English or Metric?

So what measurement system do you think in? Can you visualize a foot? A centimeter? A mile? A hectare? An acre? I'm in the sciences, so I'm pretty comfortable with both, especially small stuff (microns, mils) but I've always had trouble with Kph.

I visualize in english... but only because it's what I use more often.

I think metric is a MUCH better system, and that the US should stop being stubborn assholes and just use it like the rest of the world.

I fully agree.

Oh! and English.

I'm generally equally comfortable in both in terms of length or mass/volume/weight, but I don't do well with�spatial�concepts like acres/hectares.� And I guess from years of cooking using English measure, small amounts make more sense to me in "teaspoons" or "cups".�

KPH is tough to visualize unless you've experienced it.� drive in canada a bunch.� it'll make more sense.� i wasn't able to make heads or tails of it until driving there...

�-= george =-

I'm not really good at visualizing areas, distances, etc. in any system, but I generally think in terms of the English scale. It seems easier for measuring everyday things. The metric system doesn't really have an equivalent to the foot, for instance, and I think it's easier to say, "I'm six feet tall" than to make that 1.78 meters or 178 centimeters or whatever. I can't recall ever seeing or hearing any use decimeters. Maybe that's just because it's what I'm used to, but so what? While I'm sure there are some advantages to the metric system, instituting it in the States would require a massive paradigm shift, and is it really important enough to merit that?

English for small stuff (like height in feet and inches). But because of track and cross county, I can visualize longer distances in meters and kilometers. When someone says, "I ran a 10K last weekend," I don't have to translate; I just feel tired for them. (Note: this seems to stop working once I'm in a car; I actually have to think about how long it will take me to travel 140K.)

Well yeah, but that depends on the speed limit.

My first�speeding ticket was for going 138k/hr in a 100 zone.� I was�absurdly pleased with myself.����

I usually think in the English system but I force myself to think metric. In class when I make up a problem I almost always use metric. If I were made dictator of the US the switch to metric would be one of the first things I'd do. Then I'd get rid of the qwerty keyboards.

I don't think I ever typed qwerty before. It's fun.

I'd love you until the keyboard repeal.

Then I'd hate you.
:)

i type 120wpm+ in qwerty.� take qwerty away and i'll hurt your inner child.

everything else i'll personally help you with . :D

�-= george =-

I don't think I ever typed qwerty before. It's fun.

See how much fun it is after you throw out all of the qwerty keyboards. {g}

I don't think in metrics, by the way.

And 120wpm? I'm really impressed. I'm such a slow egg. I blame not typing til college on that.

If George can type 120+ wpm on a qwerty 'board, after a month or so of retraining his brain on key correspondences he probably could top 200 on a keyboard designed for user ease.

You see, our beloved qwerty keyboard layout, and even its European analogue the azerty layout, were designed to meet not the optimum typing capability of keyboard operators, but the obsolete needs of antique human-powered machines called "typewriters". You may have seen them! They "wrote" by means of a bunch of leggy things, each terminating in a typeface character, that made contact with a paper "page" when the corresponding "key" was struck. These leggy things tended to get all tangled up, or even bent beyond repair, when their keys were struck in too-quick succession by nimble operators. A method was needed to slow down those operators, and after some studies of various keyboard layouts it was decided that qwerty possessed the most desireable level of operator impairment.

Later, in some high-end, advanced, *electric-powered* (wooo!) typewriter models, the leggy things were replaced by a spinning type"ball", which since it couldn't get tangled was an improvement -- but still it couldn't move as fast as a skilled typist's fingers, and occasionally an overload of keystrokes would make it get "stuck" and require some maintenance.

In the electronic age, when the mechanical integrity of the key/typeface interplay isn't an issue, I'd rather operate a keyboard that wasn't designed expressly to slow me down.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Well actually you took them out of my mouth, translated them to english from Gordondon, then typed them.

One more interesting tidbit. qwerty (it is still fun to type that) wasn't even invented for the modern typewriter, it was for the very early models where the keys rotated from below not above, they were far more prone to jamming.

yeah yeah yeah. Read this

very few people here have ever had the privilige of typing on a typewriter that did not require any kind of electrical power.� i remember using one when i was a little kid at my grandmother's home before i actually knew how to type effectively.� it was a rather interesting experience, and the keys did jam rather frequently.� as an afterthought, i tried using that same typewriter about three years ago and the thing jammed like crazy; they weren't meant to be typed on with any kind of speed...

as a side note, the office that my parents have still uses two IBM electric typewriters, as well as a couple of (i think zenith) other electric typewriters due to the massive need for forms typed with carbon backing onto duplicates for the state.� dot matrix printers are still being used there too.� and you're right.� i've managed to stick the electric typewriters too. :D

i'm not entirely convinced that they were designed specifically to be slow, tho.� i'd love to find out more about that; and no, i've never typed on a dvorak keyboard so i can't say whether it would be easier or not, but typing for me is a matter of memorizing patterns and these are the same patterns i've been using for the course of the last 17 or so years.� as it stands,� i only use 8.5 fingers when typing (one thumb never gets used, and the other pinky rarely ever gets used ...) and i tend� to cross over quite a lot when it comes to using the keys.� that's hardly efficient, but that's just how the dice fell when i was a kid.�

i guess the point from my perspective is that the keyboard is a tool and all it takes is practice and any single one could be fast or easy to use with said practice.� sure, i probably could get fast at a dvorak keyboard, but the number of years necessary to equate to the 17 i have in practice on this would be a bit prohibitive.� at least,i think it would be ...

�-= george =-

I learned to type on a manual. I wouldn't call it a privilige. I was so happy when I got an electric. Making everything the same darkness was difficult. One the worst features of the qwerty keyboard is that you have to type the letter a with your pinky. It isn't important on an electric but it is on a manual.

you can get software that will make typing noises as you type if you want to really go nuts

Heehee. Another self-taught typist.

I did eventually take typing classes, but it took awhile before my "method-taught" speed approached that of my self-taught unorthodoxy.�� l'm at close to 100 wpm now, using a computer keyboard.�� I still think I'd be faster on a Dvorak, given time to learn the thing.

Gordon's right though -- typing with your pinkies on a manual typewriter was a bitch.�� The "A" wasn't so bad for me, but the punctuation keys on the right side -- ow!�

As for George and me and our unholy electric-typewriter-jamming capabilities, I dub us the Banes of the IBM Selectric.����

I forgot that you are a lefty. In a ideal world there would be lefty and righty keyboards designed to optimise speed and ease of use.

she's left handed too?� hmm.� i wonder if she could be any more perfect. :D

�-= george =-

oh, and I'm humble too.� *dies laughing*

self taught typing is always so much fun . (:� i kinda wanted to take some real typing classes back in the day, but ended up testing out of the required class when i was a freshman in high school.� too bad touch typing wasn't a varsity sport. d:

the IBM Selectric is a bane in and of itself. :D

�-= george =-

While it would take some adjustment in terms of weight, height/length, and speed, I much prefer the metric system. The relationship between large measurements (kilograms, kilometers, etc) are easily determinable. I know just by looking at it that there are 1000 meters in a kilometer. Now, how many feet are in a mile or how many pounds are in a ton is an entirely different ball of wax.

But yah, as some others have pointed out, it would be an adjustment to know that 100 KPH is not that fast, and that 2 meters is actually a fairly tall person.

Kmph is more impressive I much prefer metric to imperial.
Being a Tool and Die maker my entire life is measuring so Im used to both Metric and Imperial.
Also the English use Metric, the US should get upto speed.

oh and Metric the band rocks

English (or Anglo-Saxon) measure is not the same as Imperial measure, although there are some correspondences. I have rarely encountered Imperial measure however.
www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/
users.aol.com/jackproot/met/spvolas.html
www.sizes.com/units/imperial_sys.htm

I have always seen it written as Imperial. On every machine I use it is called Imperial.
In every Tool and Die book it is called Imperial, if you buy a set of screw drivers or Allan keys they are Imperial or metric.
So I will continue to call it Imperial

Of course it's called "Imperial" -- that's the system of measurement widely used in your trade.

Elsewhere, particularly in food and alcohol measures, English measure is the usual alternative to metric. And Imperial pints, gallons etc. are different from English pints and gallons.

and Canadian bacon is really just ham

sez� who?

lol this Canadian

Canadian bacon is made the rib-eye of the pork loin. In the U.S. bacon is made from pork bellies.

Ham is made from the legs.

Here is my source

you know an awful lot about pork products for a NYC Jew...

Ha. I've seen that NYC Jew eat multitudes of pork, including American bacon on waffles. Again -- yum.

And Canadian bacon sometimes is coated with cornmeal, which in Canada is called peameal. Yum. Says this former Canadian resident. :)

Calling meal made from corn "peameal" is why Canada never became a world power.

*laughs ass off*

Gordon, cut this out, or I may end up thinking you a decent person.
;)

the sciences all use metric (even here in the states), so i really fail to see what the big deal is about whether or not i get my television measured in inches (or computer monitor) or my milk in a gallon jug or whether or not vancouver is 300 km from seattle (thats just a wag) vs. xxx number of miles. just because it "makes sense" isn't good enough to change in my opinion (the cost in changing the road signs alone would be prohibitive), i mean look at metric time, that makes more sense than our current system, but you don't see people clamoring to adopt that. (maybe we should adopt star-dates)

the only real difference on the ground, as far as I'm concerned, is when you're fixing things.. do i use the 3/4s inch nut or the 10mm or whatever, since car manufacturers seem apt to use both and in random places.

but thats just me.. i guess i'm just used to getting my icecream in pints.