On 21 May 2008 19:04:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>
>Is that weigh a pound, or cost a pound? ;-)

You would not believe the cost of water here, if you buy it in a
bottle. Not funny :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:02:15 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>And given how much longer Imperial measure has been around compared to 
>Metric, I'd argue that it's the Europeans trying to abandon the 
>Brits/Americans.

Yup, I think that it was that Napoleon chappie. What done it :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> You would not believe the cost of water here, if you buy it in a
> bottle. Not funny :(

Did you know, "Evian" spelled backwards is "naive"?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 21 May 2008 18:02:31 +0100, Eero Ahonen  
<aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>>  Still amusing that a bi(mi)llion is officially a thousand million,  
>> linguists of the future are going to have so much fun with this.
>
> In Finnish they are miljardi (1000 million) and biljoona (million  
> million) to add some confusement :).

We did have milliard for 1e9 from the same French root until we took on  
the US system.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> 
>> You would not believe the cost of water here, if you buy it in a
>> bottle. Not funny :(
> 
> Did you know, "Evian" spelled backwards is "naive"?
> 

Complete with the diaresis above the i, too.
Evïan <--> naïvE

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 22 May 2008 13:48:11 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On 21 May 2008 19:04:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is that weigh a pound, or cost a pound? ;-)
>
> You would not believe the cost of water here, if you buy it in a
> bottle. Not funny :(

Heh had a company selling the bottled water call up. "Pfft what's the  
point in bottled water? We just tap water with a filter" I told him. "Yeah  
to be honest that's what I've got, the stuff you get out of the tap's just  
as good"

Weird I just seem to bring out the honesty in people :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 21 May 2008 20:47:41 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:35:25 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> A million is a thousand times a thousand.
>>> A billion is a million times a million.
>>
>> You still stopped before "trillion". What's a trillion in the UK, then?
>
> So I did; a trillion is a million times a billion. Sorry see

or a tri-(mi)-llion

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 21 May 2008 20:44:56 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake, saying:

> Stephen wrote:
>
>> BTW a myriad is ten thousand .
>
> I'm told that in Old English or something, "severn" actually means  
> "infinity". Or something like that.

No it's a river just over there [points] ;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 21 May 2008 23:03:17 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On 21 May 2008 17:29:47 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> We spell litre, l-i-t-r-e and metre m-e-t-r-e unless it is a gas meter
> then we spell it m-e-t-e-r. And that goes to the centre of the
> argument :P

That's so we can have a meter that measures in metres and not get  
ourselves confused.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
...
> Mils are only used in measuring things like the thickness of paper or 
> cloth;
...

It is also used when designing printed circuit boards.

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:48:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 21 May 2008 19:04:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Is that weigh a pound, or cost a pound? ;-)
> 
> You would not believe the cost of water here, if you buy it in a bottle.
> Not funny :(

I bet I would.....bottled water here isn't exactly cheap either....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I can't even begin to imagine how consistency can be less convenient
> in any case.

As I said, it's because the units chosen are not of a scale that is 
convenient for every-day use, and because 10 isn't really divisible by 
many numbers.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:56:42 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> You would not believe the cost of water here, if you buy it in a
>> bottle. Not funny :(
>
>Did you know, "Evian" spelled backwards is "naive"?

I only know that "Evian" spelt "Evian" is pure chance AFAIC :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:21:58 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
>Weird I just seem to bring out the honesty in people :-P

Oh! What I didn't write :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:40:07 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
>That's so we can have a meter that measures in metres and not get  
>ourselves confused.

I've worked on meters that measured cubic metres. The spelling saves
confusion as you say.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> As I said, it's because the units chosen are not of a scale that is 
> convenient for every-day use, 

... which is probably why US telephone companies measure wire length in 
"kilofeet".

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 May 2008 11:28:51 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>Darren New wrote:
>> As I said, it's because the units chosen are not of a scale that is 
>> convenient for every-day use, 
>
>... which is probably why US telephone companies measure wire length in 
>"kilofeet".

In the drilling industry tension is measured in kips - 1,000
pounds-force
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> As I said, it's because the units chosen are not of a scale that is 
> convenient for every-day use,

Like what? mm, cm, m and km pretty much cover most things in terms of 
distance.  And having numbers that often go over 100 for everyday 
temperatures doesn't seem too convenient.

