2000-12-07
I understand where all of you who commented on what I wrote are coming from.
First of all, I feel that when the US finally does convert, the nautical
mile will still remain a while longer. To those who prefer FFU, this can be
seen as a reason not to abandon FFU, because 'some" its units have a
practical use, then all must. This unit is assumed to be associated with FFU
because it has mile as part of its name. But, I don't associate the
nautical mile with FFU. I feel it is non-SI metric. I would, even if
others don't, place it in the same category along with bar, calorie, curie,
torr, atmosphere, etc.
It is a unit we want to abandon, but we don't want it to be associated with
FFU and used as a reason to delay abandoning other FFU units. By removing
the "mile" from the name, we disassociate it from FFU and associate it with
old metric. This is my reasoning behind advocating this type of change.
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 J. Wentworth
Sent: Thursday, 2000-12-07 10:43
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:9592] Re: CIA World Fact Book
I agree with Marcus. I use the three miles (nautical, statute and survey)
to my advantage. In conversation, I have asked people who used miles,
"Which mile? Nautical, statute or survey? They are quite different."
When, as usually happens, the speaker admits ignorance about this, I say:
"Why not just use kilometers? There's only one kind of those, so there can
be no confusion as to how far (or fast) it is."
Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: Ma Be <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:18 AM
Subject: [USMA:9590] Re: CIA World Fact Book
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:58:52 kilopascal wrote:
> >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.
> >
> And I respectfully disagree with doing that, John. But I hope
that you'll
understand why I'm opposed to it (more below).
>
> >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.
> >
> And that is *precisely* one of the reasons why I oppose it! Let
confusion
reign on this. Confusion is our friend! ;-) We don't want to see ifpists
having "easier" lives. Let them swallow their own (bitter) pill! Besides
we're advocating for this... thing to be dropped out of existence
altogether, therefore, why... "fix" it???
>
> >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.
> >
> But let them assume they are the same, only to later find out how wrong
they were! Hopefully this will make them think that perhaps it could be a
good idea to see it changed (even though it would be obvious which choice
they would make, but since there is not a shred of chance that metric
countries would ever adopt the statute mile, what option would be left?...
;-) ).
>
> >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?
> >
> This one I believe I can answer, as I'm also a pilot. No, they don't
"translate" anything, they generally use whatever information they have in
front of them. They just don't have the time to waste on making
conversions
from one into the other (but there are some exceptions though, as I've
"heard" some of them would go "the extra distance", but it's
actually rare).
>
> >I'm sure someone else can also come up with some good reasons to change
the
> >nautical mile name to something else.
> >
> Probably, but as for me I just want to see it DEAD, *period*!
> :-)
>
> Marcus
>
>
> Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
>
>
>
