Just watching an episode of Futurama and was shocked to hear Fry say this. Shocked because I almost NEVER hear metric measures in US programmes (except for "nine millimetre" in the context of firearms). Thus, my question: Is it true that soft drinks are now sold in metric sizes in America?

Bryan, check this out:

http://www.sonicthecomic.com/files/futurama.mp3

;-)

Two- and three-liter soft drink bottles are standard in the US. Smaller than that, I have seen both .5 liter and 20 fl. oz. Other drinks (juices, milk, etc.) are always in imperial.

Damn, Bud. Oh well, this all confirms to me in my heart what I said a while ago- I have more-or-less given up hope that our system of weights and measures can be saved.... damn Governments!! :(

Also... I am a bit of a comic collector (yeah! So!? ;) ), and in various American comics I tend to see bottles of drink labelled "16fl oz" with the metric in brackets. Also, In the film... crumbs, forgotten its name (will report that later), with Jack Nicolson, he buys a "twelve ounce" tin of coke. This film is about ten years old.

I've commonly seen 2ltr bottles in the US.

It's because it's a handy size (imho).

I'm not anti-metric - and this is a good example of a metric size being convenient - its a low number and can be hand held.

Before anyone mentions the fact that there are imperial versions "near" this 2ltr format - yes I already know. But much like the pint is better sized than the 0.5 ltr beer glass (from which my european friends and colleagues agree that the pint is "just right") the 2 ltr soda bottle is better sized than its chubby counterpart

Seriously Steve, I think you are wrong. The only reason you think it is better is because you are used to it. Sorry, but you have been corrupted :( :p It is true, though, this point of mine.


In any case, the US half-gallon ('pottle', if you will) is not 'stubby', and is 1.89ltrs. The UK equivalent is 2.28ltrs. Anyway, what about 72UK floz as a bottle size (3pt 12fl, 2.04ltrs) or 75floz (3.75pt, 2.13ltrs)

I seriously don't see your point in any case, Steve: the coke bottle is not meant for holding and pullinmg about and stuff.

It should be noted that as far as soft drinks are concerned, only the bigger ones (2 and 3 liter) are metric. I have seen a .5 L bottle, but for the most part anything in the small range is imperial. Bottles are usually 20 oz. or 16 oz. and cans are always 12 oz.

What about in Burger King, McDonals et al? Also, strange thing, I went into a Bruger King the other day for the first time in years (whenever I eat that kind of food, it is generally McDonals). I saw on my coke "32oz" and no other size in metric or otherwise given. I was genuinely surprised at this- I thought all fast food restaurants (in the UK) were metric as far as drinks were concerned.

I do wish you could buy quarts, bottles and pints, as opposed to large, medium and small (or whatever they are called)

Hmmm, made the same mispeling of 'McDonald's' TWICe there..... :???:

In the US, fast food establishments (and any other places that dispense fountain drinks) use paper cups made to imperial specifications 24, 32 fl. oz.) You have to look carefully to find the sizes, because usually they are advertised as S, M, L.

I note that the S/M/L sizes are in floz in BK and McD.

Also if you have, say, a vodka and coke you'll notice the interesting mix of 25ml of vodka with the "splash" of coke coming up in floz on the matrix price sign in a pub.

BTW - I still think the 2L Coke bottle is nicely sized and has a good "low" number - something that usually imperial measures tend to offer.

But I prefer the 1 pint (20 floz/ 568ml) cans of beer and cider that you can commonly find these days.

As I said - each measure has its benefits depending on its application. I've yet to see a TV showing the main size in cm (as one of many examples).

I have seen McDonald's uses litres.. and the European use of the coma for decimal point (as Tony recently remarked upon).

Funniest thing, though, is how Burger King seems to sell qtr pounders AND burgers advertised as being "4.4oz"... very odd if you aks me.

4.4oz (or 125g) ????????

Looks like Burger King are the first to sell the "eighth Kay-er" !

They could even put two in the same bun and sell the "quarter Kay-er". Twice the size of the quarter pounder.

How's that for up-sizing ?

