2001-09-02
Metrication was accomplished quicker in Europe in the 18-th century simply
because the old units were set equal to rational metric units. Even in
Europe today (and I'd bet Brasil too), some, not all, of the old names
persist. If the authorities of the time did not change the values of the
old units to those that equaled rational metric units, the resistance would
have been stronger and the metric system might have died out completely. We
have to look at this reality.
Even is countries suppose to be 100 % metric, older units still persist in
conversation and trade. But, the official units and devices are metric.
Metrication would never had worked in many of these countries if there
wasn't some sort of compromise between the old and the new. And it does
make it easier for everyone when the old units are set equal to rounded
numbers in metric. There is nothing wrong with making a pound equal to 500
g, as long as no scale or label uses the word pound. The word pound is
restricted to spoken usage only. A customer asks for a pound. The scale
used to determine that pound is one calibrated in kilograms and the vendor
weighs out 500 g. That is the way it is in most of the world. And this is
the way it will work here.
By doing exactly what others did in the past that worked, is the path we
must take today. I believe it is the only way that will work. FFU must
become a form of hidden metric. Once the population has adjusted to the new
definitions, then they can be lured away from the old terms. The old terms
would never be official, and never appear as legal units, just slang terms
spoken amongst the majority ignorant.
It is not a method of making FFU friendly, but bringing metrication about in
a sneaky, back door sort of way.
John
Noch 120 Tage bis der €uro als Bargeld kommt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 2001-09-02 15:18
Subject: [USMA:15104] Re: Weights and Measures
> Dear John,
>
> I guess we have been over this issue once. I don't remember if this is a
"new" position on your part or what, but it doesn't matter.
>
> Unfortunately this is one of the very, VERY few points that we seem to
have a disagreement on, my friend. I'm sorry to say it, but I canNOT
support such a plan AT ALL. As I've already indicated in this forum in the
past, I have very strong objections to this mainly because instead of
bringing these people "on board" what we would actually be doing is firming
up/strengthening their reluctance NOT to use metric measurements. This plan
would simply perpetuate the use of ifp units forever. That's why I MUST say
no to this and I'll do it till the day I die!...
>
> I know we seem to be in an uphill battle, and I know you're just trying to
help finding permanent solutions to this problem and all. But we're not
supposed to make their lives easier, but simply to continue pressing the
issue that they ultimately MUST make a choice. If you bring ifp "in line"
with metric via "rounding" ifp definitions to match more metric-friendly
values even the more reason you'll be giving them NOT to give up their
"beloved" (SIC) pounds, ounces, feet and whatever other crap they use.
Doing this will NOT change their measurement mindset, John, and this is what
REALLY matters. They need to be convinced to change their mindsets to
"think decimal", it's THE ONLY WAY! Making ifp (FFU) units "friendly" will
do nothing to accomplish that.
>
> Also, in essence, simply put I don't want to EVER, EVER have to put up
with continuing to hear @#$%# feet, inches and the likes. Justing hearing
these words gives me the creeps! :-( You can call me radical if you want
(sorry, folks...), but I cannot and will not compromise on this. ;-)
>
> Other than that, good try, my very good friend.
>
> Take care.
>
> Marcus
>
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:55:08
> kilopascal wrote:
> >2001-09-01
> >
> >Han,
> >
> >Well, it seems they answered you on the most recent questions. Maybe,
you
> >can repose the questions we asked a few months back and never got
answered.
> >
> >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 am not advocating any acceptance of FFU on a legal basis or for FFU
terms
> >to appear in print or be spoken officially. But, the reality is, FFU
terms
> >do persist, even in solid metric countries. If these "slang" terms are
> >given new meanings with rational SI terms, it benefits both camps. They
can
> >continue to use their old names as part of their heritage and we can feel
> >comfortable that they are really using hidden metric. It is much easier
for
> >us to work with someone stating their weight as 180 pounds and the pound
is
> >500g, then when it is 454 g. We can instantly convert mentally to 90 kg.
> >
> >This may be the only way to get metric accepted. When you change the
values
> >of FFU to a point where people can easily convert between the two, then
SI
> >will seem easier to the public. At present, a people use to a pound does
> >not see the advantage of metric if that pound equals 454 g. They will
see
> >the SI in a better light if a pound is 500 g or half-a-kilogram. Set the
> >quart equal to the litre and the ton equal to the tonne and you have done
> >more to promote metric then all the efforts over the past 200 years.
Make
> >FFU a form of hidden metric and the battle is virtually won. I think it
is
> >the only way.
> >
> >People don't care about how much easier metric is vs. FFU, they care
about
> >the names they have etched into their brains. They don't want to learn
new
> >names. So, set those names equal to something rational, and even if they
> >are not aware, they will be using SI.
> >
> >Han, you may be the "force" to convince them that this is their only
hope,
> >as SI will win out with them or without them. Give it a try!
> >
> >
> >john
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Saturday, 2001-09-01 09:29
> >Subject: [USMA:15091] Fw: Weights and Measures
> >
> >
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "BWMA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 11:53 AM
> >> Subject: Weights and Measures
> >>
> >>
> >> > Han,
> >> > You asked some questions recently regarding BWMA and weights &
measures.
> >> Here
> >> > are some answers.
> >> >
> >> > Q: What is the BWMA's position about the present official [metric]
> >> definitions
> >> > of the foot, inch, pound, the Imperial gallon etc?
> >> >
> >> > A: None. Measurements are determined in terms of distance travelled
by
> >> the
> >> > speed of light. Scientists largely use the metric system, and did so
> >when
> >> > measuring the speed of light, so the definition of distance and other
> >> > measurements is recorded in metric. When drawing up legislation,
these
> >> are
> >> > the definitions that legislators used. If BWMA were to have a policy
on
> >> this,
> >> > I think it is most likely that we would ask that legal definitions be
> >> given in
> >> > both metric and inch-pound.
> >> >
> >> > Q: What is the BWMA's position on Britain having signed the Metric
> >> Convention
> >> > in 1884 and being a member state of the International Bureau of
Weights
> >> and
> >> > Measures under this convention?
> >> >
> >> > A: None. We have no objection to people using metric units.
> >> >
> >> > Q: I agree with you about confusing and misleading pricing but not
with
> >> > blaming the metric system per si for such con-tricks. Defective
> >> legislation
> >> > should be blamed for it, not a system of units. Supporters of the
metric
> >> > system oppose and condemn such misleading pricing.
> >> >
> >> > A: The current consumer protection laws are watertight - so long as
> >weight
> >> and
> >> > prices are show, no deception has occurred. We argue that lack of
> >> consumer
> >> > familiarity/acceptance of metric indications (eg 650g, 450ml, etc)
> >causes
> >> > consumers to ignore or disregard the weight indications, thereby
> >> undermining
> >> > the legislation.
> >> >
> >> > Finally, regarding the private Eye article ("...aubergines 0.395 kg @
> >> > #2.31/kg"), we draw attention to bad metric practice - however, this
is
> >> not
> >> > the sole reason for BWMA's opposition to compulsory use of metric -
we
> >> also
> >> > oppose it for reasons of heritage, consumer protection, bureacracy,
etc.
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards,
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > Visit www.bwmaOnline.com - campaigning for inch-pound industries and
> >> consumer interests
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
> http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
>
