On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:44:09 Jim Elwell wrote: ... >I was not claiming that mandated metrication would fail, only that there is >no evidence that non-mandated won't work, because where it has failed the >global economic environment has been different than it is today for the USA. > Understood. But so far, I'm afraid you would not have much to celebrate, at least not yet. ;-)
... Marcus, then are you >> >saying that some country (or industry) in the world should switch to some >> >more rational time measurement system, the rest of the world be damned? >> > >>Perhaps, why not? > >I think we have a very fundamental difference here. To me, measurement >systems are "means" not "ends". If we have a universally-accepted and >workable version (i.e. time), why change it? Because we could be missing on something better???! That's why humanity prospers, Jim. Because it has this thirst to go beyond and challenge our current limits! We do not sit idly by celebrating our past laurels! We move forward, man! To me, a scientist, I'm not content with just 'workable versions', I want (and always will) more! I'd like to believe that this is an essential integral part of being humans, is it not?... ;-) > Any such change would be >terribly expensive, and I cannot imagine the cost could be recovered in any >reasonable amount of time. But, if that could be shown to be incorrect, >perhaps I would change my mind. > Wonderful! I don't think we have any fundamental disagreements here then. Very good. ... >>He, he... The only reason I don't have a 'metric clock' here is because >>I'm still coming to grips with what clock system would be THE best! > >Man, I should have known....!!! > Indeed. The day a group of experts arrives at a definitive conclusion about this, on that day I'd start campaigning for change (it goes without saying that I'd have to be convinced of the merits of such alleged new time system... ;-) ). ... >I believe there needs to be a rational recovery period, somewhat shorter >than infinity. 30 years or so would be appropriate, 100 years would be too >long to be justifiable. These are just gut feelings -- I cannot support >them beyond that. > The above is a very reasonable and correct position, of course. Again, we have no qualms here. Very good! ... >>I don't think so! All it proves is that you're still being able to turn >>up a profit using ifp, but at what cost??? Now, imagine a fictitious >>competitor being able to capitalize fully on the benefits of the SI.... > >Now, if only you and I could take a month off, meet in a huge conference >room, call on all our respective experts, generate some humongous >spreadsheets, and examine this in detail, we might be able to do an >analysis that we could both believe that would answer this question. Aside >from that, I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this point. >... Fine. I'd love to take on that challenge! :-) Actually, that was what I meant in the end, Jim. You caught the spirit! It's just unfortunate that many are not taking that calculated risk, like you did when you metricated your business! ;-) Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
