Metres or feet?
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/8603276.stm
The BBC reporter says the boat was over 70m long
The scrap of paper shows 270ft
Why
The BBC reporter says the boat was over 70m long
The scrap of paper shows 270ft
Why
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 6th April 11:53
saaby93 said:
but but
what was so wrong in reporting 270ft
Because they are friggin idiots.what was so wrong in reporting 270ft
It'd like watching an episode of Myth Busters were they are talking feet and inches and mph only to have some tosser do a voice over with some metric gibberish, as though it really helps out the British viewing public
I think you'll find the Continental Europeans know what they're doing, the Americans know what they're doing and it's the UK which doesn't.
My favourite is magazines which in the same review publish weight in kg and torque in ft/lb.
Where else in the world could you petrol in litres and measure fuel consumption in mpg?!
My favourite is magazines which in the same review publish weight in kg and torque in ft/lb.
Where else in the world could you petrol in litres and measure fuel consumption in mpg?!
It's the British metric/imperial mongrel system. The weather forecasters are the worst for switching units depending on which makes the more sensational statement.
In the winter, temperatures plunge to minus 10 degrees, rather than positive 14 degrees fahrenheit.
In the summer, temperatures soar into the 90s, rather than being over 32 degrees celcius.
In the winter, temperatures plunge to minus 10 degrees, rather than positive 14 degrees fahrenheit.
In the summer, temperatures soar into the 90s, rather than being over 32 degrees celcius.
soad said:
saaby93 said:
Not talking about conversions
If the scrap of paper had 270ft written on it why couldnt the reporter say 270ft
Why did they have to even bother thinking of converting it?
So that Europeans could understand it? Maybe...If the scrap of paper had 270ft written on it why couldnt the reporter say 270ft
Why did they have to even bother thinking of converting it?
I can visualise ~70m...270ft? not got a f
king clue. I await a myriad of people saying they can visualise 270ft and well done to them, personally I can't wait for imperial to die off in entirety.
DrTre said:
I can visualise ~70m...270ft? not got a fking clue.
I find it very difficult to visualise distances and areas like that. If someone said that something was 2000 square feet (or the metric equivilent), in area, that really means nothing to me - I'd be a useless surveyor, unless everyone accepted my ISO standard for measuring the sizes of areas in Snooker Tables, Tennis Courts, Football Pitches, and distances in "from 'ere to the shops"king clue. doogz said:
There's 3 1/3 feet in a metre. It's not tricky to work it out in your head.
One foot is a 30cm rule, like you'd have had in school.
We generally use metric in work, but on the T45 the aluminium was bought from the Yank's, and was imperial. We still worked in metric though. 6.35mm thick angle bar etc (1/4")
I'm entirely aware of all that but I can visualise 70m instantly, not do any mental arithmetic to get there so why bother?One foot is a 30cm rule, like you'd have had in school.
We generally use metric in work, but on the T45 the aluminium was bought from the Yank's, and was imperial. We still worked in metric though. 6.35mm thick angle bar etc (1/4")
Imperial is dead (apart from the hick Yanks), let's let it rest in peace.
mat205125 said:
I find it very difficult to visualise distances and areas like that. If someone said that something was 2000 square feet (or the metric equivilent), in area, that really means nothing to me - I'd be a useless surveyor, unless everyone accepted my ISO standard for measuring the sizes of areas in Snooker Tables, Tennis Courts, Football Pitches, and distances in "from 'ere to the shops"
You have my full support for this, along with "cans of coke" and "swimming pools"Edited by DrTre on Tuesday 6th April 13:13
I can't believe people are seriously questioning the metric system and saying Imperial is better. Imperial is a confusing anachronism that belongs in the history books.
If you lay 14 paving slabs 16 inches across, how many feet and inches is that? (16x14)/12 gives you the decimal answer, then you have to take the fraction and multiply by 12 to get the inches. Ridiculous! What if you wanted to lay a road 3 miles long? That's 1760x3x3 feet! With metric you never have to convert, it's just obvious (3km is 3000m or 300000cm), you do it in your head immediately. When things get more complex, like with pressure, density or mass and weight, metric doesn't get any harder to work out, whereas Imperial needs not just a calculator but a pen and paper too. Imperial is a complete joke!
If you lay 14 paving slabs 16 inches across, how many feet and inches is that? (16x14)/12 gives you the decimal answer, then you have to take the fraction and multiply by 12 to get the inches. Ridiculous! What if you wanted to lay a road 3 miles long? That's 1760x3x3 feet! With metric you never have to convert, it's just obvious (3km is 3000m or 300000cm), you do it in your head immediately. When things get more complex, like with pressure, density or mass and weight, metric doesn't get any harder to work out, whereas Imperial needs not just a calculator but a pen and paper too. Imperial is a complete joke!
doogz said:
saaby93 said:
but....
it says 270ft on the bit of paper in the photo in the article
Never mind whether or not I know how long 270ft is
What's wrong with saying what it says on the tin piece of paper
If they only gave you the figure in the units that you couldn't work, you'd moan. So they give you it in both metric and imperial.it says 270ft on the bit of paper in the photo in the article
Never mind whether or not I know how long 270ft is
What's wrong with saying what it says on the
And you moan.
They didnt give both they only gave metres until I checked in the photo.
If it had metres on the bit of paper I'd be happy if they didnt give me a foot conversion on that too
Theyve converted 1900 tones on the paper to 1700 tonnes
Theres no distance on the piece of paper only co-ordinates but theyve come up with 4000 miles away
doogz said:
Why can you visualise 70m easily, but not 270 times a standard 30cm ruler?
What's the difference?
The difference is I can visualise 70m instantly (from having run (I'm playing fast and loose with that word, in that context) the 100m at school, from having seen a swimming pool, I don't know) and not have to visualise 270 times anything. What's the difference?
That's it.
There's not really anything to debate here.
saaby93 said:
doogz said:
Why can you visualise 70m easily, but not 270 times a standard 30cm ruler?
What's the difference?
stop going on about conversions and what you can imagine What's the difference?
Why couldnt they have just reported what it said on the piece of paper?
To me that's a relevant piece of information I'd like to know.
The purpose of a piece of text is to convey as easy a meaning to as wide a section of people as possible and that's what has been done.
Edited by DrTre on Tuesday 6th April 13:22
DrTre said:
The difference is I can visualise 70m instantly (from having run (I'm playing fast and loose with that word, in that context) the 100m at school, from having seen a swimming pool, I don't know) and not have to visualise 270 times anything.
Same here, ran timed 100m at school many times, also laps/distances measured in kilometres. Edited by soad on Tuesday 6th April 13:23
doogz said:
But you're right. Nothing to debate here. People with an ounce of common sense don't seem to have an issue with this at all.
You're perfectly right, I have no issue with what the BBC did at all.PS,...a yard? When was that mentioned?
Edited by DrTre on Tuesday 6th April 13:27
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff