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