--- Jim Elwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 27 08 04, 04:02 PM, mavi fibe wrote: ... > Marcus, I would be discouraged too if I believed as > you do -- that it is > the government (e.g., CalTrans) at the ". . . > forefront of bring progress > to the US . . ..
That's NOT what I meant, Jim. What I intended to say was that it was Caltrans which in my understanding was in the forefront of bringing progress as far as THIS area of the industry is concerned. Also in the sense that they had not caved in (until now, obviously...) to external pressures. Now, if our "friends" (SIC) caved in what can ANYONE realistically expect it would happen with the rest??? I'm sorry, but there IS no hope in the highway industry, period! More on this below. > " Should I have waited to metricate > my company until some > bozo politician told me (or forced me) to do so? > The problem, Jim, that you and many others here fail to realize is that when it comes to SOME KEY industries NOT having a government mandate is synonimous with NO progress, *period*! Or have you EVER heard of ANY DOT around the globe that successfully metricated by 'private initiatives' as you hinted at above??? Again, this is perhaps the n-th time I mention this, show me PROOF that it can be done in such key areas and then fine I'll hold my silence! > There is metrication going on in the US, and (with > the exception of our > metric armed forces) it is PRIMARILY being done by > private companies. This piecemeal approach may give the *illusion* that works but, when this situation starts getting on the nerves of ifp goons, watch and see a HUGE downfall emerge! It's happened before (DOT, for instance) and it won't stop happening. Bottom line is, wake up the monster of public outcry when people start realizing they cannot obtain their "beloved" (SIC) oz, floz (and whatever other garbage there is) anymore and you'll see industry players balk on the double. > And > it will continue to be done by private companies > until the bozo politicians > see the political winds supporting metric enough > that they want to jump on > the bandwagon (and pretend to be "leaders"). > It's nice to hear you keep being an optimist, Jim. That's commendable, but I'm sick and tired of playing a lost game. Again, the clock is ticking and you have what now?... 8 and some years to prove me you're right (please forgive me, my friend, I keep forgetting the exact amount of time we betted on). > Government is the FOLLOWER not the LEADER in > metrication. > WRONG! At least as far as some sectors of the economy are concerned, government leadership is simply paramount, absolutely vital, critical (DOT's being just ONE example). Again, I must insist, show me ONE proof where metrication was successful as a result of ONLY private initiative and you have my attention! History so far has supported my view hands down. > In another email you dismiss Don Hillger's note > about 425 mL bottles, > because it is not "rational" metric. Yet, "rational" > sizes have nothing to > do with metric. > But oh yes they do! It's actually at the very nerve of what one can call TRUE metrication! I'm a travelled man and outside of the US I cannot find ANY examples of such stupidity when it comes to "metric" sizes! Nowhere will anyone find in the *metric* world examples of metric industries using such ridiculous package sizes! It's just fact of life. It's true though that lately I have been finding some odd examples here and there, but these are *EXCEPTIONS*, Jim, NOT the norm! It's critical that you understand where I'm coming from. The business of metrication (at least in MY book) MUST involve a TOTAL change of mindset and framework. To me changes like 946 to 945, 473 to 475 and the likes are stupid examples of soft metrication that contributes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to what really matters: *efficiency/effectiveness/optimization/etc*. What I mean is most of us (at Least that's what I've always believed has been the case here) seem to support metrication on the basis of its not only making sense but primarily and above all for the advantages of its use. Alas, how can such advantages be used at their fullest when one comes up with such silly package sizes and all? What possible justification can one provide for claiming that a 475 mL package size would be more *efficient* or better than a 500 mL one??? What would the public, for instance, as a stakeholder, win with such unsightly sizes? No one (not even me... :-) ) would be able to compare product prices across the board with such mediocrity sizes around, unless one carries his/her pocket calculators to a supermarket. > I open my desk drawer and pull out four low-carb > candy bars. They have all > been purchased in the last few weeks, and they are > labeled thusly: > > Net Wt 1.4 oz (40g) ok > Net Wt 0.9 oz (25g) ok > Net Wt 1.58 oz (45g) ? Stupid (please forgive me my language, but why not 50???) Typical "metrication" (SIC) that conduces to NOTHING! > Net Wt 2.11 oz (60g) Fine, passable... > > Now, Marcus, you can be a pessimist if you want > because they are not in > your "rational" sizes (50 g?), ? You sound like I've claimed rational to me is only in primes of 10! Who said that? Certainly not me, Jim! I'm a fervent subscriber to the way the Germans do in this regard. ANY SIZE that cannot be resolved by one or two (tops) simple ONE-digit calculations is irrational! Evidently, primes of 10 (1, 2 and 5) would be *ideal*, but NOT necessarily the ONLY rational values (please see YOUR own examples above which I ok'ed!). > but the fact is clear > to me that even > consumer-product manufacturers ARE starting to move > toward metric packaging > in the USA. > How many examples have you and others been bringing here, Jim? Throughout the years one may probably account for just some 5 or 6 per year! But then again, what about the *reversion* ones??? The Breyers example (and sometime ago the So Good company, too) is just one typical, but VERY visible, illustration of companies laboring in the wrong lane of history and serve as a testimony to the fact that at this rate one would see metrication take TOTAL hold of the market in ... err... 1 000 years!... > I have in the corner of my office a case of bottled > water and another case > of flavored water -- all in 500 mL sizes. And I have countless commercial outlets here in Canada where the 600 mL sizes have been replaced by the ridiculous 710 mL and, worse, 591 mL sizes!!! > Just this > morning I had to find a > screw to a Rival Crockpot handle that came off and > went down the drain. > Turns out it was an M6 screw. > Gee, Jim, ONE screw!... :-S Now how many screws do you find in products around your house again, Jim?... > Marcus, how far do we have to get before you admit > to any progress? > Progress, Jim, is DOTs *firmly* going metric, NO flip-flop, PERIOD. Progress is the juice industry embarking on a trend of abandoning mediocre 1.89 L, 473 mL in favor of 2 L, 500 mL and the likes (ok, I'll take 1.75 mL if nothing else comes up...). Progress is 2 L *HOLDING* in the ice cream industry without 2-qt sizes EVER creeping back in. Progress is media people finally realizing the Olympic games ARE metric and broadcast such events *100%* in metric. Shall I continue, my friend?... In other words, until the public itself finally realizes something is indeed going on NO progress can be claimed to be taking place, that's the sad reality. Anything else is just plain simple illusion, man! Marcus PS: Nice debating with you again, Jim, I was starting to miss our "heated" debates... :-) ===== Jesus ONLY settles for THE best, so what excuse can you possibly give to NOT go SI??? ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
