the Gryge dribbles in his beard:

Your conversion problems are entirely irrelevant, but such calculations are the only defense metrification supporters can muster. When one is speaking in acres, it's unlikely one needs to convert to square feet, or to any other measure for that matter. Fractional acres will do fine.

So, if we have a two-acre parcel of land, and divide it up into twenty-five equal plots to grow vegetables in, how many feet (or whateverhefuck you weirdoes measure lumber in) of fencing material does it take for everyone to get his little plot fenced around? If you're trying to say it's not convenient to have your units related for stuff like *that*, then you're flat out lying.

But what you seem to be forgetting (or perhaps never knew -- naah, I think you're just trying to ignore what talks against you), is how easy and logical the metric makes it to convert between different *kinds* of measures: Length to volume to weight to force to length... If you want to calculate the size of, say, a dam for hydro-electric power generation. What you need to know is the potential mechanical energy of the water in the dam, for different heights and sizes of dam. So, what does a foot-acre (that's the weird unit you use for shit like this, right?) of water weigh? How much power can you get out of that?

Try to tell me *those* calculations make sense in your weirdo units, and you're lying even more.

How many feet are in a nautical mile is not only seldom needed, but is only an approximation, because a nautical mile is a minute of arc on the surface of a not quite spherical Earth. This navigational convenience does not translate any better into metric. Note that degrees and minutes of arc have not been successfully metrified.

Note that Andrew conveniently "forgot" about the *land* mile.

Those "quaint" measures you name were designed specifically for service within some trade or profession to which they were particularly suited. Seldom would they need to be "converted" to any other measures. Some of these trades and professions are no longer significant or have changed their conventions, so their old measures are of only historical value. How many feet are in a furlong or a chain, or how many pounds in a perch - there is simply no need to know.

So, throw the lot of them out... and while you're at it, throw out the old idiotic pounds and feet too.

Of course, when one wishes to be difficult, such as by stating orbital velocities in furlongs per fortnight, archaic measures are invaluable.

Yeah, that's about all they're good for.

Archaic measures like miles and feet and shit, that is.

The non-metric measures still in common use (at least in areas where they have not been taken from the people by government force), are particularly suitable for human scale application. The foot, for instance, is far better than the meter, both in size

What bullshit is this???

and because it is divisible into halves, quarters and thirds. The meter is only divisible into halves and tenths. The halves are too big, and the tenths too small - nobody thinks in tenths. In cases where something around a meter really is appropriate, we have yards.

Yeah, wow, like the meter isn't evenly divisble into 25 centimeters...

But, hey, I know: If this shit is so important to you, why not get rid of the decimal system altogether -- in basic arithmetic, that is -- and go back to the good old Babylonian math! (Base 60, in case anybody wondered.)

Metric measures are inappropriately sized for just about any use you can think of,

Pure unadulterated great steaming piles.

In fact, no common measure involving either time or angle is metric, Even the death penalty was insufficient to bring that about.

You just don't *get* it, do you?

Like I told Karsten: Metric != Decimal. How the fuck *would* you relate TIME to the definition of the meter?!?

Metric measures are particularly unsuitable for cooking - only a few die-hard engineers would even attempt it. Metric defenders always say, "Americans cook by volumes and Europeans by weight", which is probably very true - the poor Europeans have no suitable volume measures to use - they have no choice but to use weight. Volume measure is far faster and does not require extra equipment.

And here's the greatest, steamingest, smellingest pile of them all. (Actually, that was all I was originally going to comment on, but then I was writing anyway...)

That's just not fucking true; I've *never* heard that "Americans cook by volumes and Europeans by weight" claptrap from anybody *but* anti-metric Americans.

I use volume measures all the time. (At least in Swedish, we even have archaic-sounding nicknames like "teaspoon" for a 5-milliliter measure.)

The metric bolting system is another problem. So inferior is it to the American SAE system, that the Europeans were hoping (back in the '60s) the U.S. would adopt a proposed system called "The American Metric Bolting System" so they'd have an excuse to convert to it. Further, Europeans size wrenches in odd numbers of milimeters and the Japanese in even numbers of milimeters - some "international standard" that is!

Sure it is -- a twelve-millimeter wrench is twelve millimeters in France just like in Germany just like in Japan; a thirteen-millimeter wrench is thirteen millimeters in Japan just like in Germany just like in France.

I remember back when the computer cabinet makers all decided to use metric screws. They stripped out so easily we system builders had to force American screws into the stripped out holes. All the cabinet makers went back to American size and threading, and the metric are now used only for holding in floppies and CD-ROMs.

That twist is so low I wouldn't have expected it even from Bryce.

Care to explain, *exactly*, how the apparently inefficient profile of the spiral ramps [fuck, what's the term in English?] on the screws is related to the unit of the overall *size* of the same screw?!?

Yeah, sure, whoever made those badly-formed metric screws made badly-formed metric screws.

But they'd have been just as badly formed in inches.

Yes, metric measures are used in the U.S. (though not nearly so much as promoters claim - just try buying metric bolts at most auto parts stores). Metric meaure is quite evident in the 1-litre beverage container, which everyone knows is somewhat larger than a quart.

Aha! So, according to the Holy Murrican precept of "Bigger Is Better", liters *are* better than quarts! :-)

Box:

A 14 ml wrench is just a 9/16th by any other name.

...as a fourteen.milliliter wrench! :-)

And no, it isn't -- one of them is smaller, and won't fit on screws of the other's dimension; used the other way, the larger wrench will often slip and ruin the shape of the bolt-head. (No, I can't recall which is bigger and which smaller.)

Using a 13-mm wrench on half-inch (=12.7 mm) bolt-heads works better; there's less slippage there. (So I'd guess the difference between 9/16" and 14 mm is more than 0.3 mm.)

"I use volume measures all the time. (At least in Swedish, we even have archaic-sounding nicknames like "teaspoon" for a 5-milliliter measure.)"

proof that the metric system is so awful that you use the archaic terms to describe the new measurements.

No, just that we use old-fashioned shorthand to *refer* to our _superior_[*] measures.

Is it a quart or a litre? who the fsck cares while your swigging it down?

I do -- and according to Andrew, the liter is obviously superior! ;^)

---

[*]: Because they're _standardized_ -- how big is *your* "teaspoon"? Is that the same size as Andrew's? Or as the guy's who wrote the cookbook...?

Your teaspoons, that is! :-)

Honestly, *I* don't have any problems visualizing in metric units... (Though I might also think in hectare-meters for that dam; one of those is ten thousand cubic meters [=ten million liters] and, depending on the size of the acre, probably about six acre-feet.)

So, not everything in life is engineering... Although you're right, I actually *don't* get out all that much nowadays -- hadn't you heard, I've got a girlfriend? :-)