From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:35123] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 16:56:44 -0000
Stephen Humphreys wrote:
"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?"
Well, I could try but 3 feet at a time is QUITE a pace :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:01 PM
Subject: [USMA:35118] Re: The pitfalls of double conversion.
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
