Why the heck does America still use outdated measurement and date units?

[JeffyTheQuik]

One thing I was wondering about, and that is the unit of the week. In the societies descended from Abraham, it was based on the time to create the world (7 days, see Genesis 1-3). I don't know about other cultures, but do they have a different cyclical grouping of days like the week, but a different number of days?

 

[grahamperrin]

I'm still not completely fluent in British car speak

Garridge. As in Garridgeband.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Garridge. As in Garridgeband.

Wasn't that The Clash?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Wow, 9 pages of discussion over something as trivial as a time format (and the metric system thrown in as well).

Its not like any of this is going to change, yet we see people lining up on both sides of the argument and smugly defend their position as superior.

For me, I don't care, I can easily tell what time it is, when my wife tells me to pick her up at 6:00 (even if she doesn't state pm). Likewise, I can easily use 18:00.

To me, this is one of those let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill issue, or as they say now - First world issues

Actually, no, @maflynn, while the way the threat has treated the topic may strike some as ludicrous, the question of the measurement of time has captured imaginations since humanity was able to articulate questions about itself, the wider world, our place in this world, and how to measure it.

Personally, I find the history of, and the study of, how we measure and define time to be a subject of endless and absorbing fascination.

And, given how some of the most influential revolutions in our modern world - the French and the Russian - started their actual periods in office by changing the calendar dramatically as they debated how time ought to be measured, or how the Vatican and Britain disagreed over the implementation of the Gregorian calendar - the British clinging ludicrously to the Julian calendar for a further two centuries as they argued (idiotically) that the Gregorian calendar was a Papist plot, - it is difficult to argue that this is only a 'first world problem'.
[doublepost=1464029576][/doublepost]

One thing I was wondering about, and that is the unit of the week. In the societies descended from Abraham, it was based on the time to create the world (7 days, see Genesis 1-3). I don't know about other cultures, but do they have a different cyclical grouping of days like the week, but a different number of days?

Ancient (Republican and Imperial) Rome had a different measurement of days (and it wasn't seven).

 

[moonman239]

As an American, I've thought about this myself.

The real problem is that it's so ingrained into our society that it's very difficult to remove.
On that note, here's an idea:

In the education system, we can redesign the math curricula so as to place more emphasis on the metric rather than the Imperial system. Acknowledge the existence of the various units, and teach them how to convert between "common units" (miles/kilometers, feet/meters, inches/centimeters, lbs/kg. Don't bother with yards, only a select few people use them)

 

[smallcoffee]

Bottom line is that it costs more money to change it than it does to keep it the same way.

Additionally, there is nothing stopping anybody in the US from using it.

Conversions are conversions. We convert all sorts of stuff, like currencies. It's not a problem.

It's like people getting mad that we call "football" "soccer", Well, we have our own language and we call things what we want to. Get over yourself.

 

[yaxomoxay]

It's like people getting mad that we call "football" "soccer", Well, we have our own language and we call things what we want to. Get over yourself.

Well, soccer is actually English. Then the birts decided to change it to football and criticize the Americans that call the sport the same way they used to call it.

 

[C DM]

Well, soccer is actually English. Then the birts decided to change it to football and criticize the Americans that call the sport the same way they used to call it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/why-we-call-soccer-soccer/372771/

 

[ActionableMango]

Regardless of the etymology of the words "football" and "soccer", I feel that the word "football" is much more apt for soccer than it is for American football.

 

[flat five]

^ except imperial doesn't work "just as well"

well, it works better.

i'm sorry but your (not necessarily 'you' in particular.. same goes for the rest of this post) argument is based around the metric system as it was learned in school (and fwiw, americans also learn the basics in school.. like- no use trying to teach americans your basic understanding of the metric system because we already know it.)

i mean, just look how easy metric is:
1m = 100cm = 1000mm
wow, so easy

now-- try to use metric in a typical scenario you'll encounter when needing to actually use the system..

divide a cm in half.. ok, 5mm (but 5 is prime.. no further calculations are possible with it.)
divide it in thirds.. you can't.. (or, you can't divide it in thirds then have a corresponding mark on your scale.. you're immediately faced with needing to use a workaround on a very simple task)
divide it in fourths.. can't
fifths? ok, two..
sixths? can't

now do that with a foot.
half? 6"
thirds? 4"
fourths? 3"
fifths? can't
sixths? 2"

in this elementary example, imperial makes a lot more sense and is the better system to use.

that's because it's not strictly based around base10

base10 is not the best choice for mathematics even though most of you metric users like to boast "look how easy it is.. it's all base10!!" :/

base12 or base16 is the better way to count.. 10 is not a magic number.. we use base10 for counting because we have 10 fingers..that's it. that's all the reason there is behind the use of base10.. it's like math for dummies.

with base12 or 16, there are far more options available for practical and even more complicated mathematics.

imperial has many examples of these alternate bases.. this is why america continues to use it. it's a superior system in many ways.

----
other than coming in here with "why does america use outdated systems" and sounding a fool, you'd be better off if you actually learned both systems (metric being one of these that you need to learn because it's sort of obvious you don't really use it for much).. compare the positives and negatives of both.. and lobby for a new worldwide system that draws from both because neither is perfect.. neither is better.

the best thing we can take from metric is that it's a coherent system (as in, this is the single strongest positive for the metric system yet no-one in the thread is arguing this point).. it was developed (moreOrLess) as a whole system.
with metric, you can transfer between all the various fields without conversions factors.

a cube 10cm x 10cm x 10cm is 1liter.
1 liter of water at 0ºC is 1kilogram.
etc.
you're able to more easily do calculations between things like distance,volume,weight,temperature,electricity,etc since they're all based off one another.. this is the reason many scientists/engineers prefer metric.. it's not because of the numbering scheme.

the same exact numbering scheme in metric is also in imperial if so desired so "math is easier with metric" is complete bollocks..
engineers using imperial are generally using decimal inches or decimal feet.. in which case, the number work exactly the same as metric.. in many cases, the same prefixes/naming scheme are even used. for instance:
microinch

but in many practical use cases, these decimal inches are inferior since they don't correlate with common tasks that need to be done..
this is where base12 would be of benefit.

the best system for modern day humans would be one with the coherent nature of metric combined with (some of) the numerical logic of imperial.
[doublepost=1464054494][/doublepost]

At least I know that you'd mean 33 centimeters and 33 millimeters in metric, while .3333333333333333333etc ft. would require a calculator besides the measuring tape.

lol. uh,
.3333333333333333333 ft. is 4 inches.
4" has a corresponding mark on the tape measure.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Regardless of the etymology of the words "football" and "soccer", I feel that the word "football" is much more apt for soccer than it is for American football.

My real issue is with Curling...

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Regardless of the etymology of the words "football" and "soccer", I feel that the word "football" is much more apt for soccer than it is for American football.

I suspect that part of the answer may lie in the fact that - by the time that the rules of soccer came to be codified in the 1860s and 1870s, there was already another game in existence which was called football in the UK, and that was rugby football, which had existed in some sort of codified form since the 1820s and 1830s.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/why-we-call-soccer-soccer/372771/

Ah, yes, an interesting piece; thanks for sharing it.

 

[cube]

Unrelated incompatibility:

Maybe Airbus needs to build private schools.

 

[ProjectManager101]

OH dude.... all the wrong things this country is doing, they do not even have they own name!
The call themselves "Americans" based on what? Are they more Americans than the rest of the Americans which include from Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, Chile, Venezuela, Panamá, Costa Rica, Mexico and all the other countries who are part of America? That to start with.

They do not get the metric system, they like things complicated so they can fell more important, like with Football.... useless game they only play. They do not play real football like the rest of the world.

Then, in baseball, they have their "world series" they play with themselves, not with other countries... now you can tell the level of narcissism implied in the culture.

And you can go on.... but well.

 

[Tomorrow]

The call themselves "Americans" based on what? Are they more Americans than the rest of the Americans which include from Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, Chile, Venezuela, Panamá, Costa Rica, Mexico and all the other countries who are part of America?

Well, yes, in fact.

