Metric Vs Standard/customary Debate. Like, right now ... !
#1
Posted 07 October 2005 - 08:31 AM
Back when the 1989 generation of students was in 8th Grade, I heard some rather stale information about the government discussing the decision on if we should change to the metric system, since a majority of the rest of the world is currently using it. Though, there have been sprinkled arguements here and there about how we just got used to the standard/customary system within a span of 5-to-20 years within the implementation of the system.
One good example of this is none other than a simple game, known as Katamari Damacy. During gameplay, the unit of measurement of how large you roll up a katamari is the metric system. Thus, we notice that the Japanese use the metric system, and allowing a game to keep that system through the translation is rather note-worthy; that, or the conversion of metric to standard/customary was too complicated.
Any thoughts?
#2
Posted 07 October 2005 - 09:04 AM
Metric units are obviously much easier to use than standard, but no one wanted to switch because it was hard to perceive exactly how much 1m was and how to visualize such, since everyone was so used to the standard system.
Should we switch? No. It would be pointless and there's no reason to do it now if it didn't work before. Is it worse than the metric system? Of course. You can't tell me that factors of 10s is a lot harder than random factors of 12 (in.), 3 (ft), 4 (qt), 16 (oz.), etc.
#3
Posted 07 October 2005 - 10:41 AM
And believe me, it's a lot easier than having to memorize the standard system. There's 1000 m to a km, but there's like 5324 or something feet in a mile.
#4
Posted 07 October 2005 - 01:33 PM
#5
Posted 07 October 2005 - 02:40 PM
#6
Posted 07 October 2005 - 03:09 PM
Quote
Should we switch? No. It would be pointless and there's no reason to do it now if it didn't work before. Is it worse than the metric system? Of course. You can't tell me that factors of 10s is a lot harder than random factors of 12 (in.), 3 (ft), 4 (qt), 16 (oz.), etc.
Andross basically said it all. Going 10 by 10 or 100 by 100 (and so on) is much more easy.
What I don't like is learning the other method x.X; No one really uses it here (except for my "American" school) so, it is annoying to learn it if basically only the U.S. uses it.
#7
Posted 07 October 2005 - 03:22 PM
I think we should just accommodate ourselves to everyone else, though, rather than making THEM learn imperial too.
And Silo, the P in PSAT stands for "preliminary," not Pennsylvania. @.@
#8
Posted 07 October 2005 - 03:49 PM
George Bush would be showing weakness to the rest of the world if he changed now.
#9
Posted 07 October 2005 - 03:52 PM
#11
Posted 07 October 2005 - 04:26 PM
#12
Posted 07 October 2005 - 06:09 PM
MM 10 to a
CM 100 to a
M 1000 to a
KM
ML 1000 to a
L
G 1000 to a
KG
I don't get with Americans is the whole yard, inch, foot, Lb stuff. All I know is that 1km is 1.5 miles I think. It's weird that the most powerful country in the world uses something the rest of the world doesn't. Is the government trying to be unique?
#13
Posted 07 October 2005 - 07:27 PM
And yes, PSAT's are pre-SATs. I have to take that test in a few weeks.
#14
Posted 07 October 2005 - 07:39 PM
Zaffa Dot Xom, on Oct 7 2005, 09:31 AM, said:
PSAT is Preperation/Puliminary SAT, Texas has it too.
Everything here is printed in Customary/Standard, thats what we use, not metric. Metric is on stuff like pringles and construction. Also I use both at work because the business is world-wide. Metric to me is annoying.
I'm 5 foot 9 inches boys.