Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

Palomar · 2002-10-24 11:24:51

If I measure in Imperial, and you in metrics, and others in Roman or Mayan, who is hurt? Where is there an issue of saftey if I want to buy my gas in gallons and my soda in liters? If there is no issue of saftey, then why make a law? Why instutionilze the manner in which we are supposed to live, why can't we simply be left to live?

*But doesn't there have to be ::some:: level of uniformity and agreement regarding word-spelling, grammar, punctuation, units of measurement, and the like, in order for a society to be productive and stable?

For instance, Benjamin Franklin proposed a style of writing which would eliminate a lot of unnecessary letters, i.e. we don't pronounce "knife" as "kuh-nie-fee," so why spell it that way? He suggested spelling it "nyf." I suppose the reason Franklin's proposal got shot down was because it would divorce America too much from the nation of its [at the time] language origin -- England. It would have resulted in greater communication difficulties between America and England, that's for sure...unless, of course, England would have followed suit, which I doubt they would have [it's originally their language, why should they march in step with Americans?].

Anyway, to NOT have a certain level of uniformity and recognizability in regards to units of measurments would lead to confusion and chaos.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-24 11:37:05

Wow clark, you're sounding like me. No laws?

Sorry, I have not the faith in my fellow man to avoid the pitfalls and blunders of poor intellect and limited wisdom that anarchy is predicated on.

However, I do not believe in meaningless laws, useless laws, or redundant laws, as they only serve to undermine the legitmacy of the true laws.

I agree that a unified system of measurement is easier, just as a unified language, unified calander (how ya doing with that Byron? ), or a unified government is easier and more "practical". However, that dosen't mean I am right, and it dosen't mean I can enforce my view on others. Yes, I will agree, metrics is probably easier overall in terms of learning to use (if you haven't learned any system), but I will not assume that it is easier based on this belief. That is arrogance.

You have a better product, let it stand on its own. You have a better system, time will eventually prove the superiority of it, or it will not. Beta was ostenibly better than VHS, should that have been made the standard? Mac's when they first appeared had an easy to use GUI- should we have forced that standard? Where does it stop?

I know I cannot win an argument stating that the Imperial system is "better" than the metric- yet no real proof can be provided that proves that it is "worse" either.

In a nutshell, our current measuring system is conveinant, and implemantation of the metric is not. So, why would anyone change to an inconvienat system without some form of coersion? Answer: They wouldn't. So in order to meet the goals of implementing metrics, it would have to be forced. No thanks.

clark · 2002-10-24 11:42:37

*But doesn't there have to be ::some:: level of uniformity and agreement regarding word-spelling, grammar, punctuation, units of measurement, and the like, in order for a society to be productive and stable?

If there is a need, why would we need (pardon the pun) someone to tell us that?

Yet now, if we are worried more about the productivity of society rather than the liberty of the individual, then yes, we should mandate uniformity.

So what is more important, our choice to determine the manner in which we wish to measure the world, or the productivity and effeciency of the group?

LOL. See how easy it is to turn on a dime.

Palomar · 2002-10-24 12:09:05

So what is more important, our choice to determine the manner in which we wish to measure the world, or the productivity and effeciency of the group?

*Is this a question of "either/or"?

You miss my point. If there isn't a certain level of uniformity and standards with regards to units of measurement, commerce would fall apart. Imagine my telling the local butcher I want that pound of ground chuck going for $2.35 per pound...and he hands me a ball of meat the size of a tennis ball, telling me that's "his idea" of a pound of meat, PAY UP. If there are no official standards of what a pound of meat is, the butcher could rip me off and I'd have no recourse for complaint. Our liberties are more secure with standards and uniformity of measurements than without, i.e. without them, anyone could rip anyone off, and the victim would have no legal recourse, the right to file a complaint, etc.

Societies function better if there are official standards and uniformity as regards measurements, language, etc. "Third-world" nations prove this.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-24 12:30:06

If there weren't a certain level of uniformity and standards with regards to units of measurement, commerce would fall apart.

I get this point, yet why do we need the metric system? That is my point. I also don't buy into the assertion that commerce would just fall apart either. Bartering has been with the human race much longer than anything you can come up with. Measurement systems are a standardization of "value". It is both of agreeing that a "thing" is a "thing"- it derives its legitimacy because we both agree that this "thing" is the same "thing", and we agree that the value is equal. The dollar bill in your pocket derives its value because we all agree that it is worth a "dollar", yet it has no inherent value other than what it means to us. Bartering, the first and very basis for all commerce, is an exchange of valued items for other valued items- I need shoes more than grain, so I trade enough of my grain that I am willing to part with for shoes- you trade me the shoes for as much grain as you think equals the worth of the shoes to you.

The measurement systems facilitate this process, but they are NOT the process.

Imagine my telling the local butcher I want that pound of ground chuck going for $2.35 per pound...and he hands me a ball of meat the size of a tennis ball, telling me that's "his idea" of a pound of meat, PAY UP.

I would imagine that you would pay him as much as you felt that the ball o meat was worth, I'm guessing less than 2 bucks. Ever bought a car? I ask a salesman for a car, he tells me it is worth X amount- I tell him it is actually worth X amount, and then we work it out.

If there are no official standards of what a pound of meat is, the butcher could rip me off and I'd have no recourse for complaint.

You might take your business elsewhere, no? Buyer beware.

Our liberties are more secure with standards and uniformity of measurements than without, i.e. without them, anyone could rip anyone off, and the victim would have no legal recourse, the right to file a complaint, etc.

I will respectfully disagree. I see no basis by which to establish that our liberties are more secure with standards- maybe it makes things easier and facilitates communication and the trade of goods, but it doesn't have anything to do with our liberties.

Societies function better if there are official standards and uniformity as regards measurements, language, etc. "Third-world" nations prove this.

What exactly is proven by the third world nations?

Palomar · 2002-10-24 12:55:08

If there weren't a certain level of uniformity and standards with regards to units of measurement, commerce would fall apart.
I get this point, yet why do we need the metric system? That is my point.

*I'm not pitching for the metric system.

The standard, uniform measurement system of a society needn't be the metric system. However, societies function better with a standard, uniform measurement system -- whether imperial or metric or otherwise.

Sorry, I'm pressed for time and have a husband to take care of; I don't wish to pursue this line of conversation much further.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-24 13:04:59

*I'm not pitching for the metric system.

Yet that is the point of this thread, and people are suggesting that a preponderance of the worlds population are using metric so therfore we should as well. I'm just discussing the topic.

However, societies function better with a standard, uniform measurement system -- whether imperial or metric orotherwise.

I'll agree that commerce is facilitated, but a measurment system is just an accepted method of determing value for bartering, socieites can function quite well without a specfied measurement system becuase all it is a form of common language that derives its meaning based on our personal perception of the value of an item to us as individuals- a society without a standarized measurement system would valuate everything in terms of value to individual for any given item.

I'll also conceed the advanced economic systems cannot exsist without a standardized measurement system, just as literature cannot exsist without written language.

Number04 · 2002-10-24 14:32:21

Clark, you grew up in the imperial system, right? So you say, why bother to change?

I have said this before, it's simple. The system is just simple.

How many feet in a mile? do you know off hand?

If you had to estimate distances, would you do it in yards or feet? Can you divide yards into feet easily if you have too?

Of course learning a new system is going to be hard, and many Americans don't want to do things that will be hard in the beginning but benefit them later.

You are going to tell me that there are no benefits.

There are. If I see a sign that says 50 Meters, I can tell you that it's going to be 5 000 Centimeters away. If I asked you to convert 50 feet into inches, could you do it in your head?

Think of drafting and engineering. You won't ever have a scale of 1:37 1/4 and have to divide that each time. It's going to be 1:10 or 1:100.

It eliminates confusion and error. changing base every time you want to change a unit is not helpful. It's slow and impractical. Just because you like it, does not make it right. And don't say the same thing for me, because I have used both, and I can tell you what one is better.

clark · 2002-10-24 15:34:32

How many feet in a mile? do you know off hand?

5280 feet in a mile, offhand, or if you prefer 1760 yards.

