--- MightyChimp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://erazo.org/forum/metrication.htm > > You may want to go here and express you views.
Here is the reply I just posted to Rick: First of all, I'd like to thank you for your thought-provoking piece referenced above. However, I regret to tell you that unfortunately practically all of your pro-ifp arguments do not survive closer scrutiny. Here is my humble attempt at justifying why. Before I do so, I find it important that you know a little bit of my background. I'm an aeronautical engineer, commercial pilot, computer programmer, businessman (I own an incorporated company), professor, scientist, a sportsman and a Christian (above all! :-) ). I hold 6 university-level degrees and also speak 5 languages. I do not say all the above to boast of my accomplishments, but rather to highlight that I simply love being a "jack-of-all-trades"! :-) I also love discussing this particular subject and must confess I'm heavily involved with it for many years now. Based on your lenghty and thoughtful essay I felt you would be someone one can reason rationally and logically with. You strike me as someone who probably would not be passionately about it, in the sense of letting your emotions get the worst of you. Therefore, I felt you deserved a well-reasoned response. I sincerely and humbly hope I'd be able to do just that. I'll be making extensive use of stars, capital letters and/or combinations thereof ONLY for emphasis. They are NOT to be understood as yelling or being disrespectful (please!...), ok? Please accept my apologies if this will be longish, but I tend to be very thorough at how I do things. Therefore, I prefer to go over your essay "line by line" and provide you with a different perspective. Hopefully (I pray!) I'd be able to give you also some food for thought and contribute towards your reviewing your position in some aspects. So, without much ado here I go... You rightfully commented in the 'Thinking Metric' preamble that some standards, like the nautical mile and knots have been internationally agreed 'since the ...20's' as you put it. It is though VERY unfortunate that it be so, BTW. However, the truth is such "agreement" has not really materialized until after World War II! Many European countries (including Germany) did NOT follow such standards then. It's only due to the preeminence of US aviation in the world scene that "the table had been turned", so to speak. However, as you already indicated you know, there are still quite a few countries that DO NOT fly with feet, knots and nautical miles, like Russia, China and not too long ago Sweden, just to name a few. In addition, to my knowledge, the WHOLE non-engine-powered aircraft segment of this industry actually flies in meters, km/h and the likes! So, if you use any of those types of very quiet flying devices you'd actually see they're all retrofitted with metric altimeters and the likes! I, personally, long for the day when this (please forgive me for being blunt here) non-sense will cease to exist! I find it it's about time the aviation world finally joins the modern era and decides (sooner rather than later) to ditch this collection of archaic units. I also believe that the GPS technology (which is here to stay) will probably mean the final demise of such units in the not so distant future, as such would no longer be necessary. Another "correction" I need to make about your essay (and you may be very surprised to learn this!) is that the American industrial park is actually more like close to 40% "metricated" (source USMA)! Therefore, please correct this piece in your essay, please. The fact of the matter is that unfortunately the larger public simply doesn't know about this reality, as, for some reason, American businesses have been doing an outstanding job at keeping them in the dark about this!... However, I'm hopeful that one day the truth will come out and people will finally wake up to this reality soon enough. A point that I make a question to mention is that unlike you think I cannot agree with your opinion that this type of transition should be let for "markets" to decide! A vehement NO to that. Why? Simple, in world which is more and more "globalized" it just makes no sense whatsoever for two totally incompatible systems to survive side-by-side. Unfortunately economics and all dictate that there MUST be ONE and ONLY ONE system in the end. This should NOT be a matter for the public to decide, simply because, unlike many might think, this is a SCIENTIFIC issue, NOT a cultural one! (Please consult your local dictionary to investigate this point a little closer. In there you'll find that for something to be 'cultural' it requires to fulfill 3 conditions, the it be of the realm of *arts*, that it be *unique*, and that it be a characteristic of *one* particular people. A system of units fails *ALL* these criteria! Please notice that language jargons are obviously out of this simply because they are NOT *really* measurements; for instance, one does not "measure" a pound of prevention, or a ten-gallon hat, or a ten-foot pole. Therefore, these should be indeed left alone for time to take care of, if ever) However, for such important transition to take place in an orderly, constructive fashion there simply is NO way in the world it can take place *without* some form of government intervention. It just *isn't* possible otherwise. Historically, *NO* country that I know of has *ever* made this transition without legislative mandate to that effect. And even the US Congress *has* the power to effect this (I don't recall now what article and session, probably 1 and 8, or 4 and 8 respectively. Anyways... it IS there!). Another point is that *no*, this is NOT a matter of 'personal preference', but a matter of science, rationality, logic, etc. If certain people have a preference for ANY system aside from *the* standard one the burden of cost, time, etc should fall *on them* for its use, NOT on society! In other words, if you still prefer to use an out-moded collection of archaic units, *YOU* "pay" for it, do *not* expect society to do that for you. It's just fair, isn't it? Your point about the 'odds' subject was quite interesting. And here I must dispell the myth that some people hold that SI supports are *against* fractions! There can be nothing farther from the truth! There IS a place in life for this very useful tool, BUT *measurements* is NOT one of them! Yes, one (even) should use fractions in equations, for instance, to name just one (or even in your 'odds' industry, why not?! :-) ), but it's utterly (scientifically) inappropriate to use them for *measuring*! And, yes, *not even* in the construction industry!! I'll get to that point later on and explain why. Your next point about the 'Think Metric program' that failed miserably is well laid out! Indeed, it failed AND 'because it stressed simply conversion' indeed! No argument here. Had it been done *properly* and it *would* have succeeded. The most *efficient, effective* way of teaching the SI system is to teach people HOW TO THINK in it! In other words, we should provide people with *NEW* parameters of reference WITHOUT EVER making comparisons in terms of the old units! In this sense it's to be taught *precisely AS IF it were a language*!! You are also correct about making the distinction between what you guys down there call 'US system' and what we, in Canada, call imperial. However, these two are largely the same thing *conceptually*! (BTW, this is ONE of the 3 items - uniqueness - where it fails the criteria of culture!... ;-) ) Perhaps your perception that the 'victory' of the metric system, especially in Europe, was simply a "local" type, i.e. that it was *merely* due to some political effect or something to that effect. True, Europe has been instrumental in its dissemination. However, the TRUE reason as to what makes the SI system what it is is its *fundamental scientific underpinnings*! At this moment I must comment though that it's unfortunate that a system such as the SI has evolved as a... "new fix on old rags" kind of system and NOT (what it should have been!) a result of a more thoughtful scientific process of its *fundamental framework*. However, it's still the best one has today. Much still needs to be done in that regard (and I might mention some of these later on). In other words, I, for instance, personally, strongly defend it *not* because it's *perfect*, but rather because it's simply FAR SUPERIOR techincally speaking and deserves to be THE choice for a global standard. It's also true that many segments of the industry may not have been consulted on the matter. However, this should not be a detrimental point or strong enough a reason to justify these being *against* it like some of them were (and still are to a certain extent)! I strongly believe that it's the DUTY of experts in THEIR OWN RIGHT to establish what should be used by the population and industries at large. In other words, when it comes to things scientific, this should be delegated to the respective *professionals* of the field. It's unfortunate that it so happens that a system of weights and measurements affects so many stakeholders, what can I say?!... It's then the DUTY of the coutnries' educational systems to educate their populations of these new developments, just like we all accept that a Math teacher would have the responsibility to teach future generations what math is, etc. I should also at this stage propose that the decimalization character of a system of units is *NOT* a matter of 'obsession', but rather of *fundamental underpinning*! The entire planet *COUNTS* using the base-10. This is one of the few TRULY UNIVERSAL truths and reality of this planet. It just makes sense that a system be founded on this critical aspect! True, there are some fields where other bases seem to prevail or have specific use, like in the computer industry. However, *please notice*, we're talking *MEASUREMENTS* here! I'll elaborate more on this when the time comes. Actually, for your info, EVERY non-metric unit is *defined BY LAW* in terms of its metric equivalent! Therefore, your 'could now be officially defined' should read MUST now be officially defined instead! I welcomed your next section, 'Convenience and Practicality' because it's THERE EXACTLY where the SI system shines the most and why it IS such a big deal that it be adopted *universally* regardless of industry!!! So, let's get on with it, shall we? Construction: It's ONLY the US now (and, I must confess, regrettably, Canada) whose industry is 'based on feet and inches'. ANYWHERE ELSE this is NO LONGER the case! True, some countries, like in the UK still struggle with it, but still, patterns have changed. Your reference to inch, half inch, eighth etc as "convenient" "sizes" fails to take into account (and perhaps this may be out of ignorance or lack of *professional* familiarity here) that these are NOT real impediments to the usefulness of any prefixed SI unit! In other words, just think about it. If this were such a handicap for the SI system why is it that metric countries have absolutely NO problem WHATSOEVER in using the SI system there?!!! And I speak from *personal experience*! I've countless times designed, built and done construction work *wholly* in metric and NEVER EVER encountered any difficulties doing it! The truth of the matter though is that the ifp units work well ONLY because it's been, what we call scientifically, *discretized*! In other words, everything is *boxed rigidly* into modules and specific forms of laying out. BUT, get out of that and you'd be in SERIOUS trouble, meaning, it would be a REAL hassle to do things "out of the ordinary". For instance, try HAVING to cut a piece 7' 7 1/8" in 3 equal pieces AND ACCURATELY measure them *with your measuring tape*!!! Good luck!... On the other hand, the SI system is a *continuum* type of system. In other words, its... *mentality* is NOT "boxed". However, it CAN and (unfortunately) has been "boxed" like you hinted (e.g. 120 cm, 240 cm modules, etc). It CAN work JUST AS efficiently as the ifp modules. In other words, there isn't even this advantage of "powers of 12" with the in-ft combination! But the *biggest* real advantage of using metric units here is the fact that (good riddance!) we no longer have to wrestle with silly, useless, unnecessary *fractions*! Calculations are now simple, easy and people are no longer prone to make mistakes that are inherent to the continuing use of fractions when it comes to *measurements*! Another point that perhaps you seem to fail to grasp is that mm, cm or whatever, how *small* a unit is to be is largely dependant on *the degree of accuracy needed*!!! In other words. If you need to work with mm precision, use it, if not, stick with the next one, cm in this case. It's *instrument accuracy* that is important to consider, sir. This has *nothing to do* with "size convenience"! You need to understand that we're dealing, talking about a *s-y-s-t-e-m o-f m-e-a-s-u-r-e-m-e-n-t-s*. In that regard, it doesn't matter what the *reference size* is, you see! If people chose a "foot" as a size reference, the *SYSTEM* would work just the same! Please consider that it's UNWORKABLE, IMPOSSIBLE, to define a system of units based on *what is convenient sizewise*! Simply because what is convenient for one industry may not be for another!!! This is an old, retrograde metrology mentality that is no longer scientifically sound! AND if size convenience is important one can always resort to decimal multiples of ONE reference size to satisfy the user. There can ALWAYS be a reasonable "size" that would reasonably fit the application envisaged! But this is just a corollary of how intelligent and smart the SI system is! It has this flexibility built into it, unlike many might think! ;-) The real crux of the matter then is HOW one approaches the use of a system of measurements to apply it to a particular application. In practical terms then I find NO obstacle WHATSOEVER or negative point about the use of the meter in the construction industry. Quite the contrary, I personally loath having to work with an irrational concept of metrology when doing actual practical work. Measurements should be of the format: XXX.DDDD..., *period*! It suffices for one to work for one of the remaining ifp industries (like I have for over 10 years) to see that (In the aerospace industry EVERYTHING is measured and WRITTEN in the above format, for instance: 67.005", etc). Doing otherwise is simply too burdensome, unnecessarily complex and plain wasteful. True, many ifp workers might disagree, but I'd like to submit that that is ONLY out of ignorance! I honestly doubt that once an *honest* individual gives an earnest, serious, unbiased try to the SI system s/he would EVER want