I should also add that none of these students knew the boiling point of water was 100C or 212F at sea level or that body temp was 98.6 degrees or 37C.
A few even mentioned that being in track their coaches may have had them run 100 meter dash and the other events but I know quite a few coaches that convert it to feet or miles and then tell the kids to run a 330 foot dash. That's not the case in most parts of the country because most have switched to using the international metric standards but here in Idaho that switch is just beginning. Mike On 1/17/07, Mike Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree that the best transition is a fast one but you won't find a president on either side of the aisle that is willing to be brave enough to change "everything" at once. Maybe a few things like metric only package labelling and even switching to Celcius but no president is going to push for metrication during his four year term even though it's doable. They'd have to have tremendous political capital and be able to cast it in such a good light that every American would agree it's a good thing to do and as many of us know getting Americans to agree about anything at all is nigh on impossible :). Besides, I would foresee that if the presidential administration DID switch to SI totally during that four years the one after him would champion "Going back to the grassroots that America was founded on" and start rolling back the changes. The only way to set the law in stone towards SI is to do it gradually until people think that there has never been anything but that and they're used to it. We may even have to go so far as letting the contractors that build our roads do so in feet and inches provided they sign them in meters and kilometers until the generation of engineers that prefer and have fought the government on that retires and a newer one can take its place. Old habits die hard. We had a maths class that brought this up the other day. The question was something along the lines of "Find the vertical clearance of a 2km long pipe that has an eight percent slope" I did it and came out with 160m vertical clearance from beginning to end. Out of the class of 30 students, I was one of perhaps 2 or three people who even knew what a meter was. Of course in Idaho teaching metric is mandated but most teachers simply ignore it or brush over it. About half the studen'ts asked the professor if we would be tested on metric equations and he said yes. He then encouraged us to learn the conversions between meters and kilometers etc. The 20 or so students that were asking the question then asked him if it would be okay if they converted the answer to inches and feet and solved it. He of course replied no because that's not the format the question was in and furthermore we should all know the conversions anyway for our own good. Thus ensued a ten minute long debate about how "This is America and we do things this way" etc :). Several of the students made up their minds to convert any SI unit they saw to the equivalent USC and then work problems that way no matter how messy or complicated it got and threatened the teacher with being dragged in front of a review board if he dared to mark them wrong for not being in the correct units. This is an extreme example but it makes the poiint that there are still strong pockets of resistence to overcome. I felt bad for my professor having to explain all this and then getting verbally chewed out for it but I think he'll stand his ground on the issue. Hopefully the rest of us can do the same and we can keep the ball rolling in the right direction. Mike Mike On 1/16/07, Linda D. Bergeron < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am going to have to agree with Bill on this one. The US has had 30 > years to convert 'slowly'. Not only has it not done so, there are areas of > backslidding. For instance several years ago, at my local Wal-Mart you could > find all kinds of metric measuring cups and scales. Now most everything of > that sort has gone back to Fred Flintstone Units. > > Thus we have seen the "slow" way does not work. Congress needs to get > off its duff and carry out its constitutional duty and designate the metric > system as the only lawful system for the US, effective by a specified date. > And then have the political guts to stick by it when this or that special > intrest screams boldy murder. > > Although I do not see that happening anytime soon. Even with the > Democrats in control of Congress. > > Linda Bergeron > > > > ------------------------------ > From: *Bill Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >* > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: *"U.S. Metric Association" < [email protected]>* > Subject: *[USMA:37754] piecemeal metrication* > Date: *Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:49:20 -0500* > > > On 2007 Jan 16 , at 8:38 AM, Mike Millet wrote: > That's why the best and smoothest transition in the US ... (will be) ... > rather from slow gradual economic and societal change. > > "Slow" and "gradual" means difficult and expensive. During a long, slow > transition, both the old and new systems would be in effect causing a great > deal of confusion and extra work. Furthermore, when two systems are both in > effect, people would tend to continue using the old, familiar system. They > would not "gradually become familiar" with the new one. > > Mike goes on to say: > give the US consumer some time ... (to become accustomed to dual > labeling) ... then gradually introduce temperature and fuel and finally road > signage changes. > > It's difficult to change one things at a time because there are so many > interconnections between units. If one changes fuel measurement at one time > and road signage (including distance) at another time, when do you change > fuel economy figures from miles per gallon to kilometres per litre (or > litres per 100 kilometres)? > > Do you first change from miles per gallon to miles per litre (when > litres are adopted) and then change from miles per litre to kilometres per > litre at a later time (when kilometres are adopted). That would mean having > to make TWO changes instead of just one for fuel economy alone (in addition > to the necessary changes from gallons to litres and from miles to > kilometres. > > Thus, instead of making a total of three changes at one time: > gal. to L, > mi. to km, > mi/gal to km/L > you'd have to make FOUR changes spread out over an extended period of > time: > gal. to L, > mi./gal. to mi./L, > mi. to km, > mi./L to km/L. > > Another example would be cooking times based on oven temperature and > amount of food. We have charts or directions in Fahrenheit and pounds; we > will need to get to Celsius and kilograms. > Do we make TWO changes, first from Fahrenheit+pounds to Celsius+pounds > and later a second change from Celsius+pounds to Celsius+kilograms? How > foolish when we can do it in one change if we convert all things > simultaneously. > > There are other relationships that cause would cause problems, too. We > know (actually I had to look up this first one) that there are 231 in^3 in a > gallon and 1000 cm^3 in a litre. If we convert volumes from gallons to > litres before we convert inches to centimetres, then in the interim (when we > are using litres and inches), do we need to know how many cubic inches there > are in a litre? (The answer is 61.023 7441, by the way.) Again, MORE > conversions are needed when changes are made in several steps instead of all > at once. > > > Regards, > Bill Hooper > Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA > > ========================== > SImplification Begins With SI. > ========================== > > > > ------------------------------ > Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! > Get it now. <http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2746??PS=47575> -- "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
-- "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
