I just realized what is going on here.
If you non-USA guys are so insanely jealous of people that live in the USA, why don't you just move there instead of this futile bashing of such an irrelevant subject?
The 8 inch and 5.25 inch floppy were developed in the U.S. The development happened in Silicon Valley starting in 1967, so every dimension would have been imperial.
Question 1: In metrified countries, how is printer and photographic resolution specified. In the US it is DPI or dots per inch. Do metric guys do dots per centimeter or do you do do dot spacing (pitch as defined in the metric world)? For some reason the metric world seems to gravitate towards the reciprocal of US standard units (liters/km, pitch in mm and so on). I see no particular advantage to one or the other. It is kind of like the side of the road you drive on. Tradition, not advantage.
It seems that 40 kg would be pushing handling limits pretty hard, while rounding the US standard down to 35 kg would lead to accusations of implementing a hidden cost increase.
Question 1: In metrified countries, how is printer and photographic resolution specified. In the US it is DPI or dots per inch. Do metric guys do dots per centimeter or do you do do dot spacing (pitch as defined in the metric world)? For some reason the metric world seems to gravitate towards the reciprocal of US standard units (liters/km, pitch in mm and so on). I see no particular advantage to one or the other. It is kind of like the side of the road you drive on. Tradition, not advantage.In practice it is messed up, because due to the computer industry being heavily US-influenced, a lot of measures are set to imperial by default.
So it's DPI for the resolution most of the time, but paper size is measured in cm.
Rarely used alternatives are are px/cm or ppmm.
The big advantage of having a fully metric system is that you can easily fit things together physically, without having to convert or calculate much, nor making small adjustments. (Coarser) Standard spacings and dimensions develop over time, if you use different measurement standards you will always have rounding errors, and need to take extra care.
When I started to use US robotic kits (sold in Europe), it became a real hassle to make parts fit, find the right screws etc. Many spacings were slightly off and things that I wanted to add wouldn't fit. When working with standard (yes, metric :p) stuff I rarely had to think about it, if it didn't fit then usually by a big margin.
In other words, inconsistent systems make it hard to just eye ball things.
It's like with software: good product design allows you to not worry about technical details, where they shouldn't matter.
Personally I don't care how the US measures. It's a pity though that resisting the switch has created inconsistentency, ironically, in more advanced technologies, such as printers, cameras, and screens, where this could have been prevented from the start, without much effort.QuoteIt seems that 40 kg would be pushing handling limits pretty hard, while rounding the US standard down to 35 kg would lead to accusations of implementing a hidden cost increase.It might be surprising, but most companies that produce in Europe do so for European customers. So the US-standard wont be compared with at all, except for special cases.
What decides the size of bags or packaging is what fits well with other common sizes or weights of products. How large or thick are the pillars for a fence? That decides how much concrete you need. How are these pillars measured? In cm/meters, and that will decide how much kg you need, etc. Looking at many common use cases will decide what a good average (rounded to a nice number) will be. Since almost everything is in meters et al., US based measures will be irrelevant.
My questions were curiosity, not arguments for or against metric. But since you brought it up I have to comment.
I am much more convinced that the standard bag sizes are determined by ergonomic law as mentioned by others in prior posts. With sizes rounded to the local measuring system.
You don't get it.
As a population, the USA doesn't care about justification or lack thereof.
It is what it is. You aren't going to change it no matter how much and how long you argue. This is why I referred to your arguine as "urine into the wind:
Go drink a beer!
Change what? We are not here to change anything. We are here to investigate why the US is not metric.
Utter bullshit. If it were about discovering the reasons, then this would have been over about 50 pages ago. (Including the important discussion of what it really means to metricate.) But you keep saying the explanations are wrong (in other words, that only your explanations could be correct), and pepper your denials with insults about Americans.
It’s got nothing to do with wanting to enlighten yourself, and all to do with insulting Americans.
To prove that maintaining the imperial system costs more than the change to metric, I told that I had to pay 10 times more (F.O.B.) for an imperial oilite bronze bushing, that is only sold in the US, compared to a metric equivalent that I could buy anywhere in the world.
I was invited, in the reply, not to set foot in the US or never buy products there again. I said that I was happy with the purchase, even having payed more, but noticed the fact. Just that. No one apologized.
To prove that maintaining the imperial system costs more than the change to metric, I told that I had to pay 10 times more (F.O.B.) for an imperial oilite bronze bushing, that is only sold in the US, compared to a metric equivalent that I could buy anywhere in the world.
The 8 inch and 5.25 inch floppy were developed in the U.S. The development happened in Silicon Valley starting in 1967, so every dimension would have been imperial.I am aware of the origin of the 3.5 inch floppy disk.
For the others I just took the German Wikipedia as reference, which claims the 8 inch floppy is really 200mm (instead of 203.2 mm) and likewise for other sizes. A quick search didn't result in any definite references, but there is no reason that the USA as origin would force it to be in inches, besides for marketing.
You don't get it.
As a population, the USA doesn't care about justification or lack thereof.
It is what it is. You aren't going to change it no matter how much and how long you argue. This is why I referred to your arguine as "urine into the wind:
Go drink a beer!
Change what? We are not here to change anything. We are here to investigate why the US is not metric. While I drink beer, go read the posts in the thread that you said you didn't, so you don't repeat the same nonsense arguments your brothers in arms made and that we properly debunked.
And since you mentioned urine, in fact they are really pissed that their bullshit was not accepted.
(by bsfeechannel) If they had nothing to gain with the change, why did your country invest so much in the improvement of the metric system? For the common citizens of the other countries that use metric on a daily basis to profit?
It seems like a stupid move, to use taxpayer's money for the benefit the rest of the world, especially Europe, that you despise so much, and keep the taxpayers themselves out of it.
While there is a bunch of arguing without listening going on on this thread I continue to learn things and develop questions/observations.
Question 1: In metrified countries, how is printer and photographic resolution specified. In the US it is DPI or dots per inch. Do metric guys do dots per centimeter or do you do do dot spacing (pitch as defined in the metric world)? For some reason the metric world seems to gravitate towards the reciprocal of US standard units (liters/km, pitch in mm and so on). I see no particular advantage to one or the other. It is kind of like the side of the road you drive on. Tradition, not advantage.
[...] and then Paris says, whoops, we have to make an adjustment. [...]
Second I agree that cement and ready mixed concrete are not usually exported. Shipping costs are too high.
Change what? We are not here to change anything. We are here to investigate why the US is not metric. While I drink beer, go read the posts in the thread that you said you didn't, so you don't repeat the same nonsense arguments your brothers in arms made and that we properly debunked.
And since you mentioned urine, in fact they are really pissed that their bullshit was not accepted.
While there is a bunch of arguing without listening going on on this thread I continue to learn things and develop questions/observations.
Question 1: In metrified countries, how is printer and photographic resolution specified. In the US it is DPI or dots per inch. Do metric guys do dots per centimeter or do you do do dot spacing (pitch as defined in the metric world)? For some reason the metric world seems to gravitate towards the reciprocal of US standard units (liters/km, pitch in mm and so on). I see no particular advantage to one or the other. It is kind of like the side of the road you drive on. Tradition, not advantage.
The photo-typesetters I used to deal with were 2540/1270 dots per inch; which I'm sure converts to something really unmanageable in metric
A teardown picture of an HP3468A, just for the hell of it.
A teardown picture of an HP3468A, just for the hell of it.Generally I'd assume metric, unless it's an old piece of equipment. I wish they would put warning signs inside modern devices with imperial fixings and dimensions, where it isn't practical to use metric, for whatever reason.