Up next, a man uses kittens as a blasting agent; says he was inspired by a video "where a guy uses toilet paper rolls and candles to launch a 300 lb satellite into orbit"
This is how the next fecal-transplant story will go: 1) "ugh, I have Clostridium difficle" 2) "let's not pay a doctor" 3) "I bought this clear vinyl tube.." 4) etc.
The whole point of the metric system is to create a system that is both standardized across countries as well as being unambiguous and easily used for science. To the layperson, the system of units is arbitrary; most people do not use a measuring system for anything outside of speed, distance, and cooking quantities; in these cases, the system used can be arbitrary and even imprecise (as is quite evident in the current U.S. measurement system: grains, feet, teaspoons, horsepower, etc.). Where the U.S. system really shows its awkwardness is when one tries to do science with it -- the system is too old for modern science. There exist way too many unnecessary and arbitrarily inter-related units in the U.S. system for the same quantity; for example, inches, feet, yards, and miles. If this awkward inter-relation is not enough, there is also the huge problem of ambiguity; consider volume as an example. In the metric system, 1 ml = 1 cm^3, regardless of the substance (mass is only related through a density constant, and water is approximately 1 g for 1 ml). Now consider volume the US customary system; considering pints, there is a wet pint (defined as 473 ml), and a dry pint (550 ml). Now, 1 liquid pint is 16 ounces, but ounces are also a unit of mass, and 1 liquid ounce does not equal 1 ounce mass (not to mention that ounces are related to pounds, and there is further ambiguity between pound force and pound mass). If this is not enough, in measuring mass there is the troy ounce and the avoirdupois ounce; so all-together there are three "ounces" currently in common use that are *not equal* (fluids, solids, and precious metals). If this isn't enough, there are even other systems out there that use the same nomenclature and are still different than all of these! This sort of sloppy garbage is *why* the SI was developed, why serious science invokes the metric system, and why I hate anything but SI and derived units. As you can tell, I have an intense dislike of the U.S. customary system. I am Canadian and of moderate age where I have enough experience with both systems; I also have a more technical background, and as a result a vested interest in logical and standardized units. So in closing, just because the general public is more familiar with an outdated system does not make it superior. The ambiguity of the outdated US customary system is reason enough to change; regardless of the fact that the rest of the civilized *and uncivilized* world have officially adopted the metric system. P.S. the SI unit for temperature is kelvin (K), not degrees Celsius; note that it's *not* "degrees kelvin," as it has its origin at absolute zero. The result of this is that in addition to the fact that 310 K is manlier than 98.6°F (see post 7), any scientist will vouch that "a temperature unit with origin at absolute zero is tits."
1) "ugh, I have Clostridium difficle"
2) "let's not pay a doctor"
3) "I bought this clear vinyl tube.."
4) etc.
To the layperson, the system of units is arbitrary; most people do not use a measuring system for anything outside of speed, distance, and cooking quantities; in these cases, the system used can be arbitrary and even imprecise (as is quite evident in the current U.S. measurement system: grains, feet, teaspoons, horsepower, etc.).
Where the U.S. system really shows its awkwardness is when one tries to do science with it -- the system is too old for modern science. There exist way too many unnecessary and arbitrarily inter-related units in the U.S. system for the same quantity; for example, inches, feet, yards, and miles.
If this awkward inter-relation is not enough, there is also the huge problem of ambiguity; consider volume as an example. In the metric system, 1 ml = 1 cm^3, regardless of the substance (mass is only related through a density constant, and water is approximately 1 g for 1 ml). Now consider volume the US customary system; considering pints, there is a wet pint (defined as 473 ml), and a dry pint (550 ml). Now, 1 liquid pint is 16 ounces, but ounces are also a unit of mass, and 1 liquid ounce does not equal 1 ounce mass (not to mention that ounces are related to pounds, and there is further ambiguity between pound force and pound mass). If this is not enough, in measuring mass there is the troy ounce and the avoirdupois ounce; so all-together there are three "ounces" currently in common use that are *not equal* (fluids, solids, and precious metals). If this isn't enough, there are even other systems out there that use the same nomenclature and are still different than all of these! This sort of sloppy garbage is *why* the SI was developed, why serious science invokes the metric system, and why I hate anything but SI and derived units.
As you can tell, I have an intense dislike of the U.S. customary system. I am Canadian and of moderate age where I have enough experience with both systems; I also have a more technical background, and as a result a vested interest in logical and standardized units.
So in closing, just because the general public is more familiar with an outdated system does not make it superior. The ambiguity of the outdated US customary system is reason enough to change; regardless of the fact that the rest of the civilized *and uncivilized* world have officially adopted the metric system.
P.S. the SI unit for temperature is kelvin (K), not degrees Celsius; note that it's *not* "degrees kelvin," as it has its origin at absolute zero. The result of this is that in addition to the fact that 310 K is manlier than 98.6°F (see post 7), any scientist will vouch that "a temperature unit with origin at absolute zero is tits."