On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:25:31 Adrian Jadic wrote: ... >I don't know how other USMA members on this list feel about it but I for one >I find that it does not reflect USMA's real mission nor does it's originator >seem to understand what a metric transition truly implies. > Adrian does have a point here, and an important one I must add. Despite our having had discussed this at length it may be important to either rekindle it or remind everyone of what's at stake here.
>There is no way that we can talk about metrication in US without involving >us in standardization. Like I said in my letter to MT, if USMA's ultimate >goal is to have the metric system (solely) used throughout the country than >this can ONLY be achieved by implementing *hard* metric standards. > Indeed the above is paramount. How can we consider that the US would have "gone metric" if it would still put out products like 946 mL, 3.78 L containers? Isn't the purpose of a switch to make everyone's lives easier? What purpose would the above have in terms of bringing us to a better playing field? If one continues to produce such nonsense it perhaps would have been better if we returned to the quart and gallon crap after all! Like Adrian I do feel extremely frustrated with this situation, of seeing products that come labeled in such fashion, **even if they're labeled with NOTHING ELSE but metric units**!!! To me such examples are *clear indication* that they really didn't get the message after all. Producing and labeling things in this manner only bring grief and confusion to the market. It stifles and sabotages the whole effort behind metrication. That's why soft metrication can only be accepted on an interim basis. Soft metrication should NEVER be a permanent process. >In this case ISO 216 is a hard metric standard for printing media that is >used by the rest of the world except USA and Canada to my knowledge... > >The answer to US metrication ***is*** in the adoption of international >standards when US has no better suggestion to make... Now, certain industrial standards, like the one cited above, does not necessarily have to be adopted. True, this particular one does make sense, but what if there could be advantages in adopting, say, a 100 by 200 mm piece of paper (as in, say, scrapbooking)? What if there were interesting applications associated with this format? That is an aspect that one should also consider, Adrian. In other words, industrial standards are important and should be encouraged and all, but sometimes one should be flexible enough to choose alternative formats if such choice could be justified. >This is also the only attitude the US should adopt if it really wants to >work towards globalization. The "we have our own standards and if you don't >like it, too bad" attitude will only lead back to isolationism. > True. If all they'd be doing is being different for the sake of being different, then, that's evidently lame. >If we fool ourselves that a US metrication is possible only by including >metric units on labels or having speeds in km/h we are in for a huge >deception. >Come to think about it, this may be the very reason why although USMA was >founded in 1916, 85 years later it has still not achieved it's goal. > This reminds me of the situation here in the North. I also don't see much sense in labeling stuff in metric (even metric-only) if the end result is the silly 341 mL, 1.02 kg and other idiocies. On the other hand, I'd probably choose metric-only labels over dual rational ifp sizes! If only for the exposure factor. So, what do I mean by the above apparent contradictory statement? Simple, that when we approach a company used to producing rational products in ifp, we should tell them that they *ought* to change their internal processing of producing products to render their operational parameters of reference rational *in metric* AND **first** and foremost! In other words, in order for them to fully benefit from metrication it behooves them to change their very fabric. It would be a nuisance for them to adopt soft metrication, even if metric-only, as a *permanent* way to go! Ultimately they ought to make things rational *in metric* to enjoy the full benefits of the SI system. On the other hand, given external constraints, I'd rather have them use soft metrication internally and have them reflect it in their external labeling than for them to do nothing about it. They'd still enjoy the benefits of SI, but unfortunately such benefits would not be as clear cut as otherwise. >Only an initial conversion of all US standards to metric will ever permit a >general transition in the country. How can we expect that a common citizen >who learned ifp in school and uses ifp at work, calibrates its scales in ifp >reads OSHA standards in ifp, National Electrical Code in ifp, ASME standards >in ifp, will ever, ever, agree to buy his gas in liters or it's meat in >kilograms? > The above does make sense with things like testing procedures, regulatory guidelines and the like. However, the lack thereof may not necessarily hinder the process altogether. I'll give you an example. In Brazil we still deal with pipe sizes in ifp, and some people even refer to them as such. However, when it comes to design specs, operational stuff, it's all made in metric terms. It's a nuisance seeing drafts with things like 2,54 cm x 5,08 cm, etc, but at least they don't even think that this is inch in disguise. I don't like this situation, obviously, but at least we're shielded from using and operating in the other field. There is evidently a danger in doing and accepting this. That's why we should be vigilant when someone approaches us with things like the above. Because we never know if in the end these folks would want us to replace them by 1" by 2", if you know what I mean! In other words, accepting such things may backfire and some people may naively be convinced and led to believe that they would be better off starting to use ifp in their internal operations. >I am not an easy guy and that's why I joined this association and movement. >If the very core of our assc. denies the crucial importance of adopting HARD >metric standards in achieving metrication in US I seriously wonder if they >are true proponents or disguised enemies of the movement. > Again, your point is very well taken, and I guess it would be difficult for anyone to deny its merit. >Finally, I want to point out that this is not how I understand the meaning >of USMA's stated goal and that I entirely disagree with the quoted statement >from MT. >... Inasmuch as it could hinder the process itself, true. But it's somewhat still debatable if it really would (please see my comments above on this). Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
