I'll use dark blue --- On Wed, 6/20/12, Ron Stone <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Ron Stone <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [USMA:51717] checkpoints for evaluating US metrication (re To: [email protected] Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 4:08 PM 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. I agree, but I don't think 50% is already metric internally. 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. I'm sorry, I don't understand. If they are already metric, aren't they already metric. 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). I think this misses the point (or makes a different point). It doesn't matter if the word is picometer or picometers. It is not a good problem. Measuring in metric and solving practical, real world problems in metric needs to be the emphasis. Scientific notation and handling large and small numbers need to be taught. When it is taught as "metric education", it makes kids hate metric and makes kids think all there is to metric is pushing decimal points around. Kids need to learn to choose an appropriate prefix -- if the distance is on the order of kilometers (say 1-1000), kilometers, not picometers, is the appropriate unit and prefix. However, spelled out unit names are ordinary nouns per the SI Brochure (and NIST SP 330), so I don't think the singular is appropriate. But unit symbols are never pluralized. 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]> 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
