Time Zones

  • GSquared (7/19/2012)


    And, please stop using the word "metric" if you're going to talk about scientists using it. They haven't. Not for decades, maybe longer. They use SI, not "metric". It's based on degrees Kelvin, not centigrade, for one thing.

    Good point, and thanks for the clarification. Thanks also for linking to Johannes Koelmann's Post-Imperial system. Definitely food for thought.

    GSquared (7/19/2012)


    Blaming the non-conversion to metric on "Americans are all stuborn about things that will make the world a better place" is just ignorant blather, honestly.

    That's not what I said. I said that Americans (not all of them, obviously, but far too many) are stubborn about pragmatic change. Again, I claim this based on what I have observed throughout my life.

    Chris.C (7/19/2012)


    The power of ten makes it better?

    Then why wasn't there a push to have a day sliced into 10 hours, an hour sliced into ten minutes, and a minute into 10 seconds? ... * - Even if my math is off, the "why wasn't time converted too" question is reasonable.

    I have wondered this myself. Perhaps we can agree that even the scientific community is not sacrosanct?

    Jay Bienvenu | http://bienv.com | http://twitter.com/jbnv

  • As an alien (i.e. not in the US) I find all of this very revealing on several levels. Please continue the fascinating entertainment.

    By the way, the metric system is not so much about what the fundamental units are (other than using related base units where possible) or what the scaling factor is, but that you keep using the same unit name (with a prefix) when you scale up or down. It is a bit like using an alphabet instead of Chinese. Totally missing that in spite of the obvious examples is just one of those revealing and very entertaining aspects of this discussion.

  • GSquared (7/19/2012)


    And I'll add my vote to "get rid of time zones and DST". The positive effects on cross-time-zone calls and so on ("call me after 6 PM", "webinar at 15:00", "deposits made before 9 AM", etc.) would be huge. The social shock would wear off quickly enough in most cases, I think.

    I'll trade you this for making everyone drive on the right side of the road :w00t:

  • Why don't we just convert to a "metric" date system, like Julian date:

    The Julian date for CE 2012 July 20 04:00:00.0 UT is JD 2456128.666667

    It makes a much sense as anything else, and date arithmetic simple.

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

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/19/2012)

    I'll trade you this for making everyone drive on the right side of the road :w00t:

    But if we did that, how would we keep our good sword arm between ourselves and any potential enemy? You clearly haven't thought this through. 😉

  • Alex Fekken (7/19/2012)


    By the way, the metric system [advantage is] you keep using the same unit name (with a prefix) when you scale up or down. It is a bit like using an alphabet instead of Chinese. Totally missing that in spite of the obvious examples is just one of those revealing and very entertaining aspects of this discussion.

    I didn't miss it, but I'm on the "there isn't a big advantage to converting" side of things.

    Rather than Roman alphabet vs. Chinese writing I'd say Roman Numbers vs. Arabic (the base ten system we use today).

    I don't like how much million, billion, and trillion sound like each other. I guess it is really only when politicians are talking about those units that there could be any misunderstanding (usually in conversation, you can figure out which one the person meant as there are three magnitudes of difference between each)

    FWIW,

    -Chris C.

  • paul.knibbs (7/20/2012)


    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/19/2012)

    I'll trade you this for making everyone drive on the right side of the road :w00t:

    But if we did that, how would we keep our good sword arm between ourselves and any potential enemy? You clearly haven't thought this through. 😉

    Sure we have. Driving on the right means the shield on your left arm gives you better cover.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • Michael Valentine Jones (7/19/2012)


    Why don't we just convert to a "metric" date system, like Julian date:

    The Julian date for CE 2012 July 20 04:00:00.0 UT is JD 2456128.666667

    It makes a much sense as anything else, and date arithmetic simple.

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

    I am as much in favor of this as I am of converting to metric, or getting rid of time zones. All three are equally (non)sensical.

    Getting rid of DST, the original point, is wholly a different matter and I vote for that.

    Dave

  • Tao Klerks (7/19/2012)


    GSquared (7/19/2012)


    Tao Klerks (7/19/2012)


    Lynn Pettis (7/19/2012)


    Two, on this "The Imperial system works; the metric system works better", whose definition of better? What makes it better? Or is it just easier to convert between different units of measure (centimeters <> meters <> kilometers).

    Alright, that on'e easy:

    [...]

    If "better" = "is a more commonly accepted standard", then, yes, it is better.

    If "better" = "gives you some actual scientific advantage other than not having to look things up as often", then the two are equivalent.

    Hmm, I guess I was implicitly defining "better" as "Having some intrinsic and objective advantage". Within my limited analytical framework, "not having to look things up as often" fits the bill on its own (never mind standardization advantages), unless there is any "intrinsic and objective" advantage to any aspect of the imperial system. (ooh, but which imperial system, I hear you ask? I'm talking about the only one that still exists of course).

    Except it doesn't have any intrinsic and objective advantages at all. None.

    The whole "advantage" of metric is that units are more directly related to each other. One cubic centimeter of water = one gram, and so on. That was the whole original idea of it. But the only advantage to that is that it's slightly easier to teach to people. Young children don't have to remember "one quart = 2 pints = 1/4 gallon", they just have to memorize "kilo", "hecto", "deca", "centi"/"centa", "milli", etc. That saves about half an hour of education time, per real measures, in the lifetime of the average person.

    Even in metric-standardized countries, most people can't/don't remember the details. And only people who routinely work with precision measurement can regularly "eyeball" distances, weights, et al. And those do so equally comfortably whether they were originally trained in metric or Imperial.

    An "intrinsic and objective advantage" would have to be something quantifiable, with a real value (monetary or otherwise) that could be scientifically measured. If it's something other than that, then it's a subjective advantage, not an objective one, and moves over into the realm of opinion, not actual advantage.

    So, what would the quantifiable advantages of metric be? Improved industrial efficiency? Nope, US still has the largest industrial output of any nation on Earth, and we use Imperial. Increased ability to actually do scientific research? No evidence of that at all. The measures used by scientists aren't the ones taught in school as metric. Astronomers, for example, don't even use the calendars the rest of us do for their notations and communications. Physicists don't use color-names, they use degrees Kelvin of light, any time they need precision. Ready to give up teaching your kids the names of the colors of the rainbow and teach them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature? And so on.

    Metric is just a communications standard. It has advantages and disadvantages, just like any other communications standard. Not all of the human race uses metric, just like we don't all speak Esperanto.

    I'm all for switching to some metric measures. Even though I am a carpenter (by hobby and upbringing) and grew up with inches and feet, I personally prefer centimeters and so on. Also prefer degrees Kelvin. And lack of time zones. And parsecs instead of light-years for that matter. At the same time, I'm more comfortable with pounds than stones or kilograms. But I do like color-names, and I hate Esperanto. That makes me just as arbitrary as everyone else. Should everyone change to suit my preferences? Nah. Should I to suit yours? Nah.

    So if I say my daily commute is 50 miles each way, or if I say I watched a high-randomity movie, you can look up the terms or conversions if you aren't comfortable with them. And if you say you live 10km from the beach, or that you're dating something with a certain je ne sais quoi, and I don't happen to be comfortable with those words, I can look them up. And we're good. No need to disrupt millions of lives for either thing.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • Tao Klerks (7/19/2012)


    GSquared (7/19/2012)


    Both systems are fully arbitrary. One just has a more generic unit-conversion nomenclature is all. Metric (not SI) recently had to modify its definition of a kilogram, because a lump of metal in France was found to actually be slowly getting lighter. Based on the reason for the change in mass (as well as weight, of course), it could get more heavier in the future, and they'll have to update the definition of kilogram again.

    Does "fully arbitrary" somehow mean "incapable of bearing an advantage over some other"? How is the arbitrariness relevant to whether or not it's "better"? When you pick a random answer in the SAT and you happen upon the right one, is the answer not "better" than the incorrect answers you didn't pick?

    Except for the minor detail that these are not at all comparable in any way, you're completely right. If a yard-stick gives me the correct length of a piece of wood in inches and feet, and you randomly pick the wrong length by guessing a random number of centimeters, you're wrong and I'm right. If we both measure, and get two different numbers, one in inches and one in centimeters, then we're both right. Has nothing to do with "right" vs "wrong". A correct measurement, regardless of units used, is correct.

    "Arbitrary" != "random" in this context. It means "determined by independent arbiter", or "according to a standard as opposed to based on natural law".

    Tell, me, if I measure a ball and say it's 1 foot in diameter, in what way is that "worse" than you measuring it as 30.5 centimeters? You're saying that 30.5 centimeters has some inherent advantage over 1 foot. What advantage? In what way objective?

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • Tao Klerks (7/19/2012)


    djackson 22568 (7/19/2012)


    I also appreciate that someone else is willing to point out there is no 12:00 AM or PM!

    OK, I didn't understand the reference the first time, but now I need to know more 🙂

    My understanding is that in the 24-hour clock system/notation, time goes from 00:00 to 23:59 (and however many partial seconds you want to put in there), whereas in the 12-hour AM/PM system, time goes from 12:00 AM to 11:59 AM (and however many partial seconds you want to put in there), followed by 12:00 PM to 11:59 PM (etc). In the 12-hour system there is no "0 hour", and its place is held by 12 instead.

    Is this wrong?

    Update: I think wikipedia answered my question: apparently some parties suggest that the confusion over 12:00 am and pm, where there is any, can be resolved by referring to 12 midnight vs 12 noon - although why anyone would choose to do that over simply using the 24-hour clock is beyond me 😀

    "AM" stands for "ante-meridium" (spelling?), which means "before noon". "PM" stands for "post-meridium", "after noon". So, writing "12 PM" means "the 12 o'clock that's after itself", and "12 AM" would mean "the 12 o'clock that's before noon". If you are alert, you'll note that midnight could just as easily be after noon (the prior day), or before noon (the following day), depending simply on whether you consider the exact moment of midnight to be the end of the day or the beginning of the next day (historically, etc., it is considered both). So, 12 AM makes some slight sense, almost. But 12 PM is an oxymoron. How can "noon" be "after noon"?

    Neither one was used commonly, with the "noon" and "midnight" designations being more common, till the advent of digital watches. The manufacturers couldn't fit "noon" into their displays, so they put "PM" on there in most cases, or left "AM" on there in other cases. This was later standardized to "PM". But it's simply an artifact of a poorly designed user-interface. In the same manner, it became common to refer to times like "one fifty-five (1:55)" instead of "five till two (1:55)". The second version was prevalent till digital watches became common.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • Chris.C-977504 (7/20/2012)


    Alex Fekken (7/19/2012)


    By the way, the metric system [advantage is] you keep using the same unit name (with a prefix) when you scale up or down. It is a bit like using an alphabet instead of Chinese. Totally missing that in spite of the obvious examples is just one of those revealing and very entertaining aspects of this discussion.

    I didn't miss it, but I'm on the "there isn't a big advantage to converting" side of things.

    Rather than Roman alphabet vs. Chinese writing I'd say Roman Numbers vs. Arabic (the base ten system we use today).

    I don't like how much million, billion, and trillion sound like each other. I guess it is really only when politicians are talking about those units that there could be any misunderstanding (usually in conversation, you can figure out which one the person meant as there are three magnitudes of difference between each)

    FWIW,

    -Chris C.

    Gets even worse when you realize that billion, trillion, et al, mean different things in the US and the UK. You're obviously used to the US use, based on the number of orders of magnitude you reference.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • GSquared (7/20/2012)


    Chris.C-977504 (7/20/2012)


    ... I don't like how much million, billion, and trillion sound like each other. I guess it is really only when politicians are talking about those units that there could be any misunderstanding (usually in conversation, you can figure out which one the person meant as there are three magnitudes of difference between each)

    Gets even worse when you realize that billion, trillion, et al, mean different things in the US and the UK. You're obviously used to the US use, based on the number of orders of magnitude you reference.

    Yeah, well that was the context I was replying in - but that's a good learning point for anyone that doesn't know it.

    Yes, I was very startled one day (long ago) watching CSPAN2 when I heard Tony Blaire(?) use the term "thousand million".

    I simply assumed meant he billion (a thousand millions) then later in the speach I was surprised again when he used the word billion - tipping me off that I didn't know as much as I thought I did.

    So, everyone should start using megadollars instead of million, gigadollars instead... (joking)

  • GSquared (7/20/2012)

    Gets even worse when you realize that billion, trillion, et al, mean different things in the US and the UK.

    Not so much anymore...the BBC news always uses billion etc. in its US sense these days. Problem is that the US version is more usable for real-world quantities like money, I suppose!

  • paul.knibbs (7/20/2012)


    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/19/2012)

    I'll trade you this for making everyone drive on the right side of the road :w00t:

    But if we did that, how would we keep our good sword arm between ourselves and any potential enemy? You clearly haven't thought this through. 😉

    I'm left handed. We are taking over.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 110 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply