Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards?

On 9/22/2014 3:14 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
> (snip on units)
>
>>> American "cup" is about 236ml.  Most measuring cups for liquid
>>> measuring (some of which are more than one cup) have metric lines
>>> also marked.
>
>>> Dry measurements are done with a set of nested cups with no lines,
>>> the come in 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, and 1 cup sizes.  You scoop into the bag
>>> of, for example, sugar, level off the top with a knife, then pour
>>> into the bowl.
>
>> And smaller quantities are handled with "(nested) measuring spoons":
>> 1/8t, 1/4t, 1/2t, 3/4t, 1t, 1T -- and, less commonly, smidgen,
>
> 1t is close to 5ml. It is commonly used for prescription
> medicine, where I believe it is exactly 5ml.
>
> I haven't seen a 3/4t, but recipes do often call for one.
> I used to have a 1/2 T, though.

I'd *like* a 1/2T (the 3/4t is obviously 1/4T) as I encounter it
pretty often (e.g., twice in the cheesecake Rx)

>> I frankly can't imagine anyone using a scale/balance and being able to
>> measure ingredients anywhere near as quickly!
>
> I probably agree for just about everything except flour.
> Flour compresses as you squeeze the air out of it, making
> volumetric measurments not so accurate.

I always measure flour the same way -- fill cup, tap side against a surface
(e.g., the large glass jar in which I store the flour), then scrape top
level.  Whether *my* "1C" of flour is identical to yours (or not) won't
matter as my Rx's are oriented to my baking and measurement styles.

E.g., I remove the chalazae from eggs in *most* Rx's -- doing so inevitably
reduces the volume of egg in the mix (but my Rx accommodates that)

>> Biggest hassle is measuring
>> liquid ingredients AND dry ingredients using the same set of spoons/cups:
>> either do ALL the dry ingredients first; or, clean and dry the spoons/cups
>> after using them on liquid measures (which commonly go into baked goods
>> *first*) before dipping them into the dry.
>
> I have enough sets to use, and then they all go into the dishwasher
> to get washed.  Buy more from a thrift store so that you have
> enough of them.

Yup.  To me, they are life-long investments.  So, I buy a nice, sturdy set.
Then, if I decide I like it, buy a few more.  They don't take up much
space, don't cost much, etc.

[Next on my list will be half a dozen more cookie sheets and an
equal number of cooling racks]

The set I had before this was disappointing.  Acceptable in their
intended application (measuring wet/dry ingredients).  But, I found
them "lacking" when I tried to use them to meter out cookie dough
for some of my Rx's -- the handles would bend from the stress of
scooping the dough out of the bowl (imagine trying to use them
to meter out ice cream as an analogy)

So, they got repurposed to meter out pesticides, fertilizer, etc.
(same units of measure!)

[Things like butter are relatively easy to measure without spoons
as the wrapped quarters tend to be marked in convenient units:
"Cut here for 1/3 cup".  Vegetable shortening ("Crisco") is the only
item that I dread measuring -- too sticky and greasy!]

In comp.arch.embedded rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

> I congratulate you on your short and to the point post... :)
 
> I don't agree however.  lol
 
> Yes, we will be using Fahrenheit for a long time to come even if we did 
> go "metric".  But in professional work it bugs me no end to see PC 
> boards being done in inches when nearly all the packages are metric! 
> Heck, even the inch is metric, defined as 0.0254 meters.

There is a story that when the USSR started making their own ICs,
some of which were copies of US ICs, they used a pin spacing
of 0.0025m, instead of 0.00254m. Sounds close, but over the length
of the package they get farther and farther off, such that they
don't fit in sockets or PC boards.

But yes, I like seeing metric units.  I always have to remember
which wrench set to get out, depending on which car I am working on.

> Professionally there is no reason to continue to use the old English 
> units and lots of reasons to not.  Actually it is not a question of 
> whether to adopt metric as we are already using metric.  The question is 
> whether we stop using the old English systems.  It's time has passed...

It is Reagan's fault.

Carter started a metric conversion. Reagan couldn't figure it out,
and canceled it. 

When gasoline prices went over $1/gal, they were still under $1/L,
and it was easier to convert most pumps to metric than to allow
for $1.00/gal or more.   That would have been a good time for the
switch, at least for gasoline.  If the government had required
the conversion for gasoline, people would start getting used to it.

-- glen

In comp.arch.embedded rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

> Here in the US the liquor industry jumped on the metric bandwagon faster 
> than any other segment of commerce.  I think the reason is because they 
> saw a way to profit by it.  When they converted, every standard size 
> bottle shrank a small amount...
 
>            Old size   New size
> Miniature   2 oz      50 ml (1.7 oz)
> Half Pint   8 oz     200 ml (6.8 oz) could have been 250 ml or 8.4 oz
> Pint       16 oz     375 ml (12.7 oz) Wow, they really whacked this one
> Fifth      25.6 oz   750 ml (25.36 oz) couldn't get much closer
> Quart      32 oz    1000 ml (33.8 oz) they broke the rule here
> Half Gal   64 oz    1750 ml (59.2 oz) back on track
 
> The quart is the only size that actually increased.  They would have had 
> to either drop the size or drop to some really odd sounding size like 
> 950 ml.
 
> The point is they likely didn't adjust the pricing initially, so they 
> made more money.  I bet this drove the tax guys nuts.  The tax is based 
> on the amount of alcohol and they used charts with sizes and proofs.  I 
> wonder if they redid the charts for metric?

Probably makes it easier shipping the same bottles to the rest of
the world.

As I noted previously, the duty free allowance coming into the US
is 1L. You will find those 1L bottles in duty free stores, though
they are hard to find other places.

For reasons I don't remember, carbonated soft drinks, such as
Coca-Cola, are commonly sold in 1L and 2L bottles, in addition
to 12oz cans and 20oz bottles.  

-- glen

On 9/22/2014 4:36 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Professionally there is no reason to continue to use the old English
>> units and lots of reasons to not.  Actually it is not a question of
>> whether to adopt metric as we are already using metric.  The question is
>> whether we stop using the old English systems.  It's time has passed...
>
> It is Reagan's fault.
>
> Carter started a metric conversion. Reagan couldn't figure it out,
> and canceled it.
>
> When gasoline prices went over $1/gal, they were still under $1/L,
> and it was easier to convert most pumps to metric than to allow
> for $1.00/gal or more.   That would have been a good time for the
> switch, at least for gasoline.  If the government had required
> the conversion for gasoline, people would start getting used to it.

... only if it also extended to other "liquid measures".

"Why is milk measured in gallons but fuel measured in liters?"

It is relatively easy for a "professional" to adopt any measurement
scheme that is compatible with the entities with which he interacts.
However, if the entity with whom you interact is The Public and
they are accustomed to dealing in one set of units, you risk making
things markedly worse.

I believe most products here are labeled in "dual units".  People can
read whichever they are most comfortable with.

For many items, the "legal units" are effectively meaningless:  do
you care how much these 8 burger buns WEIGH?  Or, are you just
interested in the fact that there are *8* of them (not 7?)
Would you care if bread was sold in 500g loaves -- instead of
pound loaves?  (you *might* if they were sold in kg loaves!)

For comparison shopping, do you care if the tag alongside the price
normalizes the cost to ounces instead of grams/liters?  All you
really care is to have a number that allows you to unambiguously
compare a "unit" of product A to an equivalent unit of product B.

Then, decide if *either* are at an appropriate total price point that
you are willing to accept.

[If, tomorrow, flour was sold in kg, NO ONE WOULD CARE.  All recipes
would still be made with "measuring spoons/cups".  You would just
have to get used to the fact that there aren't as many in a "bag of
flour" as there used to be!  But, that already happens (as I alluded
earlier).  Sugar used to be sold in 5 lb bags.  Now, they are 4 lbs.
Doesn't impact any of my recipes.  Just means I have to purchase
25% more *bags* than I did last year!  If they were kg bags, then
I'd have to buy ~TWICE as many.]

In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)
>> When gasoline prices went over $1/gal, they were still under $1/L,
>> and it was easier to convert most pumps to metric than to allow
>> for $1.00/gal or more.   That would have been a good time for the
>> switch, at least for gasoline.  If the government had required
>> the conversion for gasoline, people would start getting used to it.
 
> ... only if it also extended to other "liquid measures".

I don't think that is needed.
 
> "Why is milk measured in gallons but fuel measured in liters?"

Yes, but one shouldn't be measuring milk and gasoline with
the same measuring devices. One shouldn't store one in bottles
meant for the other.

Now, ethanol, also used as a fuel, is also used in cooking, and
in that case it could be a problem.  (Fuel ethanol might be stored
in gasoline cans and drinking ethanol in food bottles.)
 
> It is relatively easy for a "professional" to adopt any measurement
> scheme that is compatible with the entities with which he interacts.
> However, if the entity with whom you interact is The Public and
> they are accustomed to dealing in one set of units, you risk making
> things markedly worse.

I think for both professional and public it isn't so hard, as long
as you aren't mixing units too often. As noted above, you don't
normally mix gasonline and milk, so it isn't much of a problem.

The 2L soda bottles also don't seem to bother people. 
For one, soda isn't often used in recipes, and so is rarely
measured accurately.  Stores can compute "unit price" for labels
as easily in any unit. (Computers don't care.)
 
> I believe most products here are labeled in "dual units".  
> People can read whichever they are most comfortable with.

Well, as I understand it, one has to be the primary unit.
Or, the amount in the container should not be less than either.

But even so, if used when people need to measure them, 
it can be hard, and that doesn't even depend on the units.

If a recipe calls for 2.3 eggs, it is hard in English or Metric
units. Some recipes are based on the common sizes of cans.

A Coke can might say 12oz and 236ml. 

If butter comes in quarter pound sticks, that is convenient
for many recipes. If it comes in 0.1 kg sticks, not so convenient.
(It seems that the carton is marked for 453g.)  If a recipe
asks for 100g, it won't be easy to cut up a stick.

(Also, butter sticks have a different aspect ratio in eastern
and western US. I don't know why that is.)

> For many items, the "legal units" are effectively meaningless:  do
> you care how much these 8 burger buns WEIGH?  Or, are you just
> interested in the fact that there are *8* of them (not 7?)
> Would you care if bread was sold in 500g loaves -- instead of
> pound loaves?  (you *might* if they were sold in kg loaves!)

For a long time, hot dogs came in packages of 10 (per pound)
and buns bags of 8. At one point, they made bags of 10 buns,
but now they usually make 8 hot dogs in a package. 
 
> For comparison shopping, do you care if the tag alongside 
> the price normalizes the cost to ounces instead of grams/liters? 
> All you really care is to have a number that allows you to 
> unambiguously compare a "unit" of product A to an equivalent 
> unit of product B.

Most stores now have unit prices on the tag. Either required by 
law, or to make customers happy.
 
> Then, decide if *either* are at an appropriate total price 
> point that you are willing to accept.
 
> [If, tomorrow, flour was sold in kg, NO ONE WOULD CARE.  All recipes
> would still be made with "measuring spoons/cups".  You would just
> have to get used to the fact that there aren't as many in a "bag of
> flour" as there used to be!  But, that already happens (as I alluded
> earlier).  Sugar used to be sold in 5 lb bags.  Now, they are 4 lbs.
> Doesn't impact any of my recipes.  Just means I have to purchase
> 25% more *bags* than I did last year!  If they were kg bags, then
> I'd have to buy ~TWICE as many.]

As long as you don't have any recipes that use a whole bag.

-- glen

On 9/22/2014 6:05 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
> (snip, I wrote)
>>> When gasoline prices went over $1/gal, they were still under $1/L,
>>> and it was easier to convert most pumps to metric than to allow
>>> for $1.00/gal or more.   That would have been a good time for the
>>> switch, at least for gasoline.  If the government had required
>>> the conversion for gasoline, people would start getting used to it.
>
>> ... only if it also extended to other "liquid measures".
>
> I don't think that is needed.

Perhaps...

>> "Why is milk measured in gallons but fuel measured in liters?"
>
> Yes, but one shouldn't be measuring milk and gasoline with
> the same measuring devices. One shouldn't store one in bottles
> meant for the other.

I wasn't referring to a shared measuring device.  Rather, people
*think* in gallons (or, eventually, liters).  Having to deal with
two units for liquid measure -- that don't easily relate to
each other -- I think is intimidating to many people.

E.g., the "manual" for your car would list "capacities" for the
fuel tank in liters -- but the oil pan in quarts?  And, cooling
system??

Pick one and be done with it.

Some things are just more "notable" in our units.  E.g., a "502 CID"
block is far more impressive (sounding) than "8.22L"

>> I believe most products here are labeled in "dual units".
>> People can read whichever they are most comfortable with.
>
> Well, as I understand it, one has to be the primary unit.
> Or, the amount in the container should not be less than either.

Dunno.  And, I suspect most consumers don't care -- they
probably ignore the metric indications *if* they don't
already intuitively know what they are buying (this is a
POUND of butter... it isn't sold in 1/3 pound lots!)

> But even so, if used when people need to measure them,
> it can be hard, and that doesn't even depend on the units.
>
> If a recipe calls for 2.3 eggs, it is hard in English or Metric
> units. Some recipes are based on the common sizes of cans.

Yup.  I learned many years ago to not distribute Rx's to
"foreigners" simply because of common usage units here not
being directly translatable to units "there"

(e.g., what's a "square" of chocolate?)

> A Coke can might say 12oz and 236ml.
>
> If butter comes in quarter pound sticks, that is convenient
> for many recipes. If it comes in 0.1 kg sticks, not so convenient.
> (It seems that the carton is marked for 453g.)  If a recipe
> asks for 100g, it won't be easy to cut up a stick.

OTOH, if it was in 0.1kg sticks, you could always transfer it
to a measuring spoon/cup (softened to room temperature -- as
already req'd in most Rx's).  E.g., measuring vegetable
shortening is done like this (at least in the small quantities
that I use -- makes a helluva mess of the measuring cups!)

> (Also, butter sticks have a different aspect ratio in eastern
> and western US. I don't know why that is.)

You can also buy butter in 1 lb chunks.  Far less easy to
measure out typical quantities.  E.g., I use 2/3C in my
"scratch" brownies.  If it was sold in Xkg units, I'd
want to buy it in *tubs*!

>> For many items, the "legal units" are effectively meaningless:  do
>> you care how much these 8 burger buns WEIGH?  Or, are you just
>> interested in the fact that there are *8* of them (not 7?)
>> Would you care if bread was sold in 500g loaves -- instead of
>> pound loaves?  (you *might* if they were sold in kg loaves!)
>
> For a long time, hot dogs came in packages of 10 (per pound)
> and buns bags of 8. At one point, they made bags of 10 buns,
> but now they usually make 8 hot dogs in a package.

We buy buns in bags of *12*.  :-/  That was the point of my upthread
post:   we ALWAYS deal with a hodge podge of units yet somehow the
world doesn't end!  (do people abroad buy hot dog/brat buns by *weight*?
What do they do with the 0.37 bun that is left over?)

>> Then, decide if *either* are at an appropriate total price
>> point that you are willing to accept.
>
>> [If, tomorrow, flour was sold in kg, NO ONE WOULD CARE.  All recipes
>> would still be made with "measuring spoons/cups".  You would just
>> have to get used to the fact that there aren't as many in a "bag of
>> flour" as there used to be!  But, that already happens (as I alluded
>> earlier).  Sugar used to be sold in 5 lb bags.  Now, they are 4 lbs.
>> Doesn't impact any of my recipes.  Just means I have to purchase
>> 25% more *bags* than I did last year!  If they were kg bags, then
>> I'd have to buy ~TWICE as many.]
>
> As long as you don't have any recipes that use a whole bag.

The Rx wouldn't likely say "a bag of flour".  I *do*, however,
have Rx's that say "5 pounds + 2C".  But, one could readily
make a one-time conversion:  5 pound bag ==  XXX Cups and be
done with it.

Each time I tweek a Rx, I have to scale ingredients accordingly.
But, I rarely scale by wacky amounts!  E.g., instead, DOUBLE, halve,
"half again", etc.  So, you rarely end up with oddball quantities
like "4/5T" (because you'd never START with 8/5 or 2/5!)

In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

(snip on gasoline and milk units)

>>> ... only if it also extended to other "liquid measures".

>> I don't think that is needed.

> Perhaps...
 
>>> "Why is milk measured in gallons but fuel measured in liters?"

>> Yes, but one shouldn't be measuring milk and gasoline with
>> the same measuring devices. One shouldn't store one in bottles
>> meant for the other.
 
> I wasn't referring to a shared measuring device.  Rather, people
> *think* in gallons (or, eventually, liters).  Having to deal with
> two units for liquid measure -- that don't easily relate to
> each other -- I think is intimidating to many people.

I suppose, but you don't tend to be thinking about them at the
same time. Someone might imagine how many milk bottles it would
take to fill the tank, but mostly only need to know if the
number on the pump is reasonable.
 
> E.g., the "manual" for your car would list "capacities" for the
> fuel tank in liters -- but the oil pan in quarts?  And, cooling
> system??

I believe it lists both. Oil used to come only in quarts, but not
they have also five quart bottles.

The tradition is that you add a quart when it gets to the add line.
Probably you can also add a liter. (It is better not to be overful,
but the difference is probably small enough.)


> Pick one and be done with it.

Again, as long as you don't mix them it doesn't matter much.

Oil comes in quarts, antifreeze in gallons. 
 
> Some things are just more "notable" in our units.  E.g., a "502 CID"
> block is far more impressive (sounding) than "8.22L"

At some point, some US company put the liter displacement in the
name, and after that, people were used to it. Not to mention
that it was common for foreign cars. People have gotten use
to it now.

(snip)

> You can also buy butter in 1 lb chunks.  Far less easy to
> measure out typical quantities.  E.g., I use 2/3C in my
> "scratch" brownies.  If it was sold in Xkg units, I'd
> want to buy it in *tubs*!

Yes, I have bought the one pound sticks. Certain stores carry
them, and usually for a lower price.
 
(snip)

> The Rx wouldn't likely say "a bag of flour".  I *do*, however,
> have Rx's that say "5 pounds + 2C".  But, one could readily
> make a one-time conversion:  5 pound bag ==  XXX Cups and be
> done with it.

There is the story about medicine that says "take once a day",
and Spanish speaking people getting it wrong. Seems that
"once" is 11 in Spanish.
 
> Each time I tweek a Rx, I have to scale ingredients accordingly.
> But, I rarely scale by wacky amounts!  E.g., instead, DOUBLE, halve,
> "half again", etc.  So, you rarely end up with oddball quantities
> like "4/5T" (because you'd never START with 8/5 or 2/5!)

-- glen

On 9/22/2014 7:41 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Here in the US the liquor industry jumped on the metric bandwagon faster
>> than any other segment of commerce.  I think the reason is because they
>> saw a way to profit by it.  When they converted, every standard size
>> bottle shrank a small amount...
>
>>             Old size   New size
>> Miniature   2 oz      50 ml (1.7 oz)
>> Half Pint   8 oz     200 ml (6.8 oz) could have been 250 ml or 8.4 oz
>> Pint       16 oz     375 ml (12.7 oz) Wow, they really whacked this one
>> Fifth      25.6 oz   750 ml (25.36 oz) couldn't get much closer
>> Quart      32 oz    1000 ml (33.8 oz) they broke the rule here
>> Half Gal   64 oz    1750 ml (59.2 oz) back on track
>
>> The quart is the only size that actually increased.  They would have had
>> to either drop the size or drop to some really odd sounding size like
>> 950 ml.
>
>> The point is they likely didn't adjust the pricing initially, so they
>> made more money.  I bet this drove the tax guys nuts.  The tax is based
>> on the amount of alcohol and they used charts with sizes and proofs.  I
>> wonder if they redid the charts for metric?
>
> Probably makes it easier shipping the same bottles to the rest of
> the world.
>
> As I noted previously, the duty free allowance coming into the US
> is 1L. You will find those 1L bottles in duty free stores, though
> they are hard to find other places.
>
> For reasons I don't remember, carbonated soft drinks, such as
> Coca-Cola, are commonly sold in 1L and 2L bottles, in addition
> to 12oz cans and 20oz bottles.

Actually, I was wrong about the Miniature size.  The old size was 1.6 oz 
almost the same as a shot, 1.5 oz.  So the Miniature also got larger.

Your point about international sizes is likely valid.  I remember being 
surprised by the 750 ml size though.  Was that an international size 
long before the US converted to metric... in liquor sizes only of course.

Are there any areas where the US uses metric by convention?

I really am amazed that we are still not with the program.  We tried 
going metric over 40 years ago!  Why haven't we gotten a second wind?

-- 

Rick

On 9/22/2014 9:05 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
> (snip, I wrote)
>>> When gasoline prices went over $1/gal, they were still under $1/L,
>>> and it was easier to convert most pumps to metric than to allow
>>> for $1.00/gal or more.   That would have been a good time for the
>>> switch, at least for gasoline.  If the government had required
>>> the conversion for gasoline, people would start getting used to it.
>
>> ... only if it also extended to other "liquid measures".
>
> I don't think that is needed.
>
>> "Why is milk measured in gallons but fuel measured in liters?"
>
> Yes, but one shouldn't be measuring milk and gasoline with
> the same measuring devices. One shouldn't store one in bottles
> meant for the other.
>
> Now, ethanol, also used as a fuel, is also used in cooking, and
> in that case it could be a problem.  (Fuel ethanol might be stored
> in gasoline cans and drinking ethanol in food bottles.)
>
>> It is relatively easy for a "professional" to adopt any measurement
>> scheme that is compatible with the entities with which he interacts.
>> However, if the entity with whom you interact is The Public and
>> they are accustomed to dealing in one set of units, you risk making
>> things markedly worse.
>
> I think for both professional and public it isn't so hard, as long
> as you aren't mixing units too often. As noted above, you don't
> normally mix gasonline and milk, so it isn't much of a problem.

Why sell milk in gal?  Why not 1 l, 2 l and 4 l sizes.  No one would 
really notice that they are 10% larger than quarts, half gal and gal.


> The 2L soda bottles also don't seem to bother people.
> For one, soda isn't often used in recipes, and so is rarely
> measured accurately.  Stores can compute "unit price" for labels
> as easily in any unit. (Computers don't care.)
>
>> I believe most products here are labeled in "dual units".
>> People can read whichever they are most comfortable with.

That only applies to some products like food.  Try buying an 18 mm drill 
bit at Home Depot.


>> For comparison shopping, do you care if the tag alongside
>> the price normalizes the cost to ounces instead of grams/liters?
>> All you really care is to have a number that allows you to
>> unambiguously compare a "unit" of product A to an equivalent
>> unit of product B.
>
> Most stores now have unit prices on the tag. Either required by
> law, or to make customers happy.

Unit pricing is often a joke.  Things I buy in pounds are unit priced in 
oz and the other way around.  Metric would be so much nice as I wouldn't 
care if they priced it by the ml or dl or l.   I can convert that in my 
head.


>> Then, decide if *either* are at an appropriate total price
>> point that you are willing to accept.
>
>> [If, tomorrow, flour was sold in kg, NO ONE WOULD CARE.  All recipes
>> would still be made with "measuring spoons/cups".  You would just
>> have to get used to the fact that there aren't as many in a "bag of
>> flour" as there used to be!  But, that already happens (as I alluded
>> earlier).  Sugar used to be sold in 5 lb bags.  Now, they are 4 lbs.
>> Doesn't impact any of my recipes.  Just means I have to purchase
>> 25% more *bags* than I did last year!  If they were kg bags, then
>> I'd have to buy ~TWICE as many.]

Yeah.

-- 

Rick

On 9/22/2014 9:47 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 9/22/2014 6:05 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snip, I wrote)
>>>> When gasoline prices went over $1/gal, they were still under $1/L,
>>>> and it was easier to convert most pumps to metric than to allow
>>>> for $1.00/gal or more.   That would have been a good time for the
>>>> switch, at least for gasoline.  If the government had required
>>>> the conversion for gasoline, people would start getting used to it.
>>
>>> ... only if it also extended to other "liquid measures".
>>
>> I don't think that is needed.
>
> Perhaps...
>
>>> "Why is milk measured in gallons but fuel measured in liters?"
>>
>> Yes, but one shouldn't be measuring milk and gasoline with
>> the same measuring devices. One shouldn't store one in bottles
>> meant for the other.
>
> I wasn't referring to a shared measuring device.  Rather, people
> *think* in gallons (or, eventually, liters).  Having to deal with
> two units for liquid measure -- that don't easily relate to
> each other -- I think is intimidating to many people.

The English system is just that, multiple systems.  We have a system of 
Gallons a system of ounces, both for liquid measurement.  Most people 
are no better at converting between the two than they are converting Gal 
to Liters.  128 oz to a gal, so how many 48 fl oz bottles of canola oil 
in a gal, how many 17 fl oz bottles of olive oil in a gal??? Damn if I 
know.  Where's the unit conversion calculator?  At least they have 
buttons to convert between English and metric.


> E.g., the "manual" for your car would list "capacities" for the
> fuel tank in liters -- but the oil pan in quarts?  And, cooling
> system??
>
> Pick one and be done with it.

Exactly, metric.


> Some things are just more "notable" in our units.  E.g., a "502 CID"
> block is far more impressive (sounding) than "8.22L"

How about 8220 ml?


>>> I believe most products here are labeled in "dual units".
>>> People can read whichever they are most comfortable with.
>>
>> Well, as I understand it, one has to be the primary unit.
>> Or, the amount in the container should not be less than either.
>
> Dunno.  And, I suspect most consumers don't care -- they
> probably ignore the metric indications *if* they don't
> already intuitively know what they are buying (this is a
> POUND of butter... it isn't sold in 1/3 pound lots!)

Oh?  Lots of things are sold metric and the English units are approx.  I 
have a liter of olive oil on my shelf.


>> But even so, if used when people need to measure them,
>> it can be hard, and that doesn't even depend on the units.
>>
>> If a recipe calls for 2.3 eggs, it is hard in English or Metric
>> units. Some recipes are based on the common sizes of cans.
>
> Yup.  I learned many years ago to not distribute Rx's to
> "foreigners" simply because of common usage units here not
> being directly translatable to units "there"

Your distribute drugs?


> (e.g., what's a "square" of chocolate?)
>
>> A Coke can might say 12oz and 236ml.
>>
>> If butter comes in quarter pound sticks, that is convenient
>> for many recipes. If it comes in 0.1 kg sticks, not so convenient.
>> (It seems that the carton is marked for 453g.)  If a recipe
>> asks for 100g, it won't be easy to cut up a stick.
>
> OTOH, if it was in 0.1kg sticks, you could always transfer it
> to a measuring spoon/cup (softened to room temperature -- as
> already req'd in most Rx's).  E.g., measuring vegetable
> shortening is done like this (at least in the small quantities
> that I use -- makes a helluva mess of the measuring cups!)

Butter is marked on the package for easy cutting.  If they were 100 or 
150 g sticks they would be marked in ml or dl.


> We buy buns in bags of *12*.  :-/  That was the point of my upthread
> post:   we ALWAYS deal with a hodge podge of units yet somehow the
> world doesn't end!  (do people abroad buy hot dog/brat buns by *weight*?
> What do they do with the 0.37 bun that is left over?)

So the end of the world is your threshold of action?  Wow, you must not 
do much...

The point is that we *do* have a hodge podge of units.  Metric can 
simplify that greatly.


>>> Then, decide if *either* are at an appropriate total price
>>> point that you are willing to accept.
>>
>>> [If, tomorrow, flour was sold in kg, NO ONE WOULD CARE.  All recipes
>>> would still be made with "measuring spoons/cups".  You would just
>>> have to get used to the fact that there aren't as many in a "bag of
>>> flour" as there used to be!  But, that already happens (as I alluded
>>> earlier).  Sugar used to be sold in 5 lb bags.  Now, they are 4 lbs.
>>> Doesn't impact any of my recipes.  Just means I have to purchase
>>> 25% more *bags* than I did last year!  If they were kg bags, then
>>> I'd have to buy ~TWICE as many.]
>>
>> As long as you don't have any recipes that use a whole bag.
>
> The Rx wouldn't likely say "a bag of flour".  I *do*, however,
> have Rx's that say "5 pounds + 2C".  But, one could readily
> make a one-time conversion:  5 pound bag ==  XXX Cups and be
> done with it.
>
> Each time I tweek a Rx, I have to scale ingredients accordingly.
> But, I rarely scale by wacky amounts!  E.g., instead, DOUBLE, halve,
> "half again", etc.  So, you rarely end up with oddball quantities
> like "4/5T" (because you'd never START with 8/5 or 2/5!)

Oh, how can you make a 12 inch cheese cake when your recipe calls for a 
9 inch pan?  Oh, I know, you don't because it is too much of a PITA.

-- 

Rick