Um, technically it went metric, but they never really had the spine to enforce it, so all the kids are taught in metric, whilst the rest of the country uses imperial. If you ask about this anyone over 40 tells you it's because they find it easier to work out!!!!
Unit Relative to previous Feet Millimetres Metres Notes thou 1⁄12000 0.0254 25.4 μm The unit is known as a mil in the United States.[2] inch 1000 thou 1⁄12 25.4 foot 12 inches 1 304.8 0.3048 yard 3 feet 3 914.4 0.9144 Defined as exactly 0.9144 metres since 1956. furlong 220 yards 660 201.168 mile 8 furlongs 5280 1609.344 league 3 miles 15,840 4828.032 No longer an official unit in any nation. Maritime units fathom 6.08 or 6[3] 1,853.184 1.853184 The British Admiralty in practice used a fathom as 6 feet. This was despite its being 1⁄1000 of a nautical mile (i.e. 6.08 feet) until 1970, when the international nautical mile of exactly 1852 metres was adopted. The commonly accepted definition of a fathom was always 6 feet. The conflict was inconsequential in determining depth as Admiralty nautical charts used feet as depths below 5 fathoms on older imperial charts. Today all charts worldwide are metric, except for USA Hydrographic Office charts, which use feet for all depth ranges. cable ~100 fathoms 608 185.3184 One tenth of a nautical mile. When in use it was approximated colloquially as 100 fathoms. nautical mile 10 cables 6,080 1,853.184 Used to measure distances at sea. This value referred to the British nautical (Admiralty) mile of 6,080 ft; the modern international mile is slightly different. Gunter's survey units (17th century onwards) link 66⁄100 201.168 0.201168 pole 25 links 66⁄4 5029.2 5.0292 The pole is also called rod or perch. chain 4 poles 66 20.1168 1⁄10 furlong As you can see the imperial system is easy to use and it is definitiely more confusing to have to work of a decvimal system where everything is divided by 10. Mind you at the same time they thought that lead was safe.... -----Original Message----- From: Steve [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2009 10:03 pm To: [email protected] Subject: Re: en_nz dictionaries? On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:55:53 +1300 Volker Kuhlmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed 11 Feb 2009 10:04:31 NZDT +1300, Steve Holdoway wrote: > > > en_gb should do as a start... > > Not to step on any toes :), but the GB is no good here. You want > metric content, though the spelling would be close enough. The UK went metric when I was at school. > Steve -- Steve <[email protected]> ********************************************************************** This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council. If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete. Christchurch City Council http://www.ccc.govt.nz **********************************************************************
