On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:17:21 Brian J White wrote: >... >Introducing change to the system would hardly help our US Metrication >efforts.... > ? But Brian who says that ONLY metrication issues are to be discussed here? What harm is there in addressing these from time to time. Science is a dynamic phenomenon, my friend, like it or not. We cannot freeze and get stuck in time, can we?
Besides, good, if this doesn't interest you, fine, use the delete button as you've indicated below you already do. I also do that with discussions that don't interest me, either. ... >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 I don't think these side discussions would detract us from 'tuning towards USA Metrication efforts', honestly! Again, if you find no interest in these just please keep on deleting them. > 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. And SO DO I, my friend! On the other hand I ALSO have a keen interest in helping develop the SI system further into something that would be even more formidably better than ifp! > Debates about fixing >the kilogram "artifact" does nothing to encourage companies to go >SI... True, of course. But they do contribute towards a more lofty goal in my opinion, the one of keeping technology evolving to better our lives! Regards, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
