Pounds Vs Kilograms

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
Oi now.
It is windshield temperature if there is no wind and the car is travelling at 30 mph. :?

How many girls are there between Edmonton and Calgary? 299?
Doesn't make sense in metric.

In Imperial it is about 187. Makes perfect sense now doesn't it?

( A Miss is as good as a mile)
:p
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,920
1,907
113
Imperial is superior to Metric.

In Metric, they like to mainly divide measurements by 10 - and 10 is only divisible by 1,2,5 and itself.

Whereas Imperial likes to mainly divide things into 12 pieces - and 12 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,6 and itself.

Stick to Imperial.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Re: RE: Pounds Vs Kilograms

Imperial divides things into seemingly random numbers of pieces.

3 feet to a yard, 4 quarts to a gallon, 2 pints to a quart, 16 ounces to a pound, 8 ounces to a cup, 3 teaspoons to a tablespoon, 2 tablespoons to an ounce, 2000 pounds in a ton, 2200 pounds in a long ton... Quick now, how many ounces in a quart? How many square feet in an acre? Need I go on? We can get into bushels, pecks, hogsheads, barrels, rods, chains, furlongs, the confusions between liquid and dry measures that use some of the same words for volume and weight... Ah, I could pound on this all day.

It's like trying to do arithmetic with Roman numerals. It's an antiquated, inconvenient system and there's a vastly superior alternative available that most of the world uses. It can also hurt commercially not to use it. Want to sell a boatload of lumber to the Netherlands? They'll want metric sizes, so we'll have to sell them the next largest size in Imperial units for the same price, then they'll trim it down to the metric size and sell the shavings to the Swedes, who'll turn it into particle board and sell it back to us as low-end Ikea furniture... :wink:

What's the big deal about being able to divide 12 by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12? That's hardly a point in favour of the Imperial system. How about 60? It's divisible by even more numbers, so should we switch to a sexagesimal number system? Division by 10 is far easier in most cases.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
"who'll turn it into particle board and sell it back to us as low-end Ikea furniture... "

:lol:
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Blackleaf wrote:
America put Man on Moon using Imperial measurement.

Actually, they didn't. NASA has always used metric. Whenever the astronauts talk about weights and measures or velocity, it's in kilograms or metres per second.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I'm not entirely right about this.

NASA Inspector General's Assessment of NASA's Use of the Metric System, G-00-021

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Tuesday, February 20, 2001
Source: NASA Office of Inspector General

National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Office of Inspector General
Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Reply to Attn of: W February 20, 2001

TO: A/Administrator

FROM: W/Inspector General

SUBJECT: Assessment of NASA's Use of the Metric System, G-00-021

Following the loss of the Mars Climate Observer, the NASA Office of Inspector General initiated a review of the Agency's use of the metric system. By law and policy, the metric system is the preferred system of measurement within NASA. However, our review found that use of the metric system is inconsistent across the Agency. A waiver system, which was required by law and put into effect to track metric usage and encourage conversion, is no longer in use. In addition, NASA employees are given little guidance on the Agency's policy and procedures regarding use of the metric system.

Based on our review, we made eight recommendations intended to improve the use of the metric system within NASA in accordance with national policy and NASA guidance. We recommended NASA:

* reexamine the Agency's effort to convert to the metric system and develop a new approach for converting to the metric system,
* closely monitor technical interfaces between metric and English units,
* reinvigorate the metric waiver system, and
* use the metric system as the preferred system for interactions with the public.

Management concurred with all of the report's recommendations, except the recommendation that NASA use the metric system for interactions with the public. In responding to this recommendation, management agreed to use metric units in all education programs and when communicating with the public about programs that use metric or hybrid metric/English units. However, the Public Affairs Office plans to use English units of measurement when communicating about programs that use English units exclusively. We continue to hold that since public law requires NASA to use metric units where economically feasible, the Agency should use metric units in all communications with the public.

As the United States continues its slow transition to the metric system, NASA must decide whether it wants to be a leader or a follower in the transition process. Both roles come with a cost. If NASA chooses to push forward with the Agency's use of the metric system, near-term costs may increase and short-term risk (both to schedule and mission success) may rise to some degree. However, if the Agency follows the aerospace industry's slow transition to SI, the protracted period during which NASA uses mixed metric and English systems may further increase costs and risks for NASA programs.

