To our "metric time" aficionados: Before this gets out of hand, I'd like to suggest that those who want to rehash "metric time" please do so off the USMA list. This is not a topic that USMA is at all interested in pursuing. But those of you who are interested, be my guest, just please choose another forum. As always, when the topic goes astray, so do those interested in the metric system topics intended for the listserver.
Don USMA list owner -----Original Message----- From: brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 2003 March 25 10:49 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:25316] Re: Clocks and time units Why does this list continually degrade into discussions of changing time standards? It's pretty annoying. On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:39:03 +0000, Brij Bhushan Vij wrote > Hi Marcus and carl, sirs: > Between 1970 thro 1990 I argued with who ever came across and > interested in 'metric or centime *idea*' but thought of putting it > on shelf to revert and come up with a NO CHANGE 'to human mind' > status i.e. we do not change the face of Clocks or calendar but only > re-adjust OUR THINKING process. The Nautical Kilometre gets driven > out of itself as 1/100th of ONE degree instead of the Nauical Mile > of 1/60th of the degree. The change is introduction of the Leap > Weeks in Calendar using *Divide by Six(6) Rule*. Read the RHYME > below as 'signature'. What else can be the "Sureset, easiest and > cheapest" mode to achieve results expected by and for Systeme > International d'Unites! Regards, Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda. > *****The New Calendar Rhyme***** > Thirty days in July, September: > April, June, November, December; > All the rest have thirty-one; accepting February alone: > Which hath but twenty-nine, to be (in) fine; > Till leap year gives the whole week READY: > Is it not time to MODIFY or change to make it perennial, Oh Daddy! > > And make the calendar work with Leap Week Rule! > ***** ***** ***** ***** > > >From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: [USMA:25303] Re: Clocks and time units > >Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:55:43 -0800 > > > >Dear Carl, > > > >The issue of changing the time construct is evidently *academic* at this > >stage. However, one MUST address this from a technical point-of-view. > >It's with this spirit in mind that I'd like to comment on your points > >below, ok? > > > >On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:26:38 > > Carl Sorenson wrote: > >... > > >I support SI as it now stands and as it is practiced in metric countries. > > Units of time are already standardized worldwide, and minutes and hours > >are accepted for use with SI. > > > >True, however, it does not hide the fact that the use of our present time > >construct is horrible. This 60-60-24 babel is mediocre to say the least > >and is blatanly against the decimal nature of the SI system. > > > > > Lots of people have tried to introduce new units, and they always are > >ignored because 1) no one else understands them, > > > >This is debatable. For example, what is to 'understand' about the > >percentime construct, among other alternatives? Once one knows there are > >100 percentime hours in a day, and that time reckoning is *finally* purely > >decimal, what is difficult to understand? The rest would obviously only be > >a matter of becoming familiar with reckoning time in this new construct. > > > > > 2) the "improvement" is often marginal or simply non-existent, > > > >Again, highly debatable. If time was *truly* decimalized there would be > >tremendous advantages in its use. No more silly conversions between hours, > >minutes and seconds would be necessary. Runners, for instance, would have > >a much easier life keeping track of his progress during a race. > >Calculations would be extremely easy under a decimal scenario than with > >this 60-60-24 crap. > > > > > and therefore 3) almost no one thinks we need to change the system. > > > >The problem with changing the time construct is a one of convenience. > >However, I expect that once technology evolves to the point that changes of > >this magnitude become a matter of "flipping a button" even this change > >would be largely feasible and easy to implement. > > > > > In the U.S., lots of people think we need to adopt the metric system, > >the rest of the world uses the metric system, and it still is tough to get > >the conversion going... > > > >Granted. That's why I've been leaving this issue aside and considering it > >as "a work in progress" or belonging to R&D. So, it's safe to say that we > >all agree that this is unnecessary at the present time. > > > >Cordially, > > > >Marcus > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! > >Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Still unmarried? http://www.msn.co.in/Matrimony/ Find a life partner > now
