I'm sure that NG can't get away with this abroad, with perhaps the exception of Canada or the UK. For certain the Polish edition of NG is 100% metric, but with an interesting twist: metric is translated from the US edition's USC, so you frequently end up with double conversion that makes for awkward metric dimensions. I remarked on this before on this list, and Pat Naughtin featured this in the recent Metrication Matters (thanks, Pat!).
In any case, I'll join the few of you who are writing to NG and let them know that they've lost yet another subscriber because of their anti-metric policy. Remek On 1/25/07, Daniel Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is the National Geographic using FFU only in its US editions or does it try to use FFU in all editions? How does it justify using FFU in editions of the magazine (if it does so) that are sold in countries other then the US? Do they really think everyone in the world understands FFU and really prefers FFU to SI? I think the more you write to them to complain it seems like they become more adamant in their decision to keep FFU, especially if they don't lose a significant customer base over it. I don't support non-metric organizations and never will, but I'm sure I have no effect in my decision on any companies bottom line. ----- Original Message ---- From: Richard M < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:24:11 AM Subject: [USMA:37858] Re: Drives me crazy! I just received a response back from National Geographic about a letter I sent them about a month ago. I wrote telling them that I expect a magazine of their caliber to use the SI system, or at the very least to at least put SI when the original measurement was SI and to relegate 'customary' to a secondary position. I told them if they switch to SI (or at least use primary metric and relegate non-metric to secondary) I will immediately sign back up to receive there publication. The response I received, to sum it up in once sentence, was "Thank you for writing to us about SI; we are sorry to loose you as a customer". I don't agree with the statement that National Geographic is 'dumbing down' units. That would imply that they are changing from a hard to understand system to a much easier system for the common person, so easy that even a 'dummy' can understand it. Instead National Geographic is often times 'complicating up' the numbers to harder to understand, and often less accurate due to the conversion, non-metric units. Richard On 1/25/07, Harry Wyeth < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another drives-me-nuts product of the National Geographic! > > HARRY WYETH > > ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Harry Wyeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:18 AM > *Subject:* Nonsense "traditional" measurements > > Dear Editors; > > No one, but no one, in the English speaking world measures height in > yards. But on page 142 of the January issue we read about the Arctic > travelers encountering "six yard(s) high" ice blockages. In an article > about an expedition from Russia by Norwegian and South African venturers, > would it be too difficult to tell it the way they experienced it--with > metric measurements? They surely didn't relate to any media that the ice > floes were "six yards" high! > > The height was 6 m. The open lead referred to was 400 m wide. The 375 > pound sleds were 170 kg. And at the end, they discovered that they were > 1000 m or one km from the North Pole (not 1000 yards!), for heaven's sake. > > By dumbing down worldwide metric standard measurements, your editors are > insulting Americans' intelligence. > > HARRY WYETH > ------------------------------ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49936/*http://videogames.yahoo.com>
