Author Topic: why is the US not Metric  (Read 146074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7585
  • Country: au
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #400 on: November 10, 2019, 02:00:03 am »
[snip]A pint's a pound the world around is one I picked up in grade school[/snip]

Except it isn't, anywhere, let alone the world around.

The, naturally superior, British pint of water (at 568.26125ml exactly) is ≈ 1 1/4 lb, the weedy American pint (at 473.176473 ml exactly) is ≈ 1 lb 0.69 oz*. Which all goes to show that you should not trust school teachers.  :) The British school teacher's dictum, that a gallon (eight proper, full strength, Imperial pints) weighs 10 lb is much closer to the truth, being only 0.22% in error.

[The 1959 international pound of 0.453 592 37 kg has been used in all cases, which is the current lb in the US and was the current lb in the UK from 1963 until lbs ceased to be an official unit.]

* I could have used drachms (1/16 oz) and/or grains (1/7000 lb) instead of decimal ounces, but nobody, even those using ounces on a daily basis know what the heck those are (except possibly for people who deal with bullets day in and day out, which for some reason are still regularly referred to by their weight in grains even when the calibre in use is inherently metric. e.g. I have shot 7.62mm Lapua 168 gn target rounds.). Just for the record it's 1 lb 0 oz 11 dm 1.45 gr  for the 'merkin pint and the British pint weighs in at 1 lb 4 oz 0 dm 19.61 gn.


On the back cover of the "Exercise books" we used to do our school work in back in the 1950s  were a lot of bits of useful information, such as the Metric system (pre SI version), relationships between the various Imperial  measures, such snippets as the diameter of the Earth, & the following bit of doggerel:-

"A Pint of clear water weighs a Pound & a quarter".
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4099
  • Country: us
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #401 on: November 10, 2019, 03:53:38 am »
I propose a pint should be redefined to the maximum size of an alcoholic beverage that is considered to be consumable before going warm by an average adult who is not a raging alcoholic. Of course this will vary country to country.

In my life in America I have probably used the word "pint," twice, and I have been to plenty of bars. Even in our bars, pints are not that common. When by the bottle, it's 12 oz. In the pintish sized glasses that might or might not be 16oz, we usually order "drafts," in my experience. That's not another nonstandard unit to add to a list. It just indicates the beer is from the tap rather than the bottle.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 04:24:39 am by KL27x »
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3158
  • Country: es
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #402 on: November 10, 2019, 08:10:32 am »
The issue with beer is that a person will pee more quantity of beer than they injested in the first place. This is a mystery that has baffled scientists in bars for centuries.
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7942
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #403 on: November 10, 2019, 03:01:41 pm »
This gets us back to the proposed definition of the "Falstaff" as 1 liter/minute.
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14445
  • Country: fr
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #404 on: November 10, 2019, 09:31:18 pm »
The issue with beer is that a person will pee more quantity of beer than they injested in the first place. This is a mystery that has baffled scientists in bars for centuries.

 :-DD

Edit: there may still be some scientific basis for that: eg. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1393383/
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 12:03:15 am by SiliconWizard »
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14445
  • Country: fr
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #405 on: November 10, 2019, 09:37:00 pm »
I propose a pint should be redefined to the maximum size of an alcoholic beverage that is considered to be consumable before going warm by an average adult who is not a raging alcoholic. Of course this will vary country to country.

In my life in America I have probably used the word "pint," twice, and I have been to plenty of bars. Even in our bars, pints are not that common. When by the bottle, it's 12 oz. In the pintish sized glasses that might or might not be 16oz, we usually order "drafts," in my experience. That's not another nonstandard unit to add to a list. It just indicates the beer is from the tap rather than the bottle.

Fun. The pint is pretty common in many european countries, with various volumes. For instance, a "pint" (that we call "pinte" in French) is 0.5l in France (it's double the "normal" beer which is typically served as 25cl in bars), and it's still pretty common to ask for a "pinte" in a french bar. Beware, it's not standardized between countries, so a "pint" in other european countries can be other volumes (from 25cl to 1l or so... :-DD ) The "pint" was historically not just a british imperial unit, it has existed in many forms in many countries. The world "pint" comes originally from the old french "pinte" (that we still use these days, but the corresponding volume back then was different.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint

 

Offline Altair8800

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Country: us
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #406 on: November 10, 2019, 09:55:36 pm »
I think that the main way for the USofA to go metric now will be from external forces (aka the rest of the world).  USA is kind of stuck in a rut, and because of our size or wealth we often say why do we have to change...

