If your goal is to continue to try to persuade each other of the merits of complete metric conversion, you're right.
> > Script like this needs to be seen by more people - that is, people who > influence USA's future. > > May I suggest you send this e-mail to various newspapers, film > (documentary) makers, and such nice folk as the Secretaries of the > Interior, Education, Trade, Media and whatever other Secretaries there are > in Washington? > > Best regards > > Mike > Perth, Australia > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 11:07 AM > Subject: [USMA:21925] Re: Dual labeling > > > | On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:35:54 > | David Owen wrote: > | >Marcus: I think metric purists are too infatuated by the possibility of > | >sorting all human activity into the smallest possible number of > categories. > | >All the absurdly anachronistic measurement units that you despise arose > to > | >meet human needs. > | > | I have never denied that the archaic ifp system had its merits. > However, > for crying out loud, this is the 3rd millennium! There is absolutely no > more reason for the existence of this mediocrity of associating sizes of > things to human parameters. The whole philosophy of measuring > things using > human parts is utterly *wrong*! We have come a long way towards > understanding metrology. Using foot, palms, inches, hands (a HUGE SIC!!!) > and whatever other stuff there is out there is like driving a bouncing > Betty and a modern Formula 1 Ferrari! The difference is so huge that even > the thought of using such antiqued stuff should make people blush with > shame! (Honestly! I would!!!). So, I'm really sorry if I can't shed one > picoliter of tear in favor of this thing! > | > | > Not all of those human needs have gone away, and it is > | >self-defeating for metric evangelists to pretend they don't exist. > | > | ?? And where is it that SI would not fill 'human needs'??? Despite its > flaws, the SI is *still* the best tool around for undertaking issues > involving measurements. > | > | > There's > | >a sort of beautiful symmetry to the way metric units nest together in > | >orderly decimal columns and rows, but there are many applications for > which > | >the metric system is less than ideally suited. > | > | A resounding and very loud **NO**, there simply isn't!!! So what if > sizewise the meter as a size would not be ideal for certain applications? > The concept of creating "ideal" sizes depending on the application is a > HUGE MISTAKE, David! That's what got the ifp system into trouble. We > don't NEED to do this. This is completely counterproductive and a very > flawed approach when it comes to dealing with the subject of measurements. > | > | Anybody who studies the field of metrology and understands what is > involved in developing a system of units would arrive at the same > conclusion. Please, note that it CAN'T be any other way. Otherwise, a > system of measurements would not be the domain of science, but art!!! > | > | Now, the beauty of the SI system is that it has the backing of > scientific > research and sound theory behind it. For instance, is the meter too big? > Fine, use the cm, or dm, or mm, whatever prefix would come closest to > serving well the application in question. Now, try that with a mediocre > "system" like ifp which is thoroughly based on using "convenient" > sizes for > certain applications. The end result? Chaos! Because one would have to > come up with a myriad of different sizes to suit every application under > the sun, which is a complete absurdity!!! Now, to your example below. > | > | > In carpentry, for example, a > | >metric tape measure is in many ways harder to use than a nasty old > American > | >one: > | > | I ***v-e-h-e-m-e-n-t-l-y, wholeheartedly*** disagree!!!!! IMHO there is > absolutely NOTHING desirable in this silly ifp tape whatsoever! It's > cluttered with subdivisions which are confusing, ill-devised and > that serve > for nothing (except if you loooove to do math with idiotic fractions...)! > | > | I conducted a simple experiment with several people here, and > I'm talking > about ordinary folks, those who are NOT of the profession. The result? > I've got near unanimous agreement from people who claimed that using and > reading a metric tape was far easier and simpler to deal with than the ifp > counterpart. Why? Here is a sample of the opinions I've got: > | > | - It's hard to understand how the subdivisions in an ifp tape work. We > usually have difficulty identifying what's 3/4 or 7/16 or whatever. If we > were to ever conduct simple math operations involving measured values we > would be in trouble because we would have to use fractions to do > it. There > is nothing of the kind with a metric tape! > | > | - Reading a metric tape is a lot faster for us. It's simple, direct, > there is little confusion about where the 3 or 2 or 7 mm marks are. In > case you're in doubt, just count the ticks! It's that simple! However, > the fact that there are five of them in a small subdivision makes > identifying any of these almost instantaneous. Example? 3 is > closer to 5, > grab the outside tick to the left of it. 2? It's evidently closer to the > 0 mark, do likewise to the other side, closest to it. And so it goes. > With the ifp tape, how the heck am I supposed to distinguish between, say, > 3/4 and 11/16??? How do I "count" with this thing??? > | > | The above, mind you, are *real* testimonies of people concerning the use > of these tapes. Now, evidently, if you talk about professionals, being > used to using these instruments they'd probably face much less difficulty. > But, please remember, that it's the *LAYMAN'S* opinion that should settle > the score about concepts such as usability, simplicity, ease of use, etc. > | > | I've grown up with the metric system and it was only much later that I > had to deal with the ifp stuff, and I'll be honest and blunt with > you (this > happened **before** I was "awakened" to this problem and became a metric > activist!): it's simply attrocious! I would NEVER want this burden for > anybody, not even for my worst enemy! > | > | The other day we've received the visit of a *professional* in carpentry > who has years and years of experience doing measurements and all. His > testimony, which was completely "uncoached" (I didn't influence him in any > way whatsoever) was very enlightening. He was appalled at the quality > level of our construction industry in North America. Despite having years > of experience using feet, inches and the likes, he completely > despises this > system and can never get used to using it. Back in the Tcheck republic he > came from years and years ago he never had the kinds of > difficulties he now > has with what he himself called "this crazy incomprehensible mix of feet, > inches and yards" that we have over here! 'Nough said!... ;-) More > below. > | > | > a millimeter is smaller than the tip of a builder's pencil > and narrower > | >than the blade of a saw, > | > | So what? I would never sacrifice the added accuracy afforded by the mm > compared to the 1/8 of an inch that most ifp tapes have. If the saw's > blade is thicker than a mm, fine, discount its size from the final piece > and presto, no big deal! > | > | > and the closely packed, uniform gradations on the > | >tape are difficult to distinguish visually except in bundles of five, > | > | ??? I'm sorry, but the above is completely against the experience I've > had as I've described above. I don't recall hearing from *anybody* that > this was such a difficulty. Quite the contrary actually. Perhaps you, > personally, suffer from some personal visual acuity difficulty or > something > (no offense intended, please). It's the *distinction* between divisions > that showed to be paramount in the testimonies I've described above. In > other words, how to *distinguish* (or *identify*) between fractions when > reading a certain measurement on paper and relating it to the > physical tape > that was behind most of the woes that people had when dealing with ifp > tapes! > | > | > and > | >there are no intermediate units between the centimeter and the meter. > | > | ? I beg your pardon? What do you mean? Honestly? Metric tapes are > usually very simply divided up. The size of the smallest tick is mm, a > group of 10 of these is usually easily printed as either 1 (cm) > or 10 (mm), > depending on the design of the tape. To simplify reading the number of > ticks you have a bigger tick for the 5 mm mark. Once you have 100 (cm) or > 1000 of these (mm) you have the meter. There is no need to > clutter it with > decimeters. Each meter usually is printed with a bigger font for it, and > in red. Anyone with simple brains can identify ANY value on paper and > easily "find" it in the tape. So, I'm sorry, but you totally > lost me here. > | > | As a > | >tool, it doesn't work as well, no matter how elegantly simple it may > seem in > | >theory, and no matter how easy it may be to convert the dimensions of > | >building materials from one system to the other. > | > > | ? I disagree. I have years of experience doing measurements for all > sorts of applications using *both* tapes. But after so much frustration > with the ifp one I simply sent mine to the garbage bin and NEVER looked > back! I want NOTHING to do with this mediocre piece of trash EVER in my > life! > | > | When I contracted people out to finish my basement I insisted on getting > people who would work in metric (it was very tough, living in Canada and > all...). I was unfortunately not too successful in getting everyone I > needed it, but after the job was done I was able, BTW, to win one convert > whose testimony warmed my heart, as he said to me and my wife: "You know > what? I actualy liked dealing with metric measurements and I honestly > wished our folks here gave it a try. I was glad I didn't have to figure > out things in fractions and all, but do just simple adding arithmetic to > get the numbers I needed"... Again, this testimony was > completely uncalled > for and voluntarily given, mind you!!! We didn't force him to "like" > metric, we just allowed facts to do their work! ;-) > | > | One other incident worth mentioning was the lousy type of work I was > getting from another pair of workers who unfortunately got > everything wrong > (despite my doing the informal conversions for them!... Sigh...) and if I > hadn't intervened to correct the situation in time I'd have serious > grievances to fix later on as the space I had was very tight and did not > allow or had room for ANY small mistakes! > | > | >Some members of this group are annoyed by the perseverance of > "Babylonian" > | >clocks, but the truth is that the world's system of measuring time is > | >already everything the metric system has ever dreamed of being: it's > | >universally used and universally understood, and it requires next to no > | >translation from culture to culture, and it's imprinted so deeply in > human > | >consciousness that even young children can mentally replicate it -- for > | >example, by counting "Mississippi"s. > | > | So what? It's not because everyone knows it and how to use it > that makes > it *technically* superior to a metric version of it, is it?!!! > | > | > Changing the second's length might > | >quell the annoyance of theoretical purists, but it would create global > | >chaos. > | > | Perhaps, granted. But it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons. I'd > like to believe that the pros would outweigh the cons **in spite of its > present universality**! > | > | > The "metric second" is an extreme example of theoretical rigidity, > | > | ? Why would that be, David? If *technically* speaking it's been proven > that a decimal system is superior, why would you call this "rigidity" if > this were just a scientific fact? Science doesn't lie, my friend. Facts > are facts... > | > | >but the same urge for consistency at any cost is often evident among > less > | >doctrinaire metric advocates, who seldom acknowledge that > there possibly > | >could be any situation in which coldly logical metric units work less > well > | >than quirkier alternatives. David Owen > | >... > | David, I'm yet to see or hear ANY reasonable justification for the > perpetuation of alternative systems of measurements to SI. Experience and > theory have been proving over and over and over again (and it can't be > otherwise!) that it IS worth going through the trouble of > metrication/conversion. The long run benefits of using an unquestionable > superior and modern system far outweigh the seemingly (but *wrong*) > comfortable, "familiar" use of 'quirkier' alternatives! I'm > sorry, but the > burden of proof to the contrary is on YOUR shoulders, not ours... > | > | Regards, > | > | Marcus > | > | > | Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably > | Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. > | Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com > | > | >
