How Russia Transformed a Subtropical Beach Resort To Host the Winter Olympics 359
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Duncan Geere reports at The Verge that Russian resort as Sochi, on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, is humid and subtropical with temperatures averaging about 52 degrees Fahrenheit (12 C) in the winter, and 75 degrees (24 C) in the summer. "There is almost no snow here — at the moment it's raining," says Olga Mironova, a local resident. It's estimated that the cost of staging the Olympics in Sochi has been greater than the previous three Winter Games combined — ballooning to a whopping $51 billion including the cost of implementing an extensive system of safeguards to ensure there'll be sufficient snow in Sochi for the games including the cost of implementing one of the largest snowmaking systems in Europe. The system includes two huge water reservoirs that feed 400 snow cannons installed along the slopes that can generate snow in temperatures of up to 60 degrees fahrenheit (16 C). If that snow isn't enough, then the authorities will fall back on 710,000 cubic meters of snow collected during the winters of previous years leading up to the games. To keep it from melting in the region's hot summers, 10 separate stockpiles have been kept packed tight under insulating covers high up in the mountains, safe from the sun's rays. Down in Sochi itself the other half of the games will be held in five indoor arenas that will host figure skating, speed skating, hockey, and curling, and an additional outdoor area will host the opening and closing ceremonies. In each of these indoor arenas, underfloor cooling systems are installed so that the ice stays frozen above it using propylene glycol, which doesn't freeze until temperatures reach 8.6 F (-13 C). Climatologists predict that even under a best-case scenario, almost half the venues that have hosted the Winter Olympics over the last century would be unable to do so by 2080 without resorting to extensive and expensive artificial snowmaking techniques.""
Stupid (Score:3)
Taking a semi-tropical place and turning it into an expensive, barely working winter wonderland is a very stupid idea. Implementing it is even stupider.
Re: (Score:2)
Car analogy:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Most Russians vacationed there in the Soviet ear. In the 90s the infrastructure crumbled and most Russians decided its better to vacation in Egypt and Turkey in the summer. Sochi area has become a huge dump and a village. This is why it was so costly (I don't deny a lot of money got stolen too). They had to rebuild all highways, airport, hotels, public transport, and build the new Olympic village, which also will be hosting Russia's Formula 1 race.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
The next one around is in South Korea at 37 degrees latitude, and seems to be close to the ocean, although just about everything is close to the ocean in South Korea, by the standards of someone who lives in Canada. It seems their goal is to host the Winter Olympics in increasingly ridiculous climates, eventually to the point of getting the Winter Olympics in Dubai.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Sochi Project by Rob Hornstra & Arnold van Bru (Score:3)
Not to nention that Sochi is characterised by poverty, separatism, terrorism and mass beach tourism:
http://www.thesochiproject.org... [thesochiproject.org]
Pete Boyd
Re: (Score:2)
Not to nention that Sochi is characterised by poverty, separatism, terrorism and mass beach tourism
So when poor beach tourists start advocating a violent separation from Russia, we should be concerned?
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny that you should bring up Skolkovo, given how the main innovation that it produced so far is the means of funneling away the budget in highly efficient ways. Seriously, Skolkovo is entrenched as one of the symbols of government corruption of the Putin era (the Olympics will probably be that, as well, but at least they have something to show for it, unlike Skolkovo).
The $51 billion is nothing to do with the location (Score:5, Insightful)
Its down to the monumental institutionalised corruption in Russia where everyone from the highest level apparatchik down to the brick layer is on the take.
Re: (Score:3)
it's fucking ridiculous. with 51 billion dollars you could have hosted the games in Helsinki, BUILT THE FUCKING MOUNTAIN for the slope needing competitions and still have the hotels ready in time.
but you want to know the really funny thing? Sochi has more gay clubs than Helsinki.
it's not one or two guys who got killed over the Sochi contracts either. that's why foreign companies didn't touch the bidding for contracts... and why the companies really didn't think that they would be penalized on payments if th
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, a lot of the money got stolen, but holding such games in Sochi instead of say Moscow, has a huge investment potential because it's a great destination and people will visit after the Olympics again.
