Whether or not a person is mathematically impaired has no bearing on the metric system at all. Learning a new system of measurement is like learning a new language - It's foreign to start, but once you've learned it it all seems pretty equal.
I would like to see more metric in the marketplace. Perhaps instead of making a legally mandatory conversion, Washington could simply attempt to divert some of those free market forces by offering tax incentives or something to businesses that sell exclusively in metric (or very minor dual labelling such as the inside track of a speedometer and some such) I've seen some dual marked mile/km signs along a few roadways - I'd like to see more of that... Well, anyway, I'd better go before I babble any more. Johnathan McClure ----- Original Message ----- From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:37 PM Subject: [USMA:22753] RE: A new system > 2002-10-17 > > These are vague visualisations used by vast majority of Americans who are > functionally innumerate. FFU was developed for and by such people, and that > is why the mathematically impaired cling to it. It was never meant to be > exact. That is why for centuries before the advent of the metric system, > there were thousands of variations on every unit within FFU. > > Apparently today, most people can not visualise distances in FFU, so they > resort to visualisations. > > Even though a football field may be a little over 90 m, the visualisation is > meant to be a rough estimate, and just one can also visualise it as 100 m, > making it easier to do conversions back to SI. > > Isn't it sad that instead of teaching and learning SI as a proper system for > descriptive measurement, we would rather revert to these primitive types of > visualisations. It really shows that America is regressing, when methods of > ignorance are promoted over methods of intelligence. > > John >
