In this one case I would agree with the centimeter, because the millimeter implies a level of precision not generally possible with people's heights.
Carleton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Remek Kocz Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 20:17 To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:40638] Re: Centi The rest of the world that measures their heights in metric uses centimeters. It's just a convenient unit. I think this millimeter business is just barking up the wrong tree. All you need is a firm commitment to convert and you're done, the way it happened in Australia. As long as we've got lobbyists and friendly legislators throwing the monkey wrench into the works each time, millimeters or centimeters, nobody will convert. Remek On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Ziser, Jesse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Bill Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2008 Mar 18 , at 9:15 AM, Stan Jakuba wrote: > > > Bill I understand what you mean (about the use of the prefix > > "centi-" for lengths). However, on the scale of the task to accept > > SI in the world (not just the US) this is such a minor issue that, > > on top of it, would consume effort disproportionate to the gain. It > > would raise hurricane-proportion resistance. > > > > Actually, Stan, I agree. (See also another email I just sent off > replying to Jesse Ziser concerns about the same topic.) > > I think my stand is somewhat ambiguous if not outright contradictory. > My thinking is probably on a middle course that would have me saying: > > "Let's not use centi- for centimetres when it can easily be > avoided, and certainly not in cases like "centi-Amps" where it is > seldom heard of and never necessary. > > "But furthermore, I have agree that this effort should be kept > within the metric-familiar and/or technical fields (for now) since the > centimetre is so widely recognized in the world, including among > people who don't often use metric." > > So I agree that I would not try to argue with non-metric supporters > about this issue. None-the-less, I find it possible to state that my > height is 1810 mm or 1.81 m. I can show by example that the centimetre > is not necessary here. But I am forced to agree that a litre can be > most easily described as 1000 cm^3, although it can just as well can > be described as one one-thousandth of a cubic metre. But, it > certainly would be extremely awkward to have to describe > it as 1 000 000 mm^3. I don't think eliminating the centimeter in most non-technical cases is much to ask, and saying I'm 1770 mm tall doesn't bother me. If it makes life easier for some people (which it apparently does) to keep things in thousands for 1-dimensional measures, I don't really think that would be much of an inconvenience for me. ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