If you had to estimate distances, would you do it in yards or feet?

Depends on the distance I am estimating, how precise I need to be, and what i need the estimate for.

Can you divide yards into feet easily if you have too?

You mean, can I divide by three? I can safely say yes.

Of course learning a new system is going to be hard, and many Americans don't want to do things that will be hard in the beginning but benefit them later.

That's right, take the cheap shot and generalize ALL americans. Bigot.

You are going to tell me that there are no benefits.

No, in fact I previously stated that metric is probably easier to learn compared to imperial if no system is known. I'm sure there are benefits, but I fail to see how there is enough of a benefit to force compliance with the use of metrics.

There are. If I see a sign that says 50 Meters, I can tell you that it's going to be 5 000 Centimeters away.

What is the qualitative advantage of being able to know how many centimeters are in 50 meters while travelling on the road? It is meaningless. Isn't the sign still 50 meters away wheter or not you can convert to centimenters? Wouldn't a sign reading 50 miles still be 50 miles even if I can't convert to inches? Is this the best you can do? Pretty paltry.

If I asked you to convert 50 feet into inches, could you do it in your head?

You mean, could I multiply 12 times 5 and then add a zero to the end and come up with 600 inches? Yes. Was I the only one that paid attention to the multiplication chart or learned basic division? This isn't rocket science.

Think of drafting and engineering. You won't ever have a scale of 1:37 1/4 and have to divide that each time. It's going to be 1:10 or 1:100.

Then let the engineers learn it, why should I be forced to suffer for the sake of some guy with a computer that can do the math for him?

It eliminates confusion and error.

For whom? I and most of the people I know seem to be getting along fine.

Just because you like it, does not make it right. And don't say the same thing for me, because I have used both, and I can tell you what one is better.

I've never stated that we should use the imperial system "just because I like it". And, contrary to your assumption, I have used both, and still do occasionaly- however, I don't see the benefit in HAVING to use metric.

Am I to take it from your last statement that the only people qualified to decide on wether or not metric or imperial is better than the other are those who have used both? You might be surprised to find a small minority who can fit that bill- should we then allow this small minority to dictate what we should or shouldn't use becuase they somehow just "know better"?

nice try.

Number04 · 2002-10-24 18:45:42

You said:

Then let the engineers learn it, why should I be forced to suffer for the sake of some guy with a computer that can do the math for him?

f there will be a mission to mars, everyone will need to know how to do the other's job. In this aspect, everyone will have to know, and be proficient in metric. I will say again, they will have to. Why? Because that is the language that science uses. Now why not make everything the same?

Why try and make room for error? Why not do all you can to eliminate it?

Phobos · 2002-10-24 22:35:59

I have said this before, it's simple. The system is just simple.
How many feet in a mile? do you know off hand?
If you had to estimate distances, would you do it in yards or feet? Can you divide yards into feet easily if you have too?
Of course learning a new system is going to be hard, and many Americans don't want to do things that will be hard in the beginning but benefit them later.
You are going to tell me that there are no benefits.
There are. If I see a sign that says 50 Meters, I can tell you that it's going to be 5 000 Centimeters away. If I asked you to convert 50 feet into inches, could you do it in your head?
Think of drafting and engineering. You won't ever have a scale of 1:37 1/4 and have to divide that each time. It's going to be 1:10 or 1:100.
It eliminates confusion and error. changing base every time you want to change a unit is not helpful. It's slow and impractical. Just because you like it, does not make it right. And don't say the same thing for me, because I have used both, and I can tell you what one is better.

Beautiful. There's no question that the metric system is far superior to the imperial system especially since scales of distance are changing so rapidly in modern times. There's no analog in the imperial system for nanometers for instance. I guess you could always write it as .00000000000000000000000000000000523451 inches or even worse 1/10000000000000000000006346735735 or some such nonsense. And don't get friggin technical with me about the number of zeros I put in there.

Mark S · 2002-10-25 06:36:17

Last night it was my pleasure to attend a presentation by Dr. Benton Clark, chief scientist at Lockheed Martin's Space Division (responsible for MGS and Odyssey.)

Dr. Clark prefaced his presntation by asking the audience "What will happen first? Will the United States switch to the metric system, or will humans land on Mars?" The overwhelming majority went with "humans on Mars."

Dr. Clark spent a significant amount of time explaining the benefits of the metric system before talking about the loss of Mars Climate Orbiter. He told us that MCO's problems stemmed from bad software that should have been making the conversions automatically but wasn't; the probe was moving off course more than anyone expected.

clark · 2002-10-25 07:58:03

If there will be a mission to mars, everyone will need to know how to do the other's job. In this aspect, everyone will have to know, and be proficient in metric.

Okay, you win Mars. Now, as I understood it, the idea being propisitioned here was that America should go metric now, I still don't see any evidence that demonstrates an urgent or even neccessary need for America to change the manner in which it measures things. I often suggest things that will only work on mars, or will be required by mars- earth is a different beast- the requirements are different. Are we in a situation in america where we need to know how to do each others jobs all over the world? No.Most americans work with other americans and they all use the imperial system. Just admit that changing to metrics here, in the usa, is only to satisfy a samm minority who think they know better.

Because that is the language that science uses. Now why not make everything the
same?

Science also uses latin, shall we force everyone to learn latin next? To avoid confusion, shall we force everyone to speak the same language? Which language? On what basis will that be determined? I understand how this applies to Mars, but it dosen't neccessarily apply to earth, or america for that matter.

Anything that can be expressed in metrics can be expressed in imperial units, so either one is sufficient to carry out science- choosing one over the other is just arbitrary.

There's no analog in the imperial system for nanometers for instance.

Why would we need one? Couldn't we simply say that one nano meter is equal to whatever a fraction of an inch is neccessary? You're nit picking becuase the scale of nano is so friggin small as to be meaningless in any kind of real terms.

I guess you could always write it as .00000000000000000000000000000000523451 inches or even worse 1/10000000000000000000006346735735 or some such nonsense.

I question why anyone would ever need to convert something in nano scale to a relative size in inches- wouldn't they simply describe it terms of nanometers and be done with it? Fareinheit only goes so high, after a while we start to use Kelvin- the scale of what you are discussing determines what is the best measn to communicate the size or scope.

Dr. Clark spent a significant amount of time explaining the benefits of the metric system before talking about the loss of Mars Climate Orbiter.

Yet none of those reasons neccessitate the general population of the US to be forced into learning a system they don't want, or have no need for. Tell me how my everyday life will be improved by converting to the use of metrics. I don't think it will, and I have yet to hear reason as to how would be. If you think it is so great, tell me how it can improve my life.

Palomar · 2002-10-25 08:58:49

Last night it was my pleasure to attend a presentation by Dr. Benton Clark, chief scientist at Lockheed Martin's Space Division (responsible for MGS and Odyssey.)

*Geez, maybe I'm hanging around on the Mars Society message board too much. I read that as "Lockheed MARTIANS Space Division." ???

Yeah, that mental fart really caught my attention. I'm like, "What? They've got a special program in regards to Mars??...oh, duh, read it wrong."

--Cindy

Nida · 2002-10-25 09:47:19

So some of you American guys'd rather measure your erection's in centimetres, than inches? Hehe. I like inches for THAT measurement. Hehe.

Phobos · 2002-10-27 00:49:12

So some of you American guys'd rather measure your erection's in centimetres, than inches? Hehe. I like inches for THAT measurement. Hehe.

Decimeter could work for that particular purpose. One decimeter is roughly equivalent to four inches so we can all just default to X decimeters. But I agree, inches just makes it sound bigger. Maybe the imperial system can be kept on file for specialized uses.

Palomar · 2002-10-27 12:49:32

So some of you American guys'd rather measure your erection's in centimetres, than inches? Hehe. I like inches for THAT measurement. Hehe.
Decimeter could work for that particular purpose. One decimeter is roughly equivalent to four inches so we can all just default to X decimeters. But I agree, inches just makes it sound bigger. Maybe the imperial system can be kept on file for specialized uses.

*Future Marsian porn industry, take note...

--Cindy

Ranger_2833 · 2002-10-28 10:20:07

:0 Good God man! Are you crazy?!

Think of the engineers whose jobs revolve around converting to and from BESU (British Engineering System of Units) to SI (Le Systeme International) to USCS (United States Conventional System) to MKS (meter-kilogram-second) to Lbm (pound mass) to Lbf (pound force). Thousands of engineers doing differential eqautions and Laplacian Transforms for food. Blasphemy I say!

And what of us Engineering students who spend hours memorizing conversion tables and doing conversions? What will we do with all of this newfound free time? I'll tell you what'll happen, they'll just go out and join "Engineering Gangs" and do illegal mathematics. The Horror!

As for me, you can take my Jacks and Jills and Bushells and sheckels and coombes and furlongs over my dead body!

Natural System of Units now, Natural System of Units FOREVER! :angry:

Ranger_2833 · 2002-10-28 10:57:59

Beautiful. There's no question that the metric system is far superior to the imperial system especially since scales of distance are changing so rapidly in modern times. There's no analog in the imperial system for nanometers for instance. I guess you could always write it as .00000000000000000000000000000000523451 inches or even worse 1/10000000000000000000006346735735 or some such nonsense. And don't get friggin technical with me about the number of zeros I put in there.

BUZZ! Actually a nanometer is equal to 3.94 * 10^-4 mils.

1 mil = .0001 inch = 25.4*10^-6 meter = diameter of a human hair

Technically a nanometer isn't a unit at all. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter. The word nano is added as a descriptor denoting 10^-9. Mils and the like are seperate units from the inch, althought one could also use a descriptor and say a milli-inch which would be equivilant.

I have yet to see anyone discuss the reasons behind some of the odd units in the Natural System (English Syestem, Imperial System, etc). The Natural system gets its name from real world situations. Here is were some come from.

Most are based on the capability and dimensions of the human body.

Mil = diameter of a hair
finger = 3/4 in
thumb= 1 in
hand = 4 fingers + 1 thumb = 4in
span = 2 hands = 8 in
foot = 3 hands = 12 thumbs = 12 in
cubit = 24 fingers = 18 inches
yard = 2 cubits = 3 feet = 1 pace
fathom = 2 yards = 6 feet=arms extended fingertip to fingertip
mile = 1760 paces
league = 3 miles = dist. a man can walk in an hour
acre = area a man and mule plow in a day
farm = 160 acres = area man and mule can plow in a year
township = 144 (a gross) farms
pound = the average amount of food a person could eat in a sitting (maybe not here in america )
talent = 66 pounds = amount average man can carry continosly

As you can see the British System is based on the natural world. The SI (created by the French because they refused to accept a British system of units) units were based on... does anyone really know?

I do, but I'm not telling. That would take all of the fun out of it for me.

Phobos · 2002-10-28 19:17:22

BUZZ! Actually a nanometer is equal to 3.94 * 10^-4 mils.

Hello Ranger! I know that you can equivocate the nanometer in the imperial system but tell me which unit of measure is easier to use. 1 nanometer or 3.94 * 10^-4 mils. That second choice looks a little scary. I'm not sure what your getting at by saying the nanometer isn't an official unit. It's a legitimate member of the metric system that's used by scientists and engineers.

Good God man! Are you crazy?!

Think of the engineers whose jobs revolve around converting to and from BESU (British Engineering System of Units) to SI (Le Systeme International) to USCS (United States Conventional System) to MKS (meter-kilogram-second) to Lbm (pound mass) to Lbf (pound force). Thousands of engineers doing differential eqautions and Laplacian Transforms for food. Blasphemy I say!

And what of us Engineering students who spend hours memorizing conversion tables and doing conversions? What will we do with all of this newfound free time? I'll tell you what'll happen, they'll just go out and join "Engineering Gangs" and do illegal mathematics. The Horror!
As for me, you can take my Jacks and Jills and Bushells and sheckels and coombes and furlongs over my dead body!
Natural System of Units now, Natural System of Units FOREVER!

