Worst Roman Legacy To America

[M. Porcius Cato]

M porcius cato - I don't understand your reasoning there. Divisions of 2, 3, 4, and 6 are just as easy, if not easier, in metric. Thats the whole point of the metric system, the standardisation.

 

A 12-unit *anything* can be subdivided more easily than a 10-unit measure. "More easily" meaning, "by more divisors with none remaining". For example, 12 / 3 = 4, 10 / 3 = 3.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333, you get the point.

 

The Imperial system is quite good at dealing with "middle-sized, middle-distanced objects" (e.g., in making a box), and so it shouldn't be surprising that so many different cultures alighted on 12-unit measures across so many domains. The problem is that 12-unit systems don't scale up (or down) very well: the number of yards in a mile (1760) doesn't make any sense at all. But when you think of it as a 1000-paces, you're suddenly at the cusp of the base-10 world of metric. Now that we have computers and calculators and the like, making these easily divisible without remainder is pretty trivial.

 

The Imperial system was standardized, so I don't know what you're talking about with respect to standardization.

[Virgil61]

We are still locked in the Roman units of measurement here: feet,yards, etc. The metric system is so much more intelligent.

 

I appreciate the metric system, but it's hardly convenient at times. Miles make much more sense in the US where distances are farther and it's easier to think of using miles instead of kilometers. The same with height of individuals, it's easier to think of 68" or 8" instead of 173 cm. When it comes to shorter distances and walking kilometers comes in much handier for me.

[Princeps]

M porcius cato - I don't understand your reasoning there. Divisions of 2, 3, 4, and 6 are just as easy, if not easier, in metric. Thats the whole point of the metric system, the standardisation.

 

A 12-unit *anything* can be subdivided more easily than a 10-unit measure. "More easily" meaning, "by more divisors with none remaining". For example, 12 / 3 = 4, 10 / 3 = 3.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333, you get the point.

 

The Imperial system is quite good at dealing with "middle-sized, middle-distanced objects" (e.g., in making a box), and so it shouldn't be surprising that so many different cultures alighted on 12-unit measures across so many domains. The problem is that 12-unit systems don't scale up (or down) very well: the number of yards in a mile (1760) doesn't make any sense at all. But when you think of it as a 1000-paces, you're suddenly at the cusp of the base-10 world of metric. Now that we have computers and calculators and the like, making these easily divisible without remainder is pretty trivial.

 

The Imperial system was standardized, so I don't know what you're talking about with respect to standardization.

 

Fair point, but the equivalent to a foot (ie 12 inches) is actually a metre (from the point of "units" at least) -

inch -> foot

Centimetre -> metre

 

And the metre can be divided, with no remainder, by so much more.

 

With respect to standardisation, yes, a semantic error (though, if we're being technical, the 1000 paces you mention, from which a mile apparently originates from, is not at all standard, but that's not what I meant, as you probably guessed).

 

Anyway, I'm just arguing for the sake of it now, I see what you mean by a 12 unit measurement being more useful for construction of objects that fall into that range of distance, but that's about the only use I can see for it.

 

Metric is better, I'm glad they prosecuted the guy from Sunderland. Many people thought it was outrageous, but I was all for it. Gotta do something to wipe out Imperial forever.

[Primus Pilus]

Metric is better, I'm glad they prosecuted the guy from Sunderland. Many people thought it was outrageous, but I was all for it. Gotta do something to wipe out Imperial forever.

 

Egads man... we can't wipe it out. Right now it takes 10 yards to get first down. As an American football junkie I would be hard pressed to say we need to get 9.144 meters. LOL

 

(please ignore my frivolity )

[Caius Maxentius]

Not sure what to say about metric vs. imperial, but to address the original question, maybe one of Rome's best legacies to us is also one its most cursed -- jurisprudence.

 

It's benefitted us in many ways, but in these litigious times, when anyone can be sued for almost any frivolous whim, the law can be an ass, indeed!

[M. Porcius Cato]

Fair point, but the equivalent to a foot (ie 12 inches) is actually a metre (from the point of "units" at least) -

inch -> foot

Centimetre -> metre

 

And the metre can be divided, with no remainder, by so much more.

 

...Anyway, I'm just arguing for the sake of it now

 

Hmmmm....a wise guy, huh?

 

As PP implied, a meter is much closer to a yard (3 feet) than a foot. Also, how many centimeters is 2/3 of a meter? The answer isn't even: it's an unwieldy 66.666666666666666666666666--ok, you get the point. Now, how many inches is 2/3 of a foot? The answer is a nice clean 8 inches. Elegant, easy to find on a tape measure, no need to guess by interpolating between hatch marks.

 

Again, the Imperial system stinks when doing chemistry because we deal with quantities that differ by orders of magnitude rather than by quantities that differ by orders of 2 and 3.

 

I think that it's interesting that when you give people a free hand to choose which system they want (as in the States), the metric system rapidly gains favor in the areas where it really is most useful whereas the Imperial system generally persists where it is. So, again, I'd favor no jail-time for outlaw inch-lovers.

[Viggen]

somehow i dont get it,

 

whats the difference if i measure it this way or that way, the distance is the same, and obviously the units (like with PP`s american football example) were made to accomodate those units in an understandable way, because in soccer for example a penalty is from 11 meters and not from 12.0297463 yards...

 

to sum it up, blame someone else and not the romans because they used neither yards nor meters...

 

cheers

viggen

[Princeps]

Fair point, but the equivalent to a foot (ie 12 inches) is actually a metre (from the point of "units" at least) -

inch -> foot

Centimetre -> metre

 

And the metre can be divided, with no remainder, by so much more.

 

...Anyway, I'm just arguing for the sake of it now

 

Hmmmm....a wise guy, huh?

 

As PP implied, a meter is much closer to a yard (3 feet) than a foot. Also, how many centimeters is 2/3 of a meter? The answer isn't even: it's an unwieldy 66.666666666666666666666666--ok, you get the point. Now, how many inches is 2/3 of a foot? The answer is a nice clean 8 inches. Elegant, easy to find on a tape measure, no need to guess by interpolating between hatch marks.

 

Again, the Imperial system stinks when doing chemistry because we deal with quantities that differ by orders of magnitude rather than by quantities that differ by orders of 2 and 3.

 

I think that it's interesting that when you give people a free hand to choose which system they want (as in the States), the metric system rapidly gains favor in the areas where it really is most useful whereas the Imperial system generally persists where it is. So, again, I'd favor no jail-time for outlaw inch-lovers.

 

ok this is kind of getting OT, but ye have reeled me in again.

 

What is 1/10th of a foot? Dunno, but 1/10th of a metre is 10cm, elegant and easy. And of course, the good old metre is compatible with %percentages too, far more useful than fractions (incidentaly, I don't think the Romans had percentages. They certainly didn't have decimals).

 

This brings us to the fact that Roman numeracy was well known to be deficiant in many areas. That's why we don't use numerals anymore (despite the resistance to Indian numeracy, it eventually prevailed over numerals, 'cos it's just so much better. Likewise, metric is considered a far superior system to Imperial by many. Most of the arguments in favour of Imperial rely on tradition, or as has already been mentioned, status quo).

 

In yo face Imperial! :2guns:

[M. Porcius Cato]

What is 1/10th of a foot? Dunno, but 1/10th of a metre is 10cm, elegant and easy.

OK--now do the bake-off: you can cleanly subdivide the foot by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6; you can subdivide the meter by 1, 2, and 5. So the foot stomps the meter!

[Princeps]

you can subdivide the meter by 1, 2, and 5. So the foot stomps the meter!

 

Want to rethink that? (clue - think of numbers above 6)

 

EDIT/ As for numbers below 6, you missed 4 (for the metre).

Edited January 18, 2006 by Princeps

[M. Porcius Cato]

you can subdivide the meter by 1, 2, and 5. So the foot stomps the meter!

 

Want to rethink that? (clue - think of numbers above 6)

 

EDIT/ As for numbers below 6, you missed 4 (for the metre).

 

OK--you got me on 4, and sure you can also grab 25 and 50 too. But my entire point was that once the number of subdivisions goes beyond a certain number, such that one needs to make infinitesemal subdivisions (as in chemistry where you'd want to divide a unit by 25 and 50), the value of the metric system increases. As one needs to make a wide variety of small sub-divisions, the value of a 12-unit system increases. Think about it: why not employ a decimal system for time?

[P.Clodius]

I know this isn't related to units of measure. But I think the worst legacy from rome is its adoption of elements of "Hebrew tribal law" as Ursus would term it into what turned into an oppressive religeon.

[Primus Pilus]

What is 1/10th of a foot? Dunno, but 1/10th of a metre is 10cm, elegant and easy. And of course, the good old metre is compatible with %percentages too, far more useful than fractions (incidentaly, I don't think the Romans had percentages. They certainly didn't have decimals).

 

Why do you need to know 1/10th of a foot? Nothing is measured that way in the imperial system. We use inches and fractions thereof. We would never say 1/10th of a foot because it doesn't convert to anything that makes sense. We might say 1 1/8 inch (it would be somewhere around there I suppose) but nobody would ever ask a builder (for instance) to measure out 1/10th of a foot. Somehow we've managed to build some fairly impressive buildings and such, using those confounded inches and feet. It can't be all that bad.

 

As for fractions not converting to percentages... fractions are percentages by their very nature. 1/16 is 6.25%. Just divide the numerator (top number) by the denominator (bottom number) and there you go... easy percentage. Simple? Perhaps not as easy as saying 3 centimeters is 3% of a meter, but simple enough to me.

 

As for something completely silly... a funny thing that would happen if we converted here in Detroit. The city is laid out in a grid pattern. The center of the downtown is essentially point 0. From that point there are major roads that run parallel to eachother spaced one mile apart. These roads were placed based on some now inexplicable land surveying ordinance, but suffice to say, we essentially have 1 mile road all the way through (I believe) 37 Mile Rd. Many roads have alternative names based on where in the city one lives (like for instance 16 Mile road is also known as Big Beaver Rd., Metropolitan Parkway, Quarton Road and Walnut Lake Road) but generally speaking everyone around here has a pretty good idea what you mean when you say 16 Mile Road. Now if we converted to kilometers, everything would have to be renamed. As an example of our nightmare:

8 Mile Rd would become 12.9 Kilometer Rd.

15 Mile Rd would become 24.19 Kilometer Rd.

and poor old 37 Mile Rd would become 59.67 Kilometer Rd.

[Princeps]

you can subdivide the meter by 1, 2, and 5. So the foot stomps the meter!

 

Want to rethink that? (clue - think of numbers above 6)

 

EDIT/ As for numbers below 6, you missed 4 (for the metre).

 

OK--you got me on 4, and sure you can also grab 25 and 50 too. But my entire point was that once the number of subdivisions goes beyond a certain number, such that one needs to make infinitesemal subdivisions (as in chemistry where you'd want to divide a unit by 25 and 50), the value of the metric system increases. As one needs to make a wide variety of small sub-divisions, the value of a 12-unit system increases. Think about it: why not employ a decimal system for time?

 

Not to mention 10 and 20 (ok, ok, I'm doing it again). As for why not apply the decimal system to time, why not indeed? A quarter or a half an hour is still the same amount of time, whether the base unit is decimal or imperial (or whatever the hour measurement is called, I dunno if it's strictly refferred to as "Imperial" time). Not that quarter and half hours are generally employed on your side of the pond (I'm lead to believe 15s, 30s and 45s are more favoured, but I digress). Given that an hour is only 60 minutes, the sub-divider point doesn't even apply! (1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30, as opposed to a 100 minute hour - 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 - a tie in this respect).

 

Why do you need to know 1/10th of a foot? Nothing is measured that way in the imperial system. We use inches and fractions thereof. We would never say 1/10th of a foot because it doesn't convert to anything that makes sense. We might say 1 1/8 inch (it would be somewhere around there I suppose) but nobody would ever ask a builder (for instance) to measure out 1/10th of a foot. Somehow we've managed to build some fairly impressive buildings and such, using those confounded inches and feet. It can't be all that bad.

 

As for fractions not converting to percentages... fractions are percentages by their very nature. 1/16 is 6.25%. Just divide the numerator (top number) by the denominator (bottom number) and there you go... easy percentage. Simple? Perhaps not as easy as saying 3 centimeters is 3% of a meter, but simple enough to me.

 

I think the question has been answered in your post PP. Why indeed have 1/16 instead of 6.25%? Notice you have chosen a relatively simple example there. Take a slightly more complex example (1/10th of a foot, as you mention), and the water becomes more muddy. We could all probably work this out exactly, but can anyone be bothered? Simplicity is the key. Imagine trying to teach your kids how to divide, I know that I'd prefer to teach 10% of a metre is 10cm, rather than 1/10th of a foot is (approx) 1 1/8 inches. I'm sure my future kids will prefer it too.

 

It's all about progress. It's all very well saying "I can live with the more complex fractions, it's harder, but meh...", but civilisation/humanity in general won't get far with this attitude. I'm glad Thomas Eddison didn't say "I can live with oil lights. This lightbulb 'Progression' isnt worth the hassle."

 

I'd like to sign out with one final thought - Thomas Edison did not invent the lightbulb btw. It was some dude from where I live, Northumberland, England.

[Germanicus]

This whole discussion proves my point - You like what you are used to:-

 

Statements like:-

 

Miles make much more sense in the US where distances are farther and it's easier to think of using miles instead of kilometers. The same with height of individuals, it's easier to think of 68" or 8" instead of 173 cm

 

make it obvious. Distances in Australia are equally as large, but we use metric and it's dead easy to conceptualize for those that are USED TO IT. As is 173 centimetres. Give me miles and yards and feet and inches, and I'm lost. At least as Viggen mentioned, Google is my friend.