> and because 10 isn't really divisible by many numbers.

But everyone knows how to divide by 10, which I think is more useful.

It also makes physics equations easier, with no ugly scale factors.  Once I 
had the misfortune to come across a text book using American units, I nearly 
died looking at all those simple equations with horrendous scaling factors 
and units.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:40:07 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> 
>> That's so we can have a meter that measures in metres and not get  
>> ourselves confused.
> 
> I've worked on meters that measured cubic metres. The spelling saves
> confusion as you say.

We don't have that distinction. That is one of the reasons that I try to 
convince people that the scales they use to measure their weight should 
be called kilometers. Up till now with very minor success.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Like what? mm, cm, m and km pretty much cover most things in terms of 
> distance.

A cm is about right. You need something about a foot, tho. Otherwise you 
get things like "he was 197 cm tall". Note that people really rarely use 
"yards" as a measure here. It's feet and miles, unless you're measuring 
something that's particularly sold by the yard, like cloth.

Kilograms are too heavy and grams are too light. Liters are too big and 
centiliters are too small. Basically, the factor of 1000 in common units 
is the problem. :-)

> 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.

>> and because 10 isn't really divisible by many numbers.
> But everyone knows how to divide by 10, which I think is more useful.

Not if you're constructing something. Then you want to be able to take a 
third of it, for example. Using a duodecimal number system probably 
would have been a better idea.

And powers of 10 work almost as poorly as powers of 12 for computers. ;-)

> It also makes physics equations easier, with no ugly scale factors.  

No question it works better in science than everyday life. And certainly 
my opinions carry no weight beyond my own opinion.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Like what? mm, cm, m and km pretty much cover most things in terms of 
>> distance.
> 
> A cm is about right. You need something about a foot, tho. Otherwise you 
> get things like "he was 197 cm tall". 

Yesss? your point being? FYI I do say that and find 6 feet 2 a 
completely ridiculous way of measuring. There is a difference between 
convenience and convention, I guess.

> Note that people really rarely use 
> "yards" as a measure here. It's feet and miles, unless you're measuring 
> something that's particularly sold by the yard, like cloth.
> 
> Kilograms are too heavy and grams are too light. 
Indeed and why have a basic unit and define 1000 times that as a standard?

> Liters are too big and 
> centiliters are too small. Basically, the factor of 1000 in common units 
> is the problem. :-)
> 
>> And having numbers that often go over 100 for everyday temperatures 
>> doesn't seem too convenient.
never had that, thank goodness.
> 
> Having numbers that go below zero for everyday temperatures seems less 
> convenient.
Also because it feels very different, i.e. cold.

> 
>>> and because 10 isn't really divisible by many numbers.
>> But everyone knows how to divide by 10, which I think is more useful.
> 
> Not if you're constructing something. Then you want to be able to take a 
> third of it, for example. Using a duodecimal number system probably 
> would have been a better idea.
> 
> And powers of 10 work almost as poorly as powers of 12 for computers. ;-)
> 
>> It also makes physics equations easier, with no ugly scale factors.  
> 
> No question it works better in science than everyday life. 
Theoretical physics being even better with c=1 and epsilon and mu also.

Post a reply to this message

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

Warp wrote:
>   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.

Actually, it's a *handy* multiple, arguably moreso than decimal. Just 
not trivial to translate between because it's not decimal. :-)

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

True. Of course, everyone using imperial measures already knows how many 
inches are in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 feet, just like we both know how 
many seconds are in an hour without sitting to calculate it out. :-)

>   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.

I guess if you use abbreviations like this it becomes easier.

>> It's feet and miles
>   That would be ok if a mile was an easy multiple of a foot.

But you almost never mix feet and miles in a description, so the number 
of times you convert is small. You're either working in miles (or 
fractions thereof, like "go half a mile and turn left"), or in feet 
(like "give me seven feet of rope").

(Altho I'm often amused that odometers measure in tenths of a mile, 
constructions signs say "Lane closed 1000 feet ahead", and exit signs 
say "Exit 23 in 1/2 mile". They really should make up their minds.)

>> 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.

I guess if you're used to that, it doesn't seem inconvenient. I'd rather 
specify four of something than 400.

