BBC fact checked.

Post by Bob Latham
This extract is from an article by Katie Razzall, Oxford educated and
now Culture Editor for the BBC and she writes.
"The vivid red work, measuring 8ft 15in by 6ft 15in, is by Jonathan
Yeo, who has also painted Tony Blair, Sir David Attenborough and
Malala Yousafzai."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68981200

Don't ask her to convert square feet into square metres, it'll only end
in tears

Ottavio Caruso

2024-05-15 09:01:54 UTC

Don't ask her to convert square feet into square metres, it'll only end
in tears

We left the EU, why should we use Fr*ch metric when we can use good old
fashioned Imperial?

--
Ottavio Caruso

Andy Burns

2024-05-15 09:10:39 UTC

Don't ask her to convert square feet into square metres, it'll only
end in tears

We left the EU, why should we use Fr*ch metric when we can use good old
fashioned Imperial?

I make it 11.6 x 8.8 papal palmos

Ottavio Caruso

2024-05-15 14:01:59 UTC

Post by Andy Burns

Don't ask her to convert square feet into square metres, it'll only
end in tears

We left the EU, why should we use Fr*ch metric when we can use good
old fashioned Imperial?

I make it 11.6 x 8.8 papal palmos

I have no idea of what you wrote but it sounds about right.

--
Ottavio Caruso

David Wade

2024-05-15 10:59:32 UTC

Don't ask her to convert square feet into square metres, it'll only
end in tears

We left the EU, why should we use Fr*ch metric when we can use good old
fashioned Imperial?

Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is arcane
and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the former
American colonies.

So in a government consultation which was designed to get people to
support a return to imperial measure, so the usual loaded questions, 81%
of the respondents were in favour of keeping the current mixed system,
i.e. largely metric, whilst 17% wanted to switch to entirely metric, so
98% are happy with what we have.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/choice-on-units-of-measurement-markings-and-sales/outcome/choice-on-units-of-measurement-consultation-response

Dave

Ottavio Caruso

2024-05-15 14:04:48 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is arcane
and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the former
American colonies.

OK mate, but why is it that the Brits are the most ardent supporters of
the metric system whereas the metric system is barely used in UK? You
guys use miles, pounds, feet, stones but then go about and bust Yankees
balls (not that there is anything wrong with that) because they still
use "your" system?

--
Ottavio Caruso

Indy Jess John

2024-05-15 14:41:59 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is
arcane and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the
former American colonies.

I reckon it is because the UK Government has always wanted to look like
a "good European". Did you know that when we were in the EU, the UK was
the ONLY member state where pricing things by the pound was illegal?
Even in France they would happily sell "une livre" without hesitation -
though what you got was half a Kilo!

Java Jive

2024-05-15 17:51:03 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is
arcane and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the
former American colonies.

OK mate, but why is it that the Brits are the most ardent supporters
of the metric system whereas the metric system is barely used in UK?
You guys use miles, pounds, feet, stones but then go about and bust
Yankees balls (not that there is anything wrong with that) because
they still use "your" system?

As this thread is showing, Brits, at least the old 'uns here, are hardly
the most ardent supporters of the metric system, because they were
brought up on Imperial units, as was I, nevertheless ...

Post by Indy Jess John
I reckon it is because the UK Government has always wanted to look like
a "good European". Did you know that when we were in the EU, the UK was
the ONLY member state where pricing things by the pound was illegal?
Even in France they would happily sell "une livre" without hesitation -
though what you got was half a Kilo!

Sigh! More bigoted brexshit from the brexshitters. Somebody up thread
linked to some very convincing evidence that the vast majority of the
UK's population simply doesn't agree with you, and either would prefer
to keep the current mixed system or else go completely metric, so this
argument is unwinnable for you, get used to it and move on!

The simple truth is, however little you wish to acknowledge it, the SI
system of units makes logical sense and is easy to understand and use,
largely because almost anyone can do any arithmetic required in their
head. Listen to the largely humorous radio clip I linked earlier, which
conveys very well the arcane absurdity of the obscure Imperial units of
the past. While I know many who use a mixture of Imperial & SI units by
using what seems most appropriate or familiar to them for a particular
purpose, I know absolutely no-one who wants to be forced to return to
Imperial units for everything. For myself, while I may speak
colloquially of inches or pints, I use metric for anything where
accuracy is required, except road distances - because all the sign
posts are still in miles, if they were changed to kilometres, I'd
happily use those instead.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Bob Latham

2024-05-15 18:18:58 UTC

Post by Java Jive
Sigh! More bigoted brexshit from the brexshitters.

Dear God, give me strength.....

Bob.

Java Jive

2024-05-15 18:26:06 UTC

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive
Sigh! More bigoted brexshit from the brexshitters.

Dear God, give me strength.....

A merciful release from bigotry would seem to be a better thing for
he/she/it to do for you.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Ottavio Caruso

2024-05-16 08:46:23 UTC

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive
Sigh! More bigoted brexshit from the brexshitters.

Dear God, give me strength.....

You get get Viagra at Boots without prescription.

--
Ottavio Caruso

Indy Jess John

2024-05-15 21:12:16 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is
arcane and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the
former American colonies.

OK mate, but why is it that the Brits are the most ardent supporters
of the metric system whereas the metric system is barely used in UK?
You guys use miles, pounds, feet, stones but then go about and bust
Yankees balls (not that there is anything wrong with that) because
they still use "your" system?

As this thread is showing, Brits, at least the old 'uns here, are hardly
the most ardent supporters of the metric system, because they were
brought up on Imperial units, as was I, nevertheless ...

Post by Indy Jess John
I reckon it is because the UK Government has always wanted to look
like a "good European". Did you know that when we were in the EU, the
UK was the ONLY member state where pricing things by the pound was
illegal? Even in France they would happily sell "une livre" without
hesitation - though what you got was half a Kilo!

Sigh!

Yes sigh indeed! I gave you a simple fact and you turned it into a
political argument. You don't like me I know, but I have no desire to
be popular so it doesn't affect me at all. If you don't want to be
educated, it is your loss not mine.

And for the record, I own a 120-year old house and everything is in
imperial measures. Anything designed to replicate the original but is
made to metric measurements doesn't fit. I bought a replica door latch
and the spindle for the handle shaft didn't quite line up with the
original hole through the door. I bought a pre-used Edwardian one from
a flea market instead.

Java Jive

2024-05-15 22:27:15 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is
arcane and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the
former American colonies.

OK mate, but why is it that the Brits are the most ardent supporters
of the metric system whereas the metric system is barely used in UK?
You guys use miles, pounds, feet, stones but then go about and bust
Yankees balls (not that there is anything wrong with that) because
they still use "your" system?

As this thread is showing, Brits, at least the old 'uns here, are
hardly the most ardent supporters of the metric system, because they
were brought up on Imperial units, as was I, nevertheless ...

Post by Indy Jess John
I reckon it is because the UK Government has always wanted to look
like a "good European". Did you know that when we were in the EU,
the UK was the ONLY member state where pricing things by the pound
was illegal? Even in France they would happily sell "une livre"
without hesitation - though what you got was half a Kilo!

Sigh!

I don't need education from a bigot. As you have had explained to you
before, but conveniently 'forget' so that you can indulge yourself in
your favourite anti-EU fantasy world, the reason for banning the use of
pounds has never had anything to do with any UK government trying to be
good Europeans, but instead arose from a long-standing principle going
back centuries of having just one official system of measurement,
because having more than one official measure of anything is just a
scammer's paradise:

https://ukma.org.uk/why-metric/myths/consumer-protection/

"In Britain people have always been able to choose which units they use.

This notion is a very new one and is completely at odds with the facts.
Ancient civilisations and centuries of British rulers have stressed the
importance of a single measurement system to protect consumers and
traders. A few historic quotes are given below.

Saxon King Edgar decreed:

that one and the same money should be current throughout his
dominions, which no man must refuse; and that the measure of Winchester
should be the standard.

The Magna Carta stated:

“There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the
London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard
width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the
selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.”

Paragraph 35, British Library Translation

First Report of the Commissioners appointed to consider more Uniform
Weights and Measures, 1819, stated:

“A general uniformity of Weights and Measures is so obviously
desirable in every commercial country, in order to the saving of time,
the preventing of mistakes, and the avoiding of litigation, that its
establishment has been a fundamental principle in the English
construction from time immemorial, and it has occasionally been enforced
by penal statues, and by various other legislative enactments.”

Final Report of the Board of Trade Committee on Consumer Protection,
1962, stated:

“A uniform system of weights and measures, nationally used and
enforced, is plainly part of the basic vocabulary of consumer protection.”

In every case cited a single system of measurement is authorised with
nobody free to choose units they want."

And continuing this principle going back centuries ...

https://www.sustainweb.org/foodcoopstoolkit/tradingstandards/

"All produce that you sell by weight must be sold in metric quantities -
grammes and kilogrammes (Kg) and any unit prices must be the price per
Kg. If you also want to put to put the price per pound (lb) as well you
can - as older people often prefer to know this - but on any signs the
price per pound should not be bigger or more prominent than the price
per Kg. Selling things only by the pound is illegal. Even large
supermarket chains sometimes break these rules - as selling things by
the pound make things seem cheaper than they are, because customers are
used to seeing the price per Kg."

Note in the above para that supermarkets are said to be breaking this
rule precisely for the reasons that such rules have always been in place.

Post by Indy Jess John
And for the record, I own a 120-year old house and everything is in
imperial measures. Anything designed to replicate the original but is
made to metric measurements doesn't fit. I bought a replica door latch
and the spindle for the handle shaft didn't quite line up with the
original hole through the door. I bought a pre-used Edwardian one from
a flea market instead.

Fine, but you have by your own choice given yourself a particular set of
problems, don't blame the rest of the country, still less the EU, for
your difficulties in overcoming them.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Indy Jess John

2024-05-15 23:32:55 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is
arcane and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the
former American colonies.

OK mate, but why is it that the Brits are the most ardent
supporters of the metric system whereas the metric system is barely
used in UK? You guys use miles, pounds, feet, stones but then go
about and bust Yankees balls (not that there is anything wrong with
that) because they still use "your" system?

As this thread is showing, Brits, at least the old 'uns here, are
hardly the most ardent supporters of the metric system, because they
were brought up on Imperial units, as was I, nevertheless ...

Post by Indy Jess John
I reckon it is because the UK Government has always wanted to look
like a "good European". Did you know that when we were in the EU,
the UK was the ONLY member state where pricing things by the pound
was illegal? Even in France they would happily sell "une livre"
without hesitation - though what you got was half a Kilo!

Sigh!

I don't need education from a bigot. As you have had explained to you
before, but conveniently 'forget' so that you can indulge yourself in
your favourite anti-EU fantasy world, the reason for banning the use of
pounds has never had anything to do with any UK government trying to be
good Europeans, but instead arose from a long-standing principle going
back centuries of having just one official system of measurement,
because having more than one official measure of anything is just a
https://ukma.org.uk/why-metric/myths/consumer-protection/
"In Britain people have always been able to choose which units they use.
This notion is a very new one and is completely at odds with the facts.
Ancient civilisations and centuries of British rulers have stressed the
importance of a single measurement system to protect consumers and
traders. A few historic quotes are given below.
    that one and the same money should be current throughout his
dominions, which no man must refuse; and that the measure of Winchester
should be the standard.
    “There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the
London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard
width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the
selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.”
Paragraph 35, British Library Translation
First Report of the Commissioners appointed to consider more Uniform
    “A general uniformity of Weights and Measures is so obviously
desirable in every commercial country, in order to the saving of time,
the preventing of mistakes, and the avoiding of litigation, that its
establishment has been a fundamental principle in the English
construction from time immemorial, and it has occasionally been enforced
by penal statues, and by various other legislative enactments.”
Final Report of the Board of Trade Committee on Consumer Protection,
    “A uniform system of weights and measures, nationally used and
enforced, is plainly part of the basic vocabulary of consumer protection.”
In every case cited a single system of measurement is authorised with
nobody free to choose units they want."
And continuing this principle going back centuries ...
https://www.sustainweb.org/foodcoopstoolkit/tradingstandards/
"All produce that you sell by weight must be sold in metric quantities -
grammes and kilogrammes (Kg) and any unit prices must be the price per
Kg. If you also want to put to put the price per pound (lb) as well you
can - as older people often prefer to know this - but on any signs the
price per pound should not be bigger or more prominent than the price
per Kg. Selling things only by the pound is illegal. Even large
supermarket chains sometimes break these rules - as selling things by
the pound make things seem cheaper than they are, because customers are
used to seeing the price per Kg."
Note in the above para that supermarkets are said to be breaking this
rule precisely for the reasons that such rules have always been in place.

Post by Indy Jess John
And for the record, I own a 120-year old house and everything is in
imperial measures. Anything designed to replicate the original but is
made to metric measurements doesn't fit. I bought a replica door
latch and the spindle for the handle shaft didn't quite line up with
the original hole through the door. I bought a pre-used Edwardian one
from a flea market instead.

Fine, but you have by your own choice given yourself a particular set of
problems, don't blame the rest of the country, still less the EU, for
your difficulties in overcoming them.

And the Weights and Measures Act, which has never been repealed,
required goods to be priced per pound. The only reason Metric
superseded it was that the European Communities Act required that in the
event the EU regulations and the statutes from the UK Parliament differ
the EU requirement shall take precedence.

That Act no longer takes precedence, but established practices die hard.

And READ what I said. I didn't blame the EU. I just pointed out that
things still exist from before metric measurements became more
commonplace, and not enough care is being taken nowadays over
equivalents. And I am fully aware that metric has been around since
Victorian times, but wasn't made prominent. The GWR Broad Gauge Railway
was an odd looking 7ft 1/4 Inches, but it is exactly 214 centimetres.

Java Jive

2024-05-16 00:31:24 UTC

Post by Indy Jess John
And for the record, I own a 120-year old house and everything is in
imperial measures. Anything designed to replicate the original but
is made to metric measurements doesn't fit. I bought a replica door
latch and the spindle for the handle shaft didn't quite line up with
the original hole through the door. I bought a pre-used Edwardian
one from a flea market instead.

Fine, but you have by your own choice given yourself a particular set
of problems, don't blame the rest of the country, still less the EU,
for your difficulties in overcoming them.

And the Weights and Measures Act, which has never been repealed,
required goods to be priced per pound.

FFS! Stop wasting everyone's time by spouting bullshit you've read on
shitter, and FACT CHECK YOUR CLAIMS BEFORE MAKING THEM! The Act has
never been repealed, but it has been amended many times, most relevantly
in 1985, when metrication was enforced measurements for most things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weights_and_Measures_Acts_(UK)

Post by Indy Jess John
The only reason Metric
superseded it was that the European Communities Act required that in the
event the EU regulations and the statutes from the UK Parliament differ
the EU requirement shall take precedence.

More bollocks you've read on shitter. Read the Wikipedia article above.
The 1985 Weight & Measures Act specifically addressed the metrication
issue, and is still in force, so the fact that we have now left the EU
and repealed most EU legislation is utterly irrelevant.

Post by Indy Jess John
That Act no longer takes precedence, but established practices die hard.

See above, the 1985 Act enforcing metrication is STILL in force.

Post by Indy Jess John
And READ what I said. I didn't blame the EU.

You're still trying to blame the EU now, by mindlessly parroting
bullshit about it that you've read on shitter.

I just pointed out that

Post by Indy Jess John
things still exist from before metric measurements became more
commonplace, and not enough care is being taken nowadays over
equivalents.

Given your hopelessly miserable trail of inaccuracies above and
previously, for you you to preach to others about care is deeply
hypocritical.

Post by Indy Jess John
And I am fully aware that metric has been around since
Victorian times, but wasn't made prominent. The GWR Broad Gauge Railway
was an odd looking 7ft 1/4 Inches, but it is exactly 214 centimetres.

Again you've missed the point, what you were being told is a principle
going back centuries in UK law WAS NOT metrication in the UK, but WAS
the principle of having only one legal unit of measurement of most
things, to avoid people being scammed.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Scott

2024-05-16 09:27:48 UTC

On Thu, 16 May 2024 00:32:55 +0100, Indy Jess John

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is
arcane and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the
former American colonies.

OK mate, but why is it that the Brits are the most ardent
supporters of the metric system whereas the metric system is barely
used in UK? You guys use miles, pounds, feet, stones but then go
about and bust Yankees balls (not that there is anything wrong with
that) because they still use "your" system?

As this thread is showing, Brits, at least the old 'uns here, are
hardly the most ardent supporters of the metric system, because they
were brought up on Imperial units, as was I, nevertheless ...

Post by Indy Jess John
I reckon it is because the UK Government has always wanted to look
like a "good European". Did you know that when we were in the EU,
the UK was the ONLY member state where pricing things by the pound
was illegal? Even in France they would happily sell "une livre"
without hesitation - though what you got was half a Kilo!

Sigh!

I don't need education from a bigot. As you have had explained to you
before, but conveniently 'forget' so that you can indulge yourself in
your favourite anti-EU fantasy world, the reason for banning the use of
pounds has never had anything to do with any UK government trying to be
good Europeans, but instead arose from a long-standing principle going
back centuries of having just one official system of measurement,
because having more than one official measure of anything is just a
https://ukma.org.uk/why-metric/myths/consumer-protection/
"In Britain people have always been able to choose which units they use.
This notion is a very new one and is completely at odds with the facts.
Ancient civilisations and centuries of British rulers have stressed the
importance of a single measurement system to protect consumers and
traders. A few historic quotes are given below.
    that one and the same money should be current throughout his
dominions, which no man must refuse; and that the measure of Winchester
should be the standard.
    There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the
London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard
width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the
selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.
Paragraph 35, British Library Translation
First Report of the Commissioners appointed to consider more Uniform
    A general uniformity of Weights and Measures is so obviously
desirable in every commercial country, in order to the saving of time,
the preventing of mistakes, and the avoiding of litigation, that its
establishment has been a fundamental principle in the English
construction from time immemorial, and it has occasionally been enforced
by penal statues, and by various other legislative enactments.
Final Report of the Board of Trade Committee on Consumer Protection,
    A uniform system of weights and measures, nationally used and
enforced, is plainly part of the basic vocabulary of consumer protection.
In every case cited a single system of measurement is authorised with
nobody free to choose units they want."
And continuing this principle going back centuries ...
https://www.sustainweb.org/foodcoopstoolkit/tradingstandards/
"All produce that you sell by weight must be sold in metric quantities -
grammes and kilogrammes (Kg) and any unit prices must be the price per
Kg. If you also want to put to put the price per pound (lb) as well you
can - as older people often prefer to know this - but on any signs the
price per pound should not be bigger or more prominent than the price
per Kg. Selling things only by the pound is illegal. Even large
supermarket chains sometimes break these rules - as selling things by
the pound make things seem cheaper than they are, because customers are
used to seeing the price per Kg."
Note in the above para that supermarkets are said to be breaking this
rule precisely for the reasons that such rules have always been in place.

Post by Indy Jess John
And for the record, I own a 120-year old house and everything is in
imperial measures. Anything designed to replicate the original but is
made to metric measurements doesn't fit. I bought a replica door
latch and the spindle for the handle shaft didn't quite line up with
the original hole through the door. I bought a pre-used Edwardian one
from a flea market instead.

Fine, but you have by your own choice given yourself a particular set of
problems, don't blame the rest of the country, still less the EU, for
your difficulties in overcoming them.

And the Weights and Measures Act, which has never been repealed,
required goods to be priced per pound. The only reason Metric
superseded it was that the European Communities Act required that in the
event the EU regulations and the statutes from the UK Parliament differ
the EU requirement shall take precedence.
That Act no longer takes precedence, but established practices die hard.
And READ what I said. I didn't blame the EU. I just pointed out that
things still exist from before metric measurements became more
commonplace, and not enough care is being taken nowadays over
equivalents. And I am fully aware that metric has been around since
Victorian times, but wasn't made prominent. The GWR Broad Gauge Railway
was an odd looking 7ft 1/4 Inches, but it is exactly 214 centimetres.

That would be an odd looking 2.14 metres then :-)

Scott

2024-05-16 09:25:23 UTC

On Wed, 15 May 2024 22:12:16 +0100, Indy Jess John

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is
arcane and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the
former American colonies.

OK mate, but why is it that the Brits are the most ardent supporters
of the metric system whereas the metric system is barely used in UK?
You guys use miles, pounds, feet, stones but then go about and bust
Yankees balls (not that there is anything wrong with that) because
they still use "your" system?

As this thread is showing, Brits, at least the old 'uns here, are hardly
the most ardent supporters of the metric system, because they were
brought up on Imperial units, as was I, nevertheless ...

Post by Indy Jess John
I reckon it is because the UK Government has always wanted to look
like a "good European". Did you know that when we were in the EU, the
UK was the ONLY member state where pricing things by the pound was
illegal? Even in France they would happily sell "une livre" without
hesitation - though what you got was half a Kilo!

Sigh!

I'm not sure JJ likes me much either, but he is a lively debater and
this is a discussion group. The is always the option to read posts
selectively.

Java Jive

2024-05-16 09:49:06 UTC

Post by Scott
On Wed, 15 May 2024 22:12:16 +0100, Indy Jess John

Post by Indy Jess John
You don't like me I know, but I have no desire to
be popular so it doesn't affect me at all. If you don't want to be
educated, it is your loss not mine.

I'm not sure JJ likes me much either, but he is a lively debater and
this is a discussion group.

Exactly, and thank you. My liking of people or not has very little to
do with it, I just debunk crap when I see it, and unfortunately IJJ
tends to post rather a lot of it, particularly over certain issues. His
trying to reduce the argument down to whether I like him or not shows
that he argues emotionally rather than rationally, which goes most of
the way to explaining why he posts so much crap in the first place.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

2024-05-16 08:44:13 UTC

I use metric for anything where accuracy is required, except road
distances - because all the sign posts are still in miles, if they were
changed to kilometres, I'd happily use those instead.

I remember in the mid 1990s going to Ireland on business, and driving late
at night from Dublin to Wexford. Ireland had changed to metric speed limit
signs by that time, and most cars had metric speedometers (ie km/hr figures
were larger than mph ones). But a lot of the distance signs, especially
older ones outside the big towns, were still in miles. Try doing the 5/8
calculation in your head when you are trying to estimate how much longer it
will be till you arrive, when you have 43 miles and you are doing 80 km/hr!

It says a lot about how tired I was that I tried doing the 45/80 * (5/8)
calculation, instead of reading off the smaller mph figure and doing 45/50
;-)

Java Jive

2024-05-16 10:01:12 UTC

I use metric for anything where accuracy is required, except road
distances - because all the sign posts are still in miles, if they
were changed to kilometres, I'd happily use those instead.

I remember in the mid 1990s going to Ireland on business, and driving
late at night from Dublin to Wexford. Ireland had changed to metric
speed limit signs by that time, and most cars had metric speedometers
(ie km/hr figures were larger than mph ones). But a lot of the distance
signs, especially older ones outside the big towns, were still in miles.
Try doing the 5/8 calculation in your head when you are trying to
estimate how much longer it will be till you arrive, when you have 43
miles and you are doing 80 km/hr!
It says a lot about how tired I was that I tried doing the 45/80 * (5/8)
calculation, instead of reading off the smaller mph figure and doing
45/50 ;-)

The actual multiplier is 0.621, so it's true that 5/8 = 0.625 is more
accurate, but for most purposes I find that converting to 1 decimal
point accuracy is sufficient, and therefore to go from km to miles
simply multiply by 6 then divide by 10, similarly for the reverse
calculation you'd multiply by 10 then divide by 6. Where greater
accuracy is required there's always a calculator, though of course not
when you're driving!

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Scott

2024-05-16 18:35:19 UTC

I use metric for anything where accuracy is required, except road
distances - because all the sign posts are still in miles, if they
were changed to kilometres, I'd happily use those instead.

I remember in the mid 1990s going to Ireland on business, and driving
late at night from Dublin to Wexford. Ireland had changed to metric
speed limit signs by that time, and most cars had metric speedometers
(ie km/hr figures were larger than mph ones). But a lot of the distance
signs, especially older ones outside the big towns, were still in miles.
Try doing the 5/8 calculation in your head when you are trying to
estimate how much longer it will be till you arrive, when you have 43
miles and you are doing 80 km/hr!
It says a lot about how tired I was that I tried doing the 45/80 * (5/8)
calculation, instead of reading off the smaller mph figure and doing
45/50 ;-)

There is a story of a young Brit working in Australia as a delivery
driver at the time the speed limits had been changed to metric and the
van speedo was calibrated in mph. She achieved all-time record
delivery times. Probably apocryphal.

JMB99

2024-05-16 07:19:57 UTC

I notice that often problems arise when typically someone will be
reporting on flooding and be told the water is a couple of feet deep.

They then realise that to be politically correct they have to use metric
and will convert 'couple of feet' to metric (often to a couple of
decimal places) and get it wrong!

I often photograph wartime sites and make note of a few measurements.
It usually obvious that they were built using Imperial measurements so
why convert 10 ft x 20 ft to metric and write that down.

I find far more errors are through confusion between measurements in
millimetres and metres and even occasionally centimetres.

2024-05-16 08:52:31 UTC

Post by JMB99

I reckon it is because the UK Government has always wanted to look like a
"good European". Did you know that when we were in the EU, the UK was
the ONLY member state where pricing things by the pound was illegal? Even
in France they would happily sell "une livre" without hesitation - though
what you got was half a Kilo!

One of the common complaints when converting an integer number of inches or
ounces to the metric equivalent, when buying things in shops, is that it
results in obscure decimal numbers - 4 ounces being quoted as 113.398
grammes. In practice, when you as for "4 ounces of cheese" you don't want
4.0000000 ounces, so a good metric equivalent is 115 grammes - rounding to a
convenient integer and maybe one that is a factor of 5 or even 10.

Post by JMB99
I often photograph wartime sites and make note of a few measurements. It
usually obvious that they were built using Imperial measurements so why
convert 10 ft x 20 ft to metric and write that down.
I find far more errors are through confusion between measurements in
millimetres and metres and even occasionally centimetres.

Some of it stems from not having a clue about the sizes of units, to realise
that a potato is more likely to weigh 200 g than 200 mg or 200 kg!

In metric, I tend to specify numbers using an integer of a unit that gives
me the required precision - so 123 g rather than 0.123 kg.

Ottavio Caruso

2024-05-16 08:44:22 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is
arcane and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the
former American colonies.

OK mate, but why is it that the Brits are the most ardent supporters
of the metric system whereas the metric system is barely used in UK?
You guys use miles, pounds, feet, stones but then go about and bust
Yankees balls (not that there is anything wrong with that) because
they still use "your" system?

I didn't know this, because it was never illegal.

Post by Indy Jess John
Even in France they would happily sell "une livre" without hesitation -
though what you got was half a Kilo!

"Une livre" means exactly half a kg, not a pound. A pound is slightly
less than half a kg.

--
Ottavio Caruso

Tweed

2024-05-15 16:18:51 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is arcane
and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the former
American colonies.

We actually use both imperial and metric systems. Pretty much all of
science and engineering is done in metric (exceptions apply). I don’t find
it very troublesome to use both.

David Wade

2024-05-15 16:21:56 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is
arcane and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the
former American colonies.

Officially we no longer use feet, pounds or stones.
We do sell draught beer in Pints, but these are a different size to US
pints.

Dave

charles

2024-05-15 17:00:03 UTC

Post by David Wade

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is
arcane and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the
former American colonies.

Officially we no longer use feet, pounds or stones.
We do sell draught beer in Pints, but these are a different size to US
pints.

That's their fault, not ours. On the other hand, having a pint of water
weighing a pound is very logical.

A milk container in our fridge is marked as 4 pints

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Roderick Stewart

2024-05-15 17:38:02 UTC

Post by charles

Post by David Wade
Officially we no longer use feet, pounds or stones.
We do sell draught beer in Pints, but these are a different size to US
pints.

That's their fault, not ours. On the other hand, having a pint of water
weighing a pound is very logical.

Except it doesn't. "A pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter"
is the rhyme I was taught to remember it.

(I think it's different in the USA, but isn't everything?)

Post by charles
A milk container in our fridge is marked as 4 pints

Some of them are, and some of them are 2 litres, which is a bit less.

Rod.

Indy Jess John

2024-05-15 21:16:44 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by charles

Post by David Wade
Officially we no longer use feet, pounds or stones.
We do sell draught beer in Pints, but these are a different size to US
pints.

That's their fault, not ours. On the other hand, having a pint of water
weighing a pound is very logical.

Except it doesn't. "A pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter"
is the rhyme I was taught to remember it.

I agree. I was taught that a gallon of water weighs 10 pounds, which
exactly matches your pint weighing "a pound and a quarter"

2024-05-16 09:34:54 UTC

Post by Indy Jess John
I agree. I was taught that a gallon of water weighs 10 pounds, which
exactly matches your pint weighing "a pound and a quarter"

Which is fine as far as it goes, but if you have to measure the linear
dimensions of a container (eg cylinder) and then convert to gallons to give
equivalent weight (of water) you find that the conversion factor cu inch to
gallons is not a nice number. 277.1 IIRC for UK gallons and 231 (exactly)
for US gallons.

Jeff Layman

2024-05-16 09:54:18 UTC

Post by Indy Jess John
I agree. I was taught that a gallon of water weighs 10 pounds, which
exactly matches your pint weighing "a pound and a quarter"

I wonder why 231 was chosen. It's 3 x 7 x 11 as it happens - oddly
convenient with those prime numbers.

--
Jeff

2024-05-16 08:38:35 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is arcane
and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the former
American colonies.

OK mate, but why is it that the Brits are the most ardent supporters of
the metric system whereas the metric system is barely used in UK? You guys
use miles, pounds, feet, stones but then go about and bust Yankees balls
(not that there is anything wrong with that) because they still use "your"
system?

It depends what you mean by "hardly used".

In my experience, imperial units are more widely used than metric as "folk
units" - "it's about half a mile away", "my height is 5 foot 11", "he was
about 12 stone [in body weight]". I imagine that will gradually change as
the older people die off and/or don't use imperial when talking to their
children. Clothing sizes (chest, waist) are usually still given in inches.

But metric units are used in science and engineering, and commonly (although
not exclusively) in DIY. You do get slightly mixed units: we buy
petrol/diesel in litres but still talk about a car's fuel economy in miles
per gallon; we measure a car's power in horsepower but often refer to its
maximum torque in Nm. It's very rare that engine thrust is referred to in
"pounds" over here.

Air temperatures, in weather forecasts, are only given in deg C these days,
and the only place where you see deg F temperatures mentioned is in tabloid
newspaper stories about sweltering summer temperatures where deg F "sounds"
hotter because 95 (deg F) is a larger number than 35 (deg C) - "trivial"
things like units often get missed off in "phew, what a scorcher" headlines!

I'm one of those "mixed" people (being 60 years old) - I estimate (*) in
imperial but I always measure and calculate in metric. At least I've learned
my height in centimetres - 178 cm = 5' 10". I know the standard cake
ingredients better in imperial: 3/4/5/2 (ounces of sugar/butter/flour, and 2
eggs), but I dare say I could remember the metric equivalent if I put my
mind to it - it will always be the same ratio.

(*) Though I'm crap at estimating in *any* unit - something that I estimate
as 2" one day might be estimated as 1" or 3" the next day!

Roderick Stewart

2024-05-16 09:27:05 UTC

Post by NY
I'm one of those "mixed" people (being 60 years old) - I estimate (*) in
imperial but I always measure and calculate in metric. At least I've learned
my height in centimetres - 178 cm = 5' 10". I know the standard cake
ingredients better in imperial: 3/4/5/2 (ounces of sugar/butter/flour, and 2
eggs), but I dare say I could remember the metric equivalent if I put my
mind to it - it will always be the same ratio.

I can remember when my pocket money, or the change from spending some
of it, would occasionally include farthings.

Rod.

Tweed

2024-05-16 10:46:57 UTC

Post by David Wade
Because it seems to be what the public want? Because imperial is arcane
and old fashioned? Because it confuses the F!ck out of the former
American colonies.

OK mate, but why is it that the Brits are the most ardent supporters of
the metric system whereas the metric system is barely used in UK? You guys
use miles, pounds, feet, stones but then go about and bust Yankees balls
(not that there is anything wrong with that) because they still use "your"
system?

It depends what you mean by "hardly used".
In my experience, imperial units are more widely used than metric as "folk
units" - "it's about half a mile away", "my height is 5 foot 11", "he was
about 12 stone [in body weight]". I imagine that will gradually change as
the older people die off and/or don't use imperial when talking to their
children. Clothing sizes (chest, waist) are usually still given in inches.
But metric units are used in science and engineering, and commonly (although
not exclusively) in DIY. You do get slightly mixed units: we buy
petrol/diesel in litres but still talk about a car's fuel economy in miles
per gallon; we measure a car's power in horsepower but often refer to its
maximum torque in Nm. It's very rare that engine thrust is referred to in
"pounds" over here.
Air temperatures, in weather forecasts, are only given in deg C these days,
and the only place where you see deg F temperatures mentioned is in tabloid
newspaper stories about sweltering summer temperatures where deg F "sounds"
hotter because 95 (deg F) is a larger number than 35 (deg C) - "trivial"
things like units often get missed off in "phew, what a scorcher" headlines!
I'm one of those "mixed" people (being 60 years old) - I estimate (*) in
imperial but I always measure and calculate in metric. At least I've learned
my height in centimetres - 178 cm = 5' 10". I know the standard cake
ingredients better in imperial: 3/4/5/2 (ounces of sugar/butter/flour, and 2
eggs), but I dare say I could remember the metric equivalent if I put my
mind to it - it will always be the same ratio.
(*) Though I'm crap at estimating in *any* unit - something that I estimate
as 2" one day might be estimated as 1" or 3" the next day!

Same age as you and similar experience. However I think I’m using metric
more often in casual conversation. All engineering and other serious work
is metric. Ask my 28 year old son how long or heavy something is and the
answer is invariably metric.

The Continent isn’t quite as metric as you might think. I’ve found lots of
tape measures are dual metric/inch and a Romanian referred to something in
inches in casual conversation not too long ago. TVs and display monitors
also seem to be still marketed in inches, though increasingly both in
inches and centimetres.

JMB99

2024-05-16 18:32:49 UTC

Post by Tweed
The Continent isn’t quite as metric as you might think. I’ve found lots of
tape measures are dual metric/inch and a Romanian referred to something in
inches in casual conversation not too long ago. TVs and display monitors
also seem to be still marketed in inches, though increasingly both in
inches and centimetres.

I can't remember ever thinking 'in metric', always have to convert.

Many things in Europe that appear metric but are actually still Imperial
and have been rounded off to a metric figure. You hear of lots of
things that still sold in Imperial even in Europe. Aren't paving
stones still nearly the size they always have been in Imperial - 600 MM
rather than 24 inches?

charles

2024-05-16 19:30:03 UTC

Post by JMB99

The Continent isnt quite as metric as you might think. Ive found lots of
tape measures are dual metric/inch and a Romanian referred to something in
inches in casual conversation not too long ago. TVs and display monitors
also seem to be still marketed in inches, though increasingly both in
inches and centimetres.

I can't remember ever thinking 'in metric', always have to convert.
Many things in Europe that appear metric but are actually still Imperial
and have been rounded off to a metric figure. You hear of lots of
things that still sold in Imperial even in Europe. Aren't paving
stones still nearly the size they always have been in Imperial - 600 MM
rather than 24 inches?

I remember a handbook on a piece of (French) equipment which stated it
fitted in a rack of "dix-neuf pouces".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Java Jive

2024-05-14 18:47:20 UTC

An absent-minded slip probably, though I grant that it's rather strange
that the same slip happened on both dimensions. But anyway, whatever it
may or may not have said previously, the text has been corrected and now
says 8ft 6in by 6ft 6in. From the Response Headers the correction seems
to have been made at 1837 hrs.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Tweed

2024-05-14 18:53:37 UTC

You can see where it came from. Probably the source said 8 and a half feet,
and someone remembered 15 cms was half a foot ruler.

Java Jive

2024-05-14 21:36:51 UTC

Post by Tweed

You can see where it came from. Probably the source said 8 and a half feet,
and someone remembered 15 cms was half a foot ruler.

Yes, that makes sense.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Jim Lesurf

2024-05-16 13:30:02 UTC

Post by Tweed
You can see where it came from. Probably the source said 8 and a half
feet, and someone remembered 15 cms was half a foot ruler.

Missed the error in specifying the size. Only seen it shown on TV. To me it
looked like a face staring out of a cloud of red paint!

Reminded me about the old story...

Teachers called in a trick-cyclist and explained they were worried about
the mental state of a pupil who only ever use black when in art class.
Thought it indicated being 'disturbed' or ;'depressed'.

The trick-cyclist talked to the child who seemed not to have depression or
any other medical problems. So they asked the child why they always only
painted using black.

The reply was that the child was at the back of the class and when they got
to the paints at the front only black remained because the rest had been
taken already by the other pupils!

Maybe in this case, red was cheaper. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

John Hall

2024-05-15 09:19:12 UTC

I hope her knowledge of culture is a bit better than her grasp of
imperial measurements.

--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

2024-05-15 10:42:17 UTC

I hope her knowledge of culture is a bit better than her grasp of imperial
measurements.

I wonder how much longer it will be before imperial conversions are
gradually dropped, given that metric is being taught more and more to
younger people, who have little "feel" for the size of an inch or a foot or
an ounce or a pound. Will it be like the transition from deg F to deg C in
weather forecasts, where conversions were given - initially "def F (deg C)",
then "deg C (deg F)" and now "deg C" only.

We will reach a stage in the future where people who were brought up
primarily to know imperial are no longer around, and imperial units are no
longer meaningful to the people who are then alive.

Roll on that day. Britain of the past was better in many ways, but a system
of units which uses every base under the sun *except* base 10 is ludicrous.
If we want to use base 12 for lengths etc, breed a race of people with 12
fingers+thumbs so we learn to count in base 12.

Base 2 and 16, in computing, is different because (for hex) at least single
characters A-F are used for 10 (decimal) to 15 (decimal) so you don't have
the problem of trying to fit two digits into the space of one, when adding 8
lb 4 oz and 3 lb 15 oz, and it's consistent so you don't have to change
bases mid-number, as with stones, pounds, ounces or gallons, pints, fluid
ounces. And everyone throughtout the world has the same sized metric units -
no US versus UK gallons and pints.

Max Demian

2024-05-15 11:10:07 UTC

Post by John Hall

I hope her knowledge of culture is a bit better than her grasp of
imperial measurements.

I think it would be better if we had gone entirely metric rather than in
the half hearted way we did.

Don't kids still learn their tables up to 12 (if they still learn
tables)? Since no-one used inches/feet or old pennies/shillings they
only need to learn them from 2 to 9.

(I was supposed to learn 14 times (pounds in a stone) and 16 times
(ounces in a pound) tables.)

--
Max Demian

2024-05-18 07:42:37 UTC

Post by Max Demian

Post by John Hall

I hope her knowledge of culture is a bit better than her grasp of
imperial measurements.

I think it would be better if we had gone entirely metric rather than in
the half hearted way we did.
Don't kids still learn their tables up to 12 (if they still learn
tables)? Since no-one used inches/feet or old pennies/shillings they
only need to learn them from 2 to 9.
(I was supposed to learn 14 times (pounds in a stone) and 16 times
(ounces in a pound) tables.)

I learned tables up to 12 and can still, 60 years later, instantly
recall any m x n multiplication (m,n <= 12). But 13, 14, 17, 18 x table
etc - I need pen and paper to work those out. 15 and 16 table I remember
spot values. 16, largely because of hexadecimal in computing.

I was at infant school in the late 60s and our arithmetic books of
"sums" contained various
additions/subtractions/multiplications/divisions of £sd or
cwt/stone/pound/ounce or gallon/pint/fl oz quantities, but we were told
to ignore all of those because money would be going decimal in a few
years, and sooner or later mass/volume would be expressed in metric, so
there was no sense in anyone busting a gut to learn a dying skill.

I'm old enough that I estimate in imperial "it's about 1 foot 6 long"
and I know my height in ft / in better than in centimetres - probably
because I was taught those by my parents and grandparents. But I always,
always measure in metric because I can think better in millimetres or
grammes than I can in obscure fractions such as 3/8 or 5/16 of an
inch/ounce.

I still remember helping my dad put up a hot water cylinder in a remote
cottage with no phone. There was no label on the cylinder giving its
volume in gallons or litres. We had no calculator and no phone to call
my mum to ask her to calculate. All we wanted to know was roughly how
heavy the cylinder would be when full of water, to work out whether the
baulks of wood that it would stand on would be strong enough. Oh, and
the only tape measure we had was calibrated in inches only (no cm).

I measured circumference and height in inches. r = c / 2 pi (approximate
pi to 3 for a rough and ready answer), V = pi r*2 l. I ended up with an
approx volume in cubic inches. OK, convert that to gallons and then use
"1 pint = 1.25 pounds" or 1 gallon = 10 lb". OK, so what's the
conversion between cu in and gallons. Not an f-ing clue - not even to an
order of magnitude - could have been 10, 100, 1000, 1 million - no idea.

I ended up converting linear measurements to centimetres (1 inch is very
roughly 2 centimetres) because I knew that 1 cc weighs 1 gramme or 1
litre weighs 1 kilogramme or 1 cubic metre weighs a tonne.

For the record, the conversion factor is not a "nice" number. It's not
an obscure integer because, incredibly, it's not even an integer. 1 UK
gallon is 277.42 cu in. What wacky backy do you have to smoke to come up
with that conversion factor? I've never understood why the US pint is
not *exactly* 16/20 = 4/5 of the UK pint -it's very nearly, but not
exactly - 1 UK fl oz is 0.96 US fl oz - why?. For US gallon, the
conversion is at least an integer - 1 US gallon is 231 cubic inches.

Andy Burns

2024-05-18 08:41:21 UTC

Post by NY
For the record, the conversion factor is not a "nice" number. It's not
an obscure integer because, incredibly, it's not even an integer. 1 UK
gallon is 277.42 cu in. What wacky backy do you have to smoke to come up
with that conversion factor? I've never understood why the US pint is
not exactly 16/20 = 4/5 of the UK pint -it's very nearly, but not
exactly - 1 UK fl oz is 0.96 US fl oz - why?. For US gallon, the
conversion is at least an integer - 1 US gallon is 231 cubic inches.

Britain used to have different gallons for different liquids, eventually
the imperial gallon was redefined in terms of 10lb of water at standard
temperature and pressure. At about the same time the USA used the
previous British wine gallon which was defined in terms of cubic inches,
and possibly at different temperature, so you get rounding errors ...

<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Imperial-unit#ref299766>

Nowadays both Imperial and UK gallons are defined in terms of litres to
multiple decimal places.

Java Jive

2024-05-18 10:59:41 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Nowadays both Imperial and UK gallons are defined in terms of litres to
multiple decimal places.

LOL! That tells you all you need to know about Imperial measurements!

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

John Hall

2024-05-18 08:39:22 UTC

In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<***@privacy.net> writes
<snip>

Post by NY
I was at infant school in the late 60s and our arithmetic books of
"sums" contained various
additions/subtractions/multiplications/divisions of £sd or
cwt/stone/pound/ounce or gallon/pint/fl oz quantities, but we were told
ignore all of those because money would be going decimal in a few
years, and sooner or later mass/volume would be expressed in metric, so
there was no sense in anyone busting a gut to learn a dying skill.

That sounds pretty advanced for infant school (which at least in Surrey
was for ages 5 to 7). We had to wait till junior school for that kind of
calculation, in my case back in the mid to late 1950s. We had farthings
to contend with too, even though in real life farthings were very rarely
encountered by then. Typical 11-plus arithmetic question: what is the
total cost of 17 widgets if one widget costs £13/11/2.75d? (Where the
three farthings would have appeared as a proper three-quarters symbol
rather than as .75.)

--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

Andy Burns

2024-05-18 09:07:09 UTC

Post by NY
I was at infant school in the late 60s and our arithmetic books of
"sums" contained various
additions/subtractions/multiplications/divisions of £sd or
cwt/stone/pound/ounce or gallon/pint/fl oz quantities, but we were told
to ignore all of those because money would be going decimal in a few
years, and sooner or later mass/volume would be expressed in metric, so
there was no sense in anyone busting a gut to learn a dying skill.

The back cover of all our exercise books contained tables of rods,
poles, perches, chains etc. Later, we were issued with the decks of
orange metrication cards, e.g.

<https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/175796469069>

I'm surp

Indy Jess John

2024-05-15 11:58:11 UTC

Post by NY
If we want to use base 12 for lengths etc, breed a race of people with
12 fingers+thumbs so we learn to count in base 12

Not necessary. If you use the thumb of one hand to count the bones in
the fingers of the same hand, you get to 12. Eggs are mostly packaged as
dozens or half dozens. 12 has the advantage of being convenient for
halves, thirds, quarters and 6ths. And by using both hands you can count
up to a gross - or 60 which is the seconds in a minute or minutes in an
hour.

The middle joint of the typical little finger is almost exactly an inch.
There are 12 of those in a foot which is the length of a size 7 foot.
I have not found any body parts that match metric sizes.

Java Jive

2024-05-15 12:51:31 UTC

Post by NY
If we want to use base 12 for lengths etc, breed a race of people with
12 fingers+thumbs so we learn to count in base 12

Not necessary. If you use the thumb of one hand to count the bones in
the fingers of the same hand, you get to 12. Eggs are mostly packaged as
dozens or half dozens. 12 has the advantage of being convenient for
halves, thirds, quarters and 6ths. And by using both hands you can count
up to a gross - or 60 which is the seconds in a minute or minutes in an
hour.
The middle joint of the typical little finger is almost exactly an inch.
There are 12 of those in a foot which is the length of a size 7 foot.
I have not found any body parts that match metric sizes.

Which is so ridiculous that even if it were true, which it is not ...

https://www.britannica.com/science/inch

... would still be a very good reason not to use such variable things as
the human body as a basis for defining standard measurements. The
result is a ghastly irrational mess for which few people, not even a
well known Professor of Mathematics, so possibly no-one, can do the
required mental arithmetic in their heads ...

21:23 in ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017tbl

... and is precisely the sort of reason why the metric system was
invented and has been near universally adopted:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-dont-use-the-metric-system

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Andy Burns

2024-05-15 13:54:20 UTC

Post by Indy Jess John
The middle joint of the typical little finger is almost exactly an inch.

1 3/8" here

Post by Java Jive
Which is so ridiculous that even if it were true, which it is not ...
https://www.britannica.com/science/inch

Thumb width *is* very close to 1" here.

Indy Jess John

2024-05-15 14:59:18 UTC

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Indy Jess John
The middle joint of the typical little finger is almost exactly an inch.

1 3/8" here

"He was a big man. He had big hands"

Quote from James Joyce - Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man

Spike

2024-05-15 14:02:50 UTC

Post by NY
If we want to use base 12 for lengths etc, breed a race of people with
12 fingers+thumbs so we learn to count in base 12

Not necessary. If you use the thumb of one hand to count the bones in
the fingers of the same hand, you get to 12. Eggs are mostly packaged as
dozens or half dozens. 12 has the advantage of being convenient for
halves, thirds, quarters and 6ths. And by using both hands you can count
up to a gross - or 60 which is the seconds in a minute or minutes in an
hour.
The middle joint of the typical little finger is almost exactly an inch.
There are 12 of those in a foot which is the length of a size 7 foot.
I have not found any body parts that match metric sizes.

Which is so ridiculous that even if it were true, which it is not ...
https://www.britannica.com/science/inch
... would still be a very good reason not to use such variable things as
the human body as a basis for defining standard measurements. The
result is a ghastly irrational mess for which few people, not even a
well known Professor of Mathematics, so possibly no-one, can do the
required mental arithmetic in their heads ...
21:23 in ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017tbl
... and is precisely the sort of reason why the metric system was
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-dont-use-the-metric-system

You appear to have a touching faith in people having the title of
Professor.

Some of us grew up with Oersteads, ergs, dynes, slugs and poundals, and we
survived, although I can see why someone whose ‘science degree’ course
contained Music Appreciation might lack the necessary mental gymnastics
needed to cope with the pre-SI system.

--
Spike

Java Jive

2024-05-15 17:30:22 UTC

Post by Spike
Some of us grew up with Oersteads, ergs, dynes, slugs and poundals, and we
survived, although I can see why someone whose ‘science degree’ course
contained Music Appreciation might lack the necessary mental gymnastics
needed to cope with the pre-SI system.

