Do I need
to repeat that? :!)
Ease of learning:
3. Imperial measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to
memorize all those crazy prefixes: femto, nano, micro, milli, centi,
deci, deka, hecto, kilo, mega, myria, giga, etc.
No friggen kidden, I only knew about 4 or 5 of those, the last one because
of my hard drive.
3. Metric measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to remember
all those crazy measures like inches, hands, feet, cubits, yards,
fathoms, rods, cones, chains, furlongs, cables, miles, etc.
We really only use feet, yards, miles and inches with any common regulirity.
But a good rod is needed for fishin, and cables for TV.
4. Imperial uses simple fractional arithmetic which we all learned in
grade school. Not like metric where you need to know all those
prefixes and can easily make a mistake on your calculator & cut
something 10 times too big or 10 times too small.
4. Metric uses simple decimal arithmetic where you can use your
calculator directly without springing big bucks for one that
calculates inches and fractions.
What fun is that?
6. Metric is more accurate. You can easily go to 0.5mm which is more
precise than 1/32"
Not if what you are measuring is 1/32" long.
The cost for wholesale switchover would be a huge one-time cost, while
the cost for staying is paid incrementally. There isn't enough
incentive to make it worthwhile in the minds of regulators.
Kind of like keyboard layout...Dvorak is 10-15% faster for a trained
typist, but the cost of switching is too high to make it worth doing.
I'm in Canada, so we get everything...metric, US, and Imperial.
Personally I like metric for most things, but living so close to the US
it's just easier to use US units for construction/woodworking.
: On 09/08/2009 06:32 AM, Robatoy wrote:
:> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an:> archaic system?
It's not archaic!
: The cost for wholesale switchover would be a huge one-time cost, while
: the cost for staying is paid incrementally. There isn't enough
: incentive to make it worthwhile in the minds of regulators.
: Kind of like keyboard layout...Dvorak is 10-15% faster for a trained
That's a myth. And a quite interesting one at that:
It's not only NOT faster than a QWERTY keyboard for a trained typist,
it's arguably slower, and Mr. Dvorak was a bit of a huckster.
: Personally I like metric for most things, but living so close to the US
: it's just easier to use US units for construction/woodworking.
Otherwise, you'd find 2440 x 1220mm plywood panels easier and more
intuitive to work with?
-- Andy Barss
I should note up front that I use QWERTY and have never tried Dvorak.
There are arguments against that article. This post for instance is
quite interesting and seems to bring up several easily-verifiable points:
I got my 10% figure from Donald Norman's book, "The Design of Everyday
Things". He notes that Dvorak affectionados claim higher improvements
but that he could not substantiate them.
Quite a few people have indicated that Dvorak results in less stress on
No, I'd find 2400x1200 panels easier to work with. Why stick with 8'
ceilings if we're truly going metric? But that would require redoing
all the building standards for 400mm or 600mm centers instead of 16" or 24".
Everytime this subject comes up, I'm reminded of my first day of
Prof announced that during the quarter, he would be giving quizes to
test our progress.
"The answer to every question will be "1 Me".
Your job will be to define the units of "Me".
As you can see, it made an impression.
I'm kinda hoping to keep the walls in place. :)
FYI - I've posted the latest bit of solar "zen" at
which is what has struggling to speak metric, physics, and French all at
the same time.
My head hurts. :(
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.