A glaring example of U.S. non-conformism is in its highways, road maps and instrument clusters. To the south, there is [SI] Mexico. To the north, there is [SI] Canada.
Except for those Americans who never venture out of country, it would make great sense for the U.S. to harmonize its road transportation with its neighbors. Duncan -----Original Message----- From: kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Greg Peterson-office <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; US Metric Assn. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 21, 2002 00:51 Subject: [USMA:18320] Re: Q&A with Ottavio Cinquanta, president of International Skating Union >2002-02-21 > >>From my experience in visiting various companies, I can tell you from the >large amount of foreign machinery, none of it is converted to FFU for sale >here. Those machines that are computerised, may be programmed to display >data in FFU, but all the internal calculations are in SI. Even the >fasteners are in SI. As long as we continue to import, we will be importing >metric designed and metric manufactured products. > >Maybe some manuals and instructions are converted to FFU. I don't know for >sure. But, the machines I saw were definitely metric. But, as I mentioned >before, Americans have a knack for seeing something that is 100 % metric in >FFU. Looking at materials with a metric dimension stamped on the piece and >the American will ignore it and describe it in FFU. Mostly by knowing what >it should be, from what he was told it is. Some people are so use to this >way of accommodating metric that they don't see it as a hardship. And yes, >I'm sure mistakes are made and wastage is high, but the costs are passed >down or hidden. > >We also pay a price by being 40 % metric. Just think of the redundancy. A >company making widgets has to make two versions. A metric widget for those >that want metric and an inch widget for those that want inches. If there >was only one widget made, the costs would come down. To say we haven't >adopted the metric system is a half-truth. We have adopted it enough to >make production here costly and redundant. > >Who are we hurting? Only ourselves. > >John > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Norman Werling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "Greg Peterson-office" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "US Metric Assn." ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, 2002-02-20 22:38 >Subject: [USMA:18318] Q&A with Ottavio Cinquanta, president of International >Skating Union > > >> Karen Rosen Letters to the Editor >> Sports Reporter for Olympics AJC >> Atlanta Journal-Constitution >> >> Karen, >> >> I read with intense interest your subject piece "Points system proposed". >I >> note with special interest the last sentence of Mr. Cinquanta's answer to >> your fifth question. >> >> You asked, "How soon could this new system start?" >> >> The last two sentences of his answer read, "But change is slow. After >all, >> the U.S. still hasn't adopted the metric system." >> >> My comments follow. On the surface, what he says about the U.S. and the >> metric system appears to be pretty true. However, be assured that it is >> disadvantageous for any American business to ignore world markets since >the >> rest of the world uses the metric system. The lengths to which American >> business hides from the American public how mush metric really exists >within >> business is a disservice to America. It tricks the public into believing >> that we can safely ignore metric, but we cannot. Lots of foreign >companies >> will make products and send them to the U.S. bearing our antiquated >measures >> but they have a right to insist that products come to them measured with >the >> International System of Units (SI-metric). This hurts our exports. >> >> First and foremost, metric is much easier than miles/yards/feet/inches for >> distance, tons/pounds/ounces for mass (weight), and >> gallons/quarts/pints/fluid ounces for volume. American attempts to >> decimalize the foregoing are foolish because one still must still divide >by >> non-decimal numbers to move from one to another in each group. These >> require divisions by numbers such as 2, 3, 4, 12, 16, 1760, 2000, and >5280. >> >> The metric system simply involves moving the decimal point for changes of >10 >> when moving from smaller to larger such as milli- to centi- to deci- to >the >> "base unit" to deka- to hecto- to kilo-. >> >> Think about it, you move from milli-meters to kilo-meters, from >milli-liters >> to kilo-liters, and from milli-grams to kilo-grams simply by moving the >> decimal point. >> >> Americans like to think they are the smartest and then they handicap >> themselves by using an incomprehensible non-system when the cohesive >metric >> system is available and used everywhere else. Do we do this out of >> arrogance or fear or what? >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Norman Werling >> 1240 Hunters Drive >> Stone Mountain, GA 30083 >> 404-292-9328 >> >
