RFD: misc.metric-system
Markus Kuhn
unmoderated group misc.metric-system
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup misc.metric-system. This is
not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
details are below.
Newsgroup line:
misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
Discussions about the metric system flare up regularly in a large
number of newsgroups. In particular the use of the metric system in
the United States, and its slow progress, promise to fuel such debates
for many years to come. A dedicated newsgroup for these discussions
will focus expertise and will provide a medium for professionals and
hobbyists to ask for advice on metric product standards and
conventions. The group might also serve to stimulate and coordinate
political activities towards better legal and government support for
the metric system and related global standards. The popularity of, for
instance, the existing U.S. Metric Association mailing list and the
important role that units of measurement play in everyone's life
promise that this could become a quite lively newsgroup.
CHARTER: misc.metric-system
This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
related to the International System of Units (SI), also known as the
Metric System. Its scope covers related global standards and
conventions, for example metric product specifications. Of particular
interest is "metrication", the process of introducing the metric
system in fields and regions where other units of measurement are
still prevalent.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
sci.physics
soc.culture.usa
comp.std.internat
and will be reposted by the proponent to these groups:
sci.math
sci.engr,
soc.culture.canada
soc.culture.europe
comp.std.misc
misc.transport.road
and the following mailing list:
us...@colostate.edu (U.S. Metric Association discussion list)
Subscription information: http://www.metric.org/listserv.htm
Proponent: Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Agelmar
news:1028147...@isc.org...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group misc.metric-system
I like the idea for the group, however I am concerned about the name. I do
not think that misc.* is the right place for it. I think the group would be
better as sci.measurements.metric or something of the sort. Perhaps the
proponent would consider changing the name?
-Ian Fette, proponent comp.lang.php (passed)
Brian Mailman
There is no sci.measurements.* at present... what other topic would you
think could hang off of that?
B/
Christopher Dearlove
<Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes
>Discussions about the metric system flare up regularly in a large
>number of newsgroups. In particular the use of the metric system in
>the United States, and its slow progress, promise to fuel such debates
>for many years to come.
Looks more like the RFD for a US group rather than an international
group. (And I comment as an inhabitant of the other main backward
country in this regard.)
>Proponent: Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk>
As I then see does the proponent.
--
Christopher Dearlove
ba...@dmcom.net
Maybe sci.systems.metric
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Don Aitken
<Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group misc.metric-system
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup misc.metric-system. This is
>not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
>details are below.
>
>Newsgroup line:
>misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
>
[snip rationale]
>CHARTER: misc.metric-system
>
>This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
>related to the International System of Units (SI), also known as the
>Metric System.
The metric system is not the same thing as SI. The centimetre, to give
just one example, is a metric unit but not an SI unit. I can see a
place for a group which will discuss both, but to start off the
charter with a statement that they are the same thing does not inspire
confidence.
--
Don Aitken
ba...@dmcom.net
*sighes* looks like cox sever needs to set moderated for n.a.n
Jay Denebeim
Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Discussions about the metric system flare up regularly in a large
>number of newsgroups. In particular the use of the metric system in
>the United States, and its slow progress, promise to fuel such debates
>for many years to come.
And so on... Um. something I'm kinda curious about, the description
is very US centric in the RFD and yet the proponant is from the uk.
This smells to me like someone is trying to get traffic they don't
want to move to another newsgroup.
Is that the case? If so, it doesn't work when people have tried it in
the past.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Bent C Dalager
Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>There is no sci.measurements.* at present... what other topic would you
>think could hang off of that?
If there is a sci.measurements.metric, I would expect an RFD for
sci.measurements.advocacy to follow suit shortly thereafter <g>
Other obvious candidates would be s.m.imperial, s.m.medieval,
etc. Lots of interesting historical and trivia stuff to discuss there,
I'm sure.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - b...@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Brian Mailman wrote:
>>
>> Agelmar wrote:
>> >
>> > "Markus Kuhn" <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:1028147...@isc.org...
>> > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> > > unmoderated group misc.metric-system
>> > <snip>
>> > I like the idea for the group, however I am concerned about the name. I do
>> > not think that misc.* is the right place for it. I think the group would be
>> > better as sci.measurements.metric or something of the sort. Perhaps the
>> > proponent would consider changing the name?
>>
>> There is no sci.measurements.* at present... what other topic would you
>> think could hang off of that?
>Maybe sci.systems.metric
With the caveat that my use of "metric" is only as a placeholder
until an appropriate term for metric/SI/whatever is decided upon:
sci.edu.metric? Would be too limited
sci.misc.metric? Sort of reducing the misc scope to the scientific nature
of metric?
sci.skeptic.metric? For those who don't believe in metric
misc.activisim.metric? For the advocation or opposition to metric
misc.education.metric? A more general educational scope
misc.education.science.metric? General educational scope but focus on science
misc.forsale.metric? For those who don't buy into metric
ru
--
My (updated) standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group misc.metric-system
yeah, I don't like the name either. Based on the rationale and
charter below, it is meant to be an advocacy group, and that
strikes me as asking to be placed at the 3rd node somewhere
(other than in talk.*). Most of the misc.* 2nd nodes are much
more broad concepts. I would consider this at 2nd node if I thought
there was room to split it into subgroups in the future. Ok, maybe
there could be a political branch (e.g. lobbying), and a technical
branch (e.g. standards). But that doesn't preclude putting this at
3rd node and the subgroups at 4th.
>Newsgroup line:
>misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
>RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
>Discussions about the metric system flare up regularly in a large
>number of newsgroups.
How about some examples? Elaborate on "flare up". Do they cause
problems, possibly to warrant this group? How would this group
fix those problems? If the "flare up" are infrequent in any
given group, there's not much incentive from existing newsgroup
readers to find a new place for that kind of discussion, even if
the "flare" is big. I suspect these kinds of things are tied to
a specific topic, and thus may not be prevented even with the
presence of this group.
>In particular the use of the metric system in
>the United States, and its slow progress, promise to fuel such debates
>for many years to come.
If the focus really is on the US, should this not be in a US hierarchy?
Or is it more a case of "US vs the world" debaters.
>A dedicated newsgroup for these discussions
>will focus expertise and will provide a medium for professionals and
>hobbyists to ask for advice on metric product standards and
>conventions.
Um, are there many of these professionals and hobbyists ready to
start reading the proposed newsgroup? And are there enough of
them ready to vote for it? I guess I'm asking if these folks
are aware of the proposal and if they actually support you?
Keep in mind that only a tiny fraction of readership votes for
these proposals, and that you need at least about 120 YES votes
to pass the proposal. And these are necessarily folks that
somehow know about the proposal and subsequent post. (Also,
see my .sig below)
Oh, the last phrase in that statement would be good for the charter.
>The group might also serve to stimulate and coordinate
>political activities towards better legal and government support for
>the metric system and related global standards.
Again, is this US-centric, or are you suggesting governements
and activistis in other nations?
>The popularity of, for
>instance, the existing U.S. Metric Association mailing list and the
>important role that units of measurement play in everyone's life
>promise that this could become a quite lively newsgroup.
Not at face value it doesn't (promise). There's little correlation
between MLs and newsgroup popularity, and even less so between the
real world and newsgroups. The only way one can believably "promise"
to make a group lively is if there is some data suggesting those
readers will make the move to the new group (or at least add the
group to their reading). Have you done a survey on the ML? (be
sure to get permission from the ML maintainer before you do) It
is not uncommon for those readers to not want to go to newsgroups
because they like the ML community, or they don't like newsgroups
(because they are wide open to anyone, kooks included), or they
simply don't know how to use newsgroups.
And going back to readership size, how big is the ML readership
anyways? If it's a couple hundred, don't count on getting enough
votes at all. As I said above, only a tiny fraction of any
readership votes. If it numbers in a thousand, the thing is
begging for a change, and you might suggest how a newsgroup
would improve things. And if you do that, I highly recommend
suggesting those readers try out some other newsgroup(s) if
they haven't used one before.
What about the other newsgroups? Any of those have readers that
may be inclined to reading this group (e.g. by virtue of a related
or associated topic)? If you don't have enough ML readers, they
are going to have to come from the other newsgroups for this
to pass.
Again, I stress that your readership has to know about this
proposal right around now, not at voting time, now. You can't
pop up a CFV and expect votes to come in. Advertising the
proposal during the vote has some restrictions, and the leadtime to
response can be long, so advertising has to start now, if you
haven't started already. The votes you want don't come from readers
of news.groups, they have to come from the folks that you expect to
read the proposed group. If they don't know about it, this proposal
is dead.
>CHARTER: misc.metric-system
Note: the charter is a document that sort of lives on with the
associated newsgroup. It can become dated, but it should be
written with the notion that it will be used or refered to even
after the group is created.
>This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
^unmoderated
>related to the International System of Units (SI), also known as the
>Metric System.
Someone already pointed this out: SI != metric system
>Its scope covers related global standards and
>conventions, for example metric product specifications.
On the issue of products, are commercial postings going to be a
concern? If so, you might consider either limiting their frequency
(I suggest no more than 1 per month), or even outright discouraging
them.
>Of particular
>interest is "metrication", the process of introducing the metric
>system in fields and regions where other units of measurement are
>still prevalent.
You could toss in "advice" here as another example topic of discussion.
How about the thing about organizing activities?
I can't see binaries (image, video, sound, executable files) being
an issue. But if they are, consider a statement discouraging them.
I can never remember the boilerplate we use around here, so look
at some other proposals from the past couple years, but you don't
want to discourage PGP and similar small binary signatures.
>END CHARTER.
Oh, yeah, one last point here: if you encourage the readership
to get involved in discussions here, please be sure to mention
that they should state more than "I will vote for it", or "I
think this is a good idea". This is a "request for DISCUSSION",
so encourage them to explain their position, or why they would
read the new group or why it is a bad idea.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>In article <3D48581C...@sfo.com>,
>Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>>There is no sci.measurements.* at present... what other topic would you
>>think could hang off of that?
>If there is a sci.measurements.metric, I would expect an RFD for
>sci.measurements.advocacy to follow suit shortly thereafter <g>
>Other obvious candidates would be s.m.imperial, s.m.medieval,
>etc. Lots of interesting historical and trivia stuff to discuss there,
>I'm sure.
Not only that, there's an understated set of fields in science
and technology that are dedicated to measurement, particularly
the establishment or improvement of standards and their methods.
Of course, there's measurement theory, too. And then there's
the more down to earth area of equipment or readily accessible
technolgy. I can see metric hanging off to the side of those
in a sci.measurement.* hierarchy. It's just that not many folks
are really that interested in the measurement topic in general,
so I have to wonder how many really would be interested in just
metric.
James Logajan
Markus, don't budge an inch! Give them an inch and they'll take a mile!
(Okay okay, I'll take my medication now.)
James Logajan
> In article <1028147...@isc.org>,
> Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Discussions about the metric system flare up regularly in a large
>>number of newsgroups. In particular the use of the metric system in
>>the United States, and its slow progress, promise to fuel such debates
>>for many years to come.
>
> And so on... Um. something I'm kinda curious about, the description
> is very US centric in the RFD and yet the proponant is from the uk.
Actually, Markus originally hails from Germany and has been interested in
such issues for a number of years - I recall reading his postings on
standardization in general on Usenet a fair number of years ago (when I was
more involved with ITU and OSI standards). He is even the author of a FAQ
on the subject:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/std-faq.txt
If you're curious about the proponent, his web site is:
Sam Wormley
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group misc.metric-system
>
If you succeed, take Shead with you.
ba...@dmcom.net
Who is Shead?
Perhaps this is a proposal to move traffice out of a group?
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> Markus, don't budge an inch! Give them an inch and they'll take a mile!
Nope will nit take a mile, perhaps a meter or two.
>
> (Okay okay, I'll take my medication now.)
You sure you are getting the right dose ;-)
John David Galt
> Newsgroup line:
> misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
An interesting topic to discuss, however, a better name might be
soc.metrication or possibly soc.metrication.usa (are there any other
countries that _haven't_ metricized yet?)
Steven Lucas
news:ai9jn2$12n9pl$1...@ID-30799.news.dfncis.de...
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group misc.metric-system
> <snip>
> I like the idea for the group, however I am concerned about the name. I do
> not think that misc.* is the right place for it. I think the group would
be
> better as sci.measurements.metric or something of the sort. Perhaps the
> proponent would consider changing the name?
Did a google group search on metric system, talk about the metric system is
spread far and wide.
MAYBE misc.* is the best place.
--
Crimefighter Co-Creator, Promised Land MUD
The COMPLETE Abermud List http://promisedland.betterbox.net
http://abermud.tripod.com smlucas-=<([a])>=-flashmail.com
STOP DEADLY EMAIL VIRUS SPAM! GET A DEADSPAM.COM ADDRESS!
Markus Kuhn
>>Discussions about the metric system flare up regularly in a large
>>number of newsgroups. In particular the use of the metric system in
>>the United States, and its slow progress, promise to fuel such debates
>>for many years to come.
>
>And so on... Um. something I'm kinda curious about, the description
>is very US centric in the RFD and yet the proponant is from the uk.
>This smells to me like someone is trying to get traffic they don't
>want to move to another newsgroup.
>
>Is that the case?
No, it isn't, and the rest of the RFD says so explicitely.
Markus
--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ | __oo_O..O_oo__
Markus Kuhn
>sci.edu.metric? Would be too limited
>sci.misc.metric? Sort of reducing the misc scope to the scientific nature
> of metric?
>sci.skeptic.metric? For those who don't believe in metric
>
>misc.activisim.metric? For the advocation or opposition to metric
>misc.education.metric? A more general educational scope
>misc.education.science.metric? General educational scope but focus on science
>misc.forsale.metric? For those who don't buy into metric
If you swap in your proposals the second and third level name
components, then you should see, why this is indeed a suitable
second-level group in the misc hierarchy. When considering the name,
I did seriously think about sci.metrology.si, soc.metrication,
and many others, but then realized that this is a charter that falls
so much out of the existing hierarchy in that it covers so many
aspects (scientific, political, social, educational, psychological,
media practice, consumer protection, etc.), that a second-level
misc group remained as the only sensible choice.
And with regard to the name "metric-system", I chose it, because
it is far more widely recognized in the English-speaking world
than technical terms such as SI or MKS(A), which designate different
incarnations of the metric system during its historic evolution. And
a "metric" is something very different from the "metric system".
The initial discussion so far also does not yet show one
single clearly favoured alternative, just a recognition that the
naming is slightly tricky and a long list of possible names,
most of which I have already considered when writing the RFD,
and found them to be inappropriate for the proposed charter.
With regard to other questions asked so far: The group is
clearly not US specific, as we are talking about an international
standard here, and even though the US side of things might well end
up as being one major discussion topic, other obvious topics include
for example the ongoing progress of metrication in the UK and
Canada, as well as related European Union efforts.
Jonathan Amery
This RFD appears to have a lack of coherant vision. In places it
seems to be suggesting that the primary purpose of the group be to
provide a discussion and support forum for the use of the metric
system itself, and in other places it seems to be trying to be a place
where advocacy discussions can get redirected too.
While I think that both of these may be laudable aims, I fear that
they will make for poor bedfellows in the same group.
--
Jonathan Amery. "Un Anneau pour les gouverner tous,
##### Un Anneau pour les trouver,
#######__o Un Anneau pour les amener tous
#######'/ et dans les tenebres les lier."
Joe Bernstein
Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> [metric system group - whatever name is chosen]
It's obviously talk.metric-system, and it obviously isn't. I
really don't have a problem with the name proposed; if someone comes
up with an alternative that wins wide acclamation, OK, but in its
absence, I really don't see that the namespace needs to be protected
from *every* weird second-level group.
sci.measurement.metric would be fine except that the non-flame
content intended is patently not just scientific. (I would expect
the group's FAQ to acquire a question about the relative size of
quarts and liters *very* soon.) I also have grave doubts about
the wisdom of intentionally putting high-flamage groups into sci.*.
My own not-very-serious suggestion is misc.facts.metric-system.
This makes the "facts" node entirely devoid of meaning (this group
and the Straight Dope one having nothing in common), but that
isn't necessarily a bad thing - what the heck is the "facts" node
*supposed* to mean, anyway? I have no investment whatever in this
idea, but wanted to toss it out there and see if anyone else likes
it; at least it solves the "second level orphan" pseudo-problem.
Personally I prefer the name actually proposed.
> This RFD appears to have a lack of coherant vision. In places it
> seems to be suggesting that the primary purpose of the group be to
> provide a discussion and support forum for the use of the metric
> system itself, and in other places it seems to be trying to be a place
> where advocacy discussions can get redirected too.
>
> While I think that both of these may be laudable aims, I fear that
> they will make for poor bedfellows in the same group.
I doubt it.
Here I speak as a proponent and longtime intermittent reader of
soc.history.ancient, which was intended for similar purposes. We
knew that most of the traffic we were counting on to justify the
group was flamewars, but we also wanted somewhere that was unequivocally
on-topic for stuff that wasn't really on-topic other places, like
ancient China or India - me - or Druids - the lead proponent.
Well, sure enough. Most of the traffic on sha since inception has
been flamewars. By and large these have been cross-posted. People
who wanted to get these *out* of sh.medieval have mostly gotten their
wish - occasionally, a resident sha troll decides to make shm suffer
too, but otherwise, sha/shm cross-posting is actually a relatively
reliable indicator of good threads set in the chronological overlap
(AD 500-700). This is not because the flamewars are no longer widely
cross-posted; it's because the nuts who start them no longer have nearly
as much incentive to convince themselves that their topic is "medieval"
as they had before there was a group specifically for "ancient".
Meanwhile, those of us who wanted a good on-topic home for occasional
threads about other stuff have sort of gotten our wish too. Usually
there aren't enough people reading who know anything about the more
obscure topics to sustain a thread - I've had maybe one good thread
each about China and Persia since the group started, and I don't
remember any about India. But on the rare occasions that I've bothered
to read threads about Egypt, I've seen fairly serious content amid the
kookery; it's usually possible with heavy use of a killfile to read
threads about Greece (there's a resident kook whose basic idea is that
all human knowledge and custom originated from Greeks - Greek is, for
example, the only ancient language, all other allegedly ancient languages
being just poorly transcribed dialects - well, you get the idea; anyway,
you have to killfile both him and the useless posts arguing with him,
but once you do, there's some good knowledge of Greece there). Threads
on Rome are consistently of good quality and lacking in kooks, so far
(one famous troll or kook does post to them, but usually not actually
in any bad way); of course, these routinely include the threads cross-
posted with shm (fall of Rome and like that).
It's possible that if anyone wanted to moderate, a proposal for
a soc.history.ancient.moderated could pass; if this were 1996, not
2002, I could see a proposal for a soc.history.asian passing. Similarly,
if the very legitimate concerns about whether *this* proposal could
attract enough voters turn out to be unfounded, I could see down the
road that there might be interest in a misc.metric-system.moderated
or a sci.measurement.metric. But in the meantime, I proffer
soc.history.ancient as an example that those considering voting for
the group might want to examine, before deciding; because if this
group does pass, that's how I'd expect it to turn out.
I'd be shocked if the readers of *any* mailing list wanted to move
to a group similar to sha, though.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/>
Jay Denebeim
Markus Kuhn <n02W31...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>>And so on... Um. something I'm kinda curious about, the description
>>is very US centric in the RFD and yet the proponant is from the uk.
>>This smells to me like someone is trying to get traffic they don't
>>want to move to another newsgroup.
>>
>>Is that the case?
>
>No, it isn't, and the rest of the RFD says so explicitely.
I see from a previous post you made that you've given quite a bit of
thought to this proposal and that you placed it where you thought it
was appropriate and articulated why very well.
So, forget what I said. You sound like you've got all your ducks in a
row to me.
Guy Who Laughs At Funny Hotel Keys
said:
>DThe group might also serve to stimulate and coordinate
>political activities towards better legal and government support for
>the metric system and related global standards.