Americans come from America. People from Argentina are Argentinians. Brazil --> Brazilians, Chile --> Chileans, etc. These people are from the continent of South America, which is different from the country colloquially called America. Nobody on this side of the planet refers to North America or South America (or even both collectively) as "America" - that name is used for the country.

They do not get the metric system, they like things complicated so they can fell more important, like with Football.... useless game they only play. They do not play real football like the rest of the world.

Oh, we "get" the metric system just fine. We learn it in school just like everyone else. Use it pretty much every day. What we don't do, however, is use it exclusively. As for soccer, we even have that here. Our women's team most recently won the World Cup, in fact. A sport you believe we don't even play.

Then, in baseball, they have their "world series" they play with themselves, not with other countries... now you can tell the level of narcissism implied in the culture.

I get what you're saying here, but I think it's more of a marketing thing than a narcissism thing. When the name was first used, I don't believe professional baseball was even played on any appreciable scale outside the US. The name has held on over the years as other countries have embraced the sport professionally.

 

[cube]

Well, yes, in fact.

Americans come from America. People from Argentina are Argentinians. Brazil --> Brazilians, Chile --> Chileans, etc. These people are from the continent of South America, which is different from the country colloquially called America. Nobody on this side of the planet refers to North America or South America (or even both collectively) as "America" - that name is used for the country.

Yes, Americans come from America, the continent. Most people over there use the name correctly.

As you said, calling USA "America" is a colloquialism used by estadounidenses.

And BTW, USA is not technically the only "united states".

People from Latin America call people from USA "north americans" often, which I guess would be objected by Mexicans and Canadians.

OFF TOPIC:

It's not surprising when somebody uneducated calls a certain country "Columbia", but when a major global corporation does it, it is outrageous.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Yes, Americans come from America, the continent. Most people over there use the name correctly.

As you said, calling USA "America" is a colloquialism used by estadounidenses.

And BTW, USA is not technically the only "united states".

People from Latin America call people from USA "north americans" often, which I guess would be objected by Mexicans and Canadians.

OFF TOPIC:

It's not surprising when somebody uneducated calls a certain country "Columbia", but when a major global corporation does it, it is outrageous.

Well, there is more to it than that. I prefer to be called a "Migrant Californian, who has migrated to Washington, Arizona, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, Florida, and South Carolina, and back to Washington" and will be upset if anyone calls me anything different, because if I'm not offended by innocent verbiage from someone that has no influence on my life, I, apparently, am a minority, and we can't have that, can we?

 

[cube]

Well California is almost its own country, so I'm not surprised.

Like people arguing if Apple is an American or a global company. It is a California company.

 

[samiwas]

well, it works better.

i'm sorry but your (not necessarily 'you' in particular.. same goes for the rest of this post) argument is based around the metric system as it was learned in school (and fwiw, americans also learn the basics in school.. like- no use trying to teach americans your basic understanding of the metric system because we already know it.)

i mean, just look how easy metric is:
1m = 100cm = 1000mm
wow, so easy

now-- try to use metric in a typical scenario you'll encounter when needing to actually use the system..

divide a cm in half.. ok, 5mm (but 5 is prime.. no further calculations are possible with it.)
divide it in thirds.. you can't.. (or, you can't divide it in thirds then have a corresponding mark on your scale.. you're immediately faced with needing to use a workaround on a very simple task)
divide it in fourths.. can't
fifths? ok, two..
sixths? can't

now do that with a foot.
half? 6"
thirds? 4"
fourths? 3"
fifths? can't
sixths? 2"

in this elementary example, imperial makes a lot more sense and is the better system to use.

What on earth are you talking about? No further calculation is possible with 5? Like, you can't divide by two and get 2.5 or 25mm? That's the beauty of metric is that it's all decimals. But how often in non-engineering life do you see something listed as 2.375"? No, you see it listed as 2 3/8". And once you get below an inch, you're dealing exclusively with fractions or multiple decimals of an inch. In metric, you can jump to millimeters and get very precise measurements with only one decimal, but even that is rarely needed.

A foot is close to 30cm. So, let's use that...
Half? 15 cm
Thirds? 10cm
Fourths? 7.5cm or 75mm (but, maybe that's not acceptable to you)
Fifths? 6cm
Sixths? 5cm

I'm born and raised American, but to say that it's not possible to use metric for a lot of measurements is insane.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

But how often in non-engineering life do you see something listed as 2.375"? No, you see it listed as 2 3/8".

As an engineer, there is no non-engineering life.

(but the rest of what you said works for you, so enjoy it!)

 

[garirry]

well, it works better.

i'm sorry but your (not necessarily 'you' in particular.. same goes for the rest of this post) argument is based around the metric system as it was learned in school (and fwiw, americans also learn the basics in school.. like- no use trying to teach americans your basic understanding of the metric system because we already know it.)

i mean, just look how easy metric is:
1m = 100cm = 1000mm
wow, so easy

now-- try to use metric in a typical scenario you'll encounter when needing to actually use the system..

divide a cm in half.. ok, 5mm (but 5 is prime.. no further calculations are possible with it.)
divide it in thirds.. you can't.. (or, you can't divide it in thirds then have a corresponding mark on your scale.. you're immediately faced with needing to use a workaround on a very simple task)
divide it in fourths.. can't
fifths? ok, two..
sixths? can't

now do that with a foot.
half? 6"
thirds? 4"
fourths? 3"
fifths? can't
sixths? 2"

in this elementary example, imperial makes a lot more sense and is the better system to use.

that's because it's not strictly based around base10

base10 is not the best choice for mathematics even though most of you metric users like to boast "look how easy it is.. it's all base10!!" :/

base12 or base16 is the better way to count.. 10 is not a magic number.. we use base10 for counting because we have 10 fingers..that's it. that's all the reason there is behind the use of base10.. it's like math for dummies.

with base12 or 16, there are far more options available for practical and even more complicated mathematics.

imperial has many examples of these alternate bases.. this is why america continues to use it. it's a superior system in many ways.

This wins my award for the worst argument of the century. You can divide 5 mm by 2. How much? 2.5 mm, or 2500 μm. You can divide 5 mm by 3. It won't be complete, so all you do is 1.6‾ mm or 1666‾ μm (normally it's an overline, but I have no damn clue as to how to do it on computer). And nobody is stopping you from using fractions so you can easily put 1 2/3 mm. Fourths is easy, 1.25 mm or 1250 μm. Fifths is 1 mm, obviously. Sixths is 8.3‾ mm or 8.333‾ μm. You see? It's very simple. Just put an overline in repeating numbers, and you can do just about anything as long as it's not irrational.

10 IS the magic number, as dividing using it will guarantee that the same exact numbers will be kept, but the placement of the dot/amount of zeros will be different. That is why the metric system is so damn awesome. I don't know how long is a kilometre to be honest, so all I have to imagine is that it's 1000 metres. When in imperial, you have a 20 feet which will be 1.6‾ (you're not winning buddy) inches, whereas 20 m will be 2 dm. A mile is 5280 feet. Yeah, good luck calculating using that.

For reference: 1000000 μm = 1000 mm = 100 cm = 10 dm = 1 m = 0.001 km
If systems were based on 12s: 2985984 ft*12^-5 = 1728 ft*12^-2 = 144 ft*12^-1 = 12 ft*12^0 = 1 ft*12^1 = 0.083‾ ft*12^2

There's a big difference buddy. The metric system is miles... err, kilometres better than the imperial system.

 

[Tomorrow]

Yes, Americans come from America, the continent. Most people over there use the name correctly

"In modern English, North and South America are generally considered separate continents, and taken together are called the Americas in the plural, parallel to similar situations such as the Carolinas. When conceived as a unitary continent, the form is generally the continent of America in the singular. However, without a clarifying context, singular America in English commonly refers to the United States of America."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Etymology_and_naming

 

[cube]

"In modern English, North and South America are generally considered separate continents, and taken together are called the Americas in the plural, parallel to similar situations such as the Carolinas. When conceived as a unitary continent, the form is generally the continent of America in the singular. However, without a clarifying context, singular America in English commonly refers to the United States of America."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Etymology_and_naming

I know about that English usage junk.

America, the continent, named after Amerigo Vespucci.

 

[Tomorrow]

America, the continent, named after Amerigo Vespucci.

The Americas, the two continents.