Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On 7 October 2011 00:59, Weaver wea...@riseup.net wrote: but I'll bet not one in a thousand has ever heard of a gill. (BTW, Wiki says to say jill.) 4 oz. is 1/4 of a US pint. The Artha thesaurus-cum-dictionary has this to say: * gill ~ noun uncommon 1. a British imperial capacity unit (liquid or dry) equal to 5 fluid ounces or 142.066 cubic centimeters 2. a United States liquid unit equal to 4 fluid ounces * 5 fl.oz. is 1/4 of an Imperial pint. Ash's Dictionary (1775) Gill (s. from the barbarous Lat. gilla) A liquid measure containing the fourth part of a pint. I haven't looked up pint for fear it might tell me that it is a liquid measure containing four gills! Terence -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFG91EOyzGtxWcuYx=ob=HCUDdRvHDP=eGuS9L4sc8vw=us@mail.gmail.com
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:03:13 +0100 Terence terence.j...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 October 2011 00:59, Weaver wea...@riseup.net wrote: but I'll bet not one in a thousand has ever heard of a gill. (BTW, Wiki says to say jill.) 4 oz. is 1/4 of a US pint. The Artha thesaurus-cum-dictionary has this to say: * gill ~ noun uncommon 1. a British imperial capacity unit (liquid or dry) equal to 5 fluid ounces or 142.066 cubic centimeters 2. a United States liquid unit equal to 4 fluid ounces * 5 fl.oz. is 1/4 of an Imperial pint. Ash's Dictionary (1775) Gill (s. from the barbarous Lat. gilla) A liquid measure containing the fourth part of a pint. I haven't looked up pint for fear it might tell me that it is a liquid measure containing four gills! Yes, it's sitting there waiting for you like a reptile in the dark. An imperial pint is 600 ml. Regards, Weaver. -- In a world without walls and fences, what need have we for Windows or Gates? -Anon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111007173627.1d01201c.wea...@riseup.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On 7 October 2011 08:36, Weaver wea...@riseup.net wrote: On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:03:13 +0100 Terence terence.j...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 October 2011 00:59, Weaver wea...@riseup.net wrote: but I'll bet not one in a thousand has ever heard of a gill. (BTW, Wiki says to say jill.) 4 oz. is 1/4 of a US pint. The Artha thesaurus-cum-dictionary has this to say: * gill ~ noun uncommon 1. a British imperial capacity unit (liquid or dry) equal to 5 fluid ounces or 142.066 cubic centimeters 2. a United States liquid unit equal to 4 fluid ounces * 5 fl.oz. is 1/4 of an Imperial pint. Ash's Dictionary (1775) Gill (s. from the barbarous Lat. gilla) A liquid measure containing the fourth part of a pint. Yes, it's sitting there waiting for you like a reptile in the dark. An imperial pint is 600 ml. Confronting my fears shows them again to be groundless (at the start): Pint (s. from the Saxon) A liquid measure, half a quart. Twelve ounces with physicians. and: Quart (s. from the French) The fourth part of a gallon; the vessel in which strong beer is generally retailed. and, to complete the circle: Gallon (s. from the low Lat, gelo) A liquid measure of four quarts I think I could do with a gallon of strong beer.. Terence -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cafg91epbaumupuh+ahkxuvbvfv1jpfbawwr21h8mdbzn-1e...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:36:27 +1000 Weaver wea...@riseup.net wrote: On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:03:13 +0100 Terence terence.j...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 October 2011 00:59, Weaver wea...@riseup.net wrote: but I'll bet not one in a thousand has ever heard of a gill. (BTW, Wiki says to say jill.) 4 oz. is 1/4 of a US pint. The Artha thesaurus-cum-dictionary has this to say: * gill ~ noun uncommon 1. a British imperial capacity unit (liquid or dry) equal to 5 fluid ounces or 142.066 cubic centimeters 2. a United States liquid unit equal to 4 fluid ounces * 5 fl.oz. is 1/4 of an Imperial pint. Ash's Dictionary (1775) Gill (s. from the barbarous Lat. gilla) A liquid measure containing the fourth part of a pint. I haven't looked up pint for fear it might tell me that it is a liquid measure containing four gills! This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint seems close enough. Yes, it's sitting there waiting for you like a reptile in the dark. An imperial pint is 600 ml. Not here at the centre of the old Empire, it isn't, it's 568ml to the nearest one, four times the gill given above. It wasn't that long ago that the official unit of spirits as dispensed in English pubs was 1/6 gill. -- Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111007115051.5edf3...@jretrading.com
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 02:54:42PM +, Curt wrote: A liter of water weighs a kilo and is one meter long (at sea level). A liter of water can be any length you want[1] (at any altitude), depending on its cross-section. [1] Well, OK, there is an upper limit, depending on how close you require the molecules to be in order to still be considered a contiguous liter of water. If we require them to be separated by a maximum distance of 2.75 angstroms (the diameter of a water molecule, according to a quick google search), that gives a maximum length of 1.656 x 10e14 meters, or roughly 28 times Pluto's mean orbital radius. -- Dave Sherohman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111006122646.ga23...@sherohman.org
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On 2011-10-06, Dave Sherohman d...@sherohman.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 02:54:42PM +, Curt wrote: A liter of water weighs a kilo and is one meter long (at sea level). A liter of water can be any length you want[1] (at any altitude), depending on its cross-section. Yes, this was a lame attempt at humor on my part (you snipped my pun). [1] Well, OK, there is an upper limit, depending on how close you require the molecules to be in order to still be considered a contiguous Close enough to be weighed together on my kitchen scale. liter of water. If we require them to be separated by a maximum distance of 2.75 angstroms (the diameter of a water molecule, according to a quick google search), that gives a maximum length of 1.656 x 10e14 meters, or roughly 28 times Pluto's mean orbital radius. That's one hell of a long (last) straw. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnj8ral3.2uj.cu...@einstein.electron.org
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Wednesday 05 October 2011 01:02:36 Weaver wrote: I think it's a pity that the gill has fallen into misuse. Its usefulness is limited by the fact that it is not a fixed measure, but covers various different amounts according to the region in which it is used, anyhow in the UK. Hence, I imagine its decline, with the ubiquity of television cooks. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201110061656.27878.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:56:27 +0100 Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 05 October 2011 01:02:36 Weaver wrote: I think it's a pity that the gill has fallen into misuse. Its usefulness is limited by the fact that it is not a fixed measure, but covers various different amounts according to the region in which it is used, anyhow in the UK. Hence, I imagine its decline, with the ubiquity of television cooks. In a professional food career that spans over forty years, from base level commis pastry chef to successful consultancy practice, I have never known a gill to be any other than 150ml. The vast majority of 'TV cooks' are a social sub-group that I'm afraid I have grown to despise in the interim, especially in regard to pastry work, where many professional chefs could not be rated as any more than woeful. Regards, Weaver. -- In a world without walls and fences, what need have we for Windows or Gates? -Anon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111007061841.74348d61.wea...@riseup.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Thursday 06 October 2011 21:18:41 Weaver wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:56:27 +0100 Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 05 October 2011 01:02:36 Weaver wrote: I think it's a pity that the gill has fallen into misuse. Its usefulness is limited by the fact that it is not a fixed measure, but covers various different amounts according to the region in which it is used, anyhow in the UK. Hence, I imagine its decline, with the ubiquity of television cooks. In a professional food career that spans over forty years, from base level commis pastry chef to successful consultancy practice, I have never known a gill to be any other than 150ml. The vast majority of 'TV cooks' are a social sub-group that I'm afraid I have grown to despise in the interim, especially in regard to pastry work, where many professional chefs could not be rated as any more than woeful. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gill Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201110062143.55640.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 21:43:55 +0100 Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 06 October 2011 21:18:41 Weaver wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:56:27 +0100 Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 05 October 2011 01:02:36 Weaver wrote: I think it's a pity that the gill has fallen into misuse. Its usefulness is limited by the fact that it is not a fixed measure, but covers various different amounts according to the region in which it is used, anyhow in the UK. Hence, I imagine its decline, with the ubiquity of television cooks. In a professional food career that spans over forty years, from base level commis pastry chef to successful consultancy practice, I have never known a gill to be any other than 150ml. The vast majority of 'TV cooks' are a social sub-group that I'm afraid I have grown to despise in the interim, especially in regard to pastry work, where many professional chefs could not be rated as any more than woeful. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gill Then 'wiktionary' and 'regions' are wrong. I have worked through northern Italy, France, Austria, Australia and New Zealand and have never come across a variance. Perhaps a higher authority? http://www.amazon.com/Larousse-Gastronomique-Greatest-Encyclopedia-Completely/dp/0307464911 You should find a copy in the library of your local food college. Regards, Weaver. -- In a world without walls and fences, what need have we for Windows or Gates? -Anon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111007074227.215b6a04.wea...@riseup.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Thursday 06 October 2011 22:42:27 Weaver wrote: Then 'wiktionary' and 'regions' are wrong. I have worked through northern Italy, France, Austria, Australia and New Zealand and have never come across a variance. Perhaps a higher authority? But not the UK. It may indeed be different everywhere else, I have no experience of it. But in the UK, anyhow amongst the general population, gill has various meanings around the country. Exactly as Wiktionary says. And I do not know what a food college is. I could guess. And I shan't reply again. I know that in this specific case, I am right. And I am therefore not interested in your assertion that the rest of the world has a fixed, metric definition of gill. I do not live in the rest of the world. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201110062307.04703.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On 10/06/2011 04:18 PM, Weaver wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:56:27 +0100 Lisilisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 05 October 2011 01:02:36 Weaver wrote: I think it's a pity that the gill has fallen into misuse. Its usefulness is limited by the fact that it is not a fixed measure, but covers various different amounts according to the region in which it is used, anyhow in the UK. Hence, I imagine its decline, with the ubiquity of television cooks. In a professional food career that spans over forty years, from base level commis pastry chef to successful consultancy practice, I have never known a gill to be any other than 150ml. The vast majority of 'TV cooks' are a social sub-group that I'm afraid I have grown to despise in the interim, especially in regard to pastry work, where many professional chefs could not be rated as any more than woeful. Regards, Weaver. The units program says a gill is 118.3 ml. If you look at the data script for units, there is a very impressive list of sources. I believe that the units program was first mentioned in this thread, so it is definitely available in Debian. --doug -- Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e8e2b51.8020...@optonline.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:27:29 -0400 Doug dmcgarr...@optonline.net wrote: On 10/06/2011 04:18 PM, Weaver wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:56:27 +0100 Lisilisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 05 October 2011 01:02:36 Weaver wrote: I think it's a pity that the gill has fallen into misuse. Its usefulness is limited by the fact that it is not a fixed measure, but covers various different amounts according to the region in which it is used, anyhow in the UK. Hence, I imagine its decline, with the ubiquity of television cooks. In a professional food career that spans over forty years, from base level commis pastry chef to successful consultancy practice, I have never known a gill to be any other than 150ml. The vast majority of 'TV cooks' are a social sub-group that I'm afraid I have grown to despise in the interim, especially in regard to pastry work, where many professional chefs could not be rated as any more than woeful. Regards, Weaver. The units program says a gill is 118.3 ml. If you look at the data script for units, there is a very impressive list of sources. I believe that the units program was first mentioned in this thread, so it is definitely available in Debian. I beleive that the U.S. gill has some variance, which is what this may refer to. As far as the U.K goes, london City and Guild training is 142. so many particles, but try measuring that by eye. So the world, sensibly, defaults to 150 ml, which you can readily find on the side of any measuring glass and a variance that any recipe can absorb. Regards, Weaver. -- In a world without walls and fences, what need have we for Windows or Gates? -Anon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111007083843.20e4e028.wea...@riseup.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On 10/06/2011 06:38 PM, Weaver wrote: The units program says a gill is 118.3 ml. If you look at the data script for units, there is a very impressive list of sources. I believe that the units program was first mentioned in this thread, so it is definitely available in Debian. I beleive that the U.S. gill has some variance, which is what this may refer to. As far as the U.K goes, london City and Guild training is 142. so many particles, but try measuring that by eye. So the world, sensibly, defaults to 150 ml, which you can readily find on the side of any measuring glass and a variance that any recipe can absorb. Regards, Weaver. Going back to units program, convert gill to fluid ounces. It comes to exactly 4 fluid ounces, or 1/2 cup. (US measure.) At least this is a reasonable measure, since cooks are likely to have measuring cups. Any housewife can measure that, but I'll bet not one in a thousand has ever heard of a gill. (BTW, Wiki says to say jill.) 4 oz. is 1/4 of a US pint. The Artha thesaurus-cum-dictionary has this to say: * gill ~ noununcommon 1. a British imperial capacity unit (liquid or dry) equal to 5 fluid ounces or 142.066 cubic centimeters 2. a United States liquid unit equal to 4 fluid ounces * 5 fl.oz. is 1/4 of an Imperial pint. Perhaps we have all the definitions we need by now-- whoever said this is variable was certainly right! --doug -- Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e8e36f0.5070...@optonline.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:17:04 -0400 Doug dmcgarr...@optonline.net wrote: On 10/06/2011 06:38 PM, Weaver wrote: The units program says a gill is 118.3 ml. If you look at the data script for units, there is a very impressive list of sources. I believe that the units program was first mentioned in this thread, so it is definitely available in Debian. I beleive that the U.S. gill has some variance, which is what this may refer to. As far as the U.K goes, london City and Guild training is 142. so many particles, but try measuring that by eye. So the world, sensibly, defaults to 150 ml, which you can readily find on the side of any measuring glass and a variance that any recipe can absorb. Regards, Weaver. Going back to units program, convert gill to fluid ounces. It comes to exactly 4 fluid ounces, or 1/2 cup. (US measure.) That is where the only variable comes in, as I said, with the U.S. measure. But that's because it is based on the U.S. Pint. At least this is a reasonable measure, since cooks are likely to have measuring cups. Any housewife can measure that, many don't even use measuring cups, but have their old and tried 'special' cup that they have trained their eyes to over many years. but I'll bet not one in a thousand has ever heard of a gill. (BTW, Wiki says to say jill.) 4 oz. is 1/4 of a US pint. The Artha thesaurus-cum-dictionary has this to say: * gill ~ noununcommon 1. a British imperial capacity unit (liquid or dry) equal to 5 fluid ounces or 142.066 cubic centimeters 2. a United States liquid unit equal to 4 fluid ounces * 5 fl.oz. is 1/4 of an Imperial pint. Right! So, we finally get to it. Imperial Pint = 600 ml What is 25% or 1/4 of 600ml? Regards, Weaver. -- In a world without walls and fences, what need have we for Windows or Gates? -Anon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111007095909.4f68e04a.wea...@riseup.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 23:51 +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 15:25 -0400, Doug wrote: The US pint is 16 ounces, and the US quart and gallon are based on that. 32 oz. = 1 qt; 4 qts. = 1 gal. That's why the British gallon is 5 US quarts, or 4 British quarts. The ounce is the same size, or almost. (As wiki says, research is needed.) I'm not really sure of the history, but I *think* that all pints were once 16 ounces, thus the expression, A pint's a pound, the world around. Therefore, it would seem that the US, being the colony, kept on using the old measure, while the mother country modified it. (Since the Brits like their pint of ale, it is logical that they would take steps to get more ounces in their pint!) The fluid ounce is not exactly 1 avoirdupois ounce, but it must be close, because of that saying. Also, one US gallon of water weighs just about 8 pounds. Interesting read ... but seriously: WTF? /me prefers litre and (kilo)gram :) As long as they aren't stored on the hips, I prefer it too :p. 1l of water (at normal pressur, temparature etc.) = 1kg, so they are good measuring units, since everybody is able to understand the relation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1317799434.2577.13.camel@debian
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 03:25:54PM -0400, Doug wrote: On 10/04/2011 07:46 AM, Tom Furie wrote: On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 03:55:45PM -0400, Doug wrote: The US pint is 16 ounces, and the US quart and gallon are based on that. 32 oz. = 1 qt; 4 qts. = 1 gal. That's why the British gallon is 5 US quarts, or 4 British quarts. The ounce is the same size, or almost. (As wiki says, research is needed.) I'm not really sure of the history, but I *think* that all pints were once 16 ounces, thus the expression, A pint's a pound, the world around. Therefore, it would seem that the US, being the colony, kept on using the old measure, while the mother country modified it. (Since the Brits like their pint of ale, it is logical that they would take steps to get more ounces in their pint!) The legend I heard was that pints, gallons etc. got redefined due to the transatlantic trade in various spirits. The legend goes that a ship would be loaded with a certain number of, say, gallons of rum. Over the several weeks at sea, some of the cargo would... go missing (i.e. get consumed by the sailors). Upon arrival at the destination, however, the same number of gallons of rum would be unloaded from the ship. They were, however, smaller gallons. :) -- Darac Marjal signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:23:47 +0100 Darac Marjal mailingl...@darac.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 03:25:54PM -0400, Doug wrote: On 10/04/2011 07:46 AM, Tom Furie wrote: On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 03:55:45PM -0400, Doug wrote: The US pint is 16 ounces, and the US quart and gallon are based on that. 32 oz. = 1 qt; 4 qts. = 1 gal. That's why the British gallon is 5 US quarts, or 4 British quarts. The ounce is the same size, or almost. (As wiki says, research is needed.) I'm not really sure of the history, but I *think* that all pints were once 16 ounces, thus the expression, A pint's a pound, the world around. Therefore, it would seem that the US, being the colony, kept on using the old measure, while the mother country modified it. (Since the Brits like their pint of ale, it is logical that they would take steps to get more ounces in their pint!) The legend I heard was that pints, gallons etc. got redefined due to the transatlantic trade in various spirits. The legend goes that a ship would be loaded with a certain number of, say, gallons of rum. Over the several weeks at sea, some of the cargo would... go missing (i.e. get consumed by the sailors). Upon arrival at the destination, however, the same number of gallons of rum would be unloaded from the ship. They were, however, smaller gallons. :) Now we are getting into the urban legend end of the conversation. Rum was never shipped in gallons, it was shipped as per number of tuns, butts, hogsheads, kegs and/or kilderkins. Rum was definitely drunk by the sailors, though, in the form of 'grog', which was a watered down rum and strictly rationed. Open slather wouldn't have been risked as it was mutiny and/or cast-up-on-the-rocks territory. Regards, Weaver. -- In a world without walls and fences, what need have we for Windows or Gates? -Anon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111005195805.4f34add4.wea...@riseup.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
Ralf Mardorf writes: As long as they aren't stored on the hips, I prefer it too :p. 1l of water (at normal pressur, temparature etc.) = 1kg, so they are good measuring units, since everybody is able to understand the relation. That works as well for US pints and pounds. It's not a good way to define a unit, though. For science and engineering I prefer SI units but for everyday use I don't see what the fuss is about: the conversions are trivial. In any case I certainly don't approve of using threats of violence (i.e., laws) to force people to use any particular system. Concensus standards work quite well. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d3ebhbls@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On 2011-10-04, Walter Hurry walterhu...@lavabit.com wrote: On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:25:54 -0400, Doug wrote: One gallon of gasoline is about 6 pounds. Actually, here in the UK it's about seven pounds and fifty pence :-( Here it's very (C)artesian and makes oodles of sense. A liter of water weighs a kilo and is one meter long (at sea level). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnj8oroo.3jv.cu...@einstein.electron.org
