Metric Time

Quote:

---

Is there any benefit to changing a system of measurement that you can cite that would apply to more than .1 % of a population?

---

OK, I see your point. It is not the only reason though. In this day an age of global communication (on the increase) then everyone using the same unit of measurements makes sense as well.

Not only that but I think it is easier to work with metric units. If it could be shown (And I'm not necessarilly saying it is) that children could learn metric units faster than imperial ones (and work more effectively with them) then it would be a case for forcing change.

Quote:

---

The system that is used to track days, months, years, IS the most accepted system of measurement ever established. EVERYBODY uses it. And those who don't, won't change what they do use to a new method anyway.

---

Yes, everyone does use the same basis for measuring time but time calculations would still be easier if it was decimalised. For example, If I asked you, how many seconds in four and a half hours, I'm sure you could work it out but it's a lot harder than it needs to be.

nullus,

I didn't say use two different systems in a country. that was simonm:
Quote:
I think we should just have everything labelled in metric and imperial

My position is Against forcing change in societies where they have succesfully used a standard system for generations, unless
that society predominantly agrees with that change.

So, I agree with you, that there should be a single system of measurement as a standard for an individual society.

AND, that society can choose anything it wants.

-Lou

I love it when I start a controversial thread. :D But at least this is a good debate we have going. My views:

• Metric is better than Imperial or any other common system
• We ARE the outcast countries: I think it is something like 90% of the world's countries use Metric
• Changing will be next to impossible, unfortunately, mostly just for making people learn and adapt

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NotLKH
nullus,

I didn't say use two different systems in a country. that was simonm:
Quote:
I think we should just have everything labelled in metric and imperial

My position is Against forcing change in societies where they have succesfully used a standard system for generations, unless
that society predominantly agrees with that change.

So, I agree with you, that there should be a single system of measurement as a standard for an individual society.

AND, that society can choose anything it wants.

-Lou

---

but simonm also said that imperial should be phased out once the majority understands metric (which i agree with). what i was saying though, is that we have to have metric over here, and seeing as it's the most common system in the world, we might as well end up converting to it fully. besides, in a few decades, most people here will probably only understand metric, so it wouldn't be forced upon them.

Quote:

---

I didn't say use two different systems in a country. that was simonm:
Quote:
I think we should just have everything labelled in metric and imperial

---

OK, I shall clarify what I mean:

Everyone should be forced to use metric and may optionally display imperial in addition to metric if they so choose. Therefore the cost would be self incurred.

Quote:

---

AND, that society can choose anything it wants.

---

I disagree with this. I know it sounds like the democratic thing to do but if that rule had been rigidly followed from the beginning of time, we wouldn't be using the sophisticated and (relatively) easy to use numbering system that we have now. We'd still be stuck in the stone ages I think. That's because society will always resist such changes and like what they're familiar with.

Quote:

---

You are equating the preference of using a more complex system with laziness, and the use of a simpler method to a superior society.

---

Er, no I'm not. I'm saying people don't want to change because they are lazy, not that they don't want to change because they prefer a more complex system. Learning a new system requires effort, but it's effort that pays off.

I tell you what, since you say complex is for the superior among us and simple is apprently for the simple minded, why don't you just go ahead make your own little society of geniuses and use a base-19 (heptadecimal?) numbering system for currency, base-17 (septadecimal?) for weights, and whatever else you can think of that would make your life more complicated, just because your big brains can manage it, while the rest of us get on with making life easy for ourselves in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm

A more complex system of measurement is a barrier to a greater understanding of what we are measuring. :)

---

Really?

Exactly what things would we understand better if we changed
the system of measurement?

Certainly, an inch or centimeter is inadequate to measure the
width of a subatomic particle. But that is due to the scale of the object in relation to the observer. No system of measurement
gives us a better understanding of such things, since we really cannot comprehend the really small.

Similarly, no system of measurement is adequate to convey a better understanding of the really immense.

Now, specifically, how do we understand a cow better when we
describe it in metrics vrs. imperial?

-Lou

We don't, but we can learn new things quicker because the scientific constructs involved in mathematical modelling using measurable quantities are far simpler.

If we used Decainches, Kiloinches and Megainches (you get the idea there) instead of feet and miles it wouldn't matter because the scales between measurements would be simple. Unfortunately with the Imperial (or American Standard) system, they're not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HarryW
I tell you what, since you say complex is for the superior among us and simple is apprently for the simple minded, why don't you just go ahead make your own little society of geniuses and use a base-19 (heptadecimal?) numbering system for currency, base-17 (septadecimal?) for weights, and whatever else you can think of that would make your life more complicated, just because your big brains can manage it, while the rest of us get on with making life easy for ourselves in the long run.

---

Alrighty then.

My first change:

Certainly we can't change the measurement of bits, since computers aren't up to quantum operations yet, so I shall still
use the measuerement of 0 and 1 for a bit.

Now, as to the measurement "Byte", = 8 bits, THAT is certainly complex and results in overly complex calculations.

How big is a MegaByte? 1 Million Bytes? Nope!

THIS could be metricized!~

Henceforth, In My society, we will endeaver to design computers
around the Decibit. 10 bits per decibit!
The Decibit will replace the Byte.
Certainly its better and heres a couple of reasons:

1) It contains 4 times as much information
2) A MegaDecibit is easier to calculate than a MegaByte.

What do you think?
-Lou

Uh, dude? Remember that all computer numbers are exponents of 2, like 2 ^ 15, 2 ^ 20, etc.

But, thats not as simple as Base 10.
And its artificial. Why is a Byte 8 bits?
It doesn't have to be.

The fact that a bit is binary doesn't mean we have to Group Bits in Base 2 units. Base 10 is just as valid a grouping method.

-Lou

Obviously, there is a reason for the 8-bit-1-byte thing, but I don't know what.

An ASCII char is 8 bits...

True,

But a decibit could handle ALL of the ASCII Chars, and 3 times More!

-Lou

Um, what has this got to do with anything?

The reason to have 8 bits and not 10 is, as mentioned by filburt, that 8 is an exponent of 2. The reason for that is simply for simplicity in electronic engineering. Fundamentally, logic gates take 2 inputs (although you can get more complex ones that take more but they're just made of smaller logic gates). If you want to deal with more than one bit at a time, you chain the logic gates into a binary tree of logic gates, which ends up with 2^x leaf nodes.

From a numbering point of view I don't think it matters. The point is that the scale from a byte to a kilobyte is the same as the scale from a kilobyte to a megabyte. You can't say the same about the scale from an inch to a foot and the scale from a foot to a yard, and the scale from a yard to a mile.

). If you want to deal with more than one bit at a time, you chain the logic gates into a binary tree of logic gates, which ends up with 2^x leaf nodes

Where x = the number you chain together, right?

does x HAVE to be = 2^n, ie, you can only chain 8, 16, 64,...
or can you chain, lets say 9, 10, 33, any number your design needs?

And, of course, if you can chain 10 together, in your terminology,
you'd end up with 2^10 leaf nodes.

BTW, could you explain the phrase Binary Tree. Just curious.

-Lou

OOPS, Let me insert this:

Yes, the ratio between a kilobyte and a byte {1024}
is the same as that between a megabyte and a kilobyte,

BUT, the usage of kilo and mega is misleading, since those
are more commonly referencing factors of 10.

Isn't there a better way to refer to 1024?

-Lou

OOOOPS, One more:

And, there IS an inconsistency, going from 1 bit to 1 byte, you have to multiply by 8, instead of 1024.

-Lou

These people are retarded, it doesn't have to deal with databases. But the rest seems fine: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...509290,00.html

Thanks, filburt1.

Just nitpicking, but as it appears in filburts link, if you chain x logic gates together in a binary tree, you don't get 2^x leafs.
it appears more like you get x+1 leafs, just as long as x = 2^n - 1,
where n = depth of the tree.

(3 logic gates, if treed together, produces 4 leafs, whose depth is 2. 7 gives 8 leafs, depth is 3. It seems.)

Something like that.

Alright, I can see that the reason a Byte = 8 bits is due to the binary aspects of the output of a chain of logic gates.

-lou

The 2^x bit wasn't really meant to have x as the number of gates, it was just representative of the binary exponents. It's not that important anyway, as you said.

The inconsistency of scale is not as inconsistent as it seems. It's just another exponent of 2, which is what all the scaling multiples/divisors are. I'm not sure if you still thought this was an inconsistency, just mentioning it in case.

The problem with Imperial is that the ratio of , for instance, ounces to pounds (16:1) has very little in common with the ratio of pounds to stone (14:1) and doesn't lend itself kindly to simple conversions between scales.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NotLKH
The system that is used to track days, months, years, IS the most accepted system of measurement ever established. EVERYBODY uses it. And those who don't, won't change what they do use to a new method anyway.
If we all effectively use ONE calander, imagine the confusion if EVERYBODY has to change to a different "metric calander"!
Again, what is the advantage, especially when there is no difference right now between a "Tuesday, August 7th, 2001" in the states, england, germany, japan, australia, mozambique, puru, antarctica, paraguay, mexico, canada, france, austria,
and so on.

-Lou

---

The problem here is.... One in Six people on this planet are Chinese (politically, not geneticly). If I'm not mistaken, the PRC has its own calendar.

I think the Muslims have their own calendar, too.

My complaints with the (Roman Catholic/Gregorian/Julian/Western) calendar are:

- Months are not equal. There are 7 with 31 days, 4 with 30 days, and one with 28 days. This is further complicated by the fact that months are not a measurement of the lunar cycle, from which the word month is derived.

- The calendar is not updated to keep pace with the procession of the equinoxes. When the calendar was introduced, the winter soltice was the new year. But now it has crept forward as expected. The calendar was never updated, so now winter starts on December 21? In the next 60 to 80 years winter will start on December 20. But out calendar will still not be updated. NOTE: This complaint is oriented for the northern hemisphere, though it is applicable to the southern as well, if you replace winter with summer ($complaint =~ s/winter/summer/g if $isSouthern)

Just thought I would mention this. This may be a bit long winded, so bare with me.

Ever wonder why there are 52 cards in a poker deck? Well, a poker deck comes from the simpliest tarot deck. Tarot comes from nature. There are 52 cards because there are 52 weeks. There are four suits because there are four seasons. The pagan calendar has 13 months. That just makes sense. As a result there are 13 signs in the Zodiac. The Tropic of Cancer is named such because it is the moment of the Cancer (Summer) Soltice. The Tropic of Capricorn is the Capricorn (Winter) Soltice. It is the first day of the month of Cancer and the month of Capricorn.

The pagan calendar has 28 day months. Regretably the 365th day of the solar year doesn't let you keep the lunar cycle in step with the calendar month.

Anyway... a deck of cards is a very simple calendar, but it is north-hemisphere oriented. Spades, the winter suit, comes first. Then Hearts (spring), Diamonds (summer), and Clubs (fall). Those in the southern hemisphere should re-orient their decks and play a game of Diamonds instead of a game of Spades. :)