Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you're worried that by switching to the metric system we'll become like the rest?? Don't worry I'm sure the highest murder rates for an industrialized nation, the growing problem with drugs and alcohol, the War in Iraq, our foreign policy, and being the policemen of the world definitely sets us apart.
It's not about being like the rest, it's about logic and being smart. With all the major economic problems we are having, switching to the metric system would do wonders for our economy. We would actually be able to sell American cars overseas (that's if the stop selling sh*t to everyone here) on a wide scale and the heartache and headache's of not trying to think what a 3 miles would be in kilometers would be done away with forever. For the sake of your children or your grandchildren or great children, let's do the smart thing and switch.
not sure if you know this, but GM, Ford, both have divisions in almost every major industrialized country. Opel, Holden, and many others are domestically owned, and sell quite a bit in other country's. China imports Caddy's like there is no tomorrow, and Buick is the car to have in China.
No need to go to all that trouble. Measuer 1 3/4 cups twice. (and not all recipies can be doubled and still work)
Regardless of what recipe can or can't be doubled, the problem with this scenario is you're not able to easily perform the necessary math skills required to come up with the numerical solution to the problem. Doing something "two times" to bypass the unnecessary complexities and irregularities of an archaic system highlights what's wrong with the Imperial system of measurement.
No need to go to all that trouble. Measuer 1 3/4 cups twice. (and not all recipies can be doubled and still work)
I guess it boils down to would you rather take half of numbers like 3 1/2 , 3/4 , 1 1/3 , etc...
or numbers like 500 , 250 , 120 , etc... ???
The point was not that one or the other can't be done. The point was that whole numbers and decimals are, in general, going to be easier to work with in one's head. I know, I know! Some of us just don't want to think about anything else no matter how much easier and faster it is. And that's fine. To each his/her own.
But if we are going to teach our children one or the other (they don't 'think' in either system before they learn them), we may as well spare them the extra hours of frustration learning English measurements (LOTS of hours), and spare them the greater chance of screwing things up once they've learned it, and spare them the extra (wasted) time doing the conversions once they know how to do them.
Just teach them the most efficient, least time consuming system and let them spend the rest of the time on more important things... like how to spell in our archaic English spelling system!
Regardless of what recipe can or can't be doubled, the problem with this scenario is you're not able to easily perform the necessary math skills required to come up with the numerical solution to the problem. Doing something "two times" to bypass the unnecessary complexities and irregularities of an archaic system highlights what's wrong with the Imperial system of measurement.
But I seldom measure. If I double something its doubling the random amount I use of an ingredient. For cakes and pastries, doubling is often not going to work anyway.
I don't want to thing about math when I'm cooking anyway.
But I seldom measure. If I double something its doubling the random amount I use of an ingredient. For cakes and pastries, doubling is often not going to work anyway.
I don't want to thing about math when I'm cooking anyway.
Cooking is all about math.
Unless you're Rachael Ray and you just "sprinkle a little here" or a "dash of salt here."
But her food looks delicious; I'd eat it. Mhhhmmm.
"Ooopppss. Sorry 'bout that! A bit too much salt?"
Actually, there have been at least two documented cases of folks who have attended as part of the live audience at two nationally known and well-respected cooking shows. In the two cases in point, the chef later offered some of his or her speciality recipe to members of the audience. In these two cases, while being video'd, the audience "guinea pig tasters" ALL grimaced and several removed the offending food from their mouths.
It was clearly a case of "a little sprinkle, un-measured, more salt", some "extra" Habanero pepper flakes (What could POSSIBLY GO WRONG...), and/or a touch more beer to "loosen up" the sauce. Bleccch. "Unmeasured" usually means disaster. Same with "measurement errors" caused by confusion or complicated fractional changes to the recipe (halving, doubling, etc.).
Just for fun, you cooks out there, try a metric recipe just once. Generally, most measures have a metric side, or at worst you might have to buy a simple metric spoon measure set. Big deal; helps our ailing economy (long as the set you buy is made in the US, not CHINA...).
Enjoy!
Last edited by rifleman; 01-07-2009 at 10:35 AM..
Reason: typos
Why base a system of measurement on base 10? It doesn't make any sense. 10 isn't a prime number, it's the multiple of two nonconsecutive primes. Five is a difficult number to conceptualize. Need an example? Draw a circle; halving it is easy, so is quartering, making a third is pretty easy as well, now try drawing five lines from the center to capture roughly 20% in each field, not so easy is it?
Say you want to bake half a cake, and you need 125 g of butter for a whole cake. Now you need 62.5 g of butter. Or if you want to quarter it, 31.25 g! Now we're getting into hundredths of decimal places.
I say we replace the metric system with a base two system. Instead of that unwieldy "125 g," you need 10000000 tg (twograms). Want to make half a recipe? No problem, just drop a 0. 1000000 tg of butter is needed. Quarter recipe? 100000 tg. This makes it so much easier, no more hassle with decimal places and trying to figure out how to divide 125 by four.
Or we could switch to a base three system. A third of a cake would require 41.666667 g. of butter in the base 10 system, very unwieldy. Instead, lets define a new measure, a threegram, or hg. If the recipe calls for 10000 hg of butter, a third of a cake would be 1000 hg. A ninth 100 hg. Very easy for this type of dividing a cake recipe.
Maybe then a mixture of base-two and base-three system would be good? A cake recipe calls for 1/2 cup of butter (or one stick). You want to halve it, so put in 4T. Third it? 8 t. Seems to work pretty well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Ooopppss. Sorry 'bout that! A bit too much salt?"
