Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xanaqui" data-source="post: 4162751" data-attributes="member: 56394">I dislike both. My preference would be Le Système International d'Unités (SI).If it stays Imperial, it should use a lot more of Imperial, not just the fraction of corrupted Imperial that's in common use in the U.S.A. - let's use nautical miles, rods, cables, links, poles, cables, thous, chains, furlongs, and leagues for distance -&nbsp; roods for area -&nbsp; gills for volume -&nbsp; grains, drachm, stones,&nbsp; quarters, and hundredweights for weight/mass. This will obviously simplify the text greatly, since with the use of proper Imperial units, the text can use fewer digits&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I'll note that while the United States of America has had high-level proponents of converting to metric, or SI, since at least 1866 (when the metric system was authorized by Congress), the U.S.A. is one of only three countries in the world which isn't officially SI. The closest it has come to converting to metric is the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, which encourages voluntary conversion to metric, and requires federal agencies to use metric (with lots of exceptions). Note that this act has not been continuously valid (which presumably makes things worse).There were other attempts, like the Metric Conversion act of 1975, whose board was disbanded in 1982, and there have been backlashes, like the 1992 National Highway System Designation Act (which prohibits the use of federal funds to convert or buy metric highway signs).Personally, having been schooled in the U.S.A. while the Metric Conversion act's board was still active, I use the U.S.A.'s traditional units for certain things, SI for others, and the twain rarely meet. Conversions are so much more painful in the U.S.A.'s traditional that I prefer SI (or at least metric) in the rare cases that I get a choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xanaqui, post: 4162751, member: 56394"] I dislike both. My preference would be Le Système International d'Unités (SI). If it stays Imperial, it should use a lot more of Imperial, not just the fraction of corrupted Imperial that's in common use in the U.S.A. - let's use nautical miles, rods, cables, links, poles, cables, thous, chains, furlongs, and leagues for distance - roods for area - gills for volume - grains, drachm, stones, quarters, and hundredweights for weight/mass. This will obviously simplify the text greatly, since with the use of proper Imperial units, the text can use fewer digits ;) I'll note that while the United States of America has had high-level proponents of converting to metric, or SI, since at least 1866 (when the metric system was authorized by Congress), the U.S.A. is one of only three countries in the world which isn't officially SI. The closest it has come to converting to metric is the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, which encourages [I]voluntary [/I]conversion to metric, and requires federal agencies to use metric (with lots of exceptions). Note that this act has not been continuously valid (which presumably makes things worse). There were other attempts, like the Metric Conversion act of 1975, whose board was disbanded in 1982, and there have been backlashes, like the 1992 National Highway System Designation Act (which prohibits the use of federal funds to convert or buy metric highway signs). Personally, having been schooled in the U.S.A. while the Metric Conversion act's board was still active, I use the U.S.A.'s traditional units for certain things, SI for others, and the twain rarely meet. Conversions are so much more painful in the U.S.A.'s traditional that I prefer SI (or at least metric) in the rare cases that I get a choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification