John Kilopascal wrote in USMA 15094: >Another thing to ask is if they will accept changing the value of imperial >units to match those of metric. If they try to fall back on heritage, ask >them "what heritage?", as the values of imperial units have changed >throughout history every so often, so what is wrong with one more change? >It seems changing the values of imperial units is part of imperials heritage >and it would be keeping with that heritage to change the values again. > >The advantages would out-weigh the disadvantages: 1.) The pound could be >set equal to 500 g, thus making it equal to the livre and pfund. 2.) It >would make comparison shopping easier for those who think in imperial and >products are in SI. 3.) Confusion resulting from similar names, but >different values, such as: mile, nautical mile; US pint/quart/gallon and UK >pint/quart/gallon; short ton, long ton, tonne, metric ton - all close in >value but not the same, etc. 4.) It is common practice to interchange the >unit names yard and metre, especially in the press, if the yard is set equal >to the metre then either term will mean the same thing. 5.) And more... That is a disastrous suggestion. One would have to say "old pounds" or "new pounds", otherwise there would be dangerous confusion. I don't know how European countries managed to convert the livre or Pfund to 500 grams, but I would not want to wish this confusion on the American or Canadian public. In Canada it is legal to sell loose retail food by the kilogram or 100 grams, or by the pound or ounce. It has just struck me that one of the reasons that most food is priced by the pound is that the price by the kilogram looks too large, and "100 g" takes more space on the price tag than "lb.". That would not apply if Metric Commission Canada had not frowned upon hectogram, dekagram, and decigram. Pricing by the pound (lb.) has no advantage over pricing by the hectogram (hg). Joseph B. Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