The justification for a newsgroup is supposed to be that it's *about* a
given topic, not exclusively *for* or *against* it.
If a newsgroup designed to rally support for the government forcing
Americans to use the metric system is created, then it's only fair that
the other side gets its own newsgroup too.
--
I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative!
------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
Bent C Dalager
Guy Who Laughs At Funny Hotel Keys <ban...@todayslastword.org> wrote:
>
>If a newsgroup designed to rally support for the government forcing
>Americans to use the metric system is created, then it's only fair that
>the other side gets its own newsgroup too.
I doubt anyone would stop them from creating one.
Markus Kuhn
>The justification for a newsgroup is supposed to be that it's *about* a
>given topic, not exclusively *for* or *against* it.
>
>If a newsgroup designed to rally support for the government forcing
>Americans to use the metric system is created, then it's only fair that
>the other side gets its own newsgroup too.
I made a serious attempt to phrase the charter as politically and
culturally neutral as feasible. The rationale is just background
information for the discussion, not the definition what what belongs
into the group and what not. Based on my experience in related
mailing lists, I merely risked a prediction in the rationale what
most threads of discussion will likely be about.
Kai Henningsen
> The metric system is not the same thing as SI. The centimetre, to give
> just one example, is a metric unit but not an SI unit. I can see a
Says who?
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Russ Allbery
> don-a...@freeuk.com (Don Aitken) wrote:
>> The metric system is not the same thing as SI. The centimetre, to give
>> just one example, is a metric unit but not an SI unit. I can see a
> Says who?
It's a derived unit rather than a base unit (or if not derived, then
whatever one correctly calls a base SI unit with an order of magnitude
modifier attached), but I wouldn't think that would disqualify it from
being considered an SI unit.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>On 1 Aug 2002 13:23:06 GMT, n02W31...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Markus Kuhn)
>said:
>>DThe group might also serve to stimulate and coordinate
>>political activities towards better legal and government support for
>>the metric system and related global standards.
>The justification for a newsgroup is supposed to be that it's *about* a
>given topic, not exclusively *for* or *against* it.
Uh, no. *.advocacy newsgroups exist, as well as advocacy/support groups
in soc.*, and many were created for just that purpose. The topic
itself can be for or against something or it can just be about that
"something" inclusively.
>If a newsgroup designed to rally support for the government forcing
>Americans to use the metric system is created, then it's only fair that
>the other side gets its own newsgroup too.
Of course. But if the other side doesn't bother to try to create
it, it doesn't deserve to be created, according to the current
protocol.
As my .sig implies, the only actual justification for creating
a newsgroup is that there are a whole lot of people that say they
want to discuss the topic in newsgroups.
Rick Pikul
says...
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:36:29 UTC, Markus Kuhn
> <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group misc.metric-system
> >
> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> >world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup misc.metric-system. This is
> >not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
> >details are below.
> >
> >Newsgroup line:
> >misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
> >
> [snip rationale]
>
> >CHARTER: misc.metric-system
> >
> >This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
> >related to the International System of Units (SI), also known as the
> >Metric System.
>
> The metric system is not the same thing as SI. The centimetre, to give
> just one example, is a metric unit but not an SI unit.
Bad example, while the cm is not a base unit in SI, it certainly
exists within SI.
A better example would have been the litre.
--
Phoenix
Erik Max Francis
> Bad example, while the cm is not a base unit in SI, it
> certainly
> exists within SI.
>
> A better example would have been the litre.
Point being, he gave a bad example, but was absolutely right. SI is not
the same as "the metric system." One might reasonably call SI _a_
metric system, but the metric system as originally designed is _not_ the
same thing as SI.
I agree that it is a little worrying that the charter ignores the
distinction.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ See the son in your bad day / Smell the flowers in the valley
\__/ Chante Moore
Bosskey.net: Aliens vs. Predator 2 / http://www.bosskey.net/avp2/
A personal guide to Aliens vs. Predator 2.
Markus Kuhn
>Point being, he gave a bad example, but was absolutely right. SI is not
>the same as "the metric system." One might reasonably call SI _a_
>metric system, but the metric system as originally designed is _not_ the
>same thing as SI.
>
>I agree that it is a little worrying that the charter ignores the
>distinction.
As the author of the charter, I am perfectly aware that the
International System of Units (SI) is the latest incarnation
of a historic family of measurement systems colloquially known in the
English speaking world as the Metric System. Today, for the
majority of non-expert English speakers (i.e., people who don't
know or care what the CGS, MKS, MKSA systems were, or various European
customary units such as the kilopond, the metric pound or the calorie),
the terms Metric System and SI are practically equivalent. The term
"Metric System" is far more widely known and recognized, and therefore
far better suited to indicate the charter of a group in a list of
newsgroup names. I therefore proposed to name the group after the
Metric System, but refered in the charter and the description line
to the official name of the modern standard.
It is likely that the group will soon after its creation be filled
with FAQs and introductory documents that provide and accurate and
comprehensive history of the metric system, including the SI.
So don't worry. Contribute.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>>Point being, he gave a bad example, but was absolutely right. SI is not
>>the same as "the metric system." One might reasonably call SI _a_
>>metric system, but the metric system as originally designed is _not_ the
>>same thing as SI.
>>
>>I agree that it is a little worrying that the charter ignores the
>>distinction.
>As the author of the charter, I am perfectly aware that the
>International System of Units (SI) is the latest incarnation
>of a historic family of measurement systems colloquially known in the
>English speaking world as the Metric System. Today, for the
>majority of non-expert English speakers (i.e., people who don't
>know or care what the CGS, MKS, MKSA systems were, or various European
>customary units such as the kilopond, the metric pound or the calorie),
>the terms Metric System and SI are practically equivalent. The term
>"Metric System" is far more widely known and recognized, and therefore
>far better suited to indicate the charter of a group in a list of
>newsgroup names. I therefore proposed to name the group after the
>Metric System, but refered in the charter and the description line
>to the official name of the modern standard.
I don't think very many folks are concerned about the use
of "metric" in the name. The concern is the inaccuracy in the
charter regarding the similarity of SI and metric. The colloquial
usage of either is not a very good excuse for inaccuracy. Given
that the charter will be a document of future reference, not just
for the creation of the group, it pays to be accurate in the
facts mentioned in it.
Erik Max Francis
> I don't think very many folks are concerned about the use
> of "metric" in the name. The concern is the inaccuracy in the
> charter regarding the similarity of SI and metric. The colloquial
> usage of either is not a very good excuse for inaccuracy. Given
> that the charter will be a document of future reference, not just
> for the creation of the group, it pays to be accurate in the
> facts mentioned in it.
I agree. Only a slight change of wording in the charter is required to
acknowledge that SI and "metric system" are not necessarily equivalent.
The effort will pay off in the long run.
Markus Kuhn
>
>> I don't think very many folks are concerned about the use
>> of "metric" in the name. The concern is the inaccuracy in the
>> charter regarding the similarity of SI and metric. The colloquial
>> usage of either is not a very good excuse for inaccuracy. Given
>> that the charter will be a document of future reference, not just
>> for the creation of the group, it pays to be accurate in the
>> facts mentioned in it.
>
>I agree. Only a slight change of wording in the charter is required to
>acknowledge that SI and "metric system" are not necessarily equivalent.
>The effort will pay off in the long run.
Good points. How about this slight change of words:
CHARTER: misc.metric-system
This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
related to the International System of Units (SI), the modern version
of the Metric System. Its scope includes related global standards and
conventions, for example metric product specifications. Of particular
interest is "metrication", the process of introducing the metric
system in fields and regions where other units of measurement are
still prevalent.
Any other suggestions for rephrasing the charter?
Erik Max Francis
> CHARTER: misc.metric-system
>
> This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
> related to the International System of Units (SI), the modern version
> of the Metric System. Its scope includes related global standards and
> conventions, for example metric product specifications. Of particular
> interest is "metrication", the process of introducing the metric
> system in fields and regions where other units of measurement are
> still prevalent.
>
> Any other suggestions for rephrasing the charter?
The question that immediately comes to mind is: Is misc.metric-system
only for the discussion of SI and no other metric systems? Would, for
example, cgs discussion be inappropriate?
If it would, then perhaps the phrase "and other metric systems" might be
more appropriate than "the modern version of the Metric System."
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>>ru.ig...@usask.ca wrote:
>>
>>> The concern is the inaccuracy in the
>>> charter regarding the similarity of SI and metric. The colloquial
>>> usage of either is not a very good excuse for inaccuracy. Given
>>> that the charter will be a document of future reference, not just
>>> for the creation of the group, it pays to be accurate in the
>>> facts mentioned in it.
>>
>>I agree. Only a slight change of wording in the charter is required to
>>acknowledge that SI and "metric system" are not necessarily equivalent.
>>The effort will pay off in the long run.
[snip]
>CHARTER: misc.metric-system
>This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
>related to the International System of Units (SI), the modern version
>of the Metric System. Its scope includes related global standards and
>conventions, for example metric product specifications. Of particular
>interest is "metrication", the process of introducing the metric
>system in fields and regions where other units of measurement are
>still prevalent.
The group name is "metric-system", implying a general "metric"
discussion group, whereas the charter specifies SI. That's a mismatch
I don't like because it would lead to confusion for prospective
readers and because it excludes topics that I think should be included.
Furthermore, I think "related global standards" is a bit vague
(e.g. "related" could mean "any units used for length"),
especially when the term "Metric system" pretty much says what you
need. Actually, I'm not even sure what that sentence is really
trying to say.
Why not just leave that first sentence at,
"This group is for discussions and the dissemination of
information related to the Metric system",
and replace "related global standards and conventions"?
If your intention really is to limit the topic space to SI only,
I'd say that was a bad idea. Given that you have to change the
name to something like misc.system-international, or misc.metric.si,
you would be automatically reducing the readership to those that
are only interested in SI, and excluding postings in those "flares"
that are about metric but not SI. That reduces the chances of
creating this group. Perhaps the idea is so stupid that it deserves
to fail, but the proponent shouldn't be the one trying to make
it fail.
Markus Kuhn
post one single complete proposal for a charter, phrased and edited
exactly as you would prefer to see it voted upon.
> If your intention really is to limit the topic space to SI
My intention is to keep nitpicking distinctions between the
terms "International System of Units" and "Metric System"
out of the charter, and that it ought to be obvious that all these
topics are in the scope of the charter. If the group is about
the International System of Units, then its history,
precursors, side-line developments, alternative names,
future, competition, alternatives, etc. are of course also
included, and I hope none of this needs to be mentioned
specifically at the level of the charter.
> Furthermore, I think "related global standards" is a bit vague
I was thinking about widely used product standards based on
the metric system such as for example the A-series paper formats,
M-series screw threads, clothing size designations, etc.
and the charter says so.
Markus Kuhn
>only for the discussion of SI and no other metric systems? Would, for
>example, cgs discussion be inappropriate?
OK, to avoid any statement about whether the SI and "The Metric
System" are the same or how they are related, I've rephrased the
charter to
CHARTER: misc.metric-system
This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
related to the International System of Units (SI) or Metric System.
Its scope includes related global standards and conventions, for
example metric product specifications. Of particular interest is
"metrication", the process of introducing the metric system in fields
and regions where other units of measurement are still prevalent.
This clarifies that we are first of all interested in the SI, but
address in principle anything related to the term "metric system",
including historic precursors like CGS.
Erik Max Francis
> CHARTER: misc.metric-system
>
> This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
> related to the International System of Units (SI) or Metric System.
> Its scope includes related global standards and conventions, for
> example metric product specifications. Of particular interest is
> "metrication", the process of introducing the metric system in
> fields
> and regions where other units of measurement are still prevalent.
>
> This clarifies that we are first of all interested in the SI, but
> address in principle anything related to the term "metric system",
> including historic precursors like CGS.
This is better, but still doesn't nail the point home that SI and the
(or a) metric system are not synonymous (the _or_ in the clause might be
interpretered as in effect an _a.k.a._). It seems acceptable to me,
although perhaps "or any other Metric System" or even just "or Metric
Systems in general" might better phraseology. Either way, it seems
acceptable to me at this point.
The only other issue I can think of is that misc.* doesn't really feel
like the right hierarchy, but given the wide range of discussions
allowed (including metrication, non-scientific standards, etc.), no
place else really seems better, so I suppose misc.* is the right place
after all.
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
Ken Arromdee <arro...@yellow.rahul.net> wrote:
>
>Is there any reason for this other than "we don't like second level groups"?
>I think the unofficial rule 'put it as many places down in the hierarchy as
>you can' is absurd, and has been absurd for a long time, if it ever wasn't.
Well, I think the idea is that a hierarchical namespace is better
than a flat namespace. And I think that at one time that was
important.
I don't know if it is any more. It would be interesting to have
statistics on the relative frequencies of use of finding a groups
to read about a desired topic by (1) electronically searching the
names (possibly also descriptions) of all available groups, (2)
visually searching the top-level hierarcies for the most likely
one, entering it, and recursing, and (3) using Google to see
where the topic is discussed.
(Clearly the second option is the one which strongly encourages a
well-organized hierarchy. Of course, the argument against
needlessly creating a second-level subhiearchy with a single
child still holds.)
--
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
je...@litech.org
Markus Kuhn
>> interdisciplinary
>> scope, narrows on related activites (e.g. usage, study, advocacy)
>> involving measurement, and focuses on the metric varieties.
>
>It also sounds fine to me. I'd say it's marginally better than
>misc.metric-system, not only marginally. It's true that it's not all
>that likely more newsgroups would be desired in a misc.measurement.*
>hierarchy, but might as well be prepared for that eventuality.
Hm, I have a mild aversion against unnecessarily
deep hierarchies. I don't see any emerging interest for
discussion groups about other systems of measurement,
in particular none that would have an equally broad
scope to justify a placement under misc.* (Yes, there are lots
of very trickly and ingenious special-purpose measurement
systems used in various branches of physics (cosmology,
quantum gravity, etc.), but people who haven't
studied physics at graduate level are hardly aware
of these -> sci.*). The only alternatives to the metric system
that receive today wide discussions of a scope suitable for
the misc.* hierarchy are the US and the UK inch-pound
customary systems, and where I have seen them showing up
in discussions they are practically always discussed in
relation to the international system of units.
Typical usenet discussions about the "imperial" or "us-customary"
systems are whether or not certain uses of it should or
should not be replaced with standard units. But that is very
much within the scope of the metrication (and anti-metrication)
discussions, for which misc.metric-system was proposed.
In the light of that, I am not at all convinced about
the misc.measurement.metric suggestion and wouldn't want to
write a CFV for such a group. It looks to me more like an
attempt to put the group at level-three for not yet
well-explained reasons.
For those who would feel much better about misc.metric-system if
there were a plausible level-3 extension envisioned, please let me
just mention that the traffic on the usma mailing lists
for example would justify a future subgrouping according to
either regions
misc.metric-system.n-america
misc.metric-system.europe
misc.metric-system.britain
or common threads of discussion such as
misc.metric-system.consumers
misc.metric-system.legislation
misc.metric-system.history
misc.metric-system.revision
misc.metric-system.aviation/traffic
...
I don't expect any of these to emerge in the near future,
but my experience from related mailing lists suggests
that such subdivisions might be the most likely and
natural ones, based on observed patterns of discussion.
Markus Kuhn
>That presupposes the purpose of the group is political, or
>at least is intended primarily for advocacy of metric. The
>line starting "Of particular interest is metrication", I
>suppose, may give that impression, as would the "flare"
>rationale. The discussions that involve metric that I've
>sampled seem to lean that way, too. Granted, other
>flavours of discussion are included in the charter, but
>is it realistic to believe non-political discussions to be
>a significant contribution to the traffic in the proposed
>group? One can dress this up as a more general group, but if
>most of the existing traffic is advocacy, it's going to wipe
>out the other, more general, discussion. If the above
>suggestion were couched in that context, and that context
>is valid, I'd reconsider my view on the misc.* placement.
My experience from related mailing lists suggests that
political rants will be present, but they will not form a
dominant part of the contributions. Expect a substantial amount
of knowledgeable technical discussion about metric/ISO product
standards and how they interact with commercial practices
worldwide. A placement in "talk.*" would certainly not match
the charter.
Markus Kuhn
>Sounds like a more appropriate name for the group would have "SI" in the
>name somewhere, no?
The use of ambiguous abreviations without context in
USENET names is problematic, as for example the readers
of comp.std.internat (international standards related to
computers) have learned over the years, who are frequently
exposed to newbee posters who think the group was set up
for international students to talk about computers.
>If I were interested in finding out (or discussing) something about the
>metric system, I would definitely look somewhere in the sci.* hierarchy.
If you wanted to ask how shoe and jeans sizes are designated
by manufacturers in countries that use the metric system,
are you sure you would really look at sci.* first?
Joe Bernstein
wrote:
> is it realistic to believe non-political discussions to be
> a significant contribution to the traffic in the proposed
> group? One can dress this up as a more general group, but if
> most of the existing traffic is advocacy, it's going to wipe
> out the other, more general, discussion.
Oh?
soc.history.ancient
Maybe my previous post on this subject was too long for you to read?
So I'll just say that my experience has *not* been that a group with
high flame content *has* to be all-flames; I'd say the decisive factor
is whether the people going in are aware that the flamage is to be
expected.
Dick Wisan
>
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>>
>>ru.ig...@usask.ca wrote:
>>>
>>> misc.measurement.metric sounds ok to me. It indicates
>>> interdisciplinary scope, narrows on related activites (e.g.
>>> usage, study, advocacy) involving measurement, and focuses
>>> on the metric varieties.
>>
>>It also sounds fine to me. I'd say it's marginally better than
>
>Hm, I have a mild aversion against unnecessarily
> ...The only alternatives to the metric system
>that receive today wide discussions of a scope suitable for
>the misc.* hierarchy are the US and the UK inch-pound
>customary systems, and where I have seen them showing up
>in discussions they are practically always discussed in
>relation to the international system of units.
>Typical usenet discussions about the "imperial" or "us-customary"
>systems are whether or not certain uses of it should or
>should not be replaced with standard units. But that is very
>much within the scope of the metrication (and anti-metrication)
>discussions, for which misc.metric-system was proposed.
Very good. So long as you will not be dismayed when a thread
wanders off into details about the other system(s). It was
on a thread which began "why don't you guys adopt metric?"
that I learned that there's something peculiar about the US
fluid ounce (& therefore pint & quart), in relation to the
dry ounce.
What about historical measurement questions? Not only (say)
how to express ancient units in SI, but variations in practices
like varying the hour with the length of daylight and the varying
the mile (or was it some other distance unit?) to keep constant
the "day's journey". You might feel that such things belong
on history groups, but to me they look like ideal topics for
cross-posting.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am. No fax.
John David Galt
>
> SiKing <nos...@noway.invalid> writes:
> >Sounds like a more appropriate name for the group would have "SI" in the
> >name somewhere, no?
>
> The use of ambiguous abreviations without context in
> USENET names is problematic, as for example the readers
> of comp.std.internat (international standards related to
> computers) have learned over the years, who are frequently
> exposed to newbee posters who think the group was set up
> for international students to talk about computers.
>
> >If I were interested in finding out (or discussing) something about the
> >metric system, I would definitely look somewhere in the sci.* hierarchy.
>
> If you wanted to ask how shoe and jeans sizes are designated
> by manufacturers in countries that use the metric system,
> are you sure you would really look at sci.* first?
If the group will be about the metric system as used in society rather than
the system itself, it should be a soc.* group.
SiKing
>
> SiKing <nos...@noway.invalid> writes:
> >Sounds like a more appropriate name for the group would have "SI" in the
> >name somewhere, no?
>
> The use of ambiguous abreviations without context in
> USENET names is problematic, as for example the readers
> of comp.std.internat (international standards related to
> computers) have learned over the years, who are frequently
> exposed to newbee posters who think the group was set up
> for international students to talk about computers.
How about spelling out SI. Although IIRC (and I have been wrong before),
it's something in French, isn't it ... which would lead to further
confusion. Probably the original suggestion of "metric-system" is the best
answer.
> >If I were interested in finding out (or discussing) something about the
> >metric system, I would definitely look somewhere in the sci.* hierarchy.
>
> If you wanted to ask how shoe and jeans sizes are designated
> by manufacturers in countries that use the metric system,
> are you sure you would really look at sci.* first?
Point taken. But in the above example I would probably not be looking for
a group discussing the metric system ... probably look for a clothes
manufacturers group first, followed by the country in question. I still
believe that the discussion of the metric system, and how impacts the
society, is mostly a scientific discussion. Although I have been told
before that I am "odd" ;)
SiKing.
--
Will code for food, can perform minor miracles.
<http://resumes.dice.com/egeer987>
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>In article <aj1oma$dhg$1...@tribune.usask.ca>, <ru.ig...@usask.ca>
>wrote:
>> is it realistic to believe non-political discussions to be
>> a significant contribution to the traffic in the proposed
>> group? One can dress this up as a more general group, but if
>> most of the existing traffic is advocacy, it's going to wipe
>> out the other, more general, discussion.
>Oh?
>soc.history.ancient
>Maybe my previous post on this subject was too long for you to read?
>So I'll just say that my experience has *not* been that a group with
>high flame content *has* to be all-flames; I'd say the decisive factor
>is whether the people going in are aware that the flamage is to be
>expected.
I wasn't even considering flamage. If political or advocative
discussions are what the traffic historically generally engenders,
not flame wars, I can see how a talk.* group would be more appropriate.
A *.advocacy group might be even better. Since the proposal is
intended to be more broad based, probably directed towards helping
folks with the metric concepts, it would not be conducive to
inquiries if 90% of all discussions were political or advocacy to
begin with. What I was asking was along the lines of, "if this is
going to be an advocacy group, why not just write it up as one?",
though I was thinking of it more as a conditional.
We also should consider that we see a fair share of proposals
because of flamage having driven readers away (which probably fail
because those readers never come back), and the proposals where
a reorg was made more difficult because back in '95 someone hadn't
considered the ramifications of a name. We should not be setting
ourselves up with groups that will come back with difficult reorgs
or affect related proposals in the future if we think can avoid the
trouble by changes to the proposal at hand. It's well and good
to say it could succeed if readers "are aware that the flamage is
to be expected", but if flamage is not the issue, if the readers
interested in the non-advocacy side of the group are not even
interested in the advocacy issues, then the group wouldn't be used
as presented. I don't want to think about how to tidy that one up.
Kai Henningsen
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> >In article <aj1oma$dhg$1...@tribune.usask.ca>, <ru.ig...@usask.ca>
> >wrote:
>
> >> is it realistic to believe non-political discussions to be
> >> a significant contribution to the traffic in the proposed
> >> group? One can dress this up as a more general group, but if
> >> most of the existing traffic is advocacy, it's going to wipe
> >> out the other, more general, discussion.
>
> >Oh?
>
> >soc.history.ancient
>
> >Maybe my previous post on this subject was too long for you to read?
> >So I'll just say that my experience has *not* been that a group with
> >high flame content *has* to be all-flames; I'd say the decisive factor
> >is whether the people going in are aware that the flamage is to be
> >expected.
>
> I wasn't even considering flamage. If political or advocative
> discussions are what the traffic historically generally engenders,
> not flame wars, I can see how a talk.* group would be more appropriate.
> A *.advocacy group might be even better. Since the proposal is
Well, I've been in a number of threads about the topic, so I see myself as
a possible user of the group. However, if you put it in talk.politics or
*.advocacy or similar, then I expect I will *not* use it, and in fact I do
not expect a significant amount of existing threads to move - while
advocacy and talk about politics happens, that is not how many
contributors to these threads see their own contributions.
I think this would pretty much be a show-stopper.
> begin with. What I was asking was along the lines of, "if this is
> going to be an advocacy group, why not just write it up as one?",
> though I was thinking of it more as a conditional.
Indeed, and I'd say the premise is wrong. Not every group which will carry
some advocacy is an advocacy group, and IMO this would be an example.
> to be expected", but if flamage is not the issue, if the readers
> interested in the non-advocacy side of the group are not even
> interested in the advocacy issues, then the group wouldn't be used
> as presented. I don't want to think about how to tidy that one up.
Don't assume all readers (and posters) have the same assumptions. IME,
that is very much not true for existing threads about the metric system
(and, again IME, they *do* pop up all over the place - I see one maybe
once a month on average, and I certainly only read a small number of
groups ... and one can get tired of rehashing the basics every damn time).
John M Price PhD
: If you have any suggestions for improving the charter, please
: post one single complete proposal for a charter, phrased and edited
: exactly as you would prefer to see it voted upon.
:> If your intention really is to limit the topic space to SI
: My intention is to keep nitpicking distinctions between the
: terms "International System of Units" and "Metric System"
: out of the charter, and that it ought to be obvious that all these
: topics are in the scope of the charter. If the group is about
: the International System of Units, then its history,
: precursors, side-line developments, alternative names,
: future, competition, alternatives, etc. are of course also
: included, and I hope none of this needs to be mentioned
: specifically at the level of the charter.
Indeed. Make a bulletted list. Add an 'other related' bullet at the end.
That would eliminate the confusion people seem to be having over syntax
and 'proper' titles and areas of coverage.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
When I was seven years old, I was once reprimanded by my mother for an
act of collective brutality in which I had been involved at school. A
group of seven-year-olds had been teasing and tormenting a
six-year-old. "It is always so," my mother said. "You do things
together which not one of you would think of doing alone." ...
Wherever one looks in the world of human organization, collective
responsibility brings a lowering of moral standards. The military
establishment is an extreme case, an organization which seems to have
been expressly designed to make it possible for people to do things
together which nobody in his right mind would do alone.
- Freeman Dyson, "Weapons and Hope"
John M Price PhD
: In news.groups Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
:> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
:> unmoderated group misc.metric-system
: yeah, I don't like the name either. Based on the rationale and
: charter below, it is meant to be an advocacy group,
Having an interest is not the same as that interest being the sole meaning
of the group.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long
as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money, as
long as you have got it.
- Carl Sagan
John M Price PhD
[snip]
: I raised the suggestion because:
:>> ...but it might sooth people who are
:>>somehow offended because "metric-system" is too specific for a
:>>2nd level group.
: Some _have_ raised this objection,
Some people can be very silly as well.
and I'm replying to it. My point
But why? Seems the suggested name is about the most straightforward name
possible for the topic and its breadth.
The rest is a fascination with nits.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
We may get our facts wrong, but one thing is for sure, if we believe in
something, we will stick to that belief.
-Lew Kian Peng<kian...@po.pacific.net.sg>,
arguing in favor of the execution of Canadian
for marijuana possesion
John M Price PhD
: In article <Mzh*3N...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
: Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
:>Fair enough. How about misc.measurement.metric-system, or would this be
:>interpreted as a system of metrics for measuring XYZ? IMHO it seems less
:>ambiguous.
: Is there any reason for this other than "we don't like second level groups"?
Nope. But then look at all of them. Seems a new idea to argue against
them. Granted, I saw no reason for the idea of forcing a general level
group, say sci.psychology, off of servers and replacing it with
sci.psychology.misc when there was a subject oriented reorganization.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions, and that is the
heart of science.
- Carl Sagan on Johannes Kepler in "Cosmos"
John M Price PhD
: Markus Kuhn says...
:>
:> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
:>>
:>>ru.ig...@usask.ca wrote:
:>>>
:>>> misc.measurement.metric sounds ok to me. It indicates
:>>> interdisciplinary scope, narrows on related activites (e.g.
:>>> usage, study, advocacy) involving measurement, and focuses
:>>> on the metric varieties.
:>>
:>>It also sounds fine to me. I'd say it's marginally better than
:>>misc.metric-system...
:>
:>Hm, I have a mild aversion against unnecessarily
:>deep hierarchies...
:> ...The only alternatives to the metric system
:>that receive today wide discussions of a scope suitable for
:>the misc.* hierarchy are the US and the UK inch-pound
:>customary systems, and where I have seen them showing up
:>in discussions they are practically always discussed in
:>relation to the international system of units.
:>Typical usenet discussions about the "imperial" or "us-customary"
:>systems are whether or not certain uses of it should or
:>should not be replaced with standard units. But that is very
:>much within the scope of the metrication (and anti-metrication)
:>discussions, for which misc.metric-system was proposed.
: Very good. So long as you will not be dismayed when a thread
: wanders off into details about the other system(s).
So what? Why is this important? It is not a moderated group.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Psychoanalysis
Psycho-analysis pretends to investigate the Unconscious. The Unconscious
by definition is what you are not conscious of. But the Analysts already
know what's in it- they should, because they put it all in beforehand.
- Saul Bellow (b. 1915), U.S. novelist. Albert Corde, in The
Dean's December, ch. 18 (1982).
John M Price PhD
In news.groups article <768c2103.02080...@posting.google.com> Ron Graham <rgr...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
: First of all, the original poster of this RFD, while correctly
: suggesting that followups be posted to news.groups, did nothing
: to ensure this. Not a good sign.
: Second of all,
: doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in message news:<aijv8s$8fl$1...@ns2.nl2k.ab.ca>...
:> Metirc is for the birds. No Logic. NO ORDER!
: This was written after about one hundred lines of quoted text.
: I've read the thread so far, and at this point I am inclined
: to vote whichever way "the Doctor" is *not* voting, as s/he
: appears to be trolling.
: Also, I have read a response that indicates the only unanswered
: question about the metric system is how people feel about it.
: That's a bit of an oversimplification, but it's not far from
: the truth. It almost seems to me that talk.politics.metric is
: a more appropriate placement.
Maybe, if they want to talk about how they 'feel' about the metric
system. I don't see how that would be off topic in the proposed group,
but I do see how comparing the meter with particular wavelengths of light
would be off topic in teh talk.* hierarchy.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who
dares not, is a slave.
- William Drummond
John M Price PhD
In news.groups article <768c2103.02080...@posting.google.com> Ron Graham <rgr...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
: dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote in message news:<aipka8$qas$1...@dent.deepthot.org>...
:> >First of all, the original poster of this RFD, while correctly
:> >suggesting that followups be posted to news.groups, did nothing
:> >to ensure this. Not a good sign.
:> I notice you didn't do anything about it as well.
:> (set the followup-to header)
: Hey, you. Mr. Holier-Than-Thou. My newsreader doesn't allow
: that. If you want to offer me a new one, that's fine, but I
: won't be changing otherwise.
You are not using a newsreader, you are using groups.google.com.
I have no idea what they allow in trimming the Newsgroups: line. I'd read
more about it on that site.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
The thing that makes philosophers respected is not actually their
profundity, but simply their obscurity. They translate vague and dubious
ideas into high-sounding words, and their dupes assume, as they assume
themselves, that the resulting obfuscation is a contribution to knowledge.
- H.L. Mencken (Minority Report, 1956)
piranha
> In article <3D508572...@alcyone.com>,
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
> >ru.ig...@usask.ca wrote:
> >
> >> misc.measurement.metric sounds ok to me. It indicates
> >> interdisciplinary
> >> scope, narrows on related activites (e.g. usage, study, advocacy)
> >> involving measurement, and focuses on the metric varieties.
> >
> >It also sounds fine to me. I'd say it's marginally better than
> >misc.metric-system, not only marginally. It's true that it's not all
> >that likely more newsgroups would be desired in a misc.measurement.*
> >hierarchy, but might as well be prepared for that eventuality.
*nod*. with you two.
> Hm, I have a mild aversion against unnecessarily
> deep hierarchies.
so do i. this, however, isn't "unnecessarily deep". it is just
deep enough so there _is_ a place for other groups to form, should
there ever be a need for those. i rather come down on the side of
preparing such room than on denying it, or forcing a reorg (*ugh*)
somewhere down the line. much easier to handle. length of name
hardly matters these days where very few people ever have to type
it.
> I don't see any emerging interest for
> discussion groups about other systems of measurement,
just because you can't see it doesn't mean it won't happen. i
haven't been able to see a whole number of things in the last 10
years and they happened anyway -- and i am not particularly
short-sighted to begin with. and i'd rather trust the denizens of
news.groups in that regard; some of them/us have been here a long
time.
> In the light of that, I am not at all convinced about
> the misc.measurement.metric suggestion and wouldn't want to
> write a CFV for such a group. It looks to me more like an
> attempt to put the group at level-three for not yet
> well-explained reasons.
i think the reason is quite solid; it's better use of the
namespace.
> For those who would feel much better about misc.metric-system if
> there were a plausible level-3 extension envisioned, please let me
> just mention that the traffic on the usma mailing lists
> for example would justify a future subgrouping according to
> either regions
>
> misc.metric-system.n-america
> misc.metric-system.europe
> misc.metric-system.britain
they'd all happily exist on the fourth level, while another
measurement group wouldn't work with your naming scheme.
--
-piranha
Dick Wisan
>
>n02W32...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Markus Kuhn) wrote:
>>
>>Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>> >
>> >ru.ig...@usask.ca wrote:
>> >>
>> >> misc.measurement.metric sounds ok to me. It indicates
>> >> interdisciplinary
>> >> scope, narrows on related activites (e.g. usage, study, advocacy)
>> >> involving measurement, and focuses on the metric varieties.
>> >
>> >It also sounds fine to me. I'd say it's marginally better than
>> >misc.metric-system, not only marginally. It's true that it's not all
>> >that likely more newsgroups would be desired in a misc.measurement.*
>> >hierarchy, but might as well be prepared for that eventuality.
>>
>> Hm, I have a mild aversion against unnecessarily
>> deep hierarchies.
>
> so do i. this, however, isn't "unnecessarily deep". it is just
> deep enough so there _is_ a place for other groups to form, should
> there ever be a need for those.
>
>> I don't see any emerging interest for
>> discussion groups about other systems of measurement,
>
>> In the light of that, I am not at all convinced about
>> the misc.measurement.metric suggestion and wouldn't want to
>> write a CFV for such a group. It looks to me more like an
>> attempt to put the group at level-three for not yet
>> well-explained reasons.
>
> i think the reason is quite solid; it's better use of the
> namespace.
"metric-system" does sound like a third (or lower) level topic,
but are you sure that the second-level must be "measurement"?
The metric system is a convention for assigning numbers to
measurements of many but not all kinds of things. (No metric
amps, for instance). Why not then,
misc.conventions.numeric.measurement.metric?
Any one of those middlemen could be dropped, maybe any two. But
which is the one that should stay? I don't propose this seriously,
because there may be many other ways to subsume it. Possibly, it
might be way down in a line that includes
...conventions.numeric.arabic.decimal.measurement.metric-system
" " " .duodecimal.
" " " .hexadecimal
" " " .binary
" " .roman.*
" " .hebrew.*
Or, perhaps, I've put "measurement" too far down. Perhaps, then
misc.conventions.numeric.measurement.arabic.decimal.metric-system
In other words, no one seems to be able to imagine why one would
need a misc.measurement.* hierarchy, but what _are_ the other
possibly useful genera for "metric-system"?
James Logajan
> ...conventions.numeric.arabic.decimal.measurement.metric-system
> " " " .duodecimal.
> " " " .hexadecimal
> " " " .binary
> " " .roman.*
> " " .hebrew.*
I'm sorry, but I consider that rather Terran-centric. There may be a time
when Martian colonists develop their own numeric system, or aliens from
other planets link in to Usenet. Or the discussion of measurements in
fictional works becomes popular (one may say it already is). Therefore I
believe at least one more level is required; for example:
misc.conventions.numeric.terran.arabic.decimal.measurement.metric-system
...
misc.conventions.numeric.taucetian.gerblocknic.vigesimal.tentacle-system
...
misc.conventions.numeric.middleearth.hobbit.decimal.third-age-system
(Okay, I had to look up vigesimal:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/60405.html)
I'm not sure if an additional level is needed for specifying the galaxy
(where applicable) - is it possible there may be planets called Orion or
Earth in other galaxies? I think we'd regret it if we screwed this up. When
Usenet expands to thirty trillion plus servers it is going to be very hard
to re-organize the hierarchy, so best it is done right the first time.
Dick Wisan
>
>measurements of many but not all kinds of things. (No metric
>amps, for instance).
Ooops! Repeat 1000 times:
Megavolt, kilowatt, microamp, picofarad......
(Face red)
Dick Wisan
>
>Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...conventions.numeric.arabic.decimal.measurement.metric-system
>> " " " .duodecimal.
>> " " " .hexadecimal
>> " " " .binary
>> " " .roman.*
>> " " .hebrew.*
>
>I'm sorry, but I consider that rather Terran-centric. There may be a time
>when Martian colonists develop their own numeric system, or aliens from
>other planets link in to Usenet. Or the discussion of measurements in
>fictional works becomes popular (one may say it already is). Therefore I
>believe at least one more level is required; for example:
>
>misc.conventions.numeric.terran.arabic.decimal.measurement.metric-system
>...
>misc.conventions.numeric.taucetian.gerblocknic.vigesimal.tentacle-system
>...
>misc.conventions.numeric.middleearth.hobbit.decimal.third-age-system
>
>(Okay, I had to look up vigesimal:
>http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/60405.html)
I yield precedence to you on imagination. And, you'v hardly even
_begun_ on UNimagined not-yet-fictional schemes...
Humor runs away with me sometimes, but there remains a serious
point. If misc.metric is too big a jump, "measurement" may not be
the most fruitful next-up level.
ch...@metric.org.uk
wrote:
...
>If you swap in your proposals the second and third level name
>components, then you should see, why this is indeed a suitable
>second-level group in the misc hierarchy. When considering the name,
>I did seriously think about sci.metrology.si, soc.metrication,
>and many others, but then realized that this is a charter that falls
>so much out of the existing hierarchy in that it covers so many
>aspects (scientific, political, social, educational, psychological,
>media practice, consumer protection, etc.), that a second-level
>misc group remained as the only sensible choice.
I agree with Markus. Far too many people still seem to think of the
metric system as applicable to scientific and engineering usage only,
ignoring the 95% of the world's population that happily uses metric in
all aspects of daily life.
Chris
--
UK Metric Association: http://www.metric.org.uk/
John David Galt
You've convinced me.
cellular qwerty
>Did a google group search on metric system,
>talk about the metric system is
>spread far and wide.
>MAYBE misc.* is the best place.
I am with Markus on the choice of name. Following Steven's idea, I
found that between 12 and 21 Aug, the following groups mentioned the
phrase "metric system":
alt.acme.exploding.newsgroup
alt.algebra.help
alt.atheism
alt.building.construction
alt.english.usage
alt.games.half-life
alt.music.dave-matthews
alt.music.rush
alt.os.linux.mandrake
alt.politics.british
alt.religion.christian.episcopal
alt.religion.christian-teen
alt.sci.physics
alt.sci.time-travel
alt.support.depression
alt.support.shyness
alt.tasteless.jokes
alt.toronto
alt.tv.seinfeld
alt.tv.star-trek.tos
alt.usage.english
alt.witchcraft
borland.public.off-topic
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
comp.lang.c
hfx.general
misc.transport.rail.americas
netscape.public.mozilla.wishlist
news.groups
pdaxs.religion.jewish
rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan
rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc
rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
rec.aviation.piloting
rec.bicycles.tech
rec.crafts.metalworking
rec.food.cooking
rec.food.drink.tea
rec.food.preserving
rec.humor.oracle.d
rec.models.rc.land
rec.music.hip-hop
rec.pets.dogs.behavior
rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
rec.scuba
rec.sport.baseball
rec.sport.pro-wrestling
rec.sport.unicycling
rec.travel.air
sci.math
sci.physics
sci.space.shuttle
simflight.vatsim-usa
soc.culture.israel
talk.origins
uk.business.agriculture
uk.legal
uk.rec.cars.misc
John David Galt
Towse
John David Galt wrote:
>
> It's also come up at least twice on misc.transport.road recently.
Would the discussions have occurred in misc.metric-system if it
existed or would they have remained in misc.transport.road
because of subject content?
Sal
--
1900+ useful links for writers
<http://www.internet-resources.com/writers/>
John David Galt
>
> John David Galt wrote:
> >
> > It's also come up at least twice on misc.transport.road recently.
>
> Would the discussions have occurred in misc.metric-system if it
> existed or would they have remained in misc.transport.road
> because of subject content?
We would probably have moved to m.m-s if it existed.
Neil Crellin
unmoderated group misc.metric-system
This CFV is to be distributed only by the votetaker. It is not to be
posted to newsgroups, or mailed to mailing lists or individuals, except by
the votetaker. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone else will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Sep 2002.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Votetaker: Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc>
RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
The introduction of the metric system in the United States, the last
region on the planet still to adopt it widely, is a process with
complex technical, economic, psychological, and political aspects. It
promises to fuel debates for many years to come. A dedicated newsgroup
for this topic will focus expertise, will provide easy access to the
every-day experience gained by people over the past decades in other
countries, and will provide a medium for professionals and hobbyists
to ask for advice on metric product standards and conventions. The
group might also serve to stimulate and coordinate political
activities towards better legal and government support for the metric
system and related global standards. The popularity of, for instance,
the existing U.S. Metric Association mailing list and the important
role that units of measurement play in everyone's life promise that
this could become a quite lively newsgroup.
CHARTER: misc.metric-system
This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
related to the International System of Units (SI) or Metric System.
Its scope includes related global standards and conventions, for
example metric product specifications. Of particular interest is
"metrication", the process of introducing the metric system in fields
and regions where other units of measurement are still prevalent.
END CHARTER.
IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: READ THIS BEFORE VOTING
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
reading the proposed newsgroup, and soliciting votes from uninterested
parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
direct people to the official CFV as posted to news.announce.newgroups.
Distributing specific voting instructions or pre-marked copies of
this CFV is considered vote fraud.
This is a public vote: All email addresses, names and votes will be
listed in the final RESULT post. The name used may be either a real
name or an established Usenet handle.
At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid, nor are votes mailed from
WWW/HTML/CGI forms (which should not exist). Votes from nonexistent
accounts or with munged, spam-blocked, or undeliverable addresses are
invalid and will NOT be counted.
Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <ne...@wallaby.cc>
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before and after
the "BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and "END OF BALLOT" lines. Don't worry about
the spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your
reply inserts. Please, DO NOT send the entire CFV back to me!
Fill in the ballot as shown below. Please provide your real name
(or established Usenet handle) and indicate your desired vote in the
appropriate locations inside the ballot.
Examples of how to properly indicate your vote:
[ YES ] example.yes.vote
[ NO ] example.no.vote
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
DO NOT modify, alter or delete any information in this ballot!
If you do, the voting software will probably reject your ballot.
When finished, MAIL the ballot to: < vot...@uvv.wallaby.cc >
Just "replying" to this message should work, but check the "To:" line.
If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
days contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered correctly.
If these instructions are unclear, please consult the Introduction to
Usenet Voting or the Usenet Voting FAQ at http://www.stanford.edu/~neilc/uvv.
======== BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything before this line =======
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 1ST CALL FOR VOTES: misc.metric-system
| Official Usenet Voting Ballot <MM-0001> (Do not remove this line!)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Please provide your real name, or your vote may be rejected. Established
| Usenet handles are also acceptable. Place ONLY your name (ie. do NOT
| include your e-mail address or any other information; ONLY your name)
| after the colon on the following line:
Voter name:
| Insert YES, NO, ABSTAIN, or CANCEL inside the brackets for each
| newsgroup listed below (do not delete the newsgroup name):
Your Vote Newsgroup
--------- -----------------------------------------------------------
[ ] misc.metric-system
======== END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============
DISTRIBUTION:
Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
sci.math
sci.engr
soc.culture.canada
soc.culture.europe
misc.transport.road
and also on this mailing list:
us...@colostate.edu (see http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/listserv.htm)
This CFV was created with uvpq 1.0 (Feb 6 1999).
PQ datestamp: 980322
--
Voting address: vot...@uvv.wallaby.cc
Jonathan Amery
<ch...@usma.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I agree with Markus. Far too many people still seem to think of the
>metric system as applicable to scientific and engineering usage only,
>ignoring the 95% of the world's population that happily uses metric in
>all aspects of daily life.
Surely the `billion people in China' argument applies here. While
I'm sure that a large percentage of the population of a reasonably
high number of `first world' countries, and a moderate percentage of a
moderate-to-high number of `third world' countries use Metric as their
standard household measurement system, I suspect that 95% is horribly
optimistic, even if the US and the UK are ignored.
--
Jonathan Amery. O Lord, with your eyes you have searched me,
##### Kindly smiling, have spoken my name.
#######__o Now my boat's left on the shoreline behind me;
#######'/ By your side I will seek other seas. - Cesareo Gabarain
Matthew Montchalin
of a hexadecimal system.
I'm voting 'No' on it.
Neil Crellin
unmoderated group misc.metric-system
RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
CHARTER: misc.metric-system
END CHARTER.
HOW TO VOTE:
| 2ND CALL FOR VOTES: misc.metric-system
| Official Usenet Voting Ballot <MM-0002> (Do not remove this line!)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Please provide your real name, or your vote may be rejected. Established
| Usenet handles are also acceptable. Place ONLY your name (ie. do NOT
| include your e-mail address or any other information; ONLY your name)
| after the colon on the following line:
Voter name:
| Insert YES, NO, ABSTAIN, or CANCEL inside the brackets for each
| newsgroup listed below (do not delete the newsgroup name):
Your Vote Newsgroup
--------- -----------------------------------------------------------
[ ] misc.metric-system
======== END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============
DISTRIBUTION:
Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
sci.math
sci.engr
soc.culture.canada
soc.culture.europe
misc.transport.road
and also on this mailing list:
us...@colostate.edu (see http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/listserv.htm)
misc.metric-system Bounce List - Please contact me about your vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArtK...@aol.REMOVE.com Art Kamlet
John M Price PhD
: I have yet to see a good argument for adopting a decimal system instead
: of a hexadecimal system.
Those must be some interesting hands you have!
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
This is for all ill-treated fellows
Unborn and unbegot,
For them to read when they're in trouble
And I am not.
-- A. E. Housman
Matthew Montchalin
|In news.groups article
|<Pine.LNX.4.44.02090...@lab.oregonvos.net> Matthew
|Montchalin <mmon...@oregonvos.net> wrote:
|: I have yet to see a good argument for adopting a decimal system instead
|: of a hexadecimal system.
|
|Those must be some interesting hands you have!
I use my wrists, ears, and elbows, too.
Matthew Montchalin
> "Steven Lucas" wrote:
> >Did a google group search on metric system,
> >talk about the metric system is
> >spread far and wide.
> >MAYBE misc.* is the best place.
>
> I am with Markus on the choice of name. Following Steven's idea,
> I found that between 12 and 21 Aug, the following groups mentioned
> the phrase "metric system":
>
>
> alt.acme.exploding.newsgroup
> alt.algebra.help
> alt.atheism
> alt.building.construction
<long list of unrelated newsgroups snipped>
Well, I think will be voting 'no' on this thing (if I haven't done so
already), but is there a really good reason why this proposal wasn't
custom-tailored for the us.* hierarchy instead of the Big8? After
all, what seems to be envisioned here is an eventual, massive redesign
of many engineering standards across-the-board in the US, and all for
the sake of some obsolete Base 10 numerical system.
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote, in news.groups:
i'm inclined to agree with you, Matthew, so I came over here to
news.groups to see what was going on, and I find they are already
on the second CFV. Their charter doesn't say very much, but the
rationale tells the whole story -- the US is apparently the only
country in the world not using the metric system. and that will
apparently be the main topic of the group.
The group is a natural for the US hierarchy. If they really wanted an
international group, they would have called it sci.math.metric-system
and omitted all references to the USA.
So on the grounds stated above, I have cast a NO vote and encourage
others to do the same.
Thanks for the heads up.
Henrietta K. Thomas
hk...@earthlink.net
--
We have our own domain now, and have started our own
little website at www.usenetnews.us. News.groupies are
welcome to visit any time.
Leonard Pulver
I have seen lots of silly chauvinistic statements, but
yours Matthew wins the prize.
1) all of the world, except USA, including (UK
grudgingly) Canada (USA's largest trading partner) has
adopted the metric system which is more accurate and
simpler to read.
2) It does not involve redesign of anything .... just a
restatement of dimensions.
3) All of the old British standards have been obsolete
for many decades ...... from pounds/shillings/pence to
weights (how much is 12 stone weight?) to
inches/feet/yards/miles etc.
4) All athletic competitions are measured by metres.
Get used to it .... metrics are not the obsolete wave
of the past, nor a wave of the future .... it is here
and now. American industry is (quite properly) slowly
adjusting to the metric system without fanfare. The
only people left behind are the government bureaucrats
who as usual are totally bogged down in inertia, and
chauvinist fools whose only exposure to technology
comes from turning the key in a car (automatic shift of
course), or pushing buttons on a phone, microwave, TV
or PC.
Erik Max Francis
> The group is a natural for the US hierarchy. If they really wanted an
> international group, they would have called it sci.math.metric-system
> and omitted all references to the USA.
Were you around for the RFD? This got discussed at great length. The
newsgroup is not restricted merely to metric system advocacy, nor is it
restricted to scientific discussion.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Your theory is not right; it is not even wrong.
\__/ Wolfgang Pauli
Python chess module / http://www.alcyone.com/pyos/chess/
A chess game adjudicator in Python.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>on the second CFV. Their charter doesn't say very much, but the
>rationale tells the whole story -- the US is apparently the only
>country in the world not using the metric system. and that will
>apparently be the main topic of the group.
