A metric America

Ametrica,

We have visited this issue here before (I know, you were a prolific poster), and I think the common feeling is that as long as race directors want their intervals marked in miles, we will grant their wish.

We could certainly strongly-encourage all to not use feet in any of our paperwork submissions, and I think that is practical. Applications for certification can easily be done metrically. But, you will still have elevation notations (on some maps) that will be expressed as "feet above sea-level", and mile splits marked, as that is what American runners, as a whole, desire. Until our schools produce a generation that embraces metrics, we will produce non-metric maps. We need to deliver what our clients want, unless it is illegal or does not follow procedures.

I think you missed the whole point. The point is to lend your support to the federal government through the soon to be created office of CTO to complete the metrication of the country. Something that should have been done along time ago.

The first step would be for Congress to do its duty and establish the metric system as the only legal system under the Constitution. They have the right to do so. It means following in the footsteps of countries like Australia that metricated through a complete and thorough plan.

If illiterate street vendors in India could adopt to the metric units in a matter of hours when India metricated, it doesn't say much for the intelligence of supposedly educated Americans if it takes a whole generation to complete the change.

Under a planned conversion the change usually takes place over a ten year period. The economy is divided into sectors and each sector plans their own conversion. Lame excuses like "granny is too old to learn something new" just won't be tolerated.

Now if you are someone who is stuck in the past and don't want to see the country progress, then don't go to the website and vote for the new CTO to tackle the job of metrication. But if you feel as I do that metrication is an absolute necessity for the future prosperity of this country then go there and vote.

Ametrica: Why does the Government, with all its expensive baggage, have to get involved with the switch to the use of this simpler system that is in use throughout the world? Is there not sufficient financial advantage for the "market" to drive the change?

Well, if they do, everyone who suspected Obama of being a subversive will have all doubt removed

quote:

Originally posted by Guido Brothers:
Ametrica: Why does the Government, with all its expensive baggage, have to get involved with the switch to the use of this simpler system that is in use throughout the world? Is there not sufficient financial advantage for the "market" to drive the change?

Because simply it is the right and duty of the government to do so. If you understood what is the government's rights and duties under the Constitution then you wouldn't have needed to ask.

Article 1, section 8 states:

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power........

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

So far the government has not established a system of weights and measures for the United states. They have so far given the metric system (SI) complete legal and preferred status. It is time they did their duty by establishing the metric system as the only legal standard (as all other countries have done) and take the steps necessary to establish the metric system as the sole system throughout the entire US economy.

No other country was able to metricate completely and efficiently without government involvement.

The failure of the United states so far to adopt the metric system is a contributing factor in the decline of the American economy and the American living standard.

I think most of the country has or should have learned a valuable lesson from the recent and continuing collapse of the American economy. That is, if you take government completely out and leave everything to market forces you end up with every thief, crook, cheat and liar running the show and doing everything in their power to defraud every investor and every honest worker out of his/her life savings.

The constant Republican rhetoric about keeping government out of people's business has shown itself for what it is worth. We need government involvement to keep the market honest and we need government involvement to coordinate the market as it switches to metric. Without a coordinated effort you will have a mish-mosh of measurement confusion and rip-offs.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
Well, if they do, everyone who suspected Obama of being a subversive will have all doubt removed

One thing we can say about Obama is he will be the best educated president the US has had in a long time. He didn't beat the odds by being stupid.

And to those who have "suspected" Obama to be a subversive, then nothing Obama will ever do will ever change their minds, so Obama has nothing to lose by doing something that may seem unpopular to the ignorant but is in the best interest of the nation in the long term.

The only real subversives in this country are those who since the Reagan times have insisted on less government and used the opportunity of less government to cheat, lie, and swindle the American middle class out of decent paying jobs, benefits and their savings.

It may be that those who suspected may now have to worry because it just might be that when Obama is in heads will roll and it won't take a rocket scientist to guess whose heads those will be.

Will yours be one of them?

Back off on the politics, guys.

As moderator I may be forced to use my unilateral and dictatorial powers.

I thought we were heading down the road to socialism, not a dictatorship.

