I would bet this has everything to do with two things: safety and our inability to adapt and understand what a speed limit is and feels like in metric vs. imperial. That and the huge cost of replacing every speed limit, exit, sign ‘mile maker’ etc in the country.
THAT’S the real reason, I’m sure . . . always follow the money 
Probably a few jillion dollars . . . 
Cheers
Joe
That is ALWAYS the real reason. The whole scientific debate (easier calculations, accuracy, etc. etc.) is all just fluff. $$$ is the real reason, whether it’s the cost of switching, or a veiled attempt to increase prices on something.
BTW. @joergkutter and @howard , My background is molecular biology. I did my MSc in Europe right when Europe switched over to the Euro and the first batch of new states joined the EU. I’m equally comfortable in both systems. That said, being Canadian, I’m equally comfortable with them for DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS. Metrological schizophrenia, see?
PS. And FWIW, I still think that the best system of measurement is the one that a given people are most comfortable and familiar using. Other than specific applications (science, engineering) there’s just no reason to switch.
PPS. 750ml booze bottles are a holdover from Imperial measurements. It’s the old 26-er (although I though the EU switched to 700s).
2 Likes
Yep, sure did 
Is my excuse every time I drive too fast on a US highway 
(“Come on, I was only doing 90…”)
4 Likes
Much more sexy than plain chemistry 
Always thought this was a good idea… and still ended up in a country that doesn’t have the Euro (yet/ever) 
3 Likes
For sure
2 Likes
Nope. You just get to work with much smaller quantities of liquid, moving them dropwise from a larger container to a smaller one.
The problem with it is that you get CTS in your thumb from the pipette, and pretty soon you end up thinking that all organisms look like a 1.5ml Eppendorf 
3 Likes
I haven’t been to this thread in awhile, and just checked in to see what kind of advice is being dispensed. I see we morphed from “advice on my next bass” to micro biology. I need to do a better job of keeping up with these threads 
1 Like
We’ve also done the metric vs. imperial debate too!
1 Like
Oh damn, and I missed that!!
Did I also miss the flats vs rounds debate?
To bring it back to “my next bass” in a satisfying manner, @MC-Canadastan is going to have to grow a bass from a semi-sentient algae, but, due to a metric to imperial conversion error on the supplier’s part, it will only play Phish tunes.
2 Likes
My apologies, as I have kept the derailing of this thread alive with a few recent posts…
Now, being where we are, I just wanted to reply to this:
Not necessarily! This is what my group does (all measurements in metric, by the way):
BUT (in a valiant effort to get this thread back on track): if I were in the market for a P-bass (not necessarily from Fender), what would you guys suggest?? I would consider going up to perhaps 1500 dollars if needed! (And I am looking for a “pure” P bass, not a PJ, but it could have a J neck, I guess… 
)
1 Like
Is this a contradiction in terms? Discuss!
2 Likes
P body, P pickups, slimmer neck… Not a contradiction, but perhaps an abomination for some!? Or some Frankenbass maybe!?
2 Likes
I love this finish
5 Likes
Not at all!
The mid-60s P bass neck is light years away from the 50s P bass neck - it was basically a J bass neck - more taper, thinner and with a flatter profile.
Mixing and matching necks is great, and if you keep that big P bass body and pickups, you’ll still get the P-bass vibe.
7 Likes
Yup, in that price range the Fender American Professional II is hard to beat. If you want a P-bass with a custom neck, look into MJT Custom Finishes. Their complete builds start at $1500, but you can spec every inch or centimeter of it to your liking.
2 Likes
@skydvr, are you alluding to the Mars missions in 1998? (which involved two unmanned spacecraft missions, an orbiter and a lander)
If so, I happen to know a person who was in the control room when the Mars Orbiter mission failed, and after I questioned him based on your comment, he gave me his viewpoint of it. I will paraphrase here, as the details were over my head:
It was a Bad Day* at NASA. But, in contrast to the subsequent investigation’s finding that a “metric vs. USCS”** measurement mix-up between JPL and Lockheed Martin was the cause for the mission failure, it really was more than that.
When sending a spacecraft out to its destination, NASA checks the trajectory at several points on the journey. If the trajectory is within one sigma*** (a new term to me, roughly meaning how close on target), it’s in the right ballpark and no change in course is made. If the trajectory is off by two or more sigmas (!), obviously a course correction should be made.
The problem with the Mars Orbiter mission in 1998 was that at the second of four trajectory checkpoints it was off by two sigmas, yet no course correction was done. For some reason, as it was put to me, certain members of the team basically “sat around scratching their butts.” When the orbiter reached Mars, they thought it was coming in low, but sadly soon realized the problem, as it burned out. I do not know how many sigmas off it was at the 3rd & 4th checkpoints, but it certainly was off enough to fail - more than one sigma.
The other Mars mission that launched in 1998 was the Mars Lander. It also failed, but for other reasons. Measurement unit differences were not the cause for the Mars Lander failure.
*These missions often involve decades of preparation, construction, and spacecraft travel before reaching the destination. These stages encompass a substantial amount of the various scientist’s/engineer’s/project manager’s, etc. career, so when there is a failure those people are personally devastated (and I’m not even talking about manned mission failures), not to mention the sadness for wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money.
**USCS = U.S. Customary System of measurement, which has differences from the English Imperial system of measurement
***After watching some archery competition in the Olympics recently, we can compare “one sigma” to the 10 point range on a target; as long as the arrow hits within that circle (even if on the line between 9 and 10 areas), the archer gets 10 points. If NASA monitors a spacecraft’s trajectory, and it is consistently within one sigma as it passes by all the checkpoints, it will reach the destination within an acceptable range, i.e. their “arrow” will hit the target within an acceptable 10 point area.
3 Likes
Maybe I should have just said my bass weighted 3.7 Kg instead of 8 lbs 2 oz. We would have saved some bandwidth. 
6 Likes