That's precisely what I've been saying for ages (the choice on the shelf is
based upon visual size). I have yet to hear someone go to the shops to buy
"3.15 kg of washing machine powder" or "8.5 ounce pack of bacon".Obviously if a
precise amount is needed then you go to the loose food section or deli where
measures do make sense. However I would still find it unlikely that if someone
needed 300 g of cheese or half a pound of minced beef to follow a recipe then
they'd probably get more just to stock up.
From: stan.do...@verizon.net
To: usma@colostate.edu
CC: secret...@metric.org.uk; usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:46100] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 05:54:48 -0500
The Head of a major consumer group in Northern
Virginia USA thirty years ago found that shoppers in grocery stores
visually look at the size of the product first and not the label before
purchasing. so it has been known for decades that dual unit
labeling is not needed except for perhaps measurements of ingredients for
recipes.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From:
carlet...@comcast.net
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: UKMA Metric Association ; U.S. Metric
Association
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:59
AM
Subject: [USMA:46047] Re: Fwd: USA
Science Festival tents
I was driving on the 103 in Nova Scotia from Lunenburg to Halifax ten years
ago. Part was a limited-access road. The highway signs showed
evidence of once having said miles, but it was scraped off with the new
distances shown.
Carleton
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Frewen-Lord" <j...@frewston.plus.com>
To:
"U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Cc: "UKMA
Metric Association" <secret...@metric.org.uk>
Sent:
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:28:39 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
Eastern
Subject: [USMA:46043] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival
tents
Canada converted all its speed limit signs in one
night. Went to bed, signs were in mph. Woke up next morning, all
were in km/h. The stick on solution was used - very cheap, very fast,
and very effective. Most lasted until they needed to be replaced for
other reasons.
When you consider Canada's vastness, and the fact
that every road has speed limit signs by the million (roads 60 km/h and under
by law have to have signs every 500 m [exception - blanket '50 km/h unless
signed otherwise' signs when entering a metropolis], while those roads over
60
km/h had to be signed every 1 km, including freeways), this was quite some
achievement.
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From:
Pat
Naughtin
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: UKMA Metric
Association
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:08
AM
Subject: [USMA:46042] Re: Fwd: USA
Science Festival tents
Dear John,
Well said. It is interesting to note that changing all road signs in an
entire nation can be done in a day – that's right – in a single day.
It all depends on the method you choose. Australia, New Zealand, India,
South Africa, and Ireland chose successful methods largely by copying each
others successes. They all chose to change to metric only signs and the job
done in a day was the result.
Others have chosen other methods based on simple conjectures or
prejudices. The UK chose two methods that proved to be unsuccessful so
far:
1 Design,
build, and repair roads all in metric measures while you provide the public
with signs based on the metric inch, the metric foot, the metric yard, and
the metric mile that were all defined in metric terms in 1959. This truth
was hidden from the UK people by an arbitrary decision made at the time of
the Thatcher government – it was based on a simple political prejudice that
was encapsulated in the phrase (as I recall Margaret Thatcher's words),
'WE have saved the pint and the mile for Britain'.
2 'Dual
signs are good for educating the public' is an interesting conjecture
that, as far as I can find, has no basis in fact and no precedent in
history. It is simply a false conjecture that has always proved to be false
wherever its application has been attempted.
These two thought have led to the current situation in the UK. They
began to use this prejudice and this conjecture in about 1965 and there are
many who still support them even despite their obvious failure after 44
years – so far – and with many more years still to come!
Remember that the alternative is to look at a nation that has made the
upgrade in a single day and copy the successful methods that they chose to
use.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, that
you can obtain from
http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat
Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade
to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that
they
now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their
businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades,
crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government
metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include
the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations
of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for
more metrication information, contact Pat
at pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com or to get the free
'Metrication matters' newsletter go
to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to
subscribe.
On 2009/10/20, at 22:58 , John M. Steele wrote:
I hear you, but I think I have to disagree. The 10' tent
doesn't really make them "anti-metric," but it does perpetuate the
status quo of "duality is fine."
We have been stuck in stasis since 1866 when "duality is fine"
first became the law of the land. In 143 years, progress has
been limited to:
*The 1893 Mendenhall order, and 1959 adjustment of the foot and
pound.
*In 1994, requiring most consumer goods to have both metric and
Customary net contents, under FPLA. (But meat, deli,
produce, and beer remain Customary only). I suppose I
should note a few things are metric-only like wine, spirits.
We have backpedalled or failed to complete:
*Metric in Federally-funded highways and Federal
buildings.
*Enforcing EO12770, making Federal agencies metric (look at
NASA).
*Completing permissive-metric-only for either FPLA (stalled at
NIST) or UPLR (stalled by 2 States).
Unless we are more agressive, it could take another
kiloyear.
An activity planned for a 3 m x 3 m tent would fit fine in a
10' x 10' tent AND send a message. A message that scientists
and engineers should be trying to send. (there are other
groups that I probably wouldn't berate for not using metric, but
scientists, engineers, USMA, and a few other groups need to set the
example)
--- On Tue, 10/20/09, Stephen
Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
From:
Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com>
Subject:
[USMA:46039] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents
To: "U.S.
Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Date: Tuesday, October
20, 2009, 4:24 AM
Sometimes the things I read here make me very
surprised. There's almost a
paranoia involved. Please can you believe me when
I say, quoting a *tent* as 10 x 10 foot does not make the USA
Science Festival anti-metric. Not even slightly.
Ordinary people - far
from also not equating a tent to anti-metricness - could
be scared off or at least perplexed by such pseudo-warlike
polarity on how people measure things. At best telling
someone that quoting a tent that way is not pro-metric will make
them think that people who want metrication are quirky and
odd. At worst it would scare people off.
I'd be less
concerned about some blurb which took the size of a tent
off the packet it came in in feet and be more concerned with
what gets discussed INSIDE that tent. Isn't that what
matters?
CC: usma@colostate.edu
From: pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com
To: usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:46035] Re:
Fwd: USA Science Festival
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:26:21
+1100
Dear Paul,
Thanks for passing on the reference to the USA Science
Festival information.
Sadly, I guess from their reference to '10x 10 foot' Festival
tent, that this is not to be a fundamentally pro-metric
event.
I am reminded that 'Scientists and Engineers for America and
fifteen other science
organizations'
united to ask seven questions of the 2008 congressional
candidates
in preparation for the presidential elections in the USA last
year. I was stunned
that 16 science and engineering organisations were able to raise
such significant questions without mentioning the resistance to
the metric system in the USA at all. It reminded me of the
line, 'There is an elephant in the room', but no-one wants
to admit that it's
there!
See the article, 'A metrication
elephant':
Did you know you can get Messenger on your mobile? Learn
more.
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/buy/
