July 19, 2012 at 11:43 am
Lynn Pettis (7/19/2012)
One, you are still generalizing when you say "Americans are stubborn about pragmatic change'. I'm sorry, but you could potentially say this about almost any group. It is a generalization that I simply take offense to on basic principles.
Sorry that you think that way, but it is the conclusion I have drawn from observation. This thread has only reinforced that view.
Lynn Pettis (7/19/2012)
Two, on this "The Imperial system works; the metric system works better", whose definition of better? What makes it better? Or is it just easier to convert between different units of measure (centimeters <> meters <> kilometers).
Yes, the fact that it is based on powers of 10 is what makes it better. The scientific world thinks so and uses SI units almost universally.
Jay Bienvenu | http://bienv.com | http://twitter.com/jbnv
July 19, 2012 at 11:44 am
Lynn Pettis (7/19/2012)
Two, on this "The Imperial system works; the metric system works better", whose definition of better? What makes it better? Or is it just easier to convert between different units of measure (centimeters <> meters <> kilometers).
Alright, that on'e easy:
Metric system:
- Enables you to accurately express measurements
- Makes it easy to convert between units of measure
- Makes it easy to understand relationships between units of measure without needing to research the domain (micro, milli, kilo, mega, etc)
- Is used by most of the world (and the whole scientific community), and therefore promotes interoperability
Imperial system:
- Enables you to accurately express measurements
- Has a different history that some might be more attached to
- Is already in place in the US, and therefore is cheaper to maintain (in the short term) than switching to metric would be
Sure, there might be more or less valid reasons why some or most US citizens might believe it's not a good idea to switch, but is there really any possible doubt as to which is objectively better?
(I'm actually really curious - am I missing something? Is there any way in which the imperial system could be construed as equivalent or better?)
http://poorsql.com for T-SQL formatting: free as in speech, free as in beer, free to run in SSMS or on your version control server - free however you want it.
July 19, 2012 at 11:48 am
Mad Myche (7/18/2012)
The correct answer is to store in UTC. Databases store data, and it's the job of whomever is getting the data to present in the correct format.As for timezones and the problems they solve, it is all based that local time is relative to the locale. The sun should be overhead at noon, and the borealis should be best visible at midnight relative to location.
Daylight Savings time was a scheme created for the eco-nuts to lower lighting bills and HVAC costs. While those numbers are contradictory, retailers enjoy staying open another hour
Daylight Savings time was first proposed as a joke. Then it was lobbied for by a bug collector who wanted more daylight hours after getting home from work so he could catch more butterflies and such. The US Congress, in its infinite wisdom, fell for that, and made it official. (Do the research. I'm not joking about this.)
The tiny bit of electricity it saves from lighting changes, is more than offset by the costs in accidents, reduced productivity, et al, caused by the springtime sleep deprivation caused by "spring ahead", per actual studies by the energy industry and insurance industry. And the major electrical cost these days isn't lighting anyway, it's HVAC, which is usually mostly based on building occupancy hours. So if we really wanted to cut energy costs, we'd make everyone work at night in the summer (reduce cooling costs), and during the day in winter (lower heating costs). Yeah, that's the ticket!
And I'll add my vote to "get rid of time zones and DST". The positive effects on cross-time-zone calls and so on ("call me after 6 PM", "webinar at 15:00", "deposits made before 9 AM", etc.) would be huge. The social shock would wear off quickly enough in most cases, I think.
Of course, I'm also in favor of getting rid of AM and PM and just using a 24-hour clock. But mainly because I'm sick of being told "12AM"/"12PM" by people who don't understand that there are no such critters and that it's an oxymoron to use either one.
And I'll add to the "metric is just as arbitrary as any other human measure" vote. Even SI is only as rational as you assume that everyone is in the same acceleration-framework (as per Relativity) as everyone else, or that it's okay to measure things in "my seconds" and "my meters from Wednesday at noon last week".
I can get even sillier if anyone wants. Just leave everyone guessing which standards I actually prefer. :w00t:
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
July 19, 2012 at 11:51 am
jbnv (7/19/2012)
Lynn Pettis (7/19/2012)
One, you are still generalizing when you say "Americans are stubborn about pragmatic change'. I'm sorry, but you could potentially say this about almost any group. It is a generalization that I simply take offense to on basic principles.Sorry that you think that way, but it is the conclusion I have drawn from observation. This thread has only reinforced that view.
