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