Re: measuring systems (was: Selenites)

Tom Wier scripsit:

> [N]othing would be in the old system.It would be stupid to
> have some in the new and some in the old;  this
> is not like spelling where it might possibly be feasible to phase in a
> system of units over a long period of time (as even only somewhat
> near approximations would suffice to let the reader understand, whereas
> here, everything must be exact, or very close to exact.
You can change the sizes of pounds and inches by fiat one day, but
you can't change the sizes of actual objects in place in one day, or
one year either.  Consider again the case of lights vs. fixtures, or
trucks vs. their loads.  You're going to repaint every truck
from "MGW 25000" to "MGW 22679"?  Hardly.

> It would seem to them no more confusing than seeing a new Ben
> Franklin portrait on the 100 dollar bill which just came out, that is, not at
> all.  To say otherwise is to make the people of the country out to be some
> sort of sluggards or something, to have a very low view of  people at
> large.
I just looked at an ad for the new US $20 bill, which finds it necessary
to mention that "Your existing $20 bills will be good indefinitely."
The same could *not* be said of your postal scale.

> Why do people always think they know my system when it hasn't
> been fully discussed?  Five or six measures would not do for a modern
> system of measurement.  For this reason, the whole rest of the
> internationally used metric system would be used.
Granted.  But you underestimate the existing uses of the customary
units, which are used in industry and commerce, which is not true for
the customary units in metric countries.

--
John Cowan                                      cowan@ccil.org
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.