Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
Subject:  Ridiculous |
|
Author: Chaz | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 10:07:25 11/14/04 Sun In reply to: Ed Harris (London) 's message, "Gosh" on 01:13:55 11/13/04 Sat It's a common myth that adopting the metric system in the UK is all the EU's idea - in fact, the UK government established the Metrication Board in 1969, four years before joining the EEC, and the first British government report recommending metrication was written at the end of the nineteenth century. Do not give me any of this sentimental pap about the imperial system being part of our heritage. So was corporal punishment in schools, and we got rid of that. The metric system is just simpler: it makes sense, and that's more than can be said about fluid ounces and cubic yards. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: All right... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:20:50 11/14/04 Sun ... but if you can tell me you height, weight, and the distance from you home to place of work in metric measurements without any mental calculations, then you are the exception rather than the rule. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Metric system | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:24:42 11/14/04 Sun Australia, New Zealand and Canada all use the metric system. We all accepted a long time ago that it is a much better system. It is time that everyone in Britain does the same. It is a much better system for science and industry and is also far easier for children to learn at school. Try not to associate the metric system with the EU. We adopted it before Britain was a member of the EEC. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Metric | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:38:13 11/14/04 Sun As much as I am troubled by using weight measurements invented by Napoleon, I do feel that the metric system is far superior. We should preserve all that is good about our heritage, but sometimes we have to acknowledge that sentimentality cannot stand in the way of progress. I would certainly never like to re-introduce the non-decimal currency system for example. Decimalisation of our weights and measures makes sense from a mathematical and logical point of view. I’m afraid I’m also one of those computer-programmer types, although I think writing metric poetry is absurd. Having said that, no-one should ever try and sell me a half-litre of beer, or a 113.4 gramer with cheese. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If I'm honest... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:58:13 11/14/04 Sun To be completely honest (something which causes me some spasms), my real problem with the metric/imperial situation in Britain is that we try to use both simultaneously. For example, all cars are quoted as performing to a certain number of miles per gallon when we buy them; so, we pay our money, and take them off the the petrol station to fill them up, and can only buy petrol in litres. So, we have to do the most absurd mental arithmetic whilst standing at the pumps... e.g., I have to go 100 miles and my car does 35 miles per gallon, so how many litres do I need? You need a calculator and a conversion table for that! Another example... whenever we buy a pair of bathroom scales they it measures stones and pounds and ounces; and when we buy any clothes we have to know our height, chest, inside leg etc. in inches; but then when we register with a doctor we have to fill out a form with our physical details with grammes for weight and metres for height, which of course we don't know off the top of our heads because we never use the 'new' system, so we have to (a) work it out by dividing six by 2.234723897, or (b) getting re-measured by the doctor, which wastes time. I would be truly happy if we just chose one or the other bloody system. I would prefer the imperial simply because it comes naturally to me, but even the metric, I acknowledge, would be better than our idiotic and self-defeating attempt to try to use two completely incompatible systems at once. Just decide, people! and let me know which you've all chosen! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The science community, inc doctors, will never go back to Imperial | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:57:07 11/14/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Apart from NASA, who used both and caused the failure of a Mars probe... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:10:16 11/14/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Decimalisation | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:30:42 11/15/04 Mon The British government spent the 1960s trying to get into the EEC, and only began to turn metric in order to impress the French in 1967. This was therefore the last year imperial coinage was minted, with the 5 and 10p pieces being introduced in 1968, followed by the 50p piece replacing the 10s note in 1969. But it is true that moves to decimalisation were begun in the C19th. The first florin ('one-tenth-of-a-pound') was issued in 1849 as a first step to decimalisation after a decimalisation bill was introduced in 1847. However, the florin (originally destined to be called a 'centum'), which was a compromise experiment to guage public opinion, was as far as decimalisation got for 120 years. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Money | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:48:34 11/15/04 Mon Florins, of course, were named after Florentine currency units which were of course decimal. Similarly, 'ducats', also decimal and in use throughout much of southern and eastern Europe, were named after the Venetian currency units, since Venice was officially called the "Ducato" or 'dukedom' of Venice. The only currency to be counted in twelves was the 'libra', also Italian and the origin of the modern word 'lira' and also the origin of the 'L' sign for our own pounds (the £-sign was also used in Italy for lire until they adopted the Eurodollar). To what do these fascinating remarks tend, then? Perhaps I am trying to say that neither the decimal nor the dodecimal systems originate here in Britain, and that they are all imports anyway. On the other hand, I just find it easier to count in twelves, since they divide by everything. A third of a pound was six shillings and eight pence and a sixth of a pound was three shillings and fourpence; but there can be no third or sixth of a pound now. Moreover, I like the fact that British currency was somehow distinct and different, having three divisions and none of them related to the number ten. The simple joy which children get out of the 'weird' tripartite and non-decimal system of money in the Harry Potter books is proof, I think, that there would not be much opposition to re-introducing the old way of doing things. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Imports | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:30:46 11/17/04 Wed I do concur - though I must admit I was under the impression that L stood for 'libri', as in sesterces and denarii (L,s,d) - a somewhat early import which has been with us since 50-100 years before the Romans' second landing.... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:51:22 11/17/04 Wed Librus or libra (hence the plurals libri or librae) are just the separate masculine and feminine versions of the same word. I'm afraid that I can't remember whether the word was originally masc or fem, but since it is fem in modern Italian, that almost without exception means that it was fem in Latin too, so I'm sticking with that! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: My point was that you referred to the Italian Lira, which is obviously different to the Latin Libra, if only by one letter! | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:01:06 11/17/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: In order not to appear incurably pedantic.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:28:26 11/17/04 Wed ....I should stress that I am contending that the Pound is essentially a direct descendant of the Roman Librum, whereas the Italian Lira in its last incarnation, whilst named after earlier currencies, was only introduced about 140 years ago, and as such its pedigree, like its purchasing power, was somewhat less robust, and our use of Lsd predated it! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh, you're dead right there. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:34:52 11/17/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |