Peanuts by Charles Schulz


Comments (51) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. legaleagle48

    legaleagle48 said, almost 4 years ago

    This is why the rest of the world went metric some 40-odd years ago!

  2. Angaraian

    Angaraian said, almost 4 years ago


  3. Jo Clear (aka: Grasshopper)

    Jo Clear (aka: Grasshopper) GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    I have always been a fan of Ozzy’s music, dont know about the guys who play in his band…rock on…ahem

  4. paha_siga

    paha_siga said, almost 4 years ago

    Decimal counting rocks!

  5. 3141592tk

    3141592tk said, almost 4 years ago

    No one is denying that the metric system is a better system due to the powers of ten, but the problem is that people used to the American system have no intuition for metric values. That’s why it’ll be hard to make a switch.

  6. iangoodson

    iangoodson said, almost 4 years ago

    Everybody used to be much better at mental arithmetic and those weights and measures were based on the human body. Imperial is much better suited to everyday use. Metric is fine for the scientific stuff.

  7. orinoco womble

    orinoco womble said, almost 4 years ago


    The problem is when you try to “make the switch” by converting back and forth. Unless you’re a math whiz, it’s a nightmare. I learned this when I moved to Europe and set up housekeeping. Forget the old pounds and yards and quarts, and pay attention to the real stuff you buy in the market. A kilo of potatoes is about so many. You need a meter and a half of fabric to make a dress for a size 14. A litre of water is about 4 glassfuls. And where I live, when it gets up above 40ºC, which it does every summer, you go out early in the day and learn to stay inside as much as possible after 11 AM.


    ASPI KATRAK said, almost 4 years ago

    U.S.A. The most advanced backward cxountry!!!!

  9. Nabuquduriuzhur

    Nabuquduriuzhur said, almost 4 years ago

    Britain went metric in the 1990s, not 40 years ago.
    From an engineering standpoint, the English system is actually more practical. For example, the “slug” is actually a unit of mass. A major confusion in metrics is the use of a mass unit (kilogram) for a unit of weight. Since we don’t manufacture anything today like we did, nor have we had a major public work since 1997, I suppose engineering is not a major consideration today like it was when we still built things.
    For some thermodynamic calculations the English system worked better.
    The biggest single reason the U.S. didn’t go metric was the millions of surveys made in the Township System, Meets and Bounds, etc. While GIS people have scanned some of them, it will take decades to get them all scanned in and presumably someone will come up with software to convert them. You can imagine all the problems, though. How many kilometers to a township (since few of them are exactly a mile, it’s tougher than just converting 0.626mile/km).
    Another reason is that every nation has its own standards for things. 8 vs. 10 threads per centimeter, X number of milimeters in each of the dozen or so railroad gages, etc. Round numbers are always easier to work with than fractions, and you cam imagine the fun the Russians have with 1524mm railroad gage (5 feet), or 1435mm in the UK. (Assuming standard gage for the latter. There are narrow gages of different sizes in Europe, from 3feet to 1 meter.).
    In both colleges I trained in engineering, we used both metric and English system. On the job, too. An example is measuring mortar bars contraction/expansion by millimeters, but testing the mortar compressive strength in psi.

  10. Tog

    Tog said, almost 4 years ago

    We’ve had both metric and imperial measurements shown on labels for years, petrol is sold by the litre, my speedometer has mph and kph on it. It shouldn’t be a problem. When we decimalised our currency back in the early seventies we should have gone the whole hog and gone completely decimal then. We have too many people who live in the past and want to retain imperial measurements for sentimental reasons.

  11. anjumahmed

    anjumahmed said, almost 4 years ago

    I have an idea! Let’s measure things in dozenal planck units!

  12. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, almost 4 years ago

    It is mostly just habit and wouldn’t take that long to change. In the 1970’s the US started the process and if Reagan hadn’t been elected President, the change would be “history”. The metric changeover was supported by Carter, so of course the Republicans had to say it was a bad idea. The solar collectors on the White House had to go… I’m surprised they didn’t outlaw sweaters.
    But for everyday use, there are two small advantages to the current system in the US. With volume, it’s all multiples of two, and that can be handy. And a foot is divisible by two, three, four or six. That doesn’t seem like much but does come in handy sometimes. Still it’s not enough to make up for the dis-advantages. Anyone know (Without Google or Wiki) how many feet (or yards) in a mile? And how much does a gallon of water weigh?

  13. Bob

    Bob GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago



  14. Tog

    Tog said, almost 4 years ago


    1760 yards in a mile but no idea what a gallon of water weighs.

  15. MadCow

    MadCow GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago


    5,280 ft.; around 8 1/3 lbs.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (36).