re CalcPlus - FREE from Microsoft.

[David Candy]

Yeah, But their C-130s cary more tonnes than our does. But their Short Tons are smaller than a real Ton or Tonne.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com

Agree completely with that. Re your previous post, usually in Western
Europe, 1,000,000 is displayed as 1.000.000.
whereas 1.50 becomes 1,50
Takes a bit of getting used to.

I think I mentioned this ages ago in a post, but I think it's worth
repeating -

During the war, when Sydney was invaded by Yanks, they were amazed that the
OZ mechanics were able to improve the petrol consumption by a considerable
amoumt.
They never woke up that the Imperial gallon was larger than the U.S. gallon.

--

johnf

PS. I comfortable with metric or imperial but not US Imperial (They
made the gallon smaller so a politician could win an election - they
weigh people in pounds only). However for people I use foot-inch and
stone-pound. I am 6' and 12 stone (well it's been years so perhaps
between 11 and 12 st). I also have no idea what fuel consumption is. I
need that in imperial as well.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
It is SI measurement with some minor modifications. There is no cm in
SI.
Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment
Act 1984 (No. 77), most units of measurement used in Australia are
those of the International System of Units (Système international
d'unités, abbreviated 'SI').

Also note MICROSOFT. We use spaces not commas. ALL WINDOWS VERSIONS get
Australia wrong.

1 000 000
is 1 million not 1,000,000. Plus you can skip the separator on 4 digit
numbers.
AS1000-1979, Metric Conversion board 1974. Australian Govt Style Manual
ed 3, 4, 5, and 6.

This is because some of those stupid europeans use commas as decimal
point. So we removed commas from our number system.

See Chapter 10 and 11
http://www.agimo.gov.au/information/publishing/style_manual (I used to
own this book but I've not been able to find it in years - I'll have to
wait to inheirit me mums)

[Who will bug this?]


--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com

I was in Europe when OZ converted measurements to metric & it always
puzzled me as to why that volume measurement was adopted here, but
it's really no great mental calculation to convert, as most people
are capable of dividing by 10.
But why OZ adoped mm instead of cm (as used in all of Europe,) still
has me beat.
If I want buy a piece of timber for example,It's (to me) easier to
quickly mesure something and say I need a piece roughly 24.6 cm long
(instead of 2455 mm) - I just can't mentally visualise such a large
no. as a specific size - especially when you drive all the way to the
shop & accidently leave your piece of paper behind.
Perhaps it's just me. I don't know.

mm is in step with the scientific and engineering communities.

--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP, IE/OE
Please respond in Newsgroup only. Do not send email
http://www.fjsmjs.com
Protect your PC
http://www.microsoft.com./athome/security/protect/default.aspx
http://defendingyourmachine.blogspot.com/

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

Yo Yabba

Whoever decided to release this under the Microsoft label appears to know
little of what is happening in other parts of the world.. being an
ex-Brit/Euro living in North America, I can understand that.. .. what has
surprised me is the content of some of the replies.. one has to wonder how
people can be so stupid when they have only one head..

Re. 'petrol' being sold by the litre in the UK, that was a Gov't decision,
wasn't it?.. essentially to save embarrassment at the real cost of a gallon
(UK Imperial)?..

 

[Yabbadoo]

If you'd ever seen a carpet loom, you'd understand why - HUGE capital cost,
fixed width - the frame itself never wears out, it's static. Variables are
the number of threads(cords) per inch on the width, and of course the
length - in theory, infinite, in practice, limited by the handling of the
woven carpet roll (could also argue, limited by the length of the threads on
the warp beams - a beam is a metal "bobbin" but instead of one winding,
contains over a thousand lengths of thread simultaneously wound on -
provides the "warp" (length) to the loom.
The number of threads partly determines the density (quality) of the
carpet - the higher the number, the more physical material there is in a
square foot (or sq.mtr. - whichever). BCF (bulked carpet fibre) also comes
in differing qualities - the number of individual filaments in a fibre
(think of a rope - it's a number of strings twined together), and of course,
the actual textile fibre itself - "Nylon" is a generic covering a range of
different chemical compositions of polyamide.

You may see some wider (about 13') carpet, produced on metric looms.
Convention retains the Imperial width in description in non-metric
countries. Could be continental (versus UK, US or colonial) manufacture.

It's 30+ years since I was last involved in textile fibre supply - happy
days!
Len

 

[Miss Perspicacia Tick]

Yes, unfortunately I still think in ft & inches, then convert.
Funnily enough, if you go to a hospital or similar and are asked your
height, I always say 5'10' - "Good thank you", they say.

My first experience on returning was to ask for prices for some
carpet. "Well, it's 12' wide & $X/metre". That set me back for a bit
until I realised that all the carpet equipment here was still set up
to produce 12' broadloom. It was a learning curve for a bit.

Len

As someone who spends much of her time hanging around in design/printing
groups and fora (yes, that's the correct pluralisation, not 'forums' -
learn basic Latin people!) what would be *REALLY* useful is a US to ISO
paper size and weight converter. OK, sizes I can just about manage, but
weights? Nope. I would like to be able to advise people when they ask "Can I
use 96lb stock in my R300?" - but I wouldn't have a clue because I don't
know what 96lb stock looks like! It's not even a proper measuement - we use
g/m², surely the should be oz/yd² (OK, I know that's complete nonsense, but
I am just trying to equate).

Anyway, a US to ISO paper size/weight converter would be most useful.

 

[David Candy]

All I know I sold equipment that if your are got sucked into a machine it would reverse the motor and spit your arm out.

 

[Yabbadoo]

Hi, Mike, you're an MS-MVP. I'm just a pleb, unqualified to comment on your
first para ...on your head be it!

Re petrol in UK sold in litres ... changed so many years ago, I disremember
whether it was a UK Government initiative, or a Brussels directive
rubber-stamped here (as so many changes are)
BUT - the effect is not only to hide the real cost of a gallon, that's
cosmetic.. The REAL cruncher is the hidden tax hikes.

When the Chancellor announces "2p a litre tax rise" on fuel, it's not 2p,
it's 2p PLUS VAT at 17.5%. Fuel has to be delivered, and by the time the
add-on costs are calculated (adding VAT at 17.5% at every stage) and rounded
up, it's not 2p but 3p (or more) at the pump, to the consumer.
One can understand the Chancellor not wishing to announce 9 pence a gallon
tax hike, with 13.5 pence the actual increase!
Some-one somwhere will no doubt have the actual figure, but, in round terms,
total UK taxes on fuel is about 300%.

(Same thing happens with beer - 1p a pint on duty becomes 3p a pint or more,
at the bar, same rationale).

I had to smile, a while back, at a US news item - the furore when petrol
increased to $1 a gallon - on today's (approximate) exchange rate, that's
about £0.55 a gallon.(£0.46 per US gallon). The last time petrol was 55
pence a gallon in UK was about 1974/5 (the first "oil crisis").
I worked for a US multinational (retired 6 years ago) did some comparative
work on transport costs - US inland freight rates were a quarter of those
here (based on standard miles).

Today's pump price is £0.83/ltr, that's £3.77 a gallon or, $6.03 per US
gallon (using CalcPlus, and exch rate $1.92 = £1) Bet you're glad to be
'tother side of the pond, in this respect at least!

When I first started motoring (1959) petrol was 2/- (two shillings, =
£0.10p) a gallon. Happy days!

Sincerely, Len.

 

[Yabbadoo]

Perspicacia, my dear, CHECK YOUR DICTIONARY!! "Fora" is one plural of
"forum" BUT it's only ONE form - the other (more universally used and
accepted) is "forums".
Advising a multinational newsgroup that "forums" is incorrect English is (at
best) misleading. Correcting other contributors' inputs for
language/punctuation has gained you few brownie points and detracts from
your own contributions. Alas! this time you've been caught out - you are NOT
the final arbiter, QED.(latin abbreviation).

Are you using that abomination created by Webster at the turn of the (19th)
century, which bastardises the English language into the form used in
America today? As an Englishman who passed the Oxford and Cambridge
Examinations Board in English (Language and Literature, separate exams,
years ago) I wouldn't even give it house-room, even if it were available in
UK (there's no demand - we use ENGLISH dictionaries).

Appreciate your concern about non-standard paperstock measurement, can't
help, not my subject. There's probably similar anomolies in other
trades/industries - you make a good point about ISO standards, the problem
is, getting everyone to actually use them (your own quoted example - ISO
standard is g/sm, but your client still using "96lb stock"). It takes a
generation or more to establish a standard of this nature, assuming no
government enforcement and education. ISO standards in metric are relatively
recent.

Sincerely, Len

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

Hi, Mike, you're an MS-MVP. I'm just a pleb, unqualified to comment on
your first para ...on your head be it!
lol..


Re petrol in UK sold in litres ... changed so many years ago, I
disremember whether it was a UK Government initiative, or a Brussels
directive rubber-stamped here (as so many changes are)
BUT - the effect is not only to hide the real cost of a gallon, that's
cosmetic.. The REAL cruncher is the hidden tax hikes.

I am all for Brussels directives (except for the perfectly straight bananas
and all mange-tout peas having to be the same size crap).. there is no doubt
that supplying in litres made it look way better for HMG.. have you noticed
that HMG only applies Brussels directives that will make HMG employees look
less like legalised bandits?..

When the Chancellor announces "2p a litre tax rise" on fuel, it's not 2p,
it's 2p PLUS VAT at 17.5%. Fuel has to be delivered, and by the time the
add-on costs are calculated (adding VAT at 17.5% at every stage) and
rounded up, it's not 2p but 3p (or more) at the pump, to the consumer.
One can understand the Chancellor not wishing to announce 9 pence a gallon
tax hike, with 13.5 pence the actual increase!
Some-one somwhere will no doubt have the actual figure, but, in round
terms, total UK taxes on fuel is about 300%.

(Same thing happens with beer - 1p a pint on duty becomes 3p a pint or
more, at the bar, same rationale).

And don't you love the way that the Chancellor places tax on stuff but not
for a year maybe, and then when the time comes for all to pay up, he sticks
another tax increase in payable from midnight..

I had to smile, a while back, at a US news item - the furore when petrol
increased to $1 a gallon - on today's (approximate) exchange rate, that's
about £0.55 a gallon.(£0.46 per US gallon). The last time petrol was 55
pence a gallon in UK was about 1974/5 (the first "oil crisis").
I worked for a US multinational (retired 6 years ago) did some comparative
work on transport costs - US inland freight rates were a quarter of those
here (based on standard miles).

Today's pump price is £0.83/ltr, that's £3.77 a gallon or, $6.03 per US
gallon (using CalcPlus, and exch rate $1.92 = £1) Bet you're glad to be
'tother side of the pond, in this respect at least!

Canadians get hussled in the same way as Brits.. our gas is sold by the
litre and is presently 80¢ per litre locally and a gallon here is a UK
gallon, not the smaller US gallon.. in real terms, the US price advantage is
not as good as it appears,but still a whole lot better than the UK/Euro..

Gas (petrol) consumption is affected by a few factors, one of which is
temperature.. this evens the balance more still as colder air found in the
Great White North and the UK, being more dense, improves efficiency over
those living in hotter climes to the south.. in this way, the deal that some
US people get is worse still.

When I first started motoring (1959) petrol was 2/- (two shillings, =
£0.10p) a gallon. Happy days!

Wow, you are old.. .. my first recollection of gas prices was paying 6s
8d for a gallon of five star back in '69.. for 10 'bob', I could get a
gallon of gas for the CB750, get drunk and top it all off with a pork batch
from Brookies (a locally famous butcher/pork batch shop in Earlson, Coventry
UK)

 

[Miss Perspicacia Tick]

Perspicacia, my dear, CHECK YOUR DICTIONARY!! "Fora" is one plural of
"forum" BUT it's only ONE form - the other (more universally used and
accepted) is "forums".
Advising a multinational newsgroup that "forums" is incorrect English
is (at best) misleading. Correcting other contributors' inputs for
language/punctuation has gained you few brownie points and detracts
from your own contributions. Alas! this time you've been caught out -
you are NOT the final arbiter, QED.(latin abbreviation).

Are you using that abomination created by Webster at the turn of the
(19th) century, which bastardises the English language into the form
used in America today? As an Englishman who passed the Oxford and
Cambridge Examinations Board in English (Language and Literature,
separate exams, years ago) I wouldn't even give it house-room, even
if it were available in UK (there's no demand - we use ENGLISH
dictionaries).
Appreciate your concern about non-standard paperstock measurement,
can't help, not my subject. There's probably similar anomolies in
other trades/industries - you make a good point about ISO standards,
the problem is, getting everyone to actually use them (your own
quoted example - ISO standard is g/sm, but your client still using
"96lb stock"). It takes a generation or more to establish a standard
of this nature, assuming no government enforcement and education. ISO
standards in metric are relatively recent.

Sincerely, Len

Ahem it *IS* incorrect. The correct suffix is 'a' - I was brought up on
strict English usage - anything ending in '-um' takes 'a' in the plural

Stadium = Stadia
Aquarium = Aquaria
Forum = Fora
Bacterium = Bacteria
Consortium = Consortia
Addendum = Addenda
Memorandum = Memoranda
Medium = Media

There are, obviously, exceptions - elements for example - and the word
'ultimatum' (I have never heard 'ultimata'). But, '-um' is the correct
recognised form - just as 'ae' is the correct plural for words of Latin
origin ending in 'a' (e.g formula = formulae) and '-i' the correct plural
for words ending '-us' (e.g. virus = virii, focus = foci locus = loci).

I have *NOT* been "caught out". My old English teacher corrected it many
times and, indeed, she would have been proud of me for doing so. I will
preserve the correct usage of written - and spoken - English. Dumbing down
plurals is obscuring the etymology.

And, by the way, I was a A student at both O and A level. If I hadn't become
ill, I'd have gone to university and done a B.Ed.

Call me pedantic, call me anally retentive, I really don't care.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Ahem it *IS* incorrect. The correct suffix is 'a' - I was
brought up
on strict English usage - anything ending in '-um' takes 'a' in
the
plural

Nonsense! Then you were brought up wrong. In Latin, second
declension neuter nouns end in "-um" and take their plural in
"-a." English is not Latin, and Latin rules don't apply. Some
English nouns ending in "-um" take their plurals in "-a" and
others don't. I wouldn't dream of using anything but the "-a"
forms for the plurals of "addendum" and "memorandum." If I were
talking about a news medium, I would use "media" for its plural,
but if I were talking about more than one person who claimed to
be able to communicate with the spirit world, I would call them
"mediums."

And "fora" is almost completely absurd in English. Although some
dictionaries may list it as an alternative plural, none of my
dictionaries considers it more than just an alternative. And the
OED doesn't list it at all.

"Fora" may have had some currency at some time in the past, but
it certainly doesn't now. If anybody were to use "fora" in
conversation or writing today, the enormous majority of
people--probably well over 95%--would have idea what he was
talking about.

Not to mention that not all English nouns ending in "-um" derive
from second declension Latin nouns. According to your nonsensical
rule, the plural of "sum" should be "sa."

 

[billurie]

In



Nonsense! Then you were brought up wrong. In Latin, second
declension neuter nouns end in "-um" and take their plural in
"-a." English is not Latin, and Latin rules don't apply. Some
English nouns ending in "-um" take their plurals in "-a" and
others don't. I wouldn't dream of using anything but the "-a"
forms for the plurals of "addendum" and "memorandum." If I were
talking about a news medium, I would use "media" for its plural,
but if I were talking about more than one person who claimed to
be able to communicate with the spirit world, I would call them
"mediums."

And "fora" is almost completely absurd in English. Although some
dictionaries may list it as an alternative plural, none of my
dictionaries considers it more than just an alternative. And the
OED doesn't list it at all.

"Fora" may have had some currency at some time in the past, but
it certainly doesn't now. If anybody were to use "fora" in
conversation or writing today, the enormous majority of
people--probably well over 95%--would have idea what he was
talking about.

Not to mention that not all English nouns ending in "-um" derive
from second declension Latin nouns. According to your nonsensical
rule, the plural of "sum" should be "sa."

Ken, I fully agree with you, based on four years of Latin
(Ahem!----1931 to 1935).....but understandably, some of what
I knew back then has "Gone With The Wind". If I had to take
a test on it today, I'd have said that "----um" was *third*
declension, , i.e. neutral, with the male and female being
first and second. Just confirm for me that "I remember it well"
is not really the case.
Bill Lurie

 

[johnf]

Recta?
Ba?
etc., etc.!

Your quote - "The correct suffix is 'a' - I was brought up on strict English
usage - anything ending in '-um' takes 'a' in the plural" -
Note you DID specifically say 'anything'

Now in another post you come up with a let-out. "There are, obviously,
exceptions "
Please make up your mind, or at least do your homework, then put your brain
into gear before you venture anywhere near a keyboard!

 

[Ian Hoare]

Salut/Hi Ken Blake,

I think you're arguing on inadequate datums.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Ken, I fully agree with you, based on four years of Latin
(Ahem!----1931 to 1935).....but understandably, some of what
I knew back then has "Gone With The Wind". If I had to take
a test on it today, I'd have said that "----um" was *third*
declension, , i.e. neutral, with the male and female being
first and second. Just confirm for me that "I remember it
well"
is not really the case.

I wasn't a very good Latin student (not as far back as
you--1951-52), but my memory on this point is very clear. I'm
sure it's second declension neuter.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Salut/Hi Ken Blake,

I think you're arguing on inadequate datums.

A good example of an English "-um" word that *always* takes its
plural in the Latin second declension "-a" form.

But as I said, not all do.

 

[Ian Hoare]

Salut/Hi Miss Perspicacia Tick,

le/on Wed, 2 Feb 2005 22:35:15 -0000, tu disais/you said:-

There are, obviously, exceptions - elements for example - and the word
'ultimatum' (I have never heard 'ultimata').

I have.

To settle arguments on latin declensions, see:-

http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/lang/ln.html

As for always using latin plural endings for latin words directly adopted
into English, I tend (for once) to agree with you. As long as one uses the
correct singular form for words most often met in the plural -a form.

But, '-um' is the correct >recognised form - just as 'ae' is the correct plural for words of Latin
origin ending in 'a' (e.g formula = formulae) and '-i' the correct plural
for words ending '-us'

(if second declension)

I doubt many would expect the plural of a fourth declension word to be -us
in English.

(e.g. virus = virii, focus = foci locus = loci).

No, viruses (as Virus is fourth declension). In english, when the latin
plural is the same the singular, it is correct to add -es. Virii would be
plural of a word "virius".

What's the plural of Opus? Surely not opi!!!! - Try opera.

Can I suggest that if you're going to be pedantic, you might find it better
to be right.

By the way, what were you taught about words derived from Greek?

Hippopotamus
Rhinoceros

Don't accept it?

Try:- http://www.wordlookup.net/en/english-plural.html

 

[Yabbadoo]

Note, with regret, that you failed to take good advice and actually open a
dictionary.

My old first grade English teacher, (early 1950's, he retired about 1957)
gave me 100 lines for mis-spelling the word "Gipsy" (I spelt it "Gypsy"). I
remember it well. Several years later I found that BOTH spellings are
equally acceptable in English - just by consulting a dictionary. I don't
often write "Gypsy" but I will continue my way, by choice.
Equally, you are free to choose "Fora", just don't expect us to accept YOUR
statement that it is the one and only plural.
Don't dig yourself further into a hole!
"Old teachers" then, as now, are fallible - they're human and just as prone
to error as anyone.
You should know that English is a continually evolving language, not only in
vocabulary but also in form. Submissions to ng's, for example, can be just
as effective with incomplete sentences and abbreviations, 'cos ng's are not
formal forums - no Pulitzer prizes on offer. Short and factual is good - I'm
no good at "short", but I do try to offer all relevant fact.

Len.

 

[Yabbadoo]

Didn't take much to get you drunk! 1n 1969 - 1 gallon at 6s8d left you 3s4d
change out of 10 bob - don't recall beer price in 1969 but on
"decimalisation day" (Feb 1971) it was 3s (15p) a pint, though, as now,
prices varied regionally. So, out of 3s4d you got drunk AND had supper on
the way home? WOW!! (Think your telling me porkies - you had a whole QUID to
spend!)

Less of the old - I'm only 62! (g). Owned 26 m/bikes 1959 - 1972, have
driven >250 (lost count now). Mainly British, didn't like Triumphs (too much
tappet rattle). Alas! moved to London from Yorkshire, essentially forced
into cars, cities no good for bikers.

Accept your point about increased fuel density in Canada, but surely that's
only worth 2-3 mpg improvement (and don't you lose that by having to put
some in a pan, light it and put it under the sump to fluidise the frozen oil
on a winter morning?)

Cheers! Len.

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

Enjoy.. (this page brings back memories of British Prep School, canes, and
teachers who did not come to school in full military SS uniforms because it
was not seen as politically correct)..

http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/lang/latin.html



--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

 

[David Candy]

I much prefer guinea for currency work. All furniture was sold in guinea untill 66 in Australia.