 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I must say, having spent another couple weeks in Europe, metric
measurements for food and drink no longer seem awkward to me. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. :-)
1 Kg of meat, please!
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> 1 Kg of meat, please!
Le nom, le nom, le nom!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 1 Kg of meat, please!
http://cgi.ebay.com/WINNIPEG-OLD-COUNTRY-FARMER-SAUSAGE-1-kg_W0QQitemZ300215710871QQcmdZViewItem
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:54:34 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> 1 Kg of meat, please!
>
> Le nom, le nom, le nom!
LOL!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> I must say, having spent another couple weeks in Europe, metric
> measurements for food and drink no longer seem awkward to me. :-)
I'm sure you also can't deny that when having to perform operations
(eg. additions etc.) with amounts it's much easier with the metric system,
as almost everything can be done in multiples of 10.
I suppose with the imperial system you get used to perform those
calculations on your head too, but it's much harder to learn and requires
a lot more experience.
"410 cm is 4.1 meters, ie. a bit over 4 meters."
"410 inches is... uh, how many feet?"
"7500 meters is 7 and a half kilometers."
"7500 feet is... uh, how many miles?"
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I must say, having spent another couple weeks in Europe, metric
> > measurements for food and drink no longer seem awkward to me. :-)
>
> I'm sure you also can't deny that when having to perform operations
> (eg. additions etc.) with amounts it's much easier with the metric system,
> as almost everything can be done in multiples of 10.
>
> I suppose with the imperial system you get used to perform those
> calculations on your head too, but it's much harder to learn and requires
> a lot more experience.
>
What else would you have children do? :p
> "410 cm is 4.1 meters, ie. a bit over 4 meters."
> "410 inches is... uh, how many feet?"
>
It’s equal to 11 yards 1 foot and 2 inches
Just over half a chain or a twentieth of a furlong
> "7500 meters is 7 and a half kilometers."
> "7500 feet is... uh, how many miles?"
>
Just less than one and a half miles.
Actually when you learn your tables it becomes instinctive. We are also taught
shortcuts.
Twelve into 41 is three, remainder five and twelve into 50 is 4, remainder 2. It
took me longer to write it than work it out
That does not deny that the metric system is easier.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48f3ee66$1@news.povray.org...
>I must say, having spent another couple weeks in Europe, metric
>measurements for food and drink no longer seem awkward to me. :-)
haha .... this was a bit of a learning curve for me when I moved to Canada.
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?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback wrote:
> Is anyones system mixed like that?
Yes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Is anyones system mixed like that?
>
> Yes.
Ah yes, beer and road signs :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Is anyones system mixed like that?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Ah yes, beer and road signs :-)
Not to mention people's weight and height (but not clothing
measurements, oddly enough). Until recently most food was sold in
imperial units. AFAIK wood is still sold as "two-be-four". ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not to mention people's weight and height (but not clothing measurements,
> oddly enough).
I thought you still bought a pair of jeans as "33/34" or whatever?
> Until recently most food was sold in imperial units. AFAIK wood is still
> sold as "two-be-four". ;-)
Last time I went to B&Q all the wood was in metric, I don't think they are
allowed to mark it in imperial anymore.
Also, did you know, that it's illegal to sell draught beer in metric?!?!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Not to mention people's weight and height (but not clothing
>> measurements, oddly enough).
>
> I thought you still bought a pair of jeans as "33/34" or whatever?
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.)
Most people seem to know their weight in stone, not Kg. (I happen to
know both, cos the guy at the ski shop always asks me for metric. I
guess the skis are European or something...)
I was under the misunderstanding that "33 waist" is metric - but a quick
computation falsifies this hypothesis. I'm pretty certain I've seen leg
length measured in metric though.
> Last time I went to B&Q all the wood was in metric, I don't think they
> are allowed to mark it in imperial anymore.
Mmm, maybe. I don't buy wood very often. (We already own a ridiculous
quantity of the stuff...)
> Also, did you know, that it's illegal to sell draught beer in metric?!?!
Dude, I realise that a relation is simply some subset of the extended
Cartesian product of the respective domains of its attributes, which not
many people seem to know. But *that* fact is just too far! o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:26:58 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>AFAIK wood is still sold as "two-be-four". ;-)
Two by four, Andrew. You know it makes sense :p
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> AFAIK wood is still sold as "two-be-four". ;-)
>
> Two by four, Andrew. You know it makes sense :p
Phil Harding FTW! :-D
"Oh God-ar... Stone thu crows!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 ;-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:23:59 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>"Oh God-ar... Stone thu crows!"
A good group, shame about the electricity (before your time) :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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". ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Is anyones system mixed like that?
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 can't really remember any other such example, and I really can't
understand why this one exception exists. (Well, I can understand where
the custom is coming from, but I can't understand why it has not been
metricized.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