I can see other countries saying to Boeing, hey, you want to continue selling aircraft to us, a minimum requirement would be you have to sell aircraft in our measuring system (which is metric).  Then and only then would Boeing think about changing to metric.  Same goes for other businesses that export to the rest of the world.

 :popcorn:


Also, besides beer glasses, milk carton pints are very common in schools lunches in USA and sometimes you see paint sold in pints... 
 

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: 00
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #407 on: November 10, 2019, 11:51:09 pm »
I think that the main way for the USofA to go metric now will be from external forces (aka the rest of the world).  USA is kind of stuck in a rut, and because of our size or wealth we often say why do we have to change...

I think the US are in need of better metric advocates. Ones that can show them that the benefits of metrication are greater than the costs and risks.

Other than that, the only "external" force that can make them accept full metrication is, I think, if we manage to concoct some kind of theology that proves that God is metric and the devil, imperial.
 
The following users thanked this post: Altair8800

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14445
  • Country: fr
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #408 on: November 11, 2019, 12:00:05 am »
Other than that, the only "external" force that can make them accept full metrication is, I think, if we manage to concoct some kind of theology that proves that God is metric and the devil, imperial.

Ouch. That hurt, but I'll take that as a teasing joke. ;D
 

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: 00
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #409 on: November 11, 2019, 12:01:32 am »
(One issue I take with Customary critics is that they criticize a system they’ve never really used, so their smugness is based on theories, not practical experience.)

Does not compute. If I didn't have to use imperial, I wouldn't be criticizing it.

Quote
Well, it is an organically evolved system. But in many cases, those old units made sense in isolation. And regardless, there’s often no advantage to changing, but real costs and risks, so you just don’t until the balance of pros and cons changes.

We can only regret that a small percentage of the world's population can't see benefits, but only costs and risks.

Quote
Anyhow, make sure you’re not going all rstofer again.

Poor rstofer has become the intemperance unit of the imperial system.
 

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: 00
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #410 on: November 11, 2019, 12:11:14 am »
Other than that, the only "external" force that can make them accept full metrication is, I think, if we manage to concoct some kind of theology that proves that God is metric and the devil, imperial.

Ouch. That hurt, but I'll take that as a teasing joke. ;D

If you don't leave a life of imperial units behind and believe in the redeeming power of metrication you cannot enter the kingdom of science.
 

Offline mzzj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1245
  • Country: fi
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #411 on: November 11, 2019, 12:34:07 am »

None of the non "American customary" units are in use, anymore, to my knowledge, other than troy oz's in the gold industry, definition of foot in land surveying, and pints in a british pub. But if anyone wants to add something that isn't ancient history, feel free to show us where Americans are using slugs and stones and confusing tower oz and imperial gallons. There are probably "old units" used in farming still, in many countries for estimating weight of stuff in the field. But that is not anyone's concern other than the farmer.

Oil barrel vs. fluid barrel vs. barrel barrel barrel?

Even in here news often quote raw oil price in usd per barrel, even if hardly anyone has idea what barrel they are talking about and how much it is.  :horse:

"Maximum accuracy when converting bbl to cubic metres
When used to denote a volume, 1 bbl is exactly equivalent to 42 US gallons and is easily converted to any other unit of volume. A volume of 1 bbl is exactly equivalent to a volume of 158.987294928 litres.

In the oil industry, following the definition of the American Petroleum Institute, a standard barrel of oil is often taken to mean the amount of oil that at a standard pressure (14.696 psi) and temperature (60 °F) would occupy a volume of exactly 1 bbl. This standard barrel of oil will occupy a different volume at different pressures and temperatures. A standard barrel in this context is thus not simply a measure of volume, but of volume under specific conditions. The task of converting this standard barrel of oil to a standard cubic metre of oil is complicated by the fact that the standard cubic metre is defined by the American Petroleum Institute to mean the amount of oil that at 101.325 kPa and 15 °C occupies 1 cubic metre. The fact that the conditions are not exactly the same means that an exact conversion is impossible unless the exact expansion coefficient of the crude is known, and this will vary from one crude oil to another.

For a light oil with an API gravity of 35, warming the oil from 15.00 °C to 60.00 °F (which is 15.56 °C) might increase its volume by about 0.047%. Conversely, a heavy oil with an API gravity of 20 might only increase in volume by 0.039%. If physically measuring the density at a new temperature is not possible, then tables of empirical data can be used to accurately predict the change in density. In turn, this allows maximum accuracy when converting between standard bbl and standard m3.

International commodity exchanges will often set an arbitrary conversion factor for benchmark crude oils for financial accounting purposes. For instance the conversion factor set by the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) for Western Canadian Select (WCS) crude oil traded at Hardisty, Alberta, Canada is 6.29287 U.S. barrels per cubic metre.,[21] despite the fact that crude oil cannot be measured to that degree of accuracy. Regulatory authorities in producing countries set standards for measurement accuracy of produced hydrocarbons, where such measurements affect taxes or royalties to the government. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the measurement accuracy required is ±0.25%.[22]

Qualifiers
A barrel can technically be used to specify any volume. Since the actual nature of the fluids being measured varies along the stream, sometimes qualifiers are used to clarify what is being specified. In the oil field, it is often important to differentiate between rates of production of fluids, which may be a mix of oil and water, and rates of production of the oil itself. If a well is producing 10 mbd of fluids with a 20% water cut, then the well would also be said to be producing 8,000 barrels of oil a day (bod).

In other circumstances, it can be important to include gas in production and consumption figures. Normally, gas amount is measured in standard cubic feet or cubic metres for volume (as well as in kg or Btu, which don't depend on pressure or temperature). But when necessary, such volume is converted to a volume of oil of equivalent enthalpy of combustion. Production and consumption using this analogue is stated in barrels of oil equivalent per day (boed).

In the case of water-injection wells, in the United States it is common to refer to the injectivity rate in barrels of water per day (bwd). In Canada, it is measured in cubic metres per day (m3/d). In general, water injection rates will be stated in the same units as oil production rates, since the usual objective is to replace the volume of oil produced with a similar volume of water to maintain reservoir pressure."

So oil barrel is 42 gallons and water barrel  is 41.5 gallons except when water is injected to oil field its same as oil gallon =42 gallons  :wtf: :rant:   
 

Offline mzzj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1245
  • Country: fi
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #412 on: November 11, 2019, 12:38:52 am »
Here in Finland we have saying "Porvoon mitalla" = with some extra.
Comes from times when each town had their own definition of measurements and towns more far away from main trading hubs had to use larger measures to cover for transport and other losses.
City of Porvoo was know to have unusually generous measurements and the saying is still in use.
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3439
  • Country: us
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #413 on: November 11, 2019, 01:10:09 am »
...
...
If you don't leave a life of imperial units behind and believe in the redeeming power of metrication you cannot enter the kingdom of science.


Yeah, one not doing metric may make one difficult to enter the of "kingdom of science", but it may make one easier to enter the kingdom of the digital world.

4 gills = 1 pint
2 pints = 8 gills = 1 quart
4 quarts = 32 gills = 1 gallon
or in binary
0100 gills = 1 pint
0010 pints = 1000 gills = 1 quart
0100 quarts = 0010 0000 gills = 1 gallon

Easy base 2 stuff for the digital world.  You can easily see .
 
Now instead look at metric 1000 ml=1 liter.  That is 0011 1110 1000 ml = 1 liter.  0011 1110 1000 is a strange number, wouldn't you say?

I have no explanation for 12 inch = 1 foot stuff.  My guess is, the King had in mind 16 inches to the foot, but one of his cronies was corrupt and always pocketed some of whatever the King bestows to the public, so he figure if the King want to give 16 inches to a foot, I'll pocket 4 inches for my own benefit, and gave the foot only 12 inches...

Meter is not a natural unit.  it is an artificial construct just like a dollar or a euro.  What seem "the best unit to use" is based on common perspective and common familiarity within a culture (such as culture of say Chemist vs Civil Engineers vs Nutritionist vs...).   We now use 1/2 life of uranium (or any radioactive sample) instead of 1/10 life of uranium.  1/2 life is something scientist are comfortable with and have a mental gauge of how to apply that number.  We could switch to using 1/10 life of uranium, but what does that gain us?  None I can think of other than confusion.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 01:15:15 am by Rick Law »
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11473
  • Country: ch
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #414 on: November 11, 2019, 01:32:15 am »
(One issue I take with Customary critics is that they criticize a system they’ve never really used, so their smugness is based on theories, not practical experience.)

Does not compute. If I didn't have to use imperial, I wouldn't be criticizing it.

Quote
Well, it is an organically evolved system. But in many cases, those old units made sense in isolation. And regardless, there’s often no advantage to changing, but real costs and risks, so you just don’t until the balance of pros and cons changes.

We can only regret that a small percentage of the world's population can't see benefits, but only costs and risks.

Quote
Anyhow, make sure you’re not going all rstofer again.

Poor rstofer has become the intemperance unit of the imperial system.
You don’t have a country set. Are you American? Or are you in a fundamentally metric country, and only deal with a small amount of Customary? (If the latter, then you’re still within the group of people that don’t really use Customary, and thus aren’t comfortable with it the way someone is who grew up with it.)


I didn’t say that Americans ONLY see costs and risks. As I and others have said repeatedly in this thread: changes do involve costs and risks, and so one will only accept those when the benefits exceed them. At no point did anyone say that Americans see NO benefits. It’s simply that one has to weigh the benefits against the costs and risks. Do I have to spell out this basic logic in any more excruciating detail, or will me typing it out for the tenth time finally break through that noggin? ;)
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14445
  • Country: fr
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #415 on: November 11, 2019, 02:15:18 am »
Yeah, I agree. Americans can be pretty stubborn, but they are usually pragmatic people. So if they don't do it, there's a good pragmatic reason. It's probably still not worth it at the moment. As many have said, the US has migrated, or at least embraced the metric system in an increasing number of domains. They still don't see the point of making a complete switch, which would cost a lot, and would probably make americans feel like they are forced to embrace something that's not theirs, feel like they are losing ground somehow, which I can understand. If they eventually get there, that'll be very gradually.

As long as they are not forcing others to use their own system, it's all good. It's their business. We can mind our own. (Americans here are of course more legitimate to be opiniated about it one way or the other.) It's not like it's really hindering any work with US companies these days - that works fairly well all in all.

I do think it may have an impact as to how americans, I mean the average joe, perceives science (as science uses the metric system) compared to other countries that are metric, and it could be an interesting topic to elaborate on. But that's just a question/discussion, and again, nothing but their own business in the end. ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11473
  • Country: ch
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #416 on: November 11, 2019, 02:16:55 am »
Hah, speak of the devil, this is what a friend just posted to Facebook. He and the friend who commented are both millennial Americans:
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 02:19:10 am by tooki »
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7585
  • Country: au
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #417 on: November 11, 2019, 04:10:42 am »
(One issue I take with Customary critics is that they criticize a system they’ve never really used, so their smugness is based on theories, not practical experience.)

Does not compute. If I didn't have to use imperial, I wouldn't be criticizing it.

Quote
Well, it is an organically evolved system. But in many cases, those old units made sense in isolation. And regardless, there’s often no advantage to changing, but real costs and risks, so you just don’t until the balance of pros and cons changes.

We can only regret that a small percentage of the world's population can't see benefits, but only costs and risks.

Quote
Anyhow, make sure you’re not going all rstofer again.

Poor rstofer has become the intemperance unit of the imperial system.
You don’t have a country set. Are you American? Or are you in a fundamentally metric country, and only deal with a small amount of Customary? (If the latter, then you’re still within the group of people that don’t really use Customary, and thus aren’t comfortable with it the way someone is who grew up with it.)
There are still a large number of Australians who were brought up & spent a fair number of years of their working lives working with Imperial measures.
We finally completely switched over in 1974, following piecemeal changes in some industries from about 1970.
I picked up a mistake in an early posting because I know, & have worked with Imperial regularly in the past.
Seriously, though, except in a school maths problem, how many people would need to use the number of feet in a mile (5280), anyway.
I had it drummed into me, as did many of my generation.

As the saying, often but probably wrongly, attributed to the Jesuits, puts it "Give me the child for the first seven years, & I will give you the man".
(No, I didn't go to Catholic School).

All that said, my generation seamlessly adopted Metric measures.
Quote

I didn’t say that Americans ONLY see costs and risks. As I and others have said repeatedly in this thread: changes do involve costs and risks, and so one will only accept those when the benefits exceed them. At no point did anyone say that Americans see NO benefits. It’s simply that one has to weigh the benefits against the costs and risks. Do I have to spell out this basic logic in any more excruciating detail, or will me typing it out for the tenth time finally break through that noggin? ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki, Altair8800

Offline forrestc

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Country: us
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #418 on: November 11, 2019, 09:39:48 am »
I can see other countries saying to Boeing, hey, you want to continue selling aircraft to us, a minimum requirement would be you have to sell aircraft in our measuring system (which is metric).  Then and only then would Boeing think about changing to metric.  Same goes for other businesses that export to the rest of the world.

