>From: "Joseph B. Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 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... I replied: >> 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. Kiopascal replied: >I don't see how it would be disastrous. A person who uses imperial would >ask for a pound and get 500 g. I doubt they would notice the difference. >The scales, however would be in kilograms and the merchant would weighs out >500 g when a pound is asked for instead of fiddling with 454 g conversion >factors. I'm sure most guess anyway. > >This would require a change to kilogram scales in the US, which should just >require a flip of a switch (internally) on digital scales. But, in Canada >and Britain, where the scales are already or predominately in kilograms the >switch would go un-noticed. > >When I was in Calgary a few moths ago, the deli counter was all in 100 g >(hectogram) units at the stores I visited. Nothing was priced per pound. >The only thing I saw priced per pound, were produce sold in bulk. Like >bunches of carrots or heads of lettuce. Items that were already a fixed >size by nature, but were priced in pounds in large text and kilograms in >small text. You could not ask for a given number of pounds, just take what >was there. > >But, where you would ask, everything was priced in "hectograms" with no >imperial conversions. > >However, well over 90 % of pre-packaged goods were labeled in metric only, >even if about half the products were soft conversions of US sizes. All prepacked food in Canada must have its quantity expressed in metric units. I have no objection to the retailer weighing out 500 g for a customer who asks for a pound. However, the merchant is unlikely to advertise the price per 500 g as the price per pound. 500 g should have no acknowledgement in writing or print as a pound. Joseph B. Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