Ametrica, about the only way I would support government involvement in a transition to the metric system would be to convert the military to metric. That way, all contractors would have to build machinery and weapons using metric specs; all military personnel would get immersed in the system and would likely use it after ending their service; and the military could even change the GPS satellites to only report distances metrically.

I think that would be a huge motivator for the rest of the country to change to metrics, as any contractor supplying the military, either directly or indirectly, would likely shift all commerce to metric, for financial reasons. Then, more of us civilians would have to adopt metrics when dealing with those suppliers, and it would work its way into our daily lives. No need for government to spend billions forcing it down our throats. The market would take care of it.

As far as your idea that a market system leads to pervasive corruption, I would put our pastime up as an example that crooks, liars, and cheats are not pervasive in every, or even most, market environments. We have guidelines for our measuring, but it is up to each of us to work efficiently, set our own prices, and service clients as we see fit. I don't see anyone twisting arms for personal gain, or collusion for setting prices, or any other nasty situation that you say is inevitable in the open market. I would you suggest you step back, and look at the market environment with a positive attitude, instead of a conspiracy bent. Life is much more enjoyable when you are not suspecting everyone of malfeasance. (I hope this is not too political, Pete. I intend it more as a "look at life more as a glass half-full" comment.)

Duane, that's pretty much done. Weapons are metric (55mm howitzer, rounds for M-16 were designated as 7.62mm to allow interchangeability w/ NATO allies, and I know the artillery guys range their guns and the infantry reports distances in kilometers ["klicks"]).

And just to add a devilish note, next week I'm putting on a holiday race called the "Christmas T(h)ree Miler." While Ametrica and Bob Baumel would probably disagree, somehow I don't think it would come off well as the "Christmas 4.828K."

After reading the news the last two days, I can certainly testify that a free-market system leads to corruption.

It certainly sounds like we were in the middle of a free-market auction for our open Senate seat.

And the guy orchestrating it was standing at a closed factory the day before his arrest, "standing up for the little guy"...

Jay, I'm glad to see IL regain its rightful place along w/ NY as the most corrupt political state in the Union (CT & NJ make a nice Tri-State scandal trifecta).

The question is, which governor was worse - the one screwing the call girl, or the one screwing his constituents?

Jim,

I knew weapons were metric, but how about clothing, vehicles, cots, tents, etc. That is the pervasiveness I am looking for. I think having everything in the military metric would guide the country better than an edict to the masses from our politicians. Politicians can't seem to try to solve anything without a bailout lately. The market would work, if people would let it.

(Are there abuses of the system? Yes, but every profession, whether it is free-market, government, or religious has its bad apples. Don't for an instant say the system is bad, when it is a very few players that abuse the system! Socialists and Communists have their abusers, also.)

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Russell:
I thought we were heading down the road to socialism, not a dictatorship.

Ametrica, about the only way I would support government involvement in a transition to the metric system would be to convert the military to metric.

Well, then I'm glad we have your support, because the military is already fully metric. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

quote:

That way, all contractors would have to build machinery and weapons using metric specs; all military personnel would get immersed in the system and would likely use it after ending their service; and the military could even change the GPS satellites to only report distances metrically.

They already do. The GPS is metric too, as the data that is communicated back and forth is metric. Maybe you receiver communicates to you in dinosaur units. That is because your receiver translates everything when you set it to default to dinosaur units. It also means the data is inaccurate due to rounding errors.

quote:

I think that would be a huge motivator for the rest of the country to change to metrics, as any contractor supplying the military, either directly or indirectly, would likely shift all commerce to metric, for financial reasons. Then, more of us civilians would have to adopt metrics when dealing with those suppliers, and it would work its way into our daily lives. No need for government to spend billions forcing it down our throats. The market would take care of it.

What do you mean by "metrics"? The measurement system is in the singular, metric, no s at the end. Metrics is something totally different. It is a type of statistical analysis.

Many businesses do operate in the metric system but don't inform the outside world. Do you know there are still people who think cars built on US soil use dinosaur units even though American car companies have been metric since the '70s? Think of every company that supplies them and the foreign companies, they are metric too. It is estimated that about 60 % of US industry operates in metric.

In some cases where workers didn't want it forced down their throats, the companies simply closed, put the resistant workers on the street and moved the production to metric countries. There are many effective ways to circumvent troublemakers.

quote:

As far as your idea that a market system leads to pervasive corruption, I would put our pastime up as an example that crooks, liars, and cheats are not pervasive in every, or even most, market environments. We have guidelines for our measuring, but it is up to each of us to work efficiently, set our own prices, and service clients as we see fit. I don't see anyone twisting arms for personal gain, or collusion for setting prices, or any other nasty situation that you say is inevitable in the open market. I would you suggest you step back, and look at the market environment with a positive attitude, instead of a conspiracy bent. Life is much more enjoyable when you are not suspecting everyone of malfeasance. (I hope this is not too political, Pete. I intend it more as a "look at life more as a glass half-full" comment.)

I did look at the market with a positive attitude until the past year began to expose the truth on how it operates and I, like millions of others, no longer trust it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
Duane, that's pretty much done. Weapons are metric (55mm howitzer, rounds for M-16 were designated as 7.62mm to allow interchangeability w/ NATO allies, and I know the artillery guys range their guns and the infantry reports distances in kilometers ["klicks"]).

And just to add a devilish note, next week I'm putting on a holiday race called the "Christmas T(h)ree Miler." While Ametrica and Bob Baumel would probably disagree, somehow I don't think it would come off well as the "Christmas 4.828K."

You could just as well have a Christmas T(h)ree kilometre and be standardized, or have a Christmas 5 km race as these tend to be popular. You can even call it a 3 miler as miles aren't really accurate and nobody would know the difference.

Doing a non-metric event just means no official recognition and no way to compare with those who do it correct.

The pharmasudical industry is not metric. They say it's a matter of scruples, but no one seems to give a dram.

Mark, don't you have some work to do???

Mark,

I can't fathom the reason. It goes against the grain and is a knotty problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Riegel:
Mark,

I can't fathom the reason. It goes against the grain and is a knotty problem.

I'm surprised to see that this thread has become so popular. It really wasn't suppose to turn into a discussion. The whole point of the post was to point out the web site for Obama's CTO and for posters to this site to go there and vote for metrication.

So if you haven't done so yet, now is just as good as any to go there and cast your vote in favour of metrication:

http://ideas.obamacto.org/

We've had secondary metric signage on everything from highways to soda cans for years. By now everyone knows a pound is 454 grams and there's 355 ml in a 12-oz can. Celsius conversion still eludes most of us.

But popular opinion is that there's no impetus for abandoning the units we grew up with, other than helping visiting Canadians avoid confusion.

I'm sure Britain endured a similar debate when they decimalized their currency. But they still haven't fully adopted the metric system.

You can probably put it all down to stubbornness. Americans as a whole don't like being told what to do, especially by pointy-headed academics who think they know better just because they're educated.

We've been metricizing since the 70's. It hasn't caught on. The overnight approach is probably best. Just announce that we're going metric as of midnight. But our fearless leaders ain't that fearless.

Would all the roads around Detroit (Eight Mile, Twelve Mile, etc) have to be re-named as well?

Would all the roads around Detroit (Eight Mile, Twelve Mile, etc) have to be re-named as well?

Actually, they might do that if we went completely metric. Many of those Mile roads change their name at the county line. 15-Mile becomes Maple, 16-mile becomes Big Beaver (which, by the way, is exit 69 off of I-75, but now I'm getting way off topic and dangerously close to having my post deleted so I'll stop).

And the music industry. The Byrds' old hit would have to become have to be "12.874 Kilometers High." And would the great jazz trumpeter have his name changed posthumously to "1.6km Davis?"

I'll say one thing for metric measurement: it makes the distance-to-time conversion real easy, especially if your truck is governed at 61 mph.

300 kilometers to go = 3 hours. Easy as.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Neal:
Would all the roads around Detroit (Eight Mile, Twelve Mile, etc) have to be re-named as well?

Actually, they might do that if we went completely metric. Many of those Mile roads change their name at the county line. 15-Mile becomes Maple, 16-mile becomes Big Beaver (which, by the way, is exit 69 off of I-75, but now I'm getting way off topic and dangerously close to having my post deleted so I'll stop).

Metrication has nothing to do with the renaming of roads, so why would anyone even suggest it? It is only involved with actual measurement. But if it does bother some people and there is enough support to change the names, then they can simply rename the streets to names other cities have. 8 mile would become North 8-th Street, 13 mile would become North 13-th Street etc.

Does anyone know why there are no mile named streets in any of the other directions around Detroit, just north of the city?

Another interesting note on the subject is that in some countries, a business may include a kilometre distance along a road (as measured from the centre of town) as part of its address. I believe in Mexico this practice is common.

For example your business may be located on South Main Street km 27.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
And the music industry. The Byrds' old hit would have to become have to be "12.874 Kilometers High." And would the great jazz trumpeter have his name changed posthumously to "1.6 km Davis?"

You can always spot an anti-metric person. They become so obsessed with converting non-real rounded non-metric measurements into overly exact metric values without any concern for the accuracy of the original value.

Jim, were you playing hooky from math or science class when they taught the meaning of significant digits?

Obviously you are stating the original distance in the song was 8 miles and used the 1.609344 conversion factor to come up with 12.874 752 km. Obviously you just truncated the number to an accuracy of 1 m, but you did it wrong. It should have been rounded up to 12.875 km.

But still the true number would be 13 km as 13 would contain the same degree of significant digits as the 8 mile figure.

Here is where Jim's attempt to mock metric with over precise conversions can back fire. The true length of the Marathon is an exact 42.195 km. Converting this to miles using the 1.609 344 conversion factor results in a figure of 26.218 757 456 454 306 848 007 635 409 21 miles. I'll leave it as an exercise for Jim to convert this figure to yards, feet, inches and whatever and for Jim to prove that the complex 26 mile blah blah blah yards is wrong and what the difference is between the true value and the rounded, accepted value.

An interesting fact is that the incoherency of non-metric units creates extreme difficulty in working with numbers that are not round. Thus there is an aversion to non-rounded numbers in non-metric usage. Metric units however have no problem handling non-rounded numbers. 12.875 km can be easily made into a rounded number of metres simply by moving the decimal point so the number becomes 12 875 m. You can't do this in non-metric units. Thus non-metric units are inferior to metric units and the structure of the international system.

Also note how the metric world has no problem dealing with the marathon as 42.195 km and there is no need or desire to round it to either 42.2 km or even 40 km or 50 km.

But don't the road race rules by the IAAA require that all splits be timed in rounded metric distances (such as every 10 km) and no timing for miles is supported? I believe previously I posted the rule somewhere on the forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Riegel:
I'll say one thing for metric measurement: it makes the distance-to-time conversion real easy, especially if your truck is governed at 61 mph.

300 kilometers to go = 3 hours. Easy as.

I believe this has to do with the international standard for timing performance on automobiles to be the number of seconds to achieve a velocity of 100 km/h. Thus when this is converted, it is rounded to anywhere between 60 ~62 mi/h.

Maybe though we need to follow Jim's example and make it precisely 62.137 119 223 733 396 961 743 418 436 332 mi/h. We can leave this as an exercise for Jim to break it down into its other unit components.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Riegel:
We've had secondary metric signage on everything from highways to soda cans for years. By now everyone knows a pound is 454 grams and there's 355 ml in a 12-oz can. Celsius conversion still eludes most of us.

Stu, I don't think anyone really knows what a pound or ounce is. Want to conduct a test? Go to the deli at any local supermarket and ask for something in an amount that is not either 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 or 1 lb. Ask for 10 ounces instead and watch the surprised look you get. They will ask you to translate that into pounds. Then tell them you have a recipe that requires only that amount and that is all you want to buy. You can even tell them that the amount is equal to 300 g. Then they will tell you they don't do metric. After which you tell them they obviously don't do American measures either or they wouldn't have such a difficulty filling the request. The next step is they get the manager. It is even more of a hoot when the manager can't figure it out either.

If you decide to try this test, make sure you keep a serious look the entire time and avoid smiling or laughing.

You don't even need to change degrees Celsius to Fahrenheit. All you need to do is remember that 30°C is hot, 20°C is warm, 10°C is cool and 0 °C is freezing. That is what you really want to know when a temperature is given anyway. Your body temperature is 37°C (98.6 is an exact conversion of the rounded 37°C). The human body can only withstand an exposure to a temperature of 50°C for a few hours before you die of heat stroke. If you need some more references then you can make your own and memorize as many as you need, but for the majority of innumerate people the range from 0 to 30 will suffice.

quote:

But popular opinion is that there's no impetus for abandoning the units we grew up with, other than helping visiting Canadians avoid confusion.

That is because most people don't really think about how much a fully functional metric America would improve their living standard by creating better jobs, make simple calculations easier and thus save money when shopping. It would decrease wastage due to measuring errors when using non-metric units. It would also save lives as there are many medical errors resulting in death from miscalculating dosage based on body mass in kilograms. There are a lot of good reasons. But most people are too ignorant to figure it out.

quote:

I'm sure Britain endured a similar debate when they decimalized their currency. But they still haven't fully adopted the metric system.

Not true about Britain but very true about the English. The non-English British have adopted metric more extensively then the English. Industry in the UK is fully metric as are the products in the supermarket. There are no dual labels. The deli scales are all in kilograms. But some people let their stupidity overcome them and insist on asking for pounds and ounces. This leaves the counter person free to oversell the products as it is up to the customer to compare what they have asked for versus what they see on the scale.

In reality it is not possible to get an exact pound even if a product is carefully weighed. UK scales only display to the nearest 5 g. Thus for a pound (453.6 g) the closest you can ever get is 455 g. But most shops will weigh out 460~480 g and just say "it's a little over". Only those who are opposed and have memorized the exact conversions may refuse to accept the amount and insist on being given a closer amount.

Petrol (gasoline) is only sold by the litre. There are no gallons.

quote:

You can probably put it all down to stubbornness. Americans as a whole don't like being told what to do, especially by pointy-headed academics who think they know better just because they're educated.

I'm sure stubbornness is a human trait everywhere, but when something has long term benefits, ignorance and stubbornness are ignored and the change is made anyway. Then the hardships fall on those who resist. Let it be their punishment that they suffer as a result.

quote:

We've been metricizing since the 70's. It hasn't caught on. The overnight approach is probably best. Just announce that we're going metric as of midnight. But our fearless leaders ain't that fearless.

It has caught on where it is important and those that haven't grasped it are usually on the outside looking in. I just wonder how much of this economic depression we are in could have been avoided if the economy was 100 % metric.

quote:

Would all the roads around Detroit (Eight Mile, Twelve Mile, etc) have to be re-named as well?

No, why would they need to be? They're just names, not measurements.

We are all in favor of moving to the metric system. It's just that most of us aren't willing to go the extra 1.609347219km to convince others.

I just voted on the site Ametrica recommended. If it's something that means enough for Ametrica to sign up for our site and ask for our help, why not do it? What the hell. I figure a vote's a vote, regardless of motivation.

I think the problem for most advocates for a cause is not outright opposition, but indifference.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Neal:
We are all in favor of moving to the metric system. It's just that most of us aren't willing to go the extra 1.609347219km to convince others.

I was wondering where you came up with that definition of the mile. Then I realized it came from the definition that was in effect from 1900 to 1960, when the yard was defined as 3600/3937 m. But in 1960, the yard was officially redefined to be exactly 0.9144 m. This makes the definition of the mile presently to be 1.609 344 km. The previous definition of the mile is thus 3.219 mm longer then the present. Does anyone know what the definition of the mile was before 1900?

Even though it is not official, doesn't track & field events usually refer to 1500 m or 1600 m as a mile? So between the 1900 definition, the 1960 definition, the 1852 m definition of the nautical mile, the track and field unofficial definition, we presently have 5 versions of the mile. The metre and thus the kilometre have never changed and thus there is only one version.

