John:
We can't have it both ways.
We want everyone to switch to SI. We're hardly going to achieve that by
worrying about obsolete terms that people aren't going to change anyway. Do
you have a suggested strategy for doing that? Do you honestly think it's
worth the effort?
Regarding the pilot's statement regarding visibility, why would you care
whether it's nautical miles or statute miles? If it's a big number, the
visibility's good. If it's very small, the visibility's bad. Seems simple
enough to me. I think, in fact, that people would rather hear it in terms of
"unlimited," "good, "fair," etc., regardless of the prevalent units of
measure.
Bill Potts, CMS (currently traveling in England)
San Jose, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of kilopascal
> Sent: December 06, 2000 20:59
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:9583] Re: CIA World Fact Book
>
>
> 2000-12-06
>
> Why don't they just drop the term "mile" and just call the unit
> "nautical(s)". Nautical miles per hour will still be called knots, but it
> will be newly defined as nauticals per hour. I'm sure someone can come up
> with a proper symbol.
>
> The reason I think this would be a good idea is for a couple of reasons:
>
> 1.) It will dissolve the connection with statute miles.
>
> 2.) It will end the common practice of dropping the term "nautical" in
> peoples minds when nautical mile is used, thus allowing people to assume a
> nautical mile and statute mile are one and the same.
>
> Which reminds me; when an airline pilot is telling the passengers that he
> has x miles visibility or x miles of something, is he converting nautical
> miles to statute, or is he really telling us nautical miles and just
> dropping the term nautical? Does anyone know?
>
> I'm sure someone else can also come up with some good reasons to
> change the
> nautical mile name to something else.
>
> John
>
>
> There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely
> believe they
> are free!
>
> Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of James R. Frysinger
> Sent: Wednesday, 2000-12-06 19:23
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Cc: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:9582] Re: CIA World Fact Book
>
>
> I used "NM" in my career in the Navy and never saw it any other way,
> except for the occasional "n. mi." or the spelled out version. There is
> no international standard symbol for nautical mile that anyone on this
> list could find.
>
> Jim
>
> Gregory Peterson wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I faxed a suggestion to the CIA World Fact Book {they don't have
> an email address for some strange reason..... >;) } asking them
> to change the unit "nm" use for nautical miles to something more
> appropriate since "nm" means "nanometres".
> >
> > Today I received a call from a Mr. Bob Frasier (he told me his
> family was originally from Nova Scotia and he's related to the all
> the Frasiers 'down-east'). He manages the World Fact Book and was
> willing to change "nm" to "NM" since the Navy and Defence
> Department also use this capitalized abbreviation. Good enough for
> me. He also invited any other comments that I may have on the site.
> >
> > He told me that they receive 460'000 hits per month to their
> site, mostly from American school children. Since this site is
> primarily metric I was pleased to hear this statistic.
> >
> > greg
> > Saskatoon SK Canada
>
> --
> Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
> James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
> 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
>
>
>
