Decimalisation
- The decimal system IS superior to the previous system
- People may have also had a problem with "big numbers"
- Did not receive full public support
- The government did not consult the public
- It's done, and no-one except a couple of hardliners want it back
- I don't miss it

Metrication
- The decimal system is the basis of the metric system
- Therefore the metric system is, logically and rationally, superior
- Does not receive full public support
- Is being implemented without public consultation
- When it's done, nobody'll miss the old units
- I use the metric system, and imperial only when I have to.

IS this the "real" John now?

...Or is it the same person who nicked John's post from metricsucks and put it here.

Then read on metricsucks that he's stopped posting now?

And now has stolen his postname?

Hmmm....


Also - metrication + decimalisation?
Most know that this is the last resort argument for someone losing the metric arguement.

I can do it too, watch...

"Well if you think metric is so greate then how come time is not done decimally? ner!!"

(Martin: Please don't state the obvious next, mate!)

Exactly, Steve. Metrication and decimalisation are certainly related issues, but to equate them like people often do is stupid. They are not the same at all. Not to say that I don't want LSD, I do, I just think they are quite seperate things.

I'm sure "euric" can provide you with some of his LSD!!!


;-)

Oh dear, my Grandfather tells the exact same joke (though not in relation to Euric) :p

<<
Therefore the metric system is, logically and rationally, superior
>>

Agreed. Logically and rationally, yes. But in practice, no.

Decimalisation was a pre-ordained 'softener-up' for metrication and the adoption of the euro, which were all planned decades ago.

During the 1960s, the United Kingdom twice applied for membership of the Common Market and was twice refused.

Why did Britain succeed in getting into the Common Market the third time around? Because in 1965, a year after he was elected Prime Minister after '13 years of Tory misrule', Harold Wilson secretly met with continental European politicians and a deal was done:

'You change your currency to decimal, *then* we'll admit you to the Common Market'.

Which is what happened

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
'You change your currency to decimal, *then* we'll admit you to the Common Market'.

Which is what happened
>>

I am not convinced. Plans for decimalisation were drawn up in the last 1960's with the first decimal coins (5p and 10p) appearing in 1968. THe actual changeover was in 1971. THis co-incided with the rise of the computer age. Anybody who knows anything about computers would realise that with the advent of FORTRAN II in 1958 and COBOL in 1960 it must have become apparent that these languages could be used without any modifications to run accounting systems that had a decimal base, but that a number of awkward changes would have to be made if they were to be uised with a currency that had a non-decimal base.

I believe that the IT industry rather than the EEC was the catalyst that prompted Britian to complete the long journey that she made in implementing decimalisation. (The first step of course was in 1848 with the striking of the 2/- coin which also bore the inscription "One tenth of a pound"). It is also worth noting that by 1957 all the Commonwealth countries either had a decimal coinage or they were still using a £sd system that they inherited from the UK.

Doesn't matter which name you choose to post under - Nobody is interested in what you are peddling here....Well, maybe Metre, but that's not saying much.

Just mention the Iraq War or yanks in a negative context and you've got him. Predictable people like metre bore me TO TEARS.

Take a deep breath after reading this, Metre, my friend. Down boy, down

<<
Explain to me how 95+ % of the world uses metric in practice and has no problem using it.
>>
I never said they have a problem using it. But just because the French can use the French language just fine doesn't mean that we should switch to French. Americans can use USC just as well as others can use metric.

<<
Explain to me how some of the greatest technology was developed in metric, some later converted to imperial/USC, and how this never presented a problem?
>>
Exactly. Measurements have never presented a problem, so why do we need to change?


<<
It seems to me, that as of late only the Americans are having a problem with SI. That should say the problem is with the Americans and not with SI.
>>
If we weren't trying to convert to SI we wouldn't be having this problem.


<<
I would tend to think that one of the reasons American jobs are being exported to metric countries is because the praticality of metric is one of the factors in keeping the costs down.
>>
Hahahahahaha. When labor is cheaper in India by a factor of ten, I don't think this matters.


<<
USC is so practical that it costs more to produce in it, because of the constant errors Americans make using it and the added cost to make corrections.
>>
If this was the problem, then wouldn't it be cheaper for American industry to simply convert to metric than to move overseas?
btw do you have any examples of these errors you mention?

Re: Decimalisation vs Metrication February 7 2004, 3:08 PM
Robespierre:
Explain to me how 95+ % of the world uses metric in
practice and has no problem using it.

Bud:
I never said they have a problem using it. But just because the French can use the French language just fine doesn't mean that we should switch to French. Americans can use USC just as well as others can use metric.

metre:
You are still having problems comparing languages with measurements. Only your faulty reasoning that metric and imperial are equally efficient, leads you to that erronous assumption.
The process of passing on language and measurements to the next generation is identical. And that is the only process they have in common! You have no influence on the tongue you will speak, nor do you have any say on wich measuring system you will use. By the time you reach adulthood both are deeply embedded in your brain. Maybe that gives you an incling why it is so difficult to learn a new language, or new measurements. Astonishingly if you are forced by circumstances to live in an other country, you are capable to learn their langage quite painlessly compared to learning it at school. Mind you, if you are fluent after a some considerable time, you will not be able to express anything differently than in your mother tongue, because languages deal with human concepts and those are identical in all human beings. Measurements are not, as the difference between imperial and metric shows. Maybe you get the drift now?

<<
languages deal with human concepts and those are identical in all human beings. Measurements are not, as the difference between imperial and metric shows. Maybe you get the drift now?
>>
Sounds very impressive, but makes no sense whatsoever. What do you mean by "human concepts"? Measurements are made by humans, and they are a concept. Please explain.

"British products are metric "

Why does he keep saying this?

I'm certainly not saying that British products are exclusively imperial but why on earth would a foreigner pre-suppose that "British Products are metric"?


I work for a rather (as in 'very') large British company and I can tell you that what we produce is mixed but the machinery, strorage and delivery are imperial.

Actually,

Why ON EARTH does this matter?

Re: Decimalisation vs Metrication February 8 2004, 11:27 PM

metre:<<
languages deal with human concepts and those are identical in all human beings. Measurements are not, as the difference between imperial and metric shows. Maybe you get the drift now?
>>

Bud:
Sounds very impressive, but makes no sense whatsoever. What do you mean by "human concepts"? Measurements are made by humans, and they are a concept. Please explain.

metre:
My apology, it should have been feelings in this context. Love, jelousy, joy, anger, sadness, and so on, are immutable and form the basis of all languages. Social concepts, like politics, measurements, fashions, and more are mutable. That is why all languages are equal. Never mind how those human emotions are expressed the meaning is always the same.
By the way, I am not out to impress you. I am just trying to cut the loop your thoughts are caught in.

<<
Never mind how those human emotions are expressed the meaning is always the same.
>>
So then why couldn't you say "never mind how quantities are expressed, the value is always the same"?

Re: Decimalisation vs Metrication February 9 2004, 8:58 PM

<<
metre:
Never mind how those human emotions are expressed the meaning is always the same.

Bud:>>
So then why couldn't you say "never mind how quantities are expressed, the value is always the same"?

metre:
You can of course say it, but does it make sense to complicate matters if there is an easy solution?
To languages you cannot attach a value system like cumbersome and simple, to measurements you can. So why would I want to arrive and express the value in a cumbersome measurement, if it is so much easier to achieve it in metric.
Now we are back at the loop again.

<<<Now we are back at the loop again>>>

In your opinion