NASA is the nation's most visible science and technology agency, and is involved in highly publicized cooperative projects with a world that almost exclusively uses the metric system. Certainly an argument could be made that as the nation's symbol of technological prowess, NASA has a role in promoting acceptance and use of the metric system. We believe the Agency should reassess its conversion to the metric system and determine the most appropriate approach for the Agency to successfully transition to the metric system.

[original signed by]

Roberta L. Gross

They lost a $125 million space craft because somebody used imperial measures or because of a faulty interfacebetween the two systems of measure.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Hasn't the American military always used metric?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Metric has been used in the U.S. military for some time but it's use has been spotty and inconsistant. The conversion to metric is finding a lot of inertia. The public doesn't want it.

I can understand this because Canada's switch to metric caught me close to the end of my career. I didn't really switch. For a couple years I did my load calculations in Imperial and did a hard conversion at the end. There were so many little rules of thumb and fudge factors that I was used to. I was too stubborn to change.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,920
1,907
113
3 feet to a yard, 4 quarts to a gallon, 2 pints to a quart, 16 ounces to a pound, 8 ounces to a cup, 3 teaspoons to a tablespoon, 2 tablespoons to an ounce, 2000 pounds in a ton, 2200 pounds in a long ton...

So does time -

60 seconds in a minute

60 minutes in an hour

24 hours in a day

7 days in a week

2 weeks in a fortnight

4 weeks in a month

12 months in a year

10 years in a decade

10 decades in a century

100 years in a century

1000 years in a millennium

10 centuries in a millennium


So what's the problem?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,920
1,907
113
They lost a $125 million space craft because somebody used imperial measures or because of a faulty interfacebetween the two systems of measure.

America put Man on the Moon using Imperial measurements.

When Europe lost its Mars probe in 2003, it was using Metric measurements.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,920
1,907
113
The Impact Of Decline Upon Weights And Measures

Anonymous (8/12/1996)

Our community is discarding the useful weights and measures learnt by centuries of experience by replacing Imperial with Metric measure. The following article is from Keefe university, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, England. It is about the proposed metrication of the United Kingdom but it clearly reveals the defeat of commonsense that metrication entails.


SURELY the most irritating excuse produced for the European Commission's banning of British Imperial weights and measures is the claim that feet and inches, gallons and pints, pounds and ounces do not belong in the "modern world". This claim has never cut much ice. The USA put Neil Armstrong on the moon using Imperial measurements and continues to use feet and inches in designing space satellites. The most modern desk-top publishing computer programmes use fractions of an inch to measure letter sizes, and electronic weighing scales in supermarkets display pound and ounces on digitalised readouts. What is not so well known is that it is in fact the METRIC system which is outmoded and flawed, seriously hampering efficient practices of measuring, division and tallying.

The problem with metric is that every unit is based on the number ten. In weight, for example, there are 10 mg in 1 cg, 10 cg in 1 dg, 10 dg in 1 g, 10g in 1 Dg, 10Dg in 1hg, 10 hg in 1 kg, 10 kg in 1 Mg, and so on. Although metric's decimal structure is much acclaimed by supporters of conversion, the rigidity of constant multiplications of ten frequently means that metric measures overshoot desirable or useful proportions. Take the experience of the metric system in the building industry as an example. Metric fails to produce any intermediate unit between the decimetre (4 inches) and the metre (40 inches) and so deprives builders of the Imperial foot, used throughout history and suitable for a wide range of building needs such as planning grids. As a result, the building trade sector, both in Britain and in Europe, has created the "metric foot" of 30 centimetres together with larger units of 120 or 90 centimetres (metric yards) into which metric feet may divide. Metric in the building industry survives because the metre can be discarded in favour of measures that reproduce the very Imperial units metric was intended to replace.

Cans of soft drink provide another example of metric inefficiency. Drink cans cannot be produced in metric units because there are no metric measures available that reflect normal drinking quantities. The litre is much too big and the centilitre is much too small. Instead, the canning industry has had to divide the litre by about a third and produce a non-standard metric measure of "330 millilitres" in order to produce a suitable quantity. The figure of 330 millilitres does not constitute an exact third of a litre because no metric measure can be divided by three without producing an infinitely recurring decimal(3.333333 etc). Thus, three cans of Coke make 0.99 litres, not one litre. Rather than streamlining our system of measurement, metrication disrupts it.