How about getting Airbus to switch to metric first?

This is a good example of the effect of inertia on a measurement system.   Nuts and bolts in large commercial aircraft have traditionally been imperial, and there are lots of imperial-dimensioned parts that are certified to Aviation standards.   When Airbus started up, they elected to continue along the same path to avoid the costs of having different parts just for their aircraft.   So a European aerospace manufacturer is producing an aircraft that uses non-metric fasteners.
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11473
  • Country: ch
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #419 on: November 11, 2019, 12:31:44 pm »
Much more than metric vs customary fasteners, I just wish we could switch everything to Torx and eliminate all the other driver types.
 
The following users thanked this post: CatalinaWOW

Offline mzzj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1245
  • Country: fi
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #420 on: November 11, 2019, 01:20:51 pm »


This is a good example of the effect of inertia on a measurement system.   Nuts and bolts in large commercial aircraft have traditionally been imperial, and there are lots of imperial-dimensioned parts that are certified to Aviation standards.   When Airbus started up, they elected to continue along the same path to avoid the costs of having different parts just for their aircraft.   So a European aerospace manufacturer is producing an aircraft that uses non-metric fasteners.
For some odd reason seatbelt mounting bolts are 7/16 20 TPI even on european cars.
 

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: 00
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #421 on: November 11, 2019, 01:33:43 pm »
"Yes, imperial and customary are a nightmare, because they use different bases, even within the same scale: 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard and 1790 yards in a mile."

Reply:  the US statute mile is 8 furlongs of 220 yards each, or 1760 yards.

Thou, inch, foot, yard, chain, furlong, mile, league, fathom, cable, nautical mile, link, rod, different units for the same measurement: length. All of them with odd bases for the multiplication factors.

Metric has just one unit: the supreme METER, with just one base for factors: 10.

But then you have perch, rood, acre for area and fluid ounce, gill, pint, quart and gallon for volume.

Metric has... TA-DAAAA!: the supreme METER: m² and m³.
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 2699
  • Country: tr
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #422 on: November 11, 2019, 01:48:37 pm »
I don't know why, but I've always liked the units of measurement of the British Imperial System.
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
 

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: 00
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #423 on: November 11, 2019, 01:55:39 pm »
I have no explanation for 12 inch = 1 foot stuff.  My guess is, the King had in mind 16 inches to the foot, but one of his cronies was corrupt and always pocketed some of whatever the King bestows to the public, so he figure if the King want to give 16 inches to a foot, I'll pocket 4 inches for my own benefit, and gave the foot only 12 inches...

The reason for the inch to be 1/12 foot is in the name of the unit. It comes from the Latin uncia, which means precisely one twelfth.

The Romans used base 10 for addition, multiplication and subtraction, and base 12 for division.

The Romans used base 10 for whole numbers and base 12 for fractions.

Quote
Meter is not a natural unit.  it is an artificial construct just like a dollar or a euro.  What seem "the best unit to use" is based on common perspective and common familiarity within a culture (such as culture of say Chemist vs Civil Engineers vs Nutritionist vs...).   We now use 1/2 life of uranium (or any radioactive sample) instead of 1/10 life of uranium.  1/2 life is something scientist are comfortable with and have a mental gauge of how to apply that number.  We could switch to using 1/10 life of uranium, but what does that gain us?  None I can think of other than confusion.

The meter can be adjusted to whatever scale you need. In metricated countries people use the meter to measure the diameter of a proton, the thickness of sheet metal, the length of a screw, the size of furniture, the dimensions of a property or a house, the distance between two cities, the size of the earth.

The metric system was thought out from the ground up for the modern world.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 04:16:08 pm by bsfeechannel »
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline ciccio

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 659
  • Country: it
  • Designing analog audio since 1977
    • Oberon Electrophysics
Re: why is the US not Metric
« Reply #424 on: November 11, 2019, 02:34:10 pm »

The Romans used base 10 for addition, multiplication and subtraction, and base 12 for division.


Never heard this. It's interesting. Can you supply some reference? .
I studied Latin, more than 50 years ago, but I remember that division was done by series subctraction, using the standard notation, which can be assumed "base 10" or "base X"
Best regards
Strenua Nos Exercet Inertia
I'm old enough, I don't repeat mistakes.
I always invent new ones
 
The following users thanked this post: bsfeechannel


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf