2002-06-28 don't forget now that Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the USA and many others were all part of the British Empire. Even though the USA broke free over 200 years ago, the US culture is still somewhat linked to Britain.
This is the common connection. Why the British culture has created such an aversion to learning and especially in the sciences, I haven't a clue. It could be all those centuries of using FFU. Where imperialists may claim FFU is "natural" and "time honoured", and metric is artificial, the fact that people can't do simple calculations may be a reflection on the confusion and difficulty of FFU. Even though some of these countries are metric and have to varying degrees been metric for about 30 years at the longest, their late arrival to using SI may have produced some damaging effects that will take generations to correct. And keep in mind, that none of these countries is 100 % metric either. Which adds more fuel to the fire. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wizard of OS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 2002-06-27 06:38 Subject: [USMA:20683] Re: Benefit of L/100 km vs. km/L > excuse me? > > that stupid are Aussies? > > man, up to my knowledge I should be God in contrast to them :-D and I am > just 19! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 4:44 AM > Subject: [USMA:20681] Re: Benefit of L/100 km vs. km/L > > > Dear John and All, > > I have interspersed some remarks. > > > People in North America can not even do the simplest of math. They NEVER > > calculate any form of fuel consumption, whether it be L/100 km, km/l or > mpg. > > They find out what the mpg rating is from some other source and when asked > > just repeat that same number. > > Sadly this is also true in Australia. I recall a survey of adult numeracy > that was carried out in the mid 1990s. This survey revealed that some 60 % > of adult Australian could not add three items from a lunch menu (such as > $4.60 + $5.90 + $4.45) to check that the total was correct. This level of > innumeracy moved up to around 90 % when the people were asked to add 10 % on > to this bill for a tip or to take 10 % from the bill as a discount. > > > It makes no difference if their car doesn't get that number, or their car > is > > older and doesn't perform as it once did. Once xxx mpg, always xxx mpg. > > And to calculate the fuel needed to drive 250 km, they don't care and > would > > never do the calculation. > > Either 'would not' or could not' do the calculation? > > I think that people simply get a number memorised and then use it for all > purposes. It is not unlike baby masses in pounds and ounces; you simply > remember one number and then no further calculations (that are very > embarrassing to an innumerate person) are required. I suspect that the > solution to this problem is the same as the baby mass issue; once people > know that the average baby is born at around 3.5 kilograms and that small > babies are 2.5 kg and big babies are 4.5 kg then they can come to terms with > their new baby's mass of (say) 3.6 kg. > > In fuel consumption terms you need to know: > that a very small economical cars use about five litres of fuel to go 100 > kilometres, > that large uneconomical cars use about twenty-five litres of fuel to go > 100 kilimetres, and > that the average is about ten litres of fuel per hundred kilometres. > > > The same is true with women's dress sizes. Once a size x, always a size > x. > > Even if she has turned into a Buffalo. The clever dress makers, just > change > > the size 9 to match the customer. That is the beauty of FFU. If you > don't > > like the length of the inch, just change it to what ever you want. > > And don't forget the computer industry with their 90 mm disk at 3 1/2 inc > and their short inches to measure screen sizes. > > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin CAMS > Geelong, Australia > >