Lynn Pettis (7/19/2012)
Two, on this "The Imperial system works; the metric system works better", whose definition of better? What makes it better? Or is it just easier to convert between different units of measure (centimeters <> meters <> kilometers).Yes, the fact that it is based on powers of 10 is what makes it better. The scientific world thinks so and uses SI units almost universally.
Well, sorry about the first. I just don't like seeing generalizations like that. Just my opinion.
About the second. That's like saying SQL Server is better than Oracle, or C# is better than VB.NET, or Ruby on Rails is better than Java.
Use the right tools for the job. As for switching to the metric system, wouldn't bother me, but you really haven't sold me on the need to do it, and saying because everyone else is using it doesn't fly.
July 19, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Tao Klerks (7/19/2012)
Lynn Pettis (7/19/2012)
Two, on this "The Imperial system works; the metric system works better", whose definition of better? What makes it better? Or is it just easier to convert between different units of measure (centimeters <> meters <> kilometers).Alright, that on'e easy:
Metric system:
- Enables you to accurately express measurements
- Makes it easy to convert between units of measure
- Makes it easy to understand relationships between units of measure without needing to research the domain (micro, milli, kilo, mega, etc)
- Is used by most of the world (and the whole scientific community), and therefore promotes interoperability
Imperial system:
- Enables you to accurately express measurements
- Has a different history that some might be more attached to
- Is already in place in the US, and therefore is cheaper to maintain (in the short term) than switching to metric would be
Sure, there might be more or less valid reasons why some or most US citizens might believe it's not a good idea to switch, but is there really any possible doubt as to which is objectively better?
(I'm actually really curious - am I missing something? Is there any way in which the imperial system could be construed as equivalent or better?)
If "better" = "is a more commonly accepted standard", then, yes, it is better.
If "better" = "gives you some actual scientific advantage other than not having to look things up as often", then the two are equivalent.
And, please stop using the word "metric" if you're going to talk about scientists using it. They haven't. Not for decades, maybe longer. They use SI, not "metric". It's based on degrees Kelvin, not centigrade, for one thing.
Both systems are fully arbitrary. One just has a more generic unit-conversion nomenclature is all. Metric (not SI) recently had to modify its definition of a kilogram, because a lump of metal in France was found to actually be slowly getting lighter. Based on the reason for the change in mass (as well as weight, of course), it could get more heavier in the future, and they'll have to update the definition of kilogram again.
Even SI has problems expressing measures in relativistic situations. Astonaughts in orbit are moving enough faster than the rest of us that they technically are aging more slowly. In terms of seconds per decade if I remember correctly, but that matters in SI. Doesn't matter in metric, because that uses Earth's rotation for its standard "second", which means seconds now are longer than they were when the word "metric" was first coined, in the metric system, and metric doesn't recognize relativistic effects any more than Imperial does.
Oh, and SI doesn't recognize time zones, by the way. Nor DST. If that matters to anyone. But metric certainly does recognize both.
Human measurements, like all human observations, are arbitrary. We do our best to communicate them in a way that "the other guy" can understand us, but I've never met an American carpenter yet would couldn't easily communicate to another American carpenter, using feet, yards, board-feet, inches, etc., without having to worry about "can the person I'm talking to convert inches to feet without looking in an encyclopedia?" The purpose of the terminology is achieved.
Blaming the non-conversion to metric on "Americans are all stuborn about things that will make the world a better place" is just ignorant blather, honestly. May as well blame the current Euro problems on German militaristic aggression and the French passion for surrendering. All three are myths.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
July 19, 2012 at 12:33 pm
GSquared (7/19/2012)
Tao Klerks (7/19/2012)
Lynn Pettis (7/19/2012)
Two, on this "The Imperial system works; the metric system works better", whose definition of better? What makes it better? Or is it just easier to convert between different units of measure (centimeters <> meters <> kilometers).Alright, that on'e easy:
[...]
If "better" = "is a more commonly accepted standard", then, yes, it is better.
If "better" = "gives you some actual scientific advantage other than not having to look things up as often", then the two are equivalent.
Hmm, I guess I was implicitly defining "better" as "Having some intrinsic and objective advantage". Within my limited analytical framework, "not having to look things up as often" fits the bill on its own (never mind standardization advantages), unless there is any "intrinsic and objective" advantage to any aspect of the imperial system. (ooh, but which imperial system, I hear you ask? I'm talking about the only one that still exists of course)
GSquared (7/19/2012)
And, please stop using the word "metric" if you're going to talk about scientists using it. They haven't. Not for decades, maybe longer. They use SI, not "metric". It's based on degrees Kelvin, not centigrade, for one thing.
My bad, I oversimplified. Interesting that you should point to the measurement of temperature, as that's one area that I'm aware of where there seems no advantage whatsoever to the metric unit (ºC), except I suppose its proliferation (given that unit-of-magnitude conversions on temperature are pretty rare in everyday life)
GSquared (7/19/2012)
Both systems are fully arbitrary. One just has a more generic unit-conversion nomenclature is all. Metric (not SI) recently had to modify its definition of a kilogram, because a lump of metal in France was found to actually be slowly getting lighter. Based on the reason for the change in mass (as well as weight, of course), it could get more heavier in the future, and they'll have to update the definition of kilogram again.
Does "fully arbitrary" somehow mean "incapable of bearing an advantage over some other"? How is the arbitrariness relevant to whether or not it's "better"? When you pick a random answer in the SAT and you happen upon the right one, is the answer not "better" than the incorrect answers you didn't pick?
GSquared (7/19/2012)
Even SI has problems expressing measures in relativistic situations. Astonaughts in orbit are moving enough faster than the rest of us that they technically are aging more slowly. In terms of seconds per decade if I remember correctly, but that matters in SI. Doesn't matter in metric, because that uses Earth's rotation for its standard "second", which means seconds now are longer than they were when the word "metric" was first coined, in the metric system, and metric doesn't recognize relativistic effects any more than Imperial does.
Absolutely, they suck equally in this regard. Are you suggesting we switch to SI across the board? I wouldn't disagree with that as a long-term goal at all! (hell, it's not like I care at all whether the US switches - I just have issues with "neither one's better, they're just different!". That attitude makes perfect sense when each has advantages, but I just don't see anyone pointing to advantages of imperial (ever?))
Incidentally, I like the sound of Johannes Koelmann's Post-Imperial system - it claims to solve this concern! http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/metric_vs_imperial_end_epic_battle
GSquared (7/19/2012)
Oh, and SI doesn't recognize time zones, by the way. Nor DST. If that matters to anyone. But metric certainly does recognize both.
That's pretty cool! Do you have any idea where I can read up on that?
GSquared (7/19/2012)
Human measurements, like all human observations, are arbitrary. We do our best to communicate them in a way that "the other guy" can understand us, but I've never met an American carpenter yet would couldn't easily communicate to another American carpenter, using feet, yards, board-feet, inches, etc., without having to worry about "can the person I'm talking to convert inches to feet without looking in an encyclopedia?" The purpose of the terminology is achieved.
Except insofar as an american carpenter needs to communicate with others at an international carpenter's fair. Sure, that's probably pretty rare for carpenters. But then again, maybe the extra mental arithmetic gives them an edge in some areas of their activity 🙂
GSquared (7/19/2012)
Blaming the non-conversion to metric on "Americans are all stuborn about things that will make the world a better place" is just ignorant blather, honestly. May as well blame the current Euro problems on German militaristic aggression and the French passion for surrendering. All three are myths
Agreed, absolutely.
http://poorsql.com for T-SQL formatting: free as in speech, free as in beer, free to run in SSMS or on your version control server - free however you want it.
July 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm
GSquared
Daylight Savings time was first proposed as a joke. Then it was lobbied for by a bug collector who wanted more daylight hours after getting home from work so he could catch more butterflies and such. The US Congress, in its infinite wisdom, fell for that, and made it official. (Do the research. I'm not joking about this.)
George Hudson (the alleged instigator) was born in 1867... Good old Ben Franklin (through a friend) in 1784 had an article published, An Economical Project for Diminishing the Cost of Light which could be seen as a catalyst as well.