Some of us are still waiting to hear what your (probably non-existent)
education or technical qualifications are.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Spike

2024-05-16 08:07:27 UTC

Some of us are still waiting to hear what your (probably non-existent)
education or technical qualifications are.

They don’t include Music Appreciation.

--
Spike

2024-05-15 22:14:53 UTC

I have always been crap (technical term!) at any form of mental
arithmetic. I always have to write the numbers down that I am
adding/subtracting/multiplying/dividing so I can keep track of the
carry/borrow digits. I don't *need* a calculator (though I wouldn't
refuse one!) but I do at least need pen and paper.

Even *seeing* the numbers written down and adding them without writing
anything down is easier than having to remember the numbers that I am
operating on. That probably says a lot about the way my memory works. My
wife has a "visual memory" and reckons to be able to visualise the
digits of the numbers as she is working on them as if she were looking
at them on a piece of paper. Likewise she can look at a map and then
look away or close the book and remember what the pattern of roads
looked like so she can take the correct turns without needing to look at
the map.

Our memories are very different ;-)

Spike

2024-05-16 08:21:12 UTC

I have always been crap (technical term!) at any form of mental
arithmetic. I always have to write the numbers down that I am
adding/subtracting/multiplying/dividing so I can keep track of the
carry/borrow digits. I don't *need* a calculator (though I wouldn't
refuse one!) but I do at least need pen and paper.
Even *seeing* the numbers written down and adding them without writing
anything down is easier than having to remember the numbers that I am
operating on. That probably says a lot about the way my memory works. My
wife has a "visual memory" and reckons to be able to visualise the
digits of the numbers as she is working on them as if she were looking
at them on a piece of paper. Likewise she can look at a map and then
look away or close the book and remember what the pattern of roads
looked like so she can take the correct turns without needing to look at
the map.
Our memories are very different ;-)

Unfortunately, it was well into my working life before I realised that,
like your wife, I see things in pictures and diagrams rather than lists. I
also juggle numbers in my head, and was always good at mental arithmetic,
even at junior school.

In the days before satnavs I could look at a road map, and then drive there
without further reference to it, short journeys or long. But lists leave me
cold when it comes to memory retention. I don’t go supermarket shopping
with a list, I draw a mental diagram of where the stuff I want is, and just
follow that.

--
Spike

Roderick Stewart

2024-05-16 09:04:06 UTC

Post by Spike
In the days before satnavs I could look at a road map, and then drive there
without further reference to it, short journeys or long.

I must have been able to do this to some extent, because for more than
three quarters of my life (so far), I did, because maps were all that
I had.

Nowadays I sometimes use satnav even for a reasonably familiar
journey, because it can give an ETA, and remind me how far to the next
junction, and even show me which lane to get into, which is very
useful as the road signs usually don't give adequate lane info till
it's too late. It can also warn me of obstructions or holdups and
route me around them.

I amaze myself sometimes when I reflect that I managed without any of
this for many years longer than I've had the use of it, so it must
have been possible somehow, though I'm not sure I'd be able to go back
now even if I wanted to.

Rod.

2024-05-16 09:44:39 UTC

Post by Spike
Unfortunately, it was well into my working life before I realised that,
like your wife, I see things in pictures and diagrams rather than lists. I
also juggle numbers in my head, and was always good at mental arithmetic,
even at junior school.
In the days before satnavs I could look at a road map, and then drive there
without further reference to it, short journeys or long. But lists leave me
cold when it comes to memory retention. I don’t go supermarket shopping
with a list, I draw a mental diagram of where the stuff I want is, and just
follow that.

My memory for maps is not good: I need to keep referring back because I
remember places along the way in the wrong order etc. But I have a good
memory for the appearance of a road, approached from various directions - so
I remember the appearance of buildings better than maps.

I'm always amazed at the level of route knowledge required by train
drivers - to remember the order of "features" - speed limits, gradients,
public footpath crossings so they can brake long before they can *see* the
restriction as you would when driving a car. I can drive a road that I do
every day, and yet I'd been hard pressed to remember the order in which
notable features appear.

They say that mnemonics and "stories" are a good way of remembering things
in the correct sequence - which is fine as long as you can think quickly
enough to be able to encode into a mnemonic and then decode it when needed!

Phone numbers and car registrations are something I've always been able to
remember easily, though not to the extent of a chap I used to work with who
had memorised all the STD phone codes and could say "ah, 01234 is Bedford
and if the subscriber number starts with 61 it's this district and if it
starts with 62 it's this district" etc. I imagine he was somewhere on the
autism spectrum - as so many computer gurus are.

Java Jive

2024-05-16 10:24:38 UTC

Post by NY
Phone numbers and car registrations are something I've always been able
to remember easily, though not to the extent of a chap I used to work
with who had memorised all the STD phone codes and could say "ah, 01234
is Bedford and if the subscriber number starts with 61 it's this
district and if it starts with 62 it's this district" etc. I imagine he
was somewhere on the autism spectrum - as so many computer gurus are.

'as so many computer gurus are' immediately sounds to me like just
another urban myth from social media, and the first page of hits of a
suitable search found it stated but never properly substantiated several
times. There was this ...

https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergers/comments/be8wsg/26_of_programmers_are_autistic/?rdt=44145

" 2.6% of respondents said yes to "I have autism / an autism spectrum
disorder". "

... but 2.6%, although slightly higher than the population average of
2%, can hardly be described as 'so many'. So where is your evidence for
this assertion?

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Max Demian

2024-05-15 16:39:14 UTC

Post by NY
If we want to use base 12 for lengths etc, breed a race of people with
12 fingers+thumbs so we learn to count in base 12

I can count from zero to 15 using one hand, or zero to 255 using both
hands by using the binary system and holding my fingers in place using
my thumb(s).

--
Max Demian

Tweed

2024-05-15 16:46:21 UTC

Post by Max Demian

Post by NY
If we want to use base 12 for lengths etc, breed a race of people with
12 fingers+thumbs so we learn to count in base 12

I can count from zero to 15 using one hand, or zero to 255 using both
hands by using the binary system and holding my fingers in place using
my thumb(s).

Trouble is people get insulted when you get to 6 (right handed) or 12 (left
handed)

Max Demian

2024-05-16 10:54:27 UTC

Post by Tweed

Post by Max Demian

Post by NY
If we want to use base 12 for lengths etc, breed a race of people with
12 fingers+thumbs so we learn to count in base 12

I can count from zero to 15 using one hand, or zero to 255 using both
hands by using the binary system and holding my fingers in place using
my thumb(s).

Trouble is people get insulted when you get to 6 (right handed) or 12 (left
handed)

No the way I do it. I start with my forefinger

2 is a middle finger
3 is a V sign
9 is a devil sign

--
Max Demian

Mark Undrill

2024-05-15 13:43:20 UTC

I hope her knowledge of culture is a bit better than her grasp of imperial
measurements.

<Snip>

Younger people! When I was at school in the early 1960s, after spending
a few years learning the imperial gobbledegook we were told that we, the
UK, were going metric and that's what we should, and did, learn the
metric system. That said, I went into the butchers the other day and
asked them to cut me 20mm steak and got an odd look ;)

Ottavio Caruso

2024-05-15 14:09:47 UTC

Post by Mark Undrill

I hope her knowledge of culture is a bit better than her grasp of imperial
measurements.

<Snip>
Younger people! When I was at school in the early 1960s, after spending
a few years learning the imperial gobbledegook we were told that we, the
UK, were going metric and that's what we should, and did, learn the
metric system. That said, I went into the butchers the other day and
asked them to cut me 20mm steak and got an odd look ;)

Isn't the fact that it was invented by the Fr*nch enough to disqualify
metric?

(Before WW2, us Italos were still using miles for road and sea and we
would drive on the left. The monarchy was very Anglophile pre-Mussolini.
The vile Yanks forced us to driving on the left.)

--
Ottavio Caruso

Marland

2024-05-15 19:58:28 UTC

Post by Mark Undrill
Younger people! When I was at school in the early 1960s, after spending
a few years learning the imperial gobbledegook we were told that we, the
UK, were going metric and that's what we should, and did, learn the
metric system. That said, I went into the butchers the other day and
asked them to cut me 20mm steak and got an odd look ;)

Isn't the fact that it was invented by the Fr*nch enough to disqualify
metric?
(Before WW2, us Italos were still using miles for road and sea and we
would drive on the left. The monarchy was very Anglophile pre-Mussolini.
The vile Yanks forced us to driving on the left.)

As an Italian you should be pleased we are still using Imperial
measurements.
They are called that because they originated with the occupation by the
Roman Empire which is where the Imperial comes from, not the later British
one.

GH

Java Jive

2024-05-15 21:05:04 UTC

Post by Marland
As an Italian you should be pleased we are still using Imperial
measurements.
They are called that because they originated with the occupation by the
Roman Empire which is where the Imperial comes from, not the later British
one.

Sigh! Another false claim! Despite it even being in the title, it
seems that no-one posting to this thread bothers to fact-check anything
they post:

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are+imperial+measurements+so+called

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Marland

2024-05-15 22:48:24 UTC

Sigh! Another false claim! Despite it even being in the title, it
seems that no-one posting to this thread bothers to fact-check anything
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are+imperial+measurements+so+called

You silly humourless twit , I was feeding our Italian Troll false
information deliberately,
I bet you are autistic or similar and take everything literally.

GH

Java Jive

2024-05-16 00:34:32 UTC

Post by Marland

You silly humourless twit , I was feeding our Italian Troll false
information deliberately,
I bet you are autistic or similar and take everything literally.

So who's being humourless now? Stop feeding people false information
deliberately, it's deeply irresponsible. See my sig borne out of the
covid pandemic.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Indy Jess John

2024-05-15 23:16:56 UTC

Why anybody would consider Google as the fount of all knowledge baffles me.

An hour of research through on-line sources reveals that the sizes of
various things were originally based on physical attributes, such as
from nose to thumb on an outstretched arm, or from the elbow to the end
of the middle finger (the original Cubit) or from the end of the thumb
to the end of the little finger. This was a mix of Greek and byzantine
origins. The Romans adopted some of these, and some of their
measurements are pretty close to what became imperial measurements. They
also defined the pound as both a specific weight of gold and a value of
that weight of gold.

Moving forward in time, before the Norman Conquest, the capital of
Wessex was in Winchester, and he required a set of standard measures to
be used to validate measurements in use. The actual standards were
moved from Winchester to London following the Norman conquest. The
names of things prior to the Norman Conquest were not what we call them
today: capacities were called sester, amber, mitta, coomb etc.

What we use today (quarter, bushel, peck, gallon, pottle, quart, pint)
have names of French derivation so probably entered the language after
the Norman Conquest (the pottle was half a gallon). In 1496 a law
formally named the bushel (used for measuring grain) as the Winchester.
It also defined Troy weights such that there were 12 Troy ounces to a
pound and 8 Troy pounds make a gallon of wine.

In 1588 Queen Elizabeth I standardised weights and measures according to
the prototypes moved from Winchester to London. The Winchester Bushel
was about 3% less than the imperial bushel and in 1836 the United States
formally adopted the Winchester system of measurements, which is why
their pints and gallons are not the same volume as the imperial ones
that came later.

Following a fire in London which among other things destroyed the
Winchester prototypes, in 1824 the Weights and Measures Act redefined
the sizes of the units in use, and that Act named them as Imperial
Measurements and required them to be adopted throughout the British
Empire. It was that Act that defined the connection that a gallon of
pure water would weigh 10 lbs. The most recent Weights and Measures Act
in 1985 still uses the word Imperial.

The sizes of things have been in a range of values for a long time,
being redefined from time to time, and their names have changed to a
different timetable. So those who say that Imperial measures were from
Roman times and those who say it was a British Empire origination are
both partly right.

Java Jive

2024-05-16 00:38:50 UTC

Sigh! Another false claim! Despite it even being in the title, it
seems that no-one posting to this thread bothers to fact-check
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are+imperial+measurements+so+called

Why anybody would consider Google as the fount of all knowledge baffles me.

It's not the fount of all knowledge, it's just one of a number of means
of finding knowledge; the point being made was the number of hits in the
first page of results that showed the above claim about Imperial
Measurements being named for the Roman Empire to be untrue.

[Snip irrelevant time wasting]

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Jeff Layman

2024-05-16 07:05:01 UTC

Post by Indy Jess John
In 1588 Queen Elizabeth I standardised weights and measures according to
the prototypes moved from Winchester to London. The Winchester Bushel
was about 3% less than the imperial bushel

Hmm. So at least one element of "shrinkflation" has been around a lot
longer than I had thought. ;-)

--
Jeff

Roderick Stewart

2024-05-16 09:21:05 UTC

On Thu, 16 May 2024 00:16:56 +0100, Indy Jess John

Post by Indy Jess John
An hour of research through on-line sources reveals that the sizes of
various things were originally based on physical attributes, [...]

Until you get to Fahrenheit. Of all the common everyday measuring
systems, that one always struck me as the least related to anything
real, whereas Centigrade (or Celsius) is very simply related to the
physical attributes of one of the most important substances for life
itself. The landmark numbers that indicate what it would be wise to
wear if you go out are particularly easy to remember. Centigrade is so
much simpler that I don't know why everybody doesn't abandon
Fahrenheit altogether.

For example, using Fahrenheit, if somebody gives the temperature as
"fifteen below", does that mean fifteen degrees below zero Fahrenheit,
or fifteen degrees below freezing? I was never sure, and I don't think
everybody used the expression consistently, but in Centigrade they're
the same so the question doesn't arise.

Rod.

Max Demian

2024-05-16 11:05:40 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Thu, 16 May 2024 00:16:56 +0100, Indy Jess John

Post by Indy Jess John
An hour of research through on-line sources reveals that the sizes of
various things were originally based on physical attributes, [...]

Well 0°F is the freezing point of saturated brine and 100°F is "blood"
heat (Mr Fahrenheit had a bit of a fever.)

Post by Roderick Stewart
For example, using Fahrenheit, if somebody gives the temperature as
"fifteen below", does that mean fifteen degrees below zero Fahrenheit,
or fifteen degrees below freezing? I was never sure, and I don't think
everybody used the expression consistently, but in Centigrade they're
the same so the question doesn't arise.

I suppose it mostly avoids negative temperatures. But then there's
"degrees of frost" which is the number of Fahrenheit degrees below
freezing point.

--
Max Demian

Ottavio Caruso

2024-05-16 08:48:27 UTC

Post by Marland

Isn't the fact that it was invented by the Fr*nch enough to disqualify
metric?
(Before WW2, us Italos were still using miles for road and sea and we
would drive on the left. The monarchy was very Anglophile pre-Mussolini.
The vile Yanks forced us to driving on the left.)

I can only apologise.

--
Ottavio Caruso

David Wade

2024-05-16 09:57:24 UTC

Post by Marland

Isn't the fact that it was invented by the Fr*nch enough to disqualify
metric?
(Before WW2, us Italos were still using miles for road and sea and we
would drive on the left. The monarchy was very Anglophile pre-Mussolini.
The vile Yanks forced us to driving on the left.)

I can only apologise.

Ottavio,

Could you please explain , if Metric is so universal on the continent,
why do DIY shops in both France and Spain sell pipe fittings using
imperial measure, so 3/4", 1" and 1 1/4" fittings are widely available?

For example, Leroy Merlin has a large range of taps such as this:-

https://www.leroymerlin.es/productos/fontaneria/griferia-de-paso/valvula-palanca-equation-25b-m3-4-m3-4-83831932.html

https://tinyurl.com/mumusese

Is this also the case in Italy? I have never visited a DIY shop in Italy
so wouldn't know..

Dave

p.s. in the UK it insane. I love this wickes page for a 12mm tap, where
the small print says 'actual size 1/2"'

https://www.wickes.co.uk/Primaflow-Garden-Tap-With-Double-Check-Valve---12mm/p/420055

https://tinyurl.com/yskp9dvc

Java Jive

2024-05-16 10:29:36 UTC

Post by David Wade
Ottavio,
Could you please explain , if Metric is so universal on the continent,
why do DIY shops in both France and Spain sell pipe fittings using
imperial measure, so 3/4", 1" and 1 1/4" fittings are widely available?
For example, Leroy Merlin has a large range of taps such as this:-
https://www.leroymerlin.es/productos/fontaneria/griferia-de-paso/valvula-palanca-equation-25b-m3-4-m3-4-83831932.html
https://tinyurl.com/mumusese
Is this also the case in Italy? I have never visited a DIY shop in Italy
so wouldn't know..
Dave

Although I haven't bothered to look it up, I suspect it's very simple to
explain. Mass production began with the Industrial Revolution, and the
Industrial Revolution began in the UK, a country with Imperial
measurements. Hence many of the mass produced items in our world have
either Imperial dimensions or the nearest metric equivalent.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Tweed

2024-05-16 10:55:11 UTC

Pipe fittings have remained stubbornly imperial yet screws have managed to
go metric (M3, M4 etc). Well, except for those annoying American ones used
in computers….

Ottavio Caruso

2024-05-16 13:30:57 UTC

The site says my IP is blacklisted, so I can't see what it says. I
guess, maybe because it caters for British expats?

Post by David Wade
Is this also the case in Italy? I have never visited a DIY shop in Italy
so wouldn't know..

Not when I lived there, but it's been more than 25 years.

Imperial was used a lot before WW2 in Italy. We used to drive on the
left until 1923 and miles were used for road signs. Metric was
officially adopted in 1861 but, due to the fragmentation of previous
states, a lot of business still used imperial for many years to come.

Some old wineries (we used to call them "fiaschetteria") used to serve
"una pinta di vino" (a pint of wine) where a pint simply meant half a
litre, not am imperial pint.

--
Ottavio Caruso

Ottavio Caruso

2024-05-16 13:39:52 UTC

The site says my IP is blacklisted, so I can't see what it says. I
guess, maybe because it caters for British expats?

Post by David Wade
Is this also the case in Italy? I have never visited a DIY shop in
Italy so wouldn't know..

Not when I lived there, but it's been more than 25 years.
Imperial was used a lot before WW2 in Italy. We used to drive on the
left until 1923 and miles were used for road signs. Metric was
officially adopted in 1861 but, due to the fragmentation of previous
states, a lot of business still used imperial for many years to come.
Some old wineries (we used to call them "fiaschetteria") used to serve
"una pinta di vino" (a pint of wine) where a pint simply meant half a
litre, not am imperial pint.

Correction. It looks like pipe fittings are still counted in inches or
inches+metric:

https://www.amazon.it/Raccordi-malleabile-pollici-vintage-confezione/dp/B08RN1HMRN

https://tubefittings.eu/it/raccordi-t-da-2-pollici

TV screen sizes are still measured in inches. Probably due to
Americanization rather than native measurements.

Florence has become a giant vacation park for Americans. I wouldn't be
surprised if in a couple of years all prices would be displayed in dollars.

--
Ottavio Caruso

Roderick Stewart

2024-05-16 14:00:55 UTC

On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:39:52 +0100, Ottavio Caruso

Post by Ottavio Caruso
TV screen sizes are still measured in inches. Probably due to
Americanization rather than native measurements.

Yes, and the measure gives the diagonal, I assume because it was once
dependent on the diameter of a circular cathode ray tube.

Our family's first TV set in the 1950s used a masked off circular
tube, but all of them since then used the best approximation of a
rectangle that a CRT could manage, and for the last decade or more,
hardly anyone has used them at all.

The width of the screen might be a more useful measure, but diagonals
give bigger numbers, and advertisers love bigger numbers.

Rod.

