One huge advantage that the liter has over the cubic meter (multiples and submultiples included) is that the symbol notation does not entail a superscript. The awkwardness and potential ambiguity of terms like ³dm3² (with the 3 resting on the baseline) appear wherever text lacks character formatting: (1) electronic books available on-line and archived by services such as the Gutenberg Project; (2) electronic files of new books, files requested and catalogued by the Library of Congress in advance of publication; (3) very many bulletin board, list serve, blog, and e-mail programs and sites; (4) anywhere else that uses ASCII or MS-DOS text.
We of the USMA seek to change the way people in our country speak, write, and think. Our purpose is noble, but the wish to impose uniformity does not always share this noble purpose. For purposes of science, the compulsion is almost as persuasive as Miss Manners telling us to put a fish fork at every table setting. From: G Stanley Doore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: G Stanley Doore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:29:22 -0400 To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:38959] Re: Indefinite postponement Bill et al: The litre is identically the same as cubic decimeter, mL is identically the same as cubic millimetre, etc. and the kL is identically the same as cubic metre. So why switch terminally? I took your explanation as implying/advocating two different terms - litre and cubic decimetre etc. - for identical quantities. Sorry if I misinterpreted your explanation. I still don't understand why you want to use a mixture/two terms for the same quantity/quantities/notation in common general/public practice in contrast to scientific practice/notation when the litre is ACCEPTABLE for use under the SI while NOT being strictly SI. You said: "(2) there is no reason to have two names (and two symbols) for the same unit." So why use litre (L) at all? Can't there be consistency in pubic practice and in scientific practice in this special case for volume? Stan Doore > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Bill Hooper <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:54 PM > Subject: [USMA:38956] Re: Indefinite postponement > > On 2007 Jun 28 , at 5:09 PM, STANLEY DOORE wrote: > >> Bill Hooper asks why not keep the cubic decimeter, cubic metre, cubic >> millimetre etc. which are strictly SI. > > No, I did not. I merely asked to keep the cubic metre and not replace it with > the kilolitre. > > I said nothing about the others you mention. I do have some thoughts on > those, but those thoughts have no bearing on my argument for NOT using the > kilolitre. > > That argument is: > > because > (1) the kilolitre is identically the same as a cubic metre > (which most decidedly IS a proper SI unit), > > and > > (2) there is no reason to have two names (and two symbols) for the same unit. > > Regards, > > Bill Hooper > > Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA > > ========================== > > Make It Simple; Make It Metric! > > ==========================
