OT: Strange future for down-under? - Page 3

geoschmo · #21 July 18th, 2003, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Do you want to pay for that change? The biggest thing stopping the US from converting to the metric system is the extremely high cost of doing so. Think of all of those billions of road signs that have to be changed, for one thing.

Sorry Fyron. You are wrong on this one. US manufacturing and the scientific community has already switched to metrics. They only keep the old system around in customer facing areas because of our cultural stubborness. Actually I think you would find the cost to totally convert would be less then the cost of maintaining the two systems like we do now. Not to mention the money we'd save by not blowing up our Mars missions.

Geoschmo

Baron Grazic · #22 July 18th, 2003, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
If it does we should insist they set their clock at least to Hawaii time. It's bad enough that Hawii is hours behind everyone else in the country, the state of Australia being a day behind would be just wrong. You guys have your summers and winters mixed up anyway, whats the big deal if you have you days and nights mixed up too. [Wink]

Geoschmo

Perhaps I just read this wrong, but it looks like you said behind, instead of ahead.

Edit :- Looks like the US is closer to the metric system than I thought...

[ July 18, 2003, 01:35: Message edited by: Baron Grazic ]

geoschmo · #23 July 18th, 2003, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:

Perhaps I just read this wrong, but it looks like you said behind, instead of ahead.

Edit :- Looks like the US is closer to the metric system than I thought...

DOH! Man do I feel stupid.

I must have had a mental cramp there. I had it right in my other post...

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Australia would be even worse. If I needed something done at the Last minute on a friday afternoon they would be all like, "But now? It's the saturday! You want me to work on the weekend?"

Sorry Baron.

TerranC · #24 July 18th, 2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
and maybe the 'Eskimo' province of Nunavut.

Number one reason why Canada joining the U.S. would be problematic.

Baron Grazic · #25 July 18th, 2003, 02:42 AM

That's Cools Geo.
Its Friday here anyway, so I'm in a good mood, just counting down the hours to the weekend.

Fyron · #26 July 18th, 2003, 02:44 AM

*looks around*

Lots of road signs in english measurements with none metric here, even brand new ones by the new freeway.

I did not say that the scientific community had not switched over, or that most products have both measurements on them.

There are a lot of permanent items around the country that would have to be switched over, which is where the costs comes in. Printing food labels and such in just metric would not cost anything extra, and that is not what I was talking about at all. You also have to pay costs in reforming the education system to totally phase out the english system and do everything in metrics. Metric measurements are covered, yes, but not well until the higher grade levels (high school science classes and such). New text books, new lesson plans, etc. Have to totally revise real estate and such too, as that is all done in the english system. Road building is done in the english system. There are a huge number of objects and concepts that still have to be converted over to metrics.

geoschmo · #27 July 18th, 2003, 02:51 AM

Road signs get repainted all the time anyway. There is no reason that stuff couldn't be done gradually. The education system has been out front on the issue and teaching both systems for years, so only teaching metrics is actually easier. I had metrics all through grade school. What was wrong with your school.

There is no reason to learn any sort of conVersions anyway. You don't need to know how many miles in a kilometer, you only need to know how many kilometers to your destination.

I am not saying it wouldn't cost some money, but most of the costs could be done gradually and would have been spent as normal upkeep anyway, and the general increase in efficency would more than make up for it in a very short amount of time.

Geoschmo

[ July 18, 2003, 01:52: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Geckomlis · #28 July 18th, 2003, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by deccan:
I agree. It was obvious that the original article was a joke. The idea that Australia would join the U.S. is so ludicrous that it doesn't bear mentioning.

In the meantime, here's something for you to ponder:

What is the likelihood of California breaking away from the U.S. to form its own country?

Not a new idea - my world regional geography textbook in college actually asked the same question. Language, culture, resources, %GNP, etc make a case that California could go it alone and thrive. Kinda sci-fi, but a fun mental exercise.

geoschmo · #29 July 18th, 2003, 02:56 AM

You know it just occured to me Australia can't be the 51st state anyway. That one is slated for Iraq. Australia can be number 52 though.

TerranC · #30 July 18th, 2003, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
You know it just occured to me Australia can't be the 51st state anyway. That one is slated for Iraq. Australia can be number 52 though.

No no no...

51st state - Puerto Rico
52, 53, 54, 55th states - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland
56th state - Iraq
57th state - Kurdistan
58th state - Australia