Actually, they won't, which is why several Olympic venues were intentionally constructed in such a way that they can be deconstructed later and moved to some other part of the country where they're actually useful on a more permanent basis (do you really think that the expensive snow producing will be kept on after the Olympics?). The other problem is the shoddy quality of a lot of what was built, because of endemic corruption and a rush to complete it on time.
You could also say that it was a worthwhile sta
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, in a proper capitalist institution, only the highest level is supposed to be on the take.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if he does not get away in time [themoscowtimes.com].
Putin's Games (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
These games are also a show of the absolutely incredible depth of corruption in Russia. The initial budget of $12 billion has ballooned to over four times to some $50 billion – the most expensive winter or summer Olympics in the history. The 45-kilometre road from Sochi to the outdoor venues alone cost $8 billion, enough to pave the finished road with 5-millimetre thick gold. It was a common arrangement in the Olympic construction projects to use the money as follows: 30% for the actual construction work, 35% to the officials and 35% to the "oligarchs" who oversaw the project. And let's not forget how the Sochi locals who happened to live near the coming Olympic venues have been brutally forced on the streets without any compensation for their expropriated property, thanks to a special law that Putin had passed in Duma. You should see the documentary Putin's Games [youtube.com] for some background on the mind-boggling amounts of corruption in these games.
Where does corruption end and government spending begin?
ridiculos! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok. I'm frankly sick and tired of all this media campaign of discrediting the Russian olympic games. I mean, this article is completely ridiculous.
As a comparison, the weather in Sochi is similar to the one in Grenoble (at least from a temperature point of view). Now, the thing is that I live in Grenoble, which was also the location of the olympic games in the 60's. Like in Sochi, right now it is raining in Grenoble, and the temperatures are around 10 degrees Celsius. Despite this, just yesterday I went skiing at the resort which hosted the downhill event in the 60's and guess what? Perfect skiing conditions, all slopes were open and no artificial snow has been used in the last 4 weeks. How is this possible? Well, most of the events at the winter olympic games are hosted in the mountains, which in the case of Grenoble are 2000 meters above the level of the city. I don't know about Sochi but the Caucas mountains have peaks of over 5000 meters.
Just comparing the temperatures in the biggest city which happens to be located near the actual mountains which host the games is completely stupid!
Re: (Score:3)
In my experience this is true of most ski areas in the US, too.
The "town" the ski area is located in is much lower than the ski area base. By the time you get to the top of the ski area you're 5000 or more feet above the town and the weather is much different.
In town, it can be high 30s/low 40s (deg. F) and at the top of the ski area it's 15F.
I think the snowmaking observation is a little overblown. I think before the widespread adoption of snowmaking, skiing was always weather dependent. You simply didn
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience this is true of most ski areas in the US, too.
The "town" the ski area is located in is much lower than the ski area base. By the time you get to the top of the ski area you're 5000 or more feet above the town and the weather is much different.
I rather doubt that's true in more than a few special locations in the USA. First of all, there's nowhere in New England that is 5000 feet above anything in New England with the exception, more or less, of Tuckerman's Ravine. Next, since places like Aspen and Denver start out in the cities at 6 to 8 kft, if you went up 5 kft from there you'd be in darn near in oxygen tank altitudes.
Re: (Score:2)
...you missed the point about the snow making machinery, about how it's not really a place where they didn't have any winter sports experience?
anyhow, only people happy with the games arrangements are.. Russians.
for some weird fucking it's not a problem for them - and the russian media is spinning all the discrediting about half built hotels, double decker toilets and undrinkable tap water as "the west being afraid" and SOMEHOW the fucking massive waste of money is a "Show of power"?? you know where Puting got that money from? well fuck he printed some rubles so it's out of every russians pocket - and now 70% of it is in pocket of whoever was ready to play the dirtiest to get the contracts. that is also why the economy in Russia is SO FUCKING FUCKED UP because it's so hard to do honest business with them, since you need to not only know the law(actually you don't even need to know the law) but what you really have to know is who the fuck happens to run some region and who's pockets you should line so that your investment doesn't magically turn into somebody else's investment.
and oh yeah Putin is so fucking gay it's ridiculous, wrestles with young boys all day long.
So you don't believe in trickle down ...
You have to hand it to the Russians (Score:5, Funny)
Now, doesn't the lack of shower curtains and door knobs seem a bit pedantic?
Snow in Russia? (Score:2, Funny)
I guess they couldn't find a colder place in such a tiny territory
sounds just like Vancouver n/t (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the comment I am forced to type.
Making Snow in Russia (Score:3, Insightful)
Very inaccurate and deceptive (Score:5, Informative)
While the indoor activities may well be in the City of Sochi, the activities which actually requires a large amount of snow (alpine and nordic) are actually arranged in Rosa Khutor [wikipedia.org], which may only be 50 km away, but happens to be approximately 1000 meters above sea level, something which does have an impact on the climate.
There may be lots of things wrong with these Olympics, but there is no need to exaggerate.
That was very interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some places that used to have snow will no longer have snow. No places that don't currently have snow will get snow. this, the total amount of snow will be reduced, making it less rare. Anywhere can have snow if you really want it to, but it gets mighty expensive mighty fast.
Re: (Score:2)
The mountains near Sochi get tons of snow... (Score:4, Informative)
In Soviet Russia We Host You! (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia We Host You!
Re: (Score:2)
climatologists predict? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Making predictions not verifiable until after their retirement?
Maybe they are actually smarter than they look. ;-)
Here's what I don't understand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But 43.5 degrees C is!
Re:!Subtropical. (Score:4, Informative)
43.5 degrees N (more northerly than Buffalo, NY) is not "subtropical."
The word "subtropics" refers to a particular location. The word "subtropical" can refer to any area that has characteristics similar to the subtropics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_with_a_subtropical_climate
Hey lookie there: Eurasia -> Russia -> Sochi
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
For the benefit of people who using non-murican units:
52 degrees F = 12 C (approx)
75 degrees F = 25 C (approx)
Never mind their actual latitude, from spending most of my life within 5 degrees of the tropics, about the only time we see 75 degrees in summer is in the middle of a heavy thunderstorm. Even the lows are more likely to be in the 80s (25-30 C) during summer months.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did Obama do something last night that we need to be distracted about. Usually don't pull out the Bush did it card til we need to distract from his actions.
Re: (Score:2)
The quote down the bottom for me was something along the lines of "one of the great mercies of the human brain is its inability to compare its contents."
Re:Celsius (Score:5, Funny)
It would even be clearer to most people here if you did it in kelvins rather than Fahrenheit.
Re:Celsius (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Celsius (Score:5, Insightful)
You can easily divide a foot, for example, into thirds, halves, quarters. Not so much with base 10.
If you can't easily divide the number ten into two equal halves, then perhaps you have bigger problems than just which set of units to use.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't easily divide the number ten into two equal halves, then perhaps you have bigger problems than just which set of units to use.
GP never said it couldn't be... you're deliberately missing the obvious point that 12 can be divided into by thirds and quarters with integer results while 10 cannot.
A base 10 unit system is better because (and only because) base 10 is our primary number system. A meter is better than a foot because (and only because) it is the more popular international standard. We could scale Imperial unis with base-10 SI prefixes if we wanted to, and some people do.
I would tend to argue that Imperial units tend to be
Metric (Score:2)
you're deliberately missing the obvious point that 12 can be divided into by thirds and quarters with integer results while 10 cannot.
And 12 cannot be divided into fifths. So what?
A base 10 unit system is better because (and only because) base 10 is our primary number system.
You say that like it is a minor thing. Why would you not want your measurement system to have some some relevance to your number system?
I would tend to argue that Imperial units tend to be more natural...
The inch was originally the length of a barleycorn. Please explain what possible relevance that has to our modern society?
Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Allow me to divide one meter by the amounts you mentioned:
3 - 0,333mm (use as much precision as you'd like)
2 - 0,500mm
4 - 0,250mm
Now, allow me to do something you can't do trivially with imperial units:
How many centimeters does a kilometer have?
1km = 1000m = 100.000cm
Try doing that under 5 seconds with imperial units.
You only insult yourself by using such stupid arguments. SI is better.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
SI is better, but ease of unit conversions is at best a minor advantage. You know when the last time I had to convert between centimeters and kilometers was? Probably when I was in school, learning about using metric. I don't convert between inches and miles either -- there's just no point in most people's lives.
In fact, the only units that I have to convert between regularly are time units, and metric doesn't help you there.
Re: (Score:2)
The advantage is not only limited to converting between units of the same dimension (for example, length to length), but between different kinds of dimensions. With metric, I can take a physics formula like
T = (1/2)m*v^2
put in m=10kg, v=2m/s
And the answer is 1/2*10*2 joules = 20 joules. Try that with imperial units.
m=20 lb, v=10 ft/s
T = 1000 (lb ft^2/s^2). Fuck if I know how many BTUs that is, or whatever the imperial unit for energy is.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, this feature does not work with temperatures, which require this Boltzmann's constant. We could technically do away with Boltzmann's constant and measure temperature in joules, but then we would have numbers like: The high today is 4.14 * 10^-21 joules (or 4.14 zeptojoules). I don't know any other applications where one would regularly use such small numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I don't disagree that doing science or engineering with imperial units is a bad idea. In reality, though, even in the U.S. everyone in the sciences uses metric in that context. I studied physics in the US, and I couldn't tell you the conversions or even the names of all the imperial units -- we don't use them either.
Apparently there are some engineering fields that actually do commonly use imperial units -- which I think is totally strange, and ought to change.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, the only units that I have to convert between regularly are time units, and metric doesn't help you there.
I did highschool physics in Europe with SI units...But oh, the horrors whenever, we saw a page from an American physics book :)
More than half the book was about unit translation... it's convenient have kilograms, meters match up with the gravitational constant.
Maybe you're right that it doesn't matter that much on a daily basis. But if you ever read the nutritional information on a product over here (I'm currently in the US) you'll see that it's per "serving" and:
- servings are defined in cups (or something crazy)
- fat per serving is grams, and
- total contents of the package is defined in pounds.
To deduce anything from the nutritional information on the product is very hard... In most other countries, it's grams of fat per 100 gram, and total contents of the package is in kg or grams... Enjoy.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
I did highschool physics in Europe with SI units...But oh, the horrors whenever, we saw a page from an American physics book :)
More than half the book was about unit translation... it's convenient have kilograms, meters match up with the gravitational constant.
I studied physics in the US -- both at high school and university level -- and I can tell you that nobody actually does physics using US units. Typically an introductory course will include an early segment on converting to and from metric, but the students can generally forget all about it because the coursework will all be in SI units.
I've seen a couple old textbooks where the authors seemed to get a kick out of forcing people to convert back and forth (exercises would include mixed units), but I've never seen a book or a class in the last 20 years that did that beyond some initial work on making sure that the students know how to convert between units.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not OP, but the US tape measures are much better than the metric equivalent. US has a large mark every half inch, a slightly smaller mark at 1/4 inch, 3/4 inch. then all the remaining marks slightly smaller at 1/8, and then smallest every 1/16". Without any numbers, you can do many many more iterations than divide by than 1/10th can do for framing, building houses, etc it is truly better. Especially that squares can skip the 1/8", and 1/16" marks that can't be so easily stamped into them for endurance, yet you can easily transfer measurements from this device with 1/4 as many marks as the tape measure back and forth, just looking for identical marks. 1/10 just doesn't scale like that, you can't skip half the decimal marks and not be lost, you can't just look at a tape, and no the difference without counting from 0.2 to 0.3. .2, and .3, so you will be counting each mark, 1,2,3 ok half way between the 2 and 3. With the US tape, if your a carpenter used to it, you know what a 1/4 mark looks like, so you can just see it and mark it. May not seam like much, but it truly save a second on every measurement. And it works for all the marks, what 15/32", the 1/2" mark is obvious, move up one of the smallest marks, want 9/16", go up by one of the 1/16 marks.
in your example, 0.25 your going to be approximating on a metric tape, where is half way between
Re: (Score:2)
US ruler is marked in fractions of 1/32, metric in fractions of 10. So metric wins if your dividing by 5, or by 10. US standard wins if your dividing by 4,8,16,32. *they tie if dividing by 2.
Also look at a dual ruler http://www.myonlineruler.com/ [myonlineruler.com] What you'll see the US one is much cleaner, this one doesn't go down to 1/16", but you can make one 2* as accurate that you can still easily transpose readings to one 2* denser. All of the lines are a different length on the US side, that is a standard, any ca
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying the US has a standard for printing measuring tools, that is more robust. Metric is actually less standardized. IE, people do make less precise, skipping marks... that requires counting marks. The US system has a standard that is more flexible. Similar is true with metric Bolts, they lack a standard. Every manufacture marks bolt hardness differently, the US standard has the marks defined. Similar for head sizes on bolts, every 7/16 bolt has a 5/8 head, and a 5/8" nut. you get a dozen 10mm
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I always see this, and it never stops getting less stupid. I'm an American living abroad, and I switched over to the metric system about five years ago. You know the last time I needed to know how many centimeters in a kilometer? Never. It doesn't happen. This so-called advantage is nothing but. Humans respond well to whole numbers. 12 is a more round number than 10, and 60 is more round than 100.
Use the right unit for the right job. Nobody ever has to convert units. You know how many feet in a m
Re: (Score:3)
You can easily divide a foot, for example, into thirds, halves, quarters. Not so much with base 10.
You're right! It's much easier to divide 1"1/16 into thirds than it is to divide 27mm into thirds (they're the same length to a good approximation).
And if you're going to complain about me cherry-picking silly values, I'll point to the 2400mm sizes that wood is sold in which is every bit as dividisible as imperial units since it's a multiple of 12.
mass, etc came about in the same way.
Ah yes. 16 oz to the pou
Fahrenheit is more naturally understood (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely that is not subjective at all.
Isn't describing your surroundings in understandable terms supposed to be subjective? If I can't stand outside and give my honest opinion about how it feels, what the fuck is the point of the word subjective?
Or did that just go whoosh?
Re: (Score:3)
Also, feet and inches are clearly superior to metres since they are related to measurements of humans rather than the Earth. Or some human, probably.
And gallons are clearly superior to litres because I know how many gallons I get to a mile, and I have no idea how many litres to the metre. QED.
Re: (Score:3)
We use liters per 100 km here.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about being "whooshed" ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
0 degrees C = water freezes
100 degrees C = water boils
We "encounter" these temperatures all the time, and they can be reproduced easily in your own kitchen with very good accuracy compared to the subjective "really cold" or "really hot" of the F scale.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that hard:
0 degrees C = water freezes
100 degrees C = water boils
We "encounter" these temperatures all the time, and they can be reproduced easily in your own kitchen with very good accuracy compared to the subjective "really cold" or "really hot" of the F scale.
Not in my kitchen, they can't. Water here boils at 94C. So much for your sea level bias.
What boiling water has to do with the weather report, I'll never figure out but Celcius fans trot that out every time..
Re: (Score:3)
Why is 0-100 a significant number instead of, say, 0-32? Instead of saying, "I'm 80% of the way to freaking hot today," you can say, "I'm 7/8 of the of way to hot today." Wouldn't that be just as nice?
Oh wait, no one thinks of temperature in terms of relative position between some mathematically convenient minimum and maximum temperature!
We experience temperature more like a street address that we happen to be on -- it's nice here and maybe a little less nice "further down the block." We don't mathematic
Re: (Score:2)
Why is 0-100 a significant number instead of, say, 0-32?
0-100 allows for finer granularity of temperature representation without resorting to fractions or decimals, which, while simple enough, are more cumbersome than integers for the average person to deal with. 0-100 also is a natural measure of "low" and "high", not the least of which is because we use percentages all the time which are based on a 0-100 scale. For people who have experience rebasing their definitions of low and high (like math-oriented people), it doesn't matter. For the average person, it
Re: (Score:2)
Temperatures are usually reported in degrees Celsius. Please fix this.
Not going to happen when the poster is American and temperatures are in the range of 0 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The extremes demanding extra care and protection, but nothing particularly expensive or exotic.
100 Heat Wave
75 Summer
50 Autumn and Spring
25 Winter
0 Deep Winter
Re: (Score:2)
Temperatures are usually reported in degrees Celsius. Please fix this.
This is slashdot... Write a grease monkey script to convert all imperial units to metric, and publish it! Or, in the words of foss, fix it yourself!
Re:Celsius (Score:4, Informative)
The Metric Conversion Act [wikipedia.org] would disagree with you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As Slashdot is offering paying subscriptions and is geting money from the advertisers, IT IS commerce - a commecial web site.
Can someone please find where we can file a complaint against Dice Holdings for failing to follow U.S. Executive Order 12770 ?
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably hard for people in other countries to understand, but the Metric Conversion Act merely indicated that the metric system was the PREFERRED system, not the "required" system.
Further, Executive Order 12770 is relevant only to government agencies.
This was back when the US government had fewer abilities to simply order its citizens (you know, the ones laughably in charge?) to do what it wants on a whim.
Re:Celsius (Score:5, Insightful)
reporting largely to Americans
Are you sure about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Alexa says /. is 37% Indian-origin, 27% US - I find that hard to believe, given the amount of time they spend on bullshit US political issues. Their total % only reaches about 70-some percent.
Re: (Score:2)
Weather? Farenheit
No. Weather? Metric.
'Zero degrees? Uh oh, looks like it might snow.'
'It's FORTY-FIVE degrees in Las Vegas? Holy cow! That's nearly half-way to boiling!'
Re:Celsius (Score:4, Interesting)
Celsius merely replaces one set of 'arbitrary' reference points (human warmest/typical =100 and coldest/typical = 0) with another (the freezing/boiling points of a hypothetically-pure water in a specific set of pressure circumstances = 0/100 respectively).
Aside from that, it's what people grew up & are comfortable with.
Well, the only other difference is that I don't see Americans being evangelical about trying to convince anyone to use their system. (Shrug)
Re: (Score:3)
Aside from that, it's what people grew up & are comfortable with.
I'm people, I didn't grow up with it and I'm not comfortable with it.
All that being said, there are a lot of things that are bananas in the USA compared to the rest of the world. Use of the Fahrenheit system is *way* down the list of crazy to the point where it's almost a rounding error.
It's degrees celsius (Score:5, Insightful)
All systems of measurements are based on arbitrary references.
The difference is that SI is a coherent system of base and derived units with very simple relationships between them, all based on the number 10 and a series of greek prefixes.
Nobody ever asks themselves (*kids still learning the basics excepted) how many meters are in a kilometer. Knowing that, nobody is going to be left wondering how many grams there are in a kilogram or how many newtons in a kilonewton. The keyword is coherency.
SI is coherent within itself and with the numerical system used by nearly everyone on this planet (base 10). Imperial units are neither.
Also, SI is used in all but three countries. Don't you think those three countries might have done things wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to engineering or scientific calculations, I naturally prefer liters and Kelvin, because they make the math easier. Nobody wants to set their kitchen oven in Kelvin, though.
Minor gripe regar
It does not depend on use (Score:2)
It really depends what you're using said units for.
Generally speaking it really doesn't. The advantages of using something you are familiar with are VASTLY outweighed by the advantages of having to only maintain one system and one set of tools and one set of gauges and one set of documentation and one set of instruments and the fact that you can communicate with others without using any conversion charts with their inevitable errors. You prefer cups over liters because you are used to it, not because it is more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
This argument actually doesn't work for temperatures. SI units have very simple and consistent relationships with each other, but temperature is kinda left hanging and has no relation to the other units, except through the completely arbitrary Boltzmann's constant. Also, you can use metric prefixes in front of kelvin, but it doesn't make much sense to put metric prefixes in front of degrees Celcius since you can't multiply degrees. My point is, we could convert everything else to metric without converting t
Re:It's degrees celsius (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, SI is used in all but three countries. Don't you think those three countries might have done things wrong?
The only thing we (I'm an American) did wrong was to not convert to metric before the world was plunged into WWII. During the war, we produced millions of fabricating tools and machines to create war materiel - tanks, planes, guns, etc. After the war, all those micrometers, calipers, lathes, grinders, mills, and drills remained in metalworking shops across America. They all still had Imperial units stamped on their scales. They were held together with screw threads based on ANSI standards and Imperial measurements. They were build around drive screws that would move the table precisely one inch of throw for every ten revolutions of the drive worm. They had cams that would move a tool precisely .001 inches per revolution. The Imperial measurement system was literally cast in steel throughout America during the war.
