 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I must say, having spent another couple weeks in Europe, metric
>> measurements for food and drink no longer seem awkward to me. :-)
>
> One week of physics class cured me of all distaste for the metric system.
I never disliked metric in the science classes. I actually have a better
feel for how much a kilogram weighs than a pounds, and a better feel for
centimeters than inches. (I even think of a "pound" as "somewhat less
than half a kilo", when I pick up a rock or something.)
It just seemed inconvenient for everyday things like food, where it's a
rough estimate rather than a precise measure. But that seems to have
been simply unfamiliarity.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback wrote:
> You know what I find odd is that lumber and plumbing pipe is still sold by
> inches and feet, (government projects get converted) but
> temp/rain/snowfall, highway signs, and liquid measure are metric. Is anyones
> system mixed like that?
Well, airplane stuff still uses feet everywhere (and english for ATC,
etc). Which is why the Mars probe crashed.
In China, apparently there's a "chinese foot" that's a third of a meter,
a "chinese inch" that's 2 cm, and a few other things like that. Metric
approximations to empirical units. Which I thought was pretty funky.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Not to mention people's weight and height (but not clothing
> measurements, oddly enough).
Oh, tell me about clothing in the USA. Where women's sizes get larger
and larger for the same number. My wife has gone from a 6 to a 4 to a 2,
just by *not* getting fat. :-)
> Until recently most food was sold in
> imperial units. AFAIK wood is still sold as "two-be-four". ;-)
And where it's sold in metric units, I understand, it's sold in lengths
of (for example) 120 cm, rather than a meter, because you can't cut a
meter in thirds.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier escreveu:
> Invisible a écrit :
>>
>> I know I'm 6'2" tall (to the nearest 1/16"), but I have no idea what
>> that is in metric. (Very roughly 1.5m, AFAIK.)
>
> No that would be 1.88m. Your estimation is more like 5'2", maybe you
> computed that a few years ago ;-)
>
yeah, with 1.5 m he'd be kind of a midget. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There's one thing where imperial units beat the metric system, and it's
that their names *sound* better, at least in English.
For example an expression like "it went for miles and miles" sounds a
lot more fluent than "it went for kilometers and kilometers". (Or is it
"kilometres"? You see, there's even confusion in that...)
Likewise: "It missed me by mere inches" sounds more fluent than "it
missed me by mere centimeters".
Maybe this is simply because I have seen too many Hollywood movies.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Maybe this is simply because I have seen too many Hollywood movies.
Actually, that was part of the awkwardness I was talking about in my
first rant on the subject. :-)
Does anyone really say "klick" for kilometers? "Three klicks down the
road" I've read in fiction books, but never heard outside of that.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-Oct-08 19:59, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Not to mention people's weight and height (but not clothing
>> measurements, oddly enough).
>
> Oh, tell me about clothing in the USA. Where women's sizes get larger
> and larger for the same number. My wife has gone from a 6 to a 4 to a 2,
> just by *not* getting fat. :-)
>
>> Until recently most food was sold in imperial units. AFAIK wood is
>> still sold as "two-be-four". ;-)
>
> And where it's sold in metric units, I understand, it's sold in lengths
> of (for example) 120 cm, rather than a meter, because you can't cut a
> meter in thirds.
>
My best estimate is that by cutting a meter in thirds would give three
pieces of about 33.2 cm. I might be missing the point, however.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 1.2 meter is just somewhat close to 4
feet. Although if I did not miss your point, you are going to argue that
you can't cut those in thirds either. OTOH you might end up with three
pieces of about 16 inches.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:54:07 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Holsenback wrote:
>
>> Is anyones system mixed like that?
>
> Yes.
I always found it weird in the UK that distances are in miles and mileage
seems to be in MPG (but imperial gallons), but the purchase of petrol is
by the litre.
That makes it *really* difficult to figure out fuel efficiency if you
don't have a computer to do that in your car.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Does anyone really say "klick" for kilometers? "Three klicks down the
> road" I've read in fiction books, but never heard outside of that.
Never heard.
In finnish the words kilometer and centimeter don't sound so awkward as
in English, perhaps because they are basically the only measures used.
(Also "centimeters" can usually be shortened to the equivalent of "cents",
and there's a shorter slang word for "kilometer", although it's not as
often used.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14 Oct 2008 14:57:39 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>I always found it weird in the UK that distances are in miles and mileage
>seems to be in MPG (but imperial gallons), but the purchase of petrol is
>by the litre.
You mean that imperial doesn't mean American? <g>
>That makes it *really* difficult to figure out fuel efficiency if you
>don't have a computer to do that in your car.
Only if you're innumerate :P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:37:00 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>Does anyone really say "klick" for kilometers? "Three klicks down the
>road" I've read in fiction books, but never heard outside of that.
In Australia I've heard people sat Kays as in 8 Kays down the road
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> My best estimate is that by cutting a meter in thirds would give three
> pieces of about 33.2 cm. I might be missing the point, however.
That 100 cm doesn't divide evenly by threes? And if you made something
in multiple of 40 cm, and you had 100cm boards, you'd be wasting large
amounts of wood?
Just saying what I read in an interview with carpenters in places they
use metric: They still use metric, but they don't buy wood in multiples
of meters, because you can't chop it into anything but halves and fifths.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> That makes it *really* difficult to figure out fuel efficiency if you
> don't have a computer to do that in your car.
Oh, my observation is that in the US, odometers (distance measures in
the dashboard) read in tenths of miles, permanent signs are in halves
and quarters of miles (as in, "next exit 2 1/2 miles") and temporary
signs are in thousands of feet (as in "road construction 2000 feet").
That *does* make it a bit difficult to figure out wtf is going on. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-Oct-08 21:17, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> My best estimate is that by cutting a meter in thirds would give three
>> pieces of about 33.2 cm. I might be missing the point, however.
>
> That 100 cm doesn't divide evenly by threes? And if you made something
> in multiple of 40 cm, and you had 100cm boards, you'd be wasting large
> amounts of wood?
Whereas if you made something in multiples of 32 you'd be wasting a lot
when using 120cm. So your point is that as soon as men defines a measure
only small integers and powers of 10 times that unit are allowed?
> Just saying what I read in an interview with carpenters in places they
> use metric: They still use metric, but they don't buy wood in multiples
> of meters, because you can't chop it into anything but halves and fifths.
IIRC we used to have doors of 2.05m, I think that is now upgraded to
2.15 or so to accommodate the ever growing Dutchman. I don't think that
supports your point. Anyway a good carpenter seldom measures what he is
making. If it has to fit somewhere you transfer that measure directly
without interference of converting it into numbers. Or where that the
carpenters of last generation?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:ggr9f4le7317k0dgv92kodesk2l4058iif@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:37:00 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>>
>>Does anyone really say "klick" for kilometers? "Three klicks down the
>>road" I've read in fiction books, but never heard outside of that.
>
> In Australia I've heard people sat Kays as in 8 Kays down the road
That's the usage here too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
48f4bc3f$1@news.povray.org...
>>> I know I'm 6'2" tall (to the nearest 1/16"), but I have no idea what
>>> that is in metric. (Very roughly 1.5m, AFAIK.)
>>
>> No that would be 1.88m. Your estimation is more like 5'2", maybe you
>> computed that a few years ago ;-)
>
> By "very roughly" I mean "it's nearer to 1.5m than it is to 6m or 1m". ;-)
1.88-1.5=0.38
That's more than 1 foot (0.30m) difference :-)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Whereas if you made something in multiples of 32 you'd be wasting a lot
> when using 120cm. So your point is that as soon as men defines a measure
> only small integers and powers of 10 times that unit are allowed?
Um, no. My point is that 12 has many more divisors than 10 does. Why
would you have multiples of 32 of something?
> I don't think that supports your point.
You seem to think it's I who is arguing with you. I'm just relating what
I read, in an interview with some carpenters. Whether you think it's
logical or not is your call.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-Oct-08 22:51, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Whereas if you made something in multiples of 32 you'd be wasting a
>> lot when using 120cm. So your point is that as soon as men defines a
>> measure only small integers and powers of 10 times that unit are allowed?
>
> Um, no. My point is that 12 has many more divisors than 10 does. Why
> would you have multiples of 32 of something?
why not? very dividable by powers of two.
>
>> I don't think that supports your point.
>
> You seem to think it's I who is arguing with you. I'm just relating what
> I read, in an interview with some carpenters.
I know. What made you think I didn't?
> Whether you think it's logical or not is your call.
indeed, and I think it is totally nonsense. It may be true for some
class of carpenters. Mainly for those with no relevant education and no
skills in carpentry. Either the lowest ranking on the job or the
manager. I'll probably see my uncle (who was a good carpenter) in two
weeks time and ask him what he thinks about it. I might change my mind
if he confirms.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Oh, my observation is that in the US, odometers (distance measures in
> the dashboard) read in tenths of miles, permanent signs are in halves
> and quarters of miles (as in, "next exit 2 1/2 miles") and temporary
> signs are in thousands of feet (as in "road construction 2000 feet").
What the FUCK
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The only things which are measured by imperial units here, for some
> reason, are display screen sizes (monitors, LCDs, plasma TVs...), ie. by
> inches. I guess this is true for most if not all of Europe.
I think that's true for the whole world actually...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:04:34 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2008 14:57:39 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>I always found it weird in the UK that distances are in miles and
>>mileage seems to be in MPG (but imperial gallons), but the purchase of
>>petrol is by the litre.
>
> You mean that imperial doesn't mean American? <g>
Your gallons are bigger than ours. That's how you manage 55 MPG in your
cars. ;-)
>>That makes it *really* difficult to figure out fuel efficiency if you
>>don't have a computer to do that in your car.
>
> Only if you're innumerate :P
You forget that America is the land of the innumerate. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:19:03 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That makes it *really* difficult to figure out fuel efficiency if you
>> don't have a computer to do that in your car.
>
> Oh, my observation is that in the US, odometers (distance measures in
> the dashboard) read in tenths of miles, permanent signs are in halves
> and quarters of miles (as in, "next exit 2 1/2 miles") and temporary
> signs are in thousands of feet (as in "road construction 2000 feet").
>
> That *does* make it a bit difficult to figure out wtf is going on. :-)
True, that it does.
In the UK, aren't speeds in KPH, but signs in miles? It's been a few
years, but I wanted to say that that was the other odd thing about
driving over there. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:37:00 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Does anyone really say "klick" for kilometers? "Three klicks down the
> road" I've read in fiction books, but never heard outside of that.
I think I've heard some folks in the military use that terminology.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> In the UK, aren't speeds in KPH, but signs in miles? It's been a few
> years, but I wanted to say that that was the other odd thing about
> driving over there. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
My understanding was that it's meant to be a temporary problem, not
lasting more than a generation. Imperial units usage was common there
until recently, and is still common when it comes to miles. The hope was
that the new generation will be more comfortable with km. No idea if
that's the case.
I believe (others can correct me if I'm wrong), almost all signs there
are in both miles and kilometers.
--
It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> There's one thing where imperial units beat the metric system, and it's
> that their names *sound* better, at least in English.
>
> For example an expression like "it went for miles and miles" sounds a
> lot more fluent than "it went for kilometers and kilometers". (Or is it
> "kilometres"? You see, there's even confusion in that...)
>
> Likewise: "It missed me by mere inches" sounds more fluent than "it
> missed me by mere centimeters".
>
> Maybe this is simply because I have seen too many Hollywood movies.
I suspect you answered the question.
I lived in a place that has been using the metric system for a long
time, and perhaps never used the Imperial system (at least not in modern
times). Phrases like you mentioned were common - in both English and the
local language. No one thought it awkward.
--
It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:13:05 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> Whether you think it's logical or not is your call.
>
>indeed, and I think it is totally nonsense. It may be true for some
>class of carpenters. Mainly for those with no relevant education and no
>skills in carpentry. Either the lowest ranking on the job or the
>manager.
That sounds a bit like snobbery to me.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2008 00:22:08 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Your gallons are bigger than ours. That's how you manage 55 MPG in your
>cars. ;-)
>
Not in my car I don't :)
>>>That makes it *really* difficult to figure out fuel efficiency if you
>>>don't have a computer to do that in your car.
>>
>> Only if you're innumerate :P
>
>You forget that America is the land of the innumerate. ;-)
The young here are not much better. But then I was brought up before calculators
were affordable. In fact they were not allowed in exams. Today's kids look
aghast if you offer the correct money in a shop. Sad!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:46:35 +0200, "Gail" <gail (at) sql in the wild (dot) co
[dot] za> wrote:
>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
>news:ggr9f4le7317k0dgv92kodesk2l4058iif@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:37:00 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Does anyone really say "klick" for kilometers? "Three klicks down the
>>>road" I've read in fiction books, but never heard outside of that.
>>
>> In Australia I've heard people sat Kays as in 8 Kays down the road
>
>That's the usage here too.
I thought that Klicks were a SF term for K/s
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It just seemed inconvenient for everyday things like food, where it's a
> rough estimate rather than a precise measure. But that seems to have been
> simply unfamiliarity.
It took me quite a long time (like over a year) to get really familiar with
speeds in km/hr. Now I definitely think in km/hr, especially since speeds
above 150 km/hr are rarely encountered in mph countries :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In the UK, aren't speeds in KPH, but signs in miles?
No both are in miles, but most cars sold in the UK have km/hr on the
dashboard too, incase you feel like taking your car over to a neighboring
country. Funnily enough, neighboring countries usually *only* have km/hr,
so if you decide to drive in the UK you have to work out the mph as you go
along :-)
Working out the MPG is hard yes, when I lived in the UK I used to write the
amount of litres and miles down each time I filled up. Every so often I
would take the list indoors and figure out the MPGs with a
computer/calculator. Working out the litres/100km fuel economy is much
simpler, and you can do it qutie accurately in your head whilst driving
without needing any conversion factors!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > In the UK, aren't speeds in KPH, but signs in miles?
>
> No both are in miles, but most cars sold in the UK have km/hr on the
> dashboard too, incase you feel like taking your car over to a neighboring
> country. Funnily enough, neighboring countries usually *only* have km/hr,
> so if you decide to drive in the UK you have to work out the mph as you go
> along :-)
>
> Working out the MPG is hard yes, when I lived in the UK I used to write the
> amount of litres and miles down each time I filled up. Every so often I
> would take the list indoors and figure out the MPGs with a
> computer/calculator. Working out the litres/100km fuel economy is much
> simpler, and you can do it qutie accurately in your head whilst driving
> without needing any conversion factors!
The conversion factor is about 4 ½
That is 1 m/l = 4.5 mpg, more accurately 4.546.
1 K/l = 2.82 mpg
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The conversion factor is about 4 ½
> That is 1 m/l = 4.5 mpg, more accurately 4.546.
> 1 K/l = 2.82 mpg
Yeh I guess it's just another conversion factor to remember, anyway, even
cheaper cars calculate the show the fuel economy in whatever unit you want
nowadays :-) For me, I just try to get as many kms as possible before
refilling, I think my record is 850km now!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > The conversion factor is about 4 ½
> > That is 1 m/l = 4.5 mpg, more accurately 4.546.
> > 1 K/l = 2.82 mpg
>
> Yeh I guess it's just another conversion factor to remember, anyway, even
> cheaper cars calculate the show the fuel economy in whatever unit you want
> nowadays :-) For me, I just try to get as many kms as possible before
> refilling, I think my record is 850km now!
Well my car is about 12 years old and all it does is drive, albeit at about 30
mpg. I’ll be buying a new one as soon as I can because the automatic
transmission doesn’t get into top gear until I red line it. I hired one last
week to travel to and from Wales and got upgraded to a Saab. I could get used
to these new features like mpg, avg speed, how far the remaining fuel will
last, cruise control etc.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
48f59731$1@news.povray.org...
>> In the UK, aren't speeds in KPH, but signs in miles?
>
> No both are in miles, but most cars sold in the UK have km/hr on the
> dashboard too, incase you feel like taking your car over to a neighboring
> country. Funnily enough, neighboring countries usually *only* have km/hr,
> so if you decide to drive in the UK you have to work out the mph as you go
> along :-)
>
That's not too hard roughly one and a half the miles to get km ad add an
extra tenth if you want to get closer.
That's useful for distances but for speed, one learns fast because there are
few different values
luckily hours are as long in UK and continent :-)
What is more tricky is converting hPa in PSI when you want to check tyres
pressure.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:55:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2008 00:22:08 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>Your gallons are bigger than ours. That's how you manage 55 MPG in your
>>cars. ;-)
>>
>>
> Not in my car I don't :)
Well, you know what I mean. I was initially surprised by the mileage the
car we drove got until I realised why that was. ;-)
>>> Only if you're innumerate :P
>>
>>You forget that America is the land of the innumerate. ;-)
>
> The young here are not much better. But then I was brought up before
> calculators were affordable. In fact they were not allowed in exams.
> Today's kids look aghast if you offer the correct money in a shop. Sad!
I actually look for situations to exercise my mind in that way - doing
what should be simple math without starting bc or using a calculator.
I wonder how many others do that?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:25:48 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> In the UK, aren't speeds in KPH, but signs in miles? It's been a few
>> years, but I wanted to say that that was the other odd thing about
>> driving over there. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
>
> My understanding was that it's meant to be a temporary problem,
not
> lasting more than a generation. Imperial units usage was common there
> until recently, and is still common when it comes to miles. The hope was
> that the new generation will be more comfortable with km. No idea if
> that's the case.
>
> I believe (others can correct me if I'm wrong), almost all signs
there
> are in both miles and kilometers.
Last time I was over there, I remember commenting on it talking to a
friend as I was driving his car (first time out, always good to drive
with someone who actually knows - and he had a vested interest, since it
was his car), and his comment was that it came down to a cost issue -
replacing perfectly good signs with other perfectly good signs wasn't
seen as cost-effective.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:09:35 +0200, scott wrote:
>> In the UK, aren't speeds in KPH, but signs in miles?
>
> No both are in miles, but most cars sold in the UK have km/hr on the
> dashboard too, incase you feel like taking your car over to a
> neighboring country. Funnily enough, neighboring countries usually
> *only* have km/hr, so if you decide to drive in the UK you have to work
> out the mph as you go along :-)
That's right - but I want to say the kph was on the outside whereas on US
cars it's on the inside.
> Working out the MPG is hard yes, when I lived in the UK I used to write
> the amount of litres and miles down each time I filled up. Every so
> often I would take the list indoors and figure out the MPGs with a
> computer/calculator. Working out the litres/100km fuel economy is much
> simpler, and you can do it qutie accurately in your head whilst driving
> without needing any conversion factors!
More fun in your head is to convert the cost there to US dollars per US
gallon....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Last time I was over there, I remember commenting on it talking to a
> friend as I was driving his car (first time out, always good to drive
> with someone who actually knows - and he had a vested interest, since it
> was his car), and his comment was that it came down to a cost issue -
> replacing perfectly good signs with other perfectly good signs wasn't
> seen as cost-effective.
>
Some vandal should destroy the current signs then :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2008 13:45:13 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:55:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> Not in my car I don't :)
>
>Well, you know what I mean. I was initially surprised by the mileage the
>car we drove got until I realised why that was. ;-)
>
Well if you will insist on having 16 fluid ounces to a pint instead of 20 what
can you expect? (BTW for the metric brigade there are 16 ounces in a pound
(weight) and if you have 20 fluid oz in a pint, a pint of water weighs a pound)
[You know it makes sense :)]
>>>> Only if you're innumerate :P
>>>
>>>You forget that America is the land of the innumerate. ;-)
>>
>> The young here are not much better. But then I was brought up before
>> calculators were affordable. In fact they were not allowed in exams.
>> Today's kids look aghast if you offer the correct money in a shop. Sad!
>
>I actually look for situations to exercise my mind in that way - doing
>what should be simple math without starting bc or using a calculator.
>
>I wonder how many others do that?
>
Yeah! It keeps your mind muscle fit.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2008 13:46:38 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Last time I was over there, I remember commenting on it talking to a
>friend as I was driving his car (first time out, always good to drive
>with someone who actually knows - and he had a vested interest, since it
>was his car), and his comment was that it came down to a cost issue -
>replacing perfectly good signs with other perfectly good signs wasn't
>seen as cost-effective.
I have my doubts about that, as our government often re-brand companies costing
millions to design new logos and replace the ones they replaced a couple of
years ago. IIRC it was decided to let all the old codgers die off first as they
were kicking up such a fuss. (If English was good enough for the bible then it's
good enough for me, attitude)
And Wales and parts of Scotland have dual language signs.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2008 13:47:45 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>That's right - but I want to say the kph was on the outside whereas on US
>cars it's on the inside.
>
I am contradicting you tonight :P. On my car the kph is on the inside and it is
in red so that it does not distract (I think) this was not helpful to me when I
drove it for 9 months on the continent a few years ago and could not make out
the speed at night.
>More fun in your head is to convert the cost there to US dollars per US
>gallon....
If only the exchange rate would stay the same at the end of a journey as it was
at the beginning :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I thought that Klicks were a SF term for K/s
I think it's military - quicker to say 'klick' than 'kilometre/er'. That
you think of SF speaks volumes about how much military-heavy SF there is
out of hollywood!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Last time I was over there, I remember commenting on it talking to a
>> friend as I was driving his car (first time out, always good to drive
>> with someone who actually knows - and he had a vested interest, since it
>> was his car), and his comment was that it came down to a cost issue -
>> replacing perfectly good signs with other perfectly good signs wasn't
>> seen as cost-effective.
>>
>
> Some vandal should destroy the current signs then :)
Haha, not a hope, we're the most thoroughly nay exhaustively signposted
country in the world.
"If a million rednecks drove around in a million pickup trucks with a
million shotguns, shooting road signs, eventually one of them will
produce a line of Shakespeare in Braille."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:25:01 +0100, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>> Some vandal should destroy the current signs then :)
>
>Haha, not a hope, we're the most thoroughly nay exhaustively signposted
>country in the world.
>
>"If a million rednecks drove around in a million pickup trucks with a
>million shotguns, shooting road signs, eventually one of them will
>produce a line of Shakespeare in Braille."
LOL
Not to mention CCTV.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:21:30 +0100, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> I thought that Klicks were a SF term for K/s
>
>I think it's military - quicker to say 'klick' than 'kilometre/er'. That
>you think of SF speaks volumes about how much military-heavy SF there is
> out of hollywood!
>
Not Hollywood for me, Robert Heinlein maybe. Same thing, really :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>>> Some vandal should destroy the current signs then :)
>> Haha, not a hope, we're the most thoroughly nay exhaustively signposted
>> country in the world.
>>
>> "If a million rednecks drove around in a million pickup trucks with a
>> million shotguns, shooting road signs, eventually one of them will
>> produce a line of Shakespeare in Braille."
>
> LOL
> Not to mention CCTV.
You wouldn't get much Braille on a CCTV camera with a shotgun.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:21:30 +0100, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> I thought that Klicks were a SF term for K/s
>> I think it's military - quicker to say 'klick' than 'kilometre/er'. That
>> you think of SF speaks volumes about how much military-heavy SF there is
>> out of hollywood!
>>
>
> Not Hollywood for me, Robert Heinlein maybe. Same thing, really :)
Of course, you said SF not sci-fi. How remiss of me. Come to think of
it, Heinlein might have been my first encounter with the klick too!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:53:46 +0100, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>>>> Some vandal should destroy the current signs then :)
>>> Haha, not a hope, we're the most thoroughly nay exhaustively signposted
>>> country in the world.
>>>
>>> "If a million rednecks drove around in a million pickup trucks with a
>>> million shotguns, shooting road signs, eventually one of them will
>>> produce a line of Shakespeare in Braille."
>>
>> LOL
>> Not to mention CCTV.
>
>You wouldn't get much Braille on a CCTV camera with a shotgun.
How about a bee bee railgun
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:54:57 +0100, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:21:30 +0100, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> I thought that Klicks were a SF term for K/s
>>> I think it's military - quicker to say 'klick' than 'kilometre/er'. That
>>> you think of SF speaks volumes about how much military-heavy SF there is
>>> out of hollywood!
>>>
>>
>> Not Hollywood for me, Robert Heinlein maybe. Same thing, really :)
>
>Of course, you said SF not sci-fi. How remiss of me. Come to think of
>it, Heinlein might have been my first encounter with the klick too!
I think that you need a trip to London for a drink or two ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:53:46 +0100, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>>>> Some vandal should destroy the current signs then :)
>>>> Haha, not a hope, we're the most thoroughly nay exhaustively signposted
>>>> country in the world.
>>>>
>>>> "If a million rednecks drove around in a million pickup trucks with a
>>>> million shotguns, shooting road signs, eventually one of them will
>>>> produce a line of Shakespeare in Braille."
>>> LOL
>>> Not to mention CCTV.
>> You wouldn't get much Braille on a CCTV camera with a shotgun.
>
> How about a bee bee railgun
I don't think your average redneck would have the patience for that
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
