Please distinguish between the "official" (NIST SP 811) standard for SI practice in the USA, and the UK standard (whatever it is). Do you endorse NIST SP 811? If not, what standard for SI practice do you favor?
---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:49:20 -0400 >From: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [USMA:50103] Re: Another NASA use of Ye Olde English units >To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, "U.S. Metric Association" ><[email protected]> > > I'm sure you would because you pay attention to the > subject. But not everybody does and since Americans > today are not good spellers nor good typists there > is a possibility they may spell words differently > than you would like. It may not be intended so you > can't always assume the source is foreign. > > SI is foreign in the sense that it is international > and foreign in that it is unfamiliar to Americans. > Spelling the units differently than the rest of the > English speaking world is not going to make it less > foreign. American spellings are not going to endear > Americans to SI units and using English spellings is > not going to frighten them away. If some > Americans claimed to be turned off to SI because of > English spellings, then they are lying and just > using it as an excuse. If there was no spelling > difference then these people would find some other > excuse to oppose metrication. > > I hope that this comment doesn't lead to another > long nonsensical thread on spelling preferences. > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, 2011-03-19 11:38 > To: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]>; "U.S. Metric Association" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [USMA:50103] Re: Another NASA use of Ye > Olde English units > > > As a citizen of the USA, born in Pennsylvania, I > consider the misspelling of meter as coming from a > "foreign" source or otherwise objectionable > influence. > > EAM > >... > > ---- Original message ---- > >>Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:42:13 -0400 > >>From: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]> > >>Subject: [USMA:50103] Re: Another NASA use of Ye > Olde English units > >>To: <[email protected]>, "U.S. Metric Association" > <[email protected]> > >> > >> Remek & Bill, > >> > >> I highly doubt that if someone sees the word > >> kilometre they would think it is coming from > outside > >> the US. You are attributing to much > intelligence > >> to Americans, especially reporters and editors. > >> They would simply think it is a spelling > error. So, > >> don't make more out of it than what it is or > else > >> you will start another useless thread on > spelling. > >> > >> If Bill signed his message to them as being a > US > >> Metric Association member he will probably be > >> ignored as harbouring a bias against things > >> American. That would stick out more in their > mind > >> than the spelling of a word. > >> > >> Bill said: > >> > >> > What's wrong with: > >> > ... slowing the spacecraft by 3104 km/h ... > The > >> rendezvous took place about 154 million > kilometres > >> from Earth ... through its > 7.9-billion-kilometre > >> journey. > >> > > >> > or even simpler > >> > > >> > ... slowing the spacecraft by 3.104 Mm/h ... > The > >> rendezvous took place about 154 Gm from > Earth. ... > >> through its 7.9-Tm journey. > >> I don't understand why the spacecraft speed has > to > >> be 3104 instead of 3100 km/h. The extra 4 km/h > is > >> just noise. The speed could even have been > stated > >> as 860 km/s. I too would prefer to see 154 Gm > from > >> earth and either a 7.9 Tm or 8.0 Tm journey, as > I > >> loathe a mixture of numbers and words. That > >> practice is a hang-over from USC/imperial as > neither > >> hodge-podge has an effective means of handling > large > >> and small numbers. It would look silly in USC > to > >> write of a 4 900 000 000 mile journey, so zeros > are > >> omitted by inserting words like million, > milliard, > >> billion, billiard, etc. In SI we have prefixes > to > >> replace those words. We need to use them and > make > >> ourselves comfortable seeing them in print. > >> > >> Most intelligent people are use to the prefixes > >> mega, giga, tera, etc in the description of > memory > >> and hard drive space. So NASA can not claim > that > >> these prefixes are unknown to the readers. > They may > >> be unknown to the reporter and editor, but any > one > >> interested enough in space travel would be > >> intelligent enough to understand the prefixes. > >> Those who don't understand the prefixes most > likely > >> wouldn't understand much else in the article > and > >> wouldn't even bother to read it or even be > bothered > >> with it. > >> > >> > >> > >>[USMA:50103] Re: Another NASA use of Ye Olde > English units > >> > >> Remek Kocz > >> Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:31:20 -0700 > >> > >> I hate to stir up the spelling discussion again, > but sending comments to > >> NASA using non-US-English spellings of the units > makes us look like people > >> from outside the US having a beef with the > agency's presentation. The place > >> is already intransigent, let's not give them any > more ammunition to say "no > >> metric for us." > >> > >> Remek ...
