[USMA:25944] Re: Newsletter
Pat, is this an email newsletter, or the kind that gets printed on real paper? Jim At 6/5/2003, 04:21 PM, Pat Naughtin wrote: Dear All, As a result of a number of requests, I have decided to start a free monthly newsletter focussing on metrication issues. If anyone on the USMA list would like to subscribe please send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the words Subscribe First-name Last-name. Thank you, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia
[USMA:25945] Re: Systems of units, optimism vs. pessimism
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 00:23:57 Carl Sorenson wrote: ... I don't see how it was rude. Considering that you have a hobby of inventing new units and usages that essentially no one else on the planet uses, how could that be anything other than a pet interest? Unfortunately both your choice of words and the way you put it, Carl, could have been perceived as 'rude'. You may have not meant it, but the context and all did pass that impression. Now, I'm not in the business of 'inventing new units'. *AS A SCIENTIST* my MAIN interest is to address this issue from a scientific basis. When I made use of 'new units' it was ALWAYS in that spirit. Since I was engaging in *discussions of principle* I evidently had to come up with such terminologies just to be able to make the subject of discussion *tangible*! Therefore, if someone would rather see 'pips' for 'percentime seconds', or 'quinto' for 'typo', etc, please be my guest. I'm not too fussy about this aspect. Now, please bear in mind that scientific terms may not be 'popular' depending on the subject, or even required to be used by the general population. Some of these are... hidden in the background, so to speak. Evidently with the issue of measurements this would likely not be the case, but still the principle remains the same, so I'm not too concerned or bothered that 'noone else in the planet would be using them' since they haven't been made into an official proposal or something yet. But when the time comes, they evidently could be! So, to summarize, I'm sorry, but this has NOTHING to do with its being a... *personal* pet interest, but rather a discussion of issues. Issues that by their nature would evidently involve creation of new things eventually if one agrees to proceed how I proposed. And for you to think we need to change SI and system six billion people use just to fit your ideas of what is important is astounding considering your pessimism toward U.S. metrication. ? No, I respectfullly disagree. Changes to SI WOULD be in order if scientists were REALLY serious about *THE ISSUE OF METROLOGY ITSELF*. As pointed out by several of our members here there ARE significant SERIOUS framework flaws with the SI system. This is utterly undeniable (like inconsistency with prefix names and capitalization, just to mention one). So, *from a scientific basis*, if metrology had been properly developed, these kinds of mistakes/flaws would not happen, pure and simple. But noone is at fault here, simply because that's how systems of measurements evolved. It's like a dress of rags, with pieces changed, renewed here and there with the end result been a real mess! Now, please understand that I'm debating NOT the *SI system itself*, but rather the whole issue of metrology itself, how it should be conducted, which unfortunately hasn't developed yet into something I envision should be necessary. Again, SCIENCE, that's my focus, my friend. Now, eventually, with technology changes may occur more quickly than you think, maybe even at a press of a button! So, I'm not worried about eventual changes to SI which I firmly believe WILL come, even though I recognize it won't happen in my lifetime. I regard this more as a pioneer work than anything else. You think certain things are incredibly important; the other six billion people don't; ergo, we have a pet interest. Well... It's a pity you seem to still not get it. I apparently failed to make myself better understood by you. Perhaps there should be no additional discussions then, but perhaps based on what followed I see potential for us to continue talking though. Secondly, I didn't say (and please PROVE me by showing ANY quote of mine to that effect!) 'we should revamp SI itself'! You have expressed that opinion many times, including in the email in question. I was pointing out the inconsistency. If you really want quotes (sigh), 'until this critical mission is finally addressed' 'Only after the above can we, scientists, really dream of a TRULY universal, stable and *definitive* system of units. The SI system could evidently be a good departing point for that, but it CERTAINLY IS NOT the ideal answer **yet**!' [from the most recent post] 'In other words, the SI would have to suffer some corrections to be in harmony with the FIELD OF METROLOGY.' 'The SI system is actually VERY close' 'I even feel that we can STILL salvage it' 'get the SI to CONFORM to it' ? Very clever, Carl, but again, you STILL missed my point. Sigh... (to use your same sign of frustration... But that's ok, we just need to keep talking! :-) ). Two points. First of all, the word *REVAMP* is TOO STRONG AN ADJECTIVE! Some changes that would be in order IN MY VIEW do NOT constitute 'revamping'!!! (More on this below) Secondly, let me try to put it again. My focus is *the issue of METROLOGY ITSELF*. SI is a CONSEQUENCE of that. Evidently, *IF* FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE changes to SI
[USMA:25948] RE: [USMA:25939] Quotations, proverbs, sayings, and clichés
Point well taken! File this under rational part of US metrication. From: Gillmann, Ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2003/06/05 Thu PM 03:22:28 EDT To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [USMA:25946] RE: [USMA:25939] Quotations, proverbs, sayings, and clichés I think it's best not to update old sayings and quotations. There is really no need to and people are sensitive about it. For example in the USA, we don't use score to mean 20 anymore but we wouldn't dream of changing Abraham Lincoln's Four score and seven. We don't literally have milestones anymore but that doesn't prevent the figurative sense. New expressions reflecting SI will naturally arise when SI is in common use. I'd like to see a list of such expressions (translated into English) from SI countries. Ralph Gillmann -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 9:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [USMA:25939] Quotations, proverbs, sayings, and clichés Dear Joe, on 2003/06/02 10.49, Joseph B. Reid at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In your posting, you quoted Paul Trusten (from USMA 25892) as saying: Invariably, discussions of metrication in the US deteriorate into the old jokes of metricating popular sayings as well as the standard of measurement (I hold my nose as I repeat one of them: Give him 2.54 cm and he'll take 1.608 m). Some time ago, I wrote a piece on this topic for the 'Australian Style', an editorial newsletter. The version I include here is updated from the original. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia Imperial clichés Nothing dates your speaker, your author or you as editor more than references to feet, inches, or miles. When the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition suggests that an economic target was 'missed by a mile'. it has a similar effect to the sight of old cars in a movie. You might assume that the rest of the content is also completely out-of-date. Australia adopted the International System of Units (SI) as its preferred (and legal) measuring method by passing The Weights and Measures Act 1960, and it formally 'went metric' from 1970. In short Australia went metric thirty years ago. To put this into a personal perspective I ask, 'Where were you in 1970?'. As an editor, if you allow 'I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole' to go unchallenged, you are providing readers with evidence that your speaker's or writer's mindset is firmly embedded in the 1970s at best. Recently, after giving a speech on the metric system in Australia, the subject of old sayings was raised. I suggested that there were probably hundreds of them, that they had proved to be quite persistent, but I felt that they would die out eventually or that they would be replaced by new metric sayings. Subsequently, I consulted numerous references and searched the Internet for quotations, proverbs, sayings, and clichés. I was surprised that I could only find a small number that refer to measurement; there are probably less than twenty in common Australian use. I suspect the ones that remain have some poetic quality, such as rhyme, rhythm, or alliteration, or a strong visual image that contributes to their currency. Eventually I divided my small collection into groups and added my own (somewhat facetious and highly personal) thoughts on changing them to SI. Quotations A pound of flesh ... (Shakespeare) There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile ... (Nursery Rhyme) The lessons of Three Mile Island ... (Newspaper) A bushel and a peck ... (Song) It would be an extremely brave (or very foolish) person who would Bowdlerise Shakespeare to read 'A kilogram of flesh' or to rewrite the popular song as 'I love you a millilitre and a cubic metre'. Sayings and proverbs Give them an inch and they'll take an ell (yard, mile, etc.). Give them a gram and they'll take a tonne. Give them a millimetre and they'll take a kilometre. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. I wouldn't touch it with a five metre pole. (Coincidentally five metres is very close to the length of the old English measuring pole.) Alice felt ten feet tall. Alice felt three metres tall. Six foot under. Two metres down. Within an inch (or two) of death (the finish, the goal etc.). Missed death by millimetres. The knife wound in her chest went close to her heart, but missed by millimetres. The return to the bowler's end missed by millimetres. Paint an inch thick. The paint looked as though it was put on ten (or 50, or 167) millimetres thick. A miss is as good as a mile. A millimetre miss is a kilometre miss. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. A gram of prevention is worth a tonne of cure. Clichés He won't budge an inch. He won't move a millimetre. Go the extra mile. Go an extra metre. Go the extra kilometre. Missed by miles. Missed
[USMA:25949] RE: [USMA:25946] RE: [USMA:25939] Quotations, proverbs, sayings, and clichés
Hear, hear. Where I sit is about 20 km from 3 Mile Island, and that's just fine. Nat PS Assuming 3 Mile Island stays under control g -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gillmann, Ralph Sent: Thursday, 2003 June 05 15:22 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:25946] RE: [USMA:25939] Quotations, proverbs, sayings, and clichés I think it's best not to update old sayings and quotations. There is really no need to and people are sensitive about it. For example in the USA, we don't use score to mean 20 anymore but we wouldn't dream of changing Abraham Lincoln's Four score and seven. We don't literally have milestones anymore but that doesn't prevent the figurative sense. New expressions reflecting SI will naturally arise when SI is in common use. I'd like to see a list of such expressions (translated into English) from SI countries. Ralph Gillmann -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 9:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [USMA:25939] Quotations, proverbs, sayings, and clichés Dear Joe, on 2003/06/02 10.49, Joseph B. Reid at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In your posting, you quoted Paul Trusten (from USMA 25892) as saying: Invariably, discussions of metrication in the US deteriorate into the old jokes of metricating popular sayings as well as the standard of measurement (I hold my nose as I repeat one of them: Give him 2.54 cm and he'll take 1.608 m). Some time ago, I wrote a piece on this topic for the 'Australian Style', an editorial newsletter. The version I include here is updated from the original. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia Imperial clichés Nothing dates your speaker, your author or you as editor more than references to feet, inches, or miles. When the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition suggests that an economic target was 'missed by a mile'. it has a similar effect to the sight of old cars in a movie. You might assume that the rest of the content is also completely out-of-date. Australia adopted the International System of Units (SI) as its preferred (and legal) measuring method by passing The Weights and Measures Act 1960, and it formally 'went metric' from 1970. In short Australia went metric thirty years ago. To put this into a personal perspective I ask, 'Where were you in 1970?'. As an editor, if you allow 'I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole' to go unchallenged, you are providing readers with evidence that your speaker's or writer's mindset is firmly embedded in the 1970s at best. Recently, after giving a speech on the metric system in Australia, the subject of old sayings was raised. I suggested that there were probably hundreds of them, that they had proved to be quite persistent, but I felt that they would die out eventually or that they would be replaced by new metric sayings. Subsequently, I consulted numerous references and searched the Internet for quotations, proverbs, sayings, and clichés. I was surprised that I could only find a small number that refer to measurement; there are probably less than twenty in common Australian use. I suspect the ones that remain have some poetic quality, such as rhyme, rhythm, or alliteration, or a strong visual image that contributes to their currency. Eventually I divided my small collection into groups and added my own (somewhat facetious and highly personal) thoughts on changing them to SI. Quotations A pound of flesh ... (Shakespeare) There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile ... (Nursery Rhyme) The lessons of Three Mile Island ... (Newspaper) A bushel and a peck ... (Song) It would be an extremely brave (or very foolish) person who would Bowdlerise Shakespeare to read 'A kilogram of flesh' or to rewrite the popular song as 'I love you a millilitre and a cubic metre'. Sayings and proverbs Give them an inch and they'll take an ell (yard, mile, etc.). Give them a gram and they'll take a tonne. Give them a millimetre and they'll take a kilometre. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. I wouldn't touch it with a five metre pole. (Coincidentally five metres is very close to the length of the old English measuring pole.) Alice felt ten feet tall. Alice felt three metres tall. Six foot under. Two metres down. Within an inch (or two) of death (the finish, the goal etc.). Missed death by millimetres. The knife wound in her chest went close to her heart, but missed by millimetres. The return to the bowler's end missed by millimetres. Paint an inch thick. The paint looked as though it was put on ten (or 50, or 167) millimetres thick. A miss is as good as a mile. A millimetre miss is a kilometre miss. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. A gram of prevention is worth a tonne of cure. Clichés He won't budge an inch. He won't move a millimetre. Go the extra mile. Go an extra metre. Go the extra kilometre. Missed by miles. Missed by metres.
[USMA:25951] Re: point #3
Thank you, Marcus, you're quite right. - Original Message - From: Ma Be [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:26 PM Subject: [USMA:25950] Re: point #3 Just a small addendum/correction on your sentence below, Paul, with your forbearance, please. On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:28:24 Paul Trusten wrote: 3. Rational. ... This list saw a huge discussion over the implications of changing the dimensions of the game of football to meters, and such a change ought to be well-debated in light of the furor it might cause in the sports world... Since football (the one as known in the US, or American football as known practically everywhere else!...) is an American sport, it probably would have been more accurate to restate the above sentence to read: among Americans, instead of 'in the sports world'. Cheers, Marcus Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
[USMA:25952] point #4
4.National. Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, in part, that the Congress "shall have power...To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;..." As part of the same concept as that of coining money (a truly national arrangement), the US Constitution empowers the US Congress to establish a standard of measurement for the United States. That the USCongress has ever fulfilled its responsibility under this article is debatable. But the jurisdiction is clearly theirs, even though a few states, left to dangle without the federal metric mandate promised but not delivered under the 1998 USTransportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), have nevertheless forged ahead to design highways using wholly metric standards (some of thes states abandoned the effort because they were not part of a national measurement change). Attempts at metrication in the US shall never survive such a metrological Civil War, with non-metric states bordering metric states. It must be a process as national as the Constitution conceived it to be. Paul Trusten, R.Ph.3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122Midland TX 79707-2872 USA432-694-6208[EMAIL PROTECTED] "There are two cardinal sins, from which all the others spring: impatienceand laziness." ---Franz Kafka
[USMA:25953] RE: point #4
You must have been peeking at the Political Action section of SI Navigator (http://metric1.org/action.htm). g Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] Couldn't resist the plug. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 15:12 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:25952] point #4 4.National. Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, in part, that the Congress shall have power...To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;... As part of the same concept as that of coining money (a truly national arrangement), the US Constitution empowers the US Congress to establish a standard of measurement for the United States. That the US Congress has ever fulfilled its responsibility under this article is debatable. But the jurisdiction is clearly theirs, even though a few states, left to dangle without the federal metric mandate promised but not delivered under the 1998 US Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), have nevertheless forged ahead to design highways using wholly metric standards (some of thes states abandoned the effort because they were not part of a national measurement change). Attempts at metrication in the US shall never survive such a metrological Civil War, with non-metric states bordering metric states. It must be a process as national as the Constitution conceived it to be. Paul Trusten, R.Ph. 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 USA 432-694-6208 [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are two cardinal sins, from which all the others spring: impatience and laziness. ---Franz Kafka
[USMA:25954] RE: point #4
Sorry, Bill---I was only peeking at the Constitution. I first peeked at it on this issue in 1974. - Original Message - From: Bill Potts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 6:03 PM Subject: [USMA:25953] RE: point #4 You must have been peeking at the Political Action section of SI Navigator (http://metric1.org/action.htm). g Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] Couldn't resist the plug. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 15:12 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:25952] point #4 4.National. Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, in part, that the Congress shall have power...To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;... As part of the same concept as that of coining money (a truly national arrangement), the US Constitution empowers the US Congress to establish a standard of measurement for the United States. That the US Congress has ever fulfilled its responsibility under this article is debatable. But the jurisdiction is clearly theirs, even though a few states, left to dangle without the federal metric mandate promised but not delivered under the 1998 US Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), have nevertheless forged ahead to design highways using wholly metric standards (some of thes states abandoned the effort because they were not part of a national measurement change). Attempts at metrication in the US shall never survive such a metrological Civil War, with non-metric states bordering metric states. It must be a process as national as the Constitution conceived it to be. Paul Trusten, R.Ph. 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 USA 432-694-6208 [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are two cardinal sins, from which all the others spring: impatience and laziness. ---Franz Kafka
[USMA:25955] Re: point #3
Paul Trusten, R.Ph. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:15:32 -0500 From: Paul Trusten, R.Ph. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you, Marcus, you're quite right. - Original Message - From: Ma Be [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:26 PM Subject: [USMA:25950] Re: point #3 Just a small addendum/correction on your sentence below, Paul, with your forbearance, please. On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:28:24 Paul Trusten wrote: 3. Rational. ... This list saw a huge discussion over the implications of changing the dimensions of the game of football to meters, and such a change ought to be well-debated in light of the furor it might cause in the sports world... Since football (the one as known in the US, or American football as known practically everywhere else!...) is an American sport, it probably would have been more accurate to restate the above sentence to read: among Americans, instead of 'in the sports world'. Interestingly, since real 'football' was developed in England, everything on the pitch is laid out in hard yards. A while back, FIFA looked into redimensioning the lines and goals in hard meters, but determined that any such changes would affect the play of the game too much and that proposal was subsequently abandoned, EXCEPT for the corner-kick arcs, which are now 1 meter in radius. -- ___ ___ Regards,||\ || | ||\ Michael G. Koerner May they || | || | rise again! Appleton, Wisconsin USA || | || | ___ || | || | ___
[USMA:25956] RE: point #4
That's O.K. I knew you got it from the source. As I said, I couldn't resist the opportunity to plug SI Navigator. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 18:30 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:25954] RE: point #4 Sorry, Bill---I was only peeking at the Constitution. I first peeked at it on this issue in 1974. - Original Message - From: Bill Potts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 6:03 PM Subject: [USMA:25953] RE: point #4 You must have been peeking at the Political Action section of SI Navigator (http://metric1.org/action.htm). g Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] Couldn't resist the plug. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 15:12 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:25952] point #4 4.National. Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, in part, that the Congress shall have power...To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;... As part of the same concept as that of coining money (a truly national arrangement), the US Constitution empowers the US Congress to establish a standard of measurement for the United States. That the US Congress has ever fulfilled its responsibility under this article is debatable. But the jurisdiction is clearly theirs, even though a few states, left to dangle without the federal metric mandate promised but not delivered under the 1998 US Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), have nevertheless forged ahead to design highways using wholly metric standards (some of thes states abandoned the effort because they were not part of a national measurement change). Attempts at metrication in the US shall never survive such a metrological Civil War, with non-metric states bordering metric states. It must be a process as national as the Constitution conceived it to be. Paul Trusten, R.Ph. 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 USA 432-694-6208 [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are two cardinal sins, from which all the others spring: impatience and laziness. ---Franz Kafka