July 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm
GSquared (7/19/2012)
Mad Myche (7/18/2012)
The correct answer is to store in UTC. Databases store data, and it's the job of whomever is getting the data to present in the correct format.As for timezones and the problems they solve, it is all based that local time is relative to the locale. The sun should be overhead at noon, and the borealis should be best visible at midnight relative to location.
Daylight Savings time was a scheme created for the eco-nuts to lower lighting bills and HVAC costs. While those numbers are contradictory, retailers enjoy staying open another hour
Daylight Savings time was first proposed as a joke. Then it was lobbied for by a bug collector who wanted more daylight hours after getting home from work so he could catch more butterflies and such. The US Congress, in its infinite wisdom, fell for that, and made it official. (Do the research. I'm not joking about this.)
The tiny bit of electricity it saves from lighting changes, is more than offset by the costs in accidents, reduced productivity, et al, caused by the springtime sleep deprivation caused by "spring ahead", per actual studies by the energy industry and insurance industry. And the major electrical cost these days isn't lighting anyway, it's HVAC, which is usually mostly based on building occupancy hours. So if we really wanted to cut energy costs, we'd make everyone work at night in the summer (reduce cooling costs), and during the day in winter (lower heating costs). Yeah, that's the ticket!
And I'll add my vote to "get rid of time zones and DST". The positive effects on cross-time-zone calls and so on ("call me after 6 PM", "webinar at 15:00", "deposits made before 9 AM", etc.) would be huge. The social shock would wear off quickly enough in most cases, I think.
Of course, I'm also in favor of getting rid of AM and PM and just using a 24-hour clock. But mainly because I'm sick of being told "12AM"/"12PM" by people who don't understand that there are no such critters and that it's an oxymoron to use either one.
And I'll add to the "metric is just as arbitrary as any other human measure" vote. Even SI is only as rational as you assume that everyone is in the same acceleration-framework (as per Relativity) as everyone else, or that it's okay to measure things in "my seconds" and "my meters from Wednesday at noon last week".
I can get even sillier if anyone wants. Just leave everyone guessing which standards I actually prefer. :w00t:
I was going to respond, but I can't beat your examples! Great response.
You taught me somehing: Our government, as all governments, was as inept in the past as it is today. OK, maybe not quite as inept, but pretty close.
I also appreciate that someone else is willing to point out there is no 12:00 AM or PM!
Dave
July 19, 2012 at 12:53 pm
When should I mention that some people have been talking about implementing Double-DST
July 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm
djackson 22568 (7/19/2012)
I also appreciate that someone else is willing to point out there is no 12:00 AM or PM!
OK, I didn't understand the reference the first time, but now I need to know more 🙂
My understanding is that in the 24-hour clock system/notation, time goes from 00:00 to 23:59 (and however many partial seconds you want to put in there), whereas in the 12-hour AM/PM system, time goes from 12:00 AM to 11:59 AM (and however many partial seconds you want to put in there), followed by 12:00 PM to 11:59 PM (etc). In the 12-hour system there is no "0 hour", and its place is held by 12 instead.
Is this wrong?
Update: I think wikipedia answered my question: apparently some parties suggest that the confusion over 12:00 am and pm, where there is any, can be resolved by referring to 12 midnight vs 12 noon - although why anyone would choose to do that over simply using the 24-hour clock is beyond me 😀
http://poorsql.com for T-SQL formatting: free as in speech, free as in beer, free to run in SSMS or on your version control server - free however you want it.
July 19, 2012 at 1:34 pm
I was taught the main advantage of SI was that a cubic centimeter H2O = one milliliter of H2O.
Having said something useful, here's a question that won't help the discussion.
... Yes, the fact that it is based on powers of 10 is what makes it better. The scientific world thinks so...
I'm probably going to regret saying this, but...
The power of ten makes it better?
Then why wasn't there a push to have a day sliced into 10 hours, an hour sliced into ten minutes, and a minute into 10 seconds?
Instead of breaking the 4-minute-mile barrier, runners could now break the 400 centi-second mile barrier*.
The power of ten isn't (intrinsically) any better than the power of two:
a gallon is two half gallons
a half gallon is two quarts
a quart is two pints
a pint is two cups
a half cup is four ounces
a quarter cup is two ounces and
an ounce is two tablespoons
🙂
-Chris C.
* - Even if my math is off, the "why wasn't time converted too" question is reasonable.
