Not a lot, but perhaps we'll get a few articles as the Metric Conversion Act is 30 years old.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11718415.htm
<<<
Follow the liter

The metric system entered our lives 30 years ago — and you're using it more than you think

By EDWARD M. EVELD

The Kansas City Star


If someone built a monument to U.S. metric conversion, it could take the shape of a 2-liter bottle of pop.

Funny, huh? Thirty years after the country went metric and this is all we have?

It has been that long since Congress passed and President Gerald Ford signed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, back when being all international seemed like a good idea.

To many others, though, it has always seemed, well, foreign. It certainly does to fourth-graders today, confronting their metrics chapter in math class with no more awareness of what a kilogram feels like than their parents had. Same with kilometers and degrees Celsius.

“Dad, is a kilometer about like a mile?”

“No, I think it might be more like half a mile, unless it's a mile-and-a-half.”

In 1971, a federal report warned that our country soon would become an island in a sea of metric. Apparently we love island life. To the anti-metric, the system is hyper-rational, almost too precise. There's something human about the inch and foot, quart and gallon that's lost with metrics, critics say. To this way of thinking, weights and measures are as much cultural as practical.

Lorelle Young, president of the United States Metric Association, which has advocated metric conversion since 1916, said she understands the comfort of the inch-pound system, the emotional attachment. But clinging to it for these reasons isn't enough, she said. In a competitive, technical and global environment, metrics are the only way to go.

“We don't teach our kids to use manual typewriters,” she said. “We don't wait for the ice man.”

The metric system is based on 10s and uses descriptive prefixes, which makes it easy to learn. There are 100 centimeters in a meter, for instance. The confusion comes when people delve into complicated conversion equations to relate metric to inches and pounds.

Gabriel Mouton, a French mathematician and priest, gets credit for coming up with the system in the 1600s. The French adopted it in the late 1700s. The meter was figured to be one-10-millionth the distance from the equator to the North Pole. The length of the meter has been refined a couple of times since.

The inch-pound system came to us by way of the British, who are now more metric than we, even though many a British citizen still revels in resistance.

In truth, metrics has seeped into the U.S. vernacular beyond the plastic soda bottle. It's perfectly acceptable to speak of the 100-meter race in the Olympics or the local 5K run for cancer research. People happily buy 35-mm film and talk about the 3.6-liter engines in their cars. And, of course, the metric system is the language of science and medicine.

Even more significantly, Young said, metrics continue to overtake inches and pounds in industry and commerce. The car industry works in metrics. Skis are sized in centimeters.

“I call it stealth metrics,” she said. “People accept it.”

James Frysinger, a physics lecturer at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, has another term: “metric moments.” They happen every day without upsetting anyone. Fat and fiber come in grams, sodium in milligrams. Computer speeds are in megahertz. Wine and spirits come in metric sizes only. Watts, volts and amperes are metric units.

While metric creep might indeed eventually transform us, in-your-face changes likely still will illicit many a range of reactions, starting with derision and ending with anger.

Try erecting highway distance signs in kilometers, for instance. Many of the 1970s signs that offered both miles and kilometers are long gone. A real estate agent who speaks in anything but square-footage would be as lonely as the Maytag repairman. Canadian weather forecasters using Celsius can tell you about the balmy 25-degree day ahead, but their American counterparts certainly wouldn't try it.

Mike Thompson, Fox 4 meteorologist, must be fluent in Celsius (everyday metrics) and Kelvin (scientific metrics) to deal with incoming temperature data. Celsius is used just about everywhere except the United States, but Thompson knows Celsius temperatures don't mean a thing to Kansas City viewers.

And, frankly, he likes Fahrenheit better for describing surface temperatures. Fahrenheit marks 180 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water. Celsius has 100. In effect, the units of the Fahrenheit scale are closer together than in Celsius.

“I think it's more descriptive,” Thompson said.

Coming up: The Food and Drug Administration is expected to consider a product labeling change that would allow — not require — manufacturers to list only metric sizes on products rather than listing both metric and inches-pounds.

Expect howling.

Even though the proposal makes sense in a global marketplace, Young said, she knows what some people will be thinking.

“This is America, and we're the best and first, and everyone should do what we do,” she said. But that's not going to happen in weights and measures.

“It's more important to look forward, particularly when we're talking about our children.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------


THE RISE AND FALL, AND RISE AND FALL, OF METRICS IN THE UNITED STATES

1790 Thomas Jefferson proposes a decimal-based measurement system for the United States.

1792 The U.S. Mint is established and produces the world's first decimal currency (100 cents to the dollar).

1832 Congress directs the Treasury Department to standardize a measurement system for customs at ports. The department picks the British inches-pounds system.

1866 Congress allows use of the metric system and supplies the states with a set of standard metric weights and measures.

1875 United States becomes one of the original 17 signers of the Treaty of the Meter, also known as the Metric Convention, to establish standard metric measurements for use worldwide.

1893 International Bureau of Weights and Measures adopts metric standards. Ever since, our foot, pound, quart, etc., have been defined in relation to the meter and kilogram.

1902 A bill requiring the federal government to use metric measurements is defeated by one vote in Congress.

1960 The metric system is given the official symbol SI for Systeme International d'Unites.

1965 United Kingdom begins transition to the metric system.

1975 Congress passes the Metric Conversion Act to coordinate a transition to the metric system. The U.S. Metric Board was established but given no timetable for conversion.

1982 President Ronald Reagan disbands the Metric Board.

1988 Congress encourages U.S. industry to use metric measurements in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act.

1991 President George H.W. Bush signs an executive order directing executive departments and federal agencies to implement use of the metric system.

1994 Food and Drug Administration requires that labels on consumer products provide both inch-pound and metric measurements.
>>>

There are 5K and 10K races in the UK too.

Just thought I'd add that.

But surely, those ar yards or rods, or some such?

No, the "K" stands for kilometres.

strictly speaking 'kilometre' is 'km' but this is a colloquial term for a fun run.

I sense you have an issue with that and that it should be yards, rods, etc...?

I was joking.

I think NIST (and Congress) should amend FPLA. And I think FHWA should tell the state DOTs if they want Federal money, do it in metric, otherwise build your own road. I think USGS should say here is your NAD83 geodetic info in meters, if you want it in feet, you convert it. There is a difference between truly forcing people at gunpoint to use metric and declining to enable their dependency on Customary. The burden should be put on those who want Customary. The SI is the preferred measurement system of the United States. It is time for the government to act like it.

Then I think Congress should show some courage in creating a definitive plan to complete going metric within five years. We've been screwing with dual systems since 1866.

I think the EU directive on supplemental units will force us to allow permissive-metric-only to protect our exporters and perhaps that will kick start actually going metric instead of remaining trapped in duality. I would like to see Congress act soon and allow it soon so companies have time to experiment with how to do it without riling up the public. I doubt anyone would miss the Customary on a 2 L soda bottle for example.

Actually the K could be a thousand of anything. Much like the info on quintal I posted in another thread.

But seriously, track events have pretty much gone metric, haven't they. Marathons are such an odd length, I doubt it really matters whether it is expressed in english or metric, but most others are metric lengths.

"I was joking"

So was I! I was just testing you to see if you were falling into the trap of "Oh, he likes imperial measures, thus, he must hate metric measures"

;-)

<<
I think NIST (and Congress) should amend FPLA. And I think FHWA should tell the state DOTs if they want Federal money, do it in metric, otherwise build your own road.
>>
Would the federal government also provide the funding to convert everything to metric? If not, I think it would be better for the states to decline the funding. If so, where would they get it?



<<
The burden should be put on those who want Customary.
>>
That is just not the way the world works. Anytime someone proposes any change, the burden is on them to show why it is necessary. If you accuse someone of a crime, the burden of proof is on you. If you propose a new scientific theory, you must prove it, not just sit back and invite people to disprove it. See the principle? Those proposing the change have the burden of proof.


<<
The SI is the preferred measurement system of the United States. It is time for the government to act like it.
>>
The Congress can pass all the declarations they want. Saying "SI is the preferred system in the US" means nothing, because the people decide what is preferred, not the government. Declarations like that do nothing to change what the country prefers. Most Americans still prefer SI, regardless of what the government tells them to prefer.



<<
Then I think Congress should show some courage in creating a definitive plan to complete going metric within five years. We've been screwing with dual systems since 1866.
>>
John, since you are relatively new on these boards, I am not sure exactly what your position is. Some pro-metrics believe that the government should only encourage the nation to go metric, but should not resort to force or criminal sanctions. Others believe that the transition should be quick and forced, and those who do not comply should be punished. What exactly is your position?

I don't believe in force and we shouldn't outlaw Customary measurement tools. I don't propose a foot ruler be criminalized like drug paraphernalia.

However, I believe the Federal government has the right to:
*Establish the weights and measures legal for trade
*Choose what units it will do business in
*Decline to convert to other units for the convenience of others

Some steps consistent with that which would further conversion to metric.
*All info from the Federal government in SI. If you want Customary, convert it yourself on your own time and money. This would include geodetic info from USGS, weather from NWS, etc. Where info has to be reported to the Federal government, it should have to be in SI units.
*All construction that is Federally funded in whole or part in SI, buildings, roads, etc. On roads, require SI signage if built with Federal dollars. If you accept Federal education dollars, metric must be primary in all classes, Customary recognized as archaic and of "literary significance" only. All Federally funded research must use and report in SI. All Federal purchasees in SI.
*SI would become the required units for trade and the only units supported by NIST for calibration. I'm not sure Customary should be forbiddenl perhaps they could be used as supplemental, but I wouldn't even bother to require they be used accurately. Within some period of time they should be phased out.

Doing this all at once would be quite a shock to the system. Perhaps most important is an overall plan and schedule. Some of my proposals would have to be softened somewhat during a transition period. However, it is useful to have vision of what things look like at the end of the plan, and then find a way to get there. I'm sure there are many other steps I've omitted and a lot of education steps required. But ceasing Federal support and requirements for Customary would be a major start.

(I don't think I answered your questions on Federal funding of roads. If the states decline to accept Federal funding due to metric strings, they have to raise their own taxes)

The FPLA proposal is force:

"... is expected to consider a product labeling change that would allow — not require — manufacturers to list only metric sizes on products rather than listing both metric and inches-pounds."

This sentance in the article is misleading. The law is about obligations, not allowing. The amendment will require metric; inch-pound becomes extranous to the legal requirement. The above passage makes it sound as though the dual declaration is still in place, with a metric-only option. I wish the U.S. press would wake up.
Full analysis here:
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Metric%20proposal.htm

<<This sentence in the article is misleading. The law is about obligations, not allowing. The amendment will require metric; inch-pound becomes extranous to the legal requirement. >>

I've read your analysis, but I disagree with it. The law already requires metric so that is nothing new. What it ends is a requirement for duality.

I believe a case could be made, although no one has ever argued it in court, that requiring Customary when the product already is marked in metric violates the Metric Act of 1866. In any case, it makes no sense to REQUIRE units other than "the preferred measurement system of the United States." (1988)

If SI is preferred, requiring Customary is silly and the requirement should not be permitted. I would point out that Customary would have the "permitted, not required" status that SI had in the original 1966 FPLA, from 1966-94. SI was made required in 1994 BECAUSE it is the "preferred measurement system of the United States." It makes perfect sense to eliminate the requirement for the non-preferred measurement system. At least we are not making illegal(or unlawful, the distinction confuses me) like the EU, S. Korea, Nigeria, or in the Spanish language part of the label in Mexico. (data in some other threads)

I went back to reread your argument. I would like to comment on a couple of points.

<<<US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AGENCY TO DE-AUTHORISE USE OF LB/OZ AND PINT MEASURES FOR PACKAGED FOODS AND GOODS

METRIC CONVERSION TO BE COMPULSORY FOR RETAIL TRANSACTIONS IN USA>>>

It would "derequire" lb/oz, pint etc. They would still be allowed. In fact Customary weight would still be permitted, standalone, on random weight packages (as are SI and dual). Metric is ALREADY compulsary, Customary would become decompulsary; it too is required now.

<<<The upheaval and costs to business will be huge, since systems and processes will have to change to accommodate metric. >>>

Horsecrap. They already accomodate metric. They also have to accomodate Customary. They can either leave the Customary at a retooling cost of $0.00, or they can eliminate it, possibly saving money on inventory for other required labels for export.

You twist the words around in the classic example of laywers dancing on the head of a pin to make the ending of a requirment seem like a requirement. Our laws frequently clarify that something is "permitted," a state between "required" and "forbidden;" perhaps UK law law doesn't. If you want to see forbidden, look to the EU directive for supplemental units beginning 2010-01-01.

Your argument contains a considerable dose of nonsense which weakens it. I'm not sure what the schools teach now for SI/Customary. When my two older children were schooled in the 70's, they learned only SI, I had to teach them Customary. My youngest child learned a mix in 80's/90's. However, through lack of practice, people may have forgotten the metric they learned. Food manufacturers will need to be careful about how they remove the Customary units (if they elect to). There is enough competition here that if you anger your customers, your sales are adversely impacted. In some ways, they would probably prefer the government to REQUIRE "SI only" as it would give them a scapegoat for any consumer anger.

<<
However, I believe the Federal government has the right to:
*Establish the weights and measures legal for trade
*Choose what units it will do business in
*Decline to convert to other units for the convenience of others
>>
I agree with point one, because the Constitution explicitly states so. For points 2 and 3, I agree that they have the right to do those things, however I believe it would be a big mistake because states and companies would have to absorb the costs of converting everything, and states are going bankrupt right now as it is.


<<
All info from the Federal government in SI.
>>
They have the right to do that. But once again, they would be greatly hurting the economy.



<<
All construction that is Federally funded in whole or part in SI, buildings, roads, etc. On roads, require SI signage if built with Federal dollars.
>>
Most construction and signage in the US is currently in English units. If the federal government were to require metric for federally funded projects, we would have two systems in use. Just imagine, kilometres on the interstate and miles on the local country road.


<<
If you accept Federal education dollars, metric must be primary in all classes, Customary recognized as archaic and of "literary significance" only.
>>
There has never been a single example in the history of the US of the federal government deliberately manipulating the educational curriculum in order to accomplish a political goal. In fact, one of the hallmarks of the US education system is the liberty that schools have under the first amendment to teach the material that they choose (states cannot ban teaching of evolution, etc.) Once it is established that the federal government has the authority to censor the school curriculum, who knows what will happen next.




<<
(I don't think I answered your questions on Federal funding of roads. If the states decline to accept Federal funding due to metric strings, they have to raise their own taxes)
>>
And if they have to convert all their construction and signage to metric, they have to raise their own taxes too.

JohnS-MI
The key distinction is this: under the NIST proposal, can an American use inch-pound as an alternative to metric? If the answer is no: an inch-pound only label will be illegal, but a metric only label will be lawful.

At the moment, metric usage for the transaction is not compulsory since. While the producer MUST label in metric, the consumer can opt for the US indicator - thus, the transaction need not be in metric.

Put it another way, did Americans use the term "inch-pound voluntary only labelling" prior to 1994? Of course not. The law required inch-pound - period. Of course extra information could be provided (metric) but there was no obligation. It did not matter.

<<The key distinction is this: under the NIST proposal, can an American use inch-pound as an alternative to metric? If the answer is no: an inch-pound only label will be illegal, but a metric only label will be lawful. >>

Well, an American could still use the inch-pound IF the seller provided it. An inch-pound only label will STILL be illegal (it presently is, lets not lose sight of that) but a metric only label will become legal.

I would still argue that the Metric Act of 1866 strongly implies that metric-only would be legal for trade anyway, if anyone elected to bring that suit, but it would be a matter for the courts as the FPLA contradicts the Metric Act of 1866.

But, admittedly, instead of requiring dual, it gets us back to a point where one unit system is required, the other unit system is optional, and the law has come full circle and switched which is which.


http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-act.html
<<<Metric Act of 1866
Summary
The Metric Act of 1866, enacted July 28, 1866, legally recognized the metric system of measurement in the US. It's sometimes referred to as the Kasson Act, after Congressman John A. Kasson of Iowa, who chaired the House Comittee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. The history section below has more details on the reasons behind the law from John Kasson's report to Congress.

Text of the law
The Act was codified as 15 USC 204 et seq., shown below.

