And with all due respect, may I (respectfully...) ask why?... Just because I may be used to hearing and "understanding" hideous " for sizes of TV screens and computer monitors does NOT make it alright to me to put up with this... ;-)
Either we promote the use of SI *across the board* or... Anyhow, let it be... Marcus On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:45:59 Brian White wrote: > >Yea...I have no problem keeping aviation and maritime using nautical (air) miles. > > >---------- Original Message ----------- >From: "Phil Chernack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:35:21 -0400 >Subject: [USMA:27178] Re: Lineal kilometres > >> Air miles are the same as nautical miles, a non-SI unit that is acceptable >> for use with SI. >> Right from the BIPM: >> >> >From Table 8. Other non-SI units currently accepted for use with the >> International System >> Name Symbol Value in SI units >> >> nautical mile (a) 1 nautical mile = 1852 m >> >> (a) The nautical mile is a special unit employed for marine and >> aerial navigation to express distance. The conventional value given >> above was adopted by the First International Extraordinary >> Hydrographic Conference, Monaco, 1929, under the name "International >> nautical mile". As yet there is no internationally agreed symbol. >> This unit was originally chosen because one nautical mile on the >> surface of the Earth subtends approximately one minute of angle at >> the centre. >> >> Phil >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Behalf Of Ma Be >> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:36 PM >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Subject: [USMA:27177] Re: Lineal kilometres >> >> ? Even if it is true, Han, I must agree with my colleague here, >> km^1 is a redundancy we can do without! Typical, evidently, of >> folks who know little about metrology issues. >> >> It's the same kind of thing with this hideous 'air miles' as if >> adding the 'air' to the word it would make any difference!!! (I >> know, I know... this is 1.850 2 km we're talking about here, but >> still...) >> >> I dream of the day we would simply create a 'km' program for air travel... >> Sigh... >> >> Warm regards, my dear friend, Han. >> >> Marcus >> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:07:25 >> Han Maenen wrote: >> >Dear Pat, >> > >> >It is not me who adds ^1 to m or km, it is a standard in the world of >> >archives and public records. Archivists feel they have a need for linear m >> >and km. >> > >> >Han >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Sent: Monday, 2003-10-13 1:51 >> >Subject: [USMA:27161] Lineal kilometres >> > >> > >> >Dear Han, >> > >> >Your expression 'lineal km' strikes me as being redundant (if not >> >tautological). >> > >> >Since length, in SI, has only one unit - the metre - and the metre is the >> >only dimension for length, then you don't need to note that km measures >> >length by adding ^1 to km to form the symbol km^1. >> > >> >If you use the expression km^1 you are saying that the one dimensional unit >> >of the quantity length - the km - is one dimensional. >> >As I said, either the first of these is redundant (or tautological) or the >> >second of these is tautological (or redundant). Sorry for the confused way >> >that I've written this, but I never fully understood the difference between >> >tautological and redundant - if any. >> > >> >By the way, I once posted a notice on my office door that said: >> > >> > Department of >> >Tautological Redundancies >> > Department >> > >> > Apply Without >> > >> >Cheers, >> > >> >Pat Naughtin >> >LCAMS - Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist >> > - United States Metric Association >> >ASM - Accredited Speaking Member >> > - National Speakers Association of Australia >> >Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers >> >-- >> > >> >on 12/10/03 7:06 AM, Han Maenen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > >> >> Pat, >> >> >> >> Yes, that was a nice example you gave and that kind of thing gave rise to >> >> people who wanted change, like Simon Stevin and John Napier, who stood up >> >a >> >> few hundred years before decimal money and the metric system made their >> >> debut. >> >> >> >> I got a remark from another list member about the 16 km^1. Although the >> >> length of our storaged archives looks like hidden ifp trash, it is not. >> Of >> >> course, the BWMA would love it if the archives in continental Europe and >> >> other metric countries used yards and miles as standard units. Too bad >> for >> >> them, no way. These 16 km^1 are purely co-incidental. Soon we will take >> >over >> >> the archives of Dutch Roman Catholicism, 9 linear km, that will increase >> >our >> >> storage to 25 linear km. >> >> >> >> As I cannot use superscript in Outlook Express I have written the symbol >> >of >> >> linear km as km^1. >> >> >> >> The cities of Arnhem and Nijmegen are planning to build a very large >> >storage >> >> room for public records and archives on a location between both cities. >> >> >> >> Best greetings, >> >> >> >> Han >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Sent: Thursday, 2003-10-09 10:27 >> >> Subject: [USMA:27143] Re: Curiosity from the archives >> >> >> >> >> >> on 2003-10-09 03.15, Han Maenen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >> <snip> >> >>> Many financial calculations were made in Roman numerals and the money >> was >> >> not decimal as well. Present day archivists and researchers get in >> trouble >> >> with this stuff and have to master Roman numerals and non-decimal >> >>> calculations. >> >> >> >> Dear Han, >> >> >> >> It makes you realise the genius of Simon Stevin, when you consider his >> >> physical and intellectual surroundings. >> >> >> >> I can remember one of his papers bemoaning the severity of calculating >> >> something like, 'What is the result of investing 324 pounds, 12 >> shillings, >> >> and 4 pence ha'penny for 17 years 8 months and a week at 3 7/8 per >> cent?', >> >> when all calculations were done in Roman numerals. As I remember it the >> >> answer had a whole number with a 13 numeral numerator above a 17 numeral >> >> denominator. >> >> >> >> I didn't check his calculations for accuracy - I took Simon's word for >> it! >> >> >> >> However, I did think at the time that many hundreds of intellectually >> >gifted >> >> people must have been employed on these terribly pointless tasks. It's no >> >> wonder that Simon Stevin was so delighted when he developed decimal >> >numbers >> >> and decimal calculations in 1585. >> >> >> >> 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] >> >> -- >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! >> Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus >------- End of Original Message ------- > > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
