A few observations:
(i) The origin and history of the metre is not relevent to metrology of today and has no bearing on the merits of the metric system. It has always had a decimal structure and although there have been more than one version (cgs, mks etc) the centimetre and gram for example is still the same as always. There is no such thaing as a natural unit of measurement anything we choose will be arbitrary. The foot is not the size of a typical human foot.
(ii) Non-metric units do not constitute a "system" and bear no comparison with metric. They started life in different places at different times for specific applications many of which are now defunct. The relations between them are a belated attempt to rationalise them which is why they are such a confused muddle.
(iii) If it is so important to have units that are of a size convenient to the application in hand (so as to avoid large numbers) then why is aircraft altitude measured in feet? Why do Americans measure their weight in pounds? Why is jet engine thrust measured in lb-force?
(iv) If thirds are so important why don't the imperial/USC units of weight have 3 as a prime factor in any of the multiplies (16, 14, 8, 20)?
(vi) The decimeter is part of the SI, the system does not skip an order of magnitude. The fact that it is seldom used only attests to it not being felt necessary for most applications.
(vii) A lot of people only drink half (UK) pints because they find a full pint too much to drink in one go. So what's the big deal about the litre?
(viii) The "spirited resistance" we saw in the UK was precipitated by idiotic and irresponsible handling of the metric changeover. The trade laws requiring metric only for loose goods that led to a rebellion was because it was dumped on traders who were expected to do the government's job of educating the public for them. When Trading Standards Officers did their duty in enforcing it, they got no support from the cowardly and deceitful politicians who made the laws in the first place, some of whom actually sided with the rebels. Nobody actually stood up and explained the reason for the change and the need for a single system of measurement in the market place, something that has a historic precedent going back to Magna Carta.
The rebellion (accordiing to the rebels themselves) had nothing to do with the merits of the metric system and its suitablity for the purpose at hand. It was purely an issue to do with "what the customers want". The leading light in all this, the late Steven Thoburn, actually had metric equipment in his possesion but didn't use it because (he said) noone actually asked for their produce in kilograms.
And why should they? What, in the absence of any explanation of how they stood to gain from it, were they expected to do? Not to mention the fact that they weren't even told about it in the first place, except by a token distribution of leaflets to shops that no-one noticed.
So in conclusion, I'm not offended by this article but I do wish some of these apparently well educated people, who should know better, would at least give some credit for the fact that the advantages of the metric system far outweigh any perceived disadvantages, most if which don't stand up to examination in any case.
Phil Hall
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:45 PM
Subject: [USMA:32710] MIT Technology Review Article on the metric system
Interesting article. Those who are perpetually offended will find offense in it; others will likely learn a thing or two.
<http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/megascope.asp>
Jim
Jim Elwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-466-8770 www.qsicorp.com
