Martin, The original author was just getting in some satirical jabs =) I was surprised by all the hostility directed toward the cmo idea.
This wasn't my quote, its from various blogs criticizing the article. It seems all antiquated measures are poorly defined. Look at the different pints or cwt, etc. On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:20:16 -0000, "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Bernard > > There is already have a unit of measure that equates to a cubic cubit. > The > cubit is not precisely defined, so if we define it as being 541 mm, a > cubic > cubit comes out at 158 litres which is a barrel! > > BTW, my "cubit" is 49.5 cm and I am 182 cm tall, so a cubic of 54.1 cm > would > be reasonable for a person who was say 195 cm tall. > > Martin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bernard Rachtmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:12 PM > Subject: [USMA:37884] Re: Joules, BTUs, Quads > > > > Here are some comments from bloggers on the CMO idea: > > > > "Pardon my smugness -- it comes from being raised in a land that uses > > the metric system. So this idea that's been making the rounds -- > > expressing energy content in "cubic miles of oil" -- don't impress me > > much. Why not cubic cubits? > > > [... snip ...] > -- Bernard Rachtmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software or over the web
