I wouldn't have minded the ML markings. Seriously, one cannot always assume that the typeface is not in all CAPITAL letters. Let's not freak out every time we see ML.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [USMA:46139] Rubbermaid gets it wrong --- and makes the case
for metric
From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, November 08, 2009 11:58 pm
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
I'm staying at a residence hotel while visiting my company's headquarters in Silicon Valley for a bunch of meetings. They provide a small kitchen and some basic utensils to cook with.
One item that caught my eye is the Rubbermaid measuring cup in metric and US Customary. I wrote Rubbermaid that ML is not the right symbol for a 16 fluid ounce measuring cup. I hope they fix such errors on all their products.
However, the more striking thing to me is that the USC measures are listed side-by-side in ounces (1 to 16), pints (1/3, 2/3, 1/2, then again 1/3, 2/3, and 1 PT, plus cups (1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1C, 1/4, 1/3, 3/4, 2C). Beside the confusion (for me) of repeating the same measures twice between 1/2 PT and 1PT and again between 1C and 2C, the thing I notice the most is the weird multiplicity of units that don't connect with each other in any coherent way. Contrast this with the metric measure (wrongly labeled in ML, of course) that has a single vertical line marked this way:
100 ML
200 ML
300 ML
400 ML
500 ML
Aside from the fact that it should be 100 ml, etc. (or 100 mL), what could be cleaner and simpler? It's like the cup almost screams out to say: You want convoluted? Use USC!!! You want simple? Use metric!
Or at least that's how I see it .... :-)
Ezra
