On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:56:41 -0400, rickman wrote:

> On 4/3/2017 8:30 AM, alister wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:05:23 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>
>>> Not used here, except by scientists, until forced by the EEC. A vast
>>> improvement over the geriatric FPS system, which should have died at
>>> least a century before it did. $DEITY knows why the Yanks still
>>> persist in using it.
>>
>> for the same reason that you still measure distances in miles & prefer
>> to by your beer in pints (& I suspect you know you're height in Feet &
>> Inches & your weight in stone)
>> imperial measurements are based on natural body measurements &
>> therefore more comfortable for some purposes. The scale is also more
>> convenient
>>
>> 12 inches in much nicer than 0.3m or even 300mm (30cm is not to bad if
>> you want to use a non iso subdivision)
>
> Yes, inches are so much better...  Like 12 5/8 inches which is how many
> feet?
>
> There is nothing good about Imperial measures.
>
> One thing that metric has not dealt with is the ton.  There is a metric
> ton, but there are also many, many other types of tons which may or may
> not be defined in metric, but vary from the defined 1000 kg.

Isn't that an American thing? Back in the day, before the metric ton
replaced the Imperial ton in NZ, I only remember seeing the Imperial ton
(2240 lbs and near as dammit a metric ton too) in NZ or here in the UK
for that matter. I never heard anybody talking about short tons or any
other qualified type of ton.


--
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05