What Series of Sherlock is Your Favourite?

[Hikari]

1 hour ago, J.P. said:

Lars and Mark were only two actors who didn't look surprisingly small in RL. And absolutely not intimidating, in any way. I really liked him, with his slightly reserved kindness and quiet humour. I still smile at his story about playing street music in Moscow back in the 80ies. But I digress…

RL is real life?

Little Bro Mads' height is listed at 6'0, but I strenuously doubt that he is that tall.  5'10" would be more my guess.  Who do I believe?  His agent or my own eyes?

When did you see Lars IRL?  Sounds like a fun event.  I read recently in a print bio that Lars said that he and Mads learned English by listening to Monty Python records.  Which is hysterical because even native American English speakers sometimes have difficulty deciphering the Pythons.  The brothers Mikkelsen didn't pick up the Python accent, haha!

"Courtly" is the adjective that comes to mind about Lars and the way he comports himself.  He exemplifies what many people, at least in my part of the world imagine as the quintessential Dane . . .fair, tall, great teeth, bone structure to die for.  Mads is a less typical version of a Dane, perhaps . . or maybe there is no 'type'.

[Hikari]

 

In which the Russian president goes uber-alpha male on the American President's wife.  I don't think she completely hates it, either.

Lars Mikkelsen for James Bond!

[Carol the Dabbler]

On 3/28/2018 at 12:37 PM, Hikari said:

I am 165 cm. 

I don't get to say often that I'm taller than someone.

Read this -- it might make you feel better.  Apparently the average American woman is only about 5'4" (163 cm), so you're an inch taller than average.  (The average American man is about 5'9 or 175 cm.)

[Arcadia]

Great. Proof once again that I am below average.  

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I had someone (possibly part of an article I was reading) try to tell me I was short even though I’m 65.5” tall. I didn’t agree especially since I wear regular to long/tall jeans/trousers depending on the brand. Then I have friends who are short but they don’t act short.

[Carol the Dabbler]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Great. Proof once again that I am below average.  

You're not short, you're just highly concentrated (like the finer brands of shampoo).

1 hour ago, SherlockedCAMPer said:

I had someone (possibly part of an article I was reading) try to tell me I was short even though I’m 65.5” tall. I didn’t agree especially since I wear regular to long/tall jeans/trousers depending on the brand. Then I have friends who are short but they don’t act short.

Your legs must be long compared to the rest of you.  I'm the opposite, I'm 5'8" (68" or 173 cm) tall, but I wear regular-length jeans (assuming they're not a cheap, skimpy brand).

How does one act short?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Not sure on the short part, but I’m split almost completely in half 32” inseam 33.5” from top of inseam to top of head.

[Arcadia]

I don't act short, it just comes naturally.  

[Van Buren Supernova]

On 3/30/2018 at 8:30 AM, Arcadia said:

I don't act short, it just comes naturally.  

Hey, all these like wrong topic but it's all your fault.

 

Height relative, I guess it depends on where I go. I'm 166-167cm, not sure what it is in inch and feet. There are times when I'm the tallest in the room including the guys and there are times when I'm average, and that is not always relative to race. But for some guys, as long as they manage to get an inch above me would try to call me shortie.

@SherlockedCAMPer

Is that the length of jeans?

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Zowie, I know I reported to Arcadia's post, and am reasonably certain there were some other posts after that. I see what you folks mean -- the new software is eating posts!  Bad software!  

VBS, you're about 65.5 inches, or five feet five and a half inches.  That would be slightly taller than average for an American woman.

Yes, inseam means the seam on the inner side of the leg of jeans (or any pants).

I tried to edit your post to turn Camper's name into a whatever it's called, but can't seem to make it work. The software wasn't suggesting anything either. Maybe it doesn't work on phones?

[J.P.]

On 28.3.2018 at 9:23 PM, Hikari said:

When did you see Lars IRL?  Sounds like a fun event. 

First Sherlocked. The report is somewhere on the forum in a Sherlocked thread.

[Hikari]

2 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Zowie, I know I reported to Arcadia's post, and am reasonably certain there were some other posts after that. I see what you folks mean -- the new software is eating posts!  Bad software!  

VBS, you're about 65.5 inches, or five feet five and a half inches.  That would be slightly taller than average for an American woman.

Yes, inseam means the seam on the inner side of the leg of jeans (or any pants).

I tried to edit your post to turn Camper's name into a whatever it's called, but can't seem to make it work. The software wasn't suggesting anything either. Maybe it doesn't work on phones?

I keep hearing that 5'4" is 'average' for an American woman.  Yet I'm almost an inch taller than that (I claim 5'5" in shoes, though in socks I'm more like 5'43/4ths") and, until we recently hired a 5'2" colleague, I have been one of the shortest people on the entire staff.  I stand near my 5'2" eyes-of-blue colleague whenever possible to experience the uncustomary sensation of actually being significantly taller than another adult.

Nearly all of the women I work with seem to be 5'6" and above.  I have worked closely with a number of ladies who at 5'10"+.  We live in the Midwest and aren't fed any differently, nor do these women have freakishly tall parents to my knowledge.  American women are definitely getting taller.  The 5'4" average feels outdated to me based on personal field data . . maybe at the turn of the 20th century, 5'4" was average.  If my height is taller than average, how come I either have to buy petite/short length pants or cut 3" off so they aren't dragging on the ground? 

I continue to be miffed that I did not reach 5'7".  To me, that is an ideal height.  No pants shortening required!

[Arcadia]

Yes, that's my perception as well ... all the women around me seem to be at least 5'6". Phooey.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe they're wearing taller shoes?

Or maybe you simply don't tend to notice any of the stumpy little women around you?

.

8 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I tried to edit your post to turn Camper's name into a whatever it's called, but can't seem to make it work. The software wasn't suggesting anything either. Maybe it doesn't work on phones?

Nope, still doesn't work on my laptop.  Maybe it only works in Europe?

[Van Buren Supernova]

3 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Maybe they're wearing taller shoes?

Or maybe you simply don't tend to notice any of the stumpy little women around you?

.

Nope, still doesn't work on my laptop.  Maybe it only works in Europe?

@Arcadia.

Carol was making fun of you. Go get her!!

It's funny that in the thread you wrote it in tiny font, but from the front page we can read everything normally, and my first reaction was No she didn't

You see.. imperial is so confusing. To me, there is always problem with accuracy.

If to write it down, my height is 5'5.5"? If I drop down to 165.5cm one day, how do you accurately say it in imperial. 5'5.3/16"?

Because for metric, we have 10 mm for every cm, and 100cm for every m. So it's pretty easy to put them in decimal and get the bearing right away.

1000 mm is 100 cm is 1 m.

For inch, there is 16 or 32 lower divider for whatever the unit below inch is called. (From interntional measuring tape) It's not easy to round it up, and you can't  put an easy call in decimal.

And we are wayyyy off topic.

Series 2, for its gem SIB and TRF.

[Carol the Dabbler]

21 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

If to write it down, my height is 5'5.5"? If I drop down to 165.5cm one day, how do you accurately say it in imperial. 5'5.3/16"?

We generally round off a person's height to the nearest inch or half inch.  So 165.5 cm is 5'5" -- or one might say "a little over 5-foot-5," if one cherishes that extra fraction of an inch.

[Van Buren Supernova]

What about things that really needs very accurate small precision?

I know that certain stuffs are better recognized in inches, even in metric world. Pipe for example, the diameter are almost always in inch. Nuts and bolts are the other things I could think off, but then again, they are made with those template. 

If we want to customized something and need the measurement down to very precise details, is there a way in imperial? I'm sure there is, since it works fine, but is that mean it's not commonly used in regular world?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Traditionally, things that need fairly small measurements, such as thickness of plastic sheeting, is measured in something called mils, which are (I had to look it up) thousandths of an inch.  Some products, such as sheet metal, have their own system of standard measurements, generally expressed as such and such gauge, which I assume is different for each type of product (with the common factor being that the higher the gauge, the smaller the measurement).  For scientific and medical things, we mostly use metric.

Nuts and screws here come in both metric and inches, but metric is less common, mostly used for foreign-car parts and such.  Larger nails are measured in "pennies" (meaning originally how many pennies a hundred of them would cost).  By the way, the system used here isn't actually imperial.  It's close, but there are some differences, mostly in liquid measures I think.  Maybe ours is called American?

All in all, it's kind of a historical hodgepodge, but we're used to it, so it works.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Hey, all these like wrong topic but it's all your fault.
 
Height relative, I guess it depends on where I go. I'm 166-167cm, not sure what it is in inch and feet. There are times when I'm the tallest in the room including the guys and there are times when I'm average, and that is not always relative to race. But for some guys, as long as they manage to get an inch above me would try to call me shortie.
@SherlockedCAMPer
Is that the length of jeans?
 

Zowie, I know I reported to Arcadia's post, and am reasonably certain there were some other posts after that. I see what you folks mean -- the new software is eating posts!  Bad software!  
VBS, you're about 65.5 inches, or five feet five and a half inches.  That would be slightly taller than average for an American woman.
Yes, inseam means the seam on the inner side of the leg of jeans (or any pants).
I tried to edit your post to turn Camper's name into a whatever it's called, but can't seem to make it work. The software wasn't suggesting anything either. Maybe it doesn't work on phones?

As Carol said it’s the inside seam of my jeans/trousers. It amounts to the length of my legs.

I keep hearing that 5'4" is 'average' for an American woman.  Yet I'm almost an inch taller than that (I claim 5'5" in shoes, though in socks I'm more like 5'43/4ths") and, until we recently hired a 5'2" colleague, I have been one of the shortest people on the entire staff.  I stand near my 5'2" eyes-of-blue colleague whenever possible to experience the uncustomary sensation of actually being significantly taller than another adult.
Nearly all of the women I work with seem to be 5'6" and above.  I have worked closely with a number of ladies who at 5'10"+.  We live in the Midwest and aren't fed any differently, nor do these women have freakishly tall parents to my knowledge.  American women are definitely getting taller.  The 5'4" average feels outdated to me based on personal field data . . maybe at the turn of the 20th century, 5'4" was average.  If my height is taller than average, how come I either have to buy petite/short length pants or cut 3" off so they aren't dragging on the ground? 
I continue to be miffed that I did not reach 5'7".  To me, that is an ideal height.  No pants shortening required!

It’s possible to have a long torso and shorter legs. My dad used to be 5’10” at his tallest. His inseam was 30” leaving 40” from there to the top of his head. So as much as he was taller than me, I had the longer legs.

[Hikari]

12 minutes ago, SherlockedCAMPer said:

It’s possible to have a long torso and shorter legs. My dad used to be 5’10” at his tallest. His inseam was 30” leaving 40” from there to the top of his head. So as much as he was taller than me, I had the longer legs.

Yep.  That describes me.  I joke to friends that they can call me 'Stumps'.  My torso is a normal size . .I'm not low-waisted, but my legs are short.  Evidently.  Because if I had that two extra inches of height that I crave in my legs, I could buy normal inseam length pants without hemming them.  I don't sew, so I always have to look for the 'Short' lengths.  I could really use a couple extra inches in my arms, too.  My shoulders are relatively broad for my frame and they must be taking up length in my arms!

[Arcadia]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 6:23 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

Maybe they're wearing taller shoes?

Or maybe you simply don't tend to notice any of the stumpy little women around you?

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 11:16 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

  By the way, the system used here isn't actually imperial.  It's close, but there are some differences, mostly in liquid measures I think.  Maybe ours is called American?

All in all, it's kind of a historical hodgepodge, but we're used to it, so it works.

According to Bing, it's called the "U.S. customary system". Although since I've never heard that term in my life, I have my doubts.