Metric's inappropriate divisions are compounded by the fact that metric is based on abstract scientific principles which are aloof from everyday uses. The metre is defined as "The length equal to 1,650,763.3 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the levels 2p to base 10 and Sd to base 5 of the krypton 86 atom." As fascinating as such equations are to atomic scientists, metric measures do not bear any relevance to the vast diversity of human activities such as commerce, construction, surveying, cooking and weighing new-born babies. Whereas the British system has evolved around the essentials of what people carry, drink or work with (producing the pound, pint and foot), the metric system is a combination of unergonomic units based on a number that can seldom be cleanly divided and from which important proportions cannot be expressed as single units. Metric is workable only by abandoning its standard measures, the metre, kilo and litre, and replacing them with units of different sizes based on human needs and totally unrelated to "wavelengths in a vacuum". And because of metric's decimal structure, desirable quantities can only be represented by larger numbers of numerous digits: the logical unit of one pound of tinned food therefore becomes the metric standard of 420 grams; one gallon of engine oil becomes five litres of oil; a straightforward foot of fabric becomes twenty-five centimetres of fabric; two inch wide masking tape becomes fifty millimetres; a pint of milk becomes five hundred millilitre units; and roof-boxes, baths and tables previously measured as five or six feet explode into hundreds of centimetres or thousands of millimetres.

Such conversions do not make numbers more logical or streamlined, just bigger. There is no magic process by which measuring the world in metric improves it. Selling petrol by litres instead of gallons does not improve efficiency or solve world pollution. Enforcing metric measures in the building industry does not make houses faster to build or ensure superior quality. Nor is there any evidence that converting clothing sizes from inches to centimetres will make clothes easier to fit.

Any glance at history will confirm the use of metric does not ensure success. Whereas Britain's industrial growth during the 1800s was at a time of Imperial measurements, Britain's decline from the 1960s was during the very first move towards metric. Going decimal in 1971 did not prevent the period of inflation that followed, nor has the metrication of school education improved the level of learning. During the Second World War, countries that used Imperial measures were victors while losers used metric. If metricators only studied the metric countries they are so keen to copy, they would find that most have adapted the metric system to reproduce Imperial measures that existed prior to their own metrication. Examples include the French "livre"and the German "Pfund" (500 grams, about one pound in weight), and the Swedish inch (25 millimetres). Numerous European industries have not yet converted to metric: the German gun industry, the Dutch plumbing trade and the Swedish timber industry all use Imperial measures. Belgium, home of the European Union, uses acres, not metric hectares. And it should not be forgotten that the most powerful economy in the world uses Imperial measures: the United States of America.

The lack of closely-argued research by the British Government to demonstrate the supposed "benefits" of metrication is even more astonishing considering that the costs of transferring to metric amounts to a staggering 12 billion. Having lost the technical argument, metricators resort to the claim that Imperial measures are "complicated and difficult to understand". This is rather like suggesting people are unable to grasp the concept of a right angle because right angles consist of ninety degrees rather than 100. It is a simple fact that we all live in an "irrational" 365 or 366 day year in which the measurements of hours, days and months involves units as diverse as 60, 24, 7,14, 28, 30, 31, 12 and 52. Although there is not a single ten involved in measuring the passage of time, this writer has yet to meet anyone who cannot tell the time because of the "confusing" division of hours into 60 rather than 100 minutes, or who is unable to remember the day because there are seven days in a week instead of a logical "ten".

The entire metric attack on Britain flies in the face of European Union President Jacques Santer's assurance in May 1995 that European Union did not threaten the UK's national identity or cultural traditions. The reality is that the European Union is intent on abolishing almost every British measure by means of European Union directives 89/617 and 80/181 which have compelled the metric conversion of a vast range of packaged foods, liquids, carpets and commercial documents affecting industry, local authorities and public sector administration. Small concessions such as the printing of Imperial measures in small print along metric on food packaging are likely to be withdrawn in 1999, and the few areas to escape this year's imposition, in particular the weighing of loose fruit in pounds and ounces, will be banned on January 1st 2000.

But surely, argue the supporters of European Union, Britain is now a part of Europe and should accept European ways. Here in lies the Great Euro-Lie. If the European Union regarded Britain as much a part of Europe as France and Germany, then it necessarily follows that pints are just as European as litres, and miles as European as kilometres. The European Union's hostility to the European way of life which has developed in Britain reveals that its definition of "Europe" is a strictly selective one. It defines what is European and what is not — and its campaign against European culture in Britain reveals that British people have no place in Europe other than as 57 million featureless numbers to add to the growing Euro-bureaucratic machine. An English village sweet shop can no longer sell four ounces of butterscotch but has to say "113 grams" and 9 by 4 inch envelopes will be re-labelled "229 x 102 millimetres" in a clumsy attempt to show how accurate metric can be. The British people, who have been quite happy with pints and pounds, will be forced instead to learn words like "decagram" and "hectalitre". But nowhere are the effects of metrication more ludicrous than in our courts. Any witness who refers to a six-inch knife will be told by the judge to say a "152 millimetre" knife and instructed to speak only in terms of centimetres and metres. Thus, even to speak in non-metric language will be banned by the European Union in some circumstances.

The sheer unpopularity of European Union directives 89/617 and 80/181 may be gauged by the Government's threat of £5,000 fines and six month prison sentences for those who use Imperial measures. Due to the Government's attempt to sneak the changes in unnoticed by the public at large, confusion and contradiction has surrounded just who and what is affected by the directives. Doorstep milk pints may stay (for the time being) but milk cartons have to go metric. Shandy in pints is banned but pints of beer may remain. Pizza restaurants may continue to refer to seven inch pizzas rather than "177 millimetre" pizzas, but it remains unclear whether bicycle shop assistants risk prosecution if they say that a cycle has an 18-inch wheel instead of an European Union approved "457 mm" wheel. And will the police be guilty of a criminal offence should they refer to a suspect's height in some official document as "six feet"? The classification "criminal" is a serious one and should be reserved for people who rob, assault and kill. That people like grocers and tailors can go to prison for failing to observe surreal metric-diktat is an indication of the mad Euro-whirlpool into which we are all being sucked.

Metrication is not the only form of uniformity being imposed by the European Union. Brussels has already phased in European Union passports and is now pushing the idea of a Euro-driving licence (complete with mugshots). This is likely to be followed by some sort of Euro-identity card. Perhaps Brussels might like to also consider scrapping British Bank Holidays and replacing them with Euro Holidays? Or introducing a Euro-wide telephone box design, or a single Euro-uniform for postmen, or the abolition of the British legal system? Or triangular tea-bags?

It defies belief that when there are so many real problems confronting Europe such as the war in Bosnia, Brussels finds time to fiddle about with such issues as whether manufacturers from outside Cornwall and Yorkshire should be permitted to call their products Cornish pasties and Yorkshire puddings. The European Union is presently considering a proposal by the European Parliament to set up a "European Observation Station" to monitor flying saucers. No less than 20,000 directives interfering in every conceivable subject from carrots and cucumbers to carpets and coffins have flooded out of Brussels. One of the European Union's most recent directives has been its historic decision to forbid the use of a harmless colouring dye in frozen mushy peas. As a result, frozen mushy peas will be sold yellow in colour from June 1996. "I don't know what we're going to do," says John Clark, sales director of frozen mushy pea producer, Lockwoods of Ambergate, which employs 24 people. "We have been producing mushy peas for thirty years . . . We feel this is a case of the big boys in Brussels pushing around small British firms. "Lockwoods of Ambergate will stop production in December 1995.

Other firms to feel the pressure of Euro-remoulding include rural garages which make small sales of petrol and have found it difficult meeting the cost of spending thousands of pounds on metric pumps. According to garage owner Frank Robertson from Cloughton, North Yorkshire, "It's uneconomic to lashout on new pumps serving litres." Mr Robertson's Orchard Garage opened in 1929 and has now closed as a result of metrication. According to a motor trade estimate, four thousand rural garages have closed. All thanks to the streamlined beauty of "European Union".