Isn't your statement somewhat contrary to what America is all about? Aren't Americans suppose to be better then everyone else and always willing to strive for what is the best? Your comment and others I have heard similar seem to allude that Americans aren't willing to strive for the best.

You actually don't need to go that far if the effort is too great. Just go the extra 100 m. At least with metric you can easily tailor the distance you are able or willing to go.

"...cause is not outright opposition, but indifference."

Pete, who cares???

Ametrica, with all due respect, lighten up! The comments about the Byrds' song, and street names were light-hearted humor, not a serious concern about street names, etc. I know it isn't the same as British humor, but I got a chuckle out of the comments.

Regarding Ametrica's topic, as measurers, are we willing to start suggesting to race directors that we only mark km distances? If the race publicizes that marking, and runners in our areas become accustomed to it, races may become metrically-marked. That would be an inroad to metricization of some people, possibly. How much resistance do we think we may get from race directors, and then runners?

Thanks Duane. Ametrica, you mistook my attempt at humor as opposition; in fact I'm a huge advocate of metricization as the way to go. I even produce several races in which we only mark kilometer splits rather than miles, as a type of "forced education" of runners.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
Thanks Duane. Ametrica, you mistook my attempt at humor as opposition; in fact I'm a huge advocate of metricization as the way to go. I even produce several races in which we only mark kilometer splits rather than miles, as a type of "forced education" of runners.

Sorry Jim, but I don't always sense when someone is trying to be funny, especially when it a appears to be mocking. Problem is I've seen this type of mockery made by serious opponents as a way to make the metric system look bad and frighten away potential supporters.

What would you think if your exposure to the metric system was zero and someone came along and tried to convince you your life would be a living hell if it was adopted? They would use examples like distances in your life that you are familiar with. Suppose you knew that your local commercial district was about 4 miles from your home (not exactly but close enough for a reference). Now some opponent comes along and tells you that if we ever went metric, that 4 miles would become 6.437 376 km. Here a simple single digit number which isn't exact anyway would become a 7 digit number. You too would become an opponent too. Who wouldn't?

Now someone like me comes along to express the benefits of the metric system and you tell me you are opposed because metric numbers are long and ridiculous. Of course I could try to explain that the 4 miles is only an approximation and the metric approximation would be 6 km. You may believe me or the other person depending on what or who you want to believe.

Such humour makes it harder to convince some people to make an effort to change.

What I do find interesting is that opponents become highly incensed when the non-metric units are attacked by pointing out how they are not exact, mean different things to different groups of people, change value at a whim, etc. All of which is true.

My point is, if you are going to express a non-metric value in metric, take care to convert it properly, taking into account the correct number of significant digits and to assure the the metric value is to no greater accuracy then the non-metric value.

quote:

I even produce several races in which we only mark kilometer splits rather than miles, as a type of "forced education" of runners.

Jim, I still don't understand why all races are not marked in kilometres, only some as you have stated. Isn't that what the rules state?

See:

http://www.bcathletics.org/main/rr_iaaf.htm

Rule 240-4 states:

4. The distance in kilometres on the route shall be displayed to all athletes.

The way it reads, is that kilometres is not an option but a requirement.

Of course there is no rule stating miles can't be added, but it seems the rule is quite clear that distances in kilometres are required. So how can it be circumvented?

Maybe some race promoter may have an issue with distances shown in kilometres and may find having both miles and kilometres a nuisance, but if he wants his course legally certified then he has no choice but to follow the rules. Don't you agree?

Isn't there also a rule at to when times should be measured? For marathon races aren't they at each 10 km? I don't remember.

If Jim doesn't know, does someone else?

Ametrica, we are not saying that American courses with international world-class competitors shouldn't be marked at the kilometers.

You brought up the IAAF rules, which pertain to international races and records. The rule that you site also states "standard distances". The majority of races that we measure seem to be 5k, so they are not considered a standard distance, thus falling outside the guidelines of IAAF. Not to mention that most of the 5k races don't have world-class competitors.

