See Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems .
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 23 August 2013 11:02 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:53214] Re: [USMA:53210] RE: [USMA:53208] RE: [USMA:53206] Re: [USMA:53197] RE: You know what the rest of the world has figured out? The metric system. It’s time the US got on board. | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network Respectfully, I disagree. I think it is important to counter arguments that Imperial and Customary are a shared system. They are two separate "systems", each unique to ONE nation, that have as many differences as similarities. Only one system, the SI, is understood by the world. However, as soon as we say it, some metrication foe will chime in "but what about Imperial and Customary?" Even where the units have the same definition, we disagree in usage (feet and yards). Perhaps that point could have been more clearly in my post, but I thought the examples spoke for themselves. From: "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:52 PM Subject: [USMA:53210] RE: [USMA:53208] RE: [USMA:53206] Re: [USMA:53197] RE: You know what the rest of the world has figured out? The metric system. It’s time the US got on board. | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network Martin and John, Why all this bantering with non-metric units of measurement? Non-SI units are hopelessly impossible to manipulate into an orderly and coherent "*System* of Units." We do not seek instruction on the selection and proper usage of non-SI units. Please take your notions of proper usage of "units outside the SI" elsewhere, or limit your postings on non-SI to new facts. Eugene Mechtly From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Martin Vlietstra [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:37 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:53208] RE: [USMA:53206] Re: [USMA:53197] RE: You know what the rest of the world has figured out? The metric system. It’s time the US got on board. | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network More importantly, does he walk one mile to school of 1760 yards to school (oops, would you guys in the States usually write 5280 feet in this circumstance, we in the UK we would usually use yards). If he walks three quarters of a mile (or a mile and a quarter), what is that in yards (or feet)? When do you use yards (feet) instead of fractions of a mile? Had he walked 1.6 km to school, it makes little difference if we describe the shorter walk as 1200 m or the longer walk as 2000 m – metres and kilometres merge seamlessly into each other. Moreover, if Johannes walked 1200 m to his school in Berlin and Jean walked 2000 m to his school in Paris, both would understand each if the distances were written done – unlike the Brits and the Yanks who use yards and feet respectively, but who otherwise speak the same language (more or less). From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Natalia Permiakova Sent: 22 August 2013 17:46 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:53206] Re: [USMA:53197] RE: You know what the rest of the world has figured out? The metric system. It’s time the US got on board. | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network just added my comment to the article, hopefully it will bend at least one person's opinion toward metric system “The USA leads the world in Nobel science awards….more than the rest of ‘the metric’ world combined. Little Johnny walking a mile to school instead of 1.6 kms matters because of what exactly?” It is hard to tell if USA would have even more Nobel science award if it would adopt metric system many years ago. And Johnny could easily calculate in his head on the way home how long would it take him to get home if he runs the distance with the same speed he runs 100 meters sprint. because you don’t need a calculator to divide by 10. If he decides to use calculator, it is 10-based. 2.89 or 2.77 ft can’t be easily expressed in inches, but for metric measurements it can be done in a split of a second. Ordinary kids become discouraged with math exercises for every day life in elementary school because there are different divisors for every measuring unit. I feel bad that kids in US can not benefit from simplicity of metric system. US customary system kills all the fun of solving simple problems. (except of money problems, which are metric) Then, don’t be surprised why ordinary computer coding jobs get outsources and graduates in US can’t find any job. From: "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:36 PM Subject: [USMA:53197] RE: You know what the rest of the world has figured out? The metric system. It’s time the US got on board. | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network kPa, First, the so-called "conversion factors" are in reality the *definitions* of non-SI units, definitions of units which are "outside the SI." They do not scare anyone who has even only an introductory understanding of SI! Second, the blog you cite, which adulterates the process of "metrication" as "metrification" with the "if" was obviously not written by a professional in NIST, although the conclusion of the need for the transition to SI is accurately stated. Eugene Mechtly From: Kilopascal [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:45 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: You know what the rest of the world has figured out? The metric system. It’s time the US got on board. | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network The old question that asks: With friends like this who needs enemies, sure applies here. First the NIST comes up with conversion factors between USC and SI that will scare anyone away from SI, but now they have the ignorance to call metrication as metrIFication. There is no IF in metrication. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/08/20/you-know-what-the-rest-of-the-world-has-figured-out-the-metric-system-its-time-the-us-got-on-board/ The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the government arm that sets standards and measurements to support American competitiveness, concludes that “the current effort toward national metrification is based on the conclusion that industrial and commercial productivity, mathematics and science education, and the competitiveness of American products and services in world markets, will be enhanced by completing the change to the metric system of units. Failure to complete the change will increasingly handicap the Nation’s industry and economy.”