U.S. Code
Title 15
Commerce and Trade
Chapter 6
Weights and Measures and Standard Time
Subchapter I
Weights, Measures, and Standards Generally
Sec. 204. Metric system authorized
It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system.

Sec. 205. Authorized tables
The tables in the schedule annexed shall be recognized in the construction of contracts and in all legal proceedings as establishing, in terms of the weights and measures on June 22, 1874, in use in the United States, the equivalents of the weights and measures expressed therein in terms of the metric system; and the tables may lawfully be used for computing, determining, and expressing in customary weights and measures the weights and measures of the metric system.>>>
(tables omitted for brevity.)

<<can an American use inch-pound as an alternative to metric?>>

The consumer isn't guarenteed that his conversion to metric is voluntary, business's conversion is. Present code from Metric Conversion Act of 1975 as amended by Omnibus Trade Act of 1988 is:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-conv.html

<<The Congress finds as follows:

(1) The United States was an original signatory party to the 1875 Treaty of the Meter (20 Stat. 709), which established the General Conference of Weights and Measures, the International Committee of Weights and Measures and the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.

(2) Although the use of metric measurement standards in the United States has been authorized by law since 1866 (Act of July 28, 1866; 14 Stat. 339), this Nation today is the only industrially developed nation which has not established a national policy of committing itself and taking steps to facilitate conversion to the metric system.

(3) World trade is increasingly geared towards the metric system of measurement.

(4) Industry in the United States is often at a competitive disadvantage when dealing in international markets because of its nonstandard measurement system, and is sometimes excluded when it is unable to deliver goods which are measured in metric terms.

(5) The inherent simplicity of the metric system of measurement and standardization of weights and measures has led to major cost savings in certain industries which have converted to that system.

(6) The Federal Government has a responsibility to develop procedures and techniques to assist industry, especially small business, as it voluntarily converts to the metric system of measurement.

(7) The metric system of measurement can provide substantial advantages to the Federal Government in its own operations.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 were in the 1975 law. Paragraphs 3 through 7 were added in 1988.

Sec. 205b. Declaration of policy
It is therefore the declared policy of the United States--

(1) to designate the metric system of measurement as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce;

(2) to require that each Federal agency, by a date certain and to the extent economically feasible by the end of the fiscal year 1992, use the metric system of measurement in its procurements, grants, and other business-related activities, except to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms, such as when foreign competitors are producing competing products in non- metric units;

(3) to seek out ways to increase understanding of the metric system of measurement through educational information and guidance and in Government publications; and

(4) to permit the continued use of traditional systems of weights and measures in non-business activities. >>

So the consumer gets education and can use Customary for non-business purposes. Business gets assistance in voluntary conversion. And part of that assistance is to eliminate barriers to conversion like demanding dual labelling in the US when other markets demand SI only, and to eliminate competitive disadvantage that would occur in light of the EU Si-only directive in 2010.

Actually, their "findings" would justify a much stronger "declared policy" than what they came up with.

Remember that congressional "findings" in the text of a law have no legal force whatsoever.

<<There has never been a single example in the history of the US of the federal government deliberately manipulating the educational curriculum in order to accomplish a political goal.>>

The Feds don't censor, but they have the power to both giveth and taketh away. Although these were eventually repealed and/or funding expired.
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/educ-amend-1974.html
<<Education Amendments of 1974 et al
Although this law is no longer in effect, it encouraged education in the metric system of measurement.

Education Amendments of 1974
The Education Amendments of 1974 stated that it is the policy of the United States to encourage educational agencies and institutions to prepare students to use the metric system of measurement as part of the regular education program.

The Education Amendments of 1974 were enacted as Pub. L. 93-380, August 21, 1974 (88 Stat. 546). The metric-related section was added by Title IV, § 403 and codified as 20 USC 1862.

Metric Education Act of 1978
The Metric Education Act of 1978 repealed the earlier law, replacing it with one that authorizes grants and contracts to encourage education agencies and institutions, as a part of the regular education program, to prepare students to use the metric system of measurement.

The Metric Education Act of 1978 was enacted as Pub. L. 95-561, Title III, § 301, Nov. 1, 1978 (92 Stat. 2211), eff. Sept. 30, 1979. § 301(a) added 20 USC 2951, and § 301(b) repealed the earlier law.

Omnibus Education Reconciliation Act of 1981
The Omnibus Education Reconciliation Act of 1981 repealed the earlier law.

The Omnibus Education Reconciliation Act of 1981 was Pub. L. 97-35, Aug. 13, 1981 (95 Stat. 480), eff. Oct. 1, 1982, where Title V, § 587(a)(1) repealed the earlier law.>>

The federal government can encourage, promote, and provide grants for the metric system all they want. Voluntary conversion doesn't work, as prior experiences have shown. I don't think they have the power to censor the curriculum, even if it is just as a condition of receiving grants, but it would be interesting to see how the courts rule on that.

<<I don't think they have the power to censor the curriculum, even if it is just as a condition of receiving grants, but it would be interesting to see how the courts rule on that. >>

Probably not on metric. But look at "abstinence only" sex education where they have a huge "religious right" contingent to satisfy for votes and political contributions.

Yes, but in that case they are doing it in order to gain votes. It could be the same way with measurement, but it will never happen because there is no block of votes to go after. And the federal government doesn't prohibit schools from teaching other forms of sexual education, it just says that federal education grants must be spent on what they are earmarked for. But schools in the US receive the vast majority of their funding from local and state government, so the feds really wouldn't have much leverage over it. They have the ability to force certain things to be taught, but not to prevent other things from being taught.

<<Remember that congressional "findings" in the text of a law have no legal force whatsoever. >>

True, but, of the "declared policies," (1) says metric is preferred, and (4) only assures permission to use traditional measure in NON-BUSINESS activities.

(2) says the government should buy and deal in metric. (3) makes clear it could elect to only provide government info in metric -- if you want Customary, do your own conversion.

Federal agencies with rule-making authority can certainly consider those declared policies in their decisions. However, other laws may have conflicting requirements. FPLA says Customary is required too and only Congress has the authority to change it. NIST can only recommend to Congress.

Many times, Congress makes "Declarations" because they didn't have enough votes to pass a law with teeth. They probably couldn't gather up enough votes to permit metric-only labelling, so the pro-metric lot decided that something is better than nothing and settled on a vague "declaration" that metric is the "preferred" system. Less people would be likely to object to this. But FPLA's dual-labelling mandate certainly takes priority.
Yes, federal agencies can consider these declarations, but they are free to consider the declarations of any other organisation on earth if they wish.

What I am trying to argue is that the fact that SI is the "preferred system" of the United States is basically meaningless.

This might be US Press on anti-metric.

You don't have to know how to add, subtract, multiply or divide without a calculator, but apparently common fractions are a "critical skill" you have to know how to do by hand? Are common fractions that critical to education in metric countries?

http://www.clickondetroit.com/education/4583292/detail.html
<<Student Discovers Calculator Trick, Forces Recall

RICHMOND, Va. -- A Virginia sixth-grader fiddling with buttons on his calculator has found a defect that's prompted Texas Instruments to replace thousands of devices issued to schoolchildren.


Dakota Brown discovered that pressing a certain two keys converts decimals into fractions. That would give students an unfair advantage on Virginia's standardized tests. Children are required to know how to make such conversions with pencil and paper.

Two years ago, the state education department asked Texas Instruments to disable the decimal-to-fraction key and the company complied.

But 12-year-old Dakota found that by pressing two other keys, he could make the conversion anyway.

A school official said fellow students thought it was "really cool" and "didn't call him a nerd or anything.">>

I KNOW I had the box filled in that time.

Interesting article on a Hispanic-American woman who teaches pattern drafting for clothing patterns at a community college in Oregon. Her course is bilingual, but the measurements are metric. As usual, people resist change, but if they have to use metric to do something they want to do, they adapt, and like it. These small business people are saving big bucks by drafting a design into various sizes themselves. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to use metric.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/06/12/ol.seamstress.0612.html

Article is too long. Snippets only:
<<<. . . There are three ways to create a new pattern - by taking specific body measurements and drafting them onto paper, by manipulating an old pattern into a new design or by draping fabric onto a dress-maker's body form.
Gutierrez is teaching the first method, pattern drafting, and it's a skill that often delights new students because it demystifies the process, said Kathy Mullet, an Oregon State University associate professor who teaches clothing design and pattern-making techniques.

"This is the math class for apparel design," Mullet said. . . .

Gutierrez uses the metric system, and at first students unfamiliar with it struggle with the conversions, but it doesn't take them long to switch over, she said.

Kris Cotter, another local designer, says the class is making it easier for her to scale the sizes in her Color Grown organic cotton clothing line.

Until she took Gutierrez's class, her patterns came together in a kind of collage of creation. Cotter would buy similar patterns and clothes that she would take apart and adapt through trial and error.

"But then I'd have a pattern in one size," she said. Hiring a professional pattern grader was out of the question for her shoe-string business. People with the technical skills or the computer software to create an array of sizes charge $50 to $60 an hour for their services, she said.

In fact, pattern graders often make more than $100,000 a year, said Mullet, the OSU professor. . . .>>>

The US journalist that wrote this topic's article can't spell. He writes "elicit", meaning to draw forth or evoke, as "illicit" meaning not allowed or permitted, or unlawful. This is a very fundamental mistake in basic English and one that the journalist as a professional writer should never have made, and his editors or sub-editors should not have let it through with correction. He makes another mistake in the same clause where he writes "many a range of reactions" where he ought to have written either "many a reaction" or "a range of reactions" to render the clause clear and readable, which it is not the way he has it. This is another fundamental error in basic written English. Again his paper's editors or sub-ediotrs should have picked it up before it got into print. The standard of English education in the US must be through the floor.

<<The US journalist that wrote this topic's article can't spell.>>

Which article? I'm a terrible proofreader as anyone can tell from my typing, but I don't see those in a quick read.

Re: US Press on Metric June 30 2005, 4:17 PM

Allow me to expand.

The sentence in the article I refer to is:

"While metric creep might indeed eventually transform us, in-your-face changes likely still will illicit many a range of reactions, starting with derision and ending with anger."

The journalist wrongly wrote "elicit" as "illicit". Etc.

The US journalist that wrote this topic's article can't spell. He writes "elicit", meaning to draw forth or evoke, as "illicit" meaning not allowed or permitted, or unlawful. This is a very fundamental mistake in basic English and one that the journalist as a professional writer should never have made, and his editors or sub-editors should not have let it through without correcting it.

He makes another mistake in the same clause where he writes "many a range of reactions" where he ought to have written either "many a reaction" or "a range of reactions" to render the clause clear and readable, which it is not the confused way he has it. This is another fundamental error in basic written English. Again his paper's editors or sub-ediotrs should have picked it up before it got into print.

Also the word order of "likely still will" ought to have been changed to "will likely still" to make it clearer and so it reads better.

The more I look at this sentence the more confused its language reads. The standard of English education in the US must be through the floor.

The writing and editorial staff of "The Kansas City Star" should have its knuckles rapped for such basic mistakes. Its readers deserve better for the price of the paper than this sort of substandard English.

Well I go to the foot of me apple's and pear's me old china - stone the crows governor and make no mistake.

Found it now. I have a bad tendency to gloss over errors and read them as correct.

My guess: He depended too much on a spell checker and let it choose the wrong word from a list of proposed changes, or made a mousing error.

The other is bad grammar but he has a pompous, long-winded style, in which convoluted sentences seem to be the norm.

SteveH: "Well I go to the foot of me apple's and pear's me old china - stone the crows governor and make no mistake."

Rip: More drivel from you, dear. I told them you had problems. I just hope that they can get you on the right medication.

It's a bit like metrication in the UK.

"30 years and counting...." !!

Heh!

Yep, 30 years of still not knowing what tool I should use when installing and/or repairing home or business products. A real victory for English units.

30 years of kids not having a clue about the units they find themselves using in everyday life...

But at least we are heroically fighting off them foreigners trying to impose their stupid french system on us.

Makes you proud to be British!

I don't think its stupid

<<<I don't think its stupid>>>

but you do think its French and that foreigners are trying to impose it on us!?

The only ones I can think of are not foreigners, but they are creepy (!)