So is a stone a unit of mass or weight?
I wonder what the acceleration of gravity is in stone-furlongs per fortnight squared?
I don’t know where stone-furlongs would fit in, but according to my calculations acceleration due to gravity is 71,325,583,606 furlongs per fortnight per fortnight.
Geek.
One is weight and one is money. 
In seriousness, one is weight, and one is an archaic measure of weight.
Chez, I’m surprised to see that Tesco has milk in those quantities. Just checked my fridge and I see you’re completely correct. I had assumed they were in 250 ml, 500 ml, and 1 l measures. Probably because I lived in Ireland, where they’re a bit more metric-progressive.
Just checked the fridge, we get a plastic pint carton, plastic litre and Tesco also have 2 litre and 3 litre cartons. I haven’t seen milk sold in the old cardboard pint cartons for a while, but orange juice and soup seem to be sold in them.
The old skinny milk bottle has disappeared from the garage, it may be a victim of recycling…
duffer
To answer your second question in the same vein as your first, “Standing at 6’ 4" what measurement can I use?” The correct answer would be 19 hands.
So, duffer stands 19 hands at 17 stone. Hmm… makes him sound like a pugilist (or a very thin horse)…
Of course, stone-furlongs per fortnight squared would be force, not acceleration. My bad.
If a stone is already a unit of weight, not mass, we could always use slugs instead. 1 slug = 14.59 kg.
Reminds me of one of those aphorisms that one often sees in engineering circles:
“All measurements shall be given in the least usable units. Speed, for instance, shall be expressed as furlongs per fortnight”
One furlong per fortnight would be pretty good going for some of the horses I’ve backed.
Gasp!
I scrolled to the end just to post the phrase “furlongs per fortnight”. It’s been rattling around in my skull forever, since I first read it in…either Mad or National Lampoon. Probably Mad. Sometime in the '60s.
My first-year physics prof used furlongs per fortnight extensively in class.
Whodathunk a thread with a simple, factual, one-sentence answer would to to 72 posts?
More likely to be a victim of centralised supply. The glass bottles were (and are) true examples of ‘fully-recyleable’, i.e. returnable.
I think the source of fu/fn calls for its own thread, which I will launch forthwith.
Ummm, yeah. Hehe. Now go find a tape measure that makes those numbers useful. 
I bought a bag of potatos and saw that it was marked 3.6ish kilos, or 7 pounds. I would have assumed that that was the weight of some odd Imperial (or, more likely these days, US Customary) volume measurement, but now I know! That’s half a stone!
Well, we don’t at the moment really need to, but consider:
Suppose we have colonies on Mars, mining outposts in the Asteroids, and scientific outposts in Jupiter orbit.
There is lots of interplanetary traffic going back and forth amongst all of those places.
Obtaining a distance measurement based on light seconds provides info that can be used quickly, without resorting to mental acrobatics. Light seconds tells you how long a radio message from you to the destination will take to get there. If your using regular old radar for range measurements, you “know” how old that info is for navigational use.
1.134 Smoots
No thread about obscure units of measurement is complete without the Smoot.
And the nad (18.4cm), defined (or recorded) by Douglas Adams: “the distance between a driver’s oustretched fingertips and the ticket machine in an automatic car park.”
Luckily there was a link. I swear to Og I was gonna accuse you of just making up shit. 