Jeff Layman

2024-05-16 18:04:40 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:39:52 +0100, Ottavio Caruso

Post by Ottavio Caruso
TV screen sizes are still measured in inches. Probably due to
Americanization rather than native measurements.

Yes, and the measure gives the diagonal, I assume because it was once
dependent on the diameter of a circular cathode ray tube.
Our family's first TV set in the 1950s used a masked off circular
tube, but all of them since then used the best approximation of a
rectangle that a CRT could manage, and for the last decade or more,
hardly anyone has used them at all.
The width of the screen might be a more useful measure, but diagonals
give bigger numbers, and advertisers love bigger numbers.

It might also be because only one figure needs be given, and that figure
would be stated no matter what the aspect ratio - 4:3 with "old" TV
programmes, and 16:9 with current ones (although 14:9 might be used with
some of the old series shown on "That"s TV").

Even with just modern flat screens, there seems to be uncertainty.
Compare the widths and heights stated at these two pages, and you'll see
they often don't agree!
<https://www.lg.com/uk/lg-experience/helpful-hints/how-to-measure-and-read-tv-sizes/>
<https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship>

--
Jeff

Jim Lesurf

2024-05-18 09:30:02 UTC

Post by Jeff Layman
t might also be because only one figure needs be given, and that figure
would be stated no matter what the aspect ratio - 4:3 with "old" TV
programmes, and 16:9 with current ones (although 14:9 might be used with
some of the old series shown on "That"s TV").

Given that buyers tend to assume "bigger means better" quoting the diagonal
size gives a TV/screen an advantage at the point-of-sale over any other
model whose 'size' if given by the width. Thus it become the norm to quote
the diagonal because you lose sales if you do differently.

Jim

David Wade

2024-05-16 14:36:01 UTC

The site says my IP is blacklisted, so I can't see what it says. I
guess, maybe because it caters for British expats?

No, its pretty Spanish. I chose that because its the store I use, but
such labelling is common across Spain and France.

Post by David Wade
Is this also the case in Italy? I have never visited a DIY shop in
Italy so wouldn't know..

Not when I lived there, but it's been more than 25 years.
Imperial was used a lot before WW2 in Italy. We used to drive on the
left until 1923 and miles were used for road signs. Metric was
officially adopted in 1861 but, due to the fragmentation of previous
states, a lot of business still used imperial for many years to come.
Some old wineries (we used to call them "fiaschetteria") used to serve
"una pinta di vino" (a pint of wine) where a pint simply meant half a
litre, not am imperial pint.

Dave

Paul Ratcliffe

2024-05-16 19:20:47 UTC

On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:30:57 +0100, Ottavio Caruso

Post by Ottavio Caruso
Imperial was used a lot before WW2 in Italy. We used to drive on the
left until 1923

And then you went for a phased changeover, which has been in operation
ever since.

2024-05-18 07:42:33 UTC

I remember about 25 years ago. Tesco supermarket announced that they
would only be selling loose-weight items (cheese, slices of boiled ham
etc) on their deli counters by the gramme, not by the ounce/pound. The
way the signs were worded, it sounded as if they would no longer accept
requests such as "may I have 4 ounces of red Leicester" and you had to
ask instead for 120 grammes. They displayed look-up tables of common
ounce weighs and the exact gramme equivalent - I heard people asking for
"a hundred and fourteen grammes", whereas I just rounded it using
approximations such as 1 ounce is approx 30 grammes. After all, when you
ask for "4 ounces" you mean "about 4 ounces with an unspecified
tolerance either side" so if you ended up "just over" or "just under"
you didn't care two hoots as long as you paid for what you got.

I tend to ask for *about* four ounces or *about* 120 grammes, to
forestall all the "it's just under - is that OK?" waffle.

Ottavio Caruso

2024-05-18 08:13:25 UTC

Post by NY
I remember about 25 years ago. Tesco supermarket announced that they
would only be selling loose-weight items (cheese, slices of boiled ham
etc) on their deli counters by the gramme, not by the ounce/pound. The
way the signs were worded, it sounded as if they would no longer accept
requests such as "may I have 4 ounces of red Leicester" and you had to
ask instead for 120 grammes. They displayed look-up tables of common
ounce weighs and the exact gramme equivalent - I heard people asking for
"a hundred and fourteen grammes", whereas I just rounded it using
approximations such as 1 ounce is approx 30 grammes. After all, when you
ask for "4 ounces" you mean "about 4 ounces with an unspecified
tolerance either side" so if you ended up "just over" or "just under"
you didn't care two hoots as long as you paid for what you got.
I tend to ask for *about* four ounces or *about* 120 grammes, to
forestall all the "it's just under - is that OK?" waffle.

I was in UK 25 years ago and I don't remember this. And I don't remember
Tescos ever having delis where you could order loose items, at least not
in the last 25 years.

--
Ottavio Caruso

Andy Burns

2024-05-18 08:47:11 UTC

After all, when you ask for "4 ounces" you mean "about 4 ounces with an
unspecified tolerance either side" so if you ended up "just over" or
"just under" you didn't care two hoots as long as you paid for what you got.

I remember when the butcher would actually ask if you wanted it over or
under as they neared the final slice coming off the machine. Do any
supermarkets have slicers behind the counter now?

John Hall

2024-05-15 15:55:02 UTC

Post by NY
I wonder how much longer it will be before imperial conversions are
gradually dropped, given that metric is being taught more and more to
younger people, who have little "feel" for the size of an inch or a
foot or an ounce or a pound. Will it be like the transition from deg F
to deg C in weather forecasts, where conversions were given - initially
"def F (deg C)", then "deg C (deg F)" and now "deg C" only.

My newspaper still insists on giving temperatures in the "def F (deg C)"
form, perhaps thinking that their typical reader is over 70, as
otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense. That occasionally leads to
gems like "the Met Office said it was 41 deg F (5 deg C) warmer
yesterday than the day before", where the Met Office has supplied the 5
deg C figure and some scientific-illiterate journalist attempting the
conversion hasn't appreciated that, though 5C = 41F, that doesn't apply
to temperature differences because of the different zero point on the
two scales.

--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

JMB99

2024-05-16 07:08:00 UTC

Post by NY
I wonder how much longer it will be before imperial conversions are
gradually dropped, given that metric is being taught more and more to
younger people, who have little "feel" for the size of an inch or a foot
or an ounce or a pound. Will it be like the transition from deg F to deg
C in weather forecasts, where conversions were given - initially "def F
(deg C)", then "deg C (deg F)" and now "deg C" only.

Perhaps people will just be allowed to code whatever they think is the
most suitable measurement unit at the time rather than compelled to use
one system with the threat of imprisonment for non compliance.

I am sure most of do the same as many supposedly 'metric' countries and
use any measurement unit that we want to use.

MikeS

2024-05-16 21:05:40 UTC

The article you linked actually says:
The vivid red work, measuring about 8ft 6in by 6ft 6in, is by Jonathan
Yeo, who has also painted Tony Blair, Sir David Attenborough and Malala
Yousafzai.

Java Jive

2024-05-16 23:19:30 UTC

Post by MikeS

The vivid red work, measuring about 8ft 6in by 6ft 6in, is by Jonathan
Yeo, who has also painted Tony Blair, Sir David Attenborough and Malala
Yousafzai.

But, to be fair to Bob despite the fact that he never is to anyone else,
at the time he posted he was probably right. When I checked the webpage
later that day, it had already been corrected to what you quote above,
but the date and time of last modification of it was between his posting
and my checking, suggesting that the correction occurred in the interim.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Andy Burns

2024-05-17 05:03:11 UTC

Post by MikeS

Post by Bob Latham
"The vivid red work, measuring 8ft 15in by 6ft 15in, is by Jonathan
Yeo"

The vivid red work, measuring about 8ft 6in by 6ft 6in, is by Jonathan
Yeo

It says that *NOW* but at the time it *DID* say

"measuring 8ft 15in by 6ft 15in"

Normally I'd use NewsSniffer to show the revision history of BBC
articles, unfortunately it hasn't indexed that article.

Andy Burns

2024-05-17 05:22:18 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Normally I'd use NewsSniffer to show the revision history of BBC
articles, unfortunately it hasn't indexed that article.

But the WayBackMachine captured it ...

<https://web.archive.org/web/20240514154039/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68981200>

Roderick Stewart

2024-05-17 12:44:15 UTC

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Andy Burns
Normally I'd use NewsSniffer to show the revision history of BBC
articles, unfortunately it hasn't indexed that article.

But the WayBackMachine captured it ...
<https://web.archive.org/web/20240514154039/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68981200>

It's a very strange portrait, but at least it looks like its subject,
unlike this one-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz74ed6yk9lo

(Portrait of Gina Rinehart in case that link doesn't work and you need
to search for it elsewhere)

I find it hard to believe this was actually painted by a grownup. I've
literally seen better efforts by children.

Rod.

Java Jive

2024-05-17 12:55:43 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart
It's a very strange portrait, but at least it looks like its subject,
unlike this one-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz74ed6yk9lo
(Portrait of Gina Rinehart in case that link doesn't work and you need
to search for it elsewhere)
I find it hard to believe this was actually painted by a grownup. I've
literally seen better efforts by children.

Jeez, that is truly awful!

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

JMB99

2024-05-18 07:37:01 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart
I find it hard to believe this was actually painted by a grownup. I've
literally seen better efforts by children.

They should have asked Ozzie to paint it.

https://lionhabitatranch.org/product/custom-painting-by-ozzie-the-giraffe/

Andy Burns

2024-05-17 12:57:41 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart
It's a very strange portrait, but at least it looks like its subject,

When you see the full canvas, not just the cropped version the BBC
showed, the face and hands do "loom out" at you, but the rest looks like
the artist ran out of time and just splashed a bucket of paint at it.

<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNjPqPXXYAAi64A?format=jpg&name=large>

Post by Roderick Stewart
unlike this one-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz74ed6yk9lo

I can see why she'd like it removed.

Andy Burns

2024-05-18 06:43:32 UTC