More that half the year, temperatures in our area are either a single-digit
or teens number. Of course the Fahrenheit folks insist on their "30s",
"40s", "50s, and "60s" etc.
Big numbers.
Nat
> Dear Joe,
>
> People are, and have always been comfortable with mountain heights - up to
> 29,012 feet, flight details that includes heights such as 35,000 feet, and
> ocean depths such as 20,000 Leagues.
>
> To say that they are now uncomfortable with large numbers
> (because they are
> associated with SI) is an obvious, ill-considered untruth, and should be
> treated as such.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pat Naughtin CAMS
> Geelong, Australia
>
> on 2001-03-03 06.36, Joseph B. Reid at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Gustaf Sjöberg reported in 11489:
> >
> >> The text below comes from bwmaonline.com.
> >> They have some interesting opininons about metric quantities and their
> >> disadvatages, and I have to say that I partly agree with them.
> >> This is an addition to the old deci - centi - discussion. It is obvious
> >> that pro-metric people stab theirselves in the back when they say that
> >> 1000-multiples should be the only allowed, and which they unfortunately
> >> still are.
> >>
> >> ...
> >> The experience of metric demonstrates that it provides anything but
> >> understandable information. This is
> >> owing largely to the abstract nature of metric units:
> >>
> >> Metrication results in huge numbers on food
> >> packaging (185g, 375g, 425g, 440g, etc). This vast
> >> increase in the size of numbers occurs because
> >> metric units are much smaller than customary
> >> units; 28 grams to one ounce, over 450 grams to
> >> one pound, 568 millilitres to one pint, and so
> >> forth.
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Metric fails to produce consistent or easily
> >> understood sizing scales. Unlike the 16oz pound that is
> >> geared to multiples of two, the kilogram cannot
> >> comfortably accommodate successive halving.
> >> Thus, while some metric packaging builds up as
> >> 100g, 200g, 400g, etc, this will not integrate with
> >> one kilogram meaning that other packaging
> >> progresses as 125g, 250g, 500g, etc. Other packaging
> >> uses 75g, 150g, 300g, etc while others still use
> >> 110g, 220g, 330g, 440g, etc. A large variety of
> >> packaged foods has no identifiable sizing scale at
> >> all, for example, tomato ketchup and brown
> >> sauce.
> >>
> >>
> >> The above factors have contributed to a general failure of metric units
> >> to find common acceptance by British people for food and
> >> drink packaging. Technically, metric indicates quantity as
> accurately as
> >> the
> >> customary system, but it fails to convey meaning or value. Whereas six
> >> ounces of cheese actually sounds
> >> like a quantity of cheese, 180g of cheese is just a very large number.
> >
> >
> > The British system was developed when ordinary people could
> only count to
> > twenty, and could not multiply and divide. John Napier tried to develop
> > aids for multiplication. That is why there is a chain of units, each
> > related to the next larger by a factor of 20 or less.
> >
> > In the 18th century it was assumed that ordinary folk could do
> arithmetic
> > and the metric system was based on this assumption. People can
> understand
> > prices with many digits, why not measures? I suspect the above
> objection
> > to metric is rooted in conservatism and chauvinism
> >
> > Joseph B. Reid
> > 17 Glebe Road West
> > Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
> >
>
>
>
