On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 16:08:58 kilopascal wrote: >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. ??? How can that be, John? There are literally hundreds of ifp units, besides, since they are all "irrational", how could they ever be "brought in line" via "rational" values??? Also, do not forget that many, many of these old units were "completely" off vis-a-vis one another. Finally, the burden of proof is on you, my friend, to show that metrication "worked" due to the "bastardization" of these people's old units. Please don't mix *a few* "rational" values (like the example you like to bring, pound=500 g) of old ifp units with *the whole* process. Even in >Europe today (and I'd bet Brasil too), some, not all, of the old names >persist. I can speak about Brazil and can assure you that ABSOLUTELY NO "old names" persist that are attached to *measurements*. What we have are *expressions* like "gallon" which refer to **large containers** (rather than some 4. some liters) or "palmo" (only related to popular jargons - again, no connexion with measurements at all), "vara" as just some piece/stick of wood with undefined length, and "alqueire" (area), who even the habitual "users" don't have a clue of how big it is!!! Ah, and yes, there is the hideous "arroba" (mass) that still persists, but only in commodities trading *because no attempt whatsoever has ever been made to "convert" it to a kilogram equivalent*!!! So, as you can see, your assumption is not necessarily true. The real "problem" will be unveiled a little further below. 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. > ? I honestly doubt it. But if you can provide hard evidence of such "social" behaviors on the part of those countries that underwent this metrication process I may be willing to take a second look at it. >Even is countries suppose to be 100 % metric, older units still persist in >conversation and trade. Not completely true. Please, see my earlier comments on this above. 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. > ? Where is the proof of this for the *other units*? The pound situation, for all I know, is just a very isolated case in Europe (besides, where is this true in Europe, i.e. how many European countries treat "the pound" in this fashion? Anyone?) >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. I don't honestly think so. In Brazil NO such tactics were EVER used. When metric came about 140 years ago things simply changed and the population went along. What you describe above might only be the case in some few countries where there might have been some special... "attachment" of the people towards those old units. But even so, I honestly don't see much evidence of this left. 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. > You seem to be forgetting a fundamental "ingredient" that was actually responsible for the success of metric: its DECIMAL nature! That's what carried and won the day actually. It's a pity but it's simply impossible to come up with rational approximations to every single old ifp unit out there. It simply can't work because metric is decimal whereas ifp is... hexadecimal, binary, duodecimal, octal?... Whatever!!! ;-) >It is not a method of making FFU friendly, but bringing metrication about in >a sneaky, back door sort of way. > As I commented earlier the real problem here is with anglo-saxon countries "emotional" attachment to their beloved (GGGGRRRRR....) stone-age units! Some of these people simply don't care, they want their gallons, ounces, pints, feet, inches, bla-bla-bla... And no *complete* rationalization of these units can ever be brought about. Again, it's MINDSET. That's what's gotta change! Until we can successfully work this out in their minds we have little chance. Marcus Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
