Ok now. This is getting silly. What's up with the "96 % of 5 000 444" stuff.
Whatever happened to 96% of 5,000,444 stuff? On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:35:49 -0500, kilopascal wrote > 2003-03-18 > > I wonder if these so-called new boards aren't just the same old > boards sponsored by the known anti-metric crowd. In order to > generate interest, they change their name a little and make it sound > like they are something new. Now there trick seems to be to > convince the casual browser to think that metric is being replaced > by some new "natural" system, which for obvious reasons they don't > describe, but one could easily guess it is US customary or imperial. > > But, when your consider that 96 % of 6 000 000 000 or about 5 750 > 000 000 people world wide us metric, there is no way these fools > will be able to change that. It seems to me the organisers of these > boards must have some "experience" that not only is metric not going > to disappear or diminish, but its use must be increasing where they > work or live. This try to counter this, they sound the alarm. > > Let them. While the rest of us will enjoy easy calculations and rational > packaging, they will be fumbling with conversion factors. And of > course, they will blame metric for it. > > I really think we all need to go to their site and post messages on > how we promote metric in our daily lives. How we are engineers and > tradesmen who specify and design only in metric and how we are > buying through our companies millions of dollars in metric goods, > which helps drive the cost of metric down and drives the cost of > FFU up. We are the silent, behind-the-scenes, users of metric. > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, 2003-03-18 14:40 > Subject: [USMA:25210] Nonsense on Metricsucks board > > > Quote > > The new anti-metric message board (for people who like science and the > > scientific basis of measurement) had over 700 page-reads in March as of > > mid-month. This means that March is roughly like February (which had over > > 1400 reads for the month). > > > > The reason for all the read-only activity is still unclear. > > > > Your picture is an oversimplification. > > > > the metric system is not a coherent stable whole (it has internal > > contradictions and it is in flux) and the US does not use the "Imperial > > System". > > > > The gist of this board is that METRIC SUCKS. It is a sterile evolutionary > > dead-end. The leading-edge work in fundamental physics has abandoned > metric > > and is using so-called "natural units". > > > > * I wonder what these 'natural units' are. > > > > Cosmology likewise. It is a pre-revolutionary situation. Very > interesting. > > Quotes by top people utterly dismissing metric (once the Sacred Cow) are > > easy to find by google or in sci.phsics.research of Usenet. > > > > One would have to be a fool or simpleton to try to limit discussion here > to > > a debate between "Imperial" and "Metric". what the hell is Imperial, what > is > > its energy unit and its force > > unit, and I mean consistent with the fundamental natural laws. And what do > > you mean by Metric---the 1990 > > electrical standards (inconsistent with the metal kilogram) are what one > > actually uses for accurate measurement at the national labs. > > So do you mean the official (antiquated) defs or the 1990 standards. > > > > Say! We must be bored by different things! How about that? I am bored by > the > > metric system because it is so out-of-date and ugly. I like modern more > > completely decimal systems---think powers of ten are cool. > > > > Metric sucks bigtime---like how many electron volts does it take to make a > > joule? > > Is it a power of ten? > > No, it is 6,241,509,704 billion!!!! > > Metric's ugly non-decimal numbers are what is boring. > > Have a nice day, Richard. > > Unquote > > > > The electron-volt is not recognized in the modern metric system and I sent > a > > message to the board, stating that fact. I said the only the joule should > be > > used for energy. They could just as well have used the so-called 'metric' > > horse power to 'prove' their point. I blamed these inconsistencies not on > > the metric system but on human unwillingness to change. The metric system > > would not be in a flux if it was used properly. > > > > Han > > Historian of Dutch Metrication, Nijmegen, The Netherlands > >