We can try to gradually change race markings to kilometers, but the race directors must approve of that, as they are the client. Unless the RD feels they will have a record set on their course, the race is more for raising money for their cause. Well-produced races will attract better runners from the community, and possibly from surrounding areas, but there is still very little chance of an American record being set, let alone a world record.

Invoking the IAAF rules for most races in the U.S. is next to pointless. That is similar to requiring a new programmer to follow all ICAAN standards when they write their first "Hello, world" program, including documentation, etc. Not practical, and not necessary for the type of project being produced.

An accurate 5k course is all that most directors want. However, it does seem somewhat ironic that they want a 5k course, with only miles marked. Silly Americans! But, then again, many Americans voted for "change", when "change" was never defined. Go figure! Maybe this would be a good time to introduce Obametrication to the U.S., and achieve the goal you, Ametrica, want.

Duane, you're right, it's ironic RDs want their course marked in miles, yet how many times have you seen a perfectly good natural 3 mile course ruined by adding the distance to make it 5K "because more people will run my race if it's 5K"?

Seems they want to have their metric cake but not eat it too.

Would that be their .45 kg cake?

quote:

SHYLOCK: The 0.45 kilogram of flesh which I demand of him Is deerely bought, 'tis mine, and I will haue it.

We use Imperial units because we always have, except for the gallon and its derivatives of which we have our own.

Perhaps it is the US Gallon that's behind our stubbornness. That unit is uniquely American, and therefore superior to any one-world unit of measure. Adopting the metric system would be to abandon our cultural heritage and everything we hold dear.

Also, adopting the metric system would lend credence to the tinfoil-hat crowd, who worry that America is under attack from The Globalist Conspiracy. After all, invading UN troops could easily read metric signs, and our women wouldn't be safe in their beds. And those UN troop all use that funny foreign ammunition marked in millimeters. Nothing could be worse than being shot with a foreign metric bullet.

All kidding aside (and the above was kidding (although the bit about the gallon may have some credence)) we're all on your side, because we're familiar with metric measurement. The majority of Americans, however, are still not.

The only way to metricize America is to get a lame-duck President to sign an executive order authorizing it. He won't have to worry about getting re-elected. His legacy in the short term will be one of outrage, but in the long term we'd thank him for doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Russell:
Would that be their .45 kg cake?

Duane,

Metrication will not change the name of the pound cake. But it may change the actual size.

According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_cake

A traditional American pound cake would contain one pound each of flour, butter, eggs, and sugar. Since the amounts are all equal, they really can be any amount. If you check the Dutch (Nederlands) Wikipedia article, you will see the amount of each ingredient is 200 g.

IN countries that have metricated there are still some who use some old unit names like pound, but they are all redefined to rounded numbers. Thus a pound is 500 g.

If you go to the market and ask for a pound, livre, punt, pund, pfund, libra, jin, etc of something, you will have 500 g measured out for you on a completely metric scale.

So if you make a pound cake anywhere in the world, it will have a mass of 2 kg, if each of the 4 ingredients is 500 g each.

I wonder how an American cook would measure out an American version of the pound if American cooks don't use balances. They use only cups and spoons. Everywhere else cooks use balances, as cooking is treated like chemistry and balance only happens correctly when dealing strictly with masses.

BTW... You forgot to place a zero to the left of the decimal point. Nekkid decimals is a no-no. 0.45 kg is correct. If you want to avoid the rule, then simply reduced the expression to 450 g. This type of conversion is easy in metric. I would only suggest trying something similar in USC/Imperial only if you have a strong heart.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
Duane, you're right, it's ironic RDs want their course marked in miles, yet how many times have you seen a perfectly good natural 3 mile course ruined by adding the distance to make it 5K "because more people will run my race if it's 5K"?

Seems they want to have their metric cake but not eat it too.

What makes 3 mile natural and 5 km not? Obviously it can't be too natural if every one is shying away from it for whatever reason?

Here is where you have the opportunity to persuade the RD to go all the way. A 5 km race should be run with 5 km splits. This is how you make change work, with logic and persistence. Try it! You might surprise yourself!