At 7 November 2002, 03:30 PM, Ma Be wrote:
Firstly, we're dealing with *EU's PARLIAMENT* here, NOT US Congress! US manufacturers would need to comply with *EU's rules* if they want to sell their products there, just like everybody else would also have to comply with US rules when selling products in US territory! This is just fair and how things should be: **respect** OTHER countries trade rules (for a change!... ;-) ) just like others respect yours!Sorry for missing that -- I obviously jumped into the middle of the discussion and missed that part.
My comments were solely aimed at the USA. I couldn't care less what Germany or England or France or any other country does. In fact, if the EU actually enforced their trade rules, it would speed up metrication in the USA. Funny, Marcus, that you point the finger at the US rather than the EU, when it is clearly the EU's responsibility to enforce its rules, not the US's.
(Your "respect" comment is meaningless -- is it a rule (law) to be enforced or is it just a suggestion? There are no other alternatives.)
Yea, I know, market power, etc. But we don't agree on that at all.
>Marcus, you just make American metrication all that much harder to achieveThis misses my major point: promotion of "rational" package sizes will SLOW DOWN US METRICATION!!
>when you promote this type of thinking. It's bad enough to want the
>government to mandate metric, but now you want the government to mandate
>what size of packages can be used.
Absolutely! Why? If one opens the door to such ridiculous sizes it won't be long till others follow suit, and when they do and people finally complain about the stupidity of such mediocre sizes the argument will finally pop: "well, let me then label these with what they really are, nice 1 qt, 20 oz, 12 oz, 1 lb, etc." Therefore, this is **utterly unacceptable** a danger/risk to run! (Sorry...)
Even if we agreed that your so-called "rational" sizes were good, that does not change the fact that Americans hate being told how to run their lives, and we have enough of a battle metricating the USA as it is. Adding this totally-unnecessary and unrelated-to-SI issue just makes the battle harder.
If nothing else, Marcus, don't bring this up in the USA until we have achieved a reasonable level of metrication. Please!!!!
>(2) ignores the myriad of issues that might cause a manufacturer to want toWith all due respect, Marcus, you continue in what the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises terms "arrogance of knowledge."
>use odd sizes, ranging from using existing machinery and tooling,
Lame excuses! No machinery that I know of prevents manufacturers to *round* off values to rational amounts. Example: instead of packaging something with 454 g, package it with 400 g (or whatever value that would turn out to be in crappy lb/oz combination), no big deal! We see this done ALL the time here in Canada.
The same applies to tools. Tools CAN accommodate a myriad of sizes when used. If not, then it's really time to change them to *smarter*, more flexible ones (an expense they'd be supposed to incur anyways!...).
There is NO WAY you understand all the implications of mandating rational package sizes. In just the USA, there are hundreds of millions of products in production, there are about 15 million businesses, there are untold trillions of dollars of machinery and equipment, there is stuff you have never even heard of!!
You, nor any other human being, can POSSIBLY know all the implications of mandating something like "rational" package sizes. Yet you are more than willing to force these rules onto people, with nary a care about what it may do to some businesses.
Just one example of where "rational" packaging is foolish: I recently had Lasik surgery (btw -- HIGHLY recommended!). For four weeks after, I had to use a special "preservative free eye drops" several times a day. I don't know about you, but I had never even HEARD of such a thing before this surgery!
Yet, they are one of the 50,000 items available in most grocery stores (actually, several brands of them). Since they are preservative free, they come in little plastic ampules. There is a few drops of liquid in each one -- you twist off a plastic cap, put in the drops, then discard it.
So, what is the "rational" amount of solution that each ampule should hold, Marcus? 1 mL? 2 mL? Well, the *truly* rational amount is about 2 drops per eye, or four drops total. The volume of a drop depends, of course, on the viscosity of the fluid.
Should the manufacturer change the viscosity to maximize the "rational" package utilization, even if that makes them less ideal as an eye drop? Or perhaps include extra of this sterile fluid, knowing it will be thrown away, just so the label on the box is a nice, round number?
As a matter of fact, I don't even know if the volume is labeled on the box, since the only thing that the consumer cares about is the number of ampules.
Acceptable values according to German laws:
1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 750, 800, 900, 1 kg!
I dare you to prove to us that you would absolutely unquestionably require ANY package size for mass to deviate from any of the above values!!!
Why do you limit it to mass? And see the above example.
Again, we're in the 3rd millennium, Jim. Technology has evolved to such an extent that making such changes are no longer the big deal they used to be!!! And THAT is an undeniable fact!It can't be undeniable -- I am denying it. As I said above, you cannot possibly know that your claims are true for all of the hundreds of millions of products and tens of millions of businesses in the world.
This is not a matter of 'forcing our fetishes onto the rest of you', but to create a base/infrastructure for rational trading, Jim. Enough of excuses, if one does not want to be part of the solution, at least do not be part of the problem!There is NO need for your "rational" package sizes to promote "rational" trading, Marcus! How has the USA become the biggest importer/exporter in the world, and the biggest economy in the world, if "rational" packaging is so important?
Answer -- "rational" packaging is a non-issue in the trade world. Well, that's not entirely true: the cargo container is a very important "rational" package. Too bad it was not designed in nice, round meter lengths.
>(7) And, last but not least, if you REALLY want to get a lot of AmericansSorry, but 3 oz is every bit as "rational" as 100 mL. 1 lb is as "rational" as 500 g (using "rational" to mean "round").
>on the ANTI-metric bandwagon, tell them that you intend not only to force
>them to use metric, you intend to force them to buy toothpaste and salsa in
>ONLY your pre-defined "rational" sizes.
>
Europeans shouldn't care less if domestic US consumers would be bothered by buying 100 mL toothpaste tubes as opposed to 3 oz ones!!! Or 500 g boxes of cereal, instead of 1 lb ones, or 600 mL of salsa, instead of 20 fl.oz., etc. Besides, I can bet my neck that most *in the US* won't care less provided the *values* look rational. What you defend, Jim, is unfortunately indefensible from *your own perspective*! Why? Oh, well, you would really piss them off if they start seeing 227 g, 454 g, 341 mL and the likes ONLY!
You are right that most people in the US don't care if values look "rational." Of course, most people in the ENTIRE world don't care either. Likewise, once we metricate, people in the US won't care whether toothpaste is in 100 mL or 110 mL or 96.2 mL containers.
Heh, heh, heh .... actually, I suspect that everyone in the world who cares is already on this forum!
>You can dream about the day that the world comes in rational metricWell, should we argue over whether "adopt" means "force"? You know my position Marcus: we absolutely need to *allow* the use of metric-only labels (and nice, round package sizes, for that matter). Should the government force manufacturers to use them? No doubt you would say "yes," and I would say "no."
>packages. But, until we manage to metricate the USA, please keep your
>dreams to yourselves, or you will just make our job that much harder.
>...
??? Oh... and you would consider just adopting metric-only labels of the sort I described above to be a step forward? Honestly? Nah, I don't think so, my dear friend!
A change in labels resulting from a *pure* metric-only labeling perspective can actually be an irritant to US consumers. Instead of helping our cause, it will actually be totally detrimental to it. Take the case of the very successful 2-L bottles of pop. Why do you think this size ended up being accepted (and popular!) by consumers in the US in the end? I can bet my neck that perhaps THE main reason was the fact that the NUMBER ITSELF was a rational, nice '2'!!! ;-)I am not following the first part of this paragraph.
I agree that having a nice round 2 helped the 2 L bottle become accepted. However, labeling it "2 qt" would have the same advantage, so clearly there is more to that story.
Regards,
Jim
