Look online. The current form has a medium size single block (several characters would fit) and absolutely no direction or statement of what units to use. You could fit data in either feet and or inches, or meters with two decimals and an "m" or centimeters.
--- On Fri, 3/13/09, Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> > Subject: [USMA:43760] Re: Metric personal data > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 9:53 PM > I remember the form had two blocks for height, one for feet > and one for inches. You could write the 1 in the foot > block and the 47 in the inch block, white out the words > feet and inches and write or type in meters. > > Is that what you did? > > Jerry > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Pierre Abbat <p...@phma.optus.nu> > To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:21:52 AM > Subject: [USMA:43676] Re: Metric personal data > > > On Wednesday 11 March 2009 08:46:12 John M. Steele wrote: > > I am NOT suggesting humans are salable. However, if > we look at the > > "largest whole unit" rule in FPLA and UPLR, > it would require adult heights > > to be given in meters, in the form x.xx m. Children > < 1 m would have > > height in cm or mm. As vehicle clearances are given > in meters (well, when > > they are metric) it also makes sense for people to > know their vertical > > clearance in meters (1.94 m, here). Finally this > form is directly useable > > in Body Mass Index (which I believe does not apply to > children under some > > size or age). The "largest whole unit" > rule makes reasonable sense unless > > there is some other overriding consideration. > > I don't remember whether I wrote "1.47 m" or > "147 cm". I do remember that that > was my height, that I wrote it on the passport form in > metric, and that a few > years later I had grown to 1.51 m. > > > Dimensions in millimeters are the norm in engineering > drawings (up to at > > least 100 m) so that units can be covered by a general > note rather than > > labeled on every dimension. However, millimeters are > overly precise for > > human dimensions which vary throughout the day and > day-to-day. A number > > like 1940 mm always leaves doubt. Is it between > 1939.5 and 1940.5, or > > between 1935 and 1945? If we throw the "largest > whole unit" rule out the > > window, then centimeters are a superior choice to > millimeters because it > > avoids numbers >1000 and integer rounding is > essentially rational rounding > > given tolerances and variation. > > Coordinates in state plane and UTM systems are up in the > megameters and are > given to the nearest millimeter. However, they, like > distances along > boundaries, are given in meters, not millimeters. > > > Decimal fractions really aren't scary (unlike > vulgar fractions). > > Calculators handle them fine. Further, the number of > significant figures is > > explicitly clear. > > Except for 1940 and the like. You can indicate that a zero > is significant by > overlining it, but I don't know how to type that. > > Pierre
