my comments in green. On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:06 AM, John M. Steele <[email protected]>wrote:
> By the definition I proposed, I don't think it is as high as 50% > currently. Some industries are metric internally, either totally or in > part. Automotive, pharmaceuticals, and electronics are totally or largely > metric internally (except for display sizes). However, all offer up > supplemental they think consumers demand. Some large firms (P&G) are > metric internally because they are multinationals, even though their > industry generally isn't. I've seen estimates vary from 20-40%. But it is > hard to judge unless you can see internal drawings, process sheets, etc. > yet i think that regardless of whether a product is labeled with inch-pound, that the measuring processes used to produce the product if metric should also be counted as metric. Publically, labelling of net contents is generally dual and the dual is > required by law, not manufacturer's option, so it violates the third > suggested point, and none of it can be counted. Beer and all random-weight > goods must be marked in Customary, the metric isn't even required (although > allowed). > i think that many metricated industries (metrication is already part of a normal operational costs) could proceed with metric policy within a 1 or 2 year schedule . yet a 2 to 5 year plan could allow time for some industries to help keep costs of metrication within normal operational costs. All industry could go primarily metric in 2-5 years if they set their minds > to it. That would require all new and modified designs to be all-metric, > even if they have to do some conversions to use inch-based machinery for a > while. It would also allow for continuation of service parts for > inch-based product. All it requires is a commitment to new design being > metric. That is generally how those who have converted converted. If you > whine and cry and lobby Congress for special exemptions, you never convert. > > Some industries would need some regulatory relief however. Federal > construction is supposed to be metric, and I think their design rules trump > local building codes. However, for private construction, local building > codes apply, are generally written in Customary, and metric builoders have > reported inspection hassles. > > It would also require better teaching of metric in school to crank out > young workers ready to work in metric. Right now, metric is not taught so > much from the point of measuring in metric and working problems in metric > but from a conversion standpoint or from using metric prefixes in > scientific notation problems, how many picometers in a kilometer. Since no > one cares, that just teaches kids to dislike metric. > i am now thinking that a style for writing the words for units could treat the unit as singular very much like the style for writing the symbol. in my reviews of usage so far, i think that this can be regarded to a large extent as a matter of style (perhaps not so much as a matter of grammar). for example 'how many picometer in a kilometer' is a clear and unambiguous expression. it is also SImpler to write and edit for those who work with written expressions of units. thus i anticipate that the AATideas Style Guide will be updated for writing and speaking words for units in terms of singular in preparation for a program for AAT Metrication Month 2012 (occurring around 2012 October 10). > Finally, I would like to move one comma on your first point > metric (SI, and so forth) measures are either required, or permitted on a > standalone basis, for all commercial or mandated measurement purposes. > The second point also needs commas > other (customary, inch-pound, and so forth) measures would never be > required, nor permitted on a standalone basis, for commercial or mandated > measurement purposes. > ok. > > > --- On *Tue, 6/19/12, Ron Stone <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: Ron Stone <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:51717] checkpoints for evaluating US metrication (re > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2012, 10:36 PM > > > John, > > i have paraphrased the three items in [USMA:51713] for evaluating > metrication in the United States as follows. > > > metric (SI, and so forth) measures are either required or permitted, on a > standalone basis, for all commercial or mandated measurement purposes. > > other (customary, inch-pound, and so forth) measures would never be > required nor permitted on a standalone basis for commercial or mandated > measurement purposes. > > dual presentation of metric and other measures can be permitted for > commercial or mandated measurement purposes if the other measures are > presented as supplementary information. > > > some good questions would also be > > 1) how much of the US economy could be considered to be already metric? > > 2) how much of the US economy could metricate within one or two fiscal > cycles? > > 3) what is the economic value of those areas of the economy that are > already metric? > > > i would think that the answers to #1 and #2 are both more than 50%, > although i am not sure how much more. i would think that the answer to #3 > is more than 70%, although how much more i also couldn't say. > > > SIncerely, > > Ron Stone > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:28 AM, John M. Steele < > [email protected]<http://us.mc1811.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> > > wrote: > > We are neither 100% metric nor 100% Customary. We are either > "semi-metric" or "all screwed up." > > I would propose the country can't be considered fully metric until the > following is true. Metric measure is either required or allowed, on a > standalone basis, for all measurement purposes. Customary is never > required nor acceptable on a standalone basis. Dual is allowed, but the > Customary is only supplemental information. > > > > -- > > ----------------- > Ron Stone > ---------------------------- > on Twitter (at) photonron > --------------------------------------------------------- > disclaimers or other restrictions may apply to this message. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- ----------------- Ron Stone ---------------------------- on Twitter (at) photonron --------------------------------------------------------- disclaimers or other restrictions may apply to this message. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
