Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> A cm is about right. You need something about a foot, tho. Otherwise you 
> get things like "he was 197 cm tall".

  As andrel pointed out, measuring those ranges is less intuitive using
feet and inches because a foot is not a handy multiple of an inch.

  With metric it's at least easy to use either measure with ease: 1.97
meters or 197 centimeters. No crazy factors.

  Colloquially, at least in Finnish, it's usual to say, literally translated,
"meter ninentyseven" (possibly adding "cents" at the end) when eg. talking
about people's height.

> It's feet and miles

  That would be ok if a mile was an easy multiple of a foot.

> Kilograms are too heavy and grams are too light.

  Too heavy and light for what? It's very common to buy eg. "400 grams of
meat", etc.

> Liters are too big and centiliters are too small.

  For what? And in cooking a deciliter is a very common measure.

> Basically, the factor of 1000 in common units 
> is the problem. :-)

  There are 10 millimeters in a centimeter, and 100 centimeter in a meter,
and 10 deciliters in a liter. What 1000?

> > And having numbers that often go over 100 for everyday 
> > temperatures doesn't seem too convenient.

> Having numbers that go below zero for everyday temperatures seems less 
> convenient.

  I think you are artificially stretching here. Negative Celsius
temperatures are an extremely intuitive and easy to understand measurement.
Heck, usually just knowing the sign of the temperature is enough to know
what you should wear (at least in context), even if that's the only thing
you get to know.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message