Mike: I don't know what you have been smoking, but I went to the book store and looked through the latest issue of Popular Science. Where do you see the metric units? The whole thing was in inch pound. They even used pounds when they should have used tons. I remember writing letters to Popular Science years ago asking them to use SI, and I was hoping you were right. Sadly, even magazines like "The Futurist" still uses inch pound. One would think we would use SI in the future, right? Years ago back I even got a response from an editor at Discovery Magazine, who was convinced Discovery would gradually move into a metric future. But that never happened either.
Wish I could see more metric usage in science and technology magazines. About the only thing that's metric is the cigarette ads, back when they advertised cigarettes. They were advertised as 100 millimeters long. When I was in Canada, all the weather reports were metric, and they even pronounced kilometer correctly. A bit of hope for a metric advocate since all of that happened in my lifetime. Mark On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Michael Payne <[email protected]>wrote: > Popular Science in the US used to be entirely non metric, but looking at > it today every article I’ve clicked on has been 100% metric. > > > http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-09/worlds-tallest-skyscrapers-have-insane-amount-unoccupied-space?src=related&con=outbrain&obref=obinsite > > The above article on skyscrapers is interesting with heights in metres. > > Mike Payne > >
