From: Scott M on 20 Jul 2010 05:46 NKTB wrote: > How long can we go on having a hybrid, half-arsed system of distance > measurement? For certain measurements the unit is pretty irrelevent. Does it matter whether it's 62 miles from A to B or 100km from A to B? You don't "use" a mile or a kilometer (they're too big), it's just an indication of an arbitrary number. So why is a mile any more-or-less arsed than anything else? Unless one has a vested interest in sign making, why would anyone in their right mind suggest a change? Anyway, in the real world, the imperial system is far more use than metric. A pint of this, a pound of that, a foot of something are all easily quantifiable amounts that you'd use day to day. Whereas a ml, a g & a mm of things are too small and a litre, kg or metre of something is too big. -- Scott Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
From: Adrian on 20 Jul 2010 05:46 Scott M <no_one(a)no_where.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Anyway, in the real world, the imperial system is far more use than > metric. A pint of this, a pound of that, a foot of something are all > easily quantifiable amounts that you'd use day to day. Whereas a ml, a g > & a mm of things are too small and a litre, kg or metre of something is > too big. Purely because they're what you're used to.
From: Mortimer on 20 Jul 2010 06:01 "Derek C" <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:0f3a7253-dde5-43ba-9412-58940244cc6f(a)f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, NKTB <north_korean_tourist_bo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> How long can we go on having a hybrid, half-arsed system of distance >> measurement? At least the yanks have kept all the other imperial >> measures. I'm thinking that KPH is a just a change too far. I wish we'd get the change over and done with, and stop teaching people about imperial units as anything other than quaint "folk" units which are to all intents and purposes obsolete. The Yanks seem to be obsessed with imperial units, even for scientific and engineering purposes. I was surprised to see a recently-published scientific paper only 10 years ago which quoted masses in "slugs", forces in "poundals" and distances in convoluted fractions of an inch (7/128" etc) rather than in thousandths of an inch which is how most imperial micrometers are calibrated. > The Yanks have smaller gallons than the Brits by a factor of about 20%. > Hence their huge gas-guzzling SUVs can do even fewer miles to the gallon! The US gallon is not even *exactly* 4/5 of the UK one. It's very close, but there aren't exactly 16 (instead of 20) fluid ounces in a US gallon. When I was in America I got talking to someone about cars and fuel prices, and how diesel-engine cars are a *lot* more common in the UK than in America because of our much higher fuel prices. When I said that I routinely got 50 mpg out of my Peugeot, he went *very* green with envy. Then I realized that I'd forgotten about the UK/US difference in the meaning of the word "gallon". Even translated to 40 mpg (US), he was still very jealous: his gas-guzzling TV-engine Dodge did about 15 mpg (US). Smug? Well, I was far to polite to let it show!
From: The Peeler on 20 Jul 2010 06:33 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:01:23 +0100, "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >"Derek C" <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message >news:0f3a7253-dde5-43ba-9412-58940244cc6f(a)f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, NKTB <north_korean_tourist_bo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> How long can we go on having a hybrid, half-arsed system of distance >>> measurement? At least the yanks have kept all the other imperial >>> measures. I'm thinking that KPH is a just a change too far. > >I wish we'd get the change over and done with, and stop teaching people >about imperial units as anything other than quaint "folk" units which are to >all intents and purposes obsolete. ....but intuitively meaningful. In contrast to metric units. >The Yanks seem to be obsessed with imperial units, even for scientific and >engineering purposes. I was surprised to see a recently-published scientific >paper only 10 years ago which quoted masses in "slugs", forces in "poundals" >and distances in convoluted fractions of an inch (7/128" etc) rather than in >thousandths of an inch which is how most imperial micrometers are >calibrated. However, metric is quite common in the medical industry in the US. >> The Yanks have smaller gallons than the Brits by a factor of about 20%. >> Hence their huge gas-guzzling SUVs can do even fewer miles to the gallon! > >The US gallon is not even *exactly* 4/5 of the UK one. It's very close, but >there aren't exactly 16 (instead of 20) fluid ounces in a US gallon. > >When I was in America I got talking to someone about cars and fuel prices, >and how diesel-engine cars are a *lot* more common in the UK than in America >because of our much higher fuel prices. When I said that I routinely got 50 >mpg out of my Peugeot, he went *very* green with envy. Then I realized that >I'd forgotten about the UK/US difference in the meaning of the word >"gallon". Even translated to 40 mpg (US), he was still very jealous: his >gas-guzzling TV-engine Dodge did about 15 mpg (US). Smug? Well, I was far to >polite to let it show! When petrol costs $2.57 per US gallon (equivalent to some 46p per litre), who really needs to be obsessed about fuel economy?
From: AnthonyL on 20 Jul 2010 07:28
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:01:23 -0700 (PDT), NKTB <north_korean_tourist_board(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 19 July, 14:37, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> NKTB <north_korean_tourist_bo...(a)yahoo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >> like they were saying: >> > >> <shrug> Does it matter? Really? > >Probably not to us, but kids who learn distances in Km are going to >get confused. As they grow up I guess there will be an increasing >demand to change > It's a good job they never had to deal with � s d then, with florins, bobs, thrupenny bits, farthings, guineas and half-crowns. And pounds, ounces, stones, cwt. Poor kids, lost without their calculators. -- AnthonyL |