<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A sticky problem with symbols</title>
	<atom:link href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/</link>
	<description>Commentary on the measurement muddle in the UK</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:03:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: J Gabrielczyk</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-19771</link>
		<dc:creator>J Gabrielczyk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:49:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/03/metric-abbreviations-abuse/#comment-19771</guid>
		<description>People use what they feel comfortable with and I suggest that the vast majority of the population of this country consider that abbreviations for weights and measures are there to serve them, not the other way round, so they will continue to comfortably interchange upper and lower case letters in descriptions.

It is distinctly unpalatable to have something forced down one&#039;s throat &quot;for one&#039;s own good&quot;.  While it is most certainly easier to make calculations using a decimal system and the metre and litre are useful, centimetres and centilitres are awkward as they end up being stated in high numbers in to describe orders of length and volume frequently used in day-to-day life.

Of course it takes time to get used to anything new and on the continent people have no problem at all in buying in decagrammes, but to my mind the imperial ounce has a &#039;human&#039; feel to it.  It is a very useful unit, as is the pound and the foot.  I can visualise an area in acres far better than one in ares, not because I am more used to acres, but because it is the area one man can plough in a day (assuming he and his horse are up to it).

There is no stopping metrication but there is no need to make imperial measures illegal.  The concept of such action is actually quite bizarre.  

If people can put the name of their product on packaging why shouldn&#039;t they put an imperial measure on it too?  If the metric description uses an upper case character instead of a lower case one, what is the problem?  People will still understand.

&#039; and &quot; represent feet/minutes of arc and inches/seconds of arc.  Potential confusion is dispelled by context, else we would need to ban words like the word &quot;jack&quot; which have more than one meaning.

A far, far greater problem lies in integration of the European Community&#039;s symbol for the decimal notation.

Imperial measures will no longer lose their status as supplementary indication on 1/1/2010 - which personally I find to be a good thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People use what they feel comfortable with and I suggest that the vast majority of the population of this country consider that abbreviations for weights and measures are there to serve them, not the other way round, so they will continue to comfortably interchange upper and lower case letters in descriptions.</p>
<p>It is distinctly unpalatable to have something forced down one&#8217;s throat &#8220;for one&#8217;s own good&#8221;.  While it is most certainly easier to make calculations using a decimal system and the metre and litre are useful, centimetres and centilitres are awkward as they end up being stated in high numbers in to describe orders of length and volume frequently used in day-to-day life.</p>
<p>Of course it takes time to get used to anything new and on the continent people have no problem at all in buying in decagrammes, but to my mind the imperial ounce has a &#8216;human&#8217; feel to it.  It is a very useful unit, as is the pound and the foot.  I can visualise an area in acres far better than one in ares, not because I am more used to acres, but because it is the area one man can plough in a day (assuming he and his horse are up to it).</p>
<p>There is no stopping metrication but there is no need to make imperial measures illegal.  The concept of such action is actually quite bizarre.  </p>
<p>If people can put the name of their product on packaging why shouldn&#8217;t they put an imperial measure on it too?  If the metric description uses an upper case character instead of a lower case one, what is the problem?  People will still understand.</p>
<p>&#8216; and &#8221; represent feet/minutes of arc and inches/seconds of arc.  Potential confusion is dispelled by context, else we would need to ban words like the word &#8220;jack&#8221; which have more than one meaning.</p>
<p>A far, far greater problem lies in integration of the European Community&#8217;s symbol for the decimal notation.</p>
<p>Imperial measures will no longer lose their status as supplementary indication on 1/1/2010 &#8211; which personally I find to be a good thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ezra Steinberg</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-19599</link>
		<dc:creator>Ezra Steinberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:15:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/03/metric-abbreviations-abuse/#comment-19599</guid>
		<description>A email correspondent whom I read wrote recently:

&quot;On 1/1/2010, Imperial loses its status as a &quot;supplementary indication&quot;.. IMO, that doesn&#039;t mean that it is forbidden from appearing (as long as the metric measure is primary)&quot;

Can someone clarify what is meant by Imperial losing its status as a supplementary indication? Is this in fact accurate (and in what sense)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A email correspondent whom I read wrote recently:</p>
<p>&#8220;On 1/1/2010, Imperial loses its status as a &#8220;supplementary indication&#8221;.. IMO, that doesn&#8217;t mean that it is forbidden from appearing (as long as the metric measure is primary)&#8221;</p>
<p>Can someone clarify what is meant by Imperial losing its status as a supplementary indication? Is this in fact accurate (and in what sense)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Bladon/ SI Metric-Matters</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-19568</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Bladon/ SI Metric-Matters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:32:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/03/metric-abbreviations-abuse/#comment-19568</guid>
		<description>Another inkorrect symbol:

&quot;Rocky&quot; a mightier biscuit produced by Fox&#039;s Biscuits, West Yorkshire, UK

See link: http://www.foxs-biscuits.co.uk/ 
Biscuit range and under &quot;Nutritional Information&quot;

The energy unit symbol shown on the website and on the wrapper is wrong &quot;KJ&quot;
The company have been contacted again:  careline@foxs-biscuits.co.uk</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another inkorrect symbol:</p>
<p>&#8220;Rocky&#8221; a mightier biscuit produced by Fox&#8217;s Biscuits, West Yorkshire, UK</p>
<p>See link: <a href="http://www.foxs-biscuits.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxs-biscuits.co.uk/</a><br />
Biscuit range and under &#8220;Nutritional Information&#8221;</p>
<p>The energy unit symbol shown on the website and on the wrapper is wrong &#8220;KJ&#8221;<br />
The company have been contacted again:  <a href="mailto:careline@foxs-biscuits.co.uk">careline@foxs-biscuits.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Vlietstra</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-19530</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Vlietstra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:59:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/03/metric-abbreviations-abuse/#comment-19530</guid>
		<description>Lee Kelly asked why the highway agency uses &quot;m&quot; instead of &quot;mi&quot; for miles?

Accoding to EU directive 80/181/EEC and also a now depricated part of ISO 31, the highway agency should be using &quot;mile&quot; (and not &quot;mi&quot; as suggested by Lee).

However it seems that the writers of the TSRGD 2002 which requires the use of &quot;m&quot; rather than &quot;mile&quot;  had a cavalier disregard of their legal obligations under the EU directive.  Although miles, yards, feet and inches are permitted on UK road signs, the directive states that the legal symbols shall be &quot;mile&quot;, &quot;yd&quot;, &quot;ft&quot; and &quot;in&quot; respectively (in accordance with ISO 31 as it was at the time).  However, the government have seen fit to hijack the symbol &quot;m&quot; for &quot;miles&quot;, (it is reserved for metres) and to hijack the single and double apostrophes for feet and inches even though they have been reserved for minutes and seconds of arc respectively.  

Furthermore, even though the TSRGD 2002 permits the use of &quot;t&quot; for tonnes, I have yet to see it in use in the UK - all new signs still use &quot;T&quot;, the symbol for the tesla.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lee Kelly asked why the highway agency uses &#8220;m&#8221; instead of &#8220;mi&#8221; for miles?</p>
<p>Accoding to EU directive 80/181/EEC and also a now depricated part of ISO 31, the highway agency should be using &#8220;mile&#8221; (and not &#8220;mi&#8221; as suggested by Lee).</p>
<p>However it seems that the writers of the TSRGD 2002 which requires the use of &#8220;m&#8221; rather than &#8220;mile&#8221;  had a cavalier disregard of their legal obligations under the EU directive.  Although miles, yards, feet and inches are permitted on UK road signs, the directive states that the legal symbols shall be &#8220;mile&#8221;, &#8220;yd&#8221;, &#8220;ft&#8221; and &#8220;in&#8221; respectively (in accordance with ISO 31 as it was at the time).  However, the government have seen fit to hijack the symbol &#8220;m&#8221; for &#8220;miles&#8221;, (it is reserved for metres) and to hijack the single and double apostrophes for feet and inches even though they have been reserved for minutes and seconds of arc respectively.  </p>
<p>Furthermore, even though the TSRGD 2002 permits the use of &#8220;t&#8221; for tonnes, I have yet to see it in use in the UK &#8211; all new signs still use &#8220;T&#8221;, the symbol for the tesla.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lee kelly</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-19524</link>
		<dc:creator>lee kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:10:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/03/metric-abbreviations-abuse/#comment-19524</guid>
		<description>Can somebody please expain to me why the highways agency use distance markers saying &quot;m&quot; instead of the correct term which should be &quot;mi&quot;? If anyone coming from a metric country or even the US, they would think we used metres not miles. This has always puzzled me as I drive I have to remind myself they mean miles not metres. Is this a way of saving money when we do change over to km/h &amp; metres?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can somebody please expain to me why the highways agency use distance markers saying &#8220;m&#8221; instead of the correct term which should be &#8220;mi&#8221;? If anyone coming from a metric country or even the US, they would think we used metres not miles. This has always puzzled me as I drive I have to remind myself they mean miles not metres. Is this a way of saving money when we do change over to km/h &#038; metres?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Birkby</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-19521</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Birkby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/03/metric-abbreviations-abuse/#comment-19521</guid>
		<description>The issue is of importance, but we mustn&#039;t put the cart before the horse. Once a metric changeover is fully completed familiarity will create less tolerance of inaccuracies.

As for non-rational pack sizes there is no need to be over-concerned, since as was mentioned in the previous discussion, if unit pricing is prominent and not craftily hidden, there is nothing to fear and much to gain from complete and exclusive metrication, no matter what the weight or volume of the final package.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The issue is of importance, but we mustn&#8217;t put the cart before the horse. Once a metric changeover is fully completed familiarity will create less tolerance of inaccuracies.</p>
<p>As for non-rational pack sizes there is no need to be over-concerned, since as was mentioned in the previous discussion, if unit pricing is prominent and not craftily hidden, there is nothing to fear and much to gain from complete and exclusive metrication, no matter what the weight or volume of the final package.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Dimmick</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-19509</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Dimmick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/03/metric-abbreviations-abuse/#comment-19509</guid>
		<description>It looks like BT may have recorded the depth of one of their tunnels incorrectly. There&#039;s a big outage in East London as Thames Water have tunnelled through some of BT&#039;s optic fibre. BT are claiming a depth of 32 metres, Telstra say 34 feet, Thames Water say they were digging at 10 metres.

This is engineering - everything&#039;s supposed to be in metres!

Story from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/08/bt_thames_water/

Details on the damage: http://noc.enta.net/2009/04/outage-framestream-leased-lines/#comments</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It looks like BT may have recorded the depth of one of their tunnels incorrectly. There&#8217;s a big outage in East London as Thames Water have tunnelled through some of BT&#8217;s optic fibre. BT are claiming a depth of 32 metres, Telstra say 34 feet, Thames Water say they were digging at 10 metres.</p>
<p>This is engineering &#8211; everything&#8217;s supposed to be in metres!</p>
<p>Story from <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/08/bt_thames_water/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/08/bt_thames_water/</a></p>
<p>Details on the damage: <a href="http://noc.enta.net/2009/04/outage-framestream-leased-lines/#comments" rel="nofollow">http://noc.enta.net/2009/04/outage-framestream-leased-lines/#comments</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Bladon/ SI Metric-Matters</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-19505</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Bladon/ SI Metric-Matters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:58:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/03/metric-abbreviations-abuse/#comment-19505</guid>
		<description>8 April 2009 

Why are some food manufacturers, major supermarkets, and leading stores like B&amp;Q still incapable of always displaying correct symbols?

On the following &quot;FARM FOODS&quot; frozen products:
Cut Leeks 1 kg and Minted Peas 750 g
Instead of the correct symbol &quot;kJ&quot;, there&#039;s  the WRONG symbol &quot;kj&quot;.

And in a store today I saw the following WRONG symbols for the kilogram:
&quot;KG&quot;, &quot;KG&quot;, &quot;Kg&quot;,  &quot;Kgs&quot;, &quot;kgs&quot;, &quot;kgm&quot;, &quot;kgms&quot;.   (The correct symbol is &quot;kg&quot;).

Please don&#039;t attempt to use plurals.  
&#039;3 ms&#039; means three milliseconds, not three metres.  
(If &#039;3 ms&#039; is on a road sign,  you could ask the Highway&#039;s Agency what it means). 


Philip                         http://www.simetricmatters.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>8 April 2009 </p>
<p>Why are some food manufacturers, major supermarkets, and leading stores like B&#038;Q still incapable of always displaying correct symbols?</p>
<p>On the following &#8220;FARM FOODS&#8221; frozen products:<br />
Cut Leeks 1 kg and Minted Peas 750 g<br />
Instead of the correct symbol &#8220;kJ&#8221;, there&#8217;s  the WRONG symbol &#8220;kj&#8221;.</p>
<p>And in a store today I saw the following WRONG symbols for the kilogram:<br />
&#8220;KG&#8221;, &#8220;KG&#8221;, &#8220;Kg&#8221;,  &#8220;Kgs&#8221;, &#8220;kgs&#8221;, &#8220;kgm&#8221;, &#8220;kgms&#8221;.   (The correct symbol is &#8220;kg&#8221;).</p>
<p>Please don&#8217;t attempt to use plurals.<br />
&#8217;3 ms&#8217; means three milliseconds, not three metres.<br />
(If &#8217;3 ms&#8217; is on a road sign,  you could ask the Highway&#8217;s Agency what it means). </p>
<p>Philip                         <a href="http://www.simetricmatters.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.simetricmatters.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Brown</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-19492</link>
		<dc:creator>David Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/03/metric-abbreviations-abuse/#comment-19492</guid>
		<description>Lyles pride themselves on the fact that the golden syrup tin has not changed since they started manufacturing it. It still holds only 454 g of product. Clearly this used to be one pound, but they no longer mark that quantity on the tin. So we have what looks at first glance to be a half kilogram tin, but turns out to be 46 grams short. Isn&#039;t it about time Lyles (and many other manufacturers) came clean and gave us rational metric sizes, instead of these nonsensical imperial hang-overs?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lyles pride themselves on the fact that the golden syrup tin has not changed since they started manufacturing it. It still holds only 454 g of product. Clearly this used to be one pound, but they no longer mark that quantity on the tin. So we have what looks at first glance to be a half kilogram tin, but turns out to be 46 grams short. Isn&#8217;t it about time Lyles (and many other manufacturers) came clean and gave us rational metric sizes, instead of these nonsensical imperial hang-overs?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lee kelly</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/metric-abbreviations-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-19479</link>
		<dc:creator>lee kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:35:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2009/04/03/metric-abbreviations-abuse/#comment-19479</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not just packaging thats confusing ? we live in a strange country, we have hight restrictions in metres but distances in yards ? use litres for petrol but drive in mph, lorrys are restricted to x-amount km/h yet on the outside the labels say restricted to x-amount mph, and we tell temperatures in celcius in winter but use fahrenheit in summer, unless it&#039;s raining or below 21 degrees celcius ? we weigh babies in lbs &amp; ozs but we use kgs &amp; grammes for body mass index ? still were half way there I just hope we dont have to wait another 44 years ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not just packaging thats confusing ? we live in a strange country, we have hight restrictions in metres but distances in yards ? use litres for petrol but drive in mph, lorrys are restricted to x-amount km/h yet on the outside the labels say restricted to x-amount mph, and we tell temperatures in celcius in winter but use fahrenheit in summer, unless it&#8217;s raining or below 21 degrees celcius ? we weigh babies in lbs &amp; ozs but we use kgs &amp; grammes for body mass index ? still were half way there I just hope we dont have to wait another 44 years ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

