Dear Bill, I have changed the title and interspersed some remarks.
on 2004-06-26 09.48, Bill Potts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <snip> > My wife and I were doing some shopping yesterday (Wednesday). At the deli > counter, we ordered 1/2 lb of sliced ham. (I don't torture the supermarket > employees by specifying a unit for which their equipment isn't calibrated.) I agree that there is little to be gained by haranguing supermarket staff when the supply of metric weighing machines is a policy decision made by the store managers. > I then added that it was 227 grams. The lady who was serving me made a > humorous comment that led me to assume that she wasn't totally unfamiliar > with metric measurements. How could she be unfamiliar with metric. Many deli items are imported into the USA (e.g. Swiss cheeses, Italian vinegars) and these have all been produced and packaged using metric units. A large part of a supermarket staff member's life is spent dumbing down metric units for the local (USA) market. > So I added, "Of course, if I was actually ordering > in metric, I would ask for 250 grams." She seemed to understand. When the > ham weighed in at 0.57 lb, I said "I'll take that. It's close enough to 250 > grams." She laughed appreciatively. I have no doubt that her appreciative laugh is derived from her experience in handling imported deli items. Of all the departments in your supermarket, the deli staff would probably have the most experience with metric measures. > Standing next in line to us was a youngish woman with her teenage daughter. > We exchanged a little repartee and I made some comment about metric > quantities. She told me she didn't "understand metrics." This is a woman who has just driven to the supermarket in a car that was designed and manufactures completely in metric units. She is holding a (say) leather purse that was tanned using solely metric units for its tanning (e.g. moles of tannage); she is probably holding a plastic carry bag that was evaluated in its quality control to the nearest micrometre; her clothing was designed from fibres that were also evaluated using micrometres; the day her daughter was born she was weighed in kilograms in case she needed any emergency treatments in milligrams per kilogram; all the money in her purse was made from minerals that were mined (in tonnes and kilograms), treated with chemicals (in kilograms and moles), and alloyed and minted to tolerances of micrograms and micrometres. Without metric measures, this women would be standing at the deli counter without any money, she would have no purse and no carry bag; she and her daughter would be naked; and they would have to walk home! > That's a typical > response, but people usually use the correct term, "metric," rather than > that awful "metrics." I asked her daughter if she learned the metric system > in school. She said she did, but that she didn't really remember any of it. > I didn't ask whether or not she was an A student. I think I know what the > answer would have been. The poor daughter might be taught metric units at school, but then she is immersed in a home environment that is so anti-metric that she has little chance to experiment with her new metric knowledge. She is being subjected to the emotional forces of her family and these are (temporarily) stronger than the rational forces of her mathematics teacher � ultimately, however, the evidence from every nation in the world is that the rational forces will overcome the irrational ones. > We still have a long way to go. Possibly not, I suspect that the USA is closer to metrication than your story reveals. The issue that this story tells is about 'hidden metric' and about who profits from hiding the truth about metrication. 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] --