LOL! I wouldn't mind just switching over to SI since it's practically the same thing as the more barbaric version of the metric system only the base unit lengths are based on different things. I'll take any system that is decimal oriented and uses a base of ten over something like this:

Mil = diameter of a hair
finger = 3/4 in
thumb= 1 in
hand = 4 fingers + 1 thumb = 4in
span = 2 hands = 8 in
foot = 3 hands = 12 thumbs = 12 in
cubit = 24 fingers = 18 inches
yard = 2 cubits = 3 feet = 1 pace
fathom = 2 yards = 6 feet=arms extended fingertip to fingertip
mile = 1760 paces
league = 3 miles = dist. a man can walk in an hour
acre = area a man and mule plow in a day
farm = 160 acres = area man and mule can plow in a year
township = 144 (a gross) farms
pound = the average amount of food a person could eat in a sitting (maybe not here in america )
talent = 66 pounds = amount average man can carry continosly

Have mercy! :0

Number04 · 2002-10-31 10:41:29

no kidding. Of course the guy with fat hands is screwed.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-15 18:58:52

In the 60's sometime NZ convert to the metric system completely over-night. It worked much better and the whole system did'nt crash like some people thought it would.

Palomar · 2003-04-10 09:22:05

*I've lately been watching "Oliver's Twist" on a cable TV channel; a cooking program. Jamie Oliver is from England. He uses metric in his recipes. It's strange to hear him measuring flour and other dry ingredients in terms of "grams." He'll be chatting along, mixing this and that, and say "then add ___ grams of flour..." I suppose, after a while, better cooks (of which I consider myself one) would be able to "measure" the amount by eye. However, IMO it's easier to measure according to cup...whether full or half or whatever. It's easier just to scoop up a measurement of flour (or whatever) into a cup measurement and level it off with a knife's edge or finger's edge and dump it into the mixing bowl rather than messing around with weighing it for "grams."

I've previously stated, in this thread, my opinion about metric: Yes, it's much more precise than standard, etc. I like to think of myself as a very progressive, science-oriented gal, but I have to admit some sentiment toward standard: I love talk of pecks, bushels, ounces, gallons, quarts, pints, yards, furlongs, etc. It seems more varied, more human-oriented; like a lovely word salad.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2003-04-10 12:03:25

*I've lately been watching "Oliver's Twist" on a cable TV channel; a cooking program.

I enjoy this show yet prefer Alton Brown.

And "A pints a pound the world around"

Palomar · 2003-04-10 12:50:46

*I've lately been watching "Oliver's Twist" on a cable TV channel; a cooking program.
I enjoy this show yet prefer Alton Brown.
And "A pints a pound the world around"

*Hi Bill: I haven't seen Alton Brown.

I'm wondering: Are ovens manufactured in Europe or for the European market still made for Fahrenheit settings? It seems Jamie Oliver's oven is...unless he's baking sweet potatoes at 220 celsius for 45 minutes!

My husband and I were pricing out ranges/ovens the other day; of course, the temperature settings are Fahrenheit.

Just curious.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-10-24 11:24:51

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#27 2002-10-24 11:37:05

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#28 2002-10-24 11:42:37

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#29 2002-10-24 12:09:05

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#30 2002-10-24 12:30:06

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#31 2002-10-24 12:55:08

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#32 2002-10-24 13:04:59

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#33 2002-10-24 14:32:21

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#34 2002-10-24 15:34:32

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#35 2002-10-24 18:45:42

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#36 2002-10-24 22:35:59

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#37 2002-10-25 06:36:17

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#38 2002-10-25 07:58:03

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#39 2002-10-25 08:58:49

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#40 2002-10-25 09:47:19

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#41 2002-10-27 00:49:12

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#42 2002-10-27 12:49:32

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#43 2002-10-28 10:20:07

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#44 2002-10-28 10:57:59

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#45 2002-10-28 19:17:22

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#46 2002-10-31 10:41:29

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#47 2002-12-15 18:58:52

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#48 2003-04-10 09:22:05

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#49 2003-04-10 12:03:25

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

#50 2003-04-10 12:50:46

Re: Metric Conversion - Pros and Cons

Board footer