-----Original Message----- From: Adrian Jadic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: January 28, 2002 10:54 Subject: [USMA:17702] Democracy and metrication
>This is my answer to a series of messages with different subjects in which >several others and Jim Elwell were involved. I had enough time to reflect on >the matter Sunday afternoon under the sun in my backyard. Here goes: > >So Jim: > >I was basically thinking of your model of "non-interventionist metrication". > >To get to the point: > >What you are saying Jim is that you favor the scenario where the US Gov. >should not intervene in metrication and let this at the discretion of the >industry which will eventually recognize the benefits of SI and adopt it by >reasons of efficiency. A very democratic way indeed. > >My point is that I am sure that the non-interventionist model will not work >alone. > >It will most likely create a huge confusion instead. Why? Because in the >absence of regulated standards the industry will come up with "industry >standards" > A 'standards' case in point. In response to queries from me, I have received e-mail responses [summarized] as follows: (The Mutual Group) ".. our standard of DD/MM/YYYY for external presentation" (TD Asset Management) "... it is standard procedure to format the date as month, day and year." It is difficult to imagine how 'market forces' would sort this kind of thing out much less result in an entirely different [but rational] standard viz. YYYY-MM-DD. Guess we need a standard meaning for 'standard'! Duncan > >Adrian
