The late, great TRS-80

[Chuck Guzis]

On 26 Jun 2007 at 22:55, Liam Proven wrote:

> What I never understood is why the USA didn't use the larger units
> rather than dealing in hundreds and thousands of pounds. I don't think
> of myself as being 225lb, I'm 16 and a quarter stone. (And badly need
> to lose some of it; I'm 6'2" but I'm happier and healthier around 15st
> or lighter.) For larger objects, hundredweight [oh gods, I've just
> realised I weigh 2cwt! 8¬( ] or tons. 112lb = 1cwt. 20cwt = 1 ton
> (=2240lb).

I'm certain that body weight would be quoted in ounces if that would 
sell more diet books.  The problem with stone is that the least 
significant digit increments only one for every 14 lbs.   You 
certainly don't measure your height in hands (just horses, right?).

Hundredweight exists for the shipping business.  We have two tons--
one that's 2000 pounds, and the "long" ton, which is 2240 pounds and 
used for coal and marine displacement.

I don't know if NASA still uses slugs to measure mass, but it 
certainly did as late as the 1990s.

Then there's the confusion between troy and avoirdupois.

"Three grains of barley, dry and round..."

Cheers,
Chuck