> So, presumably you believe that in Britain, where the vast majority of the population understands imperial units far better than metric ones, it would make more sense for products to be described using the imperial system.


While not knowing Wes' opinion, I'd like to state that I indeed do believe this. However, I also believe that some time in the future, even british isolationists will wake up to the fact that they must speak with people from the continent. And those people will be using metric units. So, if the british government were to encourage use of (and education in) both systems, I'm willing to bet that the use of metric would eventually spread, so that, at some point, the majority would be more comfortable with metric units.


>
> If the British people choose to use the imperial system, but have the metric system forced upon them by politicians looking to win brownie points with Brussels, this can only lead to confusion and ambiguity.
>


Agreed. he operative word is "forced". If it were changed, on the other hand, to "encouraged", I would not agree.


> > Actually, it is harder to use. If I were to ask you to tell me how many inches there are in 2.5 miles, you'd have to think for quite a while. If I were to ask you how many milimeters there were in 2.5 kilometers, you'd know the answer pretty much immediately.
>
> 1760 yards per mile x 36 inches per yard = 63,360 inches per mile. 2.5 miles = 158,400 inches.
>
> This took me less than a minute to work out, using nothing more than the Windoze calaulator. It would have taken me perhaps slightly less time to calculate the metric version.


Well, that proves the point then. You needed a calculator and roughly a minute, I knew it imediately (the answer is a 2.5 million).


>
> winter"Imperial works for me"mute


jul"good for you"ian