These tools then fueled the expansion of the American economy throughout the postwar period. (Many of them are still working today, and still power today's machine shops -- it turns out that a 5 ton cast iron lathe bed doesn't wear out very fast.) Imperial units were then and still are deeply embedded in American manufacturing.
Along came the 1970s, and along came a big push for metrification. Schoolchildren were taught the metric system was the Best System Ever, while their parents told them the that metric was foreign nonsense and was stealing American jobs. The Pentagon actually tried to lead the way across the country, and fully adopted the metric system in order to interoperate with NATO forces. But the rest of the US manufacturers who were not producing mil-spec parts continued to crank out Imperial based products. Why? Because conversion isn't easy or cheap. Even if they could replace the lead screw in their lathes to move a metric-friendly 1 cm for every four turns of the shaft so they could make metric parts, they still needed Imperial capabilities to make replacement parts for old machinery. That would have meant needing two lathes, two micrometers, two calipers, and two sets of tools, all increasing the cost of conversion. It also would have meant extra inventories of all kinds of materials: 50cm tubing next to 2" tubing, etc. This was at a time when machine shops across America were shutting down as production was shipped overseas to Asia, so increasing their capital investment was simply not possible. So Imperial measurements remained.
Ironically, many of the American machine shops that managed to survive globalization did so by entering the CNC age. My old shop retrofitted their old change gear boxes with servomotor based systems. And CNC equipment can work on either metric or Imperial measurements with the flick of a configuration setting. Now that the survivors have modernized, it might be time to try again.
The benefit is standardization (Score:2)
Celsius merely replaces one set of 'arbitrary' reference points with another...
No, what it does is get (almost) everyone in the world using a single consistent measurement system so that we can communicate effectively and save a lot of money by not having to maintain extra unnecessary tools and instruments and documentation and conversion charts. It means I can go anywhere in the world (except the US) and know what temperature is being referred to without doing math.
Aside from that, it's what people grew up & are comfortable with.
No. The main benefit is that 95% of the world uses it. The fact that you grew up with something else does not make it
The USA are wrong (Score:3)
Last I checked, the US do not represent a majority of the world's population (the other two countries who do not use SI do not alter this significantly and are essentially irrelevant in industrial terms). Therefore, a majority of the world's population uses SI units (and thus degrees Celsius and Kelvin).
Your reluctance to accept SI is baffling, moronic even.
Re: (Score:2)
If we follow your logical argument, the majority of the world should use US Dollars instead of their own money units. We should also stop with these other languages that only a small fraction of the worlds people speak.
For Temperature, Fahrenheit is better suited for temperatures that people live in. Celsius, is fine for all scienti
Re: (Score:2)
Re:60 degrees F and 710,000 cubic metres. Idiots. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh just wait until you come to Canada, neighboring the US especially in Southern Ontario or Alberta you have: Meat, veggies, fruit and bulk goods weighed in, grams and lbs. Lumber by the ft, and meter, road signs in various spots in mph and km/h. Liquid in containers, in fl oz, quart and ml, or liters. And to top it all off you get screwed over when buying gasoline.
Then again, you could go to the UK and get baffled by stones.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. What's the meaning of Stonehenge?!
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest even stones are dying out in the UK. I was bought up on them but if you make use of the NHS at all then you'll be given weights in kg, and you'll be told your weight in kg. The change is working well, I don't even know what I weigh in stones now even though I used to only know that. I do know what I weigh in kg though.
As long as they don't get rid of the pint then we're all good.
Re: (Score:3)
Common sense I do have.
Obviously. You have so much of it, that you can completely disregard obvious facts. That must be convenient.
WTF does this have to do with the original article?
It has a lot to do with the original article, which is unfortunately somewhat off track. The subject tackled are the important investments to ensure proper conditions for the winter competition. Sadly the article and the title used by slashdot are missleading, as they suggest these investements are made to transform a sub-tropical climate into a winter paradise. What so many people fail to understand
Re: (Score:2)
Have you a better source than the daily mail for that one?
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds very much like Stalin-style mass industrialism where massive resources are thrown at something to accomplish it. Usually it's done regardless of cost and almost seems to be done to demonstrate ability and capability more than the intrinsic value of what's being done.
You mean sounds like the space program?