When reading some posts I'm not always sure if the poster is pro-metric, pro-English or neutral.

Can each of the posters who read this state which one of the three they are so I have a better perspective of where the poster is coming from?

I'm pro-metric

Thanks

Where do I stand?

If it's raining then under a cover.


But seriously - "Pro-choice".

I've never been anti-metric but I can see how people can get that way if they're told that they are some how wrong to use imperial.

I personally use metric or imperial depending on task.

You mention that you are pro-metric.

I believe anyone can be pro-metric without resorting to being anti-imperial. After all, your peer group uses imperial.

So...

are you anti imperial?

I am pro-metric

Pro-choice is slightly misleading as it tends to mean "in favour of choice, as long as that choice is imperial"

To get a clearer picture you will need to ask more specific questions, such as:
- What units do you believe should be used on road signs
- What units do you believe should be displayed in shops

etc, etc...

Steve claims he is pro-choice, yet is in favour of strictly imperial-only road signs, and has given his support in the past to a market trader using only imperial, not the choice required by law. Hence my definition of "pro-choice" above!!

Pro-metric, although perhaps not rabidly so.

However, I must be somewhat anti-choice. It sounds good (American ideal and all) but doing everything dual creates a mess. The US, UK, and Canada seems to have more of a units mess than Australia and South Africa. Australia and South Africa used more compulsion to achieve that success. People need some pressure to change.

While free speech is an essential American ideal, we much more heavily constrain commercial speech than "political" or non-commercial speech. I believe we would be better off with a specific plan to wind down the use of Customary measure for trade, and I'd be prepared to constrain some commercial speech to do it. I have no problem with allowing inch based replacement parts for service, or keeping the measurements of a football field or baseball diamond, but industry and trade should move (nearly) completely to metric. If we weren't stuck at zero, we could debate how fast, but now the problem is just moving at any speed.

However, we need to broadly change patterns of behavior over time. I don't "get wet" everytime I see metric in a newspaper, which seems to be a pattern in some USMA posts.

Damn, that was me. I forgot to fill in name.

<<The US, UK, and Canada seems to have more of a units mess than Australia and South Africa>>

I really hear no-one (except pressure groups) complaining about a mess.

Andy - can you explain how I can be anti-metric and then choose metric in certain circumstances?

That's be like me being anti-bloodsport - but then joining a hunt just to be involved.

Your idea of me is perverse at worst , misguided at best - I have said repeatedly -and I'll say again- *IF SAFETY IS AN ISSUE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF DUAL LABELLING THEN I SUPPORT SINGLE LABELLING USING THE PREDOMINANTLY KNOWN METHOD !!!*

Otherwise I'm happy with a free-for-all.

Why don't you let this get accepted in your psychie?

I'm only here because I don't want to see imperial being erradicated, not because I really "hate" metric.

<<<Andy - can you explain how I can be anti-metric and then choose metric in certain circumstances? >>>

When did I accuse you of being anti-metric?! In my book pro-imperial or pro-metric doesn't mean anti-the other.

<<<Your idea of me is perverse at worst , misguided at best - I have said repeatedly -and I'll say again- *IF SAFETY IS AN ISSUE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF DUAL LABELLING THEN I SUPPORT SINGLE LABELLING USING THE PREDOMINANTLY KNOWN METHOD !!!*>>>

Many of the ARM sign-changing activities are footpath signs and the like. Safety is not an issue there, but you support their actions.

<<<I'm only here because I don't want to see imperial being erradicated, not because I really "hate" metric.>>>

As I said, pro-imperial doesn't mean you hate metric.

I am pro-metric but I don't hate imperial.

<<I really hear no-one (except pressure groups) complaining about a mess.
>>

I don't know if anyone complains, but it seems absurd that the UK:
*Requires draft beer sold in pints, and bottled or canned beer sold in mL.
*Requires mpg or L/100 km fuel economy ratings on cars, but gas (petrol) is sold in litres and cars have mile odometers so you can't actually check your fuel economy in either system of units. (I know you trust your trip computer, but I don't, and I used to make them.)

For the US, we have some industries inch based and some metric. They basically don't deal with each other. But everybody needs fasteners, everybody needs a tool and die shop to make molds, etc, so some businesses have to do both at increased investment.

We lost a Mars orbiter because one supplier used English units in software even though the contract required metric. Obviously, the fact he ignored the contract was the big problem, but the "anything can be in any unit" culture contributed.

Our dual food labels sound good, but they take a lot of room. While we'd like to have a big free trade area between US, Canada, and Mexico, everything requires relabelling.

For people who drive in Canada or Mexico, speed limits in km/h and the unreadable secondary dial are a problem.

Numerous other little problems could be listed. None, by itself, amounts to much, but add them all up and it is a mess that eats away little bits of time and efficiency here and there. We'd be better off to just bull our way through the learning curve and go metric. We'd be happier once we got to the other side.

Andy - footpaths are not dangerous - I don't mind dual labels there (although it has to be said that metric would really be for tourists, but you won't agree with that because you've noticed more people saying "metres" recently and they were Brits)


<<*Requires draft beer sold in pints, and bottled or canned beer sold in mL.>>


You can get pint cans and bottles.
Also - I see no problem with home units being various - you're not looking to get exactly a pint.


<<*Requires mpg or L/100 km fuel economy ratings on cars, but gas (petrol) is sold in litres and cars have mile odometers so you can't actually check your fuel economy in either system of units. (I know you trust your trip computer, but I don't, and I used to make them.)>>

But didn't this happen because metric fuel was introduced? It was ok before.

Re: Where do you stand? July 5 2005, 4:12 PM
JS
Our dual food labels sound good, but they take a lot of room. While we'd like to have a big free trade area between US, Canada, and Mexico, everything requires relabelling.

metre
Your food and other labels, I hate to say, impede metrication rather than further it. Soft metrication is daft metrication and alienates people without gaining converts. Who in her/his right mind would exchange 1 simple quart for 0.946 L, 1 ounce for 28.35 g and 1 pound for lousy 0.4536 g? I certainly wouldn’t. Besides dual labelling costs customers smoney for nothing.

0 to 60 in about 5 seconds

<Your food and other labels, I hate to say, impede metrication rather than further it.<>>

For the long term, I don't disagree. In 1994, when it was made law, the other choice would have been no metrication at all. Would that really be better?

But, as noted in another post, we've had 10+ years. That's plenty, and it's time to move on to metric-only.

The dual labelling is resulting in a slow increase of metric-first and metric-round labels, perhaps because the major food and consumer products companies are anticipating NIST will get permissive-metric-only through Congress, and those are good steps to take before dropping the Imperial.

How's that road metrication coming? Or (half) litres of beer? Both of which are LEGAL if uncommon in the US.

SteveH is pro tempore. I'm pro bono on this site.

I'm for any Irish band that has a charismatic lead singer.

However - I am never on edge.

My default position is to favor liberty. Therefore I am against the imposition of the metric system -- at least so far as penalties and prison-time incur for use of non-metric units in trade. Does this make me pro-Imperial (or Customary, in my case)? I certainly prefer those units in many cases. However, in other cases, I find metric to be extremely useful; so metric is preferred in those cases. Does this make me pro-metric? No. I am pro-liberty, pure and simple.

I am anti-government involvement in units of measurement, except to ensure safety and ethical trading.

Bud,

Who, in your opinion, should hold the prototype weights and measures (or be responsible for defining what they are)?

Ummm... he said that it is appropriate for government "to ensure safety and ethical trading." Maintaining prototype measures would fall under this mandate.

I believe that the government should either define the weights and measures or delegate that responsibility to whomever they want, such as an international organisation or a scientific society. But I believe that the government has no right to COMPEL use of the standard weights and measures, unless necessary for safety or ethics. For example, if some roads used kilometres and some used miles, that would be a safety issue. If some shops sold by the pound and others by the kilo, that might become an ethics issue. But neither of these situations exists in the UK or US.

<<For example, if some roads used kilometres and some used miles, that would be a safety issue.>>

A few roads in the US do use km. Also, most US drivers don't immediately crash when they cross the border into Canada. The US has complete metric signage defined in the MUTCD, although I concede it is very rarely used.

It is illegal to sell loose goods by the kilogram in the US. For "random weight" FPLA allows either Customary only or dual as an option. SI alone is illegal, in spite of being our "preferred system." Obviously scale-buyers have a good lobby.

The proposed NIST amendment would allow for random weight either Customary only, SI only, or dual. Packaged goods of standard weight would be SI only, or dual.

I have been waiting until everyone else stated their preference.

I have made my decision. I will go with the majority.

Btw: Has anyone counted the votes yet? What was the result?

Now that's just silly.

I am pro-metric and I am anti-imperial.

I believe that metric should be used exclusively and see no room for imperial for the purpose of measurement in the 21st century - and I do mean for the (practical) purpose of measurement. I'm not talking about rewriting Shakespeare or destroying the odd working museum or historical books etc.

There's nothing rabid about this point of view it's based on plain commonsense reasoning and if you try to settle for anything less then you might as well give in to present situation of muddle and confusion.

Whether a purely metric society can literally be achieved within my lifetime is another question but I have no doubt of the principle and that we should aim for it.

What do you think of people who use imperial?

Should they be told not too? Should the government (somehow) make it difficult for an ordinary free citizen to measure stuff in imperial. Should they ban rulers with inches on one side and weighing scales that have stones/lbs?

Just want to see if you "anti-imperial" stretches to it's use as well as it's existance.

I find it most bizzare though. If I try to "think" anti-metric I find myself laughing that I must hate the word "metre" and feel hostile to the letters "kg".

I do, however, find myself hostile towards people blowing themselves up whilst murdering inoccent people and believing that God is going to thank them for doing it through splendid rewards in paradise.

But "km", "hectare", "tonne"? Sorry, it really doesn't take me near being "anti" to a damn measuring method.

I believe Britain should now be taking the matter of the duality of measurement seriously. The present situation is nonsense to any right minded person.

Being anti-imperial simply means I disapporove of its continued use when the metric system is more powerful, comprehensive and can be used in any application involving imperial (whilst the reverse is not the case). We don't need both. They are incompatible and involve awkward conversion factors. There are no advantages to dual measures.

Britian can only properly complete the change to metric by a firm commitment at the political level but also taking the right kind of action in a wider context. Successive British Governbments have to date virtually abdicated responsibility for this.

People continue to use and think in miles and yards for example because Britian hasn't allowed the metre and kilometre on British road signs and speed limits. How can anyone justify teaching metric at school but forcing people to use imperial when they travel by car? What kind of government is it that willingly presides over that?

In the end people will learn and adapt to metric if public services, commerce and the media were to operate using metric. They will only appreciate the advantages of metric when they get to know it and see it used properly.

re (Stan): How can anyone justify teaching metric at school but forcing people to use imperial when they travel by car? What kind of government is it that willingly presides over that?

REPLY: How can anyone justify forcing children to learn only metric at school when people use imperial when they travel by car, describe their height, measure their weight, rent office space, buy some land, measure the length of their gardens, listen to football and cricket commentaries, drink beer, order a steak or a beefburger, explain how far it is to the nearest shop, etc. etc. What kind of government is it that willingly presides over that?

Tony Bennett:
REPLY: How can anyone justify forcing children to learn only metric at school when people use imperial when they travel by car, describe their height, measure their weight, rent office space, buy some land, measure the length of their gardens, listen to football and cricket commentaries, drink beer, order a steak or a beefburger, explain how far it is to the nearest shop, etc. etc. What kind of government is it that willingly presides over that?

Stan:
In my example the govenment were directly responsible for both contradictory practices. In your examples they are culpable for starting off the process of metrication but abandoning it part way through leaving young people in the unenviable situation you describe.

Your position is simply that we shouldn't have started the process of metrication in the first place. My position is that given that we have done so and can't undo it we'd be better off finishing the job.

re (Stan): "..forcing people to use imperial when they travel by car.."


REPLY:

ACT 1 SCENE 1: A suburban kitchen in East Cheam at 6.30pm on a weekday evening:

Husband arrives home, parks his car in the garage...

Wife (cheerful): "Hallo dear!"

Husband (dour): "Hallo"

Wife: "Oh darling, you sound so fed up" (puts arm around him)

Husband (even more dour): "I'm fed up. The roads..."

Wife: "Oh I know darling, the traffic's awful - and it's getting worse. Sit down while I make you a nice cup of tea. I've got something *really nice* for dinner tonight - just wait and see"

Husband: "No, not the traffic, don't you see. It's those road signs. Every day it's the same. Miles, yards, feet, inches, everywhere I go. They're just forcing it down our throats...making us use them day after day after day. What's the point of sending our kids to school to learn metric - when they grow up and are able to drive, they'll be forced to use those signs as well. Is there no end in sight?"

Wife: "That's funny, darling, I saw this survey the other day which said that 11 out of every 12 people actuallly want the signs to stay as they are"

Husband: "You're a lot of help, you are..."

<<
I believe that metric should be used exclusively and see no room for imperial for the purpose of measurement in the 21st century - and I do mean for the (practical) purpose of measurement.
>>

Stan, that is an intersting clarification of your position. I have a question for you. Do you support the use of criminal penalties for those who use units of measurement that are not authorised by the government (for example, the so-called metric martyrs)? If so, do you believe that there is a difference between censorship of content of books, etc. and censorship of weights and measures? What is the difference?

Bud, let me answer your question by turning it round.

Do you believe that when you by something from a trader who sells you the goods by weight or volume that what you get should be exactly as stated?

If so how do you check or verify that what has been supplied to you is correct?

<<Do you support the use of criminal penalties for those who use units of measurement that are not authorised by the government (for example, the so-called metric martyrs)? If so, do you believe that there is a difference between censorship of content of books, etc. and censorship of weights and measures? What is the difference?>>

I'm not Stan, obviously, but I'll try an answer too. Commercial speech is much more regulated (in the US) than private or political speech which is where our usually notions of free speech apply. A business needs to be able to prove if ghallenged the claims they make about their product. The government doesn't have to prove they are false, the firm has to prove they are true.

Also, the government has the power to fix weights and measures. Why should taxpayers pay to support stones, or some ancient Roman unit of weight that no one understands just because a trader wants to use it.

Obviously, the situation is a little different now. We (both US and UK) are trying to change from one formally sanctioned system to a new one. But still, a business has the obligation to sell fair measure using the system of units sanctioned for trade. Criminal penalties should apply to traders who disobey the rules.

That doesn't stop people from telling their friends the weight of their baby in pounds (unless they are selling it).

Stan - have yo ubeen on "Question Time"? Questioner: "Answer me yes or No!" . Panellist: "It is the previous government that.....etc".

<<People continue to use and think in miles and yards for example because Britian hasn't allowed the metre and kilometre on British road signs and speed limits. How can anyone justify teaching metric at school but forcing people to use imperial when they travel by car? What kind of government is it that willingly presides over that?>>

One that has higher priorities on their hands. Like terrorism, defence, heath and freedom.

Get used to it - We don't live in a country called "The EU"




Yet.

Re: Where do you stand? July 14 2005, 12:04 AM

Bud
<<Do you support the use of criminal penalties for those who use units of measurement that are not authorised by the government (for example, the so-called metric martyrs)? If so, do you believe that there is a difference between censorship of content of books, etc. and censorship of weights and measures? What is the difference?>>

metre
Apart from outright fraud there are no criminal penalties for weight and measure infringements only administrative ones. Nor are there any similarities between freedom of expression, a very complex and contentious field and straightforward matters of uniform weights and measures. To try to connect these totally different issues is to say the least mind boggling. Maybe the following excerpt and links about weight and measure related penalties give you an idea how tightly that subject is regulated

Vermont USA:
The business is given every possible chance to correct weights and measures violations. If after repeated attempts by the department to get compliance, or if the violation is so severe that the company should have caught and corrected it, the Commissioner may impose an administrative penalty on the violator. The penalty can be up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum of $25,000. During this biennium, the Commissioner issued two administrative penalties. One of the penalties was to a gas station for a short measure pump and the other was to a large chain store for short weight cheese. Consumer Assurance inspectors have since conducted follow-up inspections at these locations and found good compliance.

For more information :

http://www.vermontagriculture.com/pidconsumer.htm

http://www.nwml.gov.uk/legis/enforce.asp

<< One that has higher priorities on their hands. Like terrorism, defence, heath and freedom.>>

That's a bit rich coming from someone who supports wasting money on replacing harmless pedestrian signs just coz they have metres on them.

