...according to Steve

Does anyone else agree with this?

Time to respect each other's difference of opinion, me thinks

BTW - I do hope you realise the "sort" that a question like that is going to bring here!

I've made a prediction but I'll keep it quiet until it actually happens

I do respect your opinion Steve, it just took me by surprise and thats why I would be very interested to hear whether anyone else (particularly the other pro-imperial poster's) agrees...

It totally depends on what sector of measurement you are talking about. I don't live in Britain, but from what I understand, it appears that the use of metric is actually increasing behind the scenes (in manufacturing and technical work, things that common people don't concern themselves with), but due to less publicity given to metrication, use of imperial is increasing in daily conversation and informal labelling.

Ever been to Britain, Bud?

With all due respect thats not really something you can judge without having lived here.

You're right that metrication has been mostly 'behind the scenes' in official uses rather than daily conversation, but one inevitably leads to another.

One thing definately noticeable is that more people use metres instead of yards in conversation. (Still most use yards)

"One thing definately noticeable is that more people use metres instead of yards in conversation. (Still most use yards)"

This must be regional because I can only think of one person who regularly does that (and he uses feet for shorter distances).

Apart from him, the last time I heard an ordinary person use "metres" in conversation was on a boat in the Bahamas as the bloke was talking about his diving exploits - and he was AMERICAN!!

You're very good at hearing what you want to hear Steve! OK maybe I listen out for use of metric just as you try to block it out, but I hear people use metres in ordinary conversation at least every few days.

You're very good at hearing what you want to hear Steve! OK maybe I listen out for use of metric just as you try to block it out, but I hear people use metres in ordinary conversation at least every few days. Ten years ago, it was very unusual.

Yeah ok ok I hear you andy!!!

;-)

"You're very good at hearing what you want to hear Steve! OK maybe I listen out for use of metric just as you try to block it out, but I hear people use metres in ordinary conversation at least every few days."

Believe me! When someone is chatting away and he or she says "metres" in conversational use it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Its what I've said before - with imperial it is so much part of our conversational way of doing things you won't even notice it being used when someone says (for example) "its about 100 yards on the right". When someone says "its around 100 metres on the right" it sticks out like a sore thumb - you can REALLY hear it.

I would suggest it would be the same in the US (for example)

(Unless your in the laboratory that is!!)

I guess it's a bit like noticing people saying the word "the" - you just don't notice it.

Now talk to someone and replace all occurences of "the" with "le" and see what happens!

:-D

<<<Its what I've said before - with imperial it is so much part of our conversational way of doing things you won't even notice it being used when someone says (for example) "its about 100 yards on the right". When someone says "its around 100 metres on the right" it sticks out like a sore thumb - you can REALLY hear it.>>>

It might stick out like a sore thumb to you, but I guarantee the average person will not notice one way or the other.

I was referring to your notion that I "block out" the word metre when in fact to me it stands out quite prominantly whereas I tend to not even notice "yard" unless I've recently visited this site!

I concur with your thoughts that a lot of people might not notice but - lets face it - those who post here have a little more than an interest than most.

Andy, in response to your question, I haven't been to Britain ever since I can remember. I find it hard to believe that use of metric in daily conversation would just spontaneously increase because behind-the-scenes usage is increasing. But I don't really know which one of you to believe at this point.

Bud,

The best thing to do is listen to a British radio station that transmits online.

You could try:-

BBC Radio 1 - designed for 13 to 25 yr olds
BBC Radio 2 - designed for 30 to 65 yr olds

(R1 and R2 actually - in reality - have an age overlap)

Or,

try captital fm, kiss fm, 2-10 FM

better still, try LBC and BBC Radio London - the reason I say this is they are both mainly "talky" radio stations where the actual public phone in.

Recommended shows on BBC Radio London - Kath and Eddie (drive time), John Gaunt (fairly right-wing libertarian - morning show)
Recommended shows on LBC - Nick Ferrari

Bear in mind that the BBC is fairly "politically correct" however most of its presenters suffer from talking normally and unedited due to it being live.

You should find no issues in getting the websites/ links but if in doubt ask here or email me.




====================



On another note - in desperation Carlyle (one of the terrible- but now ignored -twins) has resorted to posting as me by my name (a common trick for those who have lost the argument, almost given up, but need to embarrass their side one more time). Obviously you can tell who the genuine one is (I mean, golf in yards? Tesco metric? Records in metric inches? LOL!)

It may make the forum difficult to read so I will email BWMA for assistance. IF you have any doubts (as if) you can email me on barkatfish@hotmail.com.

In the mean time, sit back, relax, and enjoy the final throws of an australian losing the plot!

I would say something about rugby - but that would require me supporting England!!!

BTW - there's a golf course literally 500 yards from where I live.

I might go up there and try to convince myself that the word "yard" all over the place is actually "metres"!

LOL!

Right - off to Chester (keep back, Berenger!!)

Hmmm, seems like Carlyle/Hevets/Euric/Ametrica has totally lost the argument and given up.

Shame

I was enjoying his rants!

Still, if he needs to give up, then he needs to give up. After all, he has had a good run against me "pre-defeat".

NEXT PLEASE......

<<<I haven't been to Britain ever since I can remember. I find it hard to believe that use of metric in daily conversation would just spontaneously increase because behind-the-scenes usage is increasing. But I don't really know which one of you to believe at this point. >>>

I think you need to look back at my original comment. All I said was that metric use is increasing very slowly and gradually as the number of people familiar with metric increases - and the more things are in metric "behind the scenes" as you say, the more it gradually enters normal conversation.

Its a bizarre mixture we use here in Britain and an entirely different situation to that in the US.

One common area where the UK and US share a usage of metric is car engine sizes - refered to as something point something litre - or XXXX cc.

Just thought I'd drop that one in as a situation where I can vouch for metric's usage (i.e. exception to the common rule)

I concur on that one. Americans haven't referred to car engines in cubic inches since the '70s.
I think part of the reason dealers switched to litres here was because they sound more foreign, and foreign cars have a reputation for working better. Imported equals fancy. So it was probably more of a marketing ploy than anything else.

Although quoting a car as something hundred and something cubic inches is more of a mouthful than x point x litre. ie. metric wins here on the easability of small number usage - something that imperial traditionally wins on.

BTW - talking about listening to British people in their own habitat(!) go to the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

then go down the right hand side of the page to "BBC NEWS: VIDEO AND AUDIO"

Click on it (turn your pop-up stopper off before doing this!)

Under "SELECT AN INDEX" - select SCI-TECH

Now click on the audio link "Boom in car navigation aids" and listen.

Measurements aside - its a good listen. I've got a Satnav and can vouch for how good it is.

When coming back from Wales we came to stationary traffic so I pushed "Roadblock 2m" (that's 2 miles, martin!). It took me off the motorway and across the motorway down single track roads past farms with no other cars around! Ordinarily I would have worried about getting lost, instead I saw another bit of "hidden Britain" in the depths of the countryside. The route also took me up and down some very steep hills.

Eventually I popped out just before the slip road of the old Severn Bridge (that's the old border between Wales and England, Bud).

Truly brilliant - and a blood pressure reducer!

Carlyle: "no it didn't"

SteveH wrote

<<
I've got a Satnav and can vouch for how good it is
>>


If you switch it to GB National Grid mode, yuo can get your exact location (using metric notation of course!)

Such a mode does not exist on mine.

I have tomtom navigator 3 - apparently the best on the market.

It even tells me where the speed.....ahem...."safety" cameras are!

I keep finding great new features every time I use it!

My friend has the same model but he's also paying for the live traffic report data - it doesn't tell you that there are traffic problems - but simply steers you right around them! Fantastic!


Martin - you can buy one - it *does* have a "metric mode"

If you mean "map mode" I just checked - it shows mile squares going down to yards as you "zoom in".

I recon in "metric mode" it'll show metres (obviously!)

Steve,

In metric mode you will be able to use it in conjunction with Ordinance Survey maps, A-Z atlases etc - very useful if you need the paper map to get the big picture and the GPS device to tell you where you are. I am not too sure how it will work in mile mode though.

Martin,

The "navigator" obliterates the need for maps, even the irrelevent National Grid (I really have no need for knowing the history of electricity supply in the UK!)

Tomorrow I have an interview in Coventry.

All I do is put the post code in.

I've never been there before but I could almost close my eyes (I won't) and the young lady's voice will direct me at every turn and roundabout!

Call it a back seat driver that's helpful, if you want!

It's possible to switch it to see a map version or a line by line text version - but its almost irrelevant.

I truly recommend it - regardless of "yards versus metres"

Steve,

In metric mode you will be able to use it in conjunction with Ordinance Survey maps, A-Z atlases etc - very useful if you need the paper map to get the big picture and the GPS device to tell you where you are. I am not too sure how it will work in mile mode though.


What Steve refuses to admit, even though he knows it is true is that these devices are programmed to "think" in metric. If you have the ability to select obsolete mode, it is just a conversion. Something that takes up cycle time, memory and other device resources.


Thus there is no real mile mode. What displays as miles is really kilometres in disguise.

Wahay! He's come back - having failed so recently he gives it another go! (Will he ever learn?)

It also looks like you know as much about GPS systems as you do about economics!

You can set the system in imperial (default) or metric - its totally up to the user which way to set it - they have that CHOICE. In the UK it would be pointless to set it to metric since the road signs would not match up with the voice directions and display. IF you go to, say, France you could even keep it in imperial mode to make life a little easier.

I've given it a go here in the UK - ie setting it to metric. Apart from sounding foreign its almost exactly the same (the speed of data is exactly the same).

However, see if you can work this one out (and you'll have to stop measuring vinyl records to get this right). The system is accurate to within about 3 feet (you have to understand that it works from satellites placed "in the sky"). Now, lets see. "3 feet" eh? Hmmm, see if - from this - you can guess how it presents the figures. Believe me, you will HAVE to "de-biggot" yourself before even starting to work it out.

What a freak! But thanks for trying again, all the same.

(What's the bet that total nonsense will - once again - be forthcoming?)

In the UK it would be pointless to set it to metric since the road signs would not match up with the voice directions and display. IF you go to, say, France you could even keep it in imperial mode to make life a little easier.
-----------------------------------------------------------

LOL! A slight contadiction there don't you think?


By the way, I wouldn't go to France if I were you. The place is full of foreigners.

Oops! Shouldn't have gone to almost all the countries in europe over the years then! (excluding north-east europe and scandinavia)

BTW - the "contradiction" was aimed at snaring one of the terrible twins - if I help you out of it's metal jaws will you promise to help me set it again? ;-)

Seriously though - if you set it in calais for paris (for example) you'd get a better scale of how far to go if you see it in miles rather than see it in km and try to do that "times by 2/3rds" thing!

<<By the way, I wouldn't go to France if I were you. The place is full of foreigners.>>

Trouble is - most of them are French!

<<<Seriously though - if you set it in calais for paris (for example) you'd get a better scale of how far to go if you see it in miles rather than see it in km and try to do that "times by 2/3rds" thing!>>>

If you travel abroad as much as you suggest you do, then it really shouldn't be necessary to do any calculations - you should be pretty familiar with kms by now.

I have never driven abroad (apart from the Carribean and America)

Next question.....

btw - the plural of km is "km", a bit like sheep ;-)

You can set the system in imperial (default) or metric - its totally up to the user which way to set it - they have that CHOICE. In the UK it would be pointless to set it to metric since the road signs would not match up with the voice directions and display. IF you go to, say, France you could even keep it in imperial mode to make life a little easier.



Does anyone besides this ignorant person comprehend the difference between "default" and "operating"? With the operating units being metric and imperial just being a conversion, it allows the manufacturer to remove the imperial feature on international models, and use the system resources for other features.

Default in imperial just means the system conversion utility is active at start up.

No-one is listening to you, mate.

Give up!

(again)

btw - the plural of km is "km", a bit like sheep ;-)


The plural of kilometre, a word, is kilometres. Sheep is also word. "km" is a word but a unit symbol and unit symbols don't have a singular/plural form. As a unit symbol, kms means kilometre seconds.

<<
Does anyone besides this ignorant person comprehend the difference between "default" and "operating"? With the operating units being metric and imperial just being a conversion, it allows the manufacturer to remove the imperial feature on international models, and use the system resources for other features.

Default in imperial just means the system conversion utility is active at start up.
>>

This was just what I was saying on another thread. Use of metric is increasing in Britain behind the scenes, but the people are moving in the other direction.
And for most practical purposes, it makes no difference what the operating units are. Only the manufacturer would care.
BTW, having the imperial conversion utility would probably take up virtually no additional system resources. (whatever you mean by "resources".)

May I refer Mr Mallet back to my original unanswered question?

"However, see if you can work this one out (and you'll have to stop measuring vinyl records to get this right). The system is accurate to within about 3 feet (you have to understand that it works from satellites placed "in the sky"). Now, lets see. "3 feet" eh? Hmmm, see if - from this - you can guess how it presents the figures. Believe me, you will HAVE to "de-biggot" yourself before even starting to work it out."


It's really quite simple - put the mallet down and have a think.

May I refer Mr Mallet back to my original unanswered question?

Why don't you take that 5 kg mallot and hit yourself on your head until.....


"However, see if you can work this one out (and you'll have to stop measuring vinyl records to get this right). The system is accurate to within about 3 feet (you have to understand that it works from satellites placed "in the sky"). Now, lets see. "3 feet" eh? Hmmm,



This so-called 3 feet is just a close approximation to the real one metre (1 m). These machines don't "think" in any system but metric, thus all of the specs are in ROUNDED metric. Get it through your thick skull that no matter how much you spout off about it displaying in imperial it is only TRANSLATING a metric number.

How absolutely stupid can one be. DuuuuuuuuuuuuuH!

Woah woah! Calm down Mr Angry!

"Why don't you take that 5 kg mallot and hit yourself on your head until....."

What's a mallot? SLOW DOWN mate - you'll get your message across if you take in a large lungful of breath - sit back - count to ten - and then try to answer *AND* with no need to resort to pounding your more sensitive areas with your "mallot" ;-)

Now then,

Re-scan my quote above and give it ANOTHER try! You are gettin close, btw, by pretending that its accurate to 1 metre which then gets translated for us UK-types into 3 feet. You are on the right trail but not quite there yet.

THINK!

Come on THINK!!

If its accurate to 3 feet *OR* 1 metre what does that tell you about how it plots out two points and works out directions and distances.

Come on! A bright spark like you should have got it by now - everyone else will know.

Give it a try! I want to see a post from you starting with "aaaaaah" - so we can move on. Agree? Use another post-name if it keeps your hands off of that damn "mallot" !

If you want - you can also include personal insults and call me names. All your supporters and all the people on your side will respect you highly for that.

No - really - they will...


Now come on - deep breaths - 10 seconds - and........

[whistles]

Ahem.

I'm waaaaaaiting.......

If its accurate to 3 feet *OR* 1 metre what does that tell you about how it plots out two points and works out directions and distances.


It isn't accurate to 3 feet. It is accurate to 1 m and only 1 m. But someone who would translate 1 m to feet would get that 3.281 feet. Since this is too clumbsy a number, they just rounded it to 3 feet. The designers don't care about feet, only meters and don't pay attention to what someone down the road translates it too. If a discrepancy should arise, the metric value will be referenced.

<<It isn't accurate to 3 feet. It is accurate to 1 m and only 1 m.>>

No no no! Now you are getting off the trail again.
Think boy - THINK!
Is it accurate to *exactly* 3 feet or *exactly* 1 of your metres?
Think! Imagine a size on the floor of one metre or 3 feet
Now walk 10 miles and imagine the same at the other end.
Got it yet?
Remember the true meaning of the word "accurate" and you might get back on the trail again.


<<But someone who would translate 1 m to feet would get that 3.281 feet>>

Another clue - what if that same metre was 1 and 3/4 metres long - hmm? Remember the accuracy notion here - think!!!

<<Since this is too clumbsy a number>>

If you stop thinking of the word "clumbsy" and put your mallet doen perhaps you'd get it.



No cheating now.....

<<<I'm waaaaaaiting.......>>>

Hey, but thanks to answering! If I throw a stick will you fetch that too?


Carlyle: "Only if its a meter long"

Accuracy is usually stated not in distance units but in percent (%). Thus if it is accurate to 0.1 %, that would mean accurate to 1 m/km.

Since the machine is designed to "think" in metric units, the base unit of 1 km is understood and a 1 m accuracy would be stated for those who wouldn't know how to convert percent to distance.

You can do it in obsolete units too, but it is more complex. You would get something like 3.281 feet per 3281 feet. Or if rounded, 3 feet to 3000 feet. But since the unit itself isn't calibrated to function in feet, the feet are just approximations. The feet and whatever appear only in the translation mode. A mode that takes up memory and proceesor time to accomplish.

Nope - now your miles off.

Here's a massive clue - try to pretend that a mile is *EXACTLY* 1700 metres.

Think about it.

<<
You can do it in obsolete units too, but it is more complex. You would get something like 3.281 feet per 3281 feet. Or if rounded, 3 feet to 3000 feet.
>>

That isn't rounded. As a matter of fact, it's the exact same.
The reason you came out with the 3.281 feet number in the first place was because you were trying to convert from metric.

He's got the only one-dimensional brain I've ever heard about

Come on Carlyle - your homework is late!

DETENTION !!!

That isn't rounded. As a matter of fact, it's the exact same.
The reason you came out with the 3.281 feet number in the first place was because you were trying to convert from metric.


That is because everything today is metric and metric based. If you want to use or know non-metric, you have to do a conversion. Just like Floppies and CD/DVDs. You can call them anything you want in non-metric, but that is only a conversion, not an actual working measurement.

You're miles off the mark now.

Next you'll claim records are metric based! :-D

Get back to the satnav - and answer my question.

BTW - the tomtom (my satnav) is very neat.

Example.
If a roundabout is approaching and I need to take the 3rd turning you can watch the 3-D map with the r/bout approaching and the number of yards going down 100 at a time to 300yds and then 50 at a time to 200 yds and then 25 at a time to 100ys then 5 then 2 then 1 at a time.

But the really neat thing is the timing.

The lady would say in a calm voice - "after 200 yards turn right on the roundabout, 3rd exit".

That doesn't sound too impressive until you realise that the figure "200" would come up at *exactly* the point when the lady's voice says the "y" in yard! It works everytime (but not just for 200yds).

How fast and precise it that?

Carlyle : "Well what she really means to say is metres but then she gets a calculator out and puts the numebrs in really quickly and then....."

Just answer the bloody question, nutbag!!

The lady would say in a calm voice - "after 200 yards turn right on the roundabout, 3rd exit".

Luddite units:

So you look at your odometer to measure out 200 yards. But it isn't there. You have mile units and tenths of mile units. So now you have to do a calculation. Let's see! Now what is that conversion factor again? And do I multiply or divide by it? Now when she says yards does she really mean it or is the unit programmed to just say yards when metres are measured? Oh gosh! This is so confusing ......


Damn! I missed the turn!

In metric:

The lady would say in a calm voice - "after 200 m turn right on the roundabout, 3rd exit".

That is so easy since 200 m equals exactly 0.2 km. My gauge presently reads 163792.6 km. So I turn at the point when the 0.6 turns to 0.8. Here it is just as accurately predicted. Turning, turning , turning, and turned. Have to slow down on this road as the spped is only 60 km/h instead of 80 km/h.


Happy Metric Motoring!

<<So you look at your odometer to measure out 200 yards.>>

As eminem says - "back to reality..."

At 200 yds you'd be looking at the road *NOT* the mileometer. They wouldn't even do that in foreign unit countries!


<<Now when she says yards does she really mean it or is the unit programmed to just say yards when metres are measured? Oh gosh! This is so confusing ......>>>

There's no real "lady" carly - it's a recording of a womans voice!!! LOL! You get worse!

<<Damn! I missed the turn!>>

In reality one never misses the turn - its a great system - I'd recommend it to anyone. Thhe voice literally says the letter "y" in yards *just* as the round yardage comes up - it never fails.

Once it got me out of a right old traffic jam - there's a button on it that says "road block for the next " and you choose 200yds, 400yds, 800yds, 2 miles or 5 miles depending on what the RDS radio traffic news says (which - of course - is never in metric!)


<<In metric:
The lady would say in a calm voice - "after 200 m turn right on the roundabout, 3rd exit".>>

In "reality":
That doesn't happen!

<<That is so easy since 200 m equals exactly 0.2 km. My gauge presently reads 163792.6 km. So I turn at the point when the 0.6 turns to 0.8. Here it is just as accurately predicted. Turning, turning , turning, and turned. Have to slow down on this road as the spped is only 60 km/h instead of 80 km/h. >>

Is that before or after your accident?

Bloody hell! I just realised - your car's done over 100,000 miles (what we would - strangly enough - call over 100K, in the UK!!)

I thought you had only new cars with low mileage because you were so wealthy (ref: posts on metricsucks)

Another lie?

[another hanging thread]
:-D