Another comment on an old message:
It is my conviction that SI contains a paradox: it IS complex and
complicated, but it is also easy to learn and to grasp. What Jim states is
true. What rules does ifp have? SI needs them.
SI also uses algebra; I think that FFU does not. How simple and basic this
algebra may be; many people get the creeps when they hear the Arabic word
'algebra' (Al Jabr).
And studying for the CAMS is pretty hard I think; one learns the 'machine
language' of SI and that is no small matter. To be a CAMS people must have
knowledge of physics and mathematics.
This is the crux: people only must know and apply what they need. The large
majority of people never encounter the advanced parts of SI as they do not
need them. Many more people would be able to become a CMS without too much
trouble.
Those ifp supporters who call SI 'complicated' know how it is really, but
they omit to recognize the paradox: complicated, yet easy to learn and use.

Han


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 2002-06-26 16:48
Subject: [USMA:20654] Re: Comments on flawless documents


> At 09:29 AM 24 June 2002 -0700, Ma Be wrote:
> >... Unfortunately we still must deal with the fallacy and myth and
> >perception (that is still out there... sigh...) that SI is
> >"complex/complicated/cumbersome, etc".  It's still beyond me though why
> >that perception emerged and seems to "carry the day"...  :-(
>
> A simple explanation of why metric seems harder is that it HAS rules. No
> one has to learn the "proper" way of abbreviating  or using inch, foot,
> quart, mile, etc. Some usages are common and well understood, but there is
> no "right" way.
>
> So, metric IS harder in this sense, because it does have structure and
> rules and style requirements that one has to learn.
>
> I'm not saying that is bad, merely trying to explain the perception most
> Americans have.
>
>
> Jim Elwell, CAMS
> Electrical Engineer
> Industrial manufacturing manager
> Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
> www.qsicorp.com
>
>
>

Reply via email to