Europe has a long history of producing regimes and ideologies committed to the concept of the European superstate: Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia. Now we have the Brussels Bureaucracy, intent on invading every nook and cranny of our national life and imposing conformity and obedience on 365 million people. But there remains —just—a glimmer of hope. Although the European Union can force unpopular directives by means of legal and bureaucratic coercion, it has failed to realise that forcing people to measure their height in centimetres does not make people like centimetres. Forcing people to use kilometres instead of miles will not make them like kilometres. And forcing British people to carry European identity cards will not make people feel European.

Rather than forging a new European identity, the European Union's constant pushing is more likely to increase resistance, and it is in this that the seed of the European Union's future destruction will lie. "Metric Day" has cut Imperial measures down in swathes and has been a devastating defeat for commonsense. Yet anti-metric sentiment can be heard in pubs, offices and supermarkets across the country. Here and there individuals are turning to face the metric onslaught. Property consultant Mike Natrass of Birmingham's Natrass Giles, recently turned down a merger proposal when he learnt that the other company was going metric. He said, "We are British and don't want to see things that are British being lost." Another businessman, Bruce Robertson, owner of the Trago Mills Store Group in Devon and Cornwall, has made public his intention to risk fines in order to resist metrication. And spearheading the fight is the British Weights and Measures Association established by Vivian Linacre. Mr Linacre has vowed to stop metric absorption at all costs and is to challenge compulsory metrication in the European Court of Justice. Britain has four years before the current wave of metrication is completed. This period must be used to bring urgent pressure on our Government to halt the process it has so negligently permitted by giving the people of Britain a clear assurance that the mile and the pub pint will remain. The Government must decriminalise Imperial measures, resist the European Union's banning order on pounds and ounces on January 1st 2000, and, most important of all, restore the teaching of Imperial measures in education. Such a stand will at last tell the bureaucrats of Brussels that Britain is not about to be stamped, streamlined and standardised according to specifications decided by officials the British people did not elect. Otherwise, for every inch we give the European Union, they will take a mile, or, as the European Union would prefer to say,

"Give us 25.4 millimetres and we will take 1.609 kilometres. "



ourcivilisation.com
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
An emotional plea full of the straw man fallacy that amounts to no more than a wish to stick with familiar things. All the soft drink cans around here, for instance, are 355 ml; why is that any harder to deal with than 12 ounces? It's the same volume, to within a percent or two. The SI system doesn't lend itself to convenient sized units? Nonsense, it's just a matter of what you're used to; you can make containers in any size you want and call them anything you want. Want a pint of bitters? How about half a liter instead? Not much difference.

The problem, since you asked, is that there are multiple systems of weights and measures when one is all anybody needs.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Dexter is right, it's all a matter of getting used to, although given the decimal nature of the metric system, I would think it is easier to convert from Imperial to Metric.
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
Re: RE: Pounds Vs Kilograms

Dexter Sinister said:
.. It can also hurt commercially not to use it. Want to sell a boatload of lumber to the Netherlands? They'll want metric sizes, so we'll have to sell them the next largest size in Imperial units for the same price, then they'll trim it down to the metric size and sell the shavings to the Swedes, who'll turn it into particle board and sell it back to us as low-end Ikea furniture... :wink:
Works the opposite way selling to the USA, our largest trading partner.
Want to sell them a brick? Reset the cutting machines from metric to Imperial and cut them a brick. They don't want a metric brick. Screw up the wall.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Yep, that's why the only market for Canadian dimensioned lumber is the United States, and we haven't converted our lumber production to metric units largely because of that. And it shuts us out of almost every other market for lumber.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,920
1,907
113
Dexter Sinister said:
All the soft drink cans around here, for instance, are 355 ml.

They should say "330 mil."

And that shows why Metric is inefficient.

As it says in the article -

Cans of soft drink provide another example of metric inefficiency. Drink cans cannot be produced in metric units because there are no metric measures available that reflect normal drinking quantities. The litre is much too big and the centilitre is much too small. Instead, the canning industry has had to divide the litre by about a third and produce a non-standard metric measure of "330 millilitres" in order to produce a suitable quantity. The figure of 330 millilitres does not constitute an exact third of a litre because no metric measure can be divided by three without producing an infinitely recurring decimal(3.333333 etc). Thus, three cans of Coke make 0.99 litres, not one litre. Rather than streamlining our system of measurement, metrication disrupts it.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
"Rather than streamlining our system of measurement, metrication..."

Oh, grow up.

I don't care whether I'm drinking a non-terminated third of a litre or not.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,920
1,907
113
Other reasons why Imperial is superior to Metric -

French wines

It was the French who invented this decimal system of measurement and the French nation is proud of this 'great' achievement. The French are also proud of their native wines and rightly so. You would expect, therefore, the French wine industry to have embraced wholeheartedly this symbol of French intellectual supremacy. So when you order a case of French wine you get 10 litres of wine in 10 bottles, right? Wrong! You get 9 litres in 12 bottles! "Zut alors, Pierre. How did that renegade twelve get in there?" Back to le drawing board mes amis!
=============================================

What's the weather like?

We have now all been thoroughly brainwashed into accepting the weatherman on TV and radio telling us the temperatures in Centigrade (or Celsius or whatever it's called this week). But there is a curious thing happens during the summer months. When it gets hot outside, the newspapers and radio and TV start telling us the temperatures in Fahrenheit with phrases such as "..in the nineties". This is understandable because talking about temperatures "..in the high thirties" doesn't quite have the same impact. Nor does talking in Centigrade give any indication of the relative temperature, i.e. how it feels to us. Is it hot or cold today? Will I need a coat if I go out?

The metric method of measuring temperature uses a scale of 0 to 100 based on the freezing point and boiling point of water. Now this is all very well in the scientific laboratory but why is it considered to be a sensible method of measuring the ambient air temperature? When was the last time you saw boiling hot rain?

If it is necessary to use a scale of 0 to 100 to indicate what sort of weather we are having, then it would be a good idea to use one which relates to how we feel when we are out of doors. Surprise, surprise! The Fahrenheit (Imperial) scale of temperatures does exactly that! When it is 100 degrees, we feel like sitting in the shade and relaxing with a long cool drink and when it is 0 degrees, we stay in the house and pray for Spring. And when we are given any number in between those two extremes, we know exactly how hot or cold it is outside. It works! Why mess about changing to an abstract concept for the sake of tidy-minded bureaucrats and unworldly scientists?
==========================================
Sports Report

* * *

During the recent Rugby World Cup, the Director of the BWMA (British Weights and Measures Association) referred to the "10 yard line", the "25 yard line", etc. in conversation with a South African supporter, who interrupted with "No, no, you mean metres - we're all metric now!"

Whereupon the Director asked: "What do you call your player in the no. 9 position?" and the Springbok had to answer, "Scrum half, of course!" to which the rejoinder was "No, no, you mean scrum 0.5 - we're all metric now! And what about your nos. 11 and 14?"

"Wing three-quarters, of Course" to which again the counter was "No, no, you mean wing 0.75 - we're all metric now!"

What use are decimals when the human mind prefers fractions, using factors that tie in with customary measures?
* * *

During the 2nd January football match between Rangers and Celtic in Glasgow, there was a free kick just outside the penalty area and the BBC radio commentator Roddy Forsyth, declared that the referee was having trouble ensuring that the defending players were "the full ten metres from the ball" before allowing the attacking side to take the free kick.

"Oh!", thought I, "they must have changed the rules". Surprise, surprise; when I checked I found that there had been no such change in the rules of the game and that it still says "opposing players must be ten yards from the ball" at free kicks, corners etc.
So, Mr. Forsyth, if you wish to be all trendy and up to date and yet still give an accurate radio picture of what is happening, then you must say "the full 9.12 metres from the ball!"
* * *

We all know that the International Olympic Committee has been using metric units for years.

But, does anybody know why they still organise races over one furlong(200metres), the quarter mile(400metres) and the half mile(800metres)?

Why are they not running metric races like 250metres or 500metres?
* * *
---------------------------------------

bwmaonline.com
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,920
1,907
113
Re: RE: Pounds Vs Kilograms

FiveParadox said:
"Rather than streamlining our system of measurement, metrication..."

Oh, grow up.

I don't care whether I'm drinking a non-terminated third of a litre or not.

That's not the point.

The point is that Imperial is better, as you can't divide ten by a third unless you have 3.33333333333333.

If Britain has British Imperial measurements on its drinks cans, it won't have to use "330 mils" or "333.33333333333 etc etc" mils.

Imperial measurements can be divided by a third without having to use infinite decimals.