[QUOTE=BAZ;22441698]The UK still uses miles on the road, but everything else is metric now (Apart from human heights and weights, but that's a social thing)[/QUOTE]
In hospitals you are measured in metres and weighed in kilogrammes but people just prefer to use feet and stones
[QUOTE=Exploits;22441449]I don't even [i]get[/i] miles. It's such an arbitrary measurement. I mean, kilometer = 1,000 meters. Real simple. But a mile is 1760 feet, or 1,609 meters . . . what? How the hell do you even label something like that? Is one mile 20,000 inches or something?
It hurts my head.[/QUOTE]
They are generally based around old measurements.
An inch was three barley grains laid end to end, A yard was originally the length of the standard belt of Anglo Saxons but was then standardized by a king to be the distance from his nose to his outstretched palm, the acre was the amount of land a man with a single ox could plough in a day, and the furlong was the distance an Ox (or it may have been a horse) could pull a plough before resting.
The article states the mile was the distance a soldier could travel in 1,000 paces.
I think a better way of converting the road signs to metric would be to just paint the equivalent distance in kilometres alongside the number of miles. That way we could have a dual system and eventually erase the miles number as people get used to kilometres.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22442028]They are generally based around old measurements.
An inch was three barley grains laid end to end, A yard was originally the length of the standard belt of Anglo Saxons but was then standardized by a king to be the distance from his nose to his outstretched palm, the acre was the amount of land a man with a single ox could plough in a day, and the furlong was the distance an Ox (or it may have been a horse) could pull a plough before resting.
The article states the mile was the distance a soldier could travel in 1,000 paces.[/QUOTE]
Those are all so ambiguous, it would drive me nuts if they weren't uniform and defined.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;22438262]It's weird. We use metric for everything in the UK, even using metres, but we also use miles.
Crazy stuff.[/QUOTE]
I guess we're used to using miles colloquially - it's definitely easier for me to visualise about how long so many miles are as opposed to so many kilometres.
"it's about 10 miles away"
"He's doing 50 miles per hour"
I think miles are more convenient in transportation. (Mi, MPH) but meters for finer measurements.
I agree, miles per hour sounds cooler.
[QUOTE=Exploits;22441449]I don't even [I]get[/I] miles. It's such an arbitrary measurement. I mean, kilometer = 1,000 meters. Real simple. But a mile is 1760 feet, or 1,609 meters . . . what? How the hell do you even label something like that? Is one mile 20,000 inches or something?
It hurts my head.[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised no one has caught this yet, but judging by the average intelligence of my fellow American teenagers, I really shouldn't be. Anyway, getting back to the point, a mile is 5280 feet, or 1760 [b]yards[/b], a yard being 3 feet.
So if the UK converts to kilometers then they will need to re-make the highways? :q:
[B]Edit:[/B]
Ohh god wasn't q a diamond?
Why is the UK going backwards?
I'm American and even I think the US needs to adopt the metric system.
[QUOTE=Pr0vologne;22445582]Why is the UK going backwards?
I'm American and even I think the US needs to adopt the metric system.[/QUOTE]
The metric system has its perks. Its a precise measurement system. However, the temperature unit (Celcius) and kilometers for transportation are rather stupid. Celsius isn't all that precise, and KM is horrible as a transportation unit.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;22446184]The metric system has its perks. Its a precise measurement system. However, the temperature unit (Celcius) and kilometers for transportation are rather stupid. Celsius isn't all that precise, and KM is horrible as a transportation unit.[/QUOTE]
what's wrong with degrees celcius eh eh eh
[QUOTE=mike;22446238]what's wrong with degrees celcius eh eh eh[/QUOTE]
It's awfully silly. Although I like 0 being freezing 100 boiling. it just lacks the increments.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;22446272]It's awfully silly. Although I like 0 being freezing 100 boiling. it just lacks the increments.[/QUOTE]
i don't quite see your point
many moons ago we invented fractions and the magical decimal point in order to place values between the integers.
myself i prefer kelvin but it's pretty antisocial using that outside the lab.
Why bother with a decimal in temperature? That's really unneeded.
How warm is it out side?
Oh, 23.59123719230012385712387518 degrees.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;22446272]It's awfully silly. Although I like 0 being freezing 100 boiling. it just lacks the increments.[/QUOTE]Add decimal points to it. :downs:
beaten to it.
Also, this is what the UK gets for going conservative.
236 decicelsius :v:
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;22446353]Why bother with a decimal in temperature? That's really unneeded.
How warm is it out side?
Oh, 23.59123719230012385712387518 degrees.[/QUOTE]
Who does that, the "incremental units" are everything between 0 and 100 and there's no difference on a day-to-day basis. what's wrong with km?
"miles" sounds so much better in song lyrics.
"And I would walk 500 kilometers and I would walk 500 more..."
[QUOTE=laval;22446675]Who does that, the "incremental units" are everything between 0 and 100 and there's no difference on a day-to-day basis. what's wrong with km?[/QUOTE]
lacks the finer increments such as in Fahrenheit. Decimals are just a really unneeded addition for it to be more precise.
and maybe KM would just be a better plan. I know in the US people would be thinking they're speeding when they hit 60KM/h on a city street
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;22447139]lacks the finer increments such as in Fahrenheit. Decimals are just a really unneeded addition for it to be more precise.
and maybe KM would just be a better plan. I know in the US people would be thinking they're speeding when they hit 60KM/h on a city street[/QUOTE]
Honestly, in what daily situations would it be necessary to know the temperature down to 0.5 Celsius?
imperial is better for dealing with things on the body, metric for everything else.
You fill up your car with litres of petrol, the car's emissions are CO2 g/km, we use Celsius and our drinks (save milk and beer) are measured in litres, surely scrapping the mile is nothing.
This is fucking ridiculous. We have a situation now where we have two systems implemented for this country. What's more is that you get signs up on the motorways now (I believe they are for construction services and that kind of thing) that are in metric while other road signs are in Imperial measurements. We need to go entirely metric. Ireland did it 5 years ago and it didn't cost that much.
Its the conservatives, they love being old-fashioned.
[QUOTE=noctune9;22447234]Honestly, in what daily situations would it be necessary to know the temperature down to 0.5 Celsius?[/QUOTE]
:sigh:
I don't think you're understanding this. It's better to say its 74F instead of 23.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333C
To be fair, our cars are already prepared and have been for years. The speedometers show both KM/H and MPH:
[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/am86qf.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;22447381]:sigh:
I don't think you're understanding this. It's better to say its 74F instead of 23.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333C[/QUOTE]
74F is 23C.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures[/url]
The point is, as long as you only measure 74F to the nearest Fahrenheit, all the decimals of the C is just fake precision and should be left out.
Also, timewarp:
[img]http://i50.tinypic.com/ixy23c.png[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
