New here :-)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Tue Mar 6 10:58:36 2001

You're certainly right in that it is easy to visualize the units with which you
were brought up from childhood. I don't think it's difficult to visualize a
"cup" since one normally uses one every day. I agree that a "gallon" is a more
difficult unit to describe to someone who's not accustomed to them.

The "cup" has become extensively corrupted by the purveyors of coffee. Here in
the U.S. people have gradually become accustomed to a rather large cup, commonly
referred to as a "mug" more closely approximating in volume, though not in
shape, what one gets at a pub when having a "mug" of beer. That is about 12
fluid ounces in capacity, which is what the typical botle of beer contains. I
remember that wine glasses often held 250 ml, and some beer mugs were marked 500
ml (which, BTW, is VERY close to the popular "pint" of beer). (1 quart = 1/4
gallon, which = 946 ml, which = 2 pints, each of which, BTW = 2 cups) However,
the popular size of a beverage can as dispensed from a machine is 12 fl. oz. in
capacity, as is the common beer bottle. That's gotten to be a common size for a
"mug" of coffee as consumed by the not-yet-awake coffee drinker. The coffee
cups used in the typical dinner service is normally half that capacity, or 6 fl.
oz.

I'm not prepared to support the notion of a "gallon" as I don't find the gallon
to be a convenient unit, now that we don't have to haul a gallon from the
village well to the house just to have water to drink or cook. That is, I
believe, the historical origin of the term, however. I do, however, find the
liter a profoundly convenient unit, as the (perhaps maximal) amount of beer or
wine one is likely to consume at a sitting, e.g. at a meal, while a "cup" is
what one is likely to consume as a single drink.

The units that we like to use in conversation are based on our customs and
habits. Because our culturally imposed behaviors and needs are different, we
tend to see those things differently. The fact that the rather archaic English
units are based on commonly accessible notions like the foot or the cup, it's
hard to let go of them in favor of 3/10 of a meter or 236.5 ml. but it is
likely that as commerce becomes truly global, these obstacles will fall away.
Those of us who use the foot as a measure will eventually recognize that it's 30
cm and, who knows, perhaps the "cup" will eventually become 250 ml, which is
about as convenient.

Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iggy Drougge" <optimus_at_canit.se>
To: "Richard Erlacher" <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: New here :-)


> Richard Erlacher skrev:
>
> >Well, maybe it would work better, but I don't recall SI units being any more
> >easy to visualize than the "normal" metrics.
>
> While I have no idea how easy it is to identify a "cup" or a "gallon", since
> I've never seen any, I can attest that it indeed is very easy to visualise any
> common metric measure, and should be for any European. Just because it is
> difficult for you and your generation doesn't mean it has to be.
>
> --
> En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
>
> optimus_at_dec:foo$ make love
> make: don't know how to make love. Stop
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 06 2001 - 10:58:36 GMT