Like Damian, I think in metric although certain aspects of life still conform to imperial units, e.g. size of my TV screen, size of my house (it's always in square feet) and for some people, the height and weight of people. When I was small, I remembered being measured in stones and I can't tell you what's the metric equivalent of a stone now.
a (metric) unit
I've been making a halfhearted effort to start thinking metrically. That is, I've been trying to associate certain metric measurements with a sense of the weight or length of the object in question without doing a mental conversion. But so far, all I know is that 1.83 m is quite tall for a women (because it's my height), and that 22-23 C is a pleasant temperature, meteorologically speaking, and 35 C is not.
Metrication is the standard norm in the UK when it comes to measuring the height and weight of people - wherever you go, whether at the gym or down the medical centre, in hospital etc. Commerce, industry, all of science and technical organisations operate in metric, and all official documents show metric dimensions in practically everything, down to jars of jam in the supermarkets.
Everyone whinged about it being (BLEEP) hot in the summer with 35C. At least nobody thinks in the old fashioned Fahrenheit unless they're old themselves.
Officially you get your height measured in centimetres (or metres/cms) and weight in kilos but when chatting with mates you say you're such and such feet and inches tall and weigh so many stones and pounds. Going from Edinburgh to Glasgow you travel 74km officially, but 42 miles according to the road signs. I reckon it's all strange and I wish there was complete standardisation in metric, once and for all. What's the point of running two systems side by side in this bitty cock-eyed way?
Diss what's left of Imperial NOW! It belongs to the past.
<Damian picks up his banner and joins the demo>
Everyone whinged about it being (BLEEP) hot in the summer with 35C. At least nobody thinks in the old fashioned Fahrenheit unless they're old themselves.
Officially you get your height measured in centimetres (or metres/cms) and weight in kilos but when chatting with mates you say you're such and such feet and inches tall and weigh so many stones and pounds. Going from Edinburgh to Glasgow you travel 74km officially, but 42 miles according to the road signs. I reckon it's all strange and I wish there was complete standardisation in metric, once and for all. What's the point of running two systems side by side in this bitty cock-eyed way?
Diss what's left of Imperial NOW! It belongs to the past.
<Damian picks up his banner and joins the demo>
Damian in London E16 Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:07 pm GMT
Well, I'm staying metricated.....have you seen all those old tables of weights and measures? What the heck are bushels, pecks, gills, Chains and fathoms and all that old fasioned crap? How did they cope in those days? Give someone two point five four centimetres and they'll take one point six zero nine three kilometres I reckon.
Maybe you misunderstood me Damian, I am all for metrication, but do not want to see it imperialised. Nobody in metric countries would use a unit of 454 g. To make metric user friendly it has to have units of 5, 10,15 ...... 50, 100, 125 g and so on. Britain and more so America are imperialising the metric system, which makes it look idiotic. Who in his right mind wants to use 454 g, 25.4 mm, 6.35 kg if a pound, inch and stone are so much easier remembered. Britain's halfway mess cost a lot more money, wastes a lot of time and invites mistakes. In hospitals occasionally even fatal ones. It also rears generations of children incompetent in both systems.
Well, I'm staying metricated.....have you seen all those old tables of weights and measures? What the heck are bushels, pecks, gills, Chains and fathoms and all that old fasioned crap? How did they cope in those days? Give someone two point five four centimetres and they'll take one point six zero nine three kilometres I reckon.
Maybe you misunderstood me Damian, I am all for metrication, but do not want to see it imperialised. Nobody in metric countries would use a unit of 454 g. To make metric user friendly it has to have units of 5, 10,15 ...... 50, 100, 125 g and so on. Britain and more so America are imperialising the metric system, which makes it look idiotic. Who in his right mind wants to use 454 g, 25.4 mm, 6.35 kg if a pound, inch and stone are so much easier remembered. Britain's halfway mess cost a lot more money, wastes a lot of time and invites mistakes. In hospitals occasionally even fatal ones. It also rears generations of children incompetent in both systems.
Hear! Hear! I'm all behind Eric on that one. Imperialising the metric system is a completely wrong-headed approach. I've seen it in action in Austraia & Canada. In Canada they use American paper sizes ... only rounded to the nearest 5 mm. In Australia you can buy beer by the pint, by the schooner or by the midi (N.S.W. names). Before metrication a pint was 20 oz, a schooner 15 oz and 10 oz. Thus four schooners were equal to three pints. When the metircated these were simply rounded to the nearest 5 ml however this means that the pint and midi were rounded up whilst the schooner was rounded down. Now the simple ratios no longer exist. The fluid ounce itself gave way to the nip as a measure spirits. The nip is a fluid ounce rounded up to the nearest 5 ml, i.e. it's 30 ml. If the powers that had been had had an ounce of sense they'd have mad the new pint, schooner & midi equal to 20, 15 & 10 nips; i.e. 600 ml, 450 ml & 300 ml; respectively. Instead we have a 19 nip pint and a midi half the size of that, i.e. 9.5 nips but the schooner is 14 1/6 nips. At least things are straight forward if you buy your beer by the bottle or can. The are standards are 250 ml, 375 ml. and 750 ml. This is where Canada messed up. Cans are 350 ml which isn't great but it isn't too bad however the bottle size is 341 ml. This is crazy: 12 oz rounded to the nearest millilitre.
No I don't misunderstabnd you, Eric....I know where you're coming from. A sort of imperialised metrication is weird....go the whole hog or not at all. As someone who was brought up with metricated education, where everything that can be measured was measured in metric and not those scary old fashioned looking imperial crap stuff.
Everything is sold by metric measures in the UK, be it weight or volume or whatever, in stores or in the street markets, true enough, but when your favourite pot of blackcurrant jam comes in at 454g instead of 500g then that is plainly ridiculous.
If they did upgrade to 500g, in slightly larger jars, that would inevitably result in higher prices, naturally enough, but at least it's logical to have total metrication instead of metrication by imperial equivalents. I wonder if it's done for the benefit of old people who can't adapt? But the old people eventually shuffle off the coil don't they so why stick with this stupid imperialised metrication? My metric brain doesn't understand it.
Everything is sold by metric measures in the UK, be it weight or volume or whatever, in stores or in the street markets, true enough, but when your favourite pot of blackcurrant jam comes in at 454g instead of 500g then that is plainly ridiculous.
If they did upgrade to 500g, in slightly larger jars, that would inevitably result in higher prices, naturally enough, but at least it's logical to have total metrication instead of metrication by imperial equivalents. I wonder if it's done for the benefit of old people who can't adapt? But the old people eventually shuffle off the coil don't they so why stick with this stupid imperialised metrication? My metric brain doesn't understand it.
Jim, I am not quite with you on that one? If you do consider imperialising metric is stupid, you have to forget about medieval measures altogether. Whatever you call your beers the measure should be 250, 500, 750, and 1000 ml. Nips should be 25 ml to make it child’s play to work out how much you have left in the bottle. Thirty ml are a pain in the neck with proper metric quantities. Unfortunately a lot of cans are based on Yankee measures that is why they are all over the place.
By the way Europeans have 500 ml cans of beer, but in soft drink cans also useless US quantities metricated.
By the way Europeans have 500 ml cans of beer, but in soft drink cans also useless US quantities metricated.
Thank you, I wasn’t quite sure. I don’t think it’s done for older people? In Australia the milk producers insisted on 600 ml bottles not to reduce quantities sold. Nowadays, I understand, milk is hardly sold in bottles, but in cartons of 500 ml, 1 L and 2 L plastic bottles. It is usually manufacturers that insist on certain quantities whether it makes measurement sense, or not. You probably can bet a pound or two that it will eventually be rounded off to 500 g. A good idea would be to send them an e-mail, or letter, pointing out the silliness of 454 g in a metric world.
>>In Australia the milk producers insisted on 600 ml bottles not to reduce quantities sold. Nowadays, I understand, milk is hardly sold in bottles, but in cartons of 500 ml, 1 L and 2 L plastic bottles.<<
And the 3 L, my personal selection.
>>A good idea would be to send them an e-mail, or letter, pointing out the silliness of 454 g in a metric world.<<
And then there are the 44 and 45 lb weight plates to approximate the 20kg (sometimes 20.4kg) olympic ones. So there is a bit of reciprocal treatment.
And the 3 L, my personal selection.
>>A good idea would be to send them an e-mail, or letter, pointing out the silliness of 454 g in a metric world.<<
And then there are the 44 and 45 lb weight plates to approximate the 20kg (sometimes 20.4kg) olympic ones. So there is a bit of reciprocal treatment.
I'm used to seeing weird metric equivalents on my products. Let's see; I just raided my pantry and I have a can of diced tomatoes weighing in at 14.5 oz (411 g) and a bottle of sparkling beverage labelled as containing 1 liter (33.8 fl oz) 1 qt 1.8 fl oz.
I don't know that I worry about these things being rounded off!
There's no reason why standard cans are 14.5 oz anyway, when 1.5 oz more would make it a full pound....so we can hardly expect the metric equivalent to be anything sensible, either!
I don't know that I worry about these things being rounded off!
There's no reason why standard cans are 14.5 oz anyway, when 1.5 oz more would make it a full pound....so we can hardly expect the metric equivalent to be anything sensible, either!
Eric,
Sure going the whole way would have been best. I was just rambling about how terribly wrong the idea of metricating imperial ... or imperialising metric tends to get. I can't argue that 25, 250, 500, 750 & 1000 wouldn't be better than 30, 300, 450 & 600. All I'm saying is that if you really have to metricate your imperial 30, 300, 450 & 600 would be better than 30, 285, 425 & 570.
Sure going the whole way would have been best. I was just rambling about how terribly wrong the idea of metricating imperial ... or imperialising metric tends to get. I can't argue that 25, 250, 500, 750 & 1000 wouldn't be better than 30, 300, 450 & 600. All I'm saying is that if you really have to metricate your imperial 30, 300, 450 & 600 would be better than 30, 285, 425 & 570.
It's really strange that here you buy a jar of preserves weighing in at 454g but a container of creme fraiche or a block of butter at exactly 500g. At least all the liquid measures are in litres....except down the pub where pints (or halves) still remain by public demand, the only remaining places where pint measures still apply. The massive German multi litre stein just doesn't fit into the British pub.
In Australia the big jars of vegimite weigh in at 910 g. Why not 1 kg? 910 g is roughly 2 lb but who in Australia would care about that? Who would even realise that. I'm sure the majority would simply think "910 g ... that's an odd measure." the rest of us would think "2 lb rounded to the nearest decagram ... why not 1 kg?"
Re-Guest
I am not a weight lifter, but presume this is what you are talking about with weight plates. Looking at the net one could be forgiven to think weightlifting is only done in lb and inches? Only one company (German) listed proper metric equipment and I presume these are Olympic standards. I doubt that anyone, but Yanks and Brits work with antiquated pounds?
I am not a weight lifter, but presume this is what you are talking about with weight plates. Looking at the net one could be forgiven to think weightlifting is only done in lb and inches? Only one company (German) listed proper metric equipment and I presume these are Olympic standards. I doubt that anyone, but Yanks and Brits work with antiquated pounds?
Re Uriel
Re-Uriel
Uriel, are you American? If so, you should be used to senseless metric quantities. America is metricating by turning USC quantities into grams, ml (silly soft conversion) and alienated even slightly metric inclined people with these useless numbers. Worse still, doing that gave metric ignorants plenty ammunition to point out how idiotic that system is compared to simple fpi. No wonder that metrication never made it in the States.
As to rounded metric numbers, it makes price comparisons so much easier. What is a better price, a 328 g tin of salmon at $ 6.65, or 500 g for $ 9.00? Most people need a calculator to work that out. If a 250 g tin costs you $ 7.54 and 500 g cost you $ 14.00 you immediately know which one is cheaper. This is why manufacturers like to use any odd quantity to hoodwink people.
Maybe this answers questions why metric quantities should always be in proper sequences and rounded numbers? What's wrong with looking after consumers?
Re-Uriel
Uriel, are you American? If so, you should be used to senseless metric quantities. America is metricating by turning USC quantities into grams, ml (silly soft conversion) and alienated even slightly metric inclined people with these useless numbers. Worse still, doing that gave metric ignorants plenty ammunition to point out how idiotic that system is compared to simple fpi. No wonder that metrication never made it in the States.
As to rounded metric numbers, it makes price comparisons so much easier. What is a better price, a 328 g tin of salmon at $ 6.65, or 500 g for $ 9.00? Most people need a calculator to work that out. If a 250 g tin costs you $ 7.54 and 500 g cost you $ 14.00 you immediately know which one is cheaper. This is why manufacturers like to use any odd quantity to hoodwink people.
Maybe this answers questions why metric quantities should always be in proper sequences and rounded numbers? What's wrong with looking after consumers?