>From Marcus: >I'd also like to comment that I honestly fail to >see why so much opposition to the sharing of such >R&D, especially among our moderator(s).
Well, Marcus, Don explained that it drives away people interested in metrication because the so-called "R&D" is not about metrication. It is about reforming SI. It is not an appropriate topic for this list because we are in absolutely no position to reform SI. That should be left to professionals in some other forum. Those kind of discussions here serve no real purpose and are very counterproductive, for reasons that Don gave and that I and others have given in the past. >Perhaps we should think this through and more >thoroughly assess the consequences of such position. No, we shouldn't. Don is right. Please don't second-guess his decision. >For example, what message would this position send >to metrology scientists? It sends no message to the people who define and revise SI because they don't pay any attention to lists like this. Or they shouldn't, because this is not a list about SI revision and most of the proposals are impractical or bad ideas anyway. >Should we stop efforts towards improving the SI system... Yes. Should the actual scientists who have the power to improve SI stop? Perhaps not. But they probably won't be asking you for advice as they do so. I second everything Brian said: [begin quote] And I tell you....almost every one of those messages got deleted by me. Planckian units? Give me a break. I'd like to see those efforts retuned towards USA Metrication efforts. But then again, maybe I just want some simple things. I want journalists to use SI units without conversion or apology. I want companies and our government to stop treating Americans like we're SI stupid. I want us to catch up with the rest of the world regarding the everyday use of these measurements. Debates about fixing the kilogram "artifact" does nothing to encourage companies to go SI. [end quote] Carl