Or, to phrase it a different way... You have too many significant 
figures there. :-)

>> Liters are too big and centiliters are too small.
>   For what? And in cooking a deciliter is a very common measure.

But it's four syllables long. :-)

>> 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?

Grams to kilograms, for example.

Hey, I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying *I* find it inconvenient 
most of the time I'm in places that use metric. I'm just trying to 
explain stuff that might make someone resist using metric, as someone 
raised on imperial measurements who has spent months in countries where 
they use metric, is all.

>>> 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.

I was trying to make the point that I think complaining that 
temperatures go over 100 is kind of as artificial as complaining that 
they go below zero. :-)

> Negative Celsius
> temperatures are an extremely intuitive and easy to understand measurement.

I guess it's what you're used to. People used to metric find converting 
between units is annoying. People used to imperial measurements find 
having insufficient different measures annoying. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Like what? mm, cm, m and km pretty much cover most things in terms of 
>> distance.
> 
> A cm is about right. You need something about a foot, tho. Otherwise you 
> get things like "he was 197 cm tall". Note that people really rarely use 
> "yards" as a measure here. It's feet and miles, unless you're measuring 
> something that's particularly sold by the yard, like cloth.

I think this is an opinion-question, but IMO cm/m is pretty easy and 
logical measurement for people. 197cm tells you that he's 3cm shorter 
than a normal door, so he won't hit his head.

> Kilograms are too heavy and grams are too light. Liters are too big and 
> centiliters are too small. Basically, the factor of 1000 in common units 
> is the problem. :-)

One packet of sugar weights one kg. One liter of milk weight nearly one 
kg. 1-10 kg's are pretty normal weights in everyday life, so how is it 
too heavy? It also tells you immediality that a car weights ie. the same 
that 1510 packets of sugar (no wonder it needs some energy to get the 
darn thing moving).

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

In below zero (C) temperatures air is dry and most of the normally-wet 
places are freaking slippery. Practically I find it very useful 
information in everyday life (the most important thing about outside 
temparature is that is it + or - in certain times of year).

> And powers of 10 work almost as poorly as powers of 12 for computers. ;-)

Well that's true :).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Liters are too big and centiliters are too small.
> >   For what? And in cooking a deciliter is a very common measure.

> But it's four syllables long. :-)

  In Finnish it's commonly abbreviated to "desi" in colloquial speech.

> >> 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?

> Grams to kilograms, for example.

  One example. More examples?

> Hey, I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying *I* find it inconvenient 
> most of the time I'm in places that use metric. I'm just trying to 
> explain stuff that might make someone resist using metric, as someone 
> raised on imperial measurements who has spent months in countries where 
> they use metric, is all.

  Resistance to change, that's what it is. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> A cm is about right. You need something about a foot, tho. Otherwise you 
> get things like "he was 197 cm tall". Note that people really rarely use 
> "yards" as a measure here. It's feet and miles, unless you're measuring 
> something that's particularly sold by the yard, like cloth.

But as soon as you need to do anything with those numbers (eg adding, 
dividing etc) it's much easier to use 197 cm than 6 foot 5 (or whatever).

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

No, it's obvious that 0 is "freezing", below that is where stuff is frozen 
and outside looks white, above that stuff melts.  In normal life "stuff" is 
water, so having 0 as the freezing point of water seems to make perfect 
sense.

> Not if you're constructing something. Then you want to be able to take a 
> third of it, for example.

And what if you need more accuracy than 1 inch (which is required in most 
household items), do you say 5 foot 10 point 7 or what?  What if you need 5 
foot 3 point 85 divided into 2?  Dividing 158.3 cm into 2 is much easier.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> And what if you need more accuracy than 1 inch (which is required in most 
> household items)

  I have been thinking about that myself. It's not uncommon at all to
measure things in millimeters. A millimeter is a measure which can still
be easily measured with a ruler and it can be very useful in everyday life.
For example if something has to be 7mm apart from something else, you can
easily express and measure that.

  However, what are inches divided into? How would you express 7mm in
inches?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:45:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>
>We don't have that distinction. That is one of the reasons that I try to 
>convince people that the scales they use to measure their weight should 
>be called kilometers. Up till now with very minor success.

