Hi Jason I agree with all 6 of your points. Specifically the 3rd point is very good.
Liter is the unit for volume and Hectare is the unit for area and according to the SI rules we can have 1 unit for every measure. This way we serve the common people and also stay within the rules of SI. Yes, we will live with liters & hectares. As for the point #1, the problem is that we have too many prefixes starting with letter 'm', we can use megabyte because there is no concept of millibyte or microbyte, but megagram with clash with milligram or microgram. May be we can replace the term 'mega' with something like 'bega' or 'vega' and their symbol with be 'b' or 'v' respectively. User friendliness is more important than the origin of words. Madan --- James Wentworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello All, > > I feel strongly compelled to comment on the many > recent posts concerning > unit names (megagram vs. metric ton vs. tonne, "What > shall we re-name the > kilogram?," "Are the hectare and liter SI-kosher?", > etc.). > > As far as I can tell, I am the only one on this list > who is *not* a > highly-educated professional. I currently work as a > parking lot attendant, > my schooling ended after two years of college, and > my real education has > been "the school of hard knocks." My socio-economic > status gives me a more > realistic perspective on what will work and what > won't work to expedite US > metrication since I am, for practical purposes, a > "Joe Sixpack." Here are > six observations: > > [1] Using the megagram (and its symbol Mg) instead > of the metric ton or > tonne is a *very* bad idea. Americans are quite > familiar with the milligram > (mg) from food nutritional labels and labels on > medications, and the Mg > symbol will just confuse many people (mg, kg, and km > are sometimes > incorrectly expressed as MG, KG, and KM in other > countries as well as in the > US). Americans are familiar with the metric ton (or > at least with hearing > the words), so we'd better stick with it at least > until it becomes "the" ton > we use. Once that happens, we can usefully debate > the merits of using the > name tonne instead. > > [2] Re-name the kilogram? Forget it! Every > American has at least heard of > the unit, so it would be folly to try to re-name it > now. More importantly, > 96% of the world's people also know it as the > kilogram, and everyone except > a tiny number of metrological purists seems to be > perfectly happy with it. > > [3] Trying to retire the hectare and liter would be > very foolish. They may > not be pure SI, but billions of people happily use > these units every day. > The hectare seems to be a perfectly practical size > for farmers' fields and > other large tracts of property. The hectare isn't > yet familiar to most > Americans, but my fellow citizens are comfortable > with the liter. Calling > it the cubic decimeter (dm3) instead of the liter > would only confuse and > anger many Americans, and for what? Speaking of the > decimeter... > > [4] The decimeter should be included in any program > to popularize the > metric system in America. The most common complaint > I've heard and read > from tradesmen is that "the meter is too big and the > centimeter is too > small." Like Baby Bear's porridge, the decimeter > would be "just right." It > is close enough to the inch in size that carpenters > and plumbers (more of > those "Joe Sixpacks") would more readily accept > metric rulers if they had > three unit sizes to choose from (dm, cm, and mm). > Even the USMA's > Swiss-made metric tapes are demarcated in decimeters > by printing each > decimeter in a different background color, so the > decimeter must be used at > least somewhat in Europe. > > [5] If you were to ask 100 randomly-chosen > Americans about the metric > system, all of them would say they've heard of it, > and many of them would > even be familiar with the commonly-used units. > However, I doubt if even 5 > of the 100 would have heard of SI. For this reason, > all US metrication > efforts should only use the terms "metric" and > "metric system" in the titles > of pamphlets, press releases, radio & television > productions, and web pages. > When you're trying to introduce something that is > new or unfamiliar to a > group of people, calling it by its most well-known > name will go a long way > toward making your audience comfortable with it. > (How many laypeople at a > planetarium show would know what "Luna" and "Sol" > are, even though they see > them in the sky several times every week? That's > why they are called "The > Moon" and "The Sun" in planetarium shows.) > > [6] For weather reporting in the US, the > hectopascal should be used as a > 1:1 "drop-in" replacement for the millibar. The > millibar is so seldom used > here for public weather reports that there would be > no familiarity issue > with replacing it. > > The perfect is often the enemy of the adequate. The > metric system unit > names may not be perfect, but they are good enough > as they are. The purist > arguments I've read in the postings are well-meant, > but the proposed unit > name changes would play right into the FFU--ers' > hands. I hope I haven't > come across as angry; it's just that all of the > unit-name postings remind me > of a hamster running in an excercise wheel. His > feet move rapidly and the > wheel spins like a dreidel and squeaks loudly, but > he doesn't get > nywhere. -- Jason > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
