Author Topic: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG  (Read 77146 times)

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #275 on: April 01, 2015, 01:20:55 pm »

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #276 on: April 01, 2015, 04:12:57 pm »

Pingu

  • Put away those fiery biscuits!
  • Mrs Pingu's domestique
    • the Igloo
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #277 on: April 11, 2015, 08:46:54 pm »
Bong! Couple get married.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #278 on: April 14, 2015, 02:33:05 pm »

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #279 on: April 14, 2015, 02:42:23 pm »
Someone drops out of Twitter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32302939

TBH, I think the not-news there is more "Top Gear fans being offensive on the internet".
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #280 on: April 23, 2015, 10:15:21 am »
Getting there...

Eccentrica Gallumbits

  • Rock 'n' roll and brew, rock 'n' roll and brew...
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #281 on: May 02, 2015, 11:58:28 am »
Pregnant woman has given birth.
My feminist marxist dialectic brings all the boys to the yard.


hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #282 on: May 02, 2015, 12:01:51 pm »
Baby's weight announced in avoirdupois.

Have we really not gone a bit metric yet?

Cudzoziemiec

  • Waking up now, put the kettle on!
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #283 on: May 02, 2015, 12:07:22 pm »
Well, we did, but then we decided to undo it all, because it was European or people with grey hair didn't understand it or something like that. But if we all went metric, would that make audaxers a bit less unusual?
I do not ride a great big Mercian, gangster tanwalls, fixed cog in the back.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #284 on: May 02, 2015, 12:37:43 pm »
Baby's weight announced in avoirdupois.

Have we really not gone a bit metric yet?

Not for baby weights (along with all the other things that otherwise sensible metric-using people insist in using old fashioned measures for).  People with babies always talk about them in pounds and ounces.  Which tbh doesn't bother me, as I've no idea what a baby is supposed to weigh anyway, so will be referring to a percentile chart before I can form an opinion, which makes the conversion back to kilograms the easy bit.

Anyway, since the royal family seem to exist primarily for the benefit of the Express and the USAnian tourist industry, it makes sense to use their native units.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #285 on: May 02, 2015, 12:42:21 pm »
Most people DO know the typical baby weight range in pounds. [I admit that I myself am a lttle hazy!]

I see no purpose in switching to kg. Does anyone need to calculate the baby's acceleration for a force (given in Newtons) ? Or her heat capacity?
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #286 on: May 02, 2015, 12:44:29 pm »
Babies (at least in the NHS) are measured & recorded in metric.  Archaic and arcane systems are probably one of the things we taxpayers are shelling out extra for in this case.
Getting there...

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #287 on: May 02, 2015, 01:07:37 pm »
Archaic weights have a comfortable familiarity. Term newborns are around 7lb and comparisons sound simple so this female is on the big side.
Given she has tall parents, good nutrition, care and had the full nine months' incubation, this is no surprise.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #288 on: May 02, 2015, 01:10:07 pm »
Archaic weights have a comfortable familiarity.

...is what old people assume.

The way I see it, if you're going to use base 16 units, then they need to be represented by the digits 0-F for comfortable familiarity.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #289 on: May 02, 2015, 01:21:42 pm »
Babies (at least in the NHS) are measured & recorded in metric.  Archaic and arcane systems are probably one of the things we taxpayers are shelling out extra for in this case.
Steady on, Clarion. That's uncharacteristically modernist of you, to have your youngest calibrated in anything other than traditional units.  :P ;)

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #290 on: May 02, 2015, 01:36:18 pm »
Archaic weights have a comfortable familiarity.

...is what old people assume.

The way I see it, if you're going to use base 16 units, then they need to be represented by the digits 0-F for comfortable familiarity.

But stones and pounds are base 14 to confuzzle the enemy further.

I admit to finding familiarity with old units useful for the semi-innumerate.

Newborn = ½ stone
2 year old = 2 stone
8 year old = 4 stone
Adult = 10 stone

These numbers worked before people got FAT. Weight based dosages could be simple and errors with decimal places spotted rather easily.

Redlight

  • Enjoying life in the slow lane
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #291 on: May 02, 2015, 01:53:59 pm »
So how many Olympic size swimming pools is that?
Between the Disney abattoir and the chemical refinery

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #292 on: May 02, 2015, 01:55:59 pm »
But stones and pounds are base 14 to confuzzle the enemy further.

This is one of those things where the USAnians have the right idea - at least in the sense of having a slightly less bad implementation of the wrong idea.


(I'm currently reading an alternate history series where an industrialising 17th century Europe seems to be standardising on decimal feet, as a compromise between politics and common sense.)
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #293 on: May 02, 2015, 03:33:12 pm »
I know that my daughter was 3.76kg at birth, but would have to use google to figure at what this is in pounds / ounces.
At one year old she was 8.2kg and I weigh 67kg and measure 176cm.

Using old, anachronistic units just annoys me.  I do work in science, though.

Can anyone remember how long the non-news dominated the real-news last time a royal sprogged?  I can't watch it at the moment due to the high frequency of Nicholas Witchell.

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #294 on: May 02, 2015, 04:22:32 pm »
So how many Olympic size swimming pools is that?

Hold up, this is a Royal sprog we're talking about and thus should be measured in Wales-related units.
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #295 on: May 02, 2015, 05:14:51 pm »
The problem comes later in life when asked your weight.  Nurses these days don't know what a stone is.  You reach for a calculator, remember the figure 2.2, strain to think whether it's 2.2 kg in a pound or vice versa, and finally take away the first number you thought of.

I was a 9 pound baby.  That's the heaviest I've ever been.  (in relation to the average person of my age)
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #296 on: May 02, 2015, 05:15:56 pm »
So how many Olympic size swimming pools is that?
UNITS !!!      :facepalm:       /teacher

I think you meant African Elephants.

(whose ears weigh upto 3 stone, apparently - I've been waiting to drop that trivia into "everyday" conversation ... )
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #297 on: May 02, 2015, 05:21:17 pm »
(I'm currently reading an alternate history series where an industrialising 17th century Europe seems to be standardising on decimal feet, as a compromise between politics and common sense.)
What's that, then? (Interest aroused). Any good?
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #298 on: May 02, 2015, 05:26:45 pm »
Anyway, since the royal family seem to exist primarily for the benefit of the Express and the USAnian tourist industry, it makes sense to use their native units.

SHould have given its length as well then. USanian's seem to quote weight and length. I was prepared for the 1st but when they asked the length..  ???

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: BONG ..And Here is the Not News..BONG
« Reply #299 on: May 02, 2015, 05:36:58 pm »
Going on about one system of measurement over another is silly.

Presumably the metric goons never pickup a handful of something, or come back in a while, or take a few steps.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.