As long as National Geographic has no competition, they will continue to use ifp, so we have to find a competitor magazine and buy it.
Madan --- kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [USMA:18966] Re: National geographic again > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:16:48 -0500 > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 2002-03-21 > > If National Geographic feels that it has to use FFU > in English because of > its American audience, that is a decision we have to > live with for now. > But, that does not justify using FFU for English > speakers world-wide. The > logical thing to do would be to publish a metric > edition for the rest of the > English speaking world. > > But, let's face facts. Such an endeavour would not > be cost effective. We > as metric proponents have argued for years that > American companies are at a > disadvantage because they will either have to go > completely metric or > manufacture two different product lines for the > American market based on FFU > and the world market based on metric. But, American > industry doesn't seem > to have been scared by our argument. They seem to > feel that they can > produce a single product entirely in FFU and still > sell it to the world. > And so far, they can! > > Unless there is a significant number of complaints > from people (and/or > governments) around the world that demand metric or > else, and the American > market is no longer able to sustain American > industry, don't expect these > people to bend just because we think they should. > The US will change only > when it hurts them where it counts....in the wallet. > > John > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ezra Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, 2002-03-21 17:24 > Subject: [USMA:18962] Re: National geographic again > > > > I'm still puzzled how National Geographic can > convert to metric in > languages > > other than English but still support the use of > only US customary units in > > the English-language edition (because the US set > of units is not entirely > > identical to the Imperial set of units). Do they > perhaps figure that since > > they claim nearly all English-language readers are > American (can this > really > > be true?) and that the US system is close enough > to the Imperial one so as > > not to matter? (After all, saying "millions of > gallons" is essentially > > identical whether you're referring to the US or > the Imperial set of > units). > > > > Ezra > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards� http://movies.yahoo.com/
