Re: Metric Time (was Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique))
Edward Rice (email@example.com)
Sat, 14 Oct 1995 14:13:42 -0500
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
email@example.com (Robert A. Uhl) wrote:
> >Sure, but it's a unit of weight, not volume. What's your point?
> I believe the point was that it's an itsy-bitsy unit. We have the
> tablespoon (== fl. oz. == jigger) which is ~ cubic in. (believe that
> it originally was). We also have the hogshead and the pipe (two
> hogshead). They are _huge_. Quite as useful as the ridiculous
> megaliter (conveys no meaning; I bet that the volume of the ocean is
> told to schoolchildren in liters or perhaps kiloliters.
It's probably not told to children very often, and certainly not very
A tablespoon is well under a cubic inch, sorry. It was originally a highly
imprecise measurement, used for situations (English cooking) in which
accuracy didn't improve the results, anyway, so why bother.
We Americans now use standardized tablespoons and teaspoons and cups,
rather than "whatever happens to fall out of the tea set," with the result
that our food is also far superior to that left on British plates. This is
a scientific fact.