to go back! This happened in Australia, in the UK, *everywhere* I know and travelled to (I've worked/visited practically ALL continents of this planet, except Asia yet). People just need to *get familiar* with the new system *and use it*, that's all there is! Cooking: I honestly can't care less if there is a 'long history' of the use of lbs and ozs!!! When there is a new technology in the market that can be unequivocally demonstrated to be far superior one SHOULD choose to use it! It's just that simple. Who in his or her sane conscience would still elect to drive a bouncing Betty, say, from Calgary to Edmonton, when there are so many modern vehicles around??? Unless one is so fond of "old times for old times sake"... ;-) I'd rather ride my car than some 'pangare' horse!... (sorry, but my back would simply kill me after just a half-hour use...) I'm not saying all this to make fun of people's choices or to be sarcastic, but rather to try to drive a point home as clearly as I possibly can! Again, this business of 'too large or too small' is simply irrelevant! Why would it be troublesome for one to deal with 30 or 300 as a *value*? Provided one has the instrument to measure it, that's all that matters. And if one does not, again I repeat, need a certain accuracy, why bother? For instance, if grams is too small, fine, deal with dag, or hg. I.e. instead of bothering with a measurement that comes as 300 g, why not just say 3 hg??? What other system provides the user with this kind of flexibility, honestly, really??? When I do my construction projects around the house I only use the cm, for instance. Why should I bother with the mm? For EVERY range of *VALUES* you can come up with to point that the ifp *value* is convenient I can just as quickly and efficiently provide you with an equivalent value in metric terms! The other day I was discussing this issue with a surfer afficcionado. He told me it would be better (more macho, I guess...) to say he rode a 30 foot wave than a "puny" 9 m wave. I said to him that, first of all, it doesn't matter what value emerges from a measuring exercise. That *value* is ONLY a reference indicator to HOW BIG something is. The value *itself* will NOT change the size of the object being measured, you know!. In other words, to a metric user 9 m is STILL awfully huge for a wave! Who cares if the number is "small"??? In people's minds, 30 foot has EXACTLY the same effect as 9 m!!! BUT, I continued, if someone is so hung on the values *themselves*, fine, how about you say you surfed 90 dm?!!! 90 is way bigger than 'puny' 30!... ;-) Therefore, whether to use pints, tablespoons and the likes or the equivalent mL, L, etc is just a matter of familiarity. I, for one, NEVER use ANY of such archaic sizes around my kitchen (and, yes, I AM the cook of the house!... :-) ). This never bothered me one single bit! Quite the contrary, I cringe at the sight of a recipe that would have 7 (maybe even more) units! How unnecessary! Besides, ALL my measuring devices for cooking ARE in metric!... So, why replace these old ones as you asked? KISS principle, you know... ;-) And I've been to Europe, too. While it might be true that some of these cooks over there may not know the real size of their measuring instruments, the fact of the matter is *few* actually bother being precise! Cooking is an art, you know... ;-) On the other hand imagine the chaos and unsightly results that would emerge in the industrial part if they'd have to deal with so many units like those! Forget it! It'd be really better if ALL ingredients were just stated as a certain unique unit, or two, tops. Please remember, industrial parks produce enormous amounts of small units! So, why not make THEIR lives easier? Sports: ?? This is ludicrous! I'm afraid you're dead wrong on the size of a track, sir! 'One lap around a collegiate track' is NOT 402.336 m! Ask ANY Olympian-rated track & field official around the globe (even in the US, yes!) and s/he'll tell you, it's EXACTS 400 m!!! It's been so for decades now! The staggered pattern you see is due to different lengths around it, so that overall everyone would run the same distance. I'm sorry if I didn't 'get the idea' in this part here. IOC has metricated Olympic sports decades ago. Absolutely NO sports event that is part of that program is run in ANY other unit, but metric (and it will ALWAYS be that way)! THAT is a certainty. Transportation: Some countries, like in Brazil, prefer to use km/L. For some applications, stating fuel consumption as daL/Mm (the true real ratio that one should use here!) is more valuable as information (like a fleet of vehicles, since they usually know the distance travelled by their fleet and would like to know how many liters of fuel they'd have to spend to run it). For your info, countries that fly metric use two types of separations, 250 or 500 m!... To me either of these is just as rational and acceptable as 1 000 or 2 000. Navigation: I must dispute your "prediction" that navigation will not 'metricate'! It's just a matter of time before that happens (for instance, I have developed a copyrighted system for navigation I nicknamed UNS where ALL archaic measurements have been eliminated and where ALL important principles of navigation have been rationally decimalized - including time!... - I have demonstrated over and over again that such a system would be far more practical and easy for pilots and other professionals alike. So... I only have people's averseness for change to battle against... ;-) ). For now, I'd say well... perhaps there might still be 'rejection' of the meter, but this, I'm sure, WILL change. I just can't promise when though... :-S In the meantime you should know why the international mile has been defined as 1 852 m. The reason is that this is equivalent to a minute of arc (SIC) for a hypothetical average sphere! So, this has nothing to do with 'making sense' but accepting a natural reality and trying to define things in as close to something rational as physically possible. But in the UNS there is NO such a thing as a minute of arc. A full circle is 400 grades (or gons). Accuracy for navigation is 0.01 gr, which is *exactly* 1 km! Latitude and Longitude are stated accordingly. Example, what would be simple, more logical, rational? Lat N 42 deg 54 min 42 sec Long W 124 deg 40 min 30 sec, or Lat N 47.68 Long W 138.53? (you be the judge!...) More about the UNS. Speed: 560 km/ki, which is exactly 560 m/i, where i is ip for decimal second. Unfortunately this is the ONLY physical unit where a conversion factor would be necessary (1 ip = 0.864 s). Computers: It's a pity that this industry did not "decimalize" important numbers, for instance. I'd rather deal with a 100-bit bus than some unsightly 64-bit one! But, BTW, the IEEE came up with a smart solution to this conundrum by coming up with binary prefixes, such as ki, Mi (kibi, Mebi), etc. to diferentiate them from metric ones. Whether these will catch on or not remains to be seen. Now... I believe you're mistaken. I just had a recent discussion where we dealt with this very issue (chip standard sizing). Perhaps you'd care to know that spacing in chips have been metricated to whole rational increments of mm. For instance, 0.5 mm, 0.4 mm, etc. Decimals vs. Fractions: While it's true we ALL count in tens, research I've read in the past indicate that for some reason the human brain simply works best with it! Don't ask me why. As a computer programmer I tried (for years) to feel comfortable around the base 16, but simply failed miserably at it. And I'm known to have superior math skills. I just simply couldn't handle 16-base math operations as well! :-( It's not accurate to say that 'the entire objective of metrication is decimalization'. Actually the decimal base IS an INTEGRAL part of the SI framework, one cannot be divorced from the other. But I find this to be a wonderful thing. As I said earlier, the SI is NOT against fractions. There is a place for fractions in life, but NOT for *measuring* things, that's all! Why? Because we simply DO NOT NEED IT! Your whole argument seemed to have centered around the issue of *accuracy*! And a tad of discretization, too. Please remember, accuracy has to do with instruments' ability to provide a measurement. I.e. can it read a value as 50, or 50.4, or 50.43, or 50.432, etc?! Now, no manufacturer should in sane conscience come up with instruments that would have fractional components of accuracy!!! This would just be ludicrous. Imagine for instance the following: 34 125/256 + or - 1/256 inches (feet or whatever...)!!! It's just plain unworkable, sir! It seems you may have some trouble relating to the math conversion business of moving from one base to another. ANY number can be written in ANY other base, no matter what that base is! The result may NOT be what one calls "rational", but this should not be relevant as, again I repeat, we deal with a *continuum*! In other words, there are an *infinite* number of possibilities to express values. Of course, too bad that some numbers would render "irrational" in other bases, but, so what? That's precisely when fractions can be most useful. However, fractions are NOT a *cure all*! But, again, we're delving into mathematics territory now. Please remember, math and measurements are NOT the same thing. Finally, the SEC mandate did NOT 'introduce inherent errors', since stocks are now valued in decimal cents (just like any price we see in the market). This is NOT a matter of introducing errors, but switching the base whereby we measure the value of things (price in this case), sir! Why should one quote prices in fractional 1/64 when our monetary system is entirely decimal??? But, if you haven't noticed, 0.01 cents is more *accurate* than 1/64 $!!!... Evidently if there were fractional pieces of money floating around then it probably would have made more sense to keep those fractions after all. Unfortunately, you don't realize that this business of 10 fingers is not like you depicted. True, primitive people used their fingers in their hands to count, but, why did they do it? Have you ever stopped to think about that? Isn't it possible that perhaps it was God's plan that we settled for the base 10 after all? Why would research be so conclusive on the subject? I don't know about you, but to me, there is more than what meets the eyes here. Now, I'm sorry to say I couldn't quite follow your 'only four fingers' business. That didn't make any sense to me. When you count with the members of your hand, who cares if there are different lengths in those parts??? There is no natural impediment for anyone to not use the thumbs also for the counting process! Therefore, why would you call the French 'myopic' in this regard? With regards to your discussion in item (c) granted, perhaps a base 12 *might* theoritically provide some additional advantages. However, please think of the two *natural* obstacles here. Firstly, it's *humans* the bottleneck, NOT computers, machines and technology. When one calculates costs one MUST consider the *weak* part in the equation: US (you, I...)! Again, I remind you of that research part I mentioned. For some reason we DO work, function, better around the base 10 (and I honestly don't know why, only that I DID earnestly try to use other bases, like 16, but didn't quite have much success at it). Secondly, the world around us is a *continuum*! If one finds a piece of wood, it will have the length that it will have, period! We should adopt a system that works best in the most number of circumstances possible. One that would be intelligent, simple, theoretically sound, efficient, consistent, coherent, etc. The ONLY answer to those qualities IS the SI system (for now, anyways...). Repeated halving: I honestly don't see the relevance of this when it comes to *measurements*. So what if 'halving' may become "cumbersome" or require additional decimal places in the base 10? But wait a minute, doesn't *halving itself* suffer from the same conundrum? Bingo! This is what is called *accuracy*! The more you halve the more numbers appear in the denominator, it goes from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8, etc all the way to 2 to the power of minus some 'n'. Now, one can certainly NOT simply disregard the formidable convenience and power of simply moving a decimal point, sir!!! Try this with fractions, my friend! And ask ANY industrialist what s/he would prefer, accuracies stated in terms of powers of 2 or powers of 10??? As for rulers 'graticuled in ... halv(es)', I'm sorry, but to me this has ALWAYS been a source of puzzlement and even sheer embarassment to me (as I've never been able to quite distinguish among those pesky 1/64 subdivisions... :-( With decimal subdivisions all I do is **count** how many ticks there are and, knowing their accuracy level correctly, place them in the final measured value. That's all there is to it, really...). What's Taking So Long? BTW, we (unfortunately) - except me, of course... - still largely talk about fuel consumption in terms of mpg, eh?... :-) You mentioned 'cost' as an 'obvious reason' for the conversion to be taking so long. However, the REAL TRUTH of the matter (and something I can *prove* regardless of your environment being totally imperial, even if so!) is that this is a MYTH perpetrated by ifpists as an excuse NOT to convert! The examples of Australia, Brazil and many other countries that converted are inexcusable proof of the fallacy of that argument! Unlike many might think, using the SI system leads to LONG TERM savings! It's myopic to look at this only as an initial investment scenario. The reality is more like the following: NPV = IV - PV(long term savings)!!! (there is a *minus* sign in this equation!...) Some industries may recover from their investments 2, 3 maybe even 10 years down the road. But, it's irrefutable that ultimately they'd produce better results. Why? Simply because the superiority of the system *itself* as it trickles down through operations and usage catches up and in some industries even quite quickly. You're right though. This transition *sometimes* is better when done during 'equipment replacement and modernization'! Very good! :-) Now, as to the 'fix something that isn't broken', careful! A horse isn't broken either. However, a car can get you from A to B a LOT faster! Old radios can STILL play, but certainly the quality of a stereo system would far make listening more enjoyable!... Now, you lunch what I consider to be very important and relevant questions in the paragraph starting with 'Another obstacle'. Given its importance I find it fair that I try to outline the main reasons for why this 'affects the thickness of a bassoon reed'. We live in a world which is more and more globalized, where competition tends to be *worse* not better, where ANY small thing that can give someone "the edge" (or competitive/comparative advantage using the MBA jargon) becomes paramount. In addition one must remember that people STILL and ALWAYS WILL speak a different language. In other words, despite the inroads the English language has made in the commerce world, the reality is Chinese will continue to speak Chinese, etc, etc. However, due to economic, scientific and political reasons it HAS become CRITICAL that ALL nations use ONE SINGLE system of measurements. We, peoples of the earth, do too much trading with each other, exchange too much information among ourselves, cooperate too much with each other that a plethora of mixed units would simply create too many complications *for us all*! It behooves EVERY nation to cooperate ultimately and decide on what one should do in this regard. Alas, given some of the above arguments one HAS to reach the conclusion that the ONLY solution to this would be to *standardize* around the SI system. There simply can be NO other alternative that can provide users the level of efficiency, effectiveness, etc that a system like the SI can provide. It's just that simple (really!...). Now, you're unfortunately right, 'the real obstacle is the American people', *quite sadly*... :-(............... Instead of thinking of the benefits, advantages, etc that would result from this choice, such people seem to have preferred to take, quite frankly, a more... arrogant stance and attitude. Instead of being humble and rational about this, they seem to let emotions take the best (actually worst!) out of them. What can I say? :-( I wish things were different. I wish they'd recognize that they're not alone on this planet, that there are *other* peoples around the globe who can build and do wonderful things, too! And the French, like it or not, came up with a wonderful breakthrough here. It could be been you, but it wasn't. So what? Let's accept the good *every nation* can bring to the table, be grateful about it and move on, for crying out loud! But I haven't lost complete hope yet. Who knows metric might still be 'popular' with Americans. But for that to happen, perhaps we might need more people with *vision* over there. People who would not be afraid to tell things as they are, people who'd have to courage to stand up for what is right and do what is right FOR ALL! Also, we need that people realize that it IS ok if one sacrificed a bit of personal freedom for the good of the collective sometimes, eh? This wouldn't necessarily mean a loss of identity, but a realization that one must work *together* for the achievement of even more wonderful things! Not even the most outstanding athlete in the planet can succeed ALL BY HIMSELF! He needs the nurturing of his coach, social peers, colleagues, etc. NO ONE can live in a vaccuum, isolated from the rest of the world around them! At times it just makes sense if we stopped being pedantic or rhetorical and start thinking more of the bigger picture. So, to conclude: A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come: I'm reassured that you feel that opposing metrication will ultimately fail, but I think ALL of us should play a constructive role in making that happen, AND as quickly as possible. Why wait on a wonderful thing if one can benefit from it NOW??? At least let's give it a chance. I've seen this in my *personal experience*. I do NOT use ANY imperial (ifp, customary, whatever) units in my life, period! I don't need ANY of them. I'm perfectly comfortable around grams, kilos, centimeters, THE WHOLE MAGUILA! I honestly can't see what the fuss is all about. But it's ONLY when you **experience it, truly** that you'll reach that level. Now, true, we shouldn't be entirely critical of those who may still prefer ifp units. However, we should be though if THAT means stifling progress to our brothers and sisters, friends and all around us, because THAT would be selfish. And I don't think selfishness is a good thing under ANY circumstances. Therefore, fine, keep using whatever one wants and prefers, but please, for the love of yourself (not you, directly, it's a general rhetorical remark) let the world go around and evolve where it must. Please let's NOT think of 'bureaucrats, regulators,...' individuals as being all that bad. When it comes to this, these guys are attempting to do what TRULY must be done! And so what if finally one would have the good sense to also metricate time in the end? I'd have no trouble whatsoever to use a 100 ki clock or a 400 gr circle, if that means bringing the best either of these systems can offer humanity!!! Have yourself and your family a great day, sir! Please forgive me if anything I said above was offensive to you. I truly didn't mean it! God bless, Your fellow earth inhabitant from Canada, Marcus Berger ===== Jesus ONLY settles for THE best, so what excuse can you possibly give to NOT go SI??? ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
