Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: what's a 2x4
Message-ID: <1286@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 11:54:45 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1286
Posted: Tue Dec 18 11:54:45 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Dec-84 13:58:39 EST
References: <888@ubc-cs.UUCP> 
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 26
Summary: 


>> ... This would consist of things like 2x4s (I guess it is OK to 
>> use imperial measurements now that it appears mandatory metrification 
>> is being scrapped)...
>
>It's OK to say "2x4" regardless, since this is a *name*, not a measurement.
>There is nothing "2 inches by 4 inches" about a 2x4 (no, not even rough-sawn
>2x4's are 2 inches by 4 inches nowadays).  The existing metric-practice
>guides, including the CSA one, are quite explicit that names don't change
>when you go metric.
>-- 
>        "Make mine metric."
>
>                                Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

Even if the name did change, wouldn't "5 x 10" be as nice as "2 x 4"?

Don't you hate 397gm cans of stuff?  Why can't they restrict containers
to reasonable numbers like 400gm?

Make mine metric, too...  MMM Club membership now open.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt