Slashdot Mirror


Home Improvement Chains Accused of False Advertising Over Lumber Dimensions (consumerist.com)

per unit analyzer writes: According to Consumerist, an attorney has filed a class-action lawsuit charging Home Depot (PDF) and Menards (PDF) with deceptive advertising practices by selling "lumber products that were falsely advertised and labeled as having product dimensions that were not the actual dimensions of the products sold." Now granted, this may be news to the novice DIYer, but overall most folks who are purchasing lumber at home improvement stores know that the so-called trade sizes don't match the actual dimensions of the lumber. Do retailers need to educate naive consumers about every aspect of the items they sell? (Especially industry quirks such as this...) Furthermore, as the article notes, it's hard to see how the plaintiffs have been damaged when these building materials are compatible with the construction of the purchaser's existing buildings. i.e., An "actual" 2x4 would not fit in a wall previously built with standard 2x4s -- selling the something as advertised would actually cause the purchaser more trouble in many cases.

548 comments

  1. In other news by suso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you buy a 20GB hard drive, you might only get one with 19GB of free space.

    1. Re:In other news by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, you just think that because some applications on some OSes report the size in asinine GiB units, notwithstanding the fact that no persistent storage device ever made has had any natural relation to 2^20, 2^30, etc.

      It's like if the home center sold you boards that are actually 2 inches by 4 inches in size, but they also gave you a ruler with bogus extra-large inches that made it look like 1.5 X 3.5. (The same rulers would have bogus feet that have slightly more than 12 of those bogus inches, so a calculator would necessary for nearly every measurement.)

    2. Re:In other news by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Informative

      the fact that no persistent storage device ever made has had any natural relation to 2^20, 2^30, etc.

      How come? Disks use 512/4096 byte sectors, erase blocks of powers of two, etc -- not a single power of 10 around. And non-sleazy manufacturers who provide sizes in actual rather than marketing gigabytes do exist.

      I got an unopened SD card whose back writing includes "1GB = 1,073,741,824"; I remember a few disks that mention their capacity in real giga/terabytes too.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:In other news by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Wait till the man finds out that half is only half of what she's going to take.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:In other news by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      notwithstanding the fact that no persistent storage device ever made has had any natural relation to 2^20, 2^30, etc

      I dunno man. Magnetic core seems to be pretty persistent to me. That was back when memory actually remembered things, rather than forgetting them. Today you have NAND Flash and MRAM.

    5. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know it had absolutely NOTHING to do with how the OS reported it, right? When you formatted the drive, you lost space and usually a lot of it due to the filesystem requirements. I seem to remember losing almost 300Mb on my first 1.2 Gb drive(Microoplis 5.25" FH). I used it under multiple OSes and the size was the same. And I don't remember any of the OSes opting to use M or Mi....they used "935,864,235 bytes free"

      To address your second point, those of us in those industries knew this and have known this for decades. It's not a secret, you can find this info online or just ask anyone there, regardless of whether we're talking about hard drives or wood. And I can take this parallel even further. The rough space available on a hard drive before formatting is the equivalent of rough cut wood, and the smoothed/polished wood is the equivalent of the formatted drive. Also, you don't use lumber to measure things so you're describing apples and oranges...but just to blow your mind....inches do have some variance from manufacturer to manufacturer of rulers....so do cups, ounces and pounds.

      BTW, did you know that the 20 gauge wire isn't the same size as a 20 gauge shotgun shell? We should sue..it's obviously intentionally confusing.

    6. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse, solid 20 gauge electrical wire is slightly smaller than stranded 20 gauge electrical wire, and if you look up the specs on steel wire cable it is bigger yet again!.

    7. Re:In other news by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Disks use 512/4096 byte sectors

      But they are not restricted to power-of-two sector counts. That would be stupid. What if technology improves enough for a 30% increase in disk size ? Would you want to buy that disk, or do you insist on buying the smaller one, just because it has a power of two ?

    8. Re:In other news by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1, Troll

      There is absolutely no power-of-two dependency above the block size, which is typically in the range of 2^9 to 2^`12. As I said, this makes measuring things in 2^20, 2^30 and 2^40 completely useless, especially when you try to mix two or more of those non-decimal multipliers.

      Naming those silly multipliers exactly the same as previously established decimal magnitudes is just icing on the stupidity cake.

    9. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Magnetic core was X * Y of whatever arbitrary count the array of magnetic core was beaded to. No power of two is required.

    10. Re: In other news by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Stranded "20 gauge" wire is made up of some number of finer wires bundled together that have a total circular-mills area that is equivalent to a solid 20 gauge wire. It is referred to by a gauge size due to the equivalence.

    11. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if someone told you that the underlying storage protocol, ATA, advertises drive capacity (via ATA IDENTIFY) in LBA counts of 2^8 (512) -- and has since day one? And how SCSI is the same way (though READ CAPACITY (16) allows for variance in physical sector size vs. logical sector size, the variable exponent is still per 2^n, not 10^n). Would it change your view or statements at all, regardless of what marketing idiots in the 90s started doing (re: decimal (10^n) capacities)?

    12. Re:In other news by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if your filesystem has 1GB block groups, 4MB erase blocks, etc? With real gigabytes it's all nicely aligned. On the other hand, if you use drivemakers' units, either your partitioning program needs to ignore what it's told to do and do large rounding, or, even worse, the user needs to give really unfriendly numbers.

      Not being able to hibernate 8GB ram into 8"GB" disk space is another problem.

      1KB meant 1024 bytes for 70 years, it's no time to break everything just because some marketroid wanted a bonus.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    13. Re:In other news by Jason1729 · · Score: 0

      1.44MB floppy -- 512 bytes/sector x 18 sectors/track x 80 tracks/side x 2 sides/disk.

      That is 1,474,560 bytes or **exactly** 1.440000 Megabytes.

      Every hard drive I ever owned up to 240 megabytes advertised correctly.

    14. Re:In other news by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      That is 1,474,560 bytes or **exactly** 1.440000 Megabytes.

      Minus the sectors that are only partially filled with data. Shouldn't you be writing an angry letter about that ?

    15. Re:In other news by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

      Hard drives are a sort of exception. The block sizes presented to the interface are powers of two so that they can align with memory sizes, but there is nothing naturally binary in the physical structure of the stored data. It would be no problem to reprogram a drive's interface to view a 4 TB drive as a ~35 trillion bit array, if there was some application for that.

      Disk sizes tend to be funny hybrids. The old 1.44 MB 3.5" floppy had 1440 * 1024 bytes capacity. 2 sides * 80 tracks/side * 18 sectors/track = 2880 sectors. 2880 sectors * 512 bytes/sector = 1440. The "megabytes" in 1.44 MB is really funny. Mega is a kilo of kilos, but in this case, one of the kilos is 2^10 and the other is 10^3. If the mega was 2^20, or (2^10)^2, it would be a 1.41 MB disk, and if the mega was 10^6, or (10^3)^2, it would be a 1.47 MB disk.

      Flash is funny too. The chips are laid out like RAM, with a rectangular array of blocks of cells. But the controller reports it as a linear array, with fewer actual blocks than exist on the chip. In that circumstance, it is somewhat understandable to mix units. No one really cares that your device has 64*2^30 cells internally if you actually use it as if it were a 250,000 blocks of 4096 bytes, or whatever.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    16. Re:In other news by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      What if your filesystem has 1GB block groups, 4MB erase blocks, etc?

      Since, like 99.9999% of the population, I'm not a file system developer, I have no idea what the sizes of such implementation details of any of the file systems in any of my devices are. Things like that simply aren't visible or relevant to the end user.

      What is relevant to me are things like how many more 600 MB videos will fit onto my partition with 9 GB of free space. If I had measured those with MiB and GiB, I would need a calculator to figure it out.

    17. Re:In other news by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Solid state storage devices have a natural relation to powers of 2.
      Each chip in a device has 2^something bytes.
      A 120GB SSD would have 128GiB of storage, with 8G reserved for wear leveling

      You appear to be stuck in the past with magnetic/optical based storage devices.

    18. Re:In other news by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Check your math. You've just confused yourself, since floppy "Megabytes" are an even more stupid unit equal to 1024*1000, which is not 2^20.. This floppy-specific "megabyte" is not used for anything else on planet earth, and is almost certainly not what you were assuming to be the "correct" megabyte for storage.

      So thanks for helping me to prove my point.

    19. Re:In other news by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 0

      No, because as I have already pointed out, blocks of 2^9 have no relevance whatsoever to units of 2^20, 2^30 or 2^40. I can't believe how many people fail to comprehend this simple mathematical fact.

    20. Re:In other news by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      You don't want the filesystem to be misaligned wrt erase blocks, trust me -- especially on cheap flash. Measuring in actual GB means a naive user will get good performance without any special steps.

      As for those "600MB videos on 9 GB" -- both real MB/GB and those silly millions bytes will be off. The filesystem has to store metadata somewhere. Videos can use large extents so we're talking about a fraction of a percent, but for smaller files the difference can be far bigger. And you really want to err on the safe side or that 1000th photo won't fit.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    21. Re:In other news by sdinfoserv · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not the same at all:
      A 2x4 used to be a "raw" 2 inches by 4 inches to the center of the saw blade. However you could expect them to be 1/16-1/4 inch short on each dimension due to "curf", which is the width of material removed by the saw blade.
      Those were building standards for 100 years. Today, lumber yards sell 2x4 being 3/4 of an inch short on all dimensions. This allows more boards cut from the raw logs but also cheats the customer out of the full width, breadth and length since they charge the same price. Boards don't match if your remodeling and don't have the strength. The bottom line is mills and yards changed dimensions to get more money for less lumber. When you're selling 10's of millions of board feet, a few inches per board adds up to real money
      To equate to your hard drive example, this year you buy a 64Gb drive for $20, Next year you buy a drive packaged in a 64Gb container but it only has 50Gb raw storage in the same packaging and price as the previous 64Gb device. so, no, not the same.

    22. Re:In other news by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Checking closest SSD I have handy:

      $ sudo fdisk -l

      Disk /dev/sda: 14.9 GiB, 16013942784 bytes, 31277232 sectors

      Doesn't look like this "modern" solid state device has a size anywhere near an even power of two (but it is suspiciously close to an even multiple of 1e9). So given that your assertion is wrong, why should I suffer the hassle of dealing with a variety of different power-of-two multipliers, when we live with a decimal number system?

    23. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solid state storage devices have a natural relation to powers of 2.
      Each chip in a device has 2^something bytes.

      No, they don't actually. (Checks the 6 drives hooked up to my machine)

      It isn't even a power of two per sector when you add in the ECC overhead.

    24. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They aren't 1.44MB any more they are 1.509MB, according to the morons who think a meg is 1000 kilobytes exactly.

    25. Re:In other news by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      notwithstanding the fact that no persistent storage device ever made has had any natural relation to 2^20, 2^30, etc.

      Are you young or something? ROMs and EEPROMs were persistent but, being addressed just like RAM, were strictly power-of-two devices. Eventually EEPROMs kind of evolved into flash and, at some point, the move to look like spinning disks and to incorporate wear levelling broke flash's need to have power-of-two block counts.

      I'm pretty sure the comms guys have always used powers of ten, i.e., 1Mbps means 10^6 bits per second. More and more the old computer shorthand for 1MB = 2^20 octets is being restricted to main memory (RAM) contexts only plus related hardware buffer sizes.

    26. Re:In other news by peppepz · · Score: 1

      The natural relation between 2^20, 2^30 and *memory* size lies in addressing it by digital wires, which is how computer work, and which is why contrary to your statement persistent storage devices such as ROMs and flash memory will of course have block sizes that are powers of two.
      Even storage mediums that don't employ a power-of-two block size internally, will often carry power-of-two payloads for the user, because to be useful, the stored data will have to be loaded into a RAM chip at some point, and there it will once again find its natural relation with power of twos (it's not like you can't have a non-power-of-two block size, but you would incur at runtime into a waste of storage space and/or impaired performance, and end up working with non-natural units as a bonus).
      I agree with you in the fact that nowadays end users no longer care about the exact block count of their devices (why, on the PC everyone was happy calling the 1.4 MiB floppies as "1.44", and the difference was noteworthy back then!) so perhaps OSes should employ power-of-ten units for user-friendly displays. Plus, that would match the units used for network transfer, which historically have never been based on power of twos. Then again, you should also say in the case of lumber "7.62 cm by 10.16 cm" instead of "three-by-four", as inches are asinine units and have no natural relation with physics ;-) .

    27. Re:In other news by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, you're just an idiot. 1 GB has always meant 1,073,741,824 bytes, and it always will.
      GB is not an SI unit. The B (or b) is part of the unit. It is not ambiguous. It absolutely and clearly means 1,073,741,824 bytes.

      Marketers did this shit intentionally in the days of early storage devices. The "oopsie" then was counting sectors and "forgetting" digital storage was measured. The networking engineers of the day properly measured things using powers of 10 because they were talking about baud. The clownshoes generation after them were retarded, and forgot to convert when calculating bandwidth from baud rate and symbol size.

      The fucking shitheel Frenchies at SI tried to take control and hijack existing terms like KB, MB, etc., and force everyone to use stupid shit like KiB and MiB. The problem is that establishing new terms and changing the meaning of existing terms CAUSES the fucking confusion in the first place. Now when you see "MB" you have to wonder: Is the author a fucking retard who uses MB to mean 1,000,000 bytes? If so, did they write this before or after the abomination of MiB?

    28. Re:In other news by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      "not a single power of 10 around"

      8 megabytes is evenly divisible into 15,625 sectors of 512 bytes each.

      2^3 * 10^6 = 2^3 * (2*5)^6 = 2^3 * 2^6 * 5^6 = 2^(3+6) * 5^6 = 2^9 * 5^6 = 512 * 15625

      The rest follows from there. There is nothing constraining the number of sectors to be any multiple of a power of two. Heck it has been twenty years since the number of sectors per track has been constant across the platter.

      "an unopened SD card"
      Solid-state memory is very much tied to physical array dimensions that are multiples of powers of two... though there may actually be more internal capacity that advertised. They arrays may lend themselves to 9*2^N, with the ninth block kept in reserve for recovery.

      The fact that solid-state drives are dimensioned so differently actually causes a problem for file systems.

    29. Re:In other news by sexconker · · Score: 0

      This is the only correct thing you've posted in this thread (and, I'm guessing, ever).
      But it proves our point, not yours. Dumbasses like you who don't understand that kilobytes, etc. are measured in powers of two are the fucking retards that cause confusion.

    30. Re:In other news by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Flash blocks chunked in powers of 2. You're seeing what the controller is presenting, not the underlying physical structure.

    31. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I've misunderstood what you said or what you're referring to specifically, but:

      NAND flash chips are all physical 2^n capacities. True: what your OS (kernel, etc.) ends up seeing, capacity-wise, down to ATA protocol or NVME, often isn't identical to what the NAND chip capacity is. For example, the SSD might have a 16GByte NAND flash chip which only advertises 15.5GBytes of capacity via ATA or NVME or whatever. The other 512MBytes is used internally for a multitude of things (some examples include FTL map, spare NAND pages for remaps, spare NAND pages for severe wear levelling, internally-used offloaded buffers, and -- this one surprises a lot of people -- firmware). But the NAND chips themselves are always 2^n capacities.

      That said: I have seen a first-generation SSD that actually had a separate chip for the "extraneous" portions, i.e. NAND flash was 16GBytes, while an additional 256MByte flash chip was dedicated for everything else (and I'm not talking about DRAM cache!). I haven't seen that method used in a while myself, but it may still be. Manufacturers found it more "cost-effective" to essentially "segregate" the NAND into the user-accessible section and "internal usage" sections.

      MHDDs work similarly in this regard. The user-accessible portion of the platter will always be a byte capacity divisible by 512 (the logical sector size) (LBA48 count * 512 = capacity in bytes), while the internal portions are stored on the platters as well, just not intermixed with the user-accessible portion. The "internal portion" can include the HPA region (see Wikipedia), as well as further internal-use-only sections that can only be accessed in roundabout ways. A common example of the latter is the SMART general purpose log directory (yes, SMART as in the thing you think of when it comes to MHDD health/monitoring); by enabling VSC (vendor-specific commands) via a special ATA CDB, you can begin using further special ATA CDBs that move data in/out of some vendor-specific GP log area. This is actually how a firmware update (or module patch/update) is done, for example. Use smartctl -l directory sometime; everything there is physically on the platters (the sizes are in LBA counts, i.e. count of 16 = 16*512 = 8192 bytes of space), but not accessible via standard LBA-based I/O.

      Anyway, point is, with NAND flash the capacities are always 2^n. With MHDD platters, the "true" physical capacity isn't determinable through most end-user software; it certainly varies from drive to drive (literally), as each one coming out of the fab may not have the same "true" physical capacity as another -- but all that matters is that there's enough usable/non-bad space for internal use, firmware + modules, and the user-accessible area.

    32. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm trying to work out why the antecedent case is relevant here

    33. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fundamentally, it's 2 different measurements. We can debate all night long about which is the most correctest, but the real issue is simply that they're different.

      It would be like buying your lumber in metric, but advertising in imperial units. "Buy this 2x4 (actually 4cm x 9cm)"

      The box says one thing, your computer recognizes a different thing. Ergo ...

    34. Re:In other news by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Today, lumber yards sell 2x4 being 3/4 of an inch short on all dimensions

      If by "today" you mean in ever since all of our lifetimes then sure. As someone who has renovated 3 houses and built a fourth I disagree with the problem. The only time I've come across the board matching issue the entire wall had to be replaced anyway due to the old way of building them not being up to modern codes. If you're matching old and new in a way that doesn't involve complete replacement then material strength is not your issue, and you're unlikely to be doing any re-modelling as much as horrible patch work to begin with.

      In the mean time the average life expectancy of a house built in the past 50 years is ... 50 years anyway so it makes no sense to supply wood that is 2x4". Whatever cheat happened in our grandparent's era should remain as is and not screw us all for a second generation.

    35. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As an information scientist in a completely unrelated field, the form of your argument is explicitly painful to me.

      "I shouldn't have to appreciate it, just give it to me in a form i will find pleasing" would be irritating if it came from a child.

    36. Re:In other news by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Disks use 512/4096 byte sectors, erase blocks of powers of two, etc -- not a single power of 10 around

      That's purely by convention today that we use powers of 2 for sector size.

      A CD has 2352 byte sectors. But when we created CD-ROM, we rounded it down to 2048 byte sectors. Sure, we use a lot of it for error correction, but there are zero bytes in there just to pad it out. You could even create a disc with raw 2336 byte sectors (no error correction or padding bytes)

      Early computers had different sector sizes as well, usually related to the word size of the machine for pure convenience.

      And there are some systems out there that can't handle a 2K sector size, so some CD-ROM drives also have a "512byte" emulation mode where each CD-ROM sector is split into 4 and addressed as 512byte units.

      Flash is even weirder since bulk NAND flash has an extra 16 bytes per 512 page (or 128 bytes per 4096 byte page) and while some of it is reserved for error correction, the rest is up to the filesystem or flash translation layer to use. In theory you can use it for user data storage as well.

    37. Re:In other news by dwillden · · Score: 2

      Funny about that average life expectancy claim. I have yet to see anyone going around knocking down houses just because they are getting old. Oh every now and then a fire burns one down, or someone decides to massively remodel to the point that it is basically torn down, but for the most part Houses go well past that imaginary lifespan.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    38. Re:In other news by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you buy real memory products (industrial/commercial grade, not consumer) they always use the JEDEC standard for memory sizes, which is based on powers of 2.

      The powers of 10 thing really is for consumer crap only, and for some reason the IEC thought a breaking change would be a good idea too. I just ignore them, all my software assumes KB = 1024 bytes. In fact, just to troll, I use KiB = 1000 occasionally.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    39. Re:In other news by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You appear to be stuck in the past with magnetic/optical based storage devices.

      Thats the thing tho... these fuck thinks the aeration was the powers of 2, and vocally convince the world that powers of 2 are wrong... all with the help of corporations that wants to put bigger numbers on the outside of the box.

      Basically, these K = 1000 clowns are CORPORATE TOOLS

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    40. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Next year you buy a drive packaged in a 64Gb container but it only has 50Gb raw storage

      They already do that.

    41. Re:In other news by swb · · Score: 2

      When I've had my house appraised for initial purchase and some refinancing there has been verbiage in the appraisal for the "useful life of the house" in there, which I assume is some kind of underwriting legalism to prevent a falling down house from being financed with a 30 year mortgage.

      However, the above poster's claim of a 50 year useful life on new construction actually makes me wonder if "modern" houses (those built since the 1980s or later) actually have a shorter expected lifespan due to the mass production techniques and engineered components which actually might not last, like truss joists, LVLs and some of the chipboard materials. Older houses often have beams which are single giant pieces of wood, for example, and never used chipboard.

      I would think, though, that housing codes, especially in suburbs, wouldn't go for building methods that *literally* became structurally unsound in 50 years. If it was true, entire suburbs could become uninhabitable when their housing stock became obsolete. I'd also guess that the real estate and mortgage industry might have issues, especially when original owners found that their houses were unsalable because no financing would be offered due to structural expiration.

    42. Re:In other news by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      > In the mean time the average life expectancy of a house built in the past 50 years is ... 50 years anyway American house building methods are astonishingly slipshod.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    43. Re:In other news by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You don't see the blocks that have been reserved for wear leveling

    44. Re:In other news by Cederic · · Score: 0

      Given your 600MB movies are 629 million bytes you're fucked anyway.

      Anybody that uses MiB and GiB can fuck off out of the industry.

    45. Re:In other news by Cederic · · Score: 0

      You're calling him a dumbfuck and yet you're the cunt trying to redefine terms.

      A Gigabyte is 1024 megabytes, each of which is 1024 kilobytes, each of which is 1024 bytes, each of which is an interesting number of bits depending on your architecture.

      Given that last challenging part anybody thinking you can standardise on a power of ten for anything in computing is clearly barking fucking mad.

    46. Re:In other news by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      If I pay for 3000mm of 90 by 45 pine it had better be exactly those dimensions or greater.

    47. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2" x 4" x 8' is the "rough lumber" dimension as it comes off a massive lumber mill saw as green wood, This board is then air dried, then kiln dried to remove the moisture from the wood, (and kill pests for international shipping) this reduces the thickness and width of every board but not the length as the wood shrinks as its moisture content is brought to between 7 - 10%. Once this is completed, it's on to final milling which sees the lumber passed through a moulder to level the surface and give it those nice pencil rounded corners and smoother surface. You loose 1/4" per side in these processes, but it doesn't affect the length.

      Source - 13 years in the architectural millwork industry.

      Not the same at all:

      A 2x4 used to be a "raw" 2 inches by 4 inches to the center of the saw blade. However you could expect them to be 1/16-1/4 inch short on each dimension due to "curf", which is the width of material removed by the saw blade.

      Those were building standards for 100 years. Today, lumber yards sell 2x4 being 3/4 of an inch short on all dimensions. This allows more boards cut from the raw logs but also cheats the customer out of the full width, breadth and length since they charge the same price. Boards don't match if your remodeling and don't have the strength. The bottom line is mills and yards changed dimensions to get more money for less lumber. When you're selling 10's of millions of board feet, a few inches per board adds up to real money

      To equate to your hard drive example, this year you buy a 64Gb drive for $20, Next year you buy a drive packaged in a 64Gb container but it only has 50Gb raw storage in the same packaging and price as the previous 64Gb device. so, no, not the same.

    48. Re:In other news by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      But to make the analogy closer to lumber, a 20GB drive would have had 19GB usable in 2011, 18GB in 2013, 16GB in 2014, and 14GB usable today. There really are buildings out there built say 80 years ago where the 2x4s actually measure 2 inches by four inches.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    49. Re:In other news by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Oh every now and then a fire burns one down,"

      Earthquakes floods, termites and very high winds take care of a few as well. But wooden buildings stand up to earth motion -- unlike masonry. BTW, are bricks shrinking also? Wouldn't surprise me. Another lawsuit there if this one succeeds?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    50. Re:In other news by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "American house building methods are astonishingly slipshod."

      You're probably giving them too much credit.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    51. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fact that no persistent storage device ever made has had any natural relation to 2^20, 2^30, etc.

      How come? Disks use 512/4096 byte sectors, erase blocks of powers of two, etc -- not a single power of 10 around. And non-sleazy manufacturers who provide sizes in actual rather than marketing gigabytes do exist.

      I got an unopened SD card whose back writing includes "1GB = 1,073,741,824"; I remember a few disks that mention their capacity in real giga/terabytes too.

      The IBM 305 RAMAC computer where the first hard drives were used was a DECIMAL computer. Get over it babies. Your K,M and G are just wrong when applied to disks. Disks have always used scientific notatation. There was no programmer notation when disks were invented. Also disks of those days DID NOT use 512-byte sectors. You are just totally wrong.

    52. Re:In other news by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but for the most part Houses go well past that imaginary lifespan

      Just because you don't see what happens inside a house doesn't mean its lifespan is imaginary. Hell my house looked 100% the same before and after I completely replaced the foundation. There are a massive amount of maintenance activities that replace large sections of houses at a time all while appearing quite innocuous. Bonus points if you live in a house that's old enough that you're not actually allowed to change its external look.

    53. Re:In other news by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      However, the above poster's claim of a 50 year useful life on new construction actually makes me wonder if "modern" houses (those built since the 1980s or later) actually have a shorter expected lifespan due to the mass production techniques and engineered components which actually might not last, like truss joists, LVLs and some of the chipboard materials. Older houses often have beams which are single giant pieces of wood, for example, and never used chipboard.

      That kind of goes without saying. Look at the construction of old houses and compare it to the new. We used to build with a variety of woods that are now simply no longer used in construction due to their protected nature. Luckily so because working with the old stuff is simply a bastard.

      But even in the old case you need to take into account continuous maintenance if you want to get past 50 years. As houses change hands "maintenance" becomes "re-modelling". Without those you can't expect anything to last that long.

    54. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stock in a lumber store is open to inspection before purchase. In case the board must strictly meet specific measurements, use a tape measure.

    55. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quite sure the sawmill would appreciate you hauling away the saw dust that that extra bit of dimension represents, if you really want the full pre-cut volume of wood you pay for.

      This is like a "quarter pound" hamburger ... that's the precooked weight. You really want them to pour all the cooked out fat into a cup for you to drink along with it?

    56. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those 1.44MB disks were "formatted capacity." I seem to remember using a special formatting tool to bump that up closer to 2.0MB (by whatever definition).

      Flash is another matter, and the devices MUST include more actual storage than the advertised size because of the need to re-shuffle data around when erasing data from the chips. Without that extra space, it wouldn't be possible to use all of the advertised space.

    57. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So sure - a recent house has these "cheat" boards that don't "measure up". But you can easily find houses that are say about 40 years old and you go to replace part of the sub-flooring with new board and find that the old 1" plywood was actually 1" and the new is 1 ply is 7/8". It means it doesn't fit and jacks your flooring install up. You end up having to replace all of the sub-flooring in a room or shim the new board at the joists. Also, there used to be "unfinished" board sold that was exact dimension. Where an unfinished 2x4 was actually 2x4 even in the days where a "finished" (smoothed) 2x4 was 1.5 / 3.5. Some people used those unfinished boards since there was more wood there (stronger) and it would sometimes be cheaper. You usually can't find replacements for that. More shimming. Argh!

    58. Re: In other news by Entrope · · Score: 1

      You're fundamentally wrong. "Small" NAND write blocks have 512 bytes intended for user space plus extra (16 bytes in at least some devices, though I think this varies) intended for error correction and other metadata. "Large" NAND write blocks increase both the user capacity and the metadata space.

      It's entirely arbitrary that the user addressable space is 512 bytes, and entirely wrong to say that flash devices are inherently based on power-of-two sizes.

    59. Re: In other news by whopis · · Score: 2

      Your definition of a Megabyte is 1000 Kilobytes, according to your math.

      At least that's the case if you define 1,474,560 bytes as 1.44MB.

      Using a definition of 1MB = 2^20 bytes you would find that floppy is only 1.40625MB.

      I am not sure about the hard drives you owned.

    60. Re:In other news by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      O really? What about bandwidth measured in kilobytes per second? Do you really think that is *ever* measured in powers of two by anybody? Of course not.

      At best, the units depend on the context. And the ONLY context that has ever made any sense for power-of-two units is RAM memory. That's it.

    61. Re:In other news by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Then WHY IN THE HELL should I use bizarre units for something I can't see?

    62. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as how ram certainly does have units based on binary multiples for very good reasons, and therefore hard disk block sizes also have this limitation, GiB units are not asinine.

    63. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never bought a hard drive measured in units of gigabits.

    64. Re:In other news by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Today, lumber yards sell 2x4 being 3/4 of an inch short on all dimensions.

      Where are you buying lumber that it's a 3/4" short? It's a 1/2" all around.

      A 2x4 is 1.5" by 3.5". A 4x4 is 3.5x3.5. A 2x10 is 1.5x9.5.

    65. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Information scientist, hunh? How's training Mr Iamanindian from Bumfuckay, Lawhore, working out for you? Har har.

    66. Re:In other news by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Except that hard drives have been getting bigger and cheaper over the years.

    67. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Back in Victorian times, a "2x4" actually measured 2" by 4". The lumber was rough-cut, right from the saw mill.

      At the start of the 20th century, some regional lumber suppliers started planing the lumber smooth, which resulted in a decrease in size. In some areas lumber was still 2"x4", in others it was 1.75"x4" or 1.7"5x3.75", and in other areas 1.5" started appearing. This resulted in problems as lumber started being transported all over the country and builders started seeing lumber arrive in different dimensions. As such, at some point the industry decided to standardize on 1.5" x 3.5" for a "2x4"...planed on all 4 sides with edges chamfered (rounded over). This has been the standard since ~1940.

      My garage was built in 1920 using lumber apparently reclaimed from a Victorian structure, and as such the framing uses lumber measuring an actual 2" x 4" (with some minor variation since it's rough-cut). My house, built in 1923 with new planed lumber, uses 1.75" thick framing. Now do you see why standardization was needed?

      It's not a question of lumber suppliers trying to screw over customers by getting more usable lumber from a log...it's about producing a consistent product. The thing to keep in mind is that when a tree is cut up into boards, it has a ~50% moisture content. The lumber has to be dried to ~12-14% moisture content for construction use, and that will cause boards to shrink. But since wood itself is not homogeneous, boards will shrink to varying degrees. Planing after drying removes material as well. Between the two, that rough-cut "2x4" gets reduced to a CONSISTENT 1.5"x3.5", and every "2x4" you buy, anywhere in the country, will always have that measurement.

      Since the standard has been in place for 75 years, the lawsuit mentioned is ridiculous...anybody who has done ANY kind of home remodeling or building knows that a "2x4" is 1.5"x3.5". Even my teenage son who has never swung a hammer in his life knows this (I asked him).

    68. Re:In other news by mysidia · · Score: 0

      There is absolutely no power-of-two dependency above the block size

      Which doesn't matter, because the basic unit of computer memory is still the Bit, which is always measured using Base-2.
      The reason for the unit does not come from physical structure of storage; it comes from the mathematical structure called binary, and that the RAM/ROM in computers is built from "Bit memory cells", and the Persistent memory from a hard drive is nothing more than an extension of that (A device for persistently recording RAM content).

      When one states 1 Kilobit it is defined as: 2^10 bits, when one states 1 Kilobyte it is defined as 2^10 bits then multiplied by 8, when one states Megabits, it is defined as 2^20 bits, and 1 Megabyte is 2^20 bits then multiplied by 8, finally 1 Gigabit is 2^30 bits, and when one refers to 1 Gigabyte is defined as 2^30 bits then multiplied by 8.

    69. Re:In other news by swb · · Score: 1

      But what kind of maintenance other than what would be needed in any house?

      It goes without saying that roofing and probably siding (depending on material) and ultimately windows, but these are all items exposed to the weather. Although I live in a house that's 60 years old with mostly original painted cedar siding that's in good shape (other than having had it painted twice in my 18 years here).

      But structural? There are some narrow eras where excessive tightness caused interior moisture problems and poor window installation allowed moisture ingress around windows, possibly leading to rot in surrounding structure, and probably some points in siding development where it had similar problems, although it's not like painted wood clad houses were immune from similar siding issues if the paint was neglected.

      From what little I've seen, new construction houses seem to have superior foundations -- well-laid block or even poured concrete, often with asphalt and foam clad exteriors for moisture resistance. I've seen some "golden era" houses with shit foundations, bad cinder block or limestone that's been basically epoxied or shotcrete coated.

      I think you're right about the lumber, though. Douglas fir isn't around and most of the pine used is so damn new it lacks any structural integrity and may be prone to warping. And I would worry about the long-term viability of the glues used in engineered building materials, especially TJIs.

    70. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny about that average life expectancy claim. I have yet to see anyone going around knocking down houses just because they are getting old. Oh every now and then a fire burns one down, or someone decides to massively remodel to the point that it is basically torn down, but for the most part Houses go well past that imaginary lifespan.

      Yeah was this the same person claiming earlier this week that the average car doesn't last past 100,000 miles? Or the person who last week claimed that a 10 year old car was overdue for the junk yard?

    71. Re:In other news by mrzaph0d · · Score: 1

      I've done some minor projects on multiple houses from 10-30 years old, and I can tell you *nothing* was square. flooring I put in had to be cut at weird angles when I got to some corners. a bookshelf supposed to be flush to the wall assumed that the wall didn't bulge out.

      I know some of it was due to the house settling and/or foundation issues. But the beer can underneath the cabinet floor is more of a reason i think.

      --
      this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
    72. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where are you buying lumber that it's a 3/4" short? It's a 1/2" all around.

      A 2x4 is 1.5" by 3.5". A 4x4 is 3.5x3.5. A 2x10 is 1.5x9.5.

      Not quite true. For a dimension over 7 inches the amount lost increases to 3/4 of an inch instead of 1/2.

      So your dimensions are right for the 2x4 and the 4x4, but for the 2x10 the actual size is 1.5 x 9.25 instead.

      This is also true going smaller - below 2" the loss drops to 1/4" instead of 1/2", so a 1x4 is actually 0.75 x 3.5".

    73. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wow, how the times have passed. We have people complaining about GiB being asinine. I guess it must also be weird that Windows drive letters "start with" C, not A.

    74. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm always using MB/GB/etc as powers of two like literally every sane person, but sometimes you have to be VERY specific. Then MiB/GiB comes in handy.

    75. Re:In other news by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      And yet a 2x4 stud is a standard size so they can list the actual size. They don't.

    76. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only gets confusing because some bright spark noticed that 2^10 is about 1000, and decided to - incorrectly - call 1024, 1k. So now 1k is 1000, except when talking about computers, when it's 1024. Unless it's drive storage, in which case it's still 1000.

    77. Re:In other news by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Saw kerf (not curf) was not the only thing that made the lumber smaller than nominal. It was often dried after cutting, which shrank it some more. Nowadays, dressed lumber is planed down after drying to get it to the standard size. The kerf of modern saws is narrower than the old mills had, which is one reason you can set the blades closer than nominal size and still get the standard actual dimensions while getting more boards out of a tree.
      Also, not every mill was scrupulous above giving you the right size, they often cheated a little. That is one of the reasons the standards were set, and they were set to dimensional minimums that most mills were already meeting in order to get everyone to agree.

    78. Re:In other news by jbengt · · Score: 1

      My first house, built about a hundred years ago, did have lumber about 1/4"± greater in dimensions than current standards. It also had continuous single board floor joists a little over 22 feet long and exterior wall studs over 14 feet high. The nominal sizes were smaller than modern code would have required, but, in addition to the slightly bigger actual dimensions, the wood was denser with fewer flaws & straight grain, so I think it may have actually been stronger than what is constructed in a modern house.

    79. Re:In other news by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      In fact, just to troll, I use KiB = 1000 occasionally.

      Hell yeah. ~10 years ago I argued with a co-worker who thought I'm bullshitting him and that no one could be stupid/malicious enough to redefine such a fundamental unit that's in use for decades. And it was painful as he was a guy who used to bring me old punched tape for playing when I was in kindergarten (in commie land we had punched paper ribbon instead of punched cards).

      With the program I had on screen (Debian-installer partitioner) saying "MiB", the old guy believed it's millions bytes, as obvious counterpart to 1MB=1048576. Mega vs million, the abbreviation looks pretty clear to me.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    80. Re:In other news by Jamu · · Score: 1

      Insanity is repeatedly using MB and expecting different values.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    81. Re:In other news by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      but also cheats the customer out of the full width, breadth and length since they charge the same price.

      How did you come to that conclusion? What comparison base do you have? Are you telling me that wood has a specific, universally-defined price as an inherent property, and that the only market force that affects the price of a piece of wood is the size at which it is advertised?

    82. Re:In other news by swillden · · Score: 1

      the ONLY context that has ever made any sense for power-of-two units is RAM memory.

      Well, it also makes sense for flash storage. But not for data rates, which are tied to signal frequencies measured in powers of 10, nor for spinning disk storage, nor for anything else.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    83. Re:In other news by Immerman · · Score: 1

      What does capacity have to do with alignment?

      Obviously your internal implementation details will all be powers-of-2, because it makes the math and wiring more efficient. And hopefully your low-level tools all deal in traditional not-quite-SI units as well.

      On the scale of the entire device though, the standards all have *lots* of headroom - even a system using a measly 48-bit addressing and per-byte addressing can handle 281 TB, and stuff is increasingly moving to 64 bit addressing which adds another 16 bits of completely wasted address space for most current applications.

      Since we have address space to burn, it makes very little difference to the hardware or file system whether a device contains 1,000,000,000 4kiB blocks, or 1,373,741,824. If it internally deals with stuff in groups as large as 1GiB, then actual size will presumably be a multiple of that, but otherwise it makes little difference what the numbers are.

      Having grown up with 1024-byte kBs I do sympathize with the frustration of the change, though frankly what really bothers me is the ambiguity introduced by the inconsistency of usage. Frankly, if everyone would use the new SI-consistent definitions of the prefixes I'd be delighted - it makes no difference to me whether I buy an 8GiB stick of ram or an 8.59GB stick, as long as it's labeled consistently.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    84. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading how the beefy construction of old American cities made gentrification possible. Basically, these buildings were treated like crap for half a century by slumlords, etc. and still held up because of their build quality. More modern McMansions could never put up with that kind of abuse.

    85. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've owned two houses, one built in 1968 and one built in 1992. The one built in 1968 had some repair issues that needed to be addressed when I bought it in 1991, but overall it was solid. The house built in 1992 was built with a lot chipboard and other materials that are workable *if* they're installed correctly. My house was apparently not built by the most competent of builders, and the result is that the newer house has required much more repair and maintenance than the older house.

    86. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While no Yank wants to admit it, the poster is correct.

      My own theory as to why the WTC towers collapsed back in 2001 is that they were not built to code, or to their supposed engineered strength. It's the elephant in the room, and why so many conspiracy nuts are running around with "someone must have done something" to make them fall down. Nope, they were just badly built, and of course no one wants to admit it.

      The Brooklyn Bridge is full of crap cable that a vendor supplied back during construction. The engineer in charge decided to leave it in, since the bridge had been over-engineered anyway. Obviously it's still standing.

    87. Re:In other news by judoguy · · Score: 1
      A house that is built correctly, e.g., with a sound foundation, and maintained will last almost forever. However, stop maintenance and the structure immediately begins to succumb to entropy. Here is a rather touching tale of that process. There will come soft rains

      I was a building and remodeling contractor prior to getting into I.T. I worked on 100+ year old houses many times.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    88. Re:In other news by swillden · · Score: 1

      However, the above poster's claim of a 50 year useful life on new construction actually makes me wonder if "modern" houses (those built since the 1980s or later) actually have a shorter expected lifespan due to the mass production techniques and engineered components which actually might not last, like truss joists, LVLs and some of the chipboard materials.

      OTOH, in the last 15 years building codes have gotten a lot stricter, and require a lot more steel to be used in tying elements of the frame together, foundations are more thoroughly engineered, etc.

      I suspect that houses built in the last decade or so will last a long time. Houses built in the 70s, 80s and 90s, maybe not so much.

      On the gripping hand, it looks like there may be a wave of new construction techniques coming which will dramatically lower building costs, maybe by as much as 80%. That could well mean that the durability of current houses is irrelevant, because it could get to where it's cheaper to tear down and rebuild than to remodel. I'm in the middle of a major remodel project right now, and the cost will easily exceed 30% of new-build cost.

      The main new construction technology I'm thinking of is 3D-printed concrete, whether 3D-printed in place or (perhaps more likely) 3D-printed forms, with most of the panels pre-cast and shipped in. The thing about the application of high-precision 3D printing to concrete forming is that it allows very precise control of shapes which in turn enables great strength without thickness (and hence weight). Your home's roof could be supported with flying buttresses, light but incredibly strong... and mostly dropped from construction because creating such complex shapes is too labor-intensive. Being able to model complex, precisely-engineered structures in CAD systems and then produce them cheaply and with fine tolerances may dramatically change construction.

      And note that the effects of such an approach go far beyond just the basic structure. A lot of the cost of a modern house is in the stuff built after the frame is up: plumbing, ductwork, electrical and finish work. With precise control of concrete casting it should ultimately be possible to include channels for all of that stuff right in the walls. Air ducts -- and maybe even plumbing -- will no longer require any sort of pipes, just channels in the concrete. A great deal of interior finish work could be eliminated as well. Polished concrete walls could potentially require no additional wall finish at all. They could even be "painted" simply by mixing pigment into the concrete before pouring. Even things like toilets and bathtubs could be pre-cast as part of the structure (though I suspect probably wouldn't be, for a variety of reasons I won't elaborate here).

      We may get to where a house can be fully assembled in a day, with a small and mostly automated crew. A design customized to the shape of the land could eliminate most excavation. Then pre-cast and mostly-finished pieces would be delivered, placed by automated cranes and joined with an appropriate sealant. Plumbing and air circulation would all be pre-cast in the walls. The HVAC system can be dropped into a slot cast for it... and dropped in with a crane before the roof or other overhead floors are installed, making installation easier. The same is true of all other appliances. Interior walls and floors could arrive mostly pre-finished. Carpet or other non-concrete flooring, plus light fixtures, cabinets, etc. could all be lowered in before the roof goes on. All that would be left is to install fixtures, cabinets, toilets, etc., pull electrical wiring through the pre-cast conduits, hook it all up and test. And installation of fixtures, etc., would be facilitated by having prepared spots for all of them with threaded holes cast for the bolts to attach them.

      The downside of precisely-engineered concrete, of course, is that demolish-and-rebuild could become the only option if you want to do a major remodel. Not only would cutting new

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    89. Re: In other news by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Yeah you could do it if you wanted to. Just like you could do non power of 2 DRAMs if you wanted. But did anyone do it? That's the question.

    90. Re:In other news by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

      >Next year you buy a drive packaged in a 64Gb container but it only has 50Gb raw storage

      They already do that.

      They've been doing that even before decimalization of drive capacity; for almost most of the 80s, retailers and manufacturers were advertising HDD by their UNFORMATTED capacity in large print and formatted capacity in fine print.

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    91. Re:In other news by swb · · Score: 1

      Except in very small houses where there's really only 1-2 "logical" floor plans, I think the best idea is a 3D printed concrete shell strong enough for totally open floors on each level, with enough structural integrity for 1-2 additional stairway voids to be added later if reconfiguration was desired.

      You'd have to live with fixed window placements, but it would give the user the option to reconfigure walls pretty easily. I would embed a chase grid in the floor/ceiling sections for utilities, so they didn't occupy wall voids.

      You might get it flexible enough that walls could just be unitized modules that could be rearranged like stage scenery. The house with a giant master bedroom and 2 regular bedrooms could become 4 regular bedrooms, or two large bedrooms.

    92. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things like that simply aren't visible or relevant to the end user.

      You might be right about visible, but you are wrong about relevant. When it becomes the cause of frustration, it is absolutely relevant, even if the user doesn't realize the cause of their frustration.

      For a car analogy, the specs of my tires are quite relevant to me, even though I will likely go the entire lifetime of my car without ever knowing what they are.

    93. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is nothing naturally binary in the physical structure of the stored data.

      Wow! I've never met a billionaire before! I mean, you must be a billionaire, since you've obviously discovered how to create a magnet with more than 2 poles (north and south).

    94. Re:In other news by greythax · · Score: 1

      Old disk drives space ratings were the usable space because of disk format (FAT) which gave them 720k per side. Those same disks on my Amiga were 880k per side (1.76 meg for a ds dd) because it used a different directory system (hash). If I remember correctly macs were getting 800k a side at the time. But in fairness, none of this was a major indication, due to filesystem overhead, of exactly how much data you could cram on the disk.

    95. Re:In other news by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      I've renovated houses and built structures as well. Some lumber yards at least call their smaller material "shorts", others don't identify it.. It's an increasing trend and like always, buyer beware.

    96. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the mean time the average life expectancy of a house built in the past 50 years is ... 50 years anyway so it makes no sense to supply wood that is 2x4". Whatever cheat happened in our grandparent's era should remain as is and not screw us all for a second generation.

      I spent 5 years developing asset management software which included life cycles. There is not a single "life expectancy" for an entire building; you replace carpet every 15-20 years, shingles every 20 years, heater / ac unit every 15 years, etc.

    97. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not like that at all. The mills make money from you paying for the lumber they sell you. As the other reply to this comment said, the mills started out by creating 2" x 4" boards, not dried, and not dressed (planed and smoothed). They were not guaranteed to be the same size. There is a significant amount of warping and shrinking as boards dry, but it is not consistent between species and tree, and even where in the trunk the board was cut from.

      To make it easier for the builders, and to get more business so they can sell more lumber, the mills started to standardize the "dimensioned" lumber to 1.5" x 3.5" which accounts for planing after the boards have been kiln dried. This gave a consistent product that would not warp after the builder bought it.

      For a million reasons, this lawsuit is frivolous, especially so long after this standard was established. If this lawsuit happened in the 1920s, it would be sensible, but nearly 100 years later is absurd. No where in Home Depot's advertising does it state the boards are 2" x 4", it just says 2x4. That is not deceptive, it is listing an industry standard name that happens to have an origin in a dimension.

    98. Re:In other news by swimboy · · Score: 0

      Exactly!!! If it bothered the french so much, they should have pushed for KO, MO, and GO for Kilo-octet, Mega-octet, and Giga-octet for the power of 10 units and leave the existing terminology intact.

      Of course the French screwed that up too, because their precious ministry of language wouldn't allow French people to use the word byte and have to use octet anyways.

      --
      Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
    99. Re:In other news by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Yes HOW DARE THEY try to insist that SI standard prefixes are actually used appropriately. One km is NOT 1024 meters, but hey, the prefixes were there, and "close enough" in the early days. I mean you're only off by 2.4% when you say 65536 bytes = 64kB. But that error starts to accumulate rapidly: a "traditional" MB is off by 4.9%, a GB by 7.4%, and a TB by 9.9%

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    100. Re:In other news by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >A 2x4 used to be a "raw" 2 inches by 4 inches to the center of the saw blade. However you could expect them to be 1/16-1/4 inch short on each dimension due to "curf", which is the width of material removed by the saw blade.

      It was more than that - 2x4 was the green size as cut from a freshly-felled tree. But wood is very dimensionally unstable, and shrinks considerably (and inconsistently) as it dries. I believe the 1.5x3.5 standard emerged as construction began demanding rectangular lumber of a consistent size - meaning that the green 2x4 had to be dried and then re-sawn (or planed) to square up the faces and present consistent dimensions. And providing consistent dimensions meant you had to cut everything down to approximately the size of the smallest shrunken and re-squared once-2x4. Taking approximately 1/4" off each face allowed for those corrections.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    101. Re:In other news by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      By your logic, computers should be showing all computational results in binary, because that's how they work inside.

    102. Re:In other news by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Actually, 10" nominal is 9.25" actual, I think 8" is the transition point to 3/4" "trim", so that it's actually 7.25". Figure you're correcting for shrinkage, and the wider the board was when green, the more width you lose to shrinkage as it dries.

      I'm not sure just how far the trend continues - probably throughout the "standard" mass-produced sizes. 12" is definitely 11.25, and that's about as wide as you commonly see. When you start getting really extreme though, like 20+", I think it's mostly custom work sold by finished size rather than nominal.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    103. Re:In other news by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So I guess is a mile is 1.571 km?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    104. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other other news, I'm suing the restaurant over the 16 oz steak I bought that only weighs 11 oz when it hit my plate!

    105. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're close.
      I've worked in lumber mills most of my life, so I'm familiar with this argument.
      Lumber is milled from green trees ( freshly cut ) to the standard, rough dimensions of 2" by 4". As wood dries, it shrinks. The amount a board shrinks can vary greatly from piece to piece making the dried lumber very inconsistent.
      Producers eliminated this problem by running the dried lumber through a planner, removing wood from the surfaces to produce a smooth, uniform board that is reliably 1 1â2 by 3 1â2 inches.

    106. Re:In other news by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      As others have said, they didn't reduce the dimension to cheat the customer. You can still buy rough/raw lumber at specific dimensions, and they're labelled in terms of quarters of an inch. So 4/4 is very close to 1", 5/4 is very close to 1.25", and 8/4 is very close to 2". Specialty wood shops that sell hard-woods generally sell lumber this way. I purchased some 4/4 and 8/4 mahogany to make a piece of furniture a while back.

    107. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And GiB is not giga its... gillions?

      We should have said , here is a measurement unit (let's call it x for now) that means log base 2. Now we can use regular terminology for the size of the exponents.

      Instead of 1 KB it would have been 10x.
      Instead of 1 MB it would have been 20x.
      Lots more room to grow before we even hit triple digits, and then it's a straightforward K=1000 so 1Kx = 1000x but of course that's not 100 * 10x because we're talking exponents.

      Regular people won't care they can't do head math with it , we don't do that even today. I never try to convert 1 GB to bytes in my head. I grab a calculator anyway.

    108. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are you smoking? What "dimension" of SSD causes any problem for a file system?

      Nowadays people are focused on the 1024/1000 business because once you hit terabytes it is unavoidably different. Those of use with some age on us remember the "problem" with drive manufacturers was they advertised "unformatted capacity", but when you formatted that 20MB hard drive you did not get 20MB of storage.

      This "problem" came about because people (willfully?) ignored the fact that a file system required meta data (its not like the name of a file actually takes up any space, right?). Same unformatted capacity would result in different formatted capacity depending on the file system and parameters used. Larger cluster sizes in FAT mean less overhead for that structure. Or, even more dramatically, a 720kb floppy disk was 880kb when formatted for the Amiga.

      There *are* issues with SSD and some of it can come from interaction with file systems* -- but I have no earthly idea what you mean by "dimensioned differently." Because you are confused and think that drives all standardized on the same number of sectors per track (spoiler alert: they didn't, but its an understandable mistake when someone knows nothing about hard drives) I'm not even sure where to start.

      * one issue is SSD is not well served by frequent, dispersed writes so a file system where this occurs creates a non-optimal situation (kills the drive's speed, but really, this topic quickly gets way too complicated for a slashdot post)

    109. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Kerf," not "curf"

      http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kerf?s=t

    110. Re:In other news by Megol · · Score: 1

      The number of tracks aren't (generally) a power of two, the number of sectors per track varies depending on placement (fewer sectors near the center, more closer to the circumference) etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the ECC data and servo information also varies according to sector placement.

    111. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He would want it in a base power of 2. I would actually like it if there was an option to display numbers in base 16 on more operating systems.

    112. Re:In other news by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

      A 2x4 used to be a "raw" 2 inches by 4 inches to the center of the saw blade. However you could expect them to be 1/16-1/4 inch short on each dimension due to "curf", which is the width of material removed by the saw blade.

      And a little more due to shrinkage when drying the wood. And a little more due to surfacing all four sides (S4S). The old stuff varied much more in size than the modern stuff. In some cases the old actual size approached the modern actual size. Today, the actual size is standardized and the mill calculates what size to cut based on the saw kerf, expected surfacing loss and expected shrinkage during drying.

      Today, lumber yards sell 2x4 being 3/4 of an inch short on all dimensions.

      Hmmm... Today's 2x4 is 1.5" by 3.5". That looks more like a half inch.

    113. Re:In other news by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      It's the other way around.

      Storage manufacturers market their devices with quantities in GiB, which is why when you plug the drive in the OS invariable reports that the drive is noticeably smaller. I know of no OS that reports in GiB, unless you're using some kind of tool that happens to report in those units.

    114. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. The SI prefix is unambiguous. 1 GB === 1 000 000 000 bytes.
      Nothing wrong with the correct terms for powers of 2^10 and similar, MiB, GiB. Doing this is the only unambiguous and exact terminology we have.

    115. Re: In other news by gerf · · Score: 1

      All the coins I own have heads and tails and are thus binary. We should count them in base 2 from now on.

    116. Re:In other news by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The error correction codes operate on the block size. That's a major reason 4k drives were introduced - larger blocks allows the use of more efficient error correction codes.

    117. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the shelf label, nowhere do they say inches. They list feet for the third dimension.

    118. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not SI. People like you think 1.5 bits is possible. People like you need to fuck off.

    119. Re:In other news by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Old disk drives space ratings were the usable space because of disk format (FAT) which gave them 720k per side. Those same disks on my Amiga were 880k per side (1.76 meg for a ds dd) because it used a different directory system (hash)

      Not quite.

      The quoted capacities were the space available after low level formatting but before file system overhead. Earlier floppies were quoted in binary kilobytes while later floppies were quoted in a strange hybrid megabyte (1024000 bytes).

      The reason some computers had slightly higher quoted capacities than others was because their vendors decided to use slightly different parameters for the disk controller resulting in different numbers of sectors per track.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    120. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fucking shitheel Frenchies at SI tried to take control and hijack existing terms like KB, MB, etc., and force everyone to use stupid shit like KiB and MiB.

      Citation needed?

      I hate those Men in Black units with a passion, but I don't believe the SI is behind that.

      By the way, KB has always been 1024 bytes; K is not an SI prefix.

      kB has always been 1000 bytes.

    121. Re: In other news by silverdirk · · Score: 1

      They should have called it a GrandByte, 1024B = 1GB. That would have prevented this mess

      --
      Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
    122. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is pretty much the same idea.

      "dressed" wood = formatted capacity
      "rough cut" wood = unformatted capacity

      Now, I've never actually gone out and measured the wood used when picked up, my dad just bought wood from the place that sells wood, and we cut things to fit. Never had to make 2x4's any narrower, nor less wide, they were always cut against their longest dimension, so if you needed two 3' segments, then you made two 3' segments.

      To note, wood/timber use is one of the few things that is not in metric, even in metric-using countries. This is exactly because of standard measurements all being imperial measures. With CAD systems, it doesn't even matter, because you're not assembling things with screws and bolts, you're using hammers and nails (more likely compressed air nail guns now.) Nobody is going to confuse 2"x4" with 2cm x 4cm.

    123. Re:In other news by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I remember Windows XP reporting all sizes in thousands of KiB (effectively - it gave you file size in KiB, displayed in a way such as 720,000 KB). I think Win 9x did the same. Best to deal with floppies surely but it made for some "fun" when burning CDs.

    124. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me your head quarters, they aren't worth anything.

    125. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The third pole is neither positive nor negative (chargeless). Give me a billion, please, lol.

    126. Re:In other news by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      In the olden daisies, magnetic media often had track and sector counts that were aligned with binary numbers. It made the drivers easier to write, and back when every bit counted that was a real consideration. So the statement about "no persistent storage device ever made" is clearly false.

      Once the advance of storage technology slowed down enough that there wasn't a factor of two gain every year or so, we started to see counts that weren't powers of two. Designers would squeeze a little more out of the tech by cramming in a few extra sectors, tracks, or both. It really all went out the window once we got variable density recording: magnetic media that store more bits on the outer tracks and fewer bits on the inner ones, keeping the bit density per unit of volume fairly constant. (The original Macintosh floppy drives were the most obvious example of that; they actually changed the motor speed based on which track you were using. Later versions changed the bit clock in the controller instead, which was faster and more reliable but less fun to listen to.) Hard drives also nearly always have some defective areas; in the old days the software on your computer had to be aware of that and avoid using those areas. But now it's all done invisibly by the drive, which has some extra space that is automatically used in place of the defective areas.

      Now we have SSDs. Semiconductor memory is usually made in power of two sizes because it makes the chip layout easier. We see that with RAM. (When you see some device with an amount of RAM that isn't a power of two it's because it uses multiple RAM chips or modules, each of which IS a power of two size. For example, a phone with 3GB RAM (actually 3 GiB) probably has three RAM chips inside, each of which holds 1GB. It might instead have one 2GB chip and one 1GB chip.) But SSDs use flash memory and it wears out over time; each memory cell can only have data written to it a limited number of times. SSDs have to do things to spread out the writes over the entire drive, and also usually have some degree of overprovisioning to allow for bits to fail. (In other words, some of the memory is deliberately set aside when you buy the drive so it can be used to replace areas of the SSD that fail, just like the modern hard drive does.) The flash memory chips inside the SSD are usually in sizes based on powers of two, but the amount of space that the user sees is somewhat smaller. That's why we see 60GB, 120GB, 240GB, 480GB, and 960GB SSDs, rather than their natural sizes which would be 64GiB, 128GiB, etc (note the change of unit as well as number).

    127. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's 1/2 inch smaller on the thickness dimensions i.e. a 2x4 is really 1-1/2" by 3-1/2". It's still 8 ft or 10 ft or whatever true length you choose.

      And nobody is cheated, since anyone who's ever framed a wall in the last half century knows this.

      One more thing, the word you used to represent the width of the material removed by a saw's blade is spelled "kerf."

    128. Re:In other news by MercTech · · Score: 1

      Useful life of house.. the unwritten caveat is "without upgrading. Look at a house that was built in the early 1960s. The standard in the early 60s was 50 amp electric service with two prong outlets. Today the standard is 200 amp service with grounded outlets throughout the house. Today a vapor barrier is required under the house if you have a conventional foundation. Back in the 60s; mentioning a vapor barrier would get a "What's that?" Today gas appliances don't have a pilot light but electric start and are much safer for it even if it means your hot water will go away during a power outage.

      Went through this drill when applying for an equity loan a few years ago. Upgrading the electric to modern standards even lowered my home insurance by a few hundred a year.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    129. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RE: "A 2x4 used to be a "raw" 2 inches by 4 inches to the center of the saw blade. However you could expect them to be 1/16-1/4 inch short on each dimension due to "curf", which is the width of material removed by the saw blade.
      Those were building standards for 100 years."

      Total BS. In my home built in 1920 in Alameda CA. the joists and other internal members which you define as 2"x4" are 2"x4" measured after any planing/curf was done. I've taken out shelving and one actual member in a minor job. The difference in the wood size was obvious and unmistakable. A real 2"x 4" is obviously and demonstrably stronger than the replacement modern softwood. In fact I had to take a (believe it was) 4"x6" piece and cut it down to fill in a 2"x4". Course most of the house is made of "real" red wood and again the difference between what was used originally and what is sold today is remarkable.

    130. Re: In other news by leslie.satenstein · · Score: 1

      As a 8 year old child, I learned that the length of lumber whose name was 4 by 8 was short the thickness of the gyproc wallboard that would normally be attached to it. The this "standard" was done to help the architects and trades people. Nothing sinister here.

    131. Re:In other news by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Because you are confused and think that drives all standardized on the same number of sectors per track"

      I specifically mentioned that not only is there no standardization on sectors per track, there may be different sectors per track on the same device. To wit: "Heck it has been twenty years since the number of sectors per track has been constant across the platter."

    132. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your comment, me and husband , have always thought something was off, , this country has been lied too for so long, hardly anyone will even stand up and comment , the truth, who are the lumber mills, where are they located, foreign, or American, corporations, lie, lie lie, every day and rip all of us off, its the mills that need to investigate, , fine, and change the way they label the wood, I don't care if your a dyier, or builder, in the trades, false advertising, while charging the same high prices, and its agrevating enough to do a repair project,ect., without having to worry , or wonder why a piece of wood is not what it was supposed to be, and the lack of public comments on this subject, is appalling, your comments, were the bets informed ive read yet., thank you so much.

    133. Re:In other news by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      This is called normalcy bias.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    134. Re:In other news by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Lumber is usually cut in the mill while "green" and sold "kiln-dried". Wood shrinks, particularly in the cross section when it loses moisture. An additional amount is lost when rough boards are surfaced. You can still buy raw cuts, but nobody does so in quantity, because it's a pain to work with.

    135. Re:In other news by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Did you actually consult any engineering sources? Douglas fir is stronger, stiffer, harder, and provides more sheer resistance the redwood. If it was old growth redwood, the performance is even worse. http://workshopcompanion.com/K... Also 1920's with local materials would have required more specialized labor to build.

  2. I thought.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    I thought it was normal for a 2x4 to actually measure 1.5x3.5 because of the planing that happens or somesuch.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I was told that builder dimensions are slightly smaller to account for (1) the drywall that is usually mounted to the outside or (2) the dimensions are the rough cut before the wood is dried and planed. In any case, a good dad should have explained this to you.

    2. Re:I thought.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought it was normal for a 2x4 to actually measure 1.5x3.5 because of the planing that happens or somesuch.

      Indeed. If a 2x4 was actually 2"x4" that would be deceptive, because it would not be a standard 2x4 and would not fit in standard framing. If I buy a 2x4, I want it to be 1.5x3.5, nothing more, nothing less.

    3. Re:I thought.. by RobinH · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is, and it's obvious the lawsuit will fail. Most judges probably know that a 2x4 is 1.5x3.5. Next someone will sue because the sweater they bought doesn't sweat.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    4. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is normal, and it's just the way it is, and always has been. Called a two by four because calling it a one and a half by three and a half takes three times as many words.

    5. Re:I thought.. by deck · · Score: 2

      I was lead to understand that the dimensions of lumber are the cut size when it is cut from the green logs. Between drying and planing the size is reduced so that a 2" x 4" is actually 1.5" x 3.5". The Wikipedia article on lumber seems to be fine. I have noticed at some of the big box stores that they put the actual size on the placard identifying the lumber.

    6. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know fuckall about wood, but if I plan something where I use a 2x4, I used the dimensions 2x4xh on my plan, I want 2x4.

    7. Re:I thought.. by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is, and it's obvious the lawsuit will fail. Most judges probably know that a 2x4 is 1.5x3.5. Next someone will sue because the sweater they bought doesn't sweat.

      I'll sue the condom manufacturer who suggested I would get to experience safe sex with my purchase.

    8. Re:I thought.. by pz · · Score: 1

      But, in fact, the real issue is that the venerable 2-by-4 and 3/4 inch ply have been slowly shrinking. It would be fine if there were some standard sizes that one could rely on, like in plumbing where a 1/4 inch tapered pipe thread (NPT) has precious little to do with 1/4 inch and has a wacky conical shape, but will fit any 1/4 inch pipe thread made in the last 100 years. But there aren't standards in lumber. The big retail lumber vendors keep shrinking the actual dimensions to make an extra buck. Pain in the patootie, it is.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    9. Re:I thought.. by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      I thought it was normal for a 2x4 to actually measure 1.5x3.5 because of the planing that happens or somesuch.

      Exactly. If you want an actual 2x4 you need to buy rough cut lumber from the mill. Planing the wood then reduces the size to the dimensions you find in the hardware store.

      One of my long time friends runs a lumber mill. I used to work there summers with him and his Dad, who started it. It was hard hot work but I learned a lot, including how to run logs through the mill saw to cut it into boards and how to run the planer. He and his Dad could glance at a log and know exactly how many boards he could get from it and what dimensions.

    10. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you were qualified to make a plan you'd know the actual dimensions of lumber.

    11. Re:I thought.. by swillden · · Score: 1

      I thought it was normal for a 2x4 to actually measure 1.5x3.5 because of the planing that happens or somesuch.

      Yes. Rough-cut 2x4s are 2 inches by 4 inches. When they are planed to smooth them and round the corners, they lose about a quarter inch in each side, resulting in the final 1.5x3.5-inch size.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:I thought.. by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Order rough cut. The dimensions are the dimensions after planing.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:I thought.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I can't speak to the 20s, but I've worked on houses from the 1950s and they used "nominal" dimensions then. The floor joists were 2x10s, and were, like a 2x10 I'd buy now, 1.5x9.25. I can buy true dimensional lumber, either "rough cut" of someone's backyard mill or if I order it from the lumberyard, but why would I?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re: I thought.. by slasher999 · · Score: 0

      Yes, this exactly. If I make a plan to go to the moon and buy what I "think" I need at Home Depot do I get to sue them when I don't get there? There is no excuse for not knowing something these days about what you're trying to do with virtually everything at your fingertips.

    15. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pipe threads are based on the internal flow area, not the external dimensions.

    16. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm terribly sorry. I didn't know making shit out of wood was such an incomprehensibly hard task. Shame on me for using a ruler, some basic math and science to construct one off conveniences instead of buying prefab garbage from Walmart.

    17. Re:I thought.. by Dr.+Bombay · · Score: 2

      My house was built over 100 years ago. It is built with rip cut 2x4s. They are actually 2"x4". You would not want to have to carry them in your bare hands as the surface is full of splinters. Not like a smooth surface we can get today with carbide tipped blade. To get these rip cut boards smooth you would likely have to plane a considerable amount of wood off.There is little waste with modern saws and now that the 1.5"x3.5" nominal dimensions is standard, more boards can be cut from larger logs.

    18. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plumbers go by the inside diameter of the pipe, ergo your quarter inch nipple is actually 1/4 inch on the inside diameter. Outside diameter varies by material because the wall thickness is different. Steel and PVC pipe match outside dimensions, but copper pipe is smaller on the od. The only time that you really have to worry about this is when you use "fernco" fittings, black rubber with the worm screw clamp.

      Now if you're lucky enough to get into refrigeration they use the plain outside diameter of the pipe for copper refrigerant lines, thus a half inch acr line actually is 1/2 an inch.

    19. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was normal for a 2x4 to actually measure 1.5x3.5 because of the planing that happens or somesuch.

      You aren't a delicate snowflake millennial...

    20. Re:I thought.. by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These dimensions have been industry standards for 60 years or more (just addressing my own lifetime in that). All contractors know it, all architects know it. Anyone who works with lumber knows it. Those qualified to make plans, like architects, allow for the accepted sizes in their plans.

      If you are actually expecting a 2x4 to be 2" x 4", then that tells us, right off, you have no idea what you're doing.

    21. Re:I thought.. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Lumber comes in "Rough Cut" that is actual 2"x4" dimensions, and the normal stuff that had a 1/4" planed off all 4 sides to give 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 lumber.

    22. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame on you for thinking you knew everything about a field without doing any research on it. An intelligent person would try to build a computer without understanding tolerances in resistors or other components. Anyone working on autos as a hobby or professionally knows to allow for tolerances of parts and how to deal with that. Same with carpentry.

      But there is always someone willing to be a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger Effect. Thank you for being the one here.

    23. Re:I thought.. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Yes - a house built nearly one hundred years ago may use use different sized lumber than a modern home.

      Anything built within the last 50-60 years will use the modern size, which you're FAR more likely to encounter these days.

      Changing to ACTUAL 2x4's for the common size would not only cost a lot, but it would screw things up so badly that buying lumber would be a pain. The vast majority of people are going to WANT 1.5x3.5 for repairs in existing construction (not to mention nearly every recent blueprint has been drawn with that lumber size in mind).

      They absolutely won't change the size - if successful all this will make them to is relabel them to 1.5x3.5's - and just about every knowledgeable person coming in will still ask for a "2x4" - the same as people still ask for pints and half-pints at the liquor store despite the sizes you get being nothing close to the real measurements.

      If you need an actual honest to goodness 2" x 4" board for old construction - go to a lumber yard and you can get them rough-cut in that size.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    24. Re:I thought.. by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Funny

      It actually is. You might not be aware of this, but your average 2x4 contains 1,000,000,000,000% of your recommended daily fiber intake. Uncomfortable going in is an understatement, and incomprehensibly hard coming out.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    25. Re:I thought.. by arth1 · · Score: 2

      When they are planed to smooth them

      Not that you can get a smooth 2x4 in any of the building supply stores. It is rather rough, warped and has plenty of machining marks, and if you plane and true it, it becomes an 1x3.

      But that doesn't matter much, because it's meant for framing, not carpentry. Where 1.5x3.5 rough is good enough, and what you want because it fits the scaffolding. If you want realistic dimensions, you order surfaced plank, not timber framing, and even then add a quarter inch for tooling damage and inaccuracies.

    26. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big retail lumber vendors keep shrinking the actual dimensions to make an extra buck.

      *Keep* shrinking? Bullshit. I've done my own work on my houses for over 50 years now and a 2x4 has always been 1.5x3.5 unless (as pointed out by someone else here) you order a rough cut board. What you learned in SocSci is not true.

    27. Re: I thought.. by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      No, the 2 x 4 has not been "slowly shrinking". It has been those dimensions ever since framing lumber has been smoothly planned. The dimensions have not changed in many, many years.

      It isn't the the same deal as the volume of your Wheaties box, kid.

    28. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that when you use something like "2x4," a simple nomenclature that a 2nd grade potato could understand, the average non-potato person doesn't scratch their heads and google what "2x4" means. They say, "OH, this product is 2 by 4..." and they fill in inches because its the only reasobable unit that makes sense, looking at a 2x4.

      Its easy to say, "Well duh, everyone should know that," when you know. But going into a field with the assumption that numbers don't mean the numbers they say isn't being cautious, it's being paranoid and insane- and maybe thats what the modern marketplace demands of consumers, but in my not so humble opinion, thats fucked up if it is.

    29. Re:I thought.. by freeze128 · · Score: 0

      Most judges have probably NEVER picked up a hammer in their lives.

    30. Re:I thought.. by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know fuckall about wood, but if I plan something where I use a 2x4, I used the dimensions 2x4xh on my plan, I want 2x4.

      Right, for that you have to look up what the material is and get the dimensions from the datasheet. Or in the case of lumber, a website explaining the basics of it. You want 2"x4" and you go to the cabinet shop and they explain to you to buy 10/4 4s4 that is 4" wide and it will be 2 5/16", but they can plane it down for you for cheap/free. They might not have 10/4, you might have to choose between 8/4 which is 1 13/16" or 12/4 which is 2 13/16".

      If it is 13/16" or thicker, then then it will be labeled in 4ths where 4/4 = 1" and describes the rough thickness before planing. But you can't get an exact thickness by buying it rough, because then it is rough and isn't exactly that thickness. It has to be planed to have exact dimensions. And then it is 3/16" thinner than the starting thickness. But sawmills don't cut anything less than 1", so you won't normally see 3/4 or anything like that, instead they would start from 4/4 and plane it all the way down and give you an exact measurement. So 1/2" is really exactly 1/2".

      You aren't fucking with 2x4's anyways if you don't know anything about wood, because that is a specialty product for framing.

      You can basically never design a physical item before you make it and not have to know anything about each material. Doesn't work.

      You can always wait until after you have a pile of parts, measure them, examine their properties, and then design it without having had to actually learn anything. It might be harder to get the correct parts into the pile that way though, or to repeat the process and build 2 that are the same.

      The vast majority of parts and materials are sized slightly larger or smaller than the printed size, which is actually a fitting size not the exact size of either side of the fitting. It is almost always greater than, less than, or started as before finishing.

    31. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is 2x4 when rough cut. After finishing, it is reduced in size. Anyone who understands the industry knows that. An unemployed lawyer doing DIY to fill in their time, not so much.

    32. Re: I thought.. by bigfinger76 · · Score: 0

      The hardware store is one of those places where a 2nd grade 'potato' doesn't belong. It's for adults who either know what the fuck they're doing, or those that are willing to properly learn.

    33. Re:I thought.. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 4, Interesting

      These dimensions have been industry standards for 60 years or more ... If you are actually expecting a 2x4 to be 2" x 4", then that tells us, right off, you have no idea what you're doing.

      I'm remodeling a house right now (today, not this very second.) It has 2x4s. TWO by FOURS. It has support beams placed every 4 feet. (Not 3.5', and not 8'.) It was built in 1895, so there's the other side of the redefinition bracket.

      A few helpers have remarked, "This is an actual 2x4. Wow, you don't see that every day -- how about that!"

      The timber industry (or home repair? Who??) decades ago redefined the size. They shouldn't have but they did, and nobody cared to call them on it. Too late now.

      They should try something more productive, like fixing "Unimited Usage" advertised by ISPs and Wireless Carriers. I'm sure they'll have more success.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    34. Re: I thought.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, I agree that 2x4 is a stupid name for a standard lumber dimension that is NOT 2" x 4". But nevertheless, THAT IS THE STANDARD. Home Depot didn't create the standard, and it is not their fault that it is stupid. But when 95% of people buy a 2x4, they understand that 2x4 is the tradename and not the precise dimensions. They want a standard 2x4, and that is exactly what Home Depot gives them.

      If you want precise dimensions, then take along a ruler.

    35. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used the dimensions 2x4xh on my plan

      2x4 what? Do you assume inches when you see such numbers? Do you think a number 4 screw is twice is big as a number 2 screw? Do you think a 20 gauge wire is twice as big as 10 gauge wire? There is a long list of different numbered sizes in materials, for a variety of historic reasons that often don't matter other than to remind you that numbers in names don't always mean a nice multiple of some dimension.

    36. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The timber industry (or home repair? Who??) decades ago redefined the size

      They didn't redefine the meaning, they simply defined it in the first place. Before that standard, a finished 2x4 came in all sorts of different sizes. For many places you the size was for the green lumber, which meant it changed after being dried and again when surfaced. Other places the size was after drying, but before surfacing (you see this a lot in older homes with rough cut studs). It was often not even consistent from the same mill when they did a bad job of measuring moisture levels before drying, and just cut everything to the same size. Sometimes this mean ripping studs on site for construction (again, how you sometimes get actual 2x4 dimensions at old homes).

      The standard size came later when technology improved such that quick and cheap measuring of moisture made it efficient to get the green sizing correct and to not waste much when planing to a standard size.

    37. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was normal for a 2x4 to actually measure 1.5x3.5 because of the planing that happens or somesuch.

      Senior Architectural Tech student, here. I went back to school... used to be an IT guy... hence why i am here.

      The size difference has to do with the moisture content of the wood.
      It is cut at 2x4" ("Wet" wood) and then dried out to reduce the moisture content of the wood before it's considered to be good to be sold (to avoid issues with things like mold growth).

      It also only shrinks in one direction, as well (which is not the length/height or with the grain, ...but just the thickness or the perpendicular to the grain) due to the structure of the cells of the wood.

      http://mistupid.com/homeimpr/lumber.htm
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_drying

    38. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he was wrong. it has to due with the drying of the wood to reduce its moisture content after it was cut. I answered with links above/elsewhere. There are plenty of times that wood is used without drywall being attached to it.

    39. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's been the absolute industry standard since the 1940s. Dimension lumber is half an inch short in each direction, and has been since before the majority of current Americans were born.

      So the majority of houses have 1.5x3.5 studs, and not 2x4.

    40. Re:I thought.. by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then buy engineered "dimensional lumber" instead of standard builder-grade lumber.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    41. Re:I thought.. by djinn6 · · Score: 0

      Just because it's done a certain way for a long time, doesn't mean we should never change it. It certainly doesn't cost Home Depot any more to print 1.5"x3.5" on the label instead of (or in addition to) 2x4. Anyone already familiar with lumber would know those are called 2x4's. They can save newbies the headache of buying the wrong size (who may not necessarily be buying wood for construction) and anyone looking for boards that are actually 2" x 4" can find them.

    42. Re: I thought.. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      I grew up on a farm, and we built many things out of 2by4's. As a kid, I never thought about that being the dimension in inches, it was simply the name of the piece of wood.

      As I got older I learned it meant 2 inches by 4 inches, and as I got older yet I learned they aren't 2 inches by 4 inches.

      We also had some lumber that really was 2 inches by 4 inches, but you would get slivers off it.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    43. Re:I thought.. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      In the northern cities perhaps. In the smaller towns, and all across the south, people still do a lot of work themselves, or grew up on farms or helping on 'grampa's farm' over the summers.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    44. Re:I thought.. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      No. Don't call it a 2 by 4 if it isn't actually 2" by 4". You know what, just switch to metric already. If I buy a 23x44 it actually has those dimensions. (And yeah, the range of available sizes is weird, probably because the dimensions are simply the old inch sizes converted to mm)

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    45. Re:I thought.. by willy_me · · Score: 2

      Rough-cut are not 2" by 4" anymore. Saws used to have a 1/4" kerf. A rough-cut 2x4 would then be more like 1 3/4 x 3 3/4. After drying and planing the final size would be 1.5 x 3.5.

      Modern mills use a band-saw blade - a massive blade that is over a foot wide, sharpened on each end, and only ~1/16" thick. This generates minimal losses and maximises the obtained lumber from a log.

      First the log is scanned and a computer determines how to best turn it into lumber. The water content is known so the cuts can be positioned to minimise planing losses. Hydraulics adjust the log position for each cut based on the calculated solution. Final lumber is just a little over 1.5 x 3.5. Once planed, it is exactly 1.5 x 3.5.

    46. Re:I thought.. by meerling · · Score: 1

      Nobody on my side of the family is in construction or considered any kind of handyman. People tend to run and scream when we get powertools out. And even we know that standard lumber isn't the size it's called. I was probably 6 when it was explained to me. Of course, there was no reason given, so I just assumed the lumber guys had gotten one too many chunks of high speed wood to the head.

      That jerk may be trying to make a class action suit, but it will completely fail since it's been an industry standard for at least a 80 years. (That's older than me, but the old folks I talked to it as a kid say it's always been that way.)
      Besides, isn't them suing Home Depot for selling standard lumber for it's real dimensions kind of like suing Chevron because gasoline is flammable...

    47. Re:I thought.. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      you're right, you know fuck all about wood. stay out of framing...

    48. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was normal for a 2x4 to actually measure 1.5x3.5 because of the planing that happens or somesuch.

      The wood shrinks as it dries.
      This has nothing to do with lumber yards trying to rip people off.

      This is just plain ignorance and I'm glad I live in the middle of the woods away from this nonsense.

    49. Re:I thought.. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      wait for late summer, or mid-winter, and your 23x44 will not be 23x44 anymore. learn about the material you're working with, and don't be such a dumb fuck... heck a colleague has to re-plane a wood slab every few year because of the natural warp...

    50. Re:I thought.. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      it should not change just because some dumb fuck couldn't deal with what people have been using for ages...

    51. Re:I thought.. by mentil · · Score: 1

      Except for a gavel.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    52. Re:I thought.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I've known since I was about 7 years old that a 2x4 does not actually measure 2 inches by 4 inches. That would have been 1968 or so.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    53. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When remodeling a house for the first time I found out about lumber sizes the hard way. I bought wood that was off by .5 inches to replace a wall. Sure it took time out of my day, but home depot refunded the purchase and within an hour I learned something new about an entire industry. I guess I could have sued but I'm not a special snowflake that thinks EVERYTHING needs to be completely explained to me all the time.

    54. Re:I thought.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      So Home Depot should sell 2x4s that measure 2 inches by 4 even though no-one who actually knows anything about construction will buy them? I'm sure that'll work out great for them.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    55. Re:I thought.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      But, in fact, the real issue is that the venerable 2-by-4 and 3/4 inch ply have been slowly shrinking.

      Since when? I know from personal experience that there's been no such "shrinkage" in at least 50 years.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    56. Re:I thought.. by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I just checked Home Depot's website and in the product overview for a framing 2x4 it gives the following information:

      Common: 2 in. x 4 in. x 8 ft.; Actual: 1.5 in. x 3.5 in. x 96 in.

      Lowes, Menard's, and all the other stores of this type say the same thing. Nobody is lying about what they're selling. This lawsuit is the epitome of frivolous lawsuits and should be thrown out the first day.

    57. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use bricks to build your houses like civilised people do.

      Dumb Yanks.

    58. Re:I thought.. by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      So when standards change over time, we still call them standards, and we just totally accept it because reasons.

      This kind of logic reminds me why binding arbitration is becoming standard practice. As long as everyone does it, it's okay.

    59. Re: I thought.. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Plumbers might do that in the Imperial backwater that is the USA. Elsewhere metric pipe is based on external dimensions.

      That said the difference between 1/2" copper pipe and 15mm copper pipe is minimal enough that a 15mm compression joint will fit 1/2" pipe, and while you can get 1/2" to 15mm couplers you can happily just use a 15mm coupler to solder/sweat the two together.

      On the other hand 22mm pipe and 3/4" pipe are sufficiently different that you do need to use the right fittings or a proper coupler.

    60. Re: I thought.. by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      Yes, if you plan to build something that fits properly, you need to know that the advertised dimensions are not accurate and allow for it. That doesn't obviate the fact that the bastards are lying. In general, manufacturers are not allowed to redefine units of measure. If they shrink your soft drink from 12 fl oz (355ml) to 10fl oz (296ml), the label will say so. Lumber is an unhappy exception.

      Would you care to bet that, barring interference from the legal system, 50 years from now, standard 2x4s won't be significantly smaller than today's standards?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    61. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The original measurements were 1.75x3.75 inches, a 2x4 after being planed down and smoothed, 1/8" on each side, excepting the ends.

      And we've been used to that since high school wood shop.

      Changing it to 1.5x3.5" is bullshit. Do you know what hurricane clips are? If you did, you'd know why this lawsuit will likely WIN.

    62. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you need to plane 1/4" off your wood to get it smooth, you're doing it WRONG and should be banned from using the planer altogether.

      Basic fucking woodshop, you should only need to plane off a few mm at best after your cut.

    63. Re: I thought.. by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These boards are labeled 2x4s, not 2"-by-4"s. Your imagination is what injected the units into the final product.

    64. Re:I thought.. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Modern nominal 2x4's are really more like 1 9/16" x 3 9/16" now. You never get exactly 1 1/2" x 3 1/2". Similar to how most 3/4" ply is actually 47/64".

    65. Re:I thought.. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Except that Lowe's got sued and lost for the exact same thing in 2014.

    66. Re: I thought.. by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Yes, this exactly. If I make a plan to go to the moon and buy what I "think" I need at Home Depot do I get to sue them when I don't get there? There is no excuse for not knowing something these days about what you're trying to do with virtually everything at your fingertips.

      TFA doesn't really target those who know about building things. It was about novice. Do retailers need to educate novices when they sell those lumbers? Some novice people do make a plan first (not research), and then go to store to buy...

    67. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A standard 2x4? Sorry, but there are three such things.

      My brother is in building construction, my wife flips homes. The early standard 2x4's are actually 2 inches by 4 inches. That standard changed a long time ago, and then there were 1.75 inches by 3.75 inches boards (it's not a myth, I've seen them). Finally that 2x4 shrunk to 1.5 inches by 3.5 inches.

      Now there is a movement that wants them smaller. While we will keep on building with whatever they give us, let me share with you how this has impacted construction.

      It used to be that a load bearing wall could be made of 2x4s. That's not really true anymore. Sure, there are always exceptions in construction, but most load bearing walls are made from 2x6s, which are more expensive per linear board foot. Wood prices have been creeping up over the years, so this cost is significant (mostly due to the amount of wood purchased).

      Since the public pays what the neighborhood price supports, this triggers a number of cost savings approaches. Some seem sensible, like careful CAD modeling and 24 hour security on wood stacks. Others are sensible but make novice builders uneasy, like engineered wood supports (sort of like a laminate beam built up of wood chips). But they all lead to one effect, the house you are getting has the minimum amount of wood in it to pass inspection.

      Now, if you have to retrofit an old house that has standard-then lumber, you have to get your wood special cut. The expense is huge compared to the 1.5x3.5 boards. This leads to an expensive rework job, compromising approaches that combine two standards of wood, or a justification to tear down and rebuild.

    68. Re:I thought.. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      These dimensions have been industry standards for 60 years or more (just addressing my own lifetime in that). All contractors know it, all architects know it. Anyone who works with lumber knows it. Those qualified to make plans, like architects, allow for the accepted sizes in their plans.

      If you are actually expecting a 2x4 to be 2" x 4", then that tells us, right off, you have no idea what you're doing.

      I get the idea that the lawyers behind this know *exactly* what they're doing.

    69. Re:I thought.. by sbaker · · Score: 1

      It's not true that the difference between advertised and actual sizes are due to a reduction in size due to finish planing. I've been building a deck and some fencing around my house - and the "unfinished-cedar" 2-by-4 boards sold in Home Depot are the exact same actual size as the "finished-cedar" 2-by-4 boards sold in Lowes. Both are labelled as being 2"x4" and neither of them are. So it's not "finishing" that reduces the dimensions...at least not in every case.

      I truly do get it that there is an object called a "2-by-4" that is much smaller than 2" x 4" and it's fine that they *call* it a 2-by-4 in the product description - so long as they provide actual dimensions as well.

      BUT when I buy rough-sawed planking to make a fence - and I figure I have 200 feet of fence, so I'll need 400 lengths of 6" wide rough-sawed planking - I order them online and have them delivered - and I *REALLY* feel cheated when the planks arrive and are only 5" wide - I run out - and when I order more, I get stung for another delivery charge. *THAT* sucks...and the "customary size" thing isn't a valid excuse.

      So, yes - I think it's time for the lumber industry to come clean and label all of their products with the actual dimensions - relegating the "traditional names" to being merely names. So, by all means call it a 2-by-4 but DO NOT misrepresent it as a 2" x 4" piece of lumber. You can say it's a 6-by-1 fence panel if that truly is a "customary name" - but I actually need to know that it's only 5" wide before I order vast quantities of it.

      The construction industry won't be inconvenienced in the least - they can still talk about two-by-fours - and because they never say "two inch by four inch" - nobody will get confused. An occasional labeling change is something that all businesses have to live with - so suck it up. The cost to fix this is nominal - it's time to do that.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
    70. Re:I thought.. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you want actual 2x4 dimensions, buy rough cut lumber. Often, that will require buying directly from a sawmill. Don't expect the dimensions to be exact. You will also probably get a slightly lower price than for smoothed lumber.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    71. Re: I thought.. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      So in your ever so enlightened country water flows on the outside of the pipes? Because that is the only way that sizing pipe by external dimensions makes any sense.

    72. Re:I thought.. by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      If there is a demand for actual 2" x 4", how would you label them? 2.5" x 4.5"?

    73. Re:I thought.. by djinn6 · · Score: 1
      The lawsuit specifically refers to the in-store labels though:

      3. Defendant regularly advertises for sale dimensional lumber products through instore shelf tags and signage, labels, and flyers, which contain inaccurate and false product dimensions that do not correspond to the actual dimensions of the products being advertised

    74. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just checked Home Depot's website and in the product overview for a framing 2x4 it gives the following information:

      Common: 2 in. x 4 in. x 8 ft.; Actual: 1.5 in. x 3.5 in. x 96 in..

      It's sad that it's come to that.

      Like the bag of peanuts I'm snacking on right now. On the label, "Allergy warning: Contains peanuts."

    75. Re: I thought.. by Harald+Paulsen · · Score: 2

      In the future you will see movie theatres etc sell soft drink in a container labelled "12", and it will contain 11 fl oz. The "10" will contain 9 fl oz.

      After all, if people assume the 12 stands for fl oz, it's their damn fault right?

      Sure, it's been this way for some time, and various houses have used different sizes, and that makes it even more important to use actual sizes, not phony ones.

      On an unrelated note, I found a cheap bottle of whisky that had a prominent "12" on the label. Naturally one would assume that this meant aged for 12 years, but nowhere does it say years. Could be weeks :-)

      --
      Harald
    76. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Imperial unit logic in a nutshell.

    77. Re:I thought.. by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Why is this downvoted? This is absolutely correct.

    78. Re: I thought.. by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Are you daft? Most places sell soft drinks by some subset of "small", "medium", "large", "extra large", and "American" sizes. They can shrink those at will.

    79. Re: I thought.. by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Good on you for learning.

    80. Re:I thought.. by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

      The standards haven't changed for over 100 years. A link to a 1905 manual I posted elsewhere in this thread.

    81. Re:I thought.. by RobinH · · Score: 1

      If there is a demand for actual 2" x 4", how would you label them? 2.5" x 4.5"?

      The only people who would want such a thing are people remodeling very old houses, and those people would go and pay extra to buy a "rough cut 2x4". Every single industry out there has details. Sometimes weird little details, and confusing nomenclature. Yeah, it sucks, but it's pragmatic. Why do we teach all little kids not to stick their fingers (or forks) in a toaster when we could just sell toasters you can't electrocute yourself with? Some stuff gets "grandfathered" in. A person who wants to take on a DIY project and goes to the store and doesn't realize that a 2x4 is 1.5x3.5 inches has way more to learn than just that fact. You have to learn stuff. That's why we have books and YouTube videos and seminars at Home Depot, and even a whole army of people walking around Home Depot in orange aprons who, at the very least, can help novices choose what they need to buy. A person who doesn't know this fact hasn't done any minimal amount of research, but even so, if the buy it, take it home, and realize it's wrong, then guess what... Home Depot will refund your purchase! Besides, a 2x4 is what... $1.57 or so?

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    82. Re:I thought.. by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Modern walls are not being built with 2x6's because of some conspiracy by big lumber to make you buy more expensive wood, they're being built that way because insulation standards are going up, and the walls need to be deeper to hold it. Also, a 2x6 wall requires fewer studs, which means faster construction.

    83. Re:I thought.. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Dimensional lumber names and sizes have been standard for longer than you have been alive. If you want to change the standard, then lobby for it. But don't blame EVERY lumber seller, distributor, and producer for using the standard.

      This should no longer be a problem for you now that you are aware.

    84. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot easier to say 2x4 when talking the the clerk, too.

    85. Re:I thought.. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Just because it's done a certain way for a long time, doesn't mean we should never change it. It certainly doesn't cost Home Depot any more to print 1.5"x3.5" on the label instead of (or in addition to) 2x4. Anyone already familiar with lumber would know those are called 2x4's. They can save newbies the headache of buying the wrong size (who may not necessarily be buying wood for construction) and anyone looking for boards that are actually 2" x 4" can find them.

      No need to make an expensive change when it is a very small problem. Even newbies rarely make the mistake. In fact, if they bought lumber that was actually 2x4 it would probably not work for a majority of the places you would order a 2x4 for, because it would not match existing standard lumber. So you would make the problem worse.

    86. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In candyass Commiefornia. Not that northern Illinois is any better.

    87. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cause some a-hat doesn't want to face the truth.

    88. Re:I thought.. by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      You are correct you don't know anything about wood. Please stay out of building. I barely build anything, just shelves for the garage and other stuff every few years and I knew this. I am still amazed just how cheap wood (well pine 2x4's) are. Just shipping/handling of such large items seems like it would cost more than the price. Same for concrete blocks.

    89. Re:I thought.. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I don't read that in the GP's post at all, he's arguing the label on a 2x4 that is 1.5" x 3.5" should be something like "2x4 (1.5"x3.5")"

      In other news I'm getting a nervous tick after writing that, like the inches symbol needs to be escaped or something... #programmerproblems

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    90. Re:I thought.. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Uh... dimensional lumber is sized to standards published in 1961, agreed upon by one of the many American societies of engineers. In other news, oil is manufactured based on standards set by the Society of Automotive Engineers, and cat food has to meet published standards for cat food nutritional content.

    91. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was normal for a 2x4 to actually measure 1.5x3.5

      I thought it was normal for a 1L bottle of Coke to actually contain 750mL.
      I thought it was normal for an order of 6 McNuggets to actually number four.
      I thought it was normal for a two-four of beer to only have twenty bottles.
      Madness, right? So why are the lumber people allowed to get away with it? "Well, that's the way my grand-dad did it" doesn't cut it.

    92. Re:I thought.. by entropy01 · · Score: 1

      All of the Home Depots in my area have the actual and nominal dimensions of the lumber on a huge orange sign above the saw. Not sure how that is possibly false advertising when it is displayed so prominently.

    93. Re:I thought.. by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      As a guy who has a woodshop in his garage and very much enjoys building cabinets and the like on the weekends I can tell you that not only is 2x4 ripped to that dimension then planed .25 on each side and it has been that way for as long as I can remember.

      More importantly common size and actual size is right on the home depot website when looking at lumber and if you can find the labels it's also marked in the store.

      http://www.homedepot.com/p/2-i...

    94. Re: I thought.. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Starbucks does this. But kind of in reverse and in Italian. The "venti" cold drinks (that's 20 in italian) actually measure 24 oz. to account for some of the extra ice.

    95. Re:I thought.. by rnturn · · Score: 1

      I thought the 2x4 dimension was the size of the lumber as it was initially cut at the mill. The shrinkage occurred as the lumber dries out after the cutting process and that all lumber goes through that drying process. That means that 4x4 posts, 1x10 boards, etc. are all going to be slightly smaller than the labelled size. At least that's what I remember from wood shop (remember that?) in junior high and high school.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    96. Re: I thought.. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      In the US, today's "small" was yesterday's medium. The sizes are going up.

    97. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn straight. Time to sue the auto manufacturers because none of their 4x4s are exactly 4'x4' or even 4mx4m. Things should be exactly what I assume them to be without any knowledge of the subject area!

    98. Re: I thought.. by judoguy · · Score: 1
      I'd absolutely take that bet if there any way to collect. I've built and remodeled homes on and off for 40 years.

      I've worked on homes that spanned the entire age range under discussion.

      I've worked on homes that had the original 2x4s. They used lath and plaster to correct the worst of the wall variances. Later on the mills started planing the front and back to allow uniform wall depth and then later planing the sides to make the studs MUCH easier to use. That 4 sided planing allows studs to be attached to each other in consistent ways, i.e., sides to fronts and produce uniform results.

      The need to maintain existing inventory alone will keep the standard, well, standard.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    99. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's because when using fixed outside dimensions, then changes in wall thickness of 1-5mm make fuck-all difference to the hydrodynamics of your installation. Yet using fixed inside dimensions means different pipes won't fit the same sized fittings.

      It's a very sensible and practical standard that makes everyone's lives easier. If you are smart enough to be working on an installation where a ten percent restriction to flow rate is significant, then I'd like to think you are smart enough to know to use ODs for your calculations to begin with.

    100. Re:I thought.. by judoguy · · Score: 1

      A few helpers have remarked, "This is an actual 2x4. Wow, you don't see that every day -- how about that!"

      You see it if you work on old houses. I've worked with 2x4s, 2x3 1/2s and 1 1/2 x 3 1/2s over the years. Anyone who complains about modern 2x4s is a moron.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    101. Re:I thought.. by judoguy · · Score: 1
      Home Depot sells crappy wood to home owners and contractors that just need a little framing material right away to finish something and can take the time to root through the rocking chair parts they sell as framing lumber.

      Real contractors order stud bundles from real building supply houses that don't cater to the home owner DIY crowd.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    102. Re: I thought.. by otomoton · · Score: 1

      That's why if you are doing serious plumbing you go by pipe schedule, not just the pipe size. 1" of schedule whatever pipe is not going to have the same internal dimensions of 1" other schedule pipe, but they will both thread into a 1" elbow for example.

    103. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To your point: I recently bought a bunch of MDF from HomeDepot that was 24"x24"x3/4" ... the actual dimensions are something like 24"x25"x3/4".

      HomeDepot actually lists the "actual" dimentions on lumbar (at least MDF and plywood from what I've seen) on their web site.

    104. Re:I thought.. by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      The timber industry (or home repair? Who??) decades ago redefined the size.

      Nope.

      The 2x4s in your house are rough-cut. A jointer and plane were not used to shape the wood into a flat and straight board.

      It was standard practice when your house was built to not do so, because that jointer and plane removed a variable amount of wood depending on how twisted and cupped the raw 2x4 was. So a 2x4 that started out pretty straight could end up 1.9x3.8. And one that was much more warped could end up 1.25x3.5.

      Since trees were cheap and plentiful, and wood was commonly used for fuel, they just didn't use the warped wood for construction.

      As wood stopped being commonly used for fuel and trees became more valuable, throwing away the warped boards became a bad idea. Instead, the industry decided to start straightening the warped/cupped boards using the above-mentioned jointers and planes. But they still needed consistent sizing for construction, so they cut 1/4 inch off each face to deal with cupping and warping in most boards. That yielded a 1.5"x3.5" piece of wood.

      "One-and-a-half by three-and-a-half" is pretty awkward to say compared to "two by four", so tradespeople still called the finished wood "two by four" because that was close enough - it's not like those 2x4s in your house are all exactly 2" by 4" - they weren't that accurate cutting wood, and the wood will have shrunk in the intervening decades.

      Meanwhile, construction techniques advanced such that the 1.5x3.5 wood could be used in places where they used to use 2x4 (primarily from abandoning balloon framing).

      So this isn't some evil conspiracy by big lumber. It's a natural evolution of terminology and materials and techniques that happened over decades due to changing demands and changing material availability.

    105. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Your imagination...

      No, common usage & understanding is what leads us to believe what's told to us. Especially when numbers are used to name an object identified by its measurements.

      If you are in California and ask directions for Hollywood, common usage would figure you're asking directions to Hollywood California.
      But what if I, with inside knowledge of Florida, sent you to Hollywood Florida. You finally arrive there pissed off! Yet I claim it's your fault because in my world, that's the authentic city named Hollywood.

    106. Re:I thought.. by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      Correct. I was told that a rough-cut 2x4 would actually be 2x4. However, 2x4's that most of us buy are "finished" meaning smoothed and sanded.

      I have purchased such wood items and they sure seem strange to hold in your hands because they aren't the expected dimensions.

      This is all understood by the tradesmen - so educating everyone else -- well it would be a horrible world if suddenly 2x4 weren't... 2x4's anymore. "I'd like a 1.3251 by 3.5856 please"

    107. Re:I thought.. by akahige · · Score: 1

      They're calling it a 2 x 4. They're not saying that it's 2" x 4". There's a difference, and it's not subtle.

    108. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yesterday's "medium" was the day before yesterday's large. This has been happening for a long time.

    109. Re:I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And pay several times as much for that word: "engineered".

      God help you if you want it to look good. Then you need architectural lumber and it will cost another multiple on top of that!

    110. Re:I thought.. by karolgajewski · · Score: 1

      I'm remodeling a house right now (today, not this very second.) It has 2x4s. TWO by FOURS. It has support beams placed every 4 feet. (Not 3.5', and not 8'.) It was built in 1895, so there's the other side of the redefinition bracket.

      If you cared to do this properly, you would know that studs in house framing are positioned a given distance apart from centre to centre, for exactly the reason why it's pointed out many times in the thread. That way, your house can have your special 2x4s and "trade 2x4's" as well.

      --
      - .k. -
    111. Re: I thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you care to bet that, barring interference from the legal system, 50 years from now, standard 2x4s won't be significantly smaller than today's standards?

      I would absolutely take that bet, with the caveat that if society devolves into anarchy before then, the bet is null and void.

    112. Re: I thought.. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Rough cut is cheaper.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    113. Re: I thought.. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Studs are still 18" on center.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    114. Re: I thought.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've known that a "two by four" isn't 2"x4" for over fifty years now. I haven't noticed it changing. If you're going into a field without any assistance, there's lots of ways you're going to screw up. If you have some sort of teacher, they'll tell you. If you're using some sort of plan, it will specify "two by fours" and will work just fine with what you get at the lumber yard. If you've got neither a teacher nor a plan, nothing's going to save you.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    115. Re: I thought.. by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      The standard is 1.5 x 3.5. Home Depot and Menards are selling 1.437 x 3.437 and calling that standard when it's not. That's what the suit is about.

    116. Re:I thought.. by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      Not all houses have evenly spaced studs and joists. My current house was built in the 1940s, after WWII and my grandparents moved in after my grandfather was discharged at the end of the war. We did some rewiring on this house (with the help/supervision of an electrician) and in the process found that there were places the studs were not evenly spaced.

      About ten years ago I suspended two pieces of angle iron from attic joists, going down through the ceiling, to provide a mount for a plasma HDTV. (Since this was over the fireplace and in front of where the chimney was behind the wall, I didn't have studs there that would be a normal thickness and couldn't depend on them for something as heavy as a plasma HDTV.) Granted, that was around the chimney, which may have required special measurements, but the joists there varied from 12-18" apart. I positioned the angle irons so they were as close to centered on the chimney as possible while in the attic and when I got down into the living room and checked the holes I had made in the ceiling, they were not anywhere close to centered over the fireplace. (In other words, while the fireplace chimney was a straight line, the structure around it shifted - probably to allow room for the chimney for the furnace.)

    117. Re:I thought.. by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      You can basically never design a physical item before you make it and not have to know anything about each material. Doesn't work.

      I remember at my first job at an industrial research laboratory with its own small metal working shop (for sample preparation and whatnot). Hence they got all sorts of odd jobs from the rest of the company, such as demo rigs for industry fairs and whatnot.

      So I was asking what a guy was doing and he was finishing a small demo rig designed by a bright young recently graduated engineer (like myself) that called for a 17mm thick steel base plate. My colleague pointed out to me that that would cost quite a bit extra, since at those thicknesses the standard sizes from the mill was every other mm of thickness, i.e. 16mm and 18mm respectively. Said he: "Now, ordinarily I would just take an 18mm and grind it down in the surface grinder (machine). That would take about 12-18 hours or so, just about doubling the time allotted. But since this is a rush job, and the thickness isn't structural I'll just call him and ask if he'll be happy with an 18mm base plate..." :-)

      Industry of course have many such kindly old men; willing and able to teach the snot nosed engineer about the world, one ("costly") mistake at a time. I was told that at least the lesson tends to stick that way. :-)

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  3. This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The size "2x4" is an industry standard since forever. I hope the assholes filing suit will be forced to pay the court costs when the suit is dismissed with prejudice.

    1. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And paying bribes was also a "standard" in some industry "since forever", is that a reason they don't need to obey the law?

      A simple "2x4" with small letters "actual size xxxxxx" would make things clear to everyone.

      And yes, harddisk size should also include the actual usable free space one could get. Consumers shouldn't be required to know all the "tricks of trade" before buying anything. There is no excuse for false advertising, no matter the industry.

    2. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The size "2x4" is an industry standard since forever. I hope the assholes filing suit will be forced to pay the court costs when the suit is dismissed with prejudice.

      Older houses around here, say from the 60's were sometimes built with cedar. Some of those were probably 1.75x3.5 or something like that. No big deal. Now I do think some of the older lumber was just better, but not because of the slight variations in size. It was likely better since it was from older slower growing trees. In fact if you can find an old 2x4 that is straight, you can be pretty sure it will stay that way. New ones might still warp a little, or more than likely come with a bit of warp. The pressure treated stuff is a mess. Much of it is pretty straight out of the store, while it is still very wet. Let it dry out a bit and it will warp all over. I vaguely remember that the 5.5" stuff for decks is the ideal choice there, and if you are going to install it straight from the store you probably want to put the joints tight, and then let them shrink to provide the necessary gap.

      I have a deck to build, hopefully this year. I may yet break down and install either the plastic or cedar treads. Still, I think the pressure treated will be okay, and if you can install most of it straight from the lumber yard the shrinkage should be mostly uniform. Still, the numbers I'm reading seem to indicate around a 1/2" of shrinkage is possible in about 8'. I might have to buy all the material and set it on some scrap 2x4's and then cover it and let it sit for a couple weeks to make sure all is stable. I'll have to think about that. Of course if you let the standard lumber yard stuff dry before installing it, then it may warp even more. It is a pity I probably can't afford to go all cedar.

      Either way the moral of the story is the problem isn't the nominal dimensions, but rather warp and in the case of things like pressure treated shrinkage after it is installed.

    3. Re:This will be dismissed by x0ra · · Score: 2

      A simple "2x4" with small letters "actual size xxxxxx" would make things clear to everyone.

      If you need such markings, you probably stay away from doing any framing...

    4. Re:This will be dismissed by x0ra · · Score: 1

      It was likely better since it was from older slower growing trees. In fact if you can find an old 2x4 that is straight, you can be pretty sure it will stay that way. New ones might still warp a little, or more than likely come with a bit of warp.

      Of course, the old wood has been drying for years, whereas the new lumber is still pretty green and will dry over time.

    5. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to TFA, this is exactly what the industry standard demands:

      Interestingly, while Menards uses the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology minimum standards for dimensional lumber, going so far as to include the entire NIST 306-page handbook as an exhibit in the case, the retailer doesn’t mention where that NIST says it’s okay to just use nominal dimensions “if the actual dimensions are prominently displayed to the customer

      So did they prominently display the actual dimensions? If not, they are at fault.

    6. Re:This will be dismissed by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Still, the numbers I'm reading seem to indicate around a 1/2" of shrinkage is possible in about 8'.

      longitudinal shrinkage is about between 0.1% and 0.2%. Over 8', that would be 0.25" top.

    7. Re:This will be dismissed by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      If a 2x4 is really 1.5x3.5, and it has ALWAYS been 1.5x3.5, then WHY THE FUCK is it called a 2x4?!?! Why not give it a name like "Size A"?

    8. Re:This will be dismissed by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Same reason the quarter pounder is called a Royale with Cheese in France. Start with 2x4 and cook out some fat and water, you're left with a 2* x 4*.

      Also, everyone agreed Size A was dumb.

      *pre cooked weight.

    9. Re:This will be dismissed by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      Those markings already exist. Home depot has em on their website. I used them when buying some 1x12s to make a wooden countertop.

    10. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact if you can find an old 2x4 that is straight, you can be pretty sure it will stay that way. New ones might still warp a little, or more than likely come with a bit of warp.

      This hasn't changed with time, but has always been about how wood expands and contracts with changes in moisture. You can pay extra to get better dried wood, or leave it some place to acclimatize for a year. Or you can pay more for better cuts of wood, because the orientation of the grain relative to the shape of the wood determines which axes expand most and the warp. But that doesn't stop the wood from warping or changing shape with time, as any place with seasonal changes in humidity will cause the wood to expand and contract with seasons (less so than the original drying from green wood though).

      This matters for things like tightly made tables, and why things like breadboard ends exist with sliding joints. Otherwise if you join perpendicular wood over large surfaces, the different expansions can cause massive cracks and damage to form if there is enough season variation.

      Wood can be a rather different beast than say metal (unless you work on scales with a lot of thermal expansion). While paying more can help mitigate some of the effects, ultimately part of the craft is learning how to properly deal with wood doing what has always done.

    11. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. Next time they'll head into the plumbing section, realize that one inch pipe really isn't one inch and they'll file a suit on that. They're probably still trying to figure out what an eight penny nail is and how they can sue over THAT false claim!

    12. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumber#North_American_softwoods

    13. Re:This will be dismissed by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      probably not always.

      just long enough that you don't care about the downsizing anymore because everyone has that already.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:This will be dismissed by barc0001 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Because it hasn't always been 1.5x3.5. A 2x4 used to actually be 2 x 4. Mills get more boards out of a tree with the smaller size so of course they're going to do it. Ranting Anon Coward parent to your post is wrong, and honestly it's time someone actually brought the industry to heel with their bullshit.

    15. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people suing are not part of the "industry", they are DIY guys who wanted a 2''x4'' piece of material and planned their projects to those lengths. The lawsuit is requiring proper labeling on the merchandise being sold to the general public. If I go to my grocery store, packaged 13 donuts and go to the counter and said I had a dozen, I'd be lying. Because their dozen is 12, and the industry standard is 13 for a bakers dozen.

    16. Re:This will be dismissed by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But it wasn't "forever". But it's been long enough that the name has stuck even though the sizes have shrunk. Work on a house a hundred years old and the sizes won't match up. Makes me wonder if it's possible to order actual 2"x4" for remodeling or repair work?

    17. Re: This will be dismissed by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I've never been in a Menards, but https://www.menards.com/main/b... clearly shows the actual dimensions, and doesn't indicate that 2x4 refers to inches.

    18. Re:This will be dismissed by sbaker · · Score: 1

      It's fine to call it a 2-by-4 because that's what this object is actually called. But if you call it a 2" by 4" board, then it ought to measure that much. It's no big deal for them to go fix the labelling to remove the inch symbols and add the true dimensions.

      For 2x4's, I doubt many people are confused - but when I buy fence planking and it says that the plank is 6" wide - then I want what I paid for...a 6" wide plank - and not a 5" wide plank. There is no "customary name" for fence planking...and if there is then it needs to be made VERY clear in the description of the product. These stores are selling to people who do not work in the fencing business - they specifically target inexperienced home owners in all of their advertising.

      When I recently built a 200 foot fence - I ordered 400 of something described as a '6" rough-sawed fencing board"...and paid for delivery. What I got was 400 boards that were only 5" wide - so I had to order more boards and pay a second delivery charge to make up the deficit.

      This is NOT fair...and it DOES need to be fixed.

      There is absolutely no reason why those boards could not be labelled with the actual dimensions - and even if fencing contractors have a "traditional" name (6-by-1's or whatever) - the true dimensions should always be listed for the sake of clarity and honesty.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
    19. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, the numbers I'm reading seem to indicate around a 1/2" of shrinkage is possible in about 8'.

      longitudinal shrinkage is about between 0.1% and 0.2%. Over 8', that would be 0.25" top.

      Is that accurate for pressure treated?

    20. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was called that because they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is.

    21. Re:This will be dismissed by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

      No, you're the one who is wrong. 2x4 is rough cut size, the dimensions 1.5 x 3.5 have been used even since the advent of balloon framing when the mills started delivering dressed lumber. Prior to that boards would be dressed at the site. These measurements haven't changed in a long time, here's information about it from 1905.

    22. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Europe we're smart enough to know about both metric and imperial.

    23. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the units being used in the name aren't inches. Notice the name "2x4" doesn't specify any actual unit ;)

    24. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I recently built a 200 foot fence - I ordered 400 of something described as a '6" rough-sawed fencing board"...and paid for delivery. What I got was 400 boards that were only 5" wide - so I had to order more boards and pay a second delivery charge to make up the deficit.

      1) I am curious to know exactly what product you purchased. Could you perhaps link it?

      2) Let me get this straight. You bought what you expected would be exactly as many planks as necessary to fill the fence with no gaps? What if you didn't like the way a piece looked? Just because there is nothing physically wrong with a board, doesn't mean they are all interchangeable from an asthetic perspective. And you are aware that wood expands, right? That no gap installation will likely bite you in the ass over time.

    25. Re:This will be dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The upstart lawyer is probably as thick as two short planks. - Which dimensions vary depending on the industry standard, so he may be more or less intelligent than you fist thought.

      - Still, he's probably getting paid in Dollars, which might be a known constant.

  4. Die of embarrassment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. If I were so ignorant of the basic fact I would die of embarrassment rather than sue. Just goes to show lawyers can't be embarrassed.

  5. I'm next! by jlowery · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I definitely overpaid for these two-penny nails!

    --
    If you post it, they will read.
  6. 2x4 Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being threatened with a 2x4 is simply not what it used to be...

    1. Re:2x4 Threat by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, do we now have to say "Hit him upside the head with a clue-by-three-point-five"?

    2. Re:2x4 Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dimension Inflation. You know the 2x4 is undersized when your daughter's boyfriend asks you "What is that, a little 1x3" ?

  7. Happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I went into the plumbing section and asked for a snake. They gave me some kind of spring on a reel.

    I was really hoping for a Ball Python.

    1. Re:Happened to me by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I saw a possum in Home Depot last year. Thought it was a rat, so told the clerk at the cabinet counter. He grabbed the fishing net that was behind him and ran to where I pointed.

      Turns out they had been trying to catch that thing for three days. The mother had her litter in the Garden area, and this one wandered inside.

      He was so happy to catch the little guy, so they could take it outside to release it.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  8. Not this again... by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Every few years some ambulance chaser tries this bullshit in the US. All over the world timber is sold using the undressed dimensions, it's been that way since the dead sea caught the sniffles. IMO the court should declare the suit frivolous and force him to refund the money (with interest) to the people who have joined his class action con job.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they should allow the lawsuit and then bankrupt the lawyer by forcing him to pay all court costs plus the costs of defending the lawsuit.

      Loser pays. Would remove most crap lawsuits. Tort law reform reducing damages to something close to reasonable would do the rest.

    2. Re:Not this again... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      There is a MASSIVE oversupply of lawyers. New graduates have almost no chance of getting a real lawyer job. Others that have been in the field are starving because there are too many working lawyers for the available work. Couple that with a lawyers in general (not all) of being people with severe moral relativism and you get a LOT of lawyers doing shit like suing Mom and Pop stores because they aren't handicap accessible inside a historic building that's exempt from ADA or manufacturing an accident, much like the jackass like the lawyer behind the main story.

    3. Re:Not this again... by lordlod · · Score: 1

      All over the world timber is sold using the undressed dimensions,

      Not true. When I buy a board in Australia that advertises to be 10mm thick it is 10mm thick.

      That is planed, made into a slotted floor board or rough. The only dimension that is ever wrong is the length, often a 2m board will be 2.2m, it is never less that advertised.

    4. Re:Not this again... by Whatsisname · · Score: 1

      Loser pays. Would remove most crap lawsuits. Tort law reform reducing damages to something close to reasonable would do the rest.

      Would also prevent anyone with a legitimate claims from suing large corporations because they can't handle the risk of losing. It would also doubly fuck over people who have a reasonable claim but are unsuccessful in litigating it.

    5. Re: Not this again... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      The court case should simply be replaced with "trial by claw hammers." The dork would get brained by the framer, while he was fretting about the stamped text on the hammer head that said it was some X number of ounces.

    6. Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but in Australia, a 2x4 (or 4x2) is a colloquial term for what is probably labelled somewhere as something like 85x42mm

    7. Re:Not this again... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I am Australian, I spent the 1980's working in Gippsland sawmills and Melbourne joineries. If what you say is true it must be a recent development. Also 2m and 2.2m are both non standard lengths, the 2M length would be sold as 1.8M and the 2.2M would be sold as 2.1M. 10mm dressed is 1/2 inch in old money, 1/2inch undressed is 12.5mm in the new money.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Not this again... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      I stand corrected, I just checked a local Bunnings advert for dressed structural pine, they do advertise dressed timber in actual dimensions rather than undressed dimensions. I haven't done any handyman stuff for at least 15yrs and IIRC they were still using the old system back then. I'm now left wondering when the change happened and why?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All over the world timber is sold using the undressed dimensions

      Not true. Buying 18 mm x 24 mm in the Netherlands will get you exactly that.

    10. Re:Not this again... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm now left wondering when the change happened and why?

      Metrification combined with the dying out of people who were against metrification.

    11. Re:Not this again... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      All over the world timber is sold using the undressed dimensions

      Maybe all over the "imperial" world as all over the world that is the USA.

      In the rest of the world timber is sold at the dimensions advertised. What is different is what its called but that's also often no longer how it's advertised. e.g. in a country that has gone metric some people may still call things by their old imperial name but still get the correct metric dimensions advertised, but for the most part that is a dying quirk of the past. The USA is the only place where the imperial nominal dimensions and the imperial actual dimensions don't match.

      But I agree with the frivolousness of this case given that trade names are trade names. Everyone knows this about the USA even those of us who don't live there, so there's no reason to change anything. Not unless the rest of the country goes metric.

    12. Re:Not this again... by Harald+Paulsen · · Score: 1

      In Norway a 2x4 is sold as 48x98mm

      If converted from inches 2x4inches it would be 50.8x101.6mm
      If converted from 48x98mm to inches it would be 1.89x3.86 inches.

      Either way, a long way from 1.5x3.5 inches.

      --
      Harald
    13. Re:Not this again... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      True but 18x24mm is the metric dimensions of some dressed imperial size. It's not a preferred unit metric sized piece of timber. which would likely be something like 20x25mm or 15x20mm etc.

    14. Re:Not this again... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Hey I'd just be happy to have wood :D

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    15. Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kind of hope the lumber 2x4 lawsuits don't go away. The obvious way to solve the problem without letting the other guy win is to ditch the inch measurements and go actual dimensions in metric. That way nobody buys 2x4s anymore and we get one step closer to a world unifying measurement system.

    16. Re: Not this again... by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Yes, and these stores typically prominently display the actual dimensions in addition to the trade name (2x4, which I don't think ever includes inches unless you're buying a rough cut or custom cut that actually measures 2" by 4").

    17. Re:Not this again... by sbaker · · Score: 1

      The "dressed size" argument is bullshit. Go to home depot and measure an UNFINISHED 2x4 cedar plank...I can save you the trouble and tell you that it measures exactly the same as a FINISHED 2x4 plank. We all understand that there are traditional names and there are actual dimensions. Nobody is saying that 2x4's have to be called something different. All the lawsuit says is that for a store that markets heavily to people who are NOT general contractors - the actual dimensions should be listed alongside the traditional names.

      The case of the 2x4 isn't actually the problem - as I've explained in a couple of other posts. When I go online and order four hundred 6" wide fencing planks - I expect them to be approximately 6" wide - and not 5" which is what I actually received. That's not a matter of traditional names versus actual names.

      This does need to be fixed - it doesn't require much effort to do it - and it'll avoid confusion for Home Depot's primary customers.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
    18. Re:Not this again... by gsslay · · Score: 1

      But the point is that the timber is labelled with dimensions than accurately measure it.

      Whether you are using imperial or metric, or whether it used to be one size during manufacture, but ended up another is entirely irrelevant. You give the product the dimensions it actually is at the point of sale.

      If I buy a fish, the fish I buy has to, by law, be the weight specified. It is not the weight it was before it was boned and gutted, long before I even set eyes on it.

    19. Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what? In the real world there is almost always winners and losers. So this is a question of who the winners and losers should be. So the question becomes should the interest of few people who have legitimate claims and would be hurt by changing the laws override the cost that the rest of us bare due to the fact that the vast majority of lawsuits seem to be frivolous and are increasing the cost and risk of everything?
      I'm not saying Napoleon had the right idea, but maybe a couple of rounds of decimating in the old Roman sense of members of the legal profession might not be a bad thing.
      We obviously have too many lawyers in the U.S. We need a way to both reduce the number of lawyers and in the long run reduce the number of law schools, because we are producing too many.

    20. Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All over the world? Not in the Netherlands at least. I've checked three local home DIY stores and all of them used dimensions accurate to the mm, although one of them also displayed dimensions in centimetres that were wrong in some cases. How accurate the mm dimensions were seemed to depend on the kind of wood, interestingly enough. Some were +/- 1 mm, others were planed to sub-mm accuracy.

    21. Re:Not this again... by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      That's because 98% of lawyers give the other 2% a bad name.

    22. Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but it's upside down, so nobody else can use it ;-)

  9. This has to be a troll lawsuit by sstrick · · Score: 4, Informative

    The dimensions of the timber are based on the rough sawn dimensions. Most timber you buy from the store has been subsequently "dressed" or planed to a smooth and more importantly uniform finish.

    This is well known to anyone buying timber and has been like this for over a century.

    --

    "Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
    1. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dimensions of the timber are based on the rough sawn dimensions. Most timber you buy from the store has been subsequently "dressed" or planed to a smooth and more importantly uniform finish.

      This is well known to anyone buying timber and has been like this for over a century.

      OK, so I went ahead and downloaded that lawsuit against Home Depot as linked above. It's actually somewhat interesting. The guy actually spends the first half of the lawsuit explaining "nominal" vs "dressed" lumber. He points out that Home Depot's online store will show you both dimensions for lumber if they are different, but that in their brick-and-mortar stores Home Depot gives you only one set of dimensions and doesn't tell you which one it is giving you. And then he shows that Home Depot sells a 4x4 piece of lumber from a brand that offers it in 3.5x3.5 and 4x4 sizes, but Home Depot doesn't tell you which one it is. You have to measure on your own or you wouldn't know.

    2. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus it is false advertising to people who don't know the timber market. You shouldn't need to research products beyond their label at a store. It is trivial to have the real dimensions printed on the label while still calling it a 2x4. You just don't call it a 2"x4".

    3. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      This tells me anyone can sell any product in any size and claim it's based on rough sawn dimensions.

      Sir, that pack of beef was actually 2 pounds -- before we cut off the excess fat for a uniform finish.

    4. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most timber you buy from the store has been subsequently "dressed" or planed to a smooth and more importantly uniform finish.

      The only benefit to the customer is that they don't have to wear gloves while they build. Houses are non-uniform anyway. The construction process makes them come out relatively uniform in the end. I lived in a house in Marysville which was built with honest-to-god rough 2x6s and it was gloriously sound. I've never lived in a structure so secure. You could literally hear the difference.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      This tells me anyone can sell any product in any size and claim it's based on rough sawn dimensions.

      No, because lumber that's larger than the customer expects is a problem--it won't fit.

      Sir, that pack of beef was actually 2 pounds -- before we cut off the excess fat for a uniform finish.

      Not the same thing, because a) there's no expectation the butcher would do this and b) the beef being actually two pounds rather than somewhat less than two pounds wouldn't render the customer incapable of cooking it.

    6. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      Modern wood is grown so fast that it shrinks a lot more than it used to when dried. Not all wood shrinks the same, even from the same tree, so right out of the kiln almost none will be the same dimension, even along the same board. Some will warp so bad they have to be used as scrap. If lumber wasn't planed 'or dressed' down to a standard thickness, getting a wall that doesn't look like a wet noodle would be a ton more work and expense than just putting up 'dimensional' studs.

      I'd be curious if that 2x6 rough timber house had plaster or drywall. Drywall needs a certain degree of levelness, whereas plaster can cover it all up.

    7. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It had plaster over pretty close-set lath. Thick, too, as thick as furring strips are these days. But drywall covers up quite a bit of non-levelness too, especially once you texture it. The texture makes it a lot harder to see the point at which the wall warps :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      its 2lbs before cooking

      the lumber is cooked for you, see its rough cut, dressed then dried before it hits the store cause most people do not have the equipment space or knowledge to "cook" raw timber

    9. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was always of the understanding that the actual dimensions of 1.5" x 3.5" were because of the board drying out. The cut dimensions are 2" x 4", but eventually they shrink down to 1.5" x 3.5".

      Maybe both (planing and shrinkage) are true?

    10. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Sir, that pack of beef was actually 2 pounds -- before we cut off the excess fat for a uniform finish.

      If you order an 8 oz steak at a restaurant, it will also be substantially less than 8 oz when it is served, for pretty much the same reason.

    11. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      You mean like how they sell a "1/4" pound hamburger based on the uncooked weight?

      Selling "1/4 lb" of cooked hamburger is the equivalent to selling a dressed 2x4.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    12. Re:This has to be a troll lawsuit by j-beda · · Score: 1

      OK, so I went ahead and downloaded that lawsuit against Home Depot as linked above. It's actually somewhat interesting. The guy actually spends the first half of the lawsuit explaining "nominal" vs "dressed" lumber. He points out that Home Depot's online store will show you both dimensions for lumber if they are different, but that in their brick-and-mortar stores Home Depot gives you only one set of dimensions and doesn't tell you which one it is giving you. And then he shows that Home Depot sells a 4x4 piece of lumber from a brand that offers it in 3.5x3.5 and 4x4 sizes, but Home Depot doesn't tell you which one it is. You have to measure on your own or you wouldn't know.

      Seems reasonable to require actual dimensions.

  10. They could try for even more damages by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    if they went into the plumbing aisle, to discover that a piece of 1/2" pipe doesn't have ANY dimension that actually measures half an inch....

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:They could try for even more damages by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      All plumbing is like that. I don't think I've ever in my life come across any type or size of pipe that has any dimension that comes close to the nominal size. 1/8" pipes are hilariously huge. Ditto electrical conduit. Ditto particle boards. Hell, almost nothing involved in building a house has any size that matches the name.

      I guess I haven't measured HVAC ducting, but it appears that the industry follows a very very broad tolerance, which may quite possibly include the nominal sizes. Oh, and paint gallons are probably pretty accurate.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    2. Re:They could try for even more damages by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 1

      IANAP, but from my limited experience most plumbing fittings are done on the basis of *interior* size, not exterior. Wall thickness combined with interior diameter dictates the exterior diameter of a fitting.

      --
      Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
    3. Re: They could try for even more damages by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      The pipe size is the inner dimension. With set standard outer dimensions for different classes and types of pipe. Pipe is specified for the area of what flows inside it.

    4. Re:They could try for even more damages by taustin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, plumbing is not for the feint of heart or slow witted. Pipe sizes are - in theory - the inside diameter (tubing sizes are the outside diameter), but when working with pipe and pipe fittings, it is the outside diameter that matters. And the sizes were set many, many years ago, when manufacturing costs were cheap, and stuff was made to last several lifetimes. In short, the wall of the pipe was a hell of a lot thicker then. Even today, you get multiple schedules of pipe, from 40 (which today is sorta standard for quality work) to 80 or even higher - the higher the number, the thicker the wall, the more pressure it can hold. But the outside diameter has to be the same on all sizes. (Copper pipe, of course, has a thinner wall than steel or plastic, and thus has "types" - M, L or K - instead of "schedules", but the principle is the same. Type M is such thin shit you can blow a hole in it by peeing real hard, type K will hold the weight of a mountain.)

      And people wonder why plumbers make more than doctors.

    5. Re:They could try for even more damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In general, pipe dimensions date back to the era of lead pipe. In order to make a piece of lead pipe with, say, an inside diameter (I.D.) of 1" that could withstand reasonable pressure, the wall had to be quite thick. Thread dimensions were standardized based upon the outside diameter of the pipe and haven't changed. As iron, steel and other, much stronger materials were introduced, thread dimensions and outside diameters were maintained, so a length of 1" Schedule 40 or Schedule 80 black pipe has an I.D. somewhat more than an actual inch.

    6. Re:They could try for even more damages by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      And people wonder why plumbers make more than doctors.

      This is definitely not true. My friend is looking at least $200k once he's out of residency, and as much as $500k if he's willing to go to a high-demand area. A plumber might be ahead for the first decade or so due to the cost of med school and the opportunity cost of not working right away, but every year after that they will fall further and further behind.

    7. Re:They could try for even more damages by taustin · · Score: 1

      Now deduct the cost of his office staff, the far more expensive rent in a medical building, and, most important of all, the cost of his malpractice insurance.

      And you have no idea how much plumbers make.

    8. Re:They could try for even more damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. See this "1 NPT Pipe Size" pipe is ~1.3" OD and ~0.6" ID:

      https://www.mcmaster.com/#6880...

      Crazy, but it ain't OD or ID. But that's an effed up pipe. Schedule 40 is much closer to 1" ID:

      https://www.mcmaster.com/#4461...

      It's the way it is because it's matching THREADS.

      Hose - IMO - tends to be bought via ID but you can likely find exceptions:

      https://www.mcmaster.com/#mult...

    9. Re:They could try for even more damages by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Now deduct the cost of his office staff, the far more expensive rent in a medical building, and, most important of all, the cost of his malpractice insurance.

      That salary is if he works for a hospital, so all of those would be paid already. Even if he had to pay that, it's only $20-30k a year.

      And you have no idea how much plumbers make.

      And you do? The guy I called to fix my sewer got $100 for 30 minutes of work and he spent 15 minutes driving to and from my house. Even if he's has work lined up perfectly, which he doesn't, he's still making only half as much as doctors.

      Also, this site and several others say plumbers maxes out at $80k.

  11. Which units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It is not like 2x4s are usually advertised as 2 inches by 4 inches, instead just as some dimensionless nominal size. The retailers should just say 2x4 was in centimeters and the customer should be happy to get the extra wood that makes it 1.5"x3.5"

    1. Re:Which units? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      They are in fact advertised as 2 inches by 4 inches. Here's some shitty 2x4 from home depot: http://www.homedepot.com/p/2-i...

      Notice it is called "2 in. by 4 in.", though also note it is clearly marked as "Actual dimension: 1.5 in. x 3.5 in. x 10 ft.".

      I'm really not sure how they managed to miss it.The actual dimensions are clearly marked both on the website and in store.

    2. Re: Which units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really not sure how they managed to miss it.The actual dimensions are clearly marked both on the website and in store.

      FFS, how could you post such a stupid comment.

      The lawsuit clearly states that the true dimensions are given on the website but *not* in store.

      Which is indeed true.

    3. Re:Which units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then they done fucked up. You can't advertise a lie and then correct the lie in supplement text. An asterisk can clarify a statement that may be misinterpreted, but the truth must be one possible interpretation of the ambiguous statement. The only way one interprets "2 in. by 4 in." as meaning anything else is if they know from the start that it's a lie.

    4. Re: Which units? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      They're on all the labels in my local lowes and home depot.

  12. Two seperate things by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    1) The lawyer is a shmuck. They are sizes, not measurements. If I were the judge, I would give him 50 cents in damages and deny his appeals.

    2) Companies should simply leave off the word inch.

    This is a a 1x4, not a 1 inch x 4 inch. This is a 4x4, not a 4 inch by 4 inch.

    Never use the word inch anywhere on the packaging, leave the unit as implied, not specified. If you feel the need to specify the unit somewhere, call it a "lumber standard inch" or maybe an LSI in your paperwork.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Two seperate things by grahamsz · · Score: 2

      It doesn't work as an implied unit. Otherwise you could glue a pair of 2x4s and make a 4x4 - which obviously doesn't work.

      Metric is the solution :D

    2. Re: Two seperate things by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2

      Metric is a problem. For anybody who frets about metric. Not so big of a problem for the rest of us who don't really care.

    3. Re:Two seperate things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving even a penny is an admittance that the company was in the wrong, and it can be used as precedent by lawyers who can squeeze blood from stones.

    4. Re:Two seperate things by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      A size 2 dress is not twice as big as a size 1 dress.

      Sizes do not have to be mathematically additive, nor do implied units.

       

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Two seperate things by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Sizes don't need to be additive, but i'm speaking to your point about the "Lumber Standard Inch" measurement. You can't really use that unless the difference between a "2-by" and a "4-by" is the same as the difference between a "4-by" and a "6-by"

  13. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait until women find out that the promised 8 inches is not what she's going to get.

  14. Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they advertise the wood as 2"x4" then that's what they should be selling. This seems like a blatant ripoff.

    What if you bought a red car and they gave you a blue one? Or bought gluten-free bread and got regular bread? That could be deadly. Etc.

    1. Re:Fraud by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Size =/= inches. Do you think your size 12 shoes are exactly 12 inches long? The actual shoe size varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, but what you really care about is if they fit your feet and guess what - they probably do.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Fraud by x0ra · · Score: 1

      do you realize that even in the 1910's a 1" board was actually 13/16" ?

    3. Re:Fraud by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Do you think your size 12 shoes are exactly 12 inches long? The actual shoe size varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, but what you really care about is if they fit your feet and guess what - they probably do.

      I wear a size 10, you insensitive clod.

    4. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse, a 1" board in 1910 would just be a 1" board minus kerf, which could be a variety of sizes depending on the sawmill.

      This allowing 1/2" for kerf was a way to standardize that favored mills, thus was adopted.

    5. Re:Fraud by Gryle · · Score: 1

      I wear a size 10, you insensitive clog.

      Fixed that for you. I'll show myself out...

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    6. Re:Fraud by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My feet are 12" long, so my shoes have to be some longer.

      (Also, my outstretched fingertips are a fathom apart. Behold the image of Charlemagne!)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. In Typical Male Fashion... by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 5, Funny

    lying about the size of their wood ;)

  16. To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the term 2x4 has no units specifically attached. Also, the 1.5" by 3.5" is within rounding error. Food products get away with a similar rounding advantage: they just make the serving size small enough to round down to zero in the health-conscious categories (see link) https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064932.htm/

  17. That third dimension by macraig · · Score: 1

    The lawsuit is likely focused on deceptive labeling of the third dimension of lumber, which DOES matter and isn't an "industry quirk". I myself have recently bought allegedly 8-feet-long lumber that proved to be about 1/4 of an inch shorter than that. This is being done in spite of at least some of Home Depot's management knowing about it, and that's fraudulent. They can try and blame it on the lumber producers and claim that they're being defrauded, too, but the likelihood of no one in Home Depot's giant operation noticing that their bedsheets have been shorted and sounding an alarm is quite small. It's either outright conspiracy or synergistic collusion.

    1. Re:That third dimension by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      This seems to be an industry practice, not specific to any particular store or sawmill. I redid my front porch two years ago, and the flooring (decking) boards needed to be exactly 6 feet. None of the "6 foot" boards were actually 6 feet. Some were short by as much as an inch. I had to buy 8 foot decking and cut them down to exactly 6'. I talked to some people who do construction and they all looked at me like I was stupid for thinking that I'd be able to buy 6' pieces and use them to span a 6 foot space.

      The one exception appears to be studs that have been pre-cut to odd lengths. Those are the 92 5/8" studs, etc. Those are pretty close because the point of them is that construction crews can put them up without having to trim them at the job site. (They have funny lengths to make the ceiling end up at the right height after everything is finished.)

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    2. Re:That third dimension by x0ra · · Score: 1

      1/4" over 8' (including /. guesstimate) is within the expected longitudinal shrinkage range of soft wood.

    3. Re:That third dimension by x0ra · · Score: 1

      also, if you have 8' ceiling, the stud will only be at most 7' 9", as you have to account for the sill and top plates.

    4. Re:That third dimension by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully you cut it on a very humid day.

    5. Re: That third dimension by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when you order lumber 99 percent of all folks call those 2x4x8 precut studs. Knowing they will get 3.5x1.5x 92 5/8". 92 5/8 plus 4.5" (one bottom plate and two top plates) doesn't even work out to 8' either.... you want an 8 foot wall longer than 8' to account for ceiling drywall and flooring material! This guy is just an idiot trying to treat framing lumber like a generic raw material. The sizes are based largely on the finished product they become and not their actual size per se. Sort of like plumbing connection measurements are flow path dimensions not the plumbing part dimensions.
      But.... whoever said he ordered 2x4x8 normal lumber and it came up short of 8' .... that shouldn't happen (unless it was 3 3/8" too short, which means they got a pre cut 8' instead of a normal 2x4x8)

    6. Re:That third dimension by macraig · · Score: 1

      Ask yourself why any business would produce and sell a product that was deliberately sized to an odd measurement not useful to human purposes? It's intentional wastefulness: it's intended that you must buy more material than you actually need and thus waste some of it. The manufacturer isn't just breaking even, so that waste is extra profit for them, regardless of the personal and societal consequences. Analogies: packages of bolts, nuts, and such sold in odd numbers, or tubes of toothpaste where ALL the advertising shows actors using obscenely excessive amounts of it.

    7. Re:That third dimension by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      You use odd sized studs so that when you add a plate and a sill, and account for the thickness of the ceiling, you can hang DRYWALL without cutting it, or sheath it with standard sized OSB panels.

    8. Re:That third dimension by macraig · · Score: 1

      I wasn't referring to studs. I was referring to all the other lengths that don't measure up to what is advertised. Studs are cut as they are to avoide waste, while all the other examples exist specifically to cause waste, and thus more profit.

    9. Re:That third dimension by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I myself have recently bought allegedly 8-feet-long lumber that proved to be about 1/4 of an inch shorter than that.

      You do realize that lumber changes size with moisture content, which even after dried, will continue to change seasonally with humidity?

      If you ask the clerk to make a 3' board for you, don't expect it to be 36.000" as measured by calipers. There are acceptable tolerances for various things, and if it is important, you pay more to get better tolerances. In the meantime, cheap cuts are going to be off by 1/4-1/2" in length and there is a lower limit to tolerances for a given type and cut of wood based seasonal variations.

    10. Re:That third dimension by macraig · · Score: 1

      Who should reasonably bear the burden of this variation, the lone individual buyer with limited experience, or the large corporations full of specialists who can more easily compensate for it? Hint: not the lone individual buyer.

    11. Re:That third dimension by x0ra · · Score: 1

      hint: an 8' ceiling doesn't use 8' studs.

    12. Re: That third dimension by Sique · · Score: 1

      And when you order lumber 99 percent of all folks call those 2x4x8 precut studs.

      This might be true for people of the trade, but Home Depot caters to those who are not of the trade. Anything "custom to the trade" that is surprising for amateurs does not belong into Home Depot's advertising materials, as their target group is non-professionals. And for those, 2" x 4" x 8' means the actual wood is 51 mm x 102 mm x 2438 mm.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    13. Re:That third dimension by macraig · · Score: 1

      Hint: we had already established that before you showed up to enlighten us... again. The non-linear commenting format here means that if you don't read other branches, you don't really know what's been said.

    14. Re: That third dimension by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Who should have to specify variances from standard dimensions when a project needs it, the supplier or the customer?

    15. Re: That third dimension by macraig · · Score: 1

      The conversation isn't about who bears the burden of custom orders; the conversation is about manufacturers making a good-faith effort to produce and put on the shelf what they advertise. Deliberately or carelessly inaccurate lengths aren't even the entire story: the overall quality and usability of "home improvement center" lumber has declined substantially in the last 30 years. The 2x4 and 2x6 stock at my local stores is consistently terrible now. I estimate that at best 40% of it is true and free of damage that would make it unsuitable for many personal projects. It's routine for me to be forced to inspect an entire rack just to find a handful of true undamaged stock; when we wanted 40 new fence boards, it required an hour of our time to inspect and then replace an entire pallet on the floor to find ones worth the effort. I don't recall being so horrified by the condition of lumber 20 years ago. Either we've run out of trees suitable for harvest of good lumber, or the quality control process of the lumber producers has been tossed aside in favor of volume. Regardless, the producers aren't supplying what they advertise, and that is the issue.

    16. Re: That third dimension by Entrope · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    17. Re:That third dimension by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      Do you want flat boards or not ? If so there has to be something removed to flatten the thing. If the 'standard sizes' were increased to match your expectations they will just increase the price to cover the addition board feet needed to meet the requirement.

    18. Re:That third dimension by macraig · · Score: 1

      We're not getting "flat" true boards as it is.

    19. Re: That third dimension by macraig · · Score: 1

      You'll get your citation from this lawsuit. For now enjoy my few anecdotal data points.

    20. Re: That third dimension by Entrope · · Score: 1

      As I thought, you got nothing. You seem upset that wood shrinks and expands as it dries or absorbs moisture. If that upsets you, maybe you shouldn't be working with wood.

    21. Re:That third dimension by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I myself have recently bought allegedly 8-feet-long lumber that proved to be about 1/4 of an inch shorter than that.

      When you buy an 8' 2x4, you're buying an 8' by 2" by 4" piece of green wood, plus the service of drying and planing it. During that, it loses about 1/2" along the short dimensions, and about 1/4" along the long dimension.

    22. Re:That third dimension by macraig · · Score: 1

      It is no longer being sufficiently dried. It is shipped quite wet and prone to further warping and even mildew, so what planing is done prior to shipping is rendered pointless much of the time. Those actions are no longer part of what we pay for. Even if they were, what is to stop the manufacturer from reasonably estimating the shrinkage due to drying and compensating for it in the final shipped product? Could it be greed, wanting consumers to eat two feet of waste rather than they lose profit on a half inch?

    23. Re:That third dimension by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is well known that wood shrinks as it loses moisture. To expect a 96" piece of wood to be accurate to a dimension of 1/4 of 1 percent is rather unrealistic. Seasonal changes in humidity will change the dimensions of lumber significantly.

    24. Re: That third dimension by JeremyR · · Score: 1

      Home Depot sells 2x4's of 92-5/8" (and 104-5/8") lengths, but they are labeled as such. They also sell true 8-footers, which are labeled as 96". I personally have not seen 92-5/8" boards labeled as anything implying a length of 8 feet.

    25. Re:That third dimension by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "The lawsuit is likely focused on"

      The complaints are linked. We don't have to consider why they are "likely" focused on; we can read what they are actually focused on.

      Hint: it's not the third dimension.

    26. Re:That third dimension by macraig · · Score: 1

      This is certainly well known to the manufacturers, yet they choose not to attempt to compensate for it by selling stock that is slightly LONGER than the stated length. Why?

    27. Re:That third dimension by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It is no longer being sufficiently dried. It is shipped quite wet and prone to further warping and even mildew, so what planing is done prior to shipping is rendered pointless much of the time.

      I haven't had any problems with it. Maybe you need to buy higher quality wood.

      Even if they were, what is to stop the manufacturer from reasonably estimating the shrinkage due to drying and compensating for it in the final shipped product?

      They do. When you buy a 8' x 2x4, you get 7 3/4" x 1.5" x 3.5". You get that because that's what you actually need for building. If they shipped you an 8' x 2" x 4", you'd just end up with waste along the long dimension, and it wouldn't fit into any existing building or plans along the short dimensions.

    28. Re:That third dimension by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The long length is supposed to be exact - an 8 ft. 2x4 should be 8 ft. 2x4s are also sold as 'stud length', pre-cut to 92 5/8 inches.

  18. size matters ! by swell · · Score: 2

    I was at a store in the Lowes chain recently and noticed that at each lumber rack were the actual dimensions of the wood. Nowhere was the traditional '2X4' label used. Just to be sure I measured some samples and though my measurements were slightly different, the label was mostly correct.

    As someone mentioned, long ago a 2X4 was a 2X4. If you see one from an old structure, you will note that its surface is very rough and dangerous to delicate hands. Our modern lumber is smooth and attractive to see and feel. Exactly the result you would have if you smoothed the old lumber. The smoothness is a result of planing and carefully hand sanding each piece for customer satisfaction. Of course the dimensions are slightly reduced, but which would you rather have?

    I asked my brother in Brasil about lumber sizing "do they use metric?". He replied with some confusion; he said that it depends on where you buy your lumber. Different outlets will have different sizes and those could change depending on their current sources. He built his own house out in the distant suburbs of Sao Paulo using such materials. There seems to be no standard there.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:size matters ! by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Define "long ago" ?

    2. Re:size matters ! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I bought a pack of 2x6s cheap from a demo yard several years ago, and was using them to replace some rotted joists. Much to dismay when I went to throw the subfloor down, they were slightly bigger, enough that I had to plane them down! The amount of time it took me more than ate up the savings, and when I told the manager of the local lumberyard, he said those were likely cut for the Japanese market.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:size matters ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last week.

    4. Re: size matters ! by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Plane them down??

      You just run them through a table saw set to the exact dimension you want. Takes about thirty seconds per board.

    5. Re: size matters ! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If I hadn't already nailed them in place I would have. It was my own damned fault, but they were close enough to a 2x6 by sight that I just went about throwing them in.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:size matters ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the dimensions are slightly reduced, but which would you rather have?

      A 2x4 smooth and attractive to see and feel. You know, a piece of smooth wood measuring 2" by 4".

    7. Re: size matters ! by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Width, sure, but thicknessing a 2x6 on a construction site table saw would be more harrowing than just running them through a lunchbox planer.

    8. Re:size matters ! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      As someone mentioned, long ago a 2X4 was a 2X4.

      The "2x4" always referred to the green wood, before drying and planing, which you used to have to do yourself, but unless you built a log cabin, you'd not use the wood like that. These days, you buy a "2x4" plus the service of drying and planing it, and the result is a consistent 1.5 x 3.5.

  19. Lawyer is a sleaze bag. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    This guy is wasting his time possibly in the hopes that they will pay him to go away.

    As others have pointed out, they sell the industry standard. No one who buys a 2x4 expects it to be 2x4 because that would not be the accepted industry standard.

    Now, I don't know this, but I feel almost certain that such standards are in fact codified. There is almost certainly some ISO standard, or something else like that.

    The lawyer is a sleaze bag who probably isn't smart enough to be a patent troll.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Lawyer is a sleaze bag. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative

      In fact, here's some linkies:

      From the NIST (PDF)
      American Softwood Lumbar Standards - Voluntary Product Standard DOC PS 20â"99

      More from the NIST (HTML)
      Title: Making Sure that Lumber Measures Up

      I don't really think one needs to go much farther...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Lawyer is a sleaze bag. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Nominal sizes are indeed standardized in the US and Canada, so this case is without merit. Building with true dimensional lumber is a huge pain anyways. Rough cut lumber is just that, rough, and you'll be picking slivers out half the day. And then the guy that buys your house in 20 years has to replace a stud or a joists, and realizes he can't just go to the local lumber yard and pick up what he needs, but has to order custom cut or find someone with a mill

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Lawyer is a sleaze bag. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      And then the guy that buys your house in 20 years has to replace a stud or a joists, and realizes he can't just go to the local lumber yard and pick up what he needs, but has to order custom cut or find someone with a mill

      Get the next size up, and go to town with a rip saw and a jointer plane.

    4. Re: Lawyer is a sleaze bag. by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      John Menard won't pay him to go away. Menards is privately held, by the Menard family. There is no fucking board of directors or shareholders that John has to answer to. John Menard will shut the little turd down.

    5. Re:Lawyer is a sleaze bag. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      In other words, lots of work and wastage. The easier solution is just to build with nominal-sized lumber like the rest of North America does.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Lawyer is a sleaze bag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the links.

    7. Re:Lawyer is a sleaze bag. by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      But do we really need the studs and joists in our houses to be smooth. If we left them rough imagine how many trees we could save by just cutting them 1.5 x 3.5. Or we could cut them the same size for the outer walls and use the space for more insulation (I'm thinking 2 x 6s). Just wear a pair of gloves when working with the wood. It's not like most of they people are fine craftsmen doing the work. I saw one group build a wall by laying out the studs and cutting the excess off with a chain saw.

      When the wood is going to be shown or for the less experienced people then have traditional lumber that is planed available. But we don't really need wood that has been planed when it's going to be handled once and then hidden away. It's a huge waste of trees and resources (mostly electricity now since it's probably mostly automated) to plane the lumber.

    8. Re:Lawyer is a sleaze bag. by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Nominal sizes are indeed standardized in the US and Canada, so this case is without merit.

      I don't know. If, as alledged in the lawsuit, HD uses different dimensions online and in-store, and are inconsistent in their labeling of nonimal and actual dimensions, and in some cases in-store do not provide any indications what dimensions being advertised, it doesn't seem like a totally frivolous case.

      The complain, which we have all read I am sure, goes into some detail about the size differences between "nominal" and "dressed" measurements, and makes what seems like a pretty reasonable case to me that since HD gives both measurements in some instances, they should give them in all instances. They should AT THE VERY LEAST indicate what the measurements they do state actually measure. If you are going to say that something is 2"x4"x6' as your ONLY indication of its size, then the plain meaning of 2"x4"x6' is not an unreasonable interpretation of the meaning.

  20. The attorney's argument has no basis, period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the attorney who is whining about this knew anything about the building trades, that attorney would know that a piece of framing lumber known as a "two by four " has not actually measured two inches by four inches for longer than he has been in existence.

    Virtually ANY carpenter in North America knows this.

    This is a good example of a person who has expertise in one field assuming he can also have expertise in another field, when the obvious truth is that he lacks even a rudimentary knowledge of the building trades.

    You see this in aviation all too often : some doctor or lawyer hotshot has plenty of money so he buys himself an airplane. And then he proceeds to kill himself and possibly his passengers as well, when he demonstrates a lack of competence relative to flying his airplane. The Beechcraft Bonanza with the "V-tail" had the nickname "the fork-tailed doctor killer" for this reason. I confess that I like the idea that the arrogant jerk doctor / lawyer gets killed because his ego causes him to think he is better than he is. But it is tragic that innocent passengers trust such idiots and die because they trusted the wrong person.

  21. Plywood by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Anybody who has built a cabinet from big-box plywood knows that you cannot go by what is on the label, even if it's specified in 32nds of an inch. They lie. You have to measure the plywood thickness yourself or else your shelves are going to rattle around in your dados.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Plywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much lie as it is that wood is an unstable product. If you measure the same piece of wood in spring/summer/fall/winter, you will get four different measurements.

    2. Re:Plywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why they make specific bits for plywood that are undersized, if you are making your own furniture you should know it.

  22. Standard Sizing by uncqual · · Score: 1

    This is ridiculous if, for example, the "2x4" being sold measures 1.5" x 3.5".

    Although if the product being sold as a "2x4" only measures 1.3"x3.3", the complaint is valid (I think Lowes was doing something like this a few years ago and settled the case and began to put "true" dimensions on the signage -- which is very confusing but, fortunately, I rarely have to resort to buying lumber at Lowes).

    I once lived in an old house and the 2x4s were much closer to measuring 2"x4" (I think they were about 1.75"x3.75"). That was a pain because modern 2x4s on retro work didn't match so extra hoops had to be jumped through to make everything work.

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    1. Re:Standard Sizing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't cut your self on the rough wood.

    2. Re:Standard Sizing by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Notice the difference between "2x4" and `2"x4"' though?

      They're not sold as something that is 2"x4", they're sold as something that was 2"x4" before they do some value-added work that increases the cost and reduces the size. And then it is called a 2x4.

      It is like suing because they took the guts out of the pig before roasting it, and sold you a "whole" roast pig. Don't sue. Be glad.

  23. And as usual... by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

    ...they're measuring their wood in dick inches.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  24. Next up - suing over pipe sizes by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    You heard it here first.

    I'm guessing this is being pushed by some guy who got beat up in shop class a lot because he couldn't even make the ash tray.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re: Next up - suing over pipe sizes by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Do they still even teach shop class? I have been to municipal school auctions where they were selling off the wood and metal shop machines. It seems like a big liability risk letting some helicopter parent's little dear be in the same room with a table saw or a drill press.

  25. There is even a NIST standard for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will never go through.. There is even a US Department of Commerce NIST standard for dimensional lumber sizes.
    Chart on page 14 of this PDF.
    American Softwood Lumber Standard PS 20

  26. I know the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are not selling a 2x4, outside of the USA it's called a it a 4x2.

    Even worse, them cheese-eating-freedom-hating-commies outside of the US of A sell *gasp* a 100mm x 50mm bit of wood and Home Depot et. al. is trying to turn everyone in the USA inot communists by selling commie-sized wood.

  27. Several Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think its important to realize that while 2x4 has always been a nominal size, the actual dimensions have gotten smaller. I have had this problem on my homes built before the 1950's. I am not sure whether it is also true for other dimensional lumber, but I suspect 1x also used to be slightly thicker.

    The real issue is with plywood where thickness are all over the place. If you are building cabinets or or shelves with slots you have to carefully measure to get the actual thickness and god help you if you have plywood from different sources. Essentially the advertised thickness seems to be a rough estimate.

  28. Whippin's by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    You can't hit them over the head with a 2x4 because there ain't none.

    1. Re:Whippin's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But people say it anyway, They don't care, ALL LIES's, some snowflake is going to get hurt,

    2. Re:Whippin's by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You'll have to wear gloves and use the rough cut.

  29. I'm going to take a wild guess... by hyades1 · · Score: 0

    ...and assume the "trade sizes" are actually smaller than their description.

    So what we're really seeing here is that the industry has been allowed to cheat consumers with impunity for so long that undersize wood is the now "new normal".

    So many cynical remarks, so little time.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  30. It's Worse in New Zealand! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You won't believe how much worse this is in NZ - I went to buy a 2x4, and they gave me a one measuring 50mmx100mm !!!

    Am I being shorted? Though, I don't really know if millimetres is better or worse value than inches!

    Sigh....

    1. Re:It's Worse in New Zealand! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of M&M's; you're gonna get chubby.

  31. The trade standards != penny-pincher standards by Khyber · · Score: 0

    Look, fuckers. I already knew that your dimensions were 1/4" off - that's how the fucking SAFETY RATED HURRICANE JOIST CLIPS are designed and rated.

    When I buy a bunch of joist clips that say they're for 4" lumber, I don't expect the fucking pilot hole to be off 1/4" and not touching the fucking wood because you downsized your fucking lumber dimensions to be 1/2" off what is claimed (thus being over 10% wrong in your fucking dimensions, and thus 10%+ wrong in your rated weight capacity, etc.)

    Sue the fuck out of Home Depot, Lowes, and the other companies doing this shady shit.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:The trade standards != penny-pincher standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just buy a 1/4 x 4 to make up for it. LOL

    2. Re:The trade standards != penny-pincher standards by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Home Depot sells them as 'appearance boards'

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:The trade standards != penny-pincher standards by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I checked Home Depot and their website lists the 2x4 ones as being for 2x4. You didn't read all the labels and didn't realize that the one marked 2"x4" dimensional is different than the one marked 2x4. Beginner's mistake, but you don't make that one if you either find out which one you need, or at least read all the labels of all the options.

    4. Re: The trade standards != penny-pincher standards by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 0

      Rather, the American Public should sue you, for building your house in a hurricane zone. Or at a minimum, tell you to suck it down and rebuild your wunnerful house-with-a-glorious-view at your own expense after the storm.

  32. Back Pain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That may explain why my lower lumber on my back side has been hurting. It is undersized.

  33. Plywood has changed since the 60s by grahamsz · · Score: 2

    I did some work on a place I had that was built sometime in the 60s, and in redoing bits of floor I found that the plywood that was used previously was a true 1/2" but when I went to HD to buy half-inch ply, it wound up being more like 27/64ths or something like that.

    Enough of a difference to be annoying.

  34. Next: Milk of magnesia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It contains no milk!

  35. marking the actual dimensions as well is easy. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    look,

    if you called home depot and asked for TWO INCHES BY FOUR INCHES planks and they sold you 1.5 inches by whatever.. yes there is a problem.

    I mean, they could try to rectify it some way rather easily.

    I mean, right now, you call them and ask them to deliver 2 inches and they deliver 1.5 with 2 inch labels? look, if an industry has a quirk of selling something 25% smaller than they label it as they might want to rectify that quirk.. sooner or later they will do that anyways.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re: marking the actual dimensions as well is easy. by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      You could probably order some two inch by four inch planks. It would probably be in hardwood or some special type of wood for furniture or cabinetmaking. Standard framing lumber called a '2 x 4' doesn't even have units assigned to the numbers.

      1 x 6 and 1 x 8 planks, on the other hand, are 6 and 8 inches wide respectively, because they are not intended for framing.

    2. Re: marking the actual dimensions as well is easy. by Strider- · · Score: 1

      Charity I work with maintains a campus with buildings that were built in 1937. Much of the lumber was milled on site, and is actually dimensional (ie the 2x8s are actualy 2" x 8"). To rebuild/modify these buildings, and work on them, we wind up having to mill our own lumber to match. In situations where we have to use graded lumber (aka something structural), it takes a lot of care to rebuild with standard lumber vs what was originally used.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    3. Re: marking the actual dimensions as well is easy. by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      You are right, very old buildings are built with framing lumbers having the actual 2x4 dimensions. I don't know when exactly the industry switched to 1.5x3.5, but it is somewhere between 1930 and 1970.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    4. Re: marking the actual dimensions as well is easy. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      The practice of making smoothed wood 1/4 inch smaller than the nominal size started some time after 1870. The first national standard was set it 1924 and has been revised several times. https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdf

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re: marking the actual dimensions as well is easy. by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Unless you are asking for raw cut those will also be .125 planed and .25 inch joiner each side so they will be .75 X 5.5 or .75 X 7.25 (they take a little extra on the stuff 8 and over to square it) and it's maked on the website and in the store if you can find the label.

      http://www.homedepot.com/p/Bui...

    6. Re:marking the actual dimensions as well is easy. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      No. There isn't a problem.

      Well, there is, but it's YOUR problem.

      This is an incomprehensibly, unfathomably, stupefyingly crock of shit. I cannot grok anyone NOT knowing that 2x4 is 1.5x3.5.

      Are these the same people who don't know how to change a tire? Maybe they are the ones that are not smart enough to turn the water off at the street when something in the house floods. Wait...I know...they are the ones that continue to drive when the Oil light comes on in their car.

      Un
      Fucking
      Believable.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    7. Re: marking the actual dimensions as well is easy. by jdschulteis · · Score: 1

      If you want an actual 2" x 4" cross section, you could order some, but not from a home improvement store. At a Home Depot or Menard's, I'd get three 1 x 6 boards (it'll take some time to find three that aren't badly cupped, twisted, or warped), glue them up, then mill down to the final size.

    8. Re:marking the actual dimensions as well is easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you ask for a 2x4, you're not asking for a board that's two inches by four inches. You're asking for a board that's two unspecified units by four unspecified units

    9. Re:marking the actual dimensions as well is easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like SD cards so that the movie and recording industries can sleep at night? You lose almost as much as a 2x4 to their desire to lock down content as opposed to the same silicon configured as MMC. And yet they still advertise like you are getting the full amount to use.

      Please sell MMC cards so I can use all my space, not just some of my space.

  36. Forever to self centered people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Forever is more than 1 generation or 2 generations. 2x4 actually was legit long ago (with a margin of error) remodel an old house and find out when all your new wood doesn't match up.

    Cheap greedy bastards gradually screwed people out of wood over time and because the USA has little regulation and nobody bothered to sue back then over it... false specification naming became the NORM so now that it's been around like 50 years people expect the lies. How we fix these things when they've been left alone is a problem...

    I think they should just state their sizes in metric with a reasonable margin of error where they get punished if companies go outside that. If you don't they will ride the bottom margin gradually leading to a repeat of the problem. They can label it "2x4" as a primitive name just like the imperial system of inches but the ACTUAL size would be in civilized metric.

  37. Re: marking the actual dimensions as well is easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might want to go measure those again. You may find that they're 5.5 and 7.25 inches, respectively. It depends on if they're decking or construction lumber, which is super confusing for people who don't work with that all the time. :/

  38. Since by OYAHHH · · Score: 0

    Amateurs sometimes use this stuff there is even more reason to have truthfulness in advertising.

    Just because "experts" know the real dimensions is not a reason to be deceptive.

    Don't believe me, well there are plenty of "expert" doctors and pharmacists that know the chemical makeup of many over-the-counter compounds but I don't. And guess what, the manufacturer is required to accurately detail the ingredients.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  39. I get annoyed as hell with shit like this by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    There are lots of things in the world with stupid names that are not accurate tot heir actual traits for various reasons. However when it specifies a given item then it makes sens to KEEP USING IT rather than to try and change things and screw people up.

    An area you see this all the time in is ammunition. Many, many bullets have names that don't match their actual size. For example .380 auto isn't .380 caliber. The bullet is .355, the case is .373. So no matter which measurement you are using, it is wrong. However the round is called .380 auto, so we keep calling it that because people know what it is.

    1. Re:I get annoyed as hell with shit like this by Alcemenes · · Score: 1

      Give it time. Some jackass will fire up a class action lawsuit about that too. I swear the whole planet is going tits up. People can give you up-to-the-minute updates of who the Kardashians are fucking, but they can't be arsed to spend a few minutes researching to educate themselves a little.

    2. Re:I get annoyed as hell with shit like this by swb · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, the actual dimensions of some calibers are essentially the same as their nominal dimensions.

      10mm & .40 S&W (AFAIK, the latter was developed from the former) are modern designs and match their nominal dimensions closely.

      The whole .45 caliber family is .45x" with only ~4 thousandths of an inch variation between bullets for various guns, possibly because it was a purpose designed load. .38s were evolved from much older designs, IIRC .38 caliber rounds actually match the external dimensions of the case, not bullet.

    3. Re:I get annoyed as hell with shit like this by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Depends on what is measured - the actual bullet, or the radius of lands or grooves in the barrel.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  40. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's hard to see how the plaintiffs have been damaged when these building materials are compatible with the construction of the purchaser's existing buildings. i.e., An "actual" 2x4 would not fit in a wall previously built with standard 2x4s -- selling the something as advertised would actually cause the purchaser more trouble in many cases.

    This is what happens when you let Millennials write articles without researching the data first. The problem is current "standard" 2x4s do not match 2x4s from 40 years ago. They used to be 1.675 x 3.675, but now they're more like 1.5 x 3.5. So when you're working on any house that isn't a crackerbox piece of shit drywall fly-by-night tract house, Home Depot lumber isn't compatible.

    https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdf

  41. Those aren't "real" giga/tera by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look the metric prefixes up: Giga, tera, etc are base 10. Giga means 10^9, not 2^30. They always have, they predated widespread base 2 usage. The standard SI prefixes are for base 10 as that's one of the big ideas behind the SI system is using base 10 for all units.

    Now there are base-2 prefixes that have been introduced, those are Gibi, tebi and so on. If you want to talk base 2 orders of magnitude, you use those.

    However using regular base-10 SI prefixes makes sense since basically everythign else in our computers uses that. When a processor says 3GHz it means 3 billion cycles per second, not 3,221,225,472. When a network is "gigabit" it means 10^9 bits per second, not 2^30. When we say DVDs are sampled at 48kHz we mean 48,000Hz not 49,152Hz. It makes sense to display our storage likewise. About the only area where the base-2 prefixes make sense is RAM, since it is actually sold along base-2 boundaries.

    1. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a little kid then. Only little kids would ever refer to 1kB as 1000 bytes. Those of us who are old enough to have been around computers since the beginning know that 1kB is 1024 bytes.

    2. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by sexconker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Good thing the units aren't Giga, Mega, etc. They're Gigabyte, Megabit, etc. The Byte or Bit (or B or b) means we're in the base 2 world, son.

      Get used to it. It's how nearly every fucking digital computer processes shit, holds shit in memory, and ultimately stores shit in disk sectors or flash blocks or whatever. It's how we do digital math and logical operations. It's how we compute the number of states for a given storage size, it's how we fucking run the fucking world, at this point.

      Take your SI bullshit, and your fucking "kibibyte" heresy and get the FUCK OUT.

    3. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      No practicing electrical engineer that I have ever met uses those mebi-/kibi- prefixes. 1 kB is 100 bytes or 1024 bytes depending on context, ot you just explictly write out what base you are using.

    4. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by TClevenger · · Score: 0

      Sugar-coat it however you want, but hard disk manufacturers did this for selfish marketing reasons only. A Seagate ST-225 20 megabyte drive is about 21,000,000 bytes. A 360K floppy disk is 362,496 bytes formatted. 256MB of RAM is 262,144K, or 268,435,456 bytes. It was only when some manufacturer couldn't quite fit a gigabyte on a hard disk that 1,000,000,000 bytes became "good enough" to call a gigabyte.

    5. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by 3247 · · Score: 2

      You must be a little kid then. Only little kids would ever refer to 1kB as 1000 bytes. Those of us who are old enough to have been around computers since the beginning know that 1kB is 1024 bytes.

      Yeah, right. You must be an oldtimer who has never heard of mass storage or data transmission, then. Those of young enough to have heard of such things understand that 1 byte x 1 kHz = 1 kB/s (and it does not matter whether 1 kHz is the symbol rate for a transmission or the frequency at which data is written onto a tape or disk).

      --
      Claus
    6. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing the units aren't Giga, Mega, etc. They're Gigabyte, Megabit, etc.

      Right, and the parent has already established that giga means 10^9, so a gigabyte means 10^9 bytes.

      Son.

    7. Re: Those aren't "real" giga/tera by anegg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Real data communication engineers calculate using bits per second. Storage folks use bytes per second. :-)

    8. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the only area where the base-2 prefixes make sense is RAM, since it is actually sold along base-2 boundaries.

      Ram and hard drives do exactly the same thing: store bits. One is significantly faster than the other and one is significantly cheaper (per bit) than the other, but they server the same purpose.

      Why should it make sense to use base-2 prefixes for ram but not hard drive? Why should metric have anything to do with counting bits? KiloByte, MegaByte, TeraByte. These are all 'made up words' to describe groups of bytes. They are not in any way 'metric'.

    9. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never used KB to mean 1000. It always means 0x400 to me.

    10. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I think one reason may be that they sound stupid. A kibblebyte? A maybebyte? A gibberish byte?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      In thermodynamics we used steam tables in units of British Thermal Units per pound. I don't think the "stupid sounding units" argument will get very far.

    12. Re: Those aren't "real" giga/tera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we're always confused by the little b.

    13. Re:Those aren't "real" giga/tera by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      BTUs/pound doesn't sound any stupider than it actually is.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  42. The problem is not less-than-2x4 lumber, but... by RichZellich · · Score: 1

    The problem is that, while a 2"x6" board at Lowe's measures about 5.5", and can be used as a replacement for any of my rotted deck planks, the boards at Home Depot are sufficiently less than 5.5" that they look terrible if used as a replacement. I found this out the hard way by buying several cedar 2"x6" boards at HD and using them to replace a few deck planks that were more worn or rotted than the rest of the deck. Being frugal, I wasn't going to throw them away and buy replacements elsewhere, but the result looked terrible for several years. Zoom forward a few years, and I have just completed almost 3 weeks of part-time work replacing most of the decking - about 125 boards - and it looks like the original deck again.

    Before I began my renovation, I made the rounds of our local Lowe's, Home Depot, and Menard's, and measured the width of their available cedar lumber. Lowe's was fine, Home Depot was still too narrow to be used, and I couldn't find any at Menard's...maybe if I had found somebody on the floor to ask, they could have pointed me to lumber stored outside, but there was none to be seen inside on the lumber racks, so I don't know if Menard's lumber is undersize, or not.

    Dimensioned lumber has gotten increasingly smaller over the years, and it has nothing to do with drywall or any other practical explanation. It has more to do with it being cheaper to mill it undersize than use precision milling equipment, and/or being able to get more boards out of a log if the boards are milled even further under their nominal size.

    I once owned a gingerbread Victorian home and, during roofing and other renovations, I found that the lumber used was extremely close to the stated dimensions - my roof purlins were an _actual_ 2"x6", not 1.75"x5.5" or any other lesser dimensions. I couldn't even buy custom-milled pieces for replacements of special trim, because nobody makes milling cutters of those sizes any more.

    1. Re:The problem is not less-than-2x4 lumber, but... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      I hear ya....try to get joist hangers for old construction. It is impossible because nobody makes any for the actual dimensions. The boards used to be as wide and thick as the name said.

  43. It is all about Purchased Politicians by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    The trial lawyers gives millions to the politicians and bureaucrats they own to make sure America never goes loser pays. And this is bipartisan somewhat but mostly dem, but reps take the money also, so it will never be changed.
    That is why legal fees in America are out of control. Even if you win your out all your legal fees. So the corrupt lawyers always win and will always continue to sue over stupid stuff.
    Of all the things that I wish our forefathers put in the Constitution was loser pays. Along with a balanced budget except if we have a declared war ;)
    TBH it is the main driver of our out of control medical and business costs.

  44. 4x4 - 6' ~= 4" x 4" - 6' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have NO case. Looking at the filing... They're miss-understanding their own evidence. They claim that the Tag 4x4 - 6' is actually 4" x 4" x 6' But, that's NOT what's on the tag. The first part of the tag say 4x4 with NO indication of what the measurement is. I.E. NO inch mark present on the label. This is some dumb schmuck and a even dumber layer who knows NOTHING about the building trade. This should be tossed.

    1. Re:4x4 - 6' ~= 4" x 4" - 6' by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      At issue is that it used to mean what they claim it should mean....but that changed decades ago.

  45. Do they? by eWarz · · Score: 1

    "but overall most folks who are purchasing lumber at home improvement stores know that the so-called trade sizes don't match the actual dimensions of the lumber." I'm a self admitted DIYer, but I've purchased lumber from Home Depot and I've been with a pro to purchase lumber before. Both times the exact dimensions were ordered and received. If the pro I was with suddenly received less than what he requested, he probably would have filed a suit himself.

  46. so like bicycle rims/tyres then by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

    As mentioned, many other industries have such quirks. For example bicycle rim diameters:
    27.5" rim 28" = 29" 27"
    Also, a 26 x 1.75" tyre is NOT the same as 26 x 1 3/4".

    1. Re:so like bicycle rims/tyres then by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 0

      Huh? Such idiocracy can exist only in the US! This entire 1/4th, 1/8th, 1/16th.... crap is driving folks bonkers. Who came up with that shite? Use metric and call it what is is.

    2. Re: so like bicycle rims/tyres then by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I know, right? These days, who uses powers of two for anything? This is Slashdot, not PowrsOfTwoDot!

  47. Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, this is not done "all over the world". Here, in Switzerland, if I but a 10cm board, then it is 10cm, in its dry, finished state.

    Anything else strikes me as stupid - sure, you know they're lying about the dimensions, but...what about a 4x6? Is it 3-1/2x5-1/2, or 3x5 or... Stupid tradition that needs fixed...

  48. Dimensions when labeled must be correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should sell industry standard sized pieces, that is fine. However, when these pieces are labeled with dimensions, the labels have to be correct. Centimeters have an international standard, and inches are inches in the whole country. Industry branches and lumber stores fudging the labelling is deceptive and a crime in many countries. A tradition which is a crime is still a crime.

  49. They could do what the rest of the world does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put its dimensions in mm and call it a 2x4. Problem solved.

    1. Re:They could do what the rest of the world does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of the world does calls a 2x4 a 5x10.

  50. Lumber dimensions set in 1961 by mjpvirtual · · Score: 0

    My house was built in 1935 and contains 2" lumber that is actually 1 7/8". This presented a bit of a challenge when remodeling. The industry reduced lumber dimension standards several times in the 20th century with the final reduction agreed in 1961 when the 2" finished lumber dimension was reduced from 1 5/8" to 1 1/2".

  51. Maybe by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Despite knowing full well the legacy of reasoning behind why 2x4's are not 2"x4", this has bothered me for a very long time. If you plan to build something that requires precise dimensions this makes it a lot harder to find 2" beams that are actually 2" in thickness.

    1. Re:Maybe by x0ra · · Score: 1

      if you do any kind of precision work with wood as a base material, you'll use oversized lumber and joint / plane it down. Framing can afford 1/8" to 1/4" rough play, as long as the final product is square/plum/true.

  52. e.u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hah hah,silly bloody Americans..
    How about you protect ALL consumers buying anything and have proper sizes and descriptions on items that ordinary folk can understand..
    Then go and re-educate your pig ignorant builders..
    Here in the UK we have strong laws on simple,easy crap like this,if you go to a depot to buy 4x2 it's sold as 2x4 ,and will also have its exact metric size clearly marked..
    One simple question,if they call it 2x4 why is it actually smaller ?
    Partition frames etc here are made of 2x2.
    If your house is meant to be 2x2 frameing and you find it's not,builders would be in court and lose every time..

  53. Trade size vs actual size by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    I do not know when this happened, but it used to be that a 2x4 is indeed 2" by 4" when bought. Now it is the measure of the rough cut that loses dimensions after planing and finishing. It really sucks when working on a old house where the old boards are the actual dimensions and none of the joist hangers fit. I can see a point in the lawsuit, but it is coming mighty late. I bet the "new" dimensions of lumber are in place for decades.

    1. Re:Trade size vs actual size by x0ra · · Score: 1

      probably not in the past 100 years...

    2. Re:Trade size vs actual size by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

      Being old enough to know this from experience... The dimensions where never 2x4. They were more like 1.625 x 3.625 plus or minus a big slop factor. Even in the same lot. It's OK with plaster walls. Not so much with sheet rock.

      --
      An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
  54. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is more than past the time for this. You get what you purchase, not less.
    In Australia, timber is purchased using the final dimensions not some arbitrary reduction in the original dimensions.

  55. "selling the something as advertised" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? How typically AMERICAN.

  56. no, idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, you're just wrong.

    A) Kerf, not curf.
    B) The timber is rough cut to 2" x 4" and then planed and sanded smooth.
    C) It's 1/2", not 3/4" that's removed.

    Stop being so amazingly fucking ignorant.

  57. Quarter Pounders are next! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quarter pounders, etc., are based on the weight of the pre-cooked patty, and not the actual cooked patty. It is universally understood, but advertising still tends to contain a disclaimer.
    What's different here? Acknowledge that the term '2x4' is an imprecise standard, but include a disclaimer in all future advertising and packaging.

  58. Sometimes, it's better to remain silent by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

  59. These would be the same idiots... by Tangential · · Score: 1

    These would be the same idiots that go into those same stores looking for a 'hot water heater'.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  60. No sympathy here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, the lawyer is bad, as the labels they cite, say nothing about it being 1"x6", it says it's a 1x6x10', it never says the first two dimensions are inches.

    Secondly, the lawyer didn't look at the standards document.

    http://www.awc.org/pdf/codes-standards/publications/wsdd/AWC-WSDD1986-ViewOnly-0301.pdf

  61. Bark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glue on a 1/2 inch of bark on the wide side, then you got a 1 1/2x4...
    Now a days, due to lumber processing, you don't see a 1/2 inch of bark on the lumber anymore.

  62. It's the board milling, not the kerf. by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Back in the 1800s, when you bought a "2x4" from the lumber mill it was green and "rough". That means it had too much moisture content to be used right away, it almost certainly twisted significantly along its length, and was pretty far from rectangular in its cross section. But that cross section was at least two inches by four inches.

    So lumber wasn't sold ready to use. What you did was you stacked it in your barn for a few months to dry out, then if you needed an accurate shape you'd run the board through a jointer-planer to produce smooth, precise, parallel surfaces. Both these operations reduce the dimensions of the finished lumber.

    By the early 20th century lumber mills started doing all this work for you so you could buy a 2x4 board and use it the same day. Far from cheating the customer as you claim, they're actually adding value by curing it and milling it down to a standard shape. Since 1924 the standard has been that 2 inches rough-hewn is always planed down to 1.5 inches; 4 to 3.5; 8 to 7.25, 10 to 9.25 and 12 to 11.25. But if you went to the lumber mill with a tape measure, you'd see that the 1.5 x 3.5 finished boards indeed start their life as 2 x 4 inch rough boards.

    If you think about it, a lumber mill that cheated its customers on dimension would go out of business fast. You'd lay out your project, figure out how many boards you'd need, and not only would you come up short, nothing would fit as expected. The whole point of milling the softwood lumber to a standardized dimension is that you could plan out your material requirements exactly and then buy exactly what you need, when you need it.

    Given that the dimensions of finished softwood lumber have been set by national standards for the last 90 years, I'm guessing the lawyer who brought the suit is either an idiot or is looking for a quick nuisance payoff.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:It's the board milling, not the kerf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not at all true. The finished sizes of dimensional lumber sizes have been reduced four times in 1910, 1928, 1956, and 1961. Rough cut lumber hasn't been full size since the 1800's. Every time the lumber companies get together they cut the size.

    2. Re:It's the board milling, not the kerf. by hey! · · Score: 2

      The 1927 standard dimensions have been reduced twice, once in 1956 and once in 1961. The standard sizes for dimensional lumber have not changed in 56 years.

      Yes, the standards changes made lumber more profitable, but they also made lumber more affordable. Even today I'd reckon about 10% of 2x4 studs are sufficiently twisted or bent that I'd reject them at the lumber yard, but statistically everyone pays for that 2x4 nobody wants to buy. Milling the board more aggressively means a lower reject rate.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:It's the board milling, not the kerf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually its several things. I used to subscribe to a magazine aimed at people who were interested in operating a small sawmill. One of the articles I remember was about how you can increase your bottom line by intentionally sawing dimensional lumber just a little smaller than its nominal size. It talked about how much smaller and what other factors to take into account.

      The original meaning of dimensional lumber is much like the recipe for "stew", it depends on who you talk to and what traditions they know about. The one that I ascribe to, since my father told it to me, is that at one point the dimensions for the lumber coming from the saw mill, I.E. "rough cut", was at the nominal size. Further processing, such as drying and planing would reduce the dimensions slightly.

      The other factor I suspect is that if you look at stuff you get from the big DIY stores its very close to 5cm x 10cm. What a coinky dinky, given that most of the world is metric.

    4. Re:It's the board milling, not the kerf. by hey! · · Score: 1

      That might have worked when people were using old-school construction techniques. but shortchanging modern customers on dimension is a bad idea. If you sell someone a 2x10 they will expect it to fit perfectly into a metal hanger or corner tie designed for a 1 1/2 x 9 1/4 finished joist. When they drill a hole in a stud for pipes or conduit, there's a good chance they'll reinforce the stud with a stud shoe which they'll expect to fit like a glove.

      People will notice if you mill their lumber 1/16" too small..

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:It's the board milling, not the kerf. by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Yes to parent.... the rough cut lumber was wet and green. Houses built using the Balloon construction method required that wall studs be as high as the building (3 stories high means 30' long timbers). When the lumber dried and shrank, it would cause the floors to buckle and the houses always squeaked when you walked across the floor. The shorter lengths of dimensional lumber and kiln drying solved alot of those issues.

      I wonder if the person who sued Home Depot knows that a "8 foot wall stud" is 93-5/8"? or that 12" ceramic tile is actually 30cm, not 30.5cm. Or that 2" pipe isn't 2" OD? What a maroon.

    6. Re:It's the board milling, not the kerf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. You can in some (rare) places buy rough-cut 2x4 which is actually 2" x 4" - but it has that furry look and feel of rough-sawn lumber. (The "stick a splinter me" finish). The result is milled down to that nice smooth finish we associate with lumber used in the real world, by losing a bit over 1/8" each side for easier use and handling.

      Hopefully this lawsuit has a very short shelf life.

    7. Re:It's the board milling, not the kerf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1927 standard dimensions have been reduced twice, once in 1956 and once in 1961. The standard sizes for dimensional lumber have not changed in 56 years.

      I do some carpentry professionally and I guarantee you there was 1 more dimensional change since 1961 sometime in the past 15 or 20 years. 2x4 studs were 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 for a long time, and are currently 1.5 x 3.5 and a PITA to add studs, framing, whatever to something a little bit older. In fact, I deal with houses built 1930s-1960s and I've always found studs to be 1-5/8 x 3-5/8, again, certainly into the 1980s. Yes, that 1/8" is a PITA because I don't do crappy work, a 1/8" shim is a PITA, and I think it should be required that the advertised lumber size be accurate.

      It's even more of a problem in finish work, cabinetry, etc. You end up ripping/milling larger lumber (boards, finish boards, cabinet/drawer framing, etc.) just to match the older "standards". That very tiny bit of money saved ends up costing everyone in time and effort to measure, mill, cut, fit, etc.

      It's all about the ever cheapening of life. Pinching pennies everywhere. Penny-wise, pound foolish.

  63. Another stupid lawyer hungry for publicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the lumber was advertised as being 2" x 4", he may have a point, but "2x4" is a trade name.

  64. Find a small sawmill somewhere by moeinvt · · Score: 2

    If you really need full sized lumber, you're probably going to have to go directly to a sawmill. My family was in the wood products business when I was growing up. We had a sawmill, but it was mostly to supply our own needs for other products. We were willing to sell rough cut, full sized lumber to people however.
    It's going to have to be small business though. A big sawmill operation, like the types who would be supplying Home Depot aren't going to pull half a dozen pieces out of their operation for you, but there are still small operations around serving niche markets.
    As far back as I can remember, the advertised dimensions have meant the cut size. You lose 1/4" on each side by planing. I'm not sure when they started planing everything headed to the retail market. Probably in the late '60's or sometime in the '70s. I've seen houses built in the 1960s which had rough wall studs, but in 30+ years, except for our own small business, I don't think I've ever seen rough lumber for retail sale.

  65. Those bring the lawsuit need to be hit with a by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    Clue by Four; I mean a Clue by Three point seven five.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  66. How long before it's ok to continue cheating? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    These dimensions have been industry standards for 60 years or more

    So how long do you have to cheat someone before it's ok to continue doing so? Clearly 60 years seems to be enough but, given Volkwagen's case, a few years is not.

    1. Re:How long before it's ok to continue cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck is this "cheating" anyone? The only people it's confusing are fucking morons who are getting themselves in over their heads. If you don't know the dimensions of a 2x4, you have no business building anything with them.

    2. Re:How long before it's ok to continue cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not cheating anyone. It's just a surprise to people who haven't worked with lumber before, like those who get a new hard drive and find out 5TB isn't exactly 5TB or that 32GB phone memory does not mean that it's 32GB that's available for their kitty videos.

      Such a reaction just shows ignorance of an accepted standard and reveals how little that person knows about the field.

  67. As an attorney, this is idiotic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In contract law, courts have long looked to industry standard terms to resolve issues of ambiguity. in contracts. While this is not a 100% hard and fast rule, in the particular terms like 2x4 have had their current meaning for over a century and are widespread enough to have moved beyond just the construction industry, so it's not just industry parlance, it's common parlance. In fact, it has become so common that attempting to sell actual 2"x4" boards as 2x4s would be more likely to be found ambiguous than the current situation!

    Now admittedly, we are not looking at individual sales contracts here, but at a deceptive trade practices case. Still, similar principles would apply. Furthermore, they are suing primarily under Illinois law. It's in federal court as a matter of diversity jurisdiction, not as a question of federal law. Illinois law requires " intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the "Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act", approved August 5, 1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby." 815 ILCS 505/2815. Abiding by industry standards/common parlance is pretty much the opposite of intending to deceive.

    Now the funny thing is that there are plenty of states that have no intent requirement, and where a case such as this would be much less likely to be laughed out of court. Since Home Depot is a national chain, the lawyer could have chosen literally any state 's laws and made his life a whole hell of a lot easier. That really calls his competency into question.

    As far as the breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims, those are pretty much completely bogus in any courtroom.

  68. I'm going to take a wild guess... by Entrope · · Score: 1

    ... and guess that you're too dumb and lazy to even troll convincingly.

  69. 2 X 4 Has not been 2 X 4 for a Long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I took "Industrial Arts" classes back in the 70's, I think my teacher said you have to go all the way back to the 30's or so before the size of a 2 X 4 fits the numbers. Nowadays, he said when they first cut it "in the rough", it is almost 2 X 4. But once they finish it by smoothing it out, it's numbers become what they are now.

  70. Don't get women started on what is a Size 2 by mpercy · · Score: 1

    Or Size 10 for that matter.

  71. Not in my lifetime. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    My inner engineer has always hated this kind of bullshit. Stupid naming conventions, odd units, and arbitrary dimensions due to some thing that some guy did 200 years ago that we are still lugging around the baggage from because that's just the way we do it. Every time I come across this I want to scream.

    My outer engineer is just forced to deal with.

    So my solution is just make all my own lumber with a portable mill. Fuck you lumber industry all my 2x4's are actually 2x4's

    Damn it forgot I hate English units too. Have to put all my lumber into metric. All my lumber is 5.08cm x 10.16cm................sigh.............fuck me.

    Seriously though it is annoying but then all the engineering tables that have been in use for the last 100 years will have to be completely redone and all engineers that have been at it for more than a few years retrained. The only way to unfucker this situation is to burn down civilization and start over from scratch or wait another 200 years for the system to slowly and painfully change.

  72. That's strange. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 2x4's in my 1917 house are actually 2 inches by 4 inches. My garage is unfinished, so I was able to measure the dimensions.

    That being said, I stacked and sold wood for Ace hardware in the 1980s. The dimensions were always short. Everybody knew it, and there were no disputes.

    This is like being accused of cheating a customer by selling a 1/4 pounder based on the pre-cooked weight of the meat.

    1. Re:That's strange. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Because back in the 1910s it was still common practice to buy and use rough lumber. If a 2x4 were reasonably straight you wouldn't bother milling it down to size, you'd just cut it to length. But if you were to look at the subfloor (that was before plywood) you'd find that the width and thickness of the boards is about a half inch less than nominal.

      There isn't strictly speaking any reason you have to used finished lumber for everything, but because of economies of scale there is no longer any economic advantage to using rough lumber. The carpenter who built your garage probably picked over the 2x4s at the lumber yard. Milling all the boards down from their nominal dimensions makes that job easier, and reduces the reject rate so everyone wins.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  73. So Mr. Lawyer by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

    You saw that scene in Twin Peaks: The Missing Pieces did you?

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  74. why so willing to let BS slide? by dywolf · · Score: 1

    so many people willing to let BS slide, just cause "its always been that way".

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    1. Re:why so willing to let BS slide? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      No "BS" about it; the dimensions refer to the green wood.

      If you don't understand the source of the difference, you have no business constructing anything out of 2x4's to begin with.

  75. Tolerances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any person who would bring this kind of lawsuit should not be building anything. Why didn't the plaintiffs bother to ask about tolerances if they're so concerned? If they bought a 2x4 and it was 2.001 x 3.998 would they file another lawsuit? When they buy gas do they sue if the meter reads 10.00 gallons but they only got 9.99999? If they set the thermostat to 70 and in one room it's 71 do they sue their air conditioner? WTF?

  76. Crunchberries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a version of the Captain Crunch Crunchberry case. Plaintiff sued because "crunchberries" are not a real fruit.

  77. Not news. Happened 3 yrs ago by throckmorten · · Score: 1

    Not news. Happened to Lowe's 3yrs ago.

    "A Marin County California judge ordered Mooresville, North Carolina-based Lowe’s to pay a $1.6 million settlement over a lawsuit alleging the inaccurate description of structural dimensional building products."

    http://www.hbsdealer.com/artic...

  78. handy reference by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Lumber dimensions

    Lumber's nominal dimensions are larger than the actual standard dimensions of finished lumber. Historically, the nominal dimensions were the size of the green (not dried), rough (unfinished) boards that eventually became smaller finished lumber through drying and planing (to smooth the wood). Today, the standards specify the final finished dimensions and the mill cuts the logs to whatever size it needs to achieve those final dimensions. Typically, that rough cut is smaller than the nominal dimensions because modern technology makes it possible and it uses the logs more efficiently. For example, a "2×4" board historically started out as a green, rough board actually 2 by 4 inches (51 mm × 102 mm). After drying and planing, it would be smaller, by a nonstandard amount. Today, a "2×4" board starts out as something smaller than 2 inches by 4 inches and not specified by standards, and after drying and planing is reliably 1 12 by 3 12 inches (38 mm × 89 mm).

  79. This is how Stupid the Lawsuit is. by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Imagine a class action lawsuit against Segate and other manufacturers for not providing the stated amount of space on a hard drive.

    The What The Fuck look you'd have on your face is the exact same look that anyone who ever purchased lumber in their lifetime would have at his lawsuit.

    It should be thrown out and the lawyer disbarred for being a complete fucking idiot.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  80. Dont even get started on Pipe sizes by ai4px · · Score: 1

    Don't even get them started on nominal pipe sizes!!!

  81. Will I get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep overstating the actual dimensions of the, er, I guess you can call it lumber, does this open me to a potential class-action lawsuit?

    1. Re:Will I get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep overstating the actual dimensions of the, er, I guess you can call it lumber, does this open me to a potential class-action lawsuit?

      I think you are safe unless you call it "pipe"....

      magic word: frontal (whodathunkit)

  82. This did bite me when I was younger by phorm · · Score: 1

    I had a few small building projects and assumed - based on the name - that a 2x4 was indeed 2"x4". My little project came up a bit short when the supporting boards weren't as expected, and that's when I learned the difference between rough and finished wood. That said, I know the difference *NOW*, but it is still somewhat along the lines of mebibytes VS megabytes etc (or X-inch "class" TV's) where it could be confusing to a non-professional or first-timer.

    So there is the question of whether the difference is still necessary, but to be honest I *also* wouldn't be surprised to see that some stores might cut lumber down a few fractions of an inch more these days in order to get more boards out of a log. I haven't seen anything that says an exact number that it a board should be under 2x4" so what's to keep them from having shaved a bit more here and there to cut costs?

    1. Re:This did bite me when I was younger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a few small building projects and assumed - based on the name - that a 2x4 was indeed 2"x4". My little project came up a bit short when the supporting boards weren't as expected, and that's when I learned the difference between rough and finished wood. That said, I know the difference *NOW*, but it is still somewhat along the lines of mebibytes VS megabytes etc (or X-inch "class" TV's) where it could be confusing to a non-professional or first-timer.

      I'd say it's more like a "64 gigabyte iPhone" not actually having 64 gigabytes of memory because the OS uses a bunch of it.
      A 2x4 is basically 2"x4" when it gets hacked out of the tree. It's all the stuff that happens after it that causes it to get smaller.
      If you live near a real lumber mill you can get 'rough cut' 2x4s. They're still not quite right (drying shrinks the wood) but you get to keep all the material that would have been lost from planing, jointing, sanding, and rounding the corners. You can also get "Rough cut green" which isn't dried, but that is even more of a PITA.

      I can't think of a single construction product that is intuitively named size-wise off the top of my head. Hell, pipe is even worse. A "2-inch" pipe means something like "If you bought a 2-inch ID pipe a hundred years ago, it would have the same OD as this pipe".

  83. Nominal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nominal is a common term with lumber. I'm a contractor and deep down I dislike this term. When it comes to working with lumber and manufactured wood products, carry a tape measure. It's uncommon for the measurement stated to be the actual dimension. My guess is it's for ease of communication. Asking for a sheet of 1/2" plywood is a lot easier than asking for a sheet of 15/32" plywood. Go to the lumber yard and say, "I need 100 1.5"x3.5" studs" . People will look at you like you're nuts. It's a bit like the Imperial system, it's what we have and trying to change it would be a heroes quest.

  84. duh... everyone knows these are 38x89s, not 2x4s! by esobofh · · Score: 1

    If you want to get technical... any modern equipment used to mill and dress 2x4s is metric, and the finished size is actually 38mm x 89mm, which is 1.49606" x 3.50394". So yeah... let this be the catalyst to have the USA get with the times and convert everything to metric.

    --

    ----------------------------
    Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
  85. Why would you NOT explain this? by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    "Do retailers need to educate naive consumers about every aspect of the items they sell?"

    Yes. If you're open to the public rather than catering exclusively to those in the trade, you need to explain the standards of that trade. If the customer is unaware of "industry quirks," they don't know there's even anything they need to fact-check.

  86. My foot is not 1 foot long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And my hand is not 1 hand wide.

    I've never seen a "2-by-4" or "2x4" advertised or labeled as being 2 inches by four inches.

  87. Come on! Everyone knows a 2x4 is not 2" by 4". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on! Everyone knows a 2x4 is not 2" by 4". This is documented in numerous places online. https://www.familyhandyman.com/carpentry/making-sense-of-lumber-dimensions/view-all

  88. ActualSize vs MeasuredSize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the negativity over the actual size verses the advertised size... Haven't any of you people been around a fisherman?

  89. Don't Buy from Them Because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big box retail hardware stores sell the worst of the worst as far as lumber goes.

    The last 2x4's I bought from Home Depot (for some sawhorse legs) warped and twisted themselves into pretzel about a week after I got them.

  90. Huh by helsinki92 · · Score: 1

    Its not April 1st.

  91. inconsistencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that some products are sold with real dimensions and some are sold with "nominal dimensions." If you buy a 1" x 12" x 2' pine "board," it is indeed 2' long, but not 1x12. If you buy a 1" x 1' x 1' pine "panel," it really is 1" thick.

  92. 2 x 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    common knowledge 2 x 4 starts at the saw mill where a 3/16 inch saw cut removes material then it is smoothed with a planer to a even dimension for sale. The DA must have grown up under a rock or hard up for a case. You might find true dimensional lumber in antique homes but not in a lifetime. Instead of thinking there so smart they might want to learn something instead of changing right to wrong.

  93. You don't want to go there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My old house was built in the 1930's, and built poorly, using rough lumber. The studs were all 2 by 4 inches, ugly as heck, and a pain to mix with new 2x4's. The exact size isn't important, but getting dry and smooth and dimensionally predictable wood is.

  94. Lionel Hutz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Mr. Simpson this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my case against the never ending story."

    http://www.angelfire.com/nt/hutz/images/hutz6.wav

  95. metric is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give up your power of 2 GB and embrace metric. Quit using daft old units like inches and miles while you are at it.

    Having simple powers of 10 is a vast improvement. Once we are over this confusing patch (where both units are written the same way) we will be fine.

  96. Trade sizes are actual sizes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be a moot point since the trade size IS the correct term to use. Much to do about nothing. Some lawyer is trying to pay for his new yacht with this frivolous waste of the court's valuable time.

  97. Lawyers!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ignorant? Avaricious? or just Evil?

  98. Framing with 2x4?! by metaforest · · Score: 1

    I have not seen 2x4s used in framing in forever. I do a fair amount of pickup work between tech gigs, mostly residential remodel construction. All the framing I've seen and worked on in the last 20 years is done with 2x6.

  99. Reason for Standard Units by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    How the fuck is this "cheating" anyone?

    Units have legal definitions to prevent vendors from redefining their own units as they please. This was what happened back in medieval times and is why we have standard units now. It might be easy to remember that the cross-sections - but not lengths (how inconsistent is that!) - use non-standard definitions in construction but suppose petrol stations started doing that for litres? or electrical utilities redefined the kWh? or estate agents redefined the square metre etc. We would rapidly get back to where we were in medieval times with nobody really knowing how much of anything they were buying because everyone has their own definition of each unit.

    Just because only the construction industry do this and it is easy to remember is not a valid excuse. What they are doing is illegal under the trading standards of many countries and it's about time someone called them on it.

  100. Define "accepted standard" by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Such a reaction just shows ignorance of an accepted standard

    The problem with this is how do you define an accepted standard? If you found that a petrol station only gave you 0.9 litres of petrol everytime you bought what the pump said was a litre you would feel cheated even if the station told you that this was their accepted standard, indeed even if every petrol station started doing this suddenly you would still feel cheated because it is not the standard unit that you accept.

    This is why, since medieval times, we have had laws that define the accepted standards for units. You are not free to redefine the length of a metre as you see fit you are required to follow the standard set out in the law. The reasons for these laws are extremely sensible and there is absolutely no valid reason for the construction industry not to follow them.