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On 10/05/2011 05:58 AM, Weaver wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:23:47 +0100 Darac Marjalmailingl...@darac.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 03:25:54PM -0400, Doug wrote: On 10/04/2011 07:46 AM, Tom Furie wrote: On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 03:55:45PM -0400, Doug wrote: The US pint is 16 ounces, and the US quart and gallon are based on that. 32 oz. = 1 qt; 4 qts. = 1 gal. That's why the British gallon is 5 US quarts, or 4 British quarts. The ounce is the same size, or almost. (As wiki says, research is needed.) I'm not really sure of the history, but I *think* that all pints were once 16 ounces, thus the expression, A pint's a pound, the world around. Therefore, it would seem that the US, being the colony, kept on using the old measure, while the mother country modified it. (Since the Brits like their pint of ale, it is logical that they would take steps to get more ounces in their pint!) The legend I heard was that pints, gallons etc. got redefined due to the transatlantic trade in various spirits. The legend goes that a ship would be loaded with a certain number of, say, gallons of rum. Over the several weeks at sea, some of the cargo would... go missing (i.e. get consumed by the sailors). Upon arrival at the destination, however, the same number of gallons of rum would be unloaded from the ship. They were, however, smaller gallons. :) Now we are getting into the urban legend end of the conversation. Rum was never shipped in gallons, it was shipped as per number of tuns, butts, hogsheads, kegs and/or kilderkins. Rum was definitely drunk by the sailors, though, in the form of 'grog', which was a watered down rum and strictly rationed. Open slather wouldn't have been risked as it was mutiny and/or cast-up-on-the-rocks territory. Regards, Weaver. Well, a new word for me: kilderkin ~ nounvery rare 1. an obsolete British unit of capacity equal to 18 Imperial gallons Thanks to Artha, which is billed as a Thesaurus, but is a really useful dictionary as well. It's in the pclos repos, don't know about other distros. --doug --doug -- Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e8c9ae6.2030...@optonline.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
doug writes: Thanks to Artha, which is billed as a Thesaurus, but is a really useful dictionary as well. It's in the pclos repos, don't know about other distros. units knows about kilderkin, and just about any other unit of measure you can imagine. BTW a kilderkin is two firkins. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877h4jgscl@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On 10/05/2011 03:18 PM, John Hasler wrote: doug writes: Thanks to Artha, which is billed as a Thesaurus, but is a really useful dictionary as well. It's in the pclos repos, don't know about other distros. units knows about kilderkin, and just about any other unit of measure you can imagine. you're right! It even knows this: You have: furlongs per fortnight You want: miles per hour * 0.00037202381 / 2688 --doug BTW a kilderkin is two firkins. -- Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e8cd9fa.4030...@optonline.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:28:10 -0400 Doug dmcgarr...@optonline.net wrote: On 10/05/2011 03:18 PM, John Hasler wrote: doug writes: Thanks to Artha, which is billed as a Thesaurus, but is a really useful dictionary as well. It's in the pclos repos, don't know about other distros. units knows about kilderkin, and just about any other unit of measure you can imagine. you're right! It even knows this: You have: furlongs per fortnight You want: miles per hour * 0.00037202381 / 2688 --doug BTW a kilderkin is two firkins. Not to be confused with merkin, although the two will quite often be associated. Merkin also has a secondary meaning other than this also, as a contribution to the Anglophile's dictionary. An alternative to USian. Kindly donated by President Johnson. Regards, Weaver. -- In a world without walls and fences, what need have we for Windows or Gates? -Anon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111006091304.4193649d.wea...@riseup.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 03:55:45PM -0400, Doug wrote: The liquid measure is liter, used here only in medical labs and liquor stores, altho some bottled products have both ounces and liters, so as to placate the Canadians, who gave up ounces and quarts, etc., some years ago. (Some year, no doubt after I'm dead, altho will be acceptable.) Since you mention ounces, quarts, etc. Am I right in thinking that in the US a pint is 16fl.oz? Here, in Britain, a pint is 20fl.oz. Is your pint smaller, or your fl.oz larger? Or do you have different measures of the same name depending on the fluid being measured? Cheers, Tom -- * Overfiend ponders doing an NMU of asclock, in which he simply changes the extended description to If you bend over and put your head between your legs, you can read the time off your assclock. doogie Overfiend: go to bed. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
Tom Furie writes: Am I right in thinking that in the US a pint is 16fl.oz? Here, in Britain, a pint is 20fl.oz. Is your pint smaller, or your fl.oz larger? The USA customary pint is 16 fl oz. A US customary fluid ounce is 1.0408427 Imperial fluid ounces. Since 1866 both SI (metric) and US customary units have been legal for interstate trade here. The US customary system was originally derived from the British system in effect at the time of independence. It was redefined in terms of SI units in the 19th century. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obxwhmqf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On 10/04/2011 07:46 AM, Tom Furie wrote: On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 03:55:45PM -0400, Doug wrote: The liquid measure is liter, used here only in medical labs and liquor stores, altho some bottled products have both ounces and liters, so as to placate the Canadians, who gave up ounces and quarts, etc., some years ago. (Some year, no doubt after I'm dead, altho will be acceptable.) Since you mention ounces, quarts, etc. Am I right in thinking that in the US a pint is 16fl.oz? Here, in Britain, a pint is 20fl.oz. Is your pint smaller, or your fl.oz larger? Or do you have different measures of the same name depending on the fluid being measured? Cheers, Tom The US pint is 16 ounces, and the US quart and gallon are based on that. 32 oz. = 1 qt; 4 qts. = 1 gal. That's why the British gallon is 5 US quarts, or 4 British quarts. The ounce is the same size, or almost. (As wiki says, research is needed.) I'm not really sure of the history, but I *think* that all pints were once 16 ounces, thus the expression, A pint's a pound, the world around. Therefore, it would seem that the US, being the colony, kept on using the old measure, while the mother country modified it. (Since the Brits like their pint of ale, it is logical that they would take steps to get more ounces in their pint!) The fluid ounce is not exactly 1 avoirdupois ounce, but it must be close, because of that saying. Also, one US gallon of water weighs just about 8 pounds. Note that a fluid ounce could not universally equal one ounce weight, since different fluids with different densities weigh differently at the same volume. One gallon of gasoline is about 6 pounds. --doug -- Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e8b5dc2.5070...@optonline.net
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:25:54 -0400, Doug wrote: One gallon of gasoline is about 6 pounds. Actually, here in the UK it's about seven pounds and fifty pence :-( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/j6fv8t$ouf$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 15:25 -0400, Doug wrote: The US pint is 16 ounces, and the US quart and gallon are based on that. 32 oz. = 1 qt; 4 qts. = 1 gal. That's why the British gallon is 5 US quarts, or 4 British quarts. The ounce is the same size, or almost. (As wiki says, research is needed.) I'm not really sure of the history, but I *think* that all pints were once 16 ounces, thus the expression, A pint's a pound, the world around. Therefore, it would seem that the US, being the colony, kept on using the old measure, while the mother country modified it. (Since the Brits like their pint of ale, it is logical that they would take steps to get more ounces in their pint!) The fluid ounce is not exactly 1 avoirdupois ounce, but it must be close, because of that saying. Also, one US gallon of water weighs just about 8 pounds. Interesting read ... but seriously: WTF? /me prefers litre and (kilo)gram :) -- Wolodja babi...@gmail.com 4096R/CAF14EFC 081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA 36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:51:26 +0100 Wolodja Wentland babi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 15:25 -0400, Doug wrote: The US pint is 16 ounces, and the US quart and gallon are based on that. 32 oz. = 1 qt; 4 qts. = 1 gal. That's why the British gallon is 5 US quarts, or 4 British quarts. The ounce is the same size, or almost. (As wiki says, research is needed.) I'm not really sure of the history, but I *think* that all pints were once 16 ounces, thus the expression, A pint's a pound, the world around. Therefore, it would seem that the US, being the colony, kept on using the old measure, while the mother country modified it. (Since the Brits like their pint of ale, it is logical that they would take steps to get more ounces in their pint!) The fluid ounce is not exactly 1 avoirdupois ounce, but it must be close, because of that saying. Also, one US gallon of water weighs just about 8 pounds. Interesting read ... but seriously: WTF? /me prefers litre and (kilo)gram :) So do I. I think it's a pity that the gill has fallen into misuse. I find it a useful measure. Regards, Weaver. -- In a world without walls and fences, what need have we for Windows or Gates? -Anon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111005100236.75735ee3.wea...@riseup.net
