-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andy Bradford wrote: >>Actually, There is good mathematic reason for the existing system. >>Fractions. Basically, it's a whole lot easier to find common >>denominators in the imperial measurement system, and thusly do more >>complex division in ones head. > > > In a practical sense, it is a lot easier for me to weigh 100 grams of > flour and double or triple the recipe than it is to measure triple or > double 1 1/ 3 cups of flour. > > I don't often take a recipe and cut it in half, although finding half of > 100 is much easier (at least for me) than finding half of 1 1/3 cups. > Maybe if a recipe were written as 4/3 cups, but who measures in that way > when dealing with fractions? I certainly haven't seen a recipe written > as requiring 4/3 cups flour. > > Maybe I'm missing your point... Could you provide an example?
Here's a couple of opinions from the first page in a poorly formed google search. http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Metrication/proportionality_ergonomics.htm http://www.ourcivilisation.com/weight/ http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s11563.htm Like I mentioned before, I'm not a big advocate of imperial measurment, but it does have it's pro's. - -- Jayce^ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDFnkGA10/0O8cAHgRAvOEAKCBkBvOfGFAmb8PYeB28p1DpJ/KCgCcC6Lf 4CIfl9Xn0eUGkHbULrCuBUc= =sj0W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- .-----------------------------------. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `-----------------------------------'