July 19, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Tao Klerks (7/19/2012)
djackson 22568 (7/19/2012)
I also appreciate that someone else is willing to point out there is no 12:00 AM or PM!OK, I didn't understand the reference the first time, but now I need to know more 🙂
My understanding is that in the 24-hour clock system/notation, time goes from 00:00 to 23:59 (and however many partial seconds you want to put in there), whereas in the 12-hour AM/PM system, time goes from 12:00 AM to 11:59 AM (and however many partial seconds you want to put in there), followed by 12:00 PM to 11:59 PM (etc). In the 12-hour system there is no "0 hour", and its place is held by 12 instead.
Is this wrong?
Update: I think wikipedia answered my question: apparently some parties suggest that the confusion over 12:00 am and pm, where there is any, can be resolved by referring to 12 midnight vs 12 noon - although why anyone would choose to do that over simply using the 24-hour clock is beyond me 😀
I think one reason people in the US don't want to use a 24 hour clock is it is comonly referred to as military time. Given the way the media portrays our military so negatively, that may lead to some of the opposition.
Dave
July 19, 2012 at 1:38 pm
djackson 22568 (7/19/2012)
Tao Klerks (7/19/2012)
djackson 22568 (7/19/2012)
I also appreciate that someone else is willing to point out there is no 12:00 AM or PM!OK, I didn't understand the reference the first time, but now I need to know more 🙂
My understanding is that in the 24-hour clock system/notation, time goes from 00:00 to 23:59 (and however many partial seconds you want to put in there), whereas in the 12-hour AM/PM system, time goes from 12:00 AM to 11:59 AM (and however many partial seconds you want to put in there), followed by 12:00 PM to 11:59 PM (etc). In the 12-hour system there is no "0 hour", and its place is held by 12 instead.
Is this wrong?
Update: I think wikipedia answered my question: apparently some parties suggest that the confusion over 12:00 am and pm, where there is any, can be resolved by referring to 12 midnight vs 12 noon - although why anyone would choose to do that over simply using the 24-hour clock is beyond me 😀
I think one reason people in the US don't want to use a 24 hour clock is it is comonly referred to as military time. Given the way the media portrays our military so negatively, that may lead to some of the opposition.
I hear this from my kids. I tell them it isn't Military Time, it is 24 time.
July 19, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Chris.C-977504 (7/19/2012)
The power of ten makes it better?Then why wasn't there a push to have a day sliced into 10 hours, an hour sliced into ten minutes, and a minute into 10 seconds?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time there was 😀
Chris.C-977504 (7/19/2012)
The power of ten isn't (intrinsically) any better than the power of two:a gallon is two half gallons
a half gallon is two quarts
a quart is two pints
a pint is two cups
a half cup is four ounces
a quarter cup is two ounces and
an ounce is two tablespoons
That's pretty cool, I didn't know this about the US (quasi-?) imperial system! There's still the small matter of unit-independent magnitude naming (micro, milli, kilo, mega, etc), but I definitely didn't know that US volumes could be seen as a system of powers of two. Of course it breaks down when you get to teaspoons 😉
And now that I look at it, the british imperial volume system was also powers of two, until you got to the ounce where suddenly it popped over to 5 for whatever reason. :blink:
http://poorsql.com for T-SQL formatting: free as in speech, free as in beer, free to run in SSMS or on your version control server - free however you want it.
July 19, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Tao Klerks (7/19/2012)
... but I definitely didn't know that US volumes could be seen as a system of powers of two. Of course it breaks down when you get to teaspoons 😉
Glad someone got something out of it, I was debating whether to post it or not.
I think the size of the teaspoon was an add-on.
True story:
An English friend had me over to his house (USA) and asked me if I wanted tea. I startled him with the response, "Yes, Earle Gray if you have it."
He filled and started the kettle with the usual grousing about how long it took in the US to boil water, handing me the tea.
I erased all my 'bonus points' when I said, "How much do I put in the cup?"
He laughed.
He finished with the kettle then noticed I was standing there awkwardly holding the tea.
Pausing to make sure I wasn't messing with him he explained, "You use a teaspoon. That's why they call them that."
Never ocurred to me there that was a link between teaspoon and the amount of tea leaves you use to make tea.
Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 110 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply