Dear Michael, What you say here makes sense to me. In my experience, metrication has always saved more money than it has cost.
You might be interested in the article, 'Costs of non-metrication' that you can download as a pdf from http://www.metricationmatters.com/articles/ Cheers, Pat Naughtin PO Box 305 Belmont 3216 Geelong, Australia 61 3 5241 2008 Pat Naughtin is manager of http://www.metricationmatters.com an internet website that focuses on the many issues, methods and processes that individuals, groups, companies, and nations use when upgrading to the metric system. Contact Pat Naughtin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2007 06 5 10:59 AM, "Michael Palumbo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your last sentence hits the nail on the head, Scott. In the case of > HDTV, the mandate gives the corporations a new revenue stream; it's > planned (and forced) obsolescence at its finest. The citizen has to > pay, not the corporation. > > In metrication, it's exactly the opposite. Though, if you think about > it, every citizen has to pay in a way by being forced to use an outdated > and, frankly, difficult & impractical system of measure. > > So in both situations, we lose. Great. > > What we need is a way of spinning this so that it's not considered a > money loser, but rather a money maker. If metrication is proposed as > something that will streamline business, make global trade easier, and > ultimately help to increase profits, you'll see acceptance. Americans > generally don't care about interaction with the rest of the world, > because they simply don't *have* any interaction with the rest of the > world. But when it comes to money, they listen. > > Just my 2 pence. [they're worth more than cents ;)] > > -Mike > > Scott Hudnall wrote: >> I was reading an article on high-definition televisions, and how the >> US government has mandated that all TV stations broadcast in HD only >> beginning in 2009. This will cost consumers several thousand dollars >> each to replace a television set, or at minimum several hundred >> dollars each to purchase a converter box. >> >> This is a costly mandate - yet we do not see a groundswell of >> opposition or lobbyists trying to de-rail implementation of this >> rule. The cost for the US to complete metrication in short order is >> probably less than what it would cost for us to all replace our >> televisions next year. So why is it that metrication is portrayed as >> a costly endeavor, but making everyone buy new TV sets is not? I >> guess it depends on who is paying the bill - consumers or >> corporations. >> >> Sorry for the ranting. >> >> Scott >> >
