-----Original Message----- From: Ma Be <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: April 8, 2002 12:15 Subject: [USMA:19334] Re: Some definitional problems in SI
>On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 19:45:22 > James R. Frysinger wrote: >... >Ideally, yes, Jim, I agree with your statement, but when ordinary citizens like me can upon closer scrutiny point to some serious conceptual flaws with their efforts it gets one thinking, doesn't it? > >One should expect that these "professionals" would not commit such blatant/flagrant booboos. If one cannot find something better one is not excused to use what "is available" just because accuracywise one would have arrived at an improvement. In other words, is accuracy that much critical that one should abandon some fundamental principle for a sound system framework? For me, sufficient accuracy resides in the [wooden] metre sticks that I own and use. I am sure that many in [fairly simple] manufacturing situations would find that standard impractical. I would not poo-pooh their more stringent requirements. D. > >I'm sorry, Jim, but, firstly, I doubt I'd be the ONLY one complaining about this. I'm sure that there are others here that would express a similar concern. Secondly, you bet they DO have to justify what they are doing! A system of units affects EVERYBODY! The minimum the public should expect is that such professionals do their job in the most appropriate and effective way. <Great big snip> Duncan >Marcus >
