[USMA:35118] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.

Wed, 02 Nov 2005 04:09:45 -0800

Can I suggest that since a yard is roughly a pace - that you pace out the distance to find out (approximately) how far it really is? Then you can find out which sign was truer - the metric one or the imperial one. 


From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:35110] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:33:12 -0000

Daniel wrote:


"Who changed the sign on the road where you live?  Was it changed 
recently?"



As I wrote in the post referring to this, the sign in question, on a 
country road NEAR to where I live, was changed about 3 years ago.



It was changed by city of Sunderland council in response to complaints from 
Neil Herron, ex-Metric Martyr.



Herron was correct, of course. The sign, reading 0.5km was illegal and 
replaced by the council for one reading 300 yards!!!  An apparent 
discrepancy of around 250 yards!



Incidentally, as far as I know, the replacement of the 0.5km sign had 
nothing to do with ARM.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:35 PM
Subject: [USMA:35040] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.



> If what you are saying is true, then that is actually great.  Let ARM 
change

> al the signs to wrong numbers.  It will actually have the effect of
> distorting a person's perception of imperial units.  The more damage to
> imperial, the better.
>
> Interesting thought.  ARM claims to have changed thousands of signs to
> imperial.  Most of those signs were done in metric because the people

> putting them up used existing survey markers as guides.  If the sign 
said
> 500 m ahead, it meant that the sign was placed at a survey marker that 
was
> 500 m from another survey marker.  Unless ARM physically uproots the 
sign

> and moves it to a location that would be true to the yard distance they

> place on it, then the sign if left in the original location is wrong 
when

> the yards are shown.
>

> If the distances ARM puts on the sign are not true and exact equivalents 
of
> the metric numbers they replaced, then they in fact are guilty of 
vandalism.
> Who changed the sign on the road where you live?  Was it changed 
recently?

>
> Dan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, 2005-10-28 11:18
> Subject: [USMA:35030] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
>
>
> > This post is a little wayward but along the same lines as what we are
> > discussing here.
> >

> > About three years ago, an illegal sign on a country road near to where 
I
> > live that read a distance of 0.5km was replaced by a legal one which 
read

> > 300 yards!?!
> >

> > Now, either the original signpost was woefully wrong or the entire 
village

> > that the sign was giving directions to has moved forward by up to 250
> > yards!
> >
> > There are around 550 yards to 500 metres, are there not?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steve.
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:34 PM
> > Subject: [USMA:35019] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
> >
> >

> >> You know that I will disagree with you because I prefer dual measures 
-

> >> but
> >> you miss out my key point.
> >> I was talking about the US. and that *at least* move to dual notation
> >> *then*
> >> campaing to get the imperial bit abolished.
> >>
> >> as i said I cannot agree with that point of view but I can make an
> >> observation.
> >>

> >> It's interesting that I would like to see Americans see metric as 
well as

> >> imperial, whereas you want me to be unable to see imperial alongside
> >> metric.
> >>   I've never got my head around that.
> >>
> >>
> >> >From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> >> >Subject: [USMA:35018] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
> >> >Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:34:22 +0100
> >> >

> >> >But it is because of dual measures that this sort of muddle arises 
in

> >> >the
> >> >first place.
> >> >
> >> >There is no virtue in campaigning to keep it that way.
> >> >
> >> >Phil Hall
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Humphreys"
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> >> >Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:01 AM
> >> >Subject: [USMA:35017] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Make your mind up Daniel.  You've been going on about the UK being
> >> >>totally

> >> >>metric and the BBC being the same but recently that's all changed 
(a

> >> >>few
> >> >>times actually).
> >> >>

> >> >>Also, it's worth pointing out that Daniel believes that the BBC 
vets
> >> >>people phoning in on live radio debates to make sure that the 
caller
> >> >>speaks in imperial only and not metric.  I won't enclose a link to 
the

> >> >>page that says this unless anyone wants to take this offline.
> >> >>

> >> >>The simple fact is - without conspiracy - the info was most 
probably

> >> >>originally in metric.  It was then converted to imperial - then, on
> >> >>this
> >> >>"history news" item, the imperial figures were used and the BBC

> >> >>"bi-lingualled" it back again.  At the end of the day the accuracy 
is

> >> >>such

> >> >>that I suspect it matters very little either way.    I would 
suggest

> >> >>that
> >> >>a move forward here (for metric)  would be to suggest that US news
> >> >>sources

> >> >>use both notations rather than just convert to imperial all the 
time.

> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>From: "Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> >> >>>Subject: [USMA:35013] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
> >> >>>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:16:35 -0400
> >> >>>
> >> >>>300,000 miles (483,000 km)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>185 miles (298 km)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>  60 miles (96.5 km)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>

> >> >>>What you are saying is that the use of imperial caused a 
corruption in
> >> >>>the metric values from 480 000, or possibly 500 000 to 483 000, 
from

> >> >>>300
> >> >>>km to 298 km, and from 100 km to 96.5 km.  I
> >> >>>
> >> >>>This was obviously done on purpose to give the impression that the

> >> >>>Russians, and everyone else for that matter thought in imperial, 
thus

> >> >>>the

> >> >>>use of rounded imperial numbers, and metric was just added to show 
how

> >> >>>it

> >> >>>produces silly, un-rounded numbers.  Thus if anyone ever tries to 
tell

> >> >>>us

> >> >>>that going metric would make numbers simpler, then all we need do 
is

> >> >>>show

> >> >>>them something like this to prove it is imperial that is simpler 
and

> >> >>>metric is difficult.
> >> >>>

> >> >>>The BBC needs to re-edit the article, remove the corrupted units, 
and

> >> >>>replace the metric values with the original.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Dan
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >> >>>
> >> >>>   From: Remek Kocz
> >> >>>   To: U.S. Metric Association
> >> >>>   Sent: Wednesday, 2005-10-26 17:27
> >> >>>   Subject: [USMA:35012] The pitfalls of double conversion.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>

> >> >>>   The BBC website has a neat feature where they post news items 
from

> >> >>>decades past.  Today, the article

> >> >>>   on the Soviet probe seding back the first pictures of the dark 
side

> >> >>> of
> >> >>>the moon.  The article cites

> >> >>>   imperial dimensions followed by metric ones in parentheses.  
From

> >> >>> the
> >> >>>metric equivalents given, it's pretty clear that BBC just

> >> >>>   converted the measurements from the original news story to 
metric

> >> >>>without realizing that they were metric in the first place,
> >> >>>   the data coming from metric Soviets and all.
> >> >>>

> >> >>>   I'm enclosing the link, just to show how inetesting the results 
can

> >> >>> be
> >> >>>when a double conversion takes place.  From metric to

> >> >>>   imperial and then back to metric again.  It's like that game 
kids

> >> >>> play
> >> >>>in school where a phrase is whispered from child to child, to see

> >> >>>   how the phrase will change by the time it reaches the last 
child.

> >> >>>
> >> >>>

> >> 
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/26/newsid_4045000/4045913.stm

> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>

> >> 
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>   No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> >>>   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> >>>   Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/149 - Release Date:
> >> >>>2005-10-25
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/150 - Release Date: 
2005-10-27

> >
> >
>

























					Reply via email to