Informal poll: Fahrenheit & miles or metric system?
Jul 14th, 2006, 05:56 AM
#81
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You realize hoe stu..d all these inches are? . Same goes for the different definitions of pounds. Going metric all over the planet was a progressive step, enabling "foreign" trade. "
Actually, the current SI standard of metric measurements was adopted in 1971. Before that, the meter was a different length depending on where you were in the world. It was only in 1971 that international standards were defined for all units of measurement. You'll also discover that it was in 1971 that many nations decided to do their conversion to metric - they were all waiting for the metric system to be standardized internationally.
So, the fact that an inch or mile was a different length in different countries back in the 1900s is not unique to the Imperial system. It was true for the metric system as well until the international treaty of 1971.
Actually, the current SI standard of metric measurements was adopted in 1971. Before that, the meter was a different length depending on where you were in the world. It was only in 1971 that international standards were defined for all units of measurement. You'll also discover that it was in 1971 that many nations decided to do their conversion to metric - they were all waiting for the metric system to be standardized internationally.
So, the fact that an inch or mile was a different length in different countries back in the 1900s is not unique to the Imperial system. It was true for the metric system as well until the international treaty of 1971.
Jul 14th, 2006, 10:23 AM
#83
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I have met a number of Europeans who equate "Europe" with "the world", but if prior to 1971 a meter in Europe and a meter in some non-European country were different lengths, you still had a problem, no? The metric system can't really be called an international standard until all of the countries in the world actually agree on the actual measurements, which is what happened in 1971. My point is simply that the actual measurements in the metric system didn't become an international standard until 1971 and that there were variations prior to that time. The same is true for the imperial system. As noted, the inch and mile were different lengths in different countries at one point, but there has been an international treaty to standardize them. The metric and imperial systems of measurement are no different in their evolution in this regard.
Jul 14th, 2006, 12:25 PM
#84
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> there were variations prior to that time.
That's where I disgree. There were no variations of a meter, because it's definition has always been the definition set in France at any given time for any given place. Talking about a meter, unlike inches, there were no different definitions in different places at the same time. Big difference not only for trade!
That's where I disgree. There were no variations of a meter, because it's definition has always been the definition set in France at any given time for any given place. Talking about a meter, unlike inches, there were no different definitions in different places at the same time. Big difference not only for trade!
Jul 14th, 2006, 04:42 PM
#85
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GeorgeW,
Nothing happened to 'gun rights' in Australia after the massacre in Tasmania, because 'gun rights' have never existed in Australia. BEFORE the Port Arthur incident, all rifles and shotguns in Australia had to be registered, and post the incident the response nationally was to 'buy-back' as many of these weapons as possible and destroy them, an action supported overwhelmingly by the general population, rather than being a process organized by a 'government elite'. Licences for handguns have never been available to the average citizen in Australia at any time in its history, and, over a fifty year span, I have never known any Australian who has owned or possessed a handgun. Such an action would be considered not only antisocial in this society, but also criminal. Obviously different nations see this issue in different lights: each will work within a process with which it feels most comfortable.
Nothing happened to 'gun rights' in Australia after the massacre in Tasmania, because 'gun rights' have never existed in Australia. BEFORE the Port Arthur incident, all rifles and shotguns in Australia had to be registered, and post the incident the response nationally was to 'buy-back' as many of these weapons as possible and destroy them, an action supported overwhelmingly by the general population, rather than being a process organized by a 'government elite'. Licences for handguns have never been available to the average citizen in Australia at any time in its history, and, over a fifty year span, I have never known any Australian who has owned or possessed a handgun. Such an action would be considered not only antisocial in this society, but also criminal. Obviously different nations see this issue in different lights: each will work within a process with which it feels most comfortable.
