatedly in this thread. The fact that YOU refuse to accept that answer, and insist on arguing against what people here have told you over and over, does not make it wrong.
-Pat
boffin:
--- Quote from: Cerebus on November 15, 2019, 11:48:35 am ---
--- Quote from: forrestc on November 15, 2019, 07:24:46 am ---For some reason in the UK, humans are weighed in stones....
--- End quote ---
Not universally true in the UK any more. Here, as probably everywhere, kilos are used by the medical profession and the man in the street seems more and more comfortable with expressing corporeality that way. I can tell you what I weight in kg, if I wanted to tell you in stone I'm have to convert via pounds. What you'll never heard a Brit saying is 'so-and-so weighs 180 lb'. Stone, by the way, is one of those peculiar units that doesn't take a plural - someone will say "9 stone 12 pounds" or just "9 stone 12", never "9 stones 12 pounds".
For those not familiar with the unit: 1 stone = 14 lb = 1/8 hundredweight = ~ 6.36 kg. A hundredweight (112lb, 1/20 ton, ~ 50.9 kg) used to be the standard size for sacks of flour, coal and similar commodities - the amount a man could shoulder until the Europeans came along and told us that a man could only carry 25 kg on his own. :)
--- End quote ---
Nice try, but not quite right.
Most commodities (flour, potatoes etc) were distributed/sold by sacks of "HALF HUNDREDWEIGHT", or they certainly were when my family owned a store in the UK in the 70s.
and 25kg is almost exactly a 'half-hundredweight". But nice try on blaming the Europeans for something with incorrect information, I assume you think the EU tried to ban bananas as well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version