That some of us, laymen, may believe that this may have *anything* to do with culture is probably expected, but that folks at the BIPM level do is at a minimum upsetting!!!
It's really mind-boggling that these guys would have such a stance when it can be *proven* that a system of measurements is a *purely scientific* subject! I have entertained this discussion before and would be in no mood to revisit this again. But for those of you who weren't there when it took place let me suggest that you check with any reputable dictionary for the word culture and verify that the 3 elements that it requires for something to be classified as cultural are simply NOT there when it comes to measurements (uniqueness, domain of art, thoughts/"soul"/etc), period! It's really sad that some folks use this lame excuse to shut down progress in this area, like these guys were doing here (with the name of the kilogram). Appalling... What can I say?... Perhaps next time we should convoke the Neil Diamonds, Barbra Streisands, George Clooneys of life to express their opinions on how one should develop and design a system of units of measurements, eh? :-( Marcus On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:38:57 Mighty Chimp wrote: > > >It is kind of interesting that they use the term . embedded in our >culture.. > > > >We as metricators tend to look negatively on organizations like the BWMA >for clinging to old measures based on culture. Should we be doing the >same thing? > > > >I dont know if I would support a change to the name grave, but to say >we should not find some term which is suitable, based entirely on >culture is nonsense. > > > >Euric > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Bill Potts >Sent: Saturday, 2003-11-08 10:26 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:27506] RE: Kilogram > > > >Matthew Zotter wrote: >HYPERLINK "http://www1.bipm.org/en/practical_info/faq/faqs_mass.html"; >\nhttp://www1.bipm.org/en/practical_info/faq/faqs_mass.html >This web address tells why the kilogram is not called the "grave" as it >originally was. > >I suggest you read it again. It merely says that "grave" was a >suggestion (emphasis mine). > >Logically, the kilogram should be called by a different name. The >"grave" was an early suggestion, dating from 1793. However, the name >"kilogram" (adopted in 1795) is now so embedded in our culture that >changing it at this late date probably would be impractical. Proposed >changes to the SI are considered by the Consultative Committee for Units >(CCU). > >Bill Potts, CMS >Roseville, CA >HYPERLINK "http://metric1.org"; \nhttp://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 2003-11-06 > > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
