I don't quite understand what you mean in your last paragraph about ...." possibly adding the customary-unit equivalent in parentheses when needed for clarity. ". This implies to me that only when FFU is present is there clarity in understanding. In that case, why bother to use SI at all? They can continue to use FFU in order to maintain clarity.
In my opinion, the dual use of units adds confusion. Forget FFU all together. You also state: "I would be happy to provide information about correct SI usage if you have any questions.". Before this you wrote: "SI units like centimeters, meters, km, liters, grams, kilograms, etc.". Here you express kilometres as "km" which is wrong in this context. The correct use of the unit symbols is after numbers. ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 2004-04-22 20:53 Subject: [USMA:29614] Letter to newspaper > Hi, > > I just sent the following comments to the writers of the Jet Propulsion > Laboratory's newspaper. It's a good newspaper, except they usually convert > all measurements to FFU. > > John > > > I really enjoy reading the Universe, but sometimes wonder why so many > articles seem to intentionally avoid the metric system? For example, in > the articles today about the meteorite-like rock found on Mars and > satellites seen by Cassini, distances are quoted only in inches and miles. > > I find it very hard to believe that planetary scientists and geologists are > really studying the heavens in inches and miles. The official measuring > system world-wide (including the U.S.) is called the International System > of Units (SI). I think most JPL readers would not have trouble > understanding SI units like centimeters, meters, km, liters, grams, > kilograms, etc. > > I suggest you always give measurements in SI, possibly adding the > customary-unit equivalent in parentheses when needed for clarity. I would > be happy to provide information about correct SI usage if you have any > questions. > > Thank you for your consideration, > >
