Dear Brian,
What you say is true � if you don't mind waiting for a lifetime � or two.
Jason was discussing the fastest ways we know to learn a language and, by
parallel, suggesting that this might also be the fastest way to learn the
metric language. I agree with Jason.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin LCAMS
Geelong, Australia
--
on 2003-09-06 12.35, Brian J White at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> huh?
> Bilingualism doesn't seem to have hurt the Canadians (many of whom learn
> both french and english), and doesn't seem to have hurt the Finns or the
> Swedes, many of whom learn Swedish, Finish, English and sometimes a 4th
> language.
>
> At 18:08 2003-09-05 -0800, James Wentworth wrote:
>> You are (correctly) advocating what is called "total immersion" in the US.
>> Total immersion is the superior method of learning a new language (English
>> in the case of the US) in which non-English speaking immigrants are immersed
>> in English.
>>
>> The inferior method is called bilingualism (what our public school system is
>> unfortunately now doing) in which pupils are taught in both their native
>> languages *and* English. We are doing the same thing ("bimetrology?") with
>> metrication, and we are experiencing about the same rate of progress as
>> bilingualism. -- Jason
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 2:05 PM
>> Subject: [USMA:26862] Re: More Questions
>>
>>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> I have interspersed some answers, and some comments.
>>
>> on 2003-09-06 06.07, john mercer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone I just want to thank everyone for answering all my
>> questions.
>>
>> I have to say that I am no longer surprised by the generosity of the members
>> of the USMA mailing list.
>>
>>> I have another couple of them. How many Hectares are there in a square
>>> kilometer?
>>
>> There are 100 hectares in a square kilometre, but it is rarely necaessary to
>> do this conversion. If you are measuring city blocks, you use square metres
>> and don't worry about the size of the numbers. If you are measuring farm
>> land, you use hectares and you don't ever try to convert them either to
>> square metres or to square kilometres. If you are measuring the size of a
>> state or of a country you use square kilometres, but you should never have
>> to convert to the smaller area measures. [If the country is large, such as
>> Australia or the USA, you might find that square megametres are more
>> convenient.] By the way hectares is usually spelled with a lower case 'h'.
>>
>>> If a person asks me how many Cm's are in an inch should I tell them
>>> 2.5 or 2.54? I know that 2.54 is the exact conversion but is 2.5 good
>> enough
>>> for every day use?
>>
>> If a person asks me 'how many Cm's are in an inch', I tell them that I never
>> use centimetres or inches. I then ask why they want to know, and then we can
>> discuss what are the appropriate SI units for their task. In doing this I
>> try to get around the idea of conversion from one unit to another � it seems
>> to me that conversion always leads to a dead-end.
>>
>>> If I explain the metric system to someone who isn't used
>>> to it and wants to know the conversion factor I don't want to make the
>> metric
>>> system seem dificult.
>>
>> The metric system is not difficult � most people can learn it in a few
>> hours. The difficult part is for anyone who 'wants to know the conversion
>> factor'.
>>
>>> I know that Usma doesn't support conversion because it
>>> can make the metric system seem mor dificult than it is.
>>
>> It's in the conversion process that most difficulties lie. It is not true
>> that the conversion factors make the metric system seem more difficult � the
>> metrc system is always simple � but you can't even see the metric system if
>> all you are looking at is conversion factors. The ideal is to move to the
>> higher ground of the metric system without getting bogged in the 'conversion
>> factors' marshlands.
>>
>>> However when we
>>> explain the metric system using a measurement they are used to it might
>> help.
>>
>> This is entirely contrary to my experience. And believe me when I say that I
>> have tried to use conversion factors to help people make the metric
>> transition � it was a total waste of my time and the time of the people I
>> was trying to help.
>>
>>> I agree having dual sided rulers and meter sticks only slows the progress
>> of
>>> going metric. Thanks again for all your help John Mercer.
>>
>> I don't know if you have seen this piece that I wrote about the 'Ways to go'
>> to metrication. [If you have seen this, please excuse me reposting it.
>>
>> Ways to go � Pat Naughtin
>>
>> 1 The Worst Way
>> To use this method, you essentially aim to use 'hidden old units'. Let me
>> explain how to do this. Firstly, you convert all the old values in your work
>> directly to metric, eg. if one of your spare parts requires an 18 inch
>> component, you call this a 457.2 millimetre component, or a 45.72 centimetre
>> component, or better yet you list both 457.2 mm, and 45.72 cm, and
>> 18 inches, and 1' 6" in your catalog. Secondly you provide all of your staff
>> with extensive conversion charts and booklets (that include the 457.2 mm
>> value as well as some 69 432 others � 69 427 of which your staff will never
>> use!) designed to fit neatly in the bottoms of desk drawers and to paste
>> firmly on the insides of office cupboard doors � in these positions these
>> charts and booklets can delay your metrication program for many years. These
>> two simple techniques should delay metrication by upwards of 100 years and
>> they should cost the company heaps as they are clearly based on the idea of
>> giving an illusion of metric progress while we retain our individual
>> mindsets. Regard 100 years as the absolute minimum for this path. Consider
>> the New York Stock Exchange as an example; by hiding the new (in 1793)
>> decimal currency behind the old (in 1792) 'pieces-of-eight' in quoting stock
>> prices, they were able to delay decimalisation from 1793 until 2001 � a
>> delay of 208 years � very impressive. Think also of the oil industry's
>> barrells and you will begin to see the delays that are possible.
>>
>> 2 The Nearly Worst Way
>> This technique places its trust in dual measurements. You supply all staff
>> with dual sided rulers and tapes, and copious quantities of conversion
>> charts. You insist that all documentation is done using dual measurements,
>> although it is rare for companies using this route to specify which takes
>> precedence presumably on the basis that the random generation of precedence
>> by each member of staff is the best policy for the company as it gives each
>> member of staff freedom of choice. You can probably plan for this technique
>> to take your company around 75 years to 100 years for its conversion. As an
>> example consider the Kodak company who made their decision to use 16 mm B&W
>> film in 1910 and 16 mm color movie film in 1929; they also decided to use
>> photographic paper based on 10 inches by eight inches sizes with multiples
>> and sub-multiples of this inch size. This dual measurement has delayed
>> metrication at the Kodak company for 93 years so far, but in 2002 they began
>> yet another metrication effort � they might make the transition within the
>> 100 years I suggest for this technique.
>>
>> 3 The Second Best Way
>> Use centimetres. This way you can keep those lovely fractions in your
>> vocabulary. Remember that using millimetres exclusively, almost completely
>> removes the need for fractions (together with their attendant extra time and
>> costly errors). Do not form a company-wide measurement policy � let each
>> department form their own. In this way the manufacturing departments will
>> eventually use millimetres as others do in their crafts; the office staff
>> will eventually use inches and centimetres � as others who sew and knit use
>> these measures; the sales staff will change their measures according to how
>> they see their customers in terms of conservatism/progressiveness � in any
>> case the sales staff often don't really care to know about measures (other
>> than sales figures at the end of the month). It's hard to guess how long
>> this pathway takes. I have direct experience of the textile industry in
>> Australia and they are still struggling (while making snail-like progress)
>> with metrication after 30 years � my guess is that it will take them at
>> least another 20 years, so my estimate for the 'Second Best Way' is between
>> 50 and 75 years.
>>
>> 4 The Best Way
>> Use other people's experience. Find out where metrication has been
>> successful anywhere in the world and simply copy their techniques. Form a
>> measurement policy � by saying things like 'Of all the length measures
>> available in the metric system, our company has chosen to use millimetres,
>> metres, and kilometres' and 'The centimetre will not be used in calculations
>> and they will never be written down'. 'It is the policy of our company to
>> use rounded metric values of components wherever we can � we believe that
>> this will lead to a simplicity that will reduce errors in production,
>> administration, management, and sales'. These quotations are adapted from
>> Australian building literature of the 1970s. Using this technique the whole
>> of the Australian building industry had essentially metricated in under a
>> year, and if you count the laggards, definitely had completed the process in
>> under two years.
>>
>> It seems to me that Industrial Heating Magazine has clearly chosen the
>> 'Nearly Worst Way' to metrication � I wish them well � but there's no need
>> to put the champagne on ice just yet, it's a long time till 2103.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pat Naughtin LCAMS
>> Geelong, Australia
>>
>> Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication
>> matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words
>> subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> --
>
