Metric and how not to use it.

cthia wrote:Thirty years ago, finding a female applying for a career in the computer industry was much of an oxymoron as a blonde with brains.

cthia wrote:I never said that women couldn't be found in the industry in the infant years of computing. As I stated, I had even heard of the rare creatures myself. But there seemed to be NONE found in Silicon Valley, where the truly lucrative salaries were. Six figure incomes were a dime a dozen in the seventies. I'm talking about truly lucrative careers, not jobs.

I certainly never meant to agree that blondes aren't intelligent. They are, well. . . some. My friend Andreea from Ro is a brilliant blonde neurosurgeon - but still an oxymoron. Who always calls me a moron for the statement. Besides, beautiful blondes don't have to be smart to have fun.

In fact, there was an inside joke raging back then that they were all densely populated and gathered together only in one area, Silicone Valley - at the company parties when profits came out for the quarter.

I imagined when I first read that line that you thought your post was bland and needed to be ended with a joke and that was the one you chose. But "Never meant to agree" is an interesting choice of words for something you bluntly stated in the joke line. I am not sure that piling some more jokes on top is helpful.
To be clear, the line says both that blondes are not intelligent and that women in the 80's did not apply for jobs in the computer industry. That is the way an oxymoron works, unless it is trying to put thesis together with antithesis to achieve a synthesis (such as a jumbo shrimp or a deafening silence).

Surprised that there's no mention that pre-metric, countries tended to use units with the same, or a similar, name but completely different values.

One of the most well known in Britain (or at least, England) was the English Ell vs the Flemish Ell. Not so well known is that the French Foot was slightly longer than the English Foot.

The difference between some measurements between the UK and the US is, I understand, because one opted for 'wet' measure and the other 'dry' measure.

Meanwhile, did the US adopt any weight between the Pound and the Ton? The Stone is obvious at 14lb, but how about the Hundredweight? Confusingly named, as 1cwt = 112lb.


Finally, as others have said, it's sometimes easier to think in old imperial despite metric being a more convenient standard. Heavy patients getting carried upstairs are 20+ Stone, not about 140kg

jtg452 wrote:1 liter of engine displacement equals about .61 cubic inches.

I think you have a misplaced decimal point there my dude; a liter is about 61 cubic inches.

Peregrinator wrote:

jtg452 wrote:1 liter of engine displacement equals about .61 cubic inches.

I think you have a misplaced decimal point there my dude; a liter is about 61 cubic inches.

You're right, I did. I hate touchscreens and these little screens with a passion for a reason.

Peregrinator wrote:

jtg452 wrote:1 liter of engine displacement equals about .61 cubic inches.

I think you have a misplaced decimal point there my dude; a liter is about 61 cubic inches.

Technically a Litre isn't Metric. It is Cubic metres that is used to measure displacement, commonly used is cc or cubic centimetre.

jtg452 wrote:1 liter of engine displacement equals about .61 cubic inches.

Peregrinator wrote:I think you have a misplaced decimal point there my dude; a liter is about 61 cubic inches.

Lord Skimper wrote:Technically a Litre isn't Metric. It is Cubic metres that is used to measure displacement, commonly used is cc or cubic centimetre.

Since technically a liter is 1000 cc, after the 1964 redefinition; it seems peculiar to say it is not metric. Also it IS commonly used to indicate engine displacement size and liquid size. From Wikipedia:

Although the litre is not an SI unit, it is accepted by the CGPM (the standards body that defines the SI) for use with the SI. CGPM defines the litre and its acceptable symbols.