<?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: Muddle in Myanmar too?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/</link>
	<description>Commentary on the measurement muddle in the UK</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 19:55:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: philh</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/comment-page-1/#comment-20666</link>
		<dc:creator>philh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=861#comment-20666</guid>
		<description>Britain reverting to Imperial measures would be economic suicide. The cost to industry would be considerable. It certainly wouldn&#039;t be worth it just to please the odd tourist.

True enough people predominantly weigh themselves in stones and lb and measure their height in ft and in, but that is one of the few areas of British life that is staunchly imperial. Road signs is the other.

The metre and kilogram have been around in Britain for a long time and anyone who claims them to be unfamiliar is just being willfully ignorant.

The case for a single system of measurement that everyone can understand and use is overwhelming.

Britain would be far better off distinguishing itself as a humane intelligent society not some eccentric enclave with no sense of proportion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Britain reverting to Imperial measures would be economic suicide. The cost to industry would be considerable. It certainly wouldn&#8217;t be worth it just to please the odd tourist.</p>
<p>True enough people predominantly weigh themselves in stones and lb and measure their height in ft and in, but that is one of the few areas of British life that is staunchly imperial. Road signs is the other.</p>
<p>The metre and kilogram have been around in Britain for a long time and anyone who claims them to be unfamiliar is just being willfully ignorant.</p>
<p>The case for a single system of measurement that everyone can understand and use is overwhelming.</p>
<p>Britain would be far better off distinguishing itself as a humane intelligent society not some eccentric enclave with no sense of proportion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Vlietstra</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/comment-page-1/#comment-20664</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Vlietstra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:46:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=861#comment-20664</guid>
		<description>Harvey&#039;s suggestion that the there should be a total reintroduction of imperial sounds a good idea - it would keep British computer programmers gainfully employed having to match every new release of EXCEL and many other software packages with UK-specific versions to cope with imperial units.  Just think - in addition to the manipulation of decimal numbers, we could have special codes that could automatically be recognised by EXCEL for stone/lbs/oz, another for miles/furlongs/chains/yards/feet/inches, another for floz/gills/pints/quarts/gallons, another for square measure - EXCEL can already recognise that 15:23:15 is a time and knows how to add that to 3:04:22! 

Of course there would be a few drawbacks - the newest UK version of EXCEL would probably be released just as Microsoft was about to retire the international version on which it was based, but that would not matter as the UK would be living in a total time-warp, not the partial one that we are in at the moment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Harvey&#8217;s suggestion that the there should be a total reintroduction of imperial sounds a good idea &#8211; it would keep British computer programmers gainfully employed having to match every new release of EXCEL and many other software packages with UK-specific versions to cope with imperial units.  Just think &#8211; in addition to the manipulation of decimal numbers, we could have special codes that could automatically be recognised by EXCEL for stone/lbs/oz, another for miles/furlongs/chains/yards/feet/inches, another for floz/gills/pints/quarts/gallons, another for square measure &#8211; EXCEL can already recognise that 15:23:15 is a time and knows how to add that to 3:04:22! </p>
<p>Of course there would be a few drawbacks &#8211; the newest UK version of EXCEL would probably be released just as Microsoft was about to retire the international version on which it was based, but that would not matter as the UK would be living in a total time-warp, not the partial one that we are in at the moment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harvey</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/comment-page-1/#comment-20661</link>
		<dc:creator>Harvey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:36:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=861#comment-20661</guid>
		<description>I think that Britain needs to revert to Imperial units. They deserve to be different from Europe. A bunch y&#039;all over there like Imperial units- the metric advocates have only 15%- look 74% of Brits can give their height in feet and inches, while only 26% can only do so in metres (of course here in the USA it&#039;s spelled meters). European visitors to the UK are actually interested in road signs in Imperial units- and there was a story on a website here in the US about the American person&#039;s French friends who toured London- and when they saw various metric signs, they got disappointed. Imperial is an American and British thing, so it should&#039;nt be gone. And Britain needs to have Europe&#039;s cheapest petrol (in Imperial gallons). While the US &amp; Britan have the world&#039;s cheapest petrol (gasoline).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that Britain needs to revert to Imperial units. They deserve to be different from Europe. A bunch y&#8217;all over there like Imperial units- the metric advocates have only 15%- look 74% of Brits can give their height in feet and inches, while only 26% can only do so in metres (of course here in the USA it&#8217;s spelled meters). European visitors to the UK are actually interested in road signs in Imperial units- and there was a story on a website here in the US about the American person&#8217;s French friends who toured London- and when they saw various metric signs, they got disappointed. Imperial is an American and British thing, so it should&#8217;nt be gone. And Britain needs to have Europe&#8217;s cheapest petrol (in Imperial gallons). While the US &amp; Britan have the world&#8217;s cheapest petrol (gasoline).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/comment-page-1/#comment-20162</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:10:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=861#comment-20162</guid>
		<description>It is also reported (http://dragon-naga.livejournal.com/8619.html) that the unit of mass widely used in street markets in Yangon is &quot;viss&quot;, corresponding to roughly 1.6 kg.   The viss is often used in supermarket ads to help people compare prices; presumably, price labels in supermarkets normally give the price per kilogram.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is also reported (<a href="http://dragon-naga.livejournal.com/8619.html" rel="nofollow">http://dragon-naga.livejournal.com/8619.html</a>) that the unit of mass widely used in street markets in Yangon is &#8220;viss&#8221;, corresponding to roughly 1.6 kg.   The viss is often used in supermarket ads to help people compare prices; presumably, price labels in supermarkets normally give the price per kilogram.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/comment-page-1/#comment-20161</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:30:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=861#comment-20161</guid>
		<description>According to this blog post in Russian (http://dragon-naga.livejournal.com/26139.html), as of December 2009 petrol in Myanmar is sold in Imperial gallons, and government quotas are also in gallons (if to buy more than 2 gallons a day, you pay a higher price).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to this blog post in Russian (<a href="http://dragon-naga.livejournal.com/26139.html" rel="nofollow">http://dragon-naga.livejournal.com/26139.html</a>), as of December 2009 petrol in Myanmar is sold in Imperial gallons, and government quotas are also in gallons (if to buy more than 2 gallons a day, you pay a higher price).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremiah</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/comment-page-1/#comment-20160</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremiah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=861#comment-20160</guid>
		<description>I found this intersting story in the Myanmar Times:

http://www.mmtimes.com/2010/news/509/n50904.html

It seems the government of Burma is going to privatize its fuel stations.  Here is an excerpt from the article: 

Private car owners are currently able to purchase up to 2 imperial gallons (about 4.5 litres) of fuel every day at about K2700 per gallon. By contrast, 1 litre of petrol in Singapore on January 27 cost S$1.78, or about US$1.27. Converting that figure to gallons and US dollars, gives an approximate cost of US$5.71 a gallon, or more than double the price of subsidised fuel in Myanmar. Diesel was cheaper at around $4.22 a gallon but still much higher than the subsidised rate. 


It seems the government stations still use the imperial gallon.  If a local private company decides later to go ino partnership with an international oil company, such as BP or Shell they may decide to replace the aging imperial gallon pumps with new digital metric ones.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found this intersting story in the Myanmar Times:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mmtimes.com/2010/news/509/n50904.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mmtimes.com/2010/news/509/n50904.html</a></p>
<p>It seems the government of Burma is going to privatize its fuel stations.  Here is an excerpt from the article: </p>
<p>Private car owners are currently able to purchase up to 2 imperial gallons (about 4.5 litres) of fuel every day at about K2700 per gallon. By contrast, 1 litre of petrol in Singapore on January 27 cost S$1.78, or about US$1.27. Converting that figure to gallons and US dollars, gives an approximate cost of US$5.71 a gallon, or more than double the price of subsidised fuel in Myanmar. Diesel was cheaper at around $4.22 a gallon but still much higher than the subsidised rate. </p>
<p>It seems the government stations still use the imperial gallon.  If a local private company decides later to go ino partnership with an international oil company, such as BP or Shell they may decide to replace the aging imperial gallon pumps with new digital metric ones.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ezra Steinberg</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/comment-page-1/#comment-20158</link>
		<dc:creator>Ezra Steinberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:57:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=861#comment-20158</guid>
		<description>I found this article in the Myanmar Times:

http://www.mmtimes.com/2010/business/509/b50906.html

Note the use of &quot;hectares&quot; in the article.

I also checked some online listings for property  in Burma. Some listings used square meters (either correctly with m2 and the 2 as a superscript or as sqm) and some used sq ft.

If someone has time to do some more research online, it might be possible to get a better sense of what the mix of units are in the press and other English language publications.

Of course, there is still the questinon of what mix of units are used in Burmese language publications, on hand made signs in the market, on the roadways, and in everday conversation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found this article in the Myanmar Times:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mmtimes.com/2010/business/509/b50906.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mmtimes.com/2010/business/509/b50906.html</a></p>
<p>Note the use of &#8220;hectares&#8221; in the article.</p>
<p>I also checked some online listings for property  in Burma. Some listings used square meters (either correctly with m2 and the 2 as a superscript or as sqm) and some used sq ft.</p>
<p>If someone has time to do some more research online, it might be possible to get a better sense of what the mix of units are in the press and other English language publications.</p>
<p>Of course, there is still the questinon of what mix of units are used in Burmese language publications, on hand made signs in the market, on the roadways, and in everday conversation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremiah</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/comment-page-1/#comment-20157</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremiah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=861#comment-20157</guid>
		<description>I found some more references:

http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg29515.html

[USMA:39682] Non-metric countries other than the USA
ezra . steinberg
Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:57:28 -0800


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: &quot;Paul Trusten, R.Ph.&quot;

Thank you for the correction, Michael. Come to think of it, this fact sets 
even more of an example for the U.S., since it can thus be said that the U.S. is the only remaining nation that does not use the metric system as its primary, everyday system of measurement, be it official or not.
 
Quoting Michael Payne:

It&#039;s misinformation to state that Burma and Liberia avoid the metric system.  They don&#039;t, they are predominately metric. The only reason they are on this list of non-metric countries (CIA website) is that they don&#039;t have an &#039;Official Policy of Conversion&#039;. Despite having no official policy, they have both become predominantly metric, including metric speed limits, signs with km/h and speedometers with km/h, fuel sold in liters, etc. I wish we would not give out the misinformation that they are not metric when they are.

I wrote an article on this for Metric Today about 10 years ago after visiting both countries.

Michael Payne

I also found this on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_units_of_measurement

But check out the same article in German:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmesisches_Ma%C3%9Fsystem

It seems the assumption that Burma uses imperial is equally wrong.  Burma has its own system that may be used in parallel to metric.  The only two units used from imperial are acre and furlong and what ever remnant still persists from colonial times, such as outdated petrol pumps that don&#039;t function correctly.  

The German article lists all of the units in the Burmese system but shows different colours to denote those in common use.  Some of the Burmese units have 1:1 relationships with imperial, but it appears they are not used as they are not coloured.

This should clear up some of the confusion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found some more references:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg29515.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg29515.html</a></p>
<p>[USMA:39682] Non-metric countries other than the USA<br />
ezra . steinberg<br />
Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:57:28 -0800</p>
<p> &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; Original message &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-<br />
From: &#8220;Paul Trusten, R.Ph.&#8221;</p>
<p>Thank you for the correction, Michael. Come to think of it, this fact sets<br />
even more of an example for the U.S., since it can thus be said that the U.S. is the only remaining nation that does not use the metric system as its primary, everyday system of measurement, be it official or not.</p>
<p>Quoting Michael Payne:</p>
<p>It&#8217;s misinformation to state that Burma and Liberia avoid the metric system.  They don&#8217;t, they are predominately metric. The only reason they are on this list of non-metric countries (CIA website) is that they don&#8217;t have an &#8216;Official Policy of Conversion&#8217;. Despite having no official policy, they have both become predominantly metric, including metric speed limits, signs with km/h and speedometers with km/h, fuel sold in liters, etc. I wish we would not give out the misinformation that they are not metric when they are.</p>
<p>I wrote an article on this for Metric Today about 10 years ago after visiting both countries.</p>
<p>Michael Payne</p>
<p>I also found this on Wikipedia:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_units_of_measurement" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_units_of_measurement</a></p>
<p>But check out the same article in German:</p>
<p><a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmesisches_Ma%C3%9Fsystem" rel="nofollow">http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmesisches_Ma%C3%9Fsystem</a></p>
<p>It seems the assumption that Burma uses imperial is equally wrong.  Burma has its own system that may be used in parallel to metric.  The only two units used from imperial are acre and furlong and what ever remnant still persists from colonial times, such as outdated petrol pumps that don&#8217;t function correctly.  </p>
<p>The German article lists all of the units in the Burmese system but shows different colours to denote those in common use.  Some of the Burmese units have 1:1 relationships with imperial, but it appears they are not used as they are not coloured.</p>
<p>This should clear up some of the confusion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremiah</title>
		<link>http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/02/muddle-in-myanmar-too/comment-page-1/#comment-20156</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremiah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:56:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metricviews.org.uk/?p=861#comment-20156</guid>
		<description>I did a Google search on the topic and was lead to this thread on the USMA mail server from 2001-01-31:

http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg02318.html

In the response to the original poster, who also sited a reference found in Lonely Planet:

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/south_east_asia/myanmar/facts.htm#top

...... there is an article on Burma/Myanmar (B/M) in the Nov-Dec 1997 issue [of Metric Today] on page 5.  It was authored by Michael D. Payne, who visited there.  Basically, anything new is metric and anything that is a relic from the British is still imperial.

Since road signs are all in Burmese, only a person able to read Burmese
would be able to know the units given are kilometres and kilometres per
hour.  Thus, metric usage might be transparent to a visitor, unless they
either asked someone or had to deal directly in the economy.  So, due to
both the economic and political situation in Myanmar, it is no surprise that
the US and others, because of lack of proper information assume the country is still imperial.


If you search the mail archives further on B/M and you can find more information.  It is also claimed the Liberia uses USC, but Michael who visited there also found differently.  See link: 

http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg11310.html

You will also find from this link that B/M legalized the use of metric in 1920:

http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg11310.html

Someone from the USMA should be able to provide the article from the 1997 Nov-Dec issue of Metric Today to see exactly what was written.  

I would estimate that B/M is as metric as its neighbours.  Any trade between B/M and its neighbours would be in metric as the neighbouring countries are not going to supply B/M with special products in imperial because they are on a list of countries that is claimed they have not changed. 
 
In May 2008, Yangon was devastated by a cyclone.  It would be interesting to see if any rebuilding that took place was done in metric or imperial.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did a Google search on the topic and was lead to this thread on the USMA mail server from 2001-01-31:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg02318.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg02318.html</a></p>
<p>In the response to the original poster, who also sited a reference found in Lonely Planet:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/south_east_asia/myanmar/facts.htm#top" rel="nofollow">http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/south_east_asia/myanmar/facts.htm#top</a></p>
<p>&#8230;&#8230; there is an article on Burma/Myanmar (B/M) in the Nov-Dec 1997 issue [of Metric Today] on page 5.  It was authored by Michael D. Payne, who visited there.  Basically, anything new is metric and anything that is a relic from the British is still imperial.</p>
<p>Since road signs are all in Burmese, only a person able to read Burmese<br />
would be able to know the units given are kilometres and kilometres per<br />
hour.  Thus, metric usage might be transparent to a visitor, unless they<br />
either asked someone or had to deal directly in the economy.  So, due to<br />
both the economic and political situation in Myanmar, it is no surprise that<br />
the US and others, because of lack of proper information assume the country is still imperial.</p>
<p>If you search the mail archives further on B/M and you can find more information.  It is also claimed the Liberia uses USC, but Michael who visited there also found differently.  See link: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg11310.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg11310.html</a></p>
<p>You will also find from this link that B/M legalized the use of metric in 1920:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg11310.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg11310.html</a></p>
<p>Someone from the USMA should be able to provide the article from the 1997 Nov-Dec issue of Metric Today to see exactly what was written.  </p>
<p>I would estimate that B/M is as metric as its neighbours.  Any trade between B/M and its neighbours would be in metric as the neighbouring countries are not going to supply B/M with special products in imperial because they are on a list of countries that is claimed they have not changed. </p>
<p>In May 2008, Yangon was devastated by a cyclone.  It would be interesting to see if any rebuilding that took place was done in metric or imperial.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

