Mg vs. metric ton: I'm with Gene and Gustaf in preferring metric tons to Mg. Jim Elwell, in answer to your question, Mg is ridiculous because 1) a person will probably be able to visualize 1000 kg much better than 1000000 g, 2) the metric ton is authorized for use, 3) normally people will have an idea what a metric ton is (an analog to the short ton), 4) normally people will think that Mg is the same thing as mg, having never seen the first but having seen the second many times. Comprehension will be served by using the metric ton as a unit. Comprehension will be terrible in the vast majority of circles in the U.S. if people use Mg as a unit (or Mm, etc.). Being incomprehensible in metric usage is a good way to reinforce the idea that metric is confusing. I understand that Mg is a technically legal way to do things, but in practice I am more concerned with actually communicating. Just using metric in the first place sets me apart, so I really don't care what some document says somewhere about which is preferred.
FPLA timeline: Brian, someone said a few months ago that the proposed legislation needs to work its way through a number of agencies before it is submitted to Congress. They said it would probably be considered at the beginning of next year, which is (apparently) the start of a session. I don't think John's (kilopascal) statement that "nothing has come of it yet" doesn't really give the full picture, as the legislation is expected to take some time. euroisation and dollar hegemony: I would be a lot more convinced if the author of these postings did not routinely oversimplify economic processes, continually predict the imminent destruction of America, compare Bush to Hitler, confuse "than" and "then", ascribe anti-metric motives to just about any good business decision, and generally make a nuisance of himself. >"euroisation = metrication" MUST be our battle cry. NOT. Why would we associate the metric system, which should be as American as apple pie, with Europe, which a lot of us are annoyed with at the moment? America's share of world GDP has been shrinking for decades, lately because of Asia's development, not Europe's development or America's decline. Let's promote metric on its merits, not by hoping the U.S. stumbles. RE: Some interesting conversations: >So Carl, did you discuss with him the idea not >to give in and continue to use SI when conversing >with people? What good is paying lip service to SI, >if the guy tries to appease the ignorant and >struggles with FFU? Actually, he used metric in a previous conversation, so I didn't think it was necessary. Besides, I didn't think it was appropriate to the conversation. He, like most people, is mostly interested in communicating well, and especially in his position as a foreigner and non-native speaker of English, he is probably extra-sensitive to making sure that people understand what he says. I respect that desire. I agree with Stephen Gallagher that Canada will have trouble metricating until we metricate. Like him, I see Canada's continued use of metric for many things as very positive. As I see it, the pendulum swings both ways, and we are in the midst of a swing the wrong way. It'll come back, but it is encouraging to see that things are as good as they are at the moment. metric in construction: According to the recent Baron's article, federal buildings are being constructed in metric. Carl Sorenson
