Re: Imperial units in the future
- From: Peter Bruells <pb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Dec 2005 22:34:19 +0100
"Lots42" <lots42@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Peter Bruells wrote:
>
> > Hmm, being raised with the metric system, I have no problem
> > whatsoever, to give estimations in kilogramms, metres, celsius, litres
> > and the like.
> >
> > I rather assume that it's just a matter of what you are used to.
>
> I'm used to being a clueless nut in most types of math. Heck, half my
> learnin' in weights and measures came from the store and a desire to
> save money. Because it usually turns out that two (small numbers) are a
> bit more, volume wise, then (one large number) but costs much less then
> the price for the one large number.
Isn't that what's the "normalized" price is for? It's the law over
here - regardless of the package price, the price in kg (or 100 g, for
stuff usually bought in small weight) has to be given, too. Or the
price in litres, when it's a fluid. Or in "servings", if it's
something like pre-packed dishwasher tabs.
I always kinda assumed that we imported that smart idea from the
States.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Imperial units in the future
- From: Michael S. Schiffer
- Re: Imperial units in the future
- From: Garrett Wollman
- Re: Imperial units in the future
- From: Craig Richardson
- Re: Imperial units in the future
- References:
- Tolerable "unscience"
- From: Doug
- Re: Pi = 3
- From: Bill Snyder
- Re: Pi = 3
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: Pi = 3
- From: Wilson Heydt
- Re: Pi = 3
- From: Christian Weisgerber
- Re: Pi = 3
- From: Howard Brazee
- Imperial units in the future
- From: Bradd W. Szonye
- Re: Imperial units in the future
- From: Peter Bruells
- Re: Imperial units in the future
- From: Lots42
- Tolerable "unscience"
- Prev by Date: Re: Maps in Fantasy
- Next by Date: Re: At All Costs
- Previous by thread: Re: Imperial units in the future
- Next by thread: Re: Imperial units in the future
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|