Post your height in centimeters.
How tall are you?
I am 177 cm.

181.61

177 cm.

My height is a matter between me and the Association for People of Short Stature in Sweden!

184 in the morning, around 1cm less in the evening. I haven't made any statistics to find the average height.

182cm

190.5 cm

I'm the tallest a.cc member so far.

Why centimeters...? Measuring human height in feet and inches is so much more natural, where I'm from at least.

I estimated 172.72 cm, based on Google's conversion. I think I'm around 5'8" or 5'9".

~185

174 cm

Not to me, here down we use the SI, besides, an inch == 2.54 cm, so using cm we can get more precision.
However, there is an unavoidable delta error(0, 2.54cm] when converting from feet and inches to cm.

Please tell me your not serious?
I'm an American and I don't agree with that. I thought you were Canadian. Don't they use metric?

He lives in Canada, but he's more American than most of the people on the other side of the border.

That's because you're from Stupidland.

181 cm. I'm short.

190.5 cm

That might be short for a Swede, but it's taller than most people on the planet.

So far most people in this thread are taller, so no.

The midgets are just too afraid we'll make fun of them if they post their height.

I'm 171cm. Average for my country, but clearly shorter than most people here. Are you all vikings? Or huns? Why do you have the need to be so tall? I feel discriminated...

Too much info.

168 cm (around average for this region, I believe).

What Paul said.

178cm ish.

Wow, you're almost all tall compared to the average here in Portugal. I'm 1m82, and that's pretty tall here.

174 cm. I am short, but heh, I am a warrior

Aha! My 0.61 cm comes in handy as I tower over you! I like my height. Slightly taller than the average American, but not so tall that I look like a goof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_adult_height_around_the_world

Although I do have six brothers who are all taller than me, so I still feel short at home.

185cm. I use both cm and feet for height. Older generation seems to use feet more than the younger generation. Canada is mostly converted to metric i guess you could say.

I'd say more importantly gas is about 1.25/litre right now

Canada has the biggest discrepency between measured height and self-reported height... I guess that makes Canadian the biggest (or is that smallest) liars.

We like our tales tall.

167.64 centimeters

188 +- 1cm

192cm. I used to be 194, but the weight of the world is on my shoulders.

It seems a large number of allegators are made of reasonably tall timber.

185 or 186, haven't measured myself lately.

I can't remember ever hearing somebody tell me how tall they are in centimeters outside of an elementary school assignment... We might officially use metric, but unofficially we use imperial. Personally I use imperial for most measurements. I've never met anyone that used metric aside from measuring speed and distance (because our signs post kilometers/hour) and volume (because our gas is sold in litres) and mass (because our drugs are sold in grams ). However, outside of drugs most people refer to weight which is again imperial.

Get out more

184 cm

Some people like Casablanca. Others like Gone with the Wind. Others like Mozart. And others like to use obsolete 15th century measurements. I guess they also carry rapiers and fight dragons

I'm 188cm. And you should all be happy, I actually used Google to find out how to do the conversion from inches, instead of asking here first

The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.

I like Battleship Potemkin.

187. A good height.

Rather personal...

6 inches + change, so 16cm or so. About average.

Edit: I'm getting banned for this post...

173 cm... yes, I'm short.

Then what the hell does that leave? Like it or not, your body weight (sic; I know that weight and mass is not the same thing) is a measure of mass, and your height is a measure of distance. So what's left? Measuring energy in foot-pound force?

Yes. We should all switch to that system.

My id card says 182cm but I think my height is actually just 181cm.

Unit Wars is another classic Allegro.cc fight!

Scientifically speaking, the metric system is obviously ideal. But for day-to-day usage, it's quite possible that more natural systems are more useful. Or, in the very least, it's irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, almost all packaging here in the USA comes marked in both systems. [eg. A cereal box: 15 oz (425 grams)]

As long as we all agree on the exact weight of a stone, the length of a foot, etc.

I think that those units are very primitive...

Of course. I just mean that whether or not units of large measurements are even powers of smaller measurements is relatively meaningless for day to day usage.

For instance, measuring myself in centimeters does not help me visualize how far a kilometer is. A mile being 5,280 feet may seem arbitrary, but in the grand scheme of things, I really don't care how many feet are in a mile. I just know that City A is 25 miles away from City B, and that means something because I've driven the distance and I can associate the two.

So while the metric system is far more logical, the only system that will feel natural is the one you've grown up using.

Funny thing is the same goes for lots of stuff sold in our shops, only that imperial units are in parenthesis.

You can't really say what is more natural, it all depends on what you are used to. Old Babylonians were used to base-60 numeric system and did just fine

I'm six foot two and refuse to use silly measurements for heights. Similarly, if any of the girls are reading this, my other measurement is 9 inches

There's a time and a place for metric, but that time isn't for measurements that require a discrete and identifiable series or markers.

Then you lose USD 125 million

Like I said, there's a time and a place for metric

170

There's nothing qwrong with imperial if you're used to it, but metric is good for all occasions.

I think exactly the same about your exotic measurement system.
Most people over the world use the SI, there are only a few exceptions though, as you already know.
And as a native SI user, I find it very natural, I can visualize magnitudes very easily with it.

Used to be 180 but I'm afraid I've shrunk a bit, small in my country and on A.cc too it seems

Last time my height was measured was in the army, 169cm.

Well, I'm 6' tall, so that's 72" .. so that makes me 72 * 2.54 = 182.88 cm tall...

And it seems as though we're starting a second graph of the size of a.cc member's memberses... maybe we can make a calendar or something...

Sadly, not all of us think like rain man. Metric measurements are fine and dandy for a sterilised mathematical world, but imperial measurements provide a link between mathematics and the real world and put things in context. For example, tall people are those over six foot, well-endowed men are those over 8 inches, big shoes are size 12 and over, roger bannister broke the four minute mile, a good sized garden is over a third of an acre. 181cm, 182cm, 183cm, 184cm doesn't quite convey the same thing.

Extending this to other more preferred measurements I know exactly what 137 degrees looks like and can visualise it, but 2.399963 radians means nothing.

Uh, looks like 1.8m+ is tall. Big whoop. both are fairly arbitrary numbers.

I'm between 180cm and 185cm, I tried a more precise measure, but it seems I'm lacking the proper technology, as I came up with different measures in that range each time

Exactly. No argument is going to make one system look better than the one you grew up with.

Metric is fine for that if you're used to it. I have absolutely no problem visualizing heights in cm. It's easier for me than when given in feet/inches, which I have to convert to cm in my head.

I hate feets and inches! SI rulorz! 1337!

I have a foot fetish...

155 cm8-)

Isn't that nice, from foots to tenths of millimeters. One foot contains around 300mm. Didn't your physics teacher tell you how to round numbers? I learned it the hard way

For me it seems as imperial units are good enough for as long as you don't have to make lots of (any) calculations with them. Once you start converting between them all hell breaks loose.

You guys are a bunch of trees. I'm 170 cm.

187.96cm

Btw, I assume we are all giving our measurements with shoes on? Shoes add an inch or more.

I think we should all adopt the metric system so that we aren't using some weird system that most of the world does not use. It would have to be taught in schools starting very young in order to catch on in the states I think.

Not I. 179.5cm here, anyway.

Height measurements are done with shoes off. If I wear shoes, then my height would be more like 197cm.

Of course not! you should not wear shoes!
Well, then I'll add 3cm, so now I am 180 cm(shoes on) yep, I feel taller now.;D

6 feet and 2 inches. Approx 188 cm. (Shoes off, BTW)

Weight is measured in pounds where I'm from. The only distance that is measured using metric units are long distances, usually related to travel. I, for one, using imperial units there as well.

And yes, AFAIK in Canada power and torque are measured in horsepower and foot-pounds.

There's nothing qwrong with metric either. However, myself and many others in North America are used to imperial units. Seeing everybody's height in centimeters means very little to me because I haven't worked with metric units since elementary school.

I can't visualize 180 cm because I've never knowingly seen it. I know the approximation of a centimeter, but how easy is it to accurately visualize 180 of anything? I can say I've seen 5'11" many times and can much more easily visualize it. The numbers are also smaller which helps a lot.

Also, when it comes to height most of our measures are probably inaccurate anyway so using centimeters doesn't do anything for accuracy (some might even argue it hinders accuracy).

In short, metric isn't any better for all occasions. Whatever somebody is familiar with is better. In North America, that's probably mostly imperial.

Well said.

Haha! For the record, I've never understood foot fetishes... What is wrong with these people!?

Don't you mean shoes add 2.54 centimeters or more?

Metric ensures consistency, plus it's easier to work with.

[edit]

Wrong - the quote was metric is good for all occassions.

[/edit]

The quote implies that metric is good for all occasions (everybody) whereas imperial is only good if you're used to it. All is more than some, and therefore, he implied that metric is better for all occasions than imperial. Hence, I corrected him. Hence, I'm not wrong.

I was replying to Neil saying that metric wasn't good for all occasions. I was implying nothing about the suitability of imperial measurements.

You didn't correct me, because you completely misunderstood me. Hence, you're wrong.

I'm not going to arsed getting any further into this.

Lose your obsession with there needing to be a hierarchical order, and that something has to be better or best. It's impacting your judgment.

And the word is hence.

1.85m is a nice small number but saying one-eighty-five also rolls off the tongue. That hottie sharapova is right around my height, i think she's 190 though.

It's funny though in canada. if you look at trades (arguably less educated) they tend to use imperial to describe force and small measurements (such as carpenters, etc). I think most farmers use hectares instead of acres too. I also find it funny with older people. They will say the highway speed is 100 miles an hour, when they clearly mean 100km/hour. Sometimes they'll also say 15miles instead of 15km. But even the old farts can't tell you how hot 68F is.

Thinks like liquid and gas, mass (except bodyweight which is done in both) are all done in metric. 4L jug of milk, 1L of gas, 1kg of beef, 200g of sliced meat, 5kg of fruit, etc. I've never seen someone ever say i want 2lbs of apples or X (ounces?) of sliced turkey breast.

I'm sure even bamccaig can tell you how far 400m, 200m, 100m, or even 5m is. Exits on highways are about 200 - 400m after the sign and 400m is the length of a running track. 1cm is around the width of a skinny pinky, a ruler is 30cm ~ 1foot. TV's are measure in inches but i think that's an american influence. I know how bit a 19" monitor is but i could tell you the same if it were 15 rods. The actual measurement is meaningless to me.

All sciences and engineering are obviously done in metric.

edit: bytes.. kilo byte = 2^10, mega byte = 2^20, giga byte = 2^30 ~ 10^9
It's mostly metric.. but that's why 10KiB exists.

Did I misunderstand you or did you poorly communicate your idea?

Sounds like you said that metric is always good (all) and imperial is only good if you're used to it. Myself and other members have illustrated that metric is not good for all occasions.

What?

Hierarchical order? Where did that come from? There is always a better and best, but sometimes (arguably, often) it's relative (like we've shown can be true for measurement units).

So it is.

I don't know what you're talking about. I've never witnessed any of this...

Actually meat is often sold in pounds (lbs) here, which if I'm not mistaken is an imperial unit. I'm sure there are other things sold by the pound, but I'm not much of a grocery shopper...

Even?

Both. If you took what I was replying to into account, it should still have been obvious what I meant though.

I was trying not to come across as saying metric was the only good system. They're both fine for all occasions if you're used to them, and pretty useless when you're not.

Because you're used to using imperial units.

Right... As opposed to illustrating that metric isn't good for all occasions by never using imperial.

Please, pray tell, what gives you the idea that I'm attempting to illustrate that imperial isn't good?

193 cm

How do they study classical mechanics and physics without the metric system? Is it even possible? I mean m != F, meaning you can't compare kg with N, but you seem to be able to use lbs for measuring both masses and forces.

I guess physics is really difficult for a person not familiar with the metric system. My favourite example of the simplicity is the different units of energy in the metric system:
If you make a mass of 1 kg accelerate 1 m/s per second (1 m/s²), you use a force of 1 N.
Moving a mass with the force 1 N one metre, you use an energy of 1 Nm.
1 Nm equals 1 Ws, which is the energy that you use, if you burn a 1 W light bulb for one second (theoretically speaking, you have to use the right potential, then there's a loss in the conductors etc).
And 1 Nm == 1 Ws == 1 J. One calory is about 4.2 Joule.

The calory unit itself is not bad at all. Probably that's why it is still used even where the metric system is prefered. With one calory you can warm 1 g of water 1° C, which sounds very metric.

Another simplicity is that 1 litre == 1000 cm³, 1000 litre == 1m³. And 1 litre of water has a mass of 1 kg! And that goes for milk, juices, spirits etc. So when the recipy says add 1.5 dl of yoghurt, I don't use a measuring cup to measure 1.5 dl of yoghurt. I just put the bowl on the kitchen weighing machine and add 150 g of yoghurt.

He's right, you're wrong, and he likes nothing more than to argue endlessly about something everyone else came to a conclusion about much earlier.

Now you're being inconsistent. First you said mass is measured in kilograms, and then that it's measured in pounds? Make up your mind. I'm assuming here that you mean "mass" all along, because weight is measured in Newtons anyhow, neither pounds nor kilograms. Maybe we should just add "mind-shattering inconsistency" to the nails in the imperial coffin...

But really, the main problem with imperial distance units is that you can't divide or multiply them intuitively unless you want to just give up and only use the smallest one for everything. 12 inches in a foot, three feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile... eurghh. And don't even try to get into measuring sub-inch distances. That just gets evil.

SI gives you bigger numbers and more precision. So it's clearly better than feet, inches and miles.

And I have no idea how tall I am, but I think it's around swedish average. Maybe a little taller, and that's without even socks on my feet.

I was wondering what that stench was.

Put your socks back on man.

171... and a half

180cm < （´・ω・） ≤ 183cm

Can't remember anything more specific and I don't seem to have it on paper anywhere. Which kind of makes sense seeing as my last "physical" consisted of the person wondering about my lack of exercise and making sly inquiries into my sexual preference. Meh, at least it didn't cost me anything.

There is a good story in there, somewhere. Share, please?

[more bugging the imperialists]
Another strange thing is using fractions of this and that. Like 3 3/8 inch. You need to perform some calculation to compare 3/8 with 10/24. The good thing with it is how you kind of change the precision in a binary way. 3 1/2 inches is simply 3 1/2 inches, even if the precision is +-0.2 inches. You can't say 3.5 inches, if the precision is not +-0.05 inches.

I am 1.03 diggetydoo in height, which equals to 52.75 hammertimes and √47 pine cone buildings if it's dark, √59 if not.

I'm 1.78 last time I checked. Though that was cheating with socks on, I believe.

Not really much to share. I have a remarkably sedentary lifestyle and am worthless at trying to conceal it, which accounts for the first part. As for the second... The nurse just seemed awfully eager to know whether I "kept an eye out for the opposite sex" regardless of the university's gender distribution being heavily bent towards the male side. She may have taken my perplexity at the absurdity of the questions for hesitation to answer and was possibly going to recommend the local gay/lesbian student society in case I'd throw an emo fit and tearfully confess to being a homosexual freak or something to that effect.

In case you were wondering, I'm greasy, smelly and socially incompetent, and the nurse had 25+ years on me, so there was no magic in the air. I hope.

As an aside, around May Day the same student health organization was handing out water bottles with condoms taped on them. The bottles had labels saying something like "Head clear, rubber near".^*

And I'm done derailing the thread just about... now.

_{*) Approximative translation; the original was "Yläpää kirkkaana, alapää puhtaana". As if that means anything to you.}

190cm.

I could actually be a real protoss!

Ok 185.42

181 inches.

Holy cow, you are 4.5m tall! are you a troll?

185.42

185. I think it's strange how narrow a range (manjula excepted) we all are. Much smaller than the average spread I would have thought.

No, I said that in Canada it's common for mass to be measured in grams (Kilograms, etc.; i.e. metric), however, weight is most often measured in pounds (i.e. imperial). There is a very big difference between mass and weight as well as Kilograms and pounds. Mass is a measure of matter (theoretically, I think it's correct to say energy as well). Weight is a measure of the gravitational force acting on an object. On the surface of the Earth, the gravitational field is relatively constant (or close enough to it to have little effect) so mass tends to be directly proportional to weight.

I specifically said that mass was measured in grams (Kilograms, etc.; using the metric system) and weight was measured in pounds (using the imperial system) and meant it. When you stand on a scale you are measuring weight, not mass (although the mass can be derived from the weight if you know the gravitational force acting on the object).

This is only a problem where you need to convert. Metric is a nicer system for serious studies where you need to pass inputs around a system. However, in the context of measuring one's height, imperial is perfectly suitable (especially for those of us used to it) because we aren't converting to anything. We know what an inch and a foot are and it's no trouble visualizing a person's height in feet and inches.

It's true that metric is nicer for serious study, but accuracy isn't important here (and 99% of our measurements are incorrect anyway) so the imperial system works fine. Back in elementary school I preferred metric, but after learning imperial I usually prefer it (unless I'm doing serious calculations and conversions). However, it is still possible to be just as accurate with imperial measurements.

You also don't actually have to say 1 ^1/2 inches. You can still say 1.5 inches. Somebody could also say 1 ^1/2 centimeters if they wished. It's just that for common tasks like home construction, etc., the part units are often constant and fraction math is probably easier than floating point math. My father can calculate imperial math really fast in his head. It takes me a bit longer because I don't use it often (the only units I come across often are bytes, etc., or horsepower/torque which don't need conversion).

Except you can't both have a "pound" be a unit of weight and of mass, as weight is force, not mass. Now, as it happens, there is a force equivalent called a pound-force, abbreviated lbf. But, that's not what you said. You used pounds, lbs; which is a measurement of mass, not of weight.

And, really, no one pretends that they are talking about pound-force when weighing themselves; it's mass, through and through. A scale may measure weight, but the display still shows mass. (Or did you really think that here in Europe, our scales show you the result in Newtons, the SI unit for force? No, it converts it to kilograms, the unit for mass.)

So, you have two choices. Either you immediately stop referring to "pounds" as a measurement of weight and use the SI unit for force - the Newton - or use the imperial unit - the pound-force, or you admit that you're deliberately contradicting yourself.

Now, knowing you've got about the brain capacity of an inbred snail, my bet is that you will instead choose C: Rant about like an idiot about stuff you don't understand.

- Source

People keeping track of their "weight" are actually keeping track of their mass (indirectly). It's unimportant how much force gravity is pushing on you with. Instead, people are interested in how "heavy" they are or how much matter they are made of. The only way I know to measure mass is with a balance-like contraption. Otherwise, we generally are measuring weight which is measured in pounds (at least in North America) regardless of the underlying meaning of the measurement.

I see what you're saying by the title of the article, but I've always been taught that pounds are measuring the force of gravity. That article seems to both support and contradict that. I think the term "pound-force" might be the "correct" terminology and in general use people just say "pound" because there is no ambiguity about the intended meaning.

Most scales in Canada and America show us the measurement in pounds (lbs).

*UPDATE*

Or you'll what!?

1.	a unit of weight and of mass, varying in different periods and countries.

The meaning is relative to the time and place. More than likely, we're both right relative to when and where.

Oh come on guys, let go off it already.

But it's so fun to watch.

But you can't say 1.5 if it is 1.4! The .5 has no meaning, when rounding. In metrics, you use precisions with 0, 1, 2, 3 etc decimals.

bamccaig, ya most people refer to their own weight in lbs (apparently britains use stone) but weight for most things is still measured in kilos here. When i was working on the port it was all kilo's, at the grocery store it's all kilos, etc. My drivers license even shows height and weight in metric and doesn't show imperial.

anyways, my last post in this thread which has totally disintegrated.

Not really, it's well known the majority of clever people are tall, and this group is predominantly for clever people. Short, stupid and poor people usually hang around the SDL mailing list

Yeah, it's amazing how bamccaig can produce a heated argument in every thread he participates.

Did you ever notice that he seems to be arguing with himself for the most part?

Anyway, I'm now inclined to create an "Earth is round" thread and see what ensues .

185.42

That's nonsense. If the Earth was round, how could anyone possibly travel to the South Pole? It is on the verge of common sense that the world is one big plain with people on the edges who knock out and drug anyone who gets too close, then has them transported across to the other side of the Earth as fast as they possibly can, hence why, if you try to travel around the world, the date changes on you. It is all just some big conspiracy so that scientists don't have to admit they were wrong about a "fact" that has become common knowledge and deal with the global chaos that would ensue.

187 centimeters, to stay on topic.

From this, we can also conclude that people on the eastern edge of the world are more technologically advanced than those on the western edge. Why, you ask? Well, of course because they have obviously invented time travel. When they drug you while you're going east, you actually wake up the day before.

No, you have it all wrong, Jakub, the truth is that no one really returns from the East. In the mysterious East, your brain is actually siphoned off for the use of furthering the intelligence of an AI more powerful than even the movies have imagined. A clone is then made of you and sent across the earth back where you came from, but, despite having made the most advanced super computer destined to rule the Earth, they (the infamous and omnipresent they, of course) still can't get the shipping times down, so you arrive a day early.
What are they filling your heads with in these schools nowadays?

Alright, I'm bored of playing bamccaig.

175 cm. And clearly, the Earth is a hyperboloid. You can go around it at the equator, but it's virtually impossible to go to the poles and come back on the "other side".

Albert Einstein 176cm
Bill Gate$ 178cm
I could not find the height of Isaac Newton

172.7cm

But George Washington was 10 foot high!

182.88

Since we're all computer nerds. Maybe we should look at avg weight.

Actually maybe that's not a good idea.

Assuming I didn't mess up in my calculations, the average height of the given numbers is: 184.28 centimeters or approximately 6 feet.

Should I open a weight thread?;) what do you think?

That's because metric is the official measurement system in Canada. Any official documentation will use the metric system and most (if not all) formal documentation will use the metric system as well. That doesn't mean Canadian citizens have to use the metric system in their everyday life and in my experience most don't (definitely not exclusively).

150 lbs

~83kg or ~183lbs or ~2.43*10^(-2)fmcs

Anywhere from 70 to 75kg.

Averaging around 86kg (about 200lb).

Last time I tried to measure my weight, the scale started to scream and cry.

Approximately 125-130 lbs or 57-59 Kg.

I will tell you in 1 year when I have lost a significant amount of weight.

112 lbs!

I feel like such a lard arse

And what's your height?

Last time I checked before the scales battery died (some months ago) I was 68-70Kg.

Trying to spread your own measure unit?

Touché... but, i mean, it's sooo much better than the metric system!