What would you change?

> A computer is a
>binary machine. One of the problems with metric on
>computers is that metric is base 10. However, english
>units are a base 2 system (you define something as 1/2
>inch, 3/8 inch, 1/64, etc). This makes doing english
>unit operations not only quicker on a computer, but
>more accurate.
>

That's a rather silly argument - I don't think the accuracy of
floating-point arithmetic on a computer is anywhere near limiting the
accuracy of anybody's measurements. The most important point about
metric is the consistency in human display and interaction which limits
errors. For example, can you easily enter the number 23 11/16 in a
spreadsheet so it is recognized as a number? How easy is it to make a
mistake there? The unit prefixes help a great deal, where in "english"
units you have to have a different name for each different size scale
(and they went rather overboard on liquid measurement scales...) - What
is the "english" equivalent of a nanometer anyway? The other big thing
about metric is world-wide and domain-independent consistency - that's
never been there with "english" units where a pound of gold is lighter
than a pound of feathers, or a US gallon of gasoline heavier than a
British one (if I remember correctly). This is even more important for
space applications that tend to be international, and also tend to do
things in domains that don't exist on Earth - the confusion over the
pound as a measure of weight vs. mass is just one of the symptoms (it's
weight, not mass...)

You can use "english" units if you like - but please don't try to impose
them on anybody else, and make sure you really carefully double-check
all those calculations, ok?

Arthur