At 12:03 PM 27 June 2002 +1000, Pat Naughtin wrote: >... >Writers and editors have been brought up using dictionaries. They believe >that dictionary definitions are correct and that they are suitable for >defining the words they use. ... Many journalists are actively hostile to >fixed >definitions of words as they then do not have the freedom to vary their >subtle flavors to suit their current article....
I've seen the same attitude in the somewhat different (albeit less precise) context of politics. Try and tell a writer that his article about you does not really reflect your political positions accurately, and the definitions start flying fast and furious. > > If you have a generation or two of people who have grown up with metric, > > who have (presumably) been taught proper metric usage in school, then why > > is there so much improper use of the metric system in these countries? > >I wish that we had 'been taught proper metric usage in school', but in >Australia this has not been the case. I find this thread interesting. With all due respect to foreign list members, what causes you to spend your efforts trying to metricate the USA, when apparently there is plenty of SI work to be done in your own countries? >I wouldn't think of laying general blame on the USA for this unsatisfactory >state of affairs, except perhaps in one area � computer hardware and >software. I have railed against the USA dominated computer industry's >perpetration of old units of measure before. They have not only promoted ifp >units but also they have even created 'old' units such as the computer point >(1/72nd of an inch exactly) to further obfuscate measurement issues. One can >only feel sorry for those who have to work in the computer industry, which >often appears to be a standards-free zone. My comment about blaming the USA for poor metric use elsewhere was preemptive -- I was not accusing anyone of having done it. Nor was I excusing the USA for perpetuating colloquial units worldwide -- we all know US companies do that. Your comment about the computer industry is interesting. I would suggest that the lack of standards is a big part of the reason the industry has been such a dynamic and intensely active and growing industry for more than 20 years. Why would anyone want to rein it in during its infancy? We would destroy its wonderful, if chaotic, growth just so some purists would not have to deal with units they don't like. In other words, perhaps "the government" could have mandated PC standards back in 1981, and committees could have worked to metricate them, but we'd all be using 386's and there would be no Internet or email or web, etc. A "cure" many, many times worse than the disease. I don't understand the comment about creating "points"; points existed long before computers, and the computer industry just adopted them. >However, having got that off my chest, I think one of the prime causes of >lack of metrication success has simply been the lack of clear goals. ... I agree in a sense, but in a free country, who is to set the goals? I support the US federal government setting goals to metricate itself, but who should set the goals for the 15 million private companies in the USA? For the 8,000 school districts? For thousands of private schools and colleges? This question is relevant only if the goal setter has some authority over the institution. Otherwise it is nothing but hope. And I doubt most of you will agree with me on the answer to question. Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
