Interesting to note that while South Africa is contemplating lowering the national speed limit from 120 kph to 100, Britain is raising it from 70mph to 80mph.
I still think it is pathetic that Britain operates in miles when it uses metric in almost every other sphere, including selling petrol in litres.
Why pathetic? Does that apply to the septics, too?
Why pathetic? Does that apply to the septics, too?
Yes, though to a lesser extent. At least the yanks have remained pretty firmly entrenched in the Imperial system, though, did you know that the metric system was legalised in the 19th century? Technically, you can sell items in litres and kilograms without displaying imperial measures. Not that you would be able to sell anything apart from cocaine. In the UK you have to display metric values even if you include Imperial as well.
My problem with Britain is that they are behaving like ‘Sout Piels’ (with due regard to Soutie). One foot in the past and one in the present. Just get on with it. It really is not that difficult, though it will get more expensive with each passing year.
Interesting to note that while South Africa is contemplating lowering the national speed limit from 120 kph to 100, Britain is raising it from 70mph to 80mph.
I still think it is pathetic that Britain operates in miles when it uses metric in almost every other sphere, including selling petrol in litres.
Like so many other Imperial measures. a mile is based on some human parameter, in this case roughly the distance covered by an adult male in 1000 paces, and so it means something to a lot of people, i.e.approximately the distance you can walk in 15 minutes. A metre is based on a fraction of the Earth’s circumference, as measured by Napoleon, or at least his scientists. Unfortunately, they got that wrong. As a retired engineer, I do not have any problem using either MKS or Imperial measurement, but Imperial ones mean much more in human terms.
BTW like the photo, it looks like the latest greenie plot to moved us back to the Stone Age 🙂
Hee, hee, I think I’ve already told the story of Rednaxela Terrace in Hong Kong, but what’s their excuse?
Sipu – I thought you were the eternal defender of all things english? You berated me rather strongly as I recall for being so anti-pom in my rugby post?
I think you’ll find that England only has litres etc because of Europe – the whole country still operates in proper numbers. My teenagers know their weight in stones and pounds, and their height in feet and inches. It is the preferred option and jolly english, so actually, praise to the poms for sticking with something they like rather than conforming to the EUSSR. Rare praise indeed from me!
Soutie: Looks OK from above the equator, it’s a Southern Hemisphere sign is it not?
Sipu, Bearsy: Measure is a dog’s breakfast here, half metric half imperial. On any vehicle the fasteners are inch/metric at random, Two sets of wrenches are needed to do anything mechanical. US engineering schools operate in MKS as do the rest of the World but almost anything made commercially is defined in Imperial (including raw materials, building and plumbing products). I have heard that the reason the first Hubble space telescope failed to function was an error in converting inch to metric ( a two hundred million dollar easily avoidable error). In short an expensive and confusing mess, things are unlikely to change.
Sipu – I thought you were the eternal defender of all things english? You berated me rather strongly as I recall for being so anti-pom in my rugby post?
Cuprum, you miss the point entirely. I support the English/British when they are right and castigate them when they are wrong. I endeavour to be objective. I took you to task because I felt that your attack was based on a personal dislike of the English and had little basis in fact. I don’t know if you have been reading the Telegraph reports on England’s RWC campaign, but all the dickhead, Mick Cleary does is go on about Tindall having a beer in a pub and kissing a girl who happened to be an old friend. Salacious bollocks that epitomises almost the entire media approach to English rugby. England apparently were a disaster in their victory over Argentina. Scotland were heroic in their loss to the same team. Go figure!
If ever I appear to show blatant bias, it is usually because I am being ironic. In this instance I think Britain is entirely wrong. If the Imperial System was so wonderful they should have stuck with it. If not, they should have gone the whole hog. This half arsed approach is, to my mind weak and foolish. No bottom!
Sipu – as is the whole joining of the EU – no argument from me there. I think that being conversant in both is an advantage though.
As for the rugby – little argument there either. I cannot abide the tabloidy style of journalism that has crept into even the reputable papers. Who cares what Mr Zara does off the pitch? Mind you, if he was any good on the pitch, perhaps they wouldn’t say anything.
The English were awful against the Argies, and the Scots should have won and have no-one but to blame but themselves!
The journos have to be nice to Scotland or they get accused of racism. Stupid bloody PC crap.
Like so many other Imperial measures. a mile is based on some human parameter, in this case roughly the distance covered by an adult male in 1000 paces, and so it means something to a lot of people, i.e.approximately the distance you can walk in 15 minutes. A metre is based on a fraction of the Earth’s circumference, as measured by Napoleon, or at least his scientists. Unfortunately, they got that wrong. As a retired engineer, I do not have any problem using either MKS or Imperial measurement, but Imperial ones mean much more in human terms.
FEEG if you can walk a mile in 1000 paces, I will be extremely impressed. I am 194cm tall and my pace is almost exactly 1 metre. That means that a kilometre is 1000 paces. A mile is about 1600. Somewhat more for shorter people. A litre of water weighs one kilogram. A millilitre weighs one gram.
When people make claims about the definition of a metre, they completely misunderstand the sequence of events that led to it. The metre came first, but they needed a constant. By using an absolute such as the circumference of the earth, the authorities could be fairly sure of a constant, rather than a variable, such as the average pace of the first 10 men who emerged from Church, which was how the English yard was derived. (Or something like that). The French did not say ‘lets base our standard unit on one 10 millionth (or whatever) of the Earth circumference’. They said ‘we have this measurement which is very nearly a yard, but which has the benefit that a volume of water, the cube root of which is equal to this unit, will weigh 1,000 kilograms, or, one ton(ne). To make sure that we have a constant, lets measure that unit of distance against something that does not change, i.e. the circumference of the earth. While it emerged that their measurements of the earth was slightly wrong, the principle was perfectly valid. When they discovered their error, they did not change the length of the metre significantly, (first prototype metre bar was short by a fifth of a millimetre) they simply found a better definition, which today I believe is equal to the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
In any event, the metre and the metric system is an English invention, proposed by the philosopher John Wilkins in 1668. So feel free to abandon any anti French prejudice. Read all about it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
‘Imperial Martyrs’ forget just how many variations of their units there are, depending on what it is that is being measured. Dry and wet weights are different. That is why the US and UK have different gallons.
Maybe Wilkins did propose the metre first but the French were the first to actually use, eventually defined as I described it. As I said, I really do not care which system is used as I am used to both, and do have not anit-French bias, not here anyway!. 🙂 None the less, describing someone as six foot tall means a lot more than describing them as 1.85 metres tall.
I admit, I did not know that the passuum was two paces, and with that definition, the mile does make sense. But it still adds to the logic of being metric -1,000 passuum, instead of 1,760 yards which is how Imperial defines the mile. Now that is bonkers. In any event, you must concede that a pace is a pretty subjective definition. Average heights and therefore length of pace have increased somewhat since the glorious days of Rome.
With regards to 6 foot having greater meaning than 1.85 metres, that is only true in English speaking countries, and by no means all of them. As for your weight in stones!!!!!
Anyway, it is all good fun and one learns something from these little discussions.
A quirk of history: The standard US railroad guage is 4′ 8.5″ – now why would that be?
Boadicea's Chariot 
Love it!
Interesting to note that while South Africa is contemplating lowering the national speed limit from 120 kph to 100, Britain is raising it from 70mph to 80mph.
I still think it is pathetic that Britain operates in miles when it uses metric in almost every other sphere, including selling petrol in litres.
Why pathetic? Does that apply to the septics, too?
Yes, though to a lesser extent. At least the yanks have remained pretty firmly entrenched in the Imperial system, though, did you know that the metric system was legalised in the 19th century? Technically, you can sell items in litres and kilograms without displaying imperial measures. Not that you would be able to sell anything apart from cocaine. In the UK you have to display metric values even if you include Imperial as well.
My problem with Britain is that they are behaving like ‘Sout Piels’ (with due regard to Soutie). One foot in the past and one in the present. Just get on with it. It really is not that difficult, though it will get more expensive with each passing year.
Like so many other Imperial measures. a mile is based on some human parameter, in this case roughly the distance covered by an adult male in 1000 paces, and so it means something to a lot of people, i.e.approximately the distance you can walk in 15 minutes. A metre is based on a fraction of the Earth’s circumference, as measured by Napoleon, or at least his scientists. Unfortunately, they got that wrong. As a retired engineer, I do not have any problem using either MKS or Imperial measurement, but Imperial ones mean much more in human terms.
BTW like the photo, it looks like the latest greenie plot to moved us back to the Stone Age 🙂
Hee, hee, I think I’ve already told the story of Rednaxela Terrace in Hong Kong, but what’s their excuse?
Sipu – I thought you were the eternal defender of all things english? You berated me rather strongly as I recall for being so anti-pom in my rugby post?
I think you’ll find that England only has litres etc because of Europe – the whole country still operates in proper numbers. My teenagers know their weight in stones and pounds, and their height in feet and inches. It is the preferred option and jolly english, so actually, praise to the poms for sticking with something they like rather than conforming to the EUSSR. Rare praise indeed from me!
Soutie: Looks OK from above the equator, it’s a Southern Hemisphere sign is it not?
Sipu, Bearsy: Measure is a dog’s breakfast here, half metric half imperial. On any vehicle the fasteners are inch/metric at random, Two sets of wrenches are needed to do anything mechanical. US engineering schools operate in MKS as do the rest of the World but almost anything made commercially is defined in Imperial (including raw materials, building and plumbing products). I have heard that the reason the first Hubble space telescope failed to function was an error in converting inch to metric ( a two hundred million dollar easily avoidable error). In short an expensive and confusing mess, things are unlikely to change.
Cuprum, you miss the point entirely. I support the English/British when they are right and castigate them when they are wrong. I endeavour to be objective. I took you to task because I felt that your attack was based on a personal dislike of the English and had little basis in fact. I don’t know if you have been reading the Telegraph reports on England’s RWC campaign, but all the dickhead, Mick Cleary does is go on about Tindall having a beer in a pub and kissing a girl who happened to be an old friend. Salacious bollocks that epitomises almost the entire media approach to English rugby. England apparently were a disaster in their victory over Argentina. Scotland were heroic in their loss to the same team. Go figure!
If ever I appear to show blatant bias, it is usually because I am being ironic. In this instance I think Britain is entirely wrong. If the Imperial System was so wonderful they should have stuck with it. If not, they should have gone the whole hog. This half arsed approach is, to my mind weak and foolish. No bottom!
Sipu – as is the whole joining of the EU – no argument from me there. I think that being conversant in both is an advantage though.
As for the rugby – little argument there either. I cannot abide the tabloidy style of journalism that has crept into even the reputable papers. Who cares what Mr Zara does off the pitch? Mind you, if he was any good on the pitch, perhaps they wouldn’t say anything.
The English were awful against the Argies, and the Scots should have won and have no-one but to blame but themselves!
The journos have to be nice to Scotland or they get accused of racism. Stupid bloody PC crap.
FEEG if you can walk a mile in 1000 paces, I will be extremely impressed. I am 194cm tall and my pace is almost exactly 1 metre. That means that a kilometre is 1000 paces. A mile is about 1600. Somewhat more for shorter people. A litre of water weighs one kilogram. A millilitre weighs one gram.
When people make claims about the definition of a metre, they completely misunderstand the sequence of events that led to it. The metre came first, but they needed a constant. By using an absolute such as the circumference of the earth, the authorities could be fairly sure of a constant, rather than a variable, such as the average pace of the first 10 men who emerged from Church, which was how the English yard was derived. (Or something like that). The French did not say ‘lets base our standard unit on one 10 millionth (or whatever) of the Earth circumference’. They said ‘we have this measurement which is very nearly a yard, but which has the benefit that a volume of water, the cube root of which is equal to this unit, will weigh 1,000 kilograms, or, one ton(ne). To make sure that we have a constant, lets measure that unit of distance against something that does not change, i.e. the circumference of the earth. While it emerged that their measurements of the earth was slightly wrong, the principle was perfectly valid. When they discovered their error, they did not change the length of the metre significantly, (first prototype metre bar was short by a fifth of a millimetre) they simply found a better definition, which today I believe is equal to the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
In any event, the metre and the metric system is an English invention, proposed by the philosopher John Wilkins in 1668. So feel free to abandon any anti French prejudice. Read all about it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
‘Imperial Martyrs’ forget just how many variations of their units there are, depending on what it is that is being measured. Dry and wet weights are different. That is why the US and UK have different gallons.
This site is quite interesting. http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/volume.htm
Cuprum, we are in danger of agreeing over many issues. This must stop, immediately. 😉
Sipu: Since you quote the (often unreliable) Wikipedia, maybe you should look up the definition of a mile or mille passuum as defined by the Romans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile#Roman_mile
Maybe Wilkins did propose the metre first but the French were the first to actually use, eventually defined as I described it. As I said, I really do not care which system is used as I am used to both, and do have not anit-French bias, not here anyway!. 🙂 None the less, describing someone as six foot tall means a lot more than describing them as 1.85 metres tall.
I admit, I did not know that the passuum was two paces, and with that definition, the mile does make sense. But it still adds to the logic of being metric -1,000 passuum, instead of 1,760 yards which is how Imperial defines the mile. Now that is bonkers. In any event, you must concede that a pace is a pretty subjective definition. Average heights and therefore length of pace have increased somewhat since the glorious days of Rome.
With regards to 6 foot having greater meaning than 1.85 metres, that is only true in English speaking countries, and by no means all of them. As for your weight in stones!!!!!
Anyway, it is all good fun and one learns something from these little discussions.
A quirk of history: The standard US railroad guage is 4′ 8.5″ – now why would that be?
or, http://bravo22c.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/what-do-the-space-shuttle-and-a-horses-arse-have-in-common/
You’ve probably read it before, but I though it was apt 🙂