I'm not surprised using length to measure mass, or am I missing
something?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:45:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> We don't have that distinction. That is one of the reasons that I try to 
>> convince people that the scales they use to measure their weight should 
>> be called kilometers. Up till now with very minor success.
> 
> I'm not surprised using length to measure mass, or am I missing
> something?
You might. Probably my mistake, I should also have mentioned that we 
almost always abbreviate kilogram to kilo.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:36:07 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>You might. Probably my mistake, I should also have mentioned that we 
>almost always abbreviate kilogram to kilo.

As do we in the UK
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24 May 2008 05:09:04 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  However, what are inches divided into? How would you express 7mm in
>inches?

Inches are divided into halves, quarters, eights, sixteenths and
thirtyseconds (1/32). We use thous (1/1000) in engineering. OK the
metric system is more logical but the imperial system is more
intuitive if you have taken the trouble to learn it so that you can
work in it without thinking. I use both. It is similar to using
fractions and decimals. You can also have fun with vulgar fractions
such as: the length is one and nine eights. ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:36:07 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> You might. Probably my mistake, I should also have mentioned that we 
>> almost always abbreviate kilogram to kilo.
> 
> As do we in the UK
So, how would you call a device to measure kilos?

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 24 May 2008 05:09:04 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 
>>  However, what are inches divided into? How would you express 7mm in
>> inches?
> 
> Inches are divided into halves, quarters, eights, sixteenths and
> thirtyseconds (1/32). We use thous (1/1000) in engineering. OK the
> metric system is more logical but the imperial system is more
> intuitive if you have taken the trouble to learn it so that you can
> work in it without thinking. 
I think the point is that warp and me and everybody else raised in 
metric disagrees. The metric system is just as intuitive and more logical.
> I use both. It is similar to using
> fractions and decimals. You can also have fun with vulgar fractions
> such as: the length is one and nine eights. ;)
a tiny bit more than 1/3 meter?

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 24 May 2008 05:09:04 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> >  However, what are inches divided into? How would you express 7mm in
> >inches?

> Inches are divided into halves, quarters, eights, sixteenths and
> thirtyseconds (1/32).

  So how exactly do you express 7/10 inches? (Compare to 7mm being 7/10 cm.)
How do you measure that with a ruler?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Resistance to change, that's what it is. ;)

Could be that too, of course. Why learn something new when the old is 
just as good (or at least good enough).

Another more-convenient: acres.  About 200 feet on a side, a small house 
will have one-eighth acre of land.  A nice 3 bedroom job in an old 
spacious neighborhood will have half an acre.  A big mansion will be on 
  2 to 5 acres. A family farm would cover 100 to 200 acres, and a family 
ranch like 600 to 800 acres.  Just right for a nice range of measurements.

We still do floorplan sizes for houses in square feet, tho, so you wind 
up with 900 sq ft being a tiny house, 2000 being a 
comfortable-for-Americans size, 8000 being a big mansionish house. I 
think square meters would do better there, taking out one of the 
"useless" zeros in there.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> I think this is an opinion-question, 

Agreed. I'm not trying to get you to agree with my opinion. :-) I'm just 
expressing it.

> but IMO cm/m is pretty easy and 
> logical measurement for people. 197cm tells you that he's 3cm shorter 
> than a normal door, so he won't hit his head.

Doors here are, I think, seven feet, so that's even easier. :-)

And we say "He's five nine", and everyone knows that means "five feet 
nine inches tall".

> In below zero (C) temperatures air is dry and most of the normally-wet 
> places are freaking slippery. Practically I find it very useful 
> information in everyday life (the most important thing about outside 
> temparature is that is it + or - in certain times of year).

I think you, like Warp, are used to much colder weather. I want to know 
whether it's t-shirt, long sleeve, or sweater weather. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> But as soon as you need to do anything with those numbers (eg adding, 
> dividing etc) it's much easier to use 197 cm than 6 foot 5 (or whatever).

Certainly if you're doing math, you convert everything to one unit of 
measurement.

>> Having numbers that go below zero for everyday temperatures seems less 
>> convenient.
> 
> No, it's obvious that 0 is "freezing", 

Ehn. I think zero being "way colder than you want to be outside in" and 
100 being "somewhat hotter than you want to be outside in" is more 
convenient. Having to wear different clothes based on it being 32 vs 35 
degrees doesn't seem right on this side of the pond. YMMV, of course.

>> Not if you're constructing something. Then you want to be able to take 
>> a third of it, for example.
> 
> And what if you need more accuracy than 1 inch (which is required in 
> most household items), do you say 5 foot 10 point 7 or what?

Nah. You say "a hundred ninety seven point three inches".  Or, more 
likely, "a hundred ninety seven and a quarter". If you need even better 
than that, you're probably doing science and should be using metric 
anyway. ;-)

Screws here go down to 1/32nd or 1/64th of an inch, rather than a 
milimeter. It is kind of annoying that they reduce the fractions, tho. 
Going "3 32nds is too small, 5 32nds is too big..." and having to do the 
mental math to figure out what 4 32nds is does make me pause sometimes. 
I suppose if I did it more than a few times a year, I'd internalize it 
just like I know 4 feet is 48 inches without thinking.

> What if 
> you need 5 foot 3 point 85 divided into 2?  Dividing 158.3 cm into 2 is 
> much easier.

You'd cast everything to inches. That's how construction work is done. 
Studs are 16 inches apart, for example. I went to the store and bought 
20-inch hoses to connect wall to sink.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   So how exactly do you express 7/10 inches? (Compare to 7mm being 7/10 cm.)
> How do you measure that with a ruler?

You don't do it that way. You measure in quarters and eighths.

You don't measure 7/10ths of an inch here any more than you measure a 
sixteenth of a meter where you are.

All the rulers are marked in half-inch, quarter-inch, eight-inch, etc.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_65/11497665910bMuRS.jpg

Now, sure, if you're doing science or engineering or something where you 
need to express 7/10th of an inch for some reason, then you express it 
as 7/10th of an inch. But at that point you're not likely using a ruler 
to measure it.

(Weren't the original DIP IC packages using 1/10th inch spacing between 
pins? Was that the same in Europe?)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 May 2008 17:26:36 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:36:07 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> You might. Probably my mistake, I should also have mentioned that we 
>>> almost always abbreviate kilogram to kilo.
>> 
>> As do we in the UK
>So, how would you call a device to measure kilos?

Scales, kitchen scales for up to 1.5 kilos, bathroom scales for
people. Vehicles are weighed on a weighbridge. Sometime scales are
called a balance if they are very accurate.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 May 2008 17:43:53 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On 24 May 2008 05:09:04 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> 
>>>  However, what are inches divided into? How would you express 7mm in
>>> inches?
>> 
>> Inches are divided into halves, quarters, eights, sixteenths and
>> thirtyseconds (1/32). We use thous (1/1000) in engineering. OK the
>> metric system is more logical but the imperial system is more
>> intuitive if you have taken the trouble to learn it so that you can
>> work in it without thinking. 
>I think the point is that warp and me and everybody else raised in 
>metric disagrees. The metric system is just as intuitive and more logical.

Darren and I understand that but we both work in both systems and feel
that the imperial system is more homely (British usage not American
usage)

>> I use both. It is similar to using
>> fractions and decimals. You can also have fun with vulgar fractions
>> such as: the length is one and nine eights. ;)
>a tiny bit more than 1/3 meter?

It would be 53.975 millimetres as only inches are talked about in
eights. If it were feet we would say 2 ft one and a half (inches are
understood). 
The joke is that nine eights is a vulgar fraction and should not be
used in polite society.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24 May 2008 12:03:06 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 24 May 2008 05:09:04 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> >  However, what are inches divided into? How would you express 7mm in
>> >inches?
>
>> Inches are divided into halves, quarters, eights, sixteenths and
>> thirtyseconds (1/32).
>
>  So how exactly do you express 7/10 inches? (Compare to 7mm being 7/10 cm.)
>How do you measure that with a ruler?

Sorry I forgot to mention in that last post that our rulers have
eighths and sixteenths on one side, tenths on the other and metric on
the reverse. So we would say seven tenths. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 May 2008 10:03:16 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>
>You don't measure 7/10ths of an inch here any more than you measure a 
>sixteenth of a meter where you are.
>
>All the rulers are marked in half-inch, quarter-inch, eight-inch, etc.

I did not mean to contradict you Darren.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 17:26:36 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:36:07 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You might. Probably my mistake, I should also have mentioned that we 
>>>> almost always abbreviate kilogram to kilo.
>>> As do we in the UK
>> So, how would you call a device to measure kilos?
> 
> Scales, kitchen scales for up to 1.5 kilos, bathroom scales for
> people. Vehicles are weighed on a weighbridge. Sometime scales are
> called a balance if they are very accurate.

Well, IMHO they should be called kilometers. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Sorry I forgot to mention in that last post that our rulers have
> eighths and sixteenths on one side, tenths on the other and metric on
> the reverse. 

I never saw one that was that complex, except an architectural ruler. 
Maybe I don't do the sort of work that sort of ruler helps with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect's_scale

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:41:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:45:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>We don't have that distinction. That is one of the reasons that I try to
>>convince people that the scales they use to measure their weight should
>>be called kilometers. Up till now with very minor success.
> 
> I'm not surprised using length to measure mass, or am I missing
> something?

Kilo = abbreviation of kilogram (as Andrel said), but the funnier part is 
if you read "meter" not as a distance, but rather a device for measuring 
something (think water meter or gas meter).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Doors here are, I think, seven feet, so that's even easier. :-)

Yess, the "easy" -part comes from the usage of same units on same-kind 
scales in this matter. It's when the measures come overseas - then the 
distraction happens.

> And we say "He's five nine", and everyone knows that means "five feet 
> nine inches tall".

And by quick thinking I have absolutely no idea if 5'9" is long, normal 
or short person.

> I think you, like Warp, are used to much colder weather. 

Probably yes ;).

> I want to know 
> whether it's t-shirt, long sleeve, or sweater weather. :-)

If it's <0, it's pretty much no-t-shirt -weather ;).

But actually for knowing that you don't want to know the temperature, 
you'll want to know the wind index (which is what the air feels like and 
is calculated from temperature and wind speed). +15C is warm for 
t-shirt, if the sun shines and there's no wind, +20C is freaking cold, 
if the sun doesn't shine on you and there's one hell of a wind.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:41:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:45:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We don't have that distinction. That is one of the reasons that I try to
>>> convince people that the scales they use to measure their weight should
>>> be called kilometers. Up till now with very minor success.
>> I'm not surprised using length to measure mass, or am I missing
>> something?
> 
> Kilo = abbreviation of kilogram (as Andrel said), but the funnier part is 
> if you read "meter" not as a distance, but rather a device for measuring 
> something (think water meter or gas meter).
> 

I still am not sure if Stephen really did not understand that, that he 
pretended not to, or that it was just a very bad joke.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 17:43:53 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On 24 May 2008 05:09:04 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  However, what are inches divided into? How would you express 7mm in
>>>> inches?
>>> Inches are divided into halves, quarters, eights, sixteenths and
>>> thirtyseconds (1/32). We use thous (1/1000) in engineering. OK the
>>> metric system is more logical but the imperial system is more
>>> intuitive if you have taken the trouble to learn it so that you can
>>> work in it without thinking. 
>> I think the point is that warp and me and everybody else raised in 
>> metric disagrees. The metric system is just as intuitive and more logical.
> 
> Darren and I understand that but we both work in both systems and feel
> that the imperial system is more homely (British usage not American
> usage)
> 
>>> I use both. It is similar to using
>>> fractions and decimals. You can also have fun with vulgar fractions
>>> such as: the length is one and nine eights. ;)
>> a tiny bit more than 1/3 meter?
> 
> It would be 53.975 millimetres as only inches are talked about in
> eights. If it were feet we would say 2 ft one and a half (inches are
> understood). 

My interpretation was that analogous to a height of "five four' the 
"one" referred to feet and the "nine eights" was in inches.

> The joke is that nine eights is a vulgar fraction and should not be
> used in polite society.

I am afraid I got that one. BTW I had never seen the expression vulgar 
fraction before. If I look at wikipedia I would assume from the context 
that improper fraction may be what you intended.

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> > I want to know 
> > whether it's t-shirt, long sleeve, or sweater weather. :-)

> If it's <0, it's pretty much no-t-shirt -weather ;).

  Except in northern Finland.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>>> I want to know 
>>> whether it's t-shirt, long sleeve, or sweater weather. :-)
> 
>> If it's <0, it's pretty much no-t-shirt -weather ;).
> 
>   Except in northern Finland.
> 
I assume that this is a joke along the lines of:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~simona/temperaturi.html

Post a reply to this message