Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aexalon" data-source="post: 4740908" data-attributes="member: 16283">I never called the imperial system stupid —I called it outdated— nor invalid ; It's very "valid", since some 400 million people are stuck using it, because of traditionalism, conservatism, pattriotism and/or chauvinism; because of trade dependency on non-metric economies; and/or —possibly— simply because they don't know any better.On the matter of aesthetics: the imperial system could have been a thing of beauty if they had stuck with duodecimal throughout the whole thing. This, of course, is the reason why Paul Maclean's 12-fingered aliens in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/253698-metric-markets.html#post4739661" target="_blank">post #7</a> have that math advantage over us: they likely never had to reconcile a uniform-base numeric system with a radix equal to their digit count —and the uniform measuring system (beneficial for nuclear/spacefaring societies) logically rooted in it— with one which clings to "human scale units" as its main feature and whose only logical claim to superiority is the partial inclusion of a numeric system which has a highly-composite number as a radix (argued to be beneficial for pre-industrial societies).If the pro-imperial faction cannot see that, in the 21st century, it would serve their economical, cultural and scientific development best to employ a system of measurement that favours scientists over one that favours carpenters... sigh. The rest of us prefer looking to the future, not the past.In summary: on a global scale, the imperial system is nothing more than a "proud nail". One 4E could have hammered in as well as it did many other ones.Thank you for denigrating the effort we put into creating the details of our campaign world. Fortunately, others can appreciate someone posting the fruits of their labour for others to share in and/or criticise constructively.</blockquote>

Verification