Warp wrote:
>   As andrel pointed out, measuring those ranges is less intuitive using
> feet and inches because a foot is not a handy multiple of an inch.

Actually, it's a *handy* multiple, arguably moreso than decimal. Just 
not trivial to translate between because it's not decimal. :-)

>   With metric it's at least easy to use either measure with ease: 1.97
> meters or 197 centimeters. No crazy factors.

True. Of course, everyone using imperial measures already knows how many 
inches are in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 feet, just like we both know how 
many seconds are in an hour without sitting to calculate it out. :-)

>   Colloquially, at least in Finnish, it's usual to say, literally translated,
> "meter ninentyseven" (possibly adding "cents" at the end) when eg. talking
> about people's height.

I guess if you use abbreviations like this it becomes easier.

>> It's feet and miles
>   That would be ok if a mile was an easy multiple of a foot.

But you almost never mix feet and miles in a description, so the number 
of times you convert is small. You're either working in miles (or 
fractions thereof, like "go half a mile and turn left"), or in feet 
(like "give me seven feet of rope").

(Altho I'm often amused that odometers measure in tenths of a mile, 
constructions signs say "Lane closed 1000 feet ahead", and exit signs 
say "Exit 23 in 1/2 mile". They really should make up their minds.)

>> Kilograms are too heavy and grams are too light.
>   Too heavy and light for what? It's very common to buy eg. "400 grams of
> meat", etc.

I guess if you're used to that, it doesn't seem inconvenient. I'd rather 
specify four of something than 400.

Or, to phrase it a different way... You have too many significant 
figures there. :-)

>> Liters are too big and centiliters are too small.
>   For what? And in cooking a deciliter is a very common measure.

But it's four syllables long. :-)

>> Basically, the factor of 1000 in common units 
>> is the problem. :-)
> 
>   There are 10 millimeters in a centimeter, and 100 centimeter in a meter,
> and 10 deciliters in a liter. What 1000?

Grams to kilograms, for example.

Hey, I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying *I* find it inconvenient 
most of the time I'm in places that use metric. I'm just trying to 
explain stuff that might make someone resist using metric, as someone 
raised on imperial measurements who has spent months in countries where 
they use metric, is all.

>>> And having numbers that often go over 100 for everyday 
>>> temperatures doesn't seem too convenient.
> 
>> Having numbers that go below zero for everyday temperatures seems less 
>> convenient.
> 
>   I think you are artificially stretching here.

I was trying to make the point that I think complaining that 
temperatures go over 100 is kind of as artificial as complaining that 
they go below zero. :-)

> Negative Celsius
> temperatures are an extremely intuitive and easy to understand measurement.

I guess it's what you're used to. People used to metric find converting 
between units is annoying. People used to imperial measurements find 
having insufficient different measures annoying. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message