In my case, I have a digital scale. The switch on the back is set to kg, so when I step on it, the display is in kg.
The last time I was at the doctor, they had new scales that could be set to either lb or kg, and a height measuring device that had both in and cm scales. The doctors are old school and put your weight into their computer in lb. (The computer then converts it.) So thats how I know my height. My height does not vary significantly, and the accuracy cannot be determined to millimeter precision. I have not converted either measure in many years. With regard to spelling, sorry, both are right. In the USA its meter, theater, center. In Canada and the UK its metre, theatre, centre. Its a regionalism, NOT an error. Milliard is also a confusion as there is a logical progression with million, billion, trillion, quadrillion. To me, milliard is like saying millimeter, centimeter, decimeter, meter rather than millimeter, meter. What is wrong is not using meter for metre. What IS wrong is using inch, foot, yard, mile, etc., instead of meter or metre or whatever. Carleton From: Kilopascal [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 23:48 To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:52303] Re: The Metric System, the United States of America, and Scientific Literacy | Sci-Ed I was curious, so I posted a comment asking if the height and weight given came about by measurement or conversion. Here is what I said: You said: Heres a quick quiz: I weigh 71 kilograms, and am about 1.82 meters tall. How did you come about those values? By actual measurement or conversion? If by conversion, tray an actual measurement in metric and report it back here. It would be interesting to see if there is a difference as the USC measurement could be in error due to bias, over rounding or guesswork. Conversions could also introduce some errors for the same reason. Another point, it is not necessary to spell out the words when using SI, simply use the standardized symbols. Thus you will have a mass of 71 kg and a height of 1.82 m or 182 cm. By using symbols, you avoid using the incorrect spelling for metre. Metre is a unit and meter is a device to measure with. It just seemed that a height of 1.82 m was just a conversion of 6 ft and a height of exactly 6 ft may be biased as an easy number to remember. I would be curious to know what results he gets my actually measuring in metric instead of just converting. [USMA:52303] Re: The Metric System, the United States of America, and Scientific Literacy | Sci-Ed <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22%5BUSM A%3A52303%5D+Re%3A+The+Metric+System%2C+the+United+States+of+America%2C+and+ Scientific+Literacy+%7C+Sci-Ed%22> John M. Steele <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22John+M.+S teele%22> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:32:39 -0800 <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20130202> I agree either 182 cm or 1.82 m is equally valid. The 1.82 m form has the advantage that it is directly usable in BMI calculation: 71 kg/(1.82 m)² = 21.4 kg/m² (he's pretty skinny). Some would argue centimeters should be discouraged (I don't particularly agree). For a human height, I would prefer either to 1820 mm, but I would use 1820 (without units) on an engineering drawing.