<<Get used to it - We don't live in a country called "The EU">>

That isn't the reason for it, you're obviously not paying attention.

<<
Do you believe that when you by something from a trader who sells you the goods by weight or volume that what you get should be exactly as stated?
If so how do you check or verify that what has been supplied to you is correct?
>>

Yes, I believe that you should get exactly what is stated.
Let me rephrase my question. Do you believe there should be legal consequences for labelling in a unit of measurement that is not authorised by the government, EVEN IF the packet contains as much as the label says?

<<<< One that has higher priorities on their hands. Like terrorism, defence, heath and freedom.>>

That's a bit rich coming from someone who supports wasting money on replacing harmless pedestrian signs just coz they have metres on them.
>>>>

You've got a point - I think that that government should spend less money on heaths as they are self-governing through natural means.

I have a heath near me which is quite grassy, but very "natural". It needs no government money.

Usually to the right and away from the window. I stood on my head several times as a breathing exercise, but that's in the past.

Bud wrote

<<
Let me rephrase my question. Do you believe there should be legal consequences for labelling in a unit of measurement that is not authorised by the government, EVEN IF the packet contains as much as the label says?
>>

But who specifies what the unit of measure is? How much is a gallon? A gallon is legally defiend in the US and also in the UK. If SteveH decided to buy a "gallon of Ale" when he goes to the Bahamas and the local law does not specify how much a gallon is, then which gallon should be used - the UK gallon or the US gallon? That is why Governments specify what usits shall be used - it make the resolution of disputes much easier.

<<Yes, I believe that you should get exactly what is stated.
Let me rephrase my question. Do you believe there should be legal consequences for labelling in a unit of measurement that is not authorised by the government, EVEN IF the packet contains as much as the label says?
>>

Yes. I would be opposed if gas (petrol) stations used their choice of US and Imperial gallons because it would be hard to compare. There are many other obscure volumetric measures from other cultures that could be brought back. But I'm too lazy to look up a bunch of them, so I'll just ask, should it be illegal to sell gas in Roman amphoras, if they use "regulation" amphoras. I can't possibly understand every measure available and know what I'm really getting even if they are honest.

Now when we officially change from one measure to another, there probably needs to be a period when both are legal, or at least the old one tolerated as supplemental -- but for a period of time, we can debate how long but not infinity.

<<when he goes to the Bahamas and the local law does not specify how much a gallon is, then which gallon should be used>>

1) I don't think they had ale there
2) I hate ale
3) Drinking a gallon of the stuff would make me queasy
4) Who ever asks for a gallon of ale?
5) Correct, I am being pedantic

"Drinking a gallon of the stuff would make me queasy"

I'm sure it wouldn't if you drank another gallon on top of it.

Stan: "Anti-imperialism July 13 2005, 4:40 PM


I believe Britain should now be taking the matter of the duality of measurement seriously. The present situation is nonsense to any right minded person..."

All Brits on these boards should read Stan's above post on this board.
As an Australian, I can't make you see the light, but perhaps one of your own can. The whole idea of "dual" systems of weights and measures in Britain is clumsy, impractical, and ultimately only workable, if it can be called that, through the exercise of the very force of imposition that British imperials profess to hate and see in the enforcement of the metric. The "dual" solution is no solution and it will take a considerable application of force to make it work. Give it up. Go with the flow and get rid of a system that exists only as an example and symbol of culture but for all practical purposes is defunct in the vast majority of the world's countries. Or it must be a case of: Go Liberia. Go Burma. Go Bahamas. Go USA. Go UK. Go to hell the rest of you.

<<All Brits on these boards should read Stan's above post on this board.
>>

Good advice for the Americans too, although the examples differ slightly, the problem is essentially the same.

Re: Where do you stand? July 15 2005, 1:36 PM


Stan: "Anti-imperialism July 13 2005, 4:40 PM


Rip
All Brits on these boards should read Stan's above post on this board.
As an Australian, I can't make you see the light, but perhaps one of your own can. The whole idea of "dual" systems of weights and measures in Britain is clumsy, impractical, and ultimately only workable, if it can be called that, through the exercise of the very force of imposition that British imperials profess to hate and see in the enforcement of the metric. The "dual" solution is no solution and it will take a considerable application of force to make it work. Give it up. Go with the flow and get rid of a system that exists only as an example and symbol of culture but for all practical purposes is defunct in the vast majority of the world's countries. Or it must be a case of: Go Liberia. Go Burma. Go Bahamas. Go USA. Go UK. Go to hell the rest of you.

metre
YES. this is my kind of music!

<<
But who specifies what the unit of measure is? How much is a gallon? A gallon is legally defiend in the US and also in the UK. If SteveH decided to buy a "gallon of Ale" when he goes to the Bahamas and the local law does not specify how much a gallon is, then which gallon should be used - the UK gallon or the US gallon? That is why Governments specify what usits shall be used - it make the resolution of disputes much easier.
>>

Martin, there is this thing called "common sense" that judges are supposed to use to settle disputes. If you are in Britain, British gallons are used. If you are in America, American gallons are used. If you are somewhere else, and for whatever reason an ACTUAL (not in someone's imagination) problem exists regarding the different definitions of a gallon, then the government can and should step in. But I don't think this problem exists anywhere in the world at the present time.

<<
There are many other obscure volumetric measures from other cultures that could be brought back. But I'm too lazy to look up a bunch of them, so I'll just ask, should it be illegal to sell gas in Roman amphoras, if they use "regulation" amphoras. I can't possibly understand every measure available and know what I'm really getting even if they are honest.
>>
If you didn't understand the measurement, you wouldn't buy it. If there were no government regulation of measurement of petrol, then the entire market would quickly standardise to one unit anyway, and those who didn't go along with it would go out of business (like the Shell oil example that someone posted earlier).

<<Martin, there is this thing called "common sense" that judges are supposed to use to settle disputes. If you are in Britain, British gallons are used. If you are in America, American gallons are used. If you are somewhere else, and for whatever reason an ACTUAL (not in someone's imagination) problem exists regarding the different definitions of a gallon, then the government can and should step in. But I don't think this problem exists anywhere in the world at the present time.>>

Judges don't really apply common sense. Their job is to interpret the law as it applies to the case (which would be a lot easier if laws were in simple English, but that's another issue).

The problem doesn't exist BECAUSE governments regulate weights & measures. If you read NIST SP447, you will see that the US had multiple gallons and bushels in play prior to 1832 when the Federal government standardized the definition of a US gallon and bushel. It is actually mostly state regulations, not Federal, that require the use of the US gallon and bushel, not Imperial, but the Federal government who defined them. The only reason it isn't a mess today is that 1832 was a long time ago.

If we ever make metric standard in the US to set t = 0, 170+ years later, it won't seem like a problem either. In 1832, some probably protested the standardization.

The UK obviously had its own mess around the time of the Magna Carta, and began regulating weights and measures. We generally benefitted from that until the Revolution, and had standards running amok until 1832. There is no evidence that was a good thing, and I have no wish to return to it.

<<Judges don't really apply common sense. Their job is to interpret the law as it applies to the case (which would be a lot easier if laws were in simple English, but that's another issue).>>

You have no idea. Anyone who has had to read the masterworks of grammatical mediocrity that are our laws can attest to the fact that our legislators do not have a strong enough grasp on how English grammar is actually supposed to work. The thing that causes the most trouble is that most of them wouldn't know what the correct use of a comma looks like if they were staring right at it. And judges are just as bad. If you understand how to use a comma, never, ever read a judicial opinion construing a statute. It will make you crazy. Honestly, though, mastery of advanced English grammar ought to be a prerequisite for law school. Maybe then we could get some judges who are capable of actually understanding the Constitution as written.

* * *

1 amphora = 26.256 L

My truck's gas tank has a capacity of about 2.225 amphorae, and I get about 53.92 leagues to the amphora. ;-)

<<My truck's gas tank has a capacity of about 2.225 amphorae, and I get about 53.92 leagues to the amphora. ;-)
>>

Thank you. I'll feel much better about going to Amphoroco now. :)

Bud:
"Yes, I believe that you should get exactly what is stated.
Let me rephrase my question. Do you believe there should be legal consequences for labelling in a unit of measurement that is not authorised by the government, EVEN IF the packet contains as much as the label says?"

Stan:
Obviously my answer to that is going to be in the affirmative but we need to explore the reasons for it.

You say "EVEN IF the packet contains as much as the label says". My qustion is how do you know this? Would you always be prepared to rely on the seller for their honesty? If not would you be satisfied with checking it yourself when in doubt?

(With all due respect to other posters above I don't think anyone has quite latched on to the point I'm making here).

<<My truck's gas tank has a capacity of about 2.225 amphorae, and I get about 53.92 leagues to the amphora>>

What was the amphora's capacity in US and imperial gallons? And is the league you use here the traditional league of 3 statute miles or about 4.8km.

You don't need me to tell you what an amphora is in gallons. I gave it to you in liters; all you need is a calculator and a conversion factor. A convenient chart with conversion values can be found here: http://dreamwater.org/whittenword/sovrealm/inchpound.htm

The league I use is 3 miles. And, just to make it difficult, it's 3 US Survey miles. This league is, therefore, about 3/8 in. longer than the international league. Close enough for government work ;-)

NLS
A convenient chart with conversion values can be found here:

metre
What would America do without conversion charts?

The league can be anything from 5000 varas (4.2 km) to 6 km. http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3h1ejp8oc06kj?tname=league-unit&method=6&sbid=lc04b

I think the League of League-Using Nations should have a conference to reconcile the value. (Actually, I think 3 nautical miles is more common than statute miles.)

Just think of the league as 5 km and be over with it. This way you can easily multiply by 5 to get proper units. Thus Jules Verne's book, 20 000 leagues under the sea can be thought of as 100 000 km or 100 Mm. Very easy and simple.

Captain Nemo would NEVER be so casual about his navigation. Why, he might smack into an undersea rock (like a recent unfortunate American sub captain). He means 60,000 nautical miles, nothing more, nothing less.

Now the only question is whether it is a nautical mile of 6080.2' (US historical), 6080' (Admiralty), 1852 m (In't'l) or 1853 m (modern UK). But I'm sure Jules meant the Admiralty mile, and the Nautilus went 111 191 km.

I thought everyone who still uses the nautical mile today uses the 1852 m definition and all others are deprecated.

The UK's SI 1995 #1804 specifies 1853 m, making them a "rogue nation" in metrology.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951804_en_2.htm

But Jules Verne wrote the book well before that figure was adopted, and I assert (with no hope of proof) he meant the Admiralty mile.

You would have thought that at least there would be an internationally standardized nautical or sea mile in this day and age, but it appears not, not even in 2005. It gets more and more absurd. Why aren't metres and kilometres used at sea, and sea miles just scrapped? Or is there some technical reason for using a special unit of distance at sea or in aviation for navigation purposes, or something like that? And do they use metric mils, 6400 mils to the circle, for sea and air navigation at all?

"1 amphora = 26.256 L

My truck's gas tank has a capacity of about 2.225 amphorae, and I get about 53.92 leagues to the amphora. ;-)"

Was the amphora's equivalent volume originally given in litres in your source or reference, or did you convert it from imperial or US gallons?

<<You would have thought that at least there would be an internationally standardized nautical or sea mile in this day and age, but it appears not, not even in 2005.>>
There is, 1852 m, only the UK elects not to use it.

The nautical mile is meant to approximate 1' arc of latitude anywhere, or of longitude at the equator (meredians converge at the poles). Since the world is ellipsoid, these aren't the same. It is usually based on some "equivalent" spehrical earth.

The assumption greatly simplifies spherical trigonometry for navigation, but modern precision (GPS) requires recognizing the ellipsoid or the geoid (the mean height of sea level given that gravity is "lumpy" due to irregular mass distribution). For non-GPS small boat navigation, it is still a useful unit.

<<You would have thought that at least there would be an internationally standardized nautical or sea mile in this day and age, but it appears not, not even in 2005.>>
<<There is, 1852 m, only the UK elects not to use it.>>

Then this raises the question of why does Britain not use the internationally standard 1852m sea mile? Again, it seems pretty absurd that the UK uses a sea mile (1853m) that's only one metre longer than the international standard. Or is it a case of "we just have to be different"? There must be some sound technical reason for it. I am sure it wouldn't have be done on a whim.

The previous anonymous post entry is me: Rip.