The quarter pounder is fien for me. Also, most places sell half pounders too, anyway

Here's a question, though: Do the 1 and 2 ltr bottles have floz and/or pints and/or quarts given in brackets?

<<
Here's a question, though: Do the 1 and 2 ltr bottles have floz and/or pints and/or quarts given in brackets?
>>

If you are asking about the US, yes, they are required to by law (as of now). I believe coca cola company says something like "2 liter, 67.6 fl. oz., 2 qt 3.6 oz" whereas Pepsi says "2 liter (2.1 qt)"

Re: Two Litre Bottle of shasta??? January 22 2004, 1:33 AM

<<
Here's a question, though: Do the 1 and 2 ltr bottles have floz and/or pints and/or quarts given in brackets?
>>

If you are asking about the US, yes, they are required to by law (as of now). I believe coca cola company says something like "2 liter, 67.6 fl. oz., 2 qt 3.6 oz" whereas Pepsi says "2 liter (2.1 qt)"


I wonder how many people will take note of 67.6, or for that matter 2.1? Here you can see how numbers can be used to wean you off familiar units and onto new ones. Few people care to remember 67.6 or other numbers to that effect, but 2L simple and straight forward sticks immediately. Proof, steveH. seems to be greatly taken by that quantity.

Agreed, meter. Everyone thinks of it as a 2-liter bottle, because that's what it is marketed as.
However, keep in mind that the opposite situation arises for the vast majority of products sold in American supermarkets (i.e., round imperial quantity followed by soft conversion to metric).

<<Proof, steveH. seems to be greatly taken by that quantity>>

More like - "Proof, SteveH seems to be able to converse in metric or imperial, depending on context or choice"

BTW - You mentioned my name in a post! (I had to take a shower after that).


Right! Off to watch the Flintstones now....

Agreed, meter. Everyone thinks of it as a 2-liter bottle, because that's what it is marketed as.
However, keep in mind that the opposite situation arises for the vast majority of products sold in American supermarkets (i.e., round imperial quantity followed by soft conversion to metric).

Of course it works both ways! That is why I maintain that soft conversion is daft conversion, putting people off metrication rather than converting them. Who on earth wants to change a simple pound for 453g, or any other idiotic number of grams

My point was to show how easy it is to switch people to new units if only one sensible quantity is shown.

<<
My point was to show how easy it is to switch people to new units if only one sensible quantity is shown.
>>

Yes, it is easy. It has worked in many countries. But that doesn't mean that it is necessary or beneficial, or that anything was wrong with the old units.

"It has worked in many countries. But that doesn't mean that it is necessary or beneficial, or that anything was wrong with the old units."

So why has almost every country on the face of the planet adopted the metric system over the last 200 years ?

For a laugh ?????

^ Various different reasons, including and some examples:


France, Russia, Germany etc = changed for revolutionary/regime change reasons and/or to have uniformity across the nation.

This meant MUCH of the world became metrical. Other nations joined also to eliminate regional differeneces in W&M, as well as for bureacratic reasons. Then of course you end up with the situation where "Well, most of the world has changed, so we must also too" for x, y, z reasons.

Of course, some nations have just decided that metric was better than the previous customary system. That does not mean they were right though(in some instances they possibly were) .



Just because many nations convert to something or follow something odes not mean it is good or right. If I am allowed to be cliched for a minute, Fascism was popular at one stage, as too was communism. These things were not just government driven but also had massive support from intellectuals et al. Yet, if anyone dare say to me in all seriousness that either of these things was good or desirable, then I shall have to grit my teeth at their ignorance. Of course, metric is not on par in terms of sheer evilitude (!!) as these two political systems, but my point is valid still.

Bryan Barry says:^ Various different reasons, including and some examples:France, Russia, Germany etc = changed for revolutionary/regime change reasons and/or to have uniformity across the nation.This meant MUCH of the world became metrical. Other nations joined also to eliminate regional differeneces in W&M, as well as for bureacratic reasons. Then of course you end up with the situation where "Well, most of the world has changed, so we must also too" for x, y, z reasons.Of course, some nations have just decided that metric was better than the previous customary system. That does not mean they were right though(in some instances they possibly were) .Just because many nations convert to something or follow something odes not mean it is good or right. If I am allowed to be cliched for a minute, Fascism was popular at one stage, as too was communism. These things were not just government driven but also had massive support from intellectuals et al. Yet, if anyone dare say to me in all seriousness that either of these things was good or desirable, then I shall have to grit my teeth at their ignorance. Of course, metric is not on par in terms of sheer evilitude (!!) as these two political systems, but my point is valid still.

metre:
You got that somewhat muddled, but one can decipher what you mean. First of all Hitler was democratically elected in 1933, just shows you how wrong people can be in their choice of anything! Metrication was not THE reason for France’s revolution, but lousy measurements (e.g. cumbersome, complicated, not uniform, open to fraud) contributed to it.
The metric system did not exist when the revolution took place. It came into being shortly after.
No need to constantly cite dictatorships when things go wrong. Democracies have their fare share of discrimination and injustice. Your often cited democratic majority tolerated slavery and had and no qualm to discriminate happily against Negroes in America and women world wide. Britain like America would still hang people for crimes committed, or not. Had it not been for some astute and compassionate people, discrimination would still be with us. All those abominations had to be effectively outlawed

Regarding your last sentence, please make up your mind?

Errr, mate, maybe you should read my post again. For a start, I never said confused measuring systems was the cause of revolution. What are you going on about?

<<
The metric system did not exist when the [French] revolution took place. It came into being shortly after.
>>

In fact, in 1791, both the American and the French governments were seriously looking at decimal systems of money and of measurement. In teh end the French decimalised both but the Americans only decimalised their money.

For the record, the currency system in America was a mess in 1791 - the most common coin was the Spanish "piece of eight" which became the prototype for the dollar - one can see the similarity between the symbols "8" and "$".

The reason the US only went decimal currency is that while the monetary system was a mess in 1791, the weights and measures were not so bad. Thomas Jefferson had proposed both systems, but the majority of folks used British weights and measures. Land had already been divided into tracts of acres, and as I have said before, private property was and is an extremely important facet of early and modern American democratic systems. Furthermore, Great Britain was still the United States' major trading partner.

Re: Two Litre Bottle of shasta??? January 28 2004, 8:45 AM

<<
The metric system did not exist when the [French] revolution took place. It came into being shortly after.
>>
Martin:
In fact, in 1791, both the American and the French governments were seriously looking at decimal systems of money and of measurement. In teh end the French decimalised both but the Americans only decimalised their money.

For the record, the currency system in America was a mess in 1791 - the most common coin was the Spanish "piece of eight" which became the prototype for the dollar - one can see the similarity between the symbols "8" and "$".

metre:
Interesting. Another currency in use was the German Thaler, prononced like Dollar, and some say that's where the name came from.

Dollar came from thaler, yes. However, that does not necessarily mean that the coin itself was not based on the "pieces of eight".

Bryan,

If you can get hold of a copy of "Seaby's Coin Catalogue" you will see that during the late 18th and early 19th centry the British (and therefore British colonial) currency was in a mess. Seaby's Catalogue item no 2998 is a Spanish Piece of EIght overstamped with the text "Bank of England, Five shillings, One Dollar".

In addition, I found the following regarding the origin of the dollar on a web site (http://www.collectsource.com/americas.htm):

Shortly after the Spanish conquered the new world they discovered huge silver deposits in central Mexico. Much of the new silver was returned to Spain in the form of silver bars, but in 1632 the Mexico City Mint---the oldest mint in the new world--was established and began striking coins with the new silver. In 1772 the mint began to produce a new, machine made silver coin---the Spanish Dollar. These silver dollar sized coins were not only destined to be immortalized as the "Pieces of Eight" of pirate legend, they would also solve the coinage problems of the new Americans.
In order to obtain the silver coins they so desperately needed, the colonists turned their ships south and began trading with the Spanish. The result? Vast quantities of the Spanish Dollar---America's First Silver Dollar---were imported into North America.


FInally, dare I mention it, the various large silver coins that circulated in the Amrica's in the early 19th century are catalogued on XCOLE's site. (I never thought that I would actually make a reference to his site!).

Martin, I collect coins... I agree with you... what is your point?????????????

Bryan, you wrote

<<
However, that does not necessarily mean that the coin itself was not based on the "pieces of eight".
>>

I was showing that the one dollar was based on the piece of eight which in turn was based on the thaler.

BTW, I have just been setting up a MS-ACCESS database to catalogue my coins.

Sorry. I misread your post :( :)


Hmmm, I would be interested in veiwing a database of your coins, perhaps, and maybe some pictures too, no? :)

>>Just because many nations convert to something or follow something odes not mean it is good or right. If I am allowed to be cliched for a minute, Fascism was popular at one stage, as too was communism. These things were not just government driven but also had massive support from intellectuals et al. Yet, if anyone dare say to me in all seriousness that either of these things was good or desirable, then I shall have to grit my teeth at their ignorance. Of course, metric is not on par in terms of sheer evilitude (!!) as these two political systems, but my point is valid still.>>


If something is not good nor desirable, it eventually disappears and is replaced by something else. Either by force or by some other means. Fascism has disappeared from Europe as has communism. There is no sign or desire for metric to disappear or be replaced, nor is there any movement to replace metric with imperial.

With imperial disappearing it would prove your point that imperial meets the criteria of once being popular but is being driven to extinction by many forces: indutrial, government, market forces, etc.

Only a minority have found imperial to be "useful". The majority have not. Your valid comparison has been used against your arument in favour of imperial.

re: "Fascism has disappeared from Europe as has communism..."

REPLY:

You must be joking!

Try reading Rodney Atkinson's [brother of Rowan] book: "Fascist Europe Rising", which illustrates just how close the planned European integration parallels Hitler's plans. You can catch up with his [Atkinson's]latest reports on the www.freenationsuk website. German Finance Minister Walther Funk even named the 'Europoan Economic Community over 30 years ahead of its creation when in 1942 he published, for Adolf Hitler, his 'Europaeische Wirtschaftliche Gemeinschaft" [= E.E.C.] with its blueprint for a single currency.

As for the parallels between Communism and the new European Union of Socialist Republics, try getting hold of Vladimir Bukovsky's vivid tape on the parallels between Soviet Russia and the emerging European Union.

Vladimir Bukovsky was a Soviet dissident who got locked up for taking a different view from the state, and draws remarkable parallels with the old Communist set-up and the shape of the new European Union - the suppression of nation-states and national identity, the undemocratic Parliament, unelected Commmissions running everything, the drive to uniformity and standardisation etc.

It might be argued by some that fascism and communism were very different. But were they?

Both banned political parties if they didn't like them - a sure sign of totalitarianism. And guess what powers the E.U. proposes to take shortly in relation to political parties?

Tell me more of that last point, Tony, and please link me. thank you :)

Bryan, I'm sorry that this is so long but it does answer your question and is a jolly good and informative read for all except those who believe the European Union project is beyond all criticism (like the Lord Hutton view of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell):


THE EUROPEAN UNION...AN EMERGING TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE…?

by Richard Greaves

EUROPOL

The Maastricht Treaty introduced little known aspects of EU integration referred to as "co-operation between member states in justice and home affairs". Under these provisions Europol, a Europe wide police force is being created. It has very wide powers but is not answerable to any elected body. It reports to a special committee appointed by the Council of Ministers. It exists ostensibly to fight crime, but it has a much wider function. Not only will it collect and store information on known and suspected criminals, but also on anyone's political and religious beliefs and activities. The building up of large databases is specifically provided for under the Maastricht Treaty.

SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS

The same co-operation provisions are also resulting in a massive EU wide increase in the use of surveillance cameras in towns and cities – again supposedly to reduce crime. (Guardian 25/1/99 –" Little known EU proposals could soon lead to massive expansion of surveillance"). This is enthusiastically endorsed by local councils and the public for protection against crime, but for the authorities, these can also be used to identify anyone and monitor their activities and movements. With the introduction of driving licences with photographs and passport photographs which are duplicated in central computer banks, it will be possible through image comparison to identify anyone in seconds. Speed check cameras, now common on many roads, by reading a number plate can also track the movement of any vehicle across the country.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING...... AND LISTENING!

If you go on any sort of protest march or demonstration, you will be filmed on video cameras by police or security personnel. Big Brother is watching you more and more... and he can also listen to you via the Echelon communications monitoring system run by the American "National Security Agency" operating out of bases at Morwenstow, Cornwall and Menwith Hills, North Yorkshire. This system monitors telephone, fax and e-mail communications throughout Europe and elsewhere. It is programmed to lock on to a particular communication for analysis if certain "key" words are used in that communication. If you carry a mobile phone, even when switched off it emits a radio signal to the nearest base station. With the co-operation of the mobile phone companies, your movements can be tracked.

The Observer (6/12/98 – "EU hatches plan to tap internet and mobile phones") reported on Enfopol 98, a plan requiring telecommunications companies to build tapping connections into every kind of communications system including mobile phones , the internet, fax machines, pagers and interactive cable TV services. No doubt arising out of this, using a fast track bill and it’s huge majority in parliament, last year the government rushed through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which gives the police and security services the power to monitor internet mailing lists. They are also able to order internet service providers to give them access to peoples’ private E-mail. All this is claimed to be targeted at organised crime such as drug trafficking, paedophilia, terrorism etc., but it takes little imagination to see how this could be applied to any form of dissent or protest movement.

LEGISLATION SUPPRESSING HUMAN RIGHTS

We are now getting legislation that limits the right of people to gather peaceably, (e.g. the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) and intrudes into privacy with increased powers of bugging and burgling for the security services, and even provides for detention without trial. The first example of this in Britain are detention provisions for those said to be "mentally disturbed" and as a result "a danger to themselves or the public". Who will decide what constitutes being mentally disturbed and a threat to the public..? or perhaps those running the state – especially in view of the fact that Europol keeps files on peoples’ political and religious activities. The new Terrorism Act widens the definition of terrorism enormously to include the threat of "serious violence" against any person or property. How will this definition be interpreted? Ostensibly aimed at the likes of people who tear up genetically modified crops, could these provisions ever be used against, for example, protesting farmers where scuffles and damage to property has occurred occasionally? The Act goes further - organisations can be "outlawed" - addressing a meeting at which there is a member of such an organisation will be an offence. There will be additional stop and search powers for the police, and expressing support can be treated as "incitement". All newly created terrorist offences carry very severe penalties, as part of a process which seems set to create a state in which no dissent of any description will be tolerated. The provisions for co-operation in justice and home affairs between member states introduced by the Maastricht Treaty, and made mandatory by the Amsterdam Treaty, are designed to ensure that the same sort of measures are brought into force throughout the EU. Indeed the Home secretary openly talks of the Act making UK law the same as in other countries.(Interview Radio 4 "Today " programme 20/2/01)

CORPUS JURIS

As well as this increase in repressive legislation, far reaching changes are planned for our criminal justice system itself, which is fundamentally different to that employed throughout the rest of the EU (except Ireland). As part of the continuing emergence of the single European state, the European Commission and the European Parliament are pressing for the imposition of a uniform system throughout the EU known as Corpus Juris. However, if Corpus Juris were to be fully implemented in Britain, all criminal prosecutions would be heard solely by judges or other professional paid officials appointed by the state.

Trial by jury would have to be phased out, to be replaced by a single judge sitting alone. Jack Straw’s recent attempts to get legislation through Parliament reducing those cases where an accused can demand trial by jury, should be seen as the start of this process. In addition a Home Office report has recommended that lay magistrates should be replaced by stipendiary (i.e. professional paid) magistrates, another measure that clearly fits in with the Corpus Juris plan. In both cases the government claims the measures are simply in the interests of efficiency and cost effectiveness, which is very misleading. The involvement of ordinary people in the judicial process as magistrates and jurors is fundamental to our system and goes back hundreds of years - it is designed to protect the citizen against the risk of arbitrary or malicious prosecution, and is a healthy feature in any democracy.

Corpus Juris would also introduce detention without trial, since under this continental system, a person suspected of an offence can be arrested and held in custody for a period of six months or more, pending such further investigations and enquiries as the public prosecutor sees fit, before being brought before a court. This is radically different from our own system of Habeas Corpus (which has its origins as far back as Magna Carta of 1215), whereby an accused person must be brought before a court within a very short period of arrest, and evidence against the arrested person produced. Furthermore, our current system incorporates the rule against double jeopardy, whereby an accused person once acquitted cannot be brought before a court again for the same offence. The government has proposed that this shall be removed – perhaps reasonable in certain very carefully defined instances, but the proposal must be seen as a further part of the introduction of Corpus Juris.

A European public prosecutor has already been appointed and will have authority in Britain and throughout the EU, initially only in respect of cases involving fraud against the EU budget (e.g. people who make dishonest claims for EU grants and subsidies etc.) but this is just the start.

EUROPEAN UNION ARMY

Under provisions in the new Nice Treaty signed at the heads of governments conference at the end of last year, an old European defence pact known as Western European Union is to be incorporated into the European Union itself. Previously, at the Helsinki summit in December 1999, agreement was reached for an army of 60,000 soldiers to be set up along with command, planning and intelligence bases. This is claimed to be a "rapid reaction force", but clearly these measures lays the foundation for an EU Army, hailed by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer as another pillar in the process of European unification. Commission President Romano Prodi has confirmed as much. However, significantly, French PM Lionel Jospin has stated that "by pooling its armies, Europe will be able to maintain internal security as well as prevent conflicts throughout the world..". Indeed, Foreign Office sources indicate that the setting up of a 5000 strong internal emergency reaction force was approved at the EU summit at Feira, Portugal in June last year. In many parts of the EU, riot police with tear gas and water cannon are used as a matter of course to confront even peaceful protests. Does this herald the use of such measures here?

BAN ON POLITICAL PARTIES?

On 13/4/00 the European Parliament approved the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen Report, article 6 of which provides for the setting up of EU wide political parties. However, this is subject to the proviso that "parties that do not respect human rights and democratic principles as set out in the Treaty of Rome shall be the subject of suspension proceedings in the European Court of Justice". Despite the rhetoric in its preamble, the Treaty of Rome is not in based on democratic principles, but rather on European integration. Could these new provisions therefore be used to "suspend" (i.e. effectively ban) any political party opposed to the EU? The banning of political parties is a dangerous road to go down in a democracy - it is worth noting that the Soviet Union never abolished elections- the ruling Communist party simply outlawed all other parties as "fascist" or "counter revolutionary" and maintained itself in power that way!

FINAL REMARKS

We would never accept the sudden imposition of a totalitarian police state, so if it is to be done, it has to be done gradually by stealth, one step at a time. These various measures should not be seen in isolation. Many people quite close to the top positions of power may not be aware of the full picture – MPs and others do not have time to become familiar with the whole range of bills and proposals that are put before parliament. The security and intelligence services are not answerable to Parliament and their activities remain hidden from view in the interests of so called "national security". You might think … it could never happen here, we live in a democracy, our leaders are good upstanding people fighting for freedom and justice in the world, or so they and the media would have us believe… History shows that all power tends to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our freedoms are being gradually eroded… what will come next? With real power vested in unelected and unaccountable commissioners bankers and bureaucrats, democratic principles are already alien to the EU. It is submitted that the building blocks are being put into place whereby soon we could find ourselves living in a dictatorship in which protest will become increasingly difficult and ultimately will not even be tolerated.

Richard Greaves
"The Old Stables", Cusop,
Herefordshire, HR3 5RQ
Tel: 01497 821406.
E-mail: rgreaves@supanet.com
Updated - February 2001.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COPY AND CIRCULATE THIS INFORMATION SHEET

Tony,

Your above discourse on the creeping powers of EU agencies is all very impressive but there are some fundamental issues that need addressing.

As you are probably aware crimes perpetrated over the Internet represent an increasing threat to us all.

I have personally experienced the potentially devastating effects of viruses and deliberate attempts to compromise system security. It was my job to clean the system out and recover the damage. We were lucky at my place of work, it could have been far worse.

Others in the area were not so lucky.

My question to you is, how do you expect enforcement agencies to combat cyber-crime if they are not given adequate powers to do so?

"With imperial disappearing "

The UK, collectively: "Titter"