Since we're on heights at the moment, here's an item about the world's tallest man, who featured in a number of newspapers in the U.K. last week. I've lifted it from this website without altering or omitting anything:

www.francoshoes.co.uk


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


HUSSEIN BISSARD, who at 7ft 9 inches tall is the world's tallest and biggest man, travelled to Franco's shop in Croydon for a pair of custom-built shoes.

Hussein chose this establishment because every pair Franco makes are perfectly fitted to the individual's feet, starting with a mould of each foot and taking into account any special requirements.

Franco said "It was such a challenge, making a really big pair of shoes for this guy, that's why I wanted to do it."

Franco says, "It must be impossible for someone like Hussein to get shoes."

The shoes took Franco 6 months to make and and the finished products were two staggeringly huge size 20s, measuring 15 inches in length and 5 inches across the width of the toe.

Mr Bissard was really pleased with his shoes and I am too. Hussein Bissard and Franco Crawford, in making these mega masterpieces Franco used a piece of material that was 6ft by 5ft in size.

HUSSEIN BISSARD, who at 2.36 m tall is the world's tallest and biggest man, travelled to Franco's shop in Croydon for a pair of custom-built shoes.

Hussein chose this establishment because every pair Franco makes are perfectly fitted to the individual's feet, starting with a mould of each foot and taking into account any special requirements.

Franco said "It was such a challenge, making a really big pair of shoes for this guy, that's why I wanted to do it."

Franco says, "It must be impossible for someone like Hussein to get shoes."

The shoes took Franco 6 months to make and and the finished products were two staggeringly huge size 51s, measuring 38 cm in length and 13 cm across the width of the toe.

Mr Bissard was really pleased with his shoes and I am too. Hussein Bissard and Franco Crawford, in making these mega masterpieces Franco used a piece of material that was 1.8 m x by 1.5 m in size.

Tony

Are you seriously trying to suggest that people still use feet and inches for peoples heights in the UK??

re (Andy): "Tony - Are you seriously trying to suggest that people still use feet and inches for people's heights in the UK??"

REPLY: Thank you very much for that, Andy. Your question explains much. I'm sorry to say this so bluntly - and I really do not intend to be rude - but it does reveal the depth of your ignorance about the use of customary weights and measures in the U.K.

Just to make two very brief points. Every day in the U.K., literally thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people advertise in what are called 'personal' columns in local or national newspapers and magazines looking for a mate, partner, someone to go out with, or perhaps 'seeking fun'.

In line with the universal practice in the U.K., they *all* - whenever they give their height, which is often - give their heights in feet and inches.

We also have a TV programme called 'CrimeWatch', watched by millions. The heights of suspects are given out in feet and inches.

Only if you grasp hold of these facts - and others like them - will you understand anything at all about why some of us defy the bureuacrats - and UKMA's three men, one woman and a dog - who wish to obliterate all this.

P.S. In the latest survey specifically on understanding of metric and Imperial distances and dimensions (in the U.K.), 98% said they 'understand Imperial', against only 29% who said they 'understand metric'. Reversing these figures - 2% not understanding Imperial and 71% not understanding metric, over 35 times as many people do not understand metric dimensions and distances as do not understand Imperial dimensions and distances

Tony,
Pipe down a bit mate! ;-)

I'd put a 1000 pounds on Andy giving you a gentle ribbing!

He lead you to a trap an I believe you might have put your foot in it!

Imperialist,
Pipe down a millibit mate! mg/mmol

I'd put a one kilo-euros on giga-Andy giving you a milli-ribbing!

He Pb you to a mega-trap an I believe you might have put your 33 cm in it!

Oh dear.

I thought it was obvious enough not to need a ;-)

Just goes to show how dangerous it can be to leave out that little diffuser of a smiley!

Hey, maybe "Danny/Fibbing Nutter" keeps forgetting to use them and he's been joking all along? Would explain his bizzare take on life!

..

erm

..


:-D

<<<Just goes to show how dangerous it can be to leave out that little diffuser of a smiley!>>>

Indeed, but I think it also reveals a lot about our friend Mr Bennett.

I've had more than enough debate with him, for him to realise that I wasn't being serious.

Everything is black and white to him. Because I am pro-metric, he assumes that I have the same obsession with metric as he has for imperial. It annoys me to think of the time I have wasted debating with him, when he clearly has no time for any opinion that differs from his own.

You simply cannot have a reasonable debate with him. He is no better than the other nutters on here.

Hold on Andy, everyone has a bad day now and again.

Martin threw his toys out yesterday when he thought that the producers of Crimewatch were caught up in a conspiracy of quoting feet and inches because of "The Sun" newspaper.

Now that does not put him in the same camp as eric and danny, and neither should it this time with Tony.

Yes I was surprised by his answer but maybe it was a one off? Don't forget you pro-mets all look the same sometimes! [ ***JOKE*** ].

You've had some good dialogue with TB in the past - very readable - don't let one posting put you off.

By the way - you may have noticed "metre" (eric) is back.
I guess that means I need to be an outdated dimwit who loves bootlicking yanks whilst using cumbersome measurements and acting all medievel with my horse and cart whilst I plan my next witch-burning ritual.

....Cos I like imperial.

and yes..
";-)"

<<<everyone has a bad day now and again.>>>

hmmm, these bad days seem to be most days at the moment.

This constant posting of random articles quoting imperial measurements (even when not notable in any way) or telling us that the euro is a failure, doesn't really add any more to the debate than the postings of the others you mention. It also suggests that he is equally as detached from reality.

Its a shame because he should have interesting things to contribute.

<<<everyone has a bad day now and again.>>>

hmmm, these bad days seem to be most days at the moment.

This constant posting of random articles quoting imperial measurements (even when not notable in any way) or telling us that the euro is a failure, doesn't really add any more to the debate than the postings of the others you mention. It also suggests that he is equally as detached from reality.

Its a shame because he should have interesting things to contribute.

To Tony,

I realise that there is a temptation to post antidotes to Danny's farcical attempts to try to understand the economies of various countries and also his attempt to fantasise about metric (eg, cricket, records, almost everything, etc) but could I suggest to you (and some of the normal 'pro-met' people) that the likes of eric and daniel are simply seen as daft conversation destroyers and that you need not post about economic matters as if anyone here actually believes their claptrap. Yes we know that right now the euro is poop and the UK is doing rather well out of it - all UKers and most international posters will already know this.

The best way to show them up is to either ignore tham or ridicule them.

It worked with metre(eric) last time and he left on his own accord.

We've lost the excellent contributor 'Bryan' because too many people took the nutbag brigade seriously - it looks like Andy might go the same way if you simply react to their stupid posts by antidoting them.

I'm generally on your side, mate - but Andy is good "proper" pro-metric debater and if we're not careful we'll end up seeing this place turn into a mallet weilding euro praising Phelps analysing witch burning wasteland as it did before.


Rant well and truly over.

(where do I leave my 2 pence?)

re (Andy): "Tony - Are you seriously trying to suggest that people still use feet and inches for people's heights in the UK??"

REPLY: OK, so I missed the joke, the heavy irony was it? Still, it gave me the valuable opportunity to remind everyone that 98% of people in Britain, according to a recent independent survey, understand Imperial dimensions and distances, as against only 29% who understand metric.

Now that was a valuable *fact*, right on topic (and nothing to do with the euro), which contributed to the debate, didn't it? Very inconvenient for your side, though.

Just for the record, when you posted a few weeks ago stating that you thoroughly approved of ARM's activities because they would hasten the joyous day of completely metrified road signs, did you mean that? - or maybe not?

Are you able to clarify?

"REPLY: OK, so I missed the joke, the heavy irony was it? Still, it gave me the valuable opportunity to remind everyone that 98% of people in Britain, according to a recent independent survey, understand Imperial dimensions and distances, as against only 29% who understand metric."


Total Caca! You don't survey people on what they claim to know. You TEST them. You ask them questions that PROVE whether they know what they claim to know. You give them a range of problems from simple to complex in both metric and imperial and judge their knowledge of either system by the number of questions/problems they got correct.

Back in the 1970s, the Metric Commission Canada would set up booths in shopping malls and do just that... test people. They actually found that there was a BIG difference between those claiming to understand imperial and actually being able to back it up. The whole exercise was done to DISPROVE claims that people knew imperial and thus could not metricate. The tests proved the people didn't know imperial as much as they claimed.

I took one of those tests in a Toronto shopping mall in 1978. I flunked the imperial and passed the metric. The people taking the test with me didn't do much better.

"Still, it gave me the valuable opportunity to remind everyone that 98% of people in Britain, according to a recent independent survey, understand Imperial dimensions and distances, as against only 29% who understand metric."

Very odd....

Just like the last time Tony quoted a recent survey

No link to any proof that such a survey was ever carried out. Just Tony's word on it. The quoted figures certainally don't appear on the BWMA "consumer surveys" page.

Now, look at the transport board - "Kilometre Cock-Up - York etc" thread - my post of 23/8/05 at 9.17pm

"Tony said

"But assuming the 86% preference figure is more or less correct......"

Why should posters to the thread have to assume anything?

If Tony's figure is correct, he should be able to direct us to recent poll figures that strongly suggest that "86% of the country do not want our system of miles, yards, feet and inches on our road signs disturbed"

Looking at the BWMA "consumer surveys" page, I note that the figure 86% does not appear."

Tony gave no proof regarding the quoted survey on that occasion. I doubt he will be able to on this occasion either.

Give us some independent corroboration of your independent surveys Tony!

<<<Just for the record, when you posted a few weeks ago stating that you thoroughly approved of ARM's activities because they would hasten the joyous day of completely metrified road signs, did you mean that? - or maybe not?>>>

Yes - one of the main arguments given for not metricating road signs is that things are fine as they are. If councils want to put up signs in metric, and an activist organisation go round altering them it creates a conflict. However professionally you alter the signs, this situation is clearly unacceptable.

The more conflict there is over the issue, the more likely the government is to step in and resolve it.

Resolving it, could mean either
(a) reinforcing the regulations that metric is illegal
(b) allowing a choice
or (c) changing the regulations to require metric

Given the strict legislation on metric in other areas, (a) is not really an option.

My guess is that we will go straight from (a) to (c)

re (Andy): "The more conflict there is over the issue, the more likely the government is to step in and resolve it..."

REPLY: Wishful thinking.

Conflict is reducing as more and more Councils accept that metric signs are illegal. North Yorkshire is the recent exception that proves the rule. The BBC and Yorkshire Post both carried news items recently reporting as a *fact* that 'metric road and footpath signs are illegal'. And, yes, 'illegal', not 'unlawful' or 'unauthorised'.

The government did 'step in and try to resolve it', as you put it, Andy. On 21 July 2002 Mike Talbot, Head of the Traffic Signs Policy Branch of the Department for Transport, wrote a stiff letter to every single Chief Executive in England and Wales reminding them of their legal duty under the Traffic Signs Regulations to erect all distance and dimension signs in Imperial. That soon put a stop to most Councils erecting any more unlawful metric distance and dimension signs.

We welcome your past support for ARM's actions and are buoyed up by your renewed message of support. 'Keep up the good work, lads', was your latest message, I believe. Shame that other metric zealots like Beranger don't (yet) share your enthusiasm for our campaign

Tony

You still haven't looked up the word "zealot" have you?

...and looked in a mirror

Beranger, Martin, Stan (anyone else on the pro-metric side)

Do any of you agree with me, that the ARM campaign may be doing their cause more harm than good in th way that I have described above?

re (Andy): "You still haven't looked up the word 'zealot' have you?...and looked in a mirror..."

REPLY: I don't want to enforce wine being sold by the pint, nor engine cubic capacity being described in cubic inches.

Metric zealots want to obliterate all traces of Imperial, though, using a raft of additional crimes to achieve their ends

Yes there are metric zealots.

But there are people like myself and Beranger (who you repeatedly call zealots) who do NOT want to "obliterate every trace of imperial"

Can't you accept that not everyone in favour of metrication to a degree to which the term zealous is appropriate?

There is a huge middle ground on this issue, and most of the population occupy it.

Zealotry analysed September 29 2005, 12:49 PM


re (Andy): "You still haven't looked up the word 'zealot' have you?...and looked in a mirror..."

TB
Metric zealots want to obliterate all traces of Imperial, though, using a raft of additional crimes to achieve their ends

metre
From one zealot to another. Let's get rid of the present mess. Since metric is too far advanced imperial is condemned to die anyhow. It will take a long time for it to fade away though. So, don't worry, you still will be burtied in six decent feet of earth.

re (metre): "From one zealot to another..."

REPLY: Speak for yourself

re (Andy): "But there are people like myself and Beranger (who you repeatedly call zealots) who do NOT want to 'obliterate every trace of imperial'"

REPLY: Right, very good. Will you (and Beranger) please specify which bits of British customary weights and measures you wish to retain in common use - and which you want to destroy, eliminate or obliterate.

It's a very very easy question.

Do you want, for example, within say the next 50 years, to replace all road and footpath signs in the U.K. with metric measurements?

Tony

A very wide ranging question!

And that's the second or third time you've called me a zealot! If the shoe fits......

Please post any statements of mine where I call for destruction, elimination or obliteration of any imperial unit.

For every one that you do, I'll find one of my posts supporting the retention of imperial supplementary indications after 2010 or similar & (as an additional free bonus) one of your posts supporting the destruction, elimination or obliteration of a metric unit.

Read my long reply to you on the "Salop" thread for my views on road signs. I have no particulaily strong feelings on the matter, but its always fun to expose your misuse of statistics & twisting of facts.

re: "Will you (and Beranger) please specify which bits of British customary weights and measures you wish to retain in common use - and which you want to destroy, eliminate or obliterate. It's a very very easy question. Do you want, for example, within say the next 50 years, to replace all road and footpath signs in the U.K. with metric measurements?

REPLY: Beranger has responded, and as I predicted has 100% ducked the question.

Unless he gives an answer, there is only one possible inference.

That he supports the elimination of all British weights and measures.

As I believe he does

OK heres my response:

Road signs - convert distance signs to metric gradually as was done in Ireland. Then replace speed limits all in one go. Footpath signs replace with metric as they need to be replaced.

Trade - switch to metric only after 2010 (transition period has been more than long enough)
Keep pints in pubs.

Media - allow freedom of choice

Education - continue as now, predominantly metric, but teach the imperial units still in common use.

All other areas - freedom of choice

If that makes me a zealot in your eyes, so be it!

REPLY to Andy:

A: 'OK here's my response'

T: Thanks for making your position clear

A: 'Road signs - convert distance signs to metric gradually as was done in Ireland. Then replace speed limits all in one go. Footpath signs replaced with metric as they need to be replaced'

T: To avoid going over too much ground again, brief points below. Your policy means:

1. Confusion for motorists who will have two different systems. That confusion would last for years
2. Costs running to at least hundreds of millions of pounds when 98% understand Imperial, only 27% metric and 91% of those who express a preference want to keep miles, not switch to kilometres
3. Why? Just because everybody else except America is?

A: 'Trade - switch to metric only after 2010 (transition period has been more than long enough)'

T: This means:

1. criminal penalties for selling 8 oz. steaks
2. criminal penalties for selling 23" TVs
3. criminal penalties for selling 7" x 5" enlargements
4. criminal penalties for selling quaterpounders
5. criminal penalties for selling 1" nails
6. criminal penalties for selling 2" paintbrushes
7. criminal penalties for selling 12" pizzas
8. criminal penalties for selling land by the acre
9. criminal penalties for selling office space by the square foot.
etc.
etc.
etc.

A: 'Keep pints in pubs'

T: Well I agree with you there. But do you want to keep milk being sold in pints? And what is the logic of abolishing the pint for orange juice in the supermarket but keeping it in pubs?

A: 'Media - allow freedom of choice'

T: Does that mean that Burger King can advertise in the newspaper quarterpounders at £1.99? Or Brewers' Fayre advertise 8oz. steaks?

A. 'Education - continue as now, predominantly metric, but teach the imperial units still in common use'

T: Most schools don't bother with Imperial units at the moment. The National Curriculum would have to be firmed up even to achieve that aim

A: 'All other areas - freedom of choice'

T: Would you lift the Directive on government and local authority officials only to use metric in thier internal and external documents (E.U. Directive)?

A: If that makes me a zealot in your eyes, so be it!

T: The dictionary definition of a 'zealot' is: "An uncompromising or extreme partisan; a fanatic". You gave this viewpoint: 'Trade - switch to metric only after 2010 (transition period has been more than long enough)'. As I have demonstrated, this would need criminal penalties, just like the penalties that convicted Steve Thoburn of a crime. I doubt if you could find 1,000 people in the United Kingdom who would want to make it a crime to sell 12" pizzas, 23" TVs or quarterpounders. Yes, for supporting that extreme degree of criminal force and compulsion, I think you are a metric zealot.

As are metre, Beranger, martin, Lord Howe, Roz Denny, Robin Paice and others.

People are content with the current system. You will always be restless until it is changed to your satisfaction

<<<1. Confusion for motorists who will have two different systems. That confusion would last for years>>>

What, like the non-existant confusion in Ireland?

<<<Criminal penalties>>>

Actually I would only enforce certain measurements (metric) where something is sold BY weight/length/area. eg fruit and veg, office space, land, carpets etc

Where it is just a description - 12" pizza, Quarterpounders, 8oz steaks, 1" nails etc I would allow it.

<<<But do you want to keep milk being sold in pints? And what is the logic of abolishing the pint for orange juice in the supermarket but keeping it in pubs?>>>

The logic is that the quantity we buy milk or orange juice in, is irrelevant. The size glass we drink beer is of cultural value.

<<<T: Would you lift the Directive on government and local authority officials only to use metric in thier internal and external documents (E.U. Directive)?>>>

No. That makes sense to me.

<<<As I have demonstrated, this would need criminal penalties, just like the penalties that convicted Steve Thoburn of a crime.>>>

I would certainly not be in favour of being too heavy-handed, although someone like Thoburn would have to convicted as a last resort.

<<<I doubt if you could find 1,000 people in the United Kingdom who would want to make it a crime to sell 12" pizzas, 23" TVs or quarterpounders.>>>

See above. I don't.

How about you give me the same list, and tell me how zealously you would enforce imperial measurements?

"Where it is just a description - 12" pizza, Quarterpounders, 8oz steaks, 1" nails etc I would allow it."

How accurate would those descriptions have to be? If a shop offers a 12 inch pizza, but it is only 280 mm in diameter instead of 300 mm, could it still be called a 12 inch pizza? Would 100 g of Hamburger be OK to call a quarter pounder if all were allowing is trade names? What about 200 g for an eight ounce steak or 20 mm for 1 inch nails?

Is the use of an imperial trade name required by law to be accurate?

re (Andy): "Actually I would only enforce certain measurements (metric) where something is sold BY weight/length/area. e.g. fruit and veg, office space, land, carpets etc. Where it is just a description - 12" pizza, quarterpounders, 8oz steaks, 1" nails etc I would allow it.

REPLY: But this is a distinction without a difference. It makes no sense at all.

Are you saying 8oz. steaks are NOT sold by weight??!!

Or that a pizza is not sold by diameter?

Is the selling of photos e.g. 7" x 5", 8" x 6" etc. covered by "where something is sold BY weight/length/area"? Or paper size? Or the size of say photo albums?

Will you be allowed to buy a '5ft bed'?

Most office space is now sold by square feet which everyone in the field of office space rental understands. Why on earth change it?

Are estate agents going to be required to specify the length and width of rooms and gardens in metres only?

Sorry, Andy, this is zealotry for no purpose other than to satisfy your desire that we should be 'made to go metric'

Tony

Re your post of 7.53am today

"REPLY: Beranger has responded, and as I predicted has 100% ducked the question."

Have you been taking your medication? Where do you "predict" that I will dodge any question?

In response to your question, I made the valid point that I support the retention of Imperial as supplementary units. How can that be construed as supporting the obliteration of imperial?

I pointed out that you, in comparison, have called for the obliteration of metric on the highways. As an example, here is one of your quotes regarding
obliteration of legal metric signage whilst leaving the accompanying imperial signage.

"ARM supporters yesterday obliterated two metric height signs in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, showing a height for a low bridge of 4.2m."

I answered your question by referring to a post that I had just made on another thread, giving practically the same information.

"Read my long reply to you on the "Salop" thread for my views on road signs."

As you appear to be unable to understand a simple instruction to look at another post for my answer, I'll repost it here

<<<<5) & 6) TB - "Hairsplitting"

I disagree. As usual, Tony, you are seeing everything in black & white. I use miles on a daily basis & have not suggested that I wish to see them replaced with kilometres. I have no problem, however, with tonnes & metres appearing on our roads.

For Road Traffic purposes, the Ton/Tonne & the Yard/Metre are close enough to be considered equivalent. I didn't crash my car the other day when I passed countdown signs to roadworks that read 400m, 200yds & 100yds. The 100yd marker could have been no more than 50 yds from the traffic light.>>>>

If you wish, I'll put it in even simpler & more detailed terms.

For traffic
1) I consider the yard & metre to be close enough in value to each other to be equivalent (for road traffic purposes) for any distance sign up to 0.5 mile/880 yards/800m.
2) Over 0.5 mile/880 yards/800m, I believe that one unit should be used. I honestly don't care whether it is miles or kilometres. I can work with either.
3) Bridge heights & narrow widths should be marked in both units.

For pedestrians
3) I have no problems with any sign representing any distance but aimed purely at pedestrians/non motorised transport being expressed in metric or imperial (or both)

So, in summary, I have no problem with some more metric signage on the roads, but don't wish to eradicate imperial.

And whatever may happen in the future, I do not support the removal of old milestones or finger signposts. You can't read them at speed anyway!

Your turn - Do you want, for example, within say the next 50 years, to have any or all goods currently subject to the Weights & Measures Act to be sold in imperial measurement only?

BERANGER'S BRICKBATS/INSULTS - cont...

Brickbat 1

"Have you been taking your medication?"

Brickbat 2

"As you appear to be unable to understand a simple instruction to look at another post for my answer..."

Brickbat 3

"As usual, Tony, you are seeing everything in black & white".

No bouquets this time, so on to Beranger's question:

********************************************************************

BERANGER: "Your turn - Do you want, for example, within say the next 50 years, to have any or all goods currently subject to the Weights & Measures Act to be sold in imperial measurement only?"

I refer the Honourable gentleman to the answer I gave in the list of 12 recommendations on page 4 of the Report by the Customary Measures Society, "Weights and Measures: Britain's Way Ahead":

---------------------------------------------------------------
Main Recommendations

Britain’s Way Ahead: Our 12-point plan

These are our proposals, which we invite the next government to adopt:

1. Loose Goods - Ending of Criminal Penalties

We call for an immediate suspension of all action to enforce
the compulsory weighing and sale of loose goods in metric

2. Repeal of 1994 Regulations

We call for the repeal of the 1994 Units of Measurement Regulations. We also call for an indefinite ‘derogation’ from any other measure in Directive EC/80/181 under which Britain is required to convert to metric units

3. Dual labelling of packaged goods and the re-introduction of ‘dual customary/metric weighing machines

Dual labelling of the weight of packaged goods sold in shops should be introduced within a reasonable lead-in period (goods for export would still, of course, need to comply with the importing country’s require-ments). After a transitional period, displaying metric could be phased out. The cost of adding another measurement on a packet or tin is minimal. Packaged goods in the United States are dual labelled

4. Repeal of the ban on displaying the word ‘pound’ in shops after 2009

We call for the immediate repeal Regulations banning the display of information in pounds and ounces in shops after 31 December 2009

5. Changes in the National Curriculum

We call for the National Curriculum to be amended to ensure that children are taught customary and metric units in equal measure (as is the case in the United States) and are not forced to use only metric in class, e.g. when preparing recipes, making things or drawing up plans

6. Relaxing the ban on customary measures for officials

We call for the immediate relaxation of laws requiring officials to use metric only in official documents

7. Relaxing the ban on customary measures for architects and builders

We call for architects to be allowed, once again, to draw up plans in customary units, and for builders to be able to use customary units

8. Changes to the Highway Code

We call for the next edition of the Highway Code to omit all references to metric measurements, in order to avoid confusion

9. Public information signs to be primarily in customary units

We call for all public information signs, e.g. at the entrance to publicly-owned country parks or historical buildings, to use customary units

10. All swimming pools to show depths in feet and inches

We call for all present and future swimming pools, in the interests of safety, to be required to display depths in customary units. We do not call for an end to displaying depths in metric units. Both should be used

11. Leave road signs in customary measures

We seek a commitment by the government to leave road and footpath signs in customary units indefinitely. Staff in the Department for Transport, currently planning metrication, could be redeployed to useful work

12. Phase out optional metric signs on British roads

We call for the repeal of the current option (currently used only by a handful of local authorities) to allow metric roads signs, in very limited circumstances, to accompany signs in customary units.

---------------------------------------------------------------

********************************************************************

BERANGER: "I support the retention of Imperial as supplementary units"

REPLY: So do you support Recommendation 3 of the Customary Weights and measures Society, namely:

Quote

3. Dual labelling of packaged goods and the re-introduction of ‘dual customary/metric weighing machines

Dual labelling of the weight of packaged goods sold in shops should be introduced within a reasonable lead-in period (goods for export would still, of course, need to comply with the importing country’s require-ments). After a transitional period, displaying metric could be phased out. The cost of adding another measurement on a packet or tin is minimal. Packaged goods in the United States are dual labelled

Unquote

********************************************************************

BERANGER: I use miles on a daily basis & have not suggested that I wish to see them replaced with kilometres

REPLY: If I've got your previous answers correct, you'd be happy to see a 'measurement muddle' of a combination of metres and miles on our road signs, yes?

<<By the way - you may have noticed "metre" (eric) is back.>>

Yeah, he is probably fed up with playing Pokemon by now.

<<
I use miles on a daily basis & have not suggested that I wish to see them replaced with kilometres.
>>

When driving on a UK motorway, I use the small location markers on the sides of the roads (for Steve's benefit, when it is safe to do so) as well as other road signs. These markers are now being replaced by huge signs (M6 in Cheshire for example). These markers are in kilometres. If I use htese signs,I am forced to use both miles and kilometres.

Tony asked

"Do you support Recommendation 3 of the Customary Weights and measures Society, namely:

3. Dual labelling of packaged goods and the re-introduction of ‘dual customary/metric weighing machines

Dual labelling of the weight of packaged goods sold in shops should be introduced within a reasonable lead-in period (goods for export would still, of course, need to comply with the importing country’s require-ments). After a transitional period, displaying metric could be phased out. The cost of adding another measurement on a packet or tin is minimal. Packaged goods in the United States are dual labelled"

No. I don't support Recommendation 3.

Dual machines already exist, and hardly anyone uses them. If there is a significant demand to go back to imperial, why are they not more popular? Why do no major supermarket chains use them? Even the supposedly "pro-imperial" Tesco has never used them.

Note that I only said that I suppported the retention of supplementary indications. I would not make it compulsory to mark both imperial & metric.

"After a transitional period, displaying metric could be phased out."

Yet more eradication/obliteration from Tony!

" If I've got your previous answers correct, you'd be happy to see a 'measurement muddle' of a combination of metres and miles on our road signs, yes?"

Well, we have it already - Between my home and my office, I view only 5 traffic signs with distances or speed limits. 3 are metric.

<<
When driving on a UK motorway, I use the small location markers on the sides of the roads (for Steve's benefit, when it is safe to do so) as well as other road signs. These markers are now being replaced by huge signs (M6 in Cheshire for example). These markers are in kilometres. If I use htese signs,I am forced to use both miles and kilometres.
>>

So Martin, which set of units do you blame? The one that has been there all along, or the one that was introduced recently when there was already no confusion and therefore no apparent reason to do so?

Remember your Magna Carta? There shall be one measure throughout the realm. Well, there was one measure throughout the realm, until they decided to add another one. Now there are two. Therefore, introducing kilometres, and failing to erradicate miles, is a violation of the Magna Carta.

Bud

This point I entirely agree with. If we were having this debate 40 years ago when metrication had not yet begun, I would be much more sympathetic to the argument to leave things as they are.

But in order to rectify the confusion (which you appear to aknowledge - I know many don't on the imperial side) it would be far easier to go wholly to metric than to go back to imperial.

<<
So Martin, which set of units do you blame? The one that has been there all along, or the one that was introduced recently when there was already no confusion and therefore no apparent reason to do so?
>>

Having seen how the conversion was carried out in South Africa over a period of a few months and how the British Government are agonising and procrastinating and leaving the job half-done, I put the blame firstly on the British Government for failing to show any leadership and secondly on opportunists who seek to make political cheap capital out of what is really not a political issue.

re (martin): "I put the blame firstly on the British Government for failing to show any leadership and secondly on opportunists who seek to make political cheap capital out of what is really not a political issue"


REPLY: martin is talking in code, but I am pretty sure that the organisation most closely meeting his criterion: "making political cheap capital out of what is really not a political issue" is the U.K. Metric Association.

Is there a political demand for 1.5 million perfectly usable road signs to be changed?

NO. The only organisation trying to 'make political capital' out of the issue is UKMA with its ludicrous demand that the U.K. must 'obey' a 25-year-old European Directive on weights and measures.

I thought that that Portuguese bloke at the top of the E.U., Jose Manuel de Barroso, was trying to abolish unnecessary euro regulations at the moment?

<<Having seen how the conversion was carried out in South Africa over a period of a few months and how the British Government are agonising and procrastinating and leaving the job half-done, I put the blame firstly on the British Government for failing to show any leadership and secondly on opportunists who seek to make political cheap capital out of what is really not a political issue. >>

Well said. Except for changing the names of the guilty, and recognizing we left the job one-quarter done, your comment is completely applicable to the US as well.

"the British Government are agonising"

I'm not so sure.
My bet is that it has not come up in discussion for decades.

<<<The only organisation trying to 'make political capital' out of the issue is UKMA with its ludicrous demand that the U.K. must 'obey' a 25-year-old European Directive on weights and measures.>>>

UKMA is simply a pressure group. It does not "make demands" or take the law into its own hands. The only organisation/s trying to make it a political issue is BWMA/ARM.

<<<I thought that that Portuguese bloke at the top of the E.U., Jose Manuel de Barroso, was trying to abolish unnecessary euro regulations at the moment?>>>

I certainly hope so. I think the EU has finally realised that unnecessary euro regulations are not wanted by anyone.

<<I certainly hope so. I think the EU has finally realised that unnecessary euro regulations are not wanted by anyone.>>

Everyone can agree with that principle, while being in total disagreement as to which are "necessary" and "unnecessary."

Hey perhaps they'll drop the one's about preventing terrorism and controlling immigration and keep the stuff about bent bananas and weighing scales.

That way they can prove they're in touch with the people's of Europe.

re (JohnS-MI): "recognizing we left the job one-quarter done..."

REPLY: Shouldn't that be, er, 25%?

<<REPLY: Shouldn't that be, er, 25%?
>>

Yes, although 25% may imply greater precision than exists in my estimate.
Besides, I thought you liked fractions. :)

<<
I put the blame firstly on the British Government for failing to show any leadership and secondly on opportunists who seek to make political cheap capital out of what is really not a political issue.
>>

If it is not a political issue, then why don't politicians stop interfering with it?

<<<REPLY: Shouldn't that be, er, 25%?>>>

Why? Whats wrong with a quarter?
Do they not use fractions in metric countries?

<<
Do they not use fractions in metric countries?
>>

They do - usually they are called decimal fractions.

Seriously though, in my work those financial exchanges that insist on using vulgar fractions are a right pain - they cause a lot of problems with data formatting. ALso, if you look at any signposts in metric countries, you will hardly ever (I nearly said never) see vulgar fractions. For example you will see 5.5km, not 5 1/2 km.

Also, if you look at the UNICODE character set (www.unicode.org), you will only see that only a few fractions have a UNICODE value - if my memory serve me correctly they are 1/8, 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, 7/8, 1/3, 2/3 and maybe 1/6 and 5/6.

<<<<Seriously though, in my work those financial exchanges that insist on using vulgar fractions are a right pain - they cause a lot of problems with data formatting.>>>

I agree. I've come across that as well - usually only in the US though.

My issue was with Tony for suggesting that simply using the term "a quarter" is not compatible with metric, which of course is ridiculous.

re (Andy) "My issue was with Tony for suggesting that simply using the term "a quarter" is not compatible with metric, which of course is ridiculous".

REPLY: Not quite what I said - indeed, nothing like what I said - but then I'm used to being misquoted on these boards.

There's a fascinating parallel on this issue concerning road signs concerning steep hills.

In the good old days, we all know where we were.

'1 in 12' was a bit of an incline, '1 in 8' was pretty steep, and '1 in 5' or '1 in 4' for example was very steep.

Then came Europeanisation, and the powers-that-be decided to go over to percentages when signing steep hills.

That has caused confusion in two respects, first because many signs are still in the old '1 in 7' etc. notation (and some authorities are still erecting them), but - more important - percentages are not nearly so well understood as '1 in 6' or whatever*.

Want a clear-cut example?

Despite the fact that over 90% of steep hill signs are now in percentages, when the authorities really want to get a clear message over, like the very steep hill running down off Exmoor just west of Porlock (Porlock Hill), the massive red traffic signs there eschew confusing percentages altogether and goes for: "Extreme danger! Slow! 1 in 4"

Er, just as clear as 6' 1" is over e.g. 186 cm.

Or 8 oz. over 227g or 225g.

Or 9" pizzas over 23cm pizzas.

Or 'half mile' versus 750 metres or 825 metres.


* Ask any female driver how steep a hill signed as 14% is

<<Er, just as clear as 6' 1" is over e.g. 186 cm.

Or 8 oz. over 227g or 225g.

Or 9" pizzas over 23cm pizzas.

Or 'half mile' versus 750 metres or 825 metres.>>

I'm at a loss to understand why you think that two figures punctuated by funny symbols is clearer than a single easily recognisable number like 186

When it comes to distances in metres you can think of it how you like. 750 metres can be thought of as 0.75 km, three quarters of a km or whatever.

And as for this:

<< * Ask any female driver how steep a hill signed as 14% is >>

Once anyone understands the principle of measuring a slope as a percentage then there is no reason in the world why it should be any harder than a ratio expressed as 1:n But if someone doesn't know that then they will naturally be confused by it.

However I don't care much what we do about hill slope signage I'm happy with either, it's not a metrication issue. I realise of course that it *is* an issue for those who see red whenever they see anything to do with "Europe".

"Seriously though, in my work those financial exchanges that insist on using vulgar fractions are a right pain - they cause a lot of problems with data formatting"

What financial exchange still uses fractions? The US was the only one until a few years ago when it changed to decimals.

<<
What financial exchange still uses fractions? The US was the only one until a few years ago when it changed to decimals.
>>

To name a few:

1) London Stock Exchange
2) Bank of England Interest Rate
3) Chicago Board of Trade

You are incorrect Martin. The NYSE and NASDAQ were the last exchanges in the world to decimalize. i also checked with a poster to the USMA site and he had this to say:

All shares in the UK use decimal fractions, not vulgar fractions, and
have done so for several years.

If you look at the London Stock Exchange website, at
www.londonstockexchange.com, there are no vulgar fractions that I can see.

Also the Bank of England base rate I have only seen in decimal
fractions, not vulgar fractions. Maybe many years ago it was not
decimal, but at the moment it is decimal. The BWMA do not have correct
facts if what you say is true. Although you did say that they use
fractions, so that is true, because they use decimal fractions. But I
think you meant vulgar fractions, which they do not use.

Certainly in the many financial-related documents that I work on every
week, I have yet to see any share price quoted using a vulgar fraction.
I work for a major international bank in the City of London.


Martin, do you know something the rest of us don't?

re (Stan): "However I don't care much what we do about hill slope signage I'm happy with either, it's not a metrication issue. I realise of course that it *is* an issue for those who see red whenever they see anything to do with 'Europe'.

REPLY: Hmmm - a bit of stereotypical prejudice from you there, Stan. The only issue is which system is clearer, more understandable. I have expressed my view. If the '1 in 7' etc. system had originated in Europe and we in Britain had originated percentages, I would hold to the same view. Britain is by no means always better than Europe.

A quarter, or 1 in 4, are both easier concepts than '25%'.

And don't forget the decline in literacy and numeracy skills in recent decades - (coincidentally of course) since we started going metric.

The barely numerate prefer fractions to percentages

<<The barely numerate prefer fractions to percentages>>

Really??

Actually doing math with common fractions is a royal PITA.
I'm pretty numerate and I just hate it. I can't imagine how the
innumerate do it. (I suspect they don't do math)

re (Stan): "I'm at a loss to understand why you think that two figures punctuated by funny symbols is clearer than a single easily recognisable number like 186..."


REPLY: Let's cut out the biased comments in the above sentence and look at the issue dispassionately. We're then left with:

"I'm at a loss to understand why you think that two figures [] are clearer than a [three figure number like 186]..."

ANSWER: Simple. The longer the number, the more difficult it is for the brain to memorise and retain. Simple neurological science - look at any scientific paper on memory

re (JohnM-SI): "<<<The barely numerate prefer fractions to percentages>>> Really??"


REPLY: Not convinced?

Compare these:


It's quarter past four
It's 25% past four

I've read nearly half of this book
I've read about 45% of this book

Hill: 1 in 8
Hill: 12.5%

Five furlongs to go
62.5% of a mile to go

About a third of them were blonde
About 33% of them were blonde

Two-thirds of the page
67% of the page

1 in 40 people are Muslim
2.5% of people are Muslim

Those are easy. I was thinking of math:

I need three boards 31 5/16 inches each. My saw cuts a 1/8 inch kerf. How long a board must I buy at the lumber store to cut these.

So then explain to me why carpentry is less metric than almost any other industry in the US?

You can make up hypothetical examples all you want. What matters is what these people are actually doing, not what they could be doing according to examples that you design in order to prove your point.

<<So then explain to me why carpentry is less metric than almost any other industry in the US? >>

I have no idea. I guess some people prefer the hard way; they are welcome to it.

I lay out all carpentry projects in mm. No fractions at all, decimal or common (to the imprecision of MY carpentry). If I'm in the garage, I use the other side of my dual unit tape measure to convert any total lengths of material to Customary units I need to buy.

If someone made a carpentry tape with tenths of inches (and subticks to 0.02 or 0.05) I could use it, but I detest common fractions. I only use fractional inch rules to measure common screw diameters.

It's quarter past four
It's 25% past four

Better: It is 4:15 (four fifteen)

What if the time was 4:20? How would your fraction work here?


"I've read nearly half of this book
I've read about 45% of this book "

First one if you are giving a rough estimate, second if you are being more exact

"Hill: 1 in 8
Hill: 12.5% "

Never, ever seen the first one in use. Nobody in the world would have a clue as to what that would possibly mean.

How would you express a 17 % grade in fractions?

"Five furlongs to go
62.5% of a mile to go"


Nobody uses or knows what a furlong is. But from your example I see it is 200 m.

Better: 1 km to go

"About a third of them were blonde
About 33% of them were blonde

Two-thirds of the page
67% of the page "

Very simple fractions are most common, such as quarters, halves, thirds, fifths, etc. Any greater complexity and people are lost.

If it was 37 % blonde or 63 % of the page, how would you express it in fractions?


"1 in 40 people are Muslim
2.5% of people are Muslim"


We stick with percent in the US. Never would see it written as 1 in 40.

What if it were 4.45 %, what would the fraction be and how long would it take for someone to manipulate the number to find the right denominator to give you a whole number in the numerator and still have a simple fraction?


Pick examples that aren't as easy to show nice fractional amounts. People don't understand fractions except for the very basic ones. Percentages are more versatile. It is also easier for a statistician to work with percentages then with trying to figure out how much that is in 1 of XX. Spreadsheets don't do 1 in XX either if they are comparing data. It isn't a machine friendly format.

"Re: Franco Shoes on The World's Tallest Man October 9 2005, 2:48 AM


Those are easy. I was thinking of math:

I need three boards 31 5/16 inches each. My saw cuts a 1/8 inch kerf. How long a board must I buy at the lumber store to cut these. "


Now John, how many carpenters do you think are going to bother to figure out something like that? Carpenters are not rocket scientists. They do a lot of inaccurate guess work or they hope either the guy at the store or one of their partners would know the answer. If they are experienced enough they may remember what they did on a previous job. Or they just over buy just to make sure they have what they need. Whatever is left over is wasted but since you are paying for it, who cares?

If carpenters in the US used metric, there would be a greater precision in their work and a lower cost to new homes. But, since no one is complaining about the shoddy workmanship of homes built this bad practice will continue.

At least in the UK new homes and buildings are built 100 % metric.

<<"Hill: 1 in 8
Hill: 12.5% "

Never, ever seen the first one in use. Nobody in the world would have a clue as to what that would possibly mean.

How would you express a 17 % grade in fractions?
>>

I've never seen it on a highway either. Some ratioed statement of rise/run is common in roof and staircase design (damn carpenters). When grade is specified on a highway, it is always given in percent, but just a "Steep Grade Ahead" sign is more common, with no number.

1 in 6 is close enough to 17%.

Oh, and your 4.45% is well approximated by 17/382 (error around 1/40 of last significant figure given), although 89/2000 is exact. The procedure is called rational approximation and engineers use it to calculate gear train ratios for specialized purposes.

The FHWA requires grade information in percent as a road design requirement, and rules for acceptable grade vs highway class are in percent. They require accuracy (in percent) to 2 decimal digits, or four as a decimal fraction.

Where grade is expressed numerically on a road sign, MUTCD requires percent (to nearest whole number). Tony's 1 in 8 hill sign is "unlawful" in the United States, which is why we haven't seen it.

"I've never seen it on a highway either. Some ratioed statement of rise/run is common in roof and staircase design (damn carpenters). When grade is specified on a highway, it is always given in percent, but just a "Steep Grade Ahead" sign is more common, with no number.

1 in 6 is close enough to 17%."

Yes, you took the reciprocal of 0.17 and rounded it. But how many people would know how to do it, how many would bother and how would 1 in 6 give a better understanding of the height of a hill? What about 23 %?


"Oh, and your 4.45% is well approximated by 17/382 (error around 1/40 of last significant figure given), although 89/2000 is exact. The procedure is called rational approximation and engineers use it to calculate gear train ratios for specialized purposes."

I don't work with gears and I doubt many people do so the procedure is unknown to 99 % of the world. Plus, I doubt engineers of today would do it that way. They would either use a program or look it up on a chart. Also the result you get is not a simple fractional ratio and would be totally confusing to most people.

I tried the method used described on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fractions. It took me longer then I would have expected to come up with the 89/2000 you got by the method shown. It isn't hard, just boring and time consuming. Not something you can do in your head when you encounter a percent as such. Such methods were developed when fractional numbers were more common and decimal math unknown but with decimals more common and more understood such methods are obsolete and of no use, except for math exercises.

Trying to find the fractional equivalent of the 2^-0.5 is also useless. When you have a calculator that does all your math for you in easy decimals, why would you care or need to know what the such numbers are in fractions? In the era of slide rules and pencil and paper math, fractional math (actually algebra with expressions in the numerator and denominator) was simpler to move about then expressing numbers with long decimals. That problem no longer exists and fractional numbers are now more a complicated then decimals.

Fractions are of very limited use because they only are understandable if the they are simple. Next time you go to the deli counter ask for 7/16 of a pound of Salami and see what kind of dirty look you get. Fractional pounds only work if you stick to only numbers of 1/4; 2/4 or 3/4. Anything else and the meat cutter is confused. Ask for ounce amounts and you might get kicked out of the store for being a royal PITA.

2^-0.5

Should be 2^0.5. 2^-0.5 is the same as the reciprocal of the square root of two. Either way the logic still applies.

<<I tried the method used described on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fractions. It took me longer then I would have expected to come up with the 89/2000 you got by the method shown. It isn't hard, just boring and time consuming. >>

The method is related to continued fractions, but there is a "more programmable" procedure that directly generates iterative approximations Pi/Qi that I found in a book and programmed as a Excel spreadsheet, BASIC program, etc. I've lost the book, and probably could not longer "prove" it works but it does and is a nice iteration, works well in Excel, or is easy to program in a WHILE loop.

In a silly tour de force, 1393/985 is the first approximate to SQRT(2) that is better than 1 ppm.

If for some reason, only as an example, I want to calculate the L x W dimensions of a sheet of A4 paper, I would would simply apply the formula w^2 = 1/(16 x 2^0.5) and use the calculator to do it. The fractional amount would serve me no purpose, so trying to calculate it is a major waste of time.

In a few seconds I have a width of 210 mm and a length of 297 mm.


As for an excel spreadsheet program used to calculate fractions from decimals, kind of a waste of an expensive program. Now like some people we know who pretends he doesn't understand percentage gradients, then you can always get a thousand dollar lap top with a 300 dollar excel program installed and take it with you in your car. When you see one of those percent hill signs you can quickly turn on your computer, enter the number and get your result in a fractional form. But after the accident your car and computer are totaled but at least you defied the system by doing a translation into old fashioned numbers. Just hope your insurance company understands.

All well and good. I'm not in love with fractions, in fact I hate them, but they have their place:

*In a car company, even an electrical engineer can calculate a gear train

*In the early days of automotive electronics, we certainly couldn't afford the overhead of floating point, our processors had neither the memory nor computational power. Implied fixed point (really integers multiplied by arbitrary constants) was the basis of all of our math. These tricks were the basis of many of our conversions. Reducing the calculation to an Excel spreadsheet to determine a rational approximate was a FINE use of an Excel spreadsheet. (among others. You can write more than one spreadsheet) This spreadsheet was originally either Visicalc or Supercalc. But, you know, Euclid's algorithm is still useful too and it dates to 300 BC. In a limited word length environment, a rational approximate is the BEST that can be produced with that size numerator (or denominator) -- guarenteed.

<<
Tony's 1 in 8 hill sign is "unlawful" in the United States, which is why we haven't seen it.
>>

I have seen a couple of signs of this type. Usually they are not on signposts, but are painted onto the street.

re (Daniel Jackson): "If for some reason, only as an example, I want to calculate the L x W dimensions of a sheet of A4 paper, I would would simply apply the formula w^2 = 1/(16 x 2^0.5) and use the calculator to do it. The fractional amount would serve me no purpose, so trying to calculate it is a major waste of time. In a few seconds I have a width of 210 mm and a length of 297 mm"


REPLY: I loved the so-called 'simple' formula described above to get that oh-so-memorable A4 dimension of 210mm x 297mm. What was that again?

Except, of course, that the actual dimensions of A4 paper are *not* 210mm x 297mm.

In fact, to four decimal places - and using the convenient ratio of width to length of 1 to 1.4142135 (well, to seven decimal places of accuracy) - the dimensions of a sheet of A4 paper are 210.2242mm x 295.3019mm.

Or perhaps to make it even 'simpler', you could express it thus:

210,224.2 micrometres x 297,301.9 micrometres.

Just think back to those awful days when you usually bought paper that was either 10" x 8" or 13" x 8".

How we've moved on since then!!

The ISO 216 paper series is far superior to any imperial standard. It is of extreme unimportance to have rounded lengths and widths, but of extreme importance to have a length/width ratio to be the square root of 2. You can not scale proportionately any imperial paper size. You can scale proportionately all of the ISO paper sizes.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

As for the size of the A4 paper size it would do Tony a lot of good if he checked his facts before he makes comments about the precision of paper cuts. From the link there is the following concerning the size and paper tolerances:

The following table shows the width and height of all ISO A and B paper formats, as well as the ISO C envelope formats. The dimensions are in millimeters:

[See link for table]

The allowed tolerances are ±1.5 mm for dimensions up to 150 mm, ±2 mm for dimensions above 150 mm up to 600 mm, and ±3 mm for dimensions above 600 mm. Some national equivalents of ISO 216 specify tighter tolerances, for instance DIN 476 requires ±1 mm, ±1.5 mm, and ±2 mm respectively for the same ranges of dimensions.


As you see Tony, the table shows the size as 210 x 297 mm, with nothing past the decimal. Since both figures fall within the 150 to 600 mm range they also fall into the allowable tolerance of ±2 mm [or ±1.5 mm DIN] of whatever anyone would calculate via the formula.


Copying machines, even those used in the US where A4 paper is not common has fixed enlarging and reducing ratios based on the square root of two (1.41).

Whether the dimensions of A4 paper are rounded or not is completely irrelevant. What is relevant in an age where documents are frequently sent around the world by email etc is that there is a world standard.

The US not using standard paper sizes must cost businesses millions. It costs the company I work for thousands - and thats a very small company.

To any americans on this board - we have hill steepness signs in % or something-in-something. The former is more prelevent but the latter is still used - especially on very steep hills.

Furlongs are used in horse racing. I suspect they are in the US too.

Fractions are used on the London Stock exchange.

<<
Whether the dimensions of A4 paper are rounded or not is completely irrelevant. What is relevant in an age where documents are frequently sent around the world by email etc is that there is a world standard.
>>
Most word processors (Microsoft Word and Word Perfect included) can change a document from A4 to US standard size with a few clicks of the mouse. So I don't see why having a world standard important at all.

Yes, they can change to letter size - but when you do that the pagination is changed.

It really does cause a lot of extra work. Essentially for each report, we have to do a seperate US version.

Fractions are used on the London Stock exchange.


How are they used? Give an example?

Radio Commentary for Finance news: "Shares in Sky Pharma dropped by 2 and three quarter pence on the back of speculation".

You hear it all the time.

<<
Most word processors (Microsoft Word and Word Perfect included) can change a document from A4 to US standard size with a few clicks of the mouse. So I don't see why having a world standard important at all.
>>

But if you send the file as a PDF, you have to specify the page size. PDF is the preferred format for important documents as it cannot easily be modified. (I think that I am right in sayin gthat you can set PDF up so that it cannot be modified atr all!)

"Radio Commentary for Finance news: "Shares in Sky Pharma dropped by 2 and three quarter pence on the back of speculation".

You hear it all the time."

That is just someone in the media giving a backward reading of 2.75 pence. What is actually spoken on the stockroom floor? How do you see it written in the newspapers, as 2.75 or 2-3/4? How would one express a value like 3.73 pence or 5.29 pence, some decimal that can't easily be written in a simple, understandable fraction?

What fractional series is common in your so-called reports, decimal fractions with the denominators in hundreds (cents) or vulgar fractions with the denominator in 16-ths, 32-nds, etc. Don't show examples of quarters, halves or three quarters.

<<
But if you send the file as a PDF, you have to specify the page size. PDF is the preferred format for important documents as it cannot easily be modified. (I think that I am right in sayin gthat you can set PDF up so that it cannot be modified atr all!)
>>

So you are basically saying that an entire country of 300 million people should change the paper size it uses in order to facilitate international exchange of documents on the internet? That is like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. There are several simple ways to solve this problem, many of which are already implemented, but of course you will advocate the most drastic, because it is consistent with your goals.


<<
Radio Commentary for Finance news: "Shares in Sky Pharma dropped by 2 and three quarter pence on the back of speculation".
You hear it all the time.
>>
When we say fractional currency, we mean that the fundamental unit of currency is divided fractionally. For example, until recently, NYSE quotes would be given in dollars to the nearest sixteenth of a dollar, even though the dollar is normally divided into cents. My question to you is this- do you ever hear the pound divided fractionally, or just the penny?

As Daniel has pointed out the fractional use of the penny is used.

I think that maybe daniel might think that there is a coin denomination that is smaller than 1p in the UK but there isn't. Therefore as everyone has agreed the use of fractions of one pence is used.

Decimal notation is also used (esp for convenience) in things like online-trading by the banks.

"As Daniel has pointed out the fractional use of the penny is used.

I think that maybe daniel might think that there is a coin denomination that is smaller than 1p in the UK but there isn't. Therefore as everyone has agreed the use of fractions of one pence is used.

Decimal notation is also used (esp for convenience) in things like online-trading by the banks."


Go back and read your own post. It is you who said the penny or pence was divided into fractions. I just repeated what you said. But you never clarified what type of fractions one hears other then quarters. Because quarters can easily be rendered into 2 place decimal numbers, like 0.25, 0.50, 0.75. What other fraction series do you see and hear in the financial reports?

I have just checked the shares prices in today's paper. They are usually given in pence. SOme were quoted to an eighth of a penny, many to a quarter or to a half.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.
So we are agreed that the smallest denomination is one pence (1p).
And that fractions of that are used.
If we're agreeing then what is the arguments about?

I'm not sure what I need to be "wrong" about, so to speak.

Sorry to martin, that response was meant to be to Daniel.

Daniel?

Martin answered my question. Though I wonder from Martin's response if the stock exchange itself works in fractions of a penny or is it the media doing the translating? how does one pay out an eight of a pence?

<<
how does one pay out an eight of a pence?
>>

The exact same way we pay something and 9/10 of a cent for a gallon of gas in the US.

<<
Martin answered my question. Though I wonder from Martin's response if the stock exchange itself works in fractions of a penny or is it the media doing the translating? how does one pay out an eight of a pence?
>>

Some years before the introduction of the Euro, the Dutch demonetised their 1c coin, but prices were still quoted to the nearest cent, especially in supermarkets. The law was that if the account was settled in cash, the amount was rounded to the nearest 5c at the till. On average, this arrangement was neutral in terms of losers and winners with the country as a whole winning because a small coin was no longer in circulation. For the record, the Dutch guilder was worth about £0.35 or $0.50.

FYI: I believe the law in the US is that prices are always rounded UP to the nearest cent... i.e., if something costs $1.501, you will pay $1.51.

If the US were to adopt the same law as they had in the Netherlands, then they could drop the 1c coin and nobody would notice.

How many of our US readers would be that bothered if the 1c coin was dropped and that the amount payable was rounded to the nearest 5c at the till? Likewise with UK readers, it the 1p and 2p coins were dropped?

I suspect that if the 1p/2p were dropped there would be a massive outcry.

I can't remember who it was, but didn't a large furniture retailer price everything at £199.95, £599.95 etc to try to eliminate use of coppers in their stores (as opposed to £199.99 etc)?

They only had to get a big bag of 5p bits to stock their tills every day.

I can see Martin's prediction coming true in the next 20 years or so - more from inflation leading to a lack of demand for coppers rather than any desire to "eliminate" them.

(Cue Tony...... Might he perhaps suggest that we need a £ of 240d - each penny divisible into farthings......)

<<
How many of our US readers would be that bothered if the 1c coin was dropped and that the amount payable was rounded to the nearest 5c at the till? Likewise with UK readers, it the 1p and 2p coins were dropped?
>>

The US was considering dropping the penny a number of years back, but did not go through with it due to lobbying from people involved in the copper industry (the penny is the only copper coin).
But I don't think the public would care. Pennies are worth so little nowadays that most people don't even bother with them... you can see them lying on the footpath sometimes and no one picks them up.

Berenger said:

"I can't remember who it was, but didn't a large furniture retailer price everything at £199.95, £599.95 etc to try to eliminate use of coppers in their stores (as opposed to £199.99 etc)?"

I thought all stores used private security these days? No wonder there's so much crime on the street!

One of the reasons why shopkeepers often have prices that resultin a copper coin bweing given as change was to ensure that anybody working on teh till actually put the money in the till and did not just put it on one side.

For example, I buy something for 99p and tender a £1 coin. I wait for my change. This means that the shop assistant has to open the till to get me my 1p. If on the other hand the item cost £1 exactly, the shop assistant might put the coin on one side. Since I (the customer) does not really care, (s)he will get away with it.

Interesting. Never thought of that. I always thought it was a marketing thing

To be honest you don't need the till to be closed to nick a pound or two

''The US was considering dropping the penny a number of years back, but did not go through with it due to lobbying from people involved in the copper industry (the penny is the only copper coin). ""

The penny is not the only copper coin; in fact it has less copper than any of our other coins. Since 1982 the penny has been 97% zinc with a the remaining 3% being a thin coat of copper on top so it looks copper. The nickel is really 75% copper and 25% nickel. The dime, quarter and half dollar is make like a sandwich (look at the side and you'll see it's copper in the centre). They are a cupronickel with a solid copper core sandwiched between the cupronickel. Likewise the current dollar coin is made mostly out of copper.

Interesting... I never realized that. By the way, who are you?

Sorry, posted the message title for my name.

I'm Augustine (or Richard), a subscriber to the USMA listserve. I hadn't read this board in a while and decided to visit again.

I've posted as GeoffreyDavis in the past but decided I prefer my real name or Augustine (my confirmation name and preferred Internet name) better.

<< P.S. In the latest survey specifically on understanding of metric and Imperial distances and dimensions (in the U.K.), 98% said they 'understand Imperial', against only 29% who said they 'understand metric'. Reversing these figures - 2% not understanding Imperial and 71% not understanding metric, over 35 times as many people do not understand metric dimensions and distances as do not understand Imperial dimensions and distances >>

I am truly at a loss to understand why you take comfort in a boast of this kind.

Metric has been in use in the UK for decades and yet according to this 3 out of 4 people "don't understand" it. In spite of the fact that it has been taught in schools for at least 30 years probably longer.

Why is this, and what should we do about it? The Imperialists among you have frequently acknowledged that metric, for some things at least, is here to stay.

Whatever the answer you can't seriouly suggest that they should be kept in ignorance or the problem made even worse by back-tracking in education. If BWMA are supposed to be so even handed about choice then surely they should be concerned about this imbalance.

I'm Augustine (or Richard), a subscriber to the USMA listserve. I hadn't read this board in a while and decided to visit again.

I've posted as GeoffreyDavis in the past but decided I prefer my real name or Augustine (my confirmation name and preferred Internet name) better.


Oh, and I forgot to mention that on the USMA listserver, I post under the name of Rodney Jones.

"I thought all stores used private security these days? No wonder there's so much crime on the street!"

Har de har mate! :-) :-)

Off to a foreign country (London) for a week & a bit. You'll have to miss out on my hilarious interventions (self-depreciating wit (for the humour-challenged amongst us))

<<
Metric has been in use in the UK for decades and yet according to this 3 out of 4 people "don't understand" it. In spite of the fact that it has been taught in schools for at least 30 years probably longer.
>>

It all depends what you mean by "understand". You can be taught something in school for years, but unless you use it you will never understand it. Engineering students are trained in school for years, but the majority of what they need to know in order to do their jobs, they will learn after starting work. In the same way, just because schools in Britain have been teaching metric for 30 years doesn't mean that people "understand" it from a practical perspective, although they may understand it in theory.

<<<Oh, and I forgot to mention that on the USMA listserver, I post under the name of Rodney Jones.>>>

Since someone who posts under other peoples names (now who could that be) seems to think it's funny to post something like that under my name, I thought I'd point out that I post as Richard (or as Augustine) on the USMA listserve also. Just do a search for my e-mail address and you'll see it. That is for the few times I have posted there.

I'm confused.
Are you saying that someone has posted as you (as Augustine) but is not you, above?
If so then that is bad netiquette.
The forum owner (BWMA) should have visibility of the ip addresses of all posters and thus perhaps he/she could reveal who might have masquaraded as you within this thread? We should all have unique i.p. addresses but one will be shared between the "Not Augustine" and the faker's true postname.

<<I'm confused.
Are you saying that someone has posted as you (as Augustine) but is not you, above?
If so then that is bad netiquette.
>>

That is exactly what I am saying. The second posting as 'Augustine' on this thread (the one claiming I am 'Rodney Jones' is not by me. I am not Rodney Jones on the USMA list serve. I have only very rarely have ever posted anything there. When I do I have usually signed 'Richard' maybe 'Augustine' at some point also. (I use both of those names on the net).