Joseph B. Reid wrote: >Terry Simpson wrote in USMA 23314: >>[begin quote} >>NIST wrote that it is confusing and redundant: a) to use the term "SI >>metric" system because it implies that there are metric systems other >>than the International System of Units (SI), >> >>[end quote] >> >>http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fpla/basis_jan1994.html > >However I think that NIST was carried away when >it was arguing against the expression "SI metric".
It objects to the implication that there are metric systems other than SI. It can not be interpreted to mean that the NIST accepts metric systems other than SI. If by "carried away", you mean that the NIST has an opinion other than that stated, then that is different. >They wanted one or the other, but not both together. Yes. I think all of us here would agree about that. >Metric is a much broader term than SI. Systems of metric units >include: centimetre-gram-second, metre-tonne-second, >metre-kilogram-second, metre-kilogram(force)-second >and metre-kilogram-second-amp�re (SI). I agree. The dispute is about whether all metric systems but SI can be regarded as invalid today. That appears to be the NIST position. >The Federal Trde Commission justified the use of "SI metric" >because that was the expression used in the legislation. Yes I noticed that they said that. It is a silly justification for sloppy text. Ambiguity in primary legislation need not be replicated and transmitted in secondary. The FTC must have some clever people who can do better. The FPLA contains the term "SI metric liters", is there anyone here that accepts that?