>The group is a natural for the US hierarchy. If they really wanted an
>international group, they would have called it sci.math.metric-system
>and omitted all references to the USA.
>So on the grounds stated above, I have cast a NO vote and encourage
>others to do the same.
I have refrained from voting NO on that particular issue. It
seems to me that the intention is similar to folks in one
region asking for info/advise/consultation from folks in another
region. If this was about US discussion of the metric system
with other US readers, I'd be inclined to vote NO due to this.
But if it effectively elicits international responses, I'm not
so convinced it belongs in the us.* hierarchy. Well, I may be
teetering, but I'm teetering more away from us.*.
Will I vote NO for other reasons? Maybe. I am not enthused with
the name given, but I think sci.math.metric-system would also
be wrong, perhaps even more of a poor choice. There some other
things that bug me about this proposal, but, while I'm teetering
on a NO vote, I'm not there yet.
Am I going to vote YES for this. No. I lived through conversion
from imperial to metric, and even though I still work with both,
I prefer metric. However, I really have no interest in discussing
the given topic, and I find the topic space in the proposal
particularly unappealing despite my being in the ideal position
for comparing and discussing the two systems.
ru
--
My (updated) standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Matthew Montchalin
|> Well, I think will be voting 'no' on this thing (if I haven't done so
|> already), but is there a really good reason why this proposal wasn't
|> custom-tailored for the us.* hierarchy instead of the Big8? After
|> all, what seems to be envisioned here is an eventual, massive redesign
|> of many engineering standards across-the-board in the US, and all for
|> the sake of some obsolete Base 10 numerical system.
|
|I have seen lots of silly chauvinistic statements, but
|yours Matthew wins the prize.
Thank you. I have a shelf in the attic of my mind for exactly this
kind of a prize.
|1) all of the world, except USA, including (UK
|grudgingly) Canada (USA's largest trading partner) has
|adopted the metric system which is more accurate and
|simpler to read.
Hexadecimal is certainly more accurate than decimal, and is easier to
understand. Sigh - It is a pity that automobile spedometers are not
in hex, and it ought to be feet per second, rather than miles per hour.
|2) It does not involve redesign of anything .... just a
|restatement of dimensions.
Well, in any case, that would involve cutting down an entire forest just
for the paper to print the new standards on.
|3) All of the old British standards have been obsolete
|for many decades ...... from pounds/shillings/pence to
|weights (how much is 12 stone weight?) to
|inches/feet/yards/miles etc.
But the Who used old terms in their song 'Magic Bus' - whooops, that
was decades ago.
|4) All athletic competitions are measured by metres.
|
|Get used to it .... metrics are not the obsolete wave
|of the past, nor a wave of the future .... it is here
|and now. American industry is (quite properly) slowly
|adjusting to the metric system without fanfare. The
|only people left behind are the government bureaucrats
|who as usual are totally bogged down in inertia, and
|chauvinist fools whose only exposure to technology
|comes from turning the key in a car (automatic shift of
|course), or pushing buttons on a phone, microwave, TV
|or PC.
I still think hexadecimal is the wave of the future.
Matthew Montchalin
|i'm inclined to agree with you, Matthew, so I came over here to
|news.groups to see what was going on, and I find they are already
|on the second CFV. Their charter doesn't say very much, but the
|rationale tells the whole story -- the US is apparently the only
|country in the world not using the metric system. and that will
|apparently be the main topic of the group.
|
|The group is a natural for the US hierarchy. If they really wanted an
|international group, they would have called it sci.math.metric-system
|and omitted all references to the USA.
Okay, is there any interest in a newsgroup with a name like this?
us.standards.metric-system
And why are there 12 hours in a day, anyway?
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote, in news.groups:
>"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>
>> The group is a natural for the US hierarchy. If they really wanted an
>> international group, they would have called it sci.math.metric-system
>> and omitted all references to the USA.
>
>Were you around for the RFD? This got discussed at great length.
No, I wasn't there. I was busy minding the store in the US hierarchy.
But if I had been there, I would have argued against the group on
the grounds stated above.
1, The rationale indicates that the USA will be the primary focus
of the group.
2. The group is misplaced in the misc. hierarchy.
>The newsgroup is not restricted merely to metric system advocacy, t
>nor is it restricted to scientific discussion.
The charter for misc.metric-system.....
>This group is for discussions and the dissemination of information
>related to the International System of Units (SI) or Metric System.
>Its scope includes related global standards and conventions, for
>example metric product specifications. Of particular interest is
>"metrication", the process of introducing the metric system in fields
>and regions where other units of measurement are still prevalent.
'dissemination of information' -- 'metric product specifications' --
'introducing the metric system'..... Sounds a lot like advocacy to
me.
Henrietta
Matthew Montchalin
||for many decades ...... from pounds/shillings/pence to
||weights (how much is 12 stone weight?) to
||inches/feet/yards/miles etc.
|
|But the Who used old terms in their song 'Magic Bus' - whooops, that
|was decades ago.
And in Arthur Brown's song "Give Him a Flower" there is a reference
to an eight (maybe ten?) stone bully, isn't there?
"What do you do when you are sitting on the beach with your best
girlfriend having a picnic and an eight stone bully comes along and
kicks sand in your face and takes your best girlfriend away? Give
him a flower."
James Logajan
> I still think hexadecimal is the wave of the future.
Wrong wrong wrong - octel is the wave of the future. I mean really - do you
have 10 fingers, "a" fingers, or 12 fingers? If we go to hex, we will need
to change the alphabet to avoid confusion. No longer will it be clear if
"a + b = c" is a horrible math error or an algebraic equation. So the
letters "a" through "f" will need to be replaced with new symbols. Since we
are revising the alphabet anyway, we may as well take the opportunity to
clean up spelling anyway (since just about every word will need to be
rewritten). Oh, and the grammar could stand some improvement.
Hmmm - I think maybe you are a spy for 8-legged Martians - trying to
disrupt our thinking and the way we Earthlings count!
You'll get my decimal system when you pry my fingers from my cold dead
hands! So there!
Kai Henningsen
hk...@earthlink.net (Henrietta K . Thomas) wrote on 10.09.02 in <ik4rnuk5h1pualdkk...@4ax.com>:
> i'm inclined to agree with you, Matthew, so I came over here to
> news.groups to see what was going on, and I find they are already
> on the second CFV. Their charter doesn't say very much, but the
> rationale tells the whole story -- the US is apparently the only
> country in the world not using the metric system. and that will
> apparently be the main topic of the group.
>
> The group is a natural for the US hierarchy. If they really wanted an
> international group, they would have called it sci.math.metric-system
> and omitted all references to the USA.
1. This would be placed about as wrong as possible in us.*. Did you
notice, perhaps, that the proponent is not an US citizen? Did you maybe
try Google to find out that in a typical debate about the metric system,
lots of participants are not US citizens?
Put it in us.*, and it's a dead group - half the interested people at
least don't read us.*.
2. As for sci.*, the reason why that would be asinine were widely
discussed during the RFC. Look it up.
> So on the grounds stated above, I have cast a NO vote and encourage
> others to do the same.
If you insist on looking look a kook, I guess I can't stop you. Just be
sure that is in fact what you're trying to do.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
James Logajan
> And why are there 12 hours in a day, anyway?
Crap - I was wondering why I've been rushed lately. What scoundrel made off
with the other 12?
There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count and those
who can't.
John Stanley
Leonard Pulver <red...@gta.igs.net> wrote:
>1) all of the world, except USA, including (UK
>grudgingly) Canada (USA's largest trading partner) has
>adopted the metric system which is more accurate and
>simpler to read.
Accuracy has more to do with the tool being used to make a measurement than
the units of measure.
>2) It does not involve redesign of anything .... just a
>restatement of dimensions.
Lying does not help your argument.
>3) All of the old British standards have been obsolete
>for many decades ......
Lying does not help your argument.
>4) All athletic competitions are measured by metres.
Lying does not help your argument.
>Get used to it .... metrics are not the obsolete wave
>of the past, nor a wave of the future .... it is here
>and now.
As are pounds and feet.
Remainder of your insulting diatribe elided.
Erik Max Francis
> 1, The rationale indicates that the USA will be the primary focus
> of the group.
Are you sure you're just not being USA centric? It's for discussion of
the metric system. Are you really suggesting that only countries which
have not yet adopted the metric system are ever going to discuss it?
Despite the fact that non-advocacy discussions of the metric system take
place all the time on Usenet, among farflung hierarchies?
The proponent himself is not even a USA citizen, after all.
> 2. The group is misplaced in the misc. hierarchy.
The choice of misc.* as opposed to some other hierarchy like sci.* was
one of the main points hashed over in the discussions following the RFD.
The group is not limited to advocacy, or scientific use, but also
everyday use by everyday people, even ones that live in metric
countries. Even the most fervent objectors to it being placed in sci.*
or somewhere else seemed to acquiesce; it doesn't make much sense
anywhere other than misc.*.
> 'dissemination of information' -- 'metric product specifications' --
> 'introducing the metric system'..... Sounds a lot like advocacy to
> me.
It reads "Its scope includes ..." not "Its scope is limited to ..."
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Water which is too pure has no fish.
\__/ Ts'ai Ken T'an
Erik Max Francis' bookmarks / http://www.alcyone.com/max/links/
A highly categorized list of Web links.
Matthew Montchalin
*blink* *blink* -Maybe it depends on how many eyes I've got open?
Matthew Montchalin
|In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.02091...@lab.oregonvos.net>,
|Matthew Montchalin <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
|>And why are there 12 hours in a day, anyway?
|
Boy, is my face red! I guess it is because I didn't grow up in one
of those totalitarian militaristic 24 hour countries, I got confused?
edward ohare
<agincourt1.spam@don't.btinternet.com> wrote:
>Hi Matthew Montchalin,
>
>On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:31:08 -0700, in us.config
>Matthew Montchalin put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing...
>> us.standards.metric-system
>
>
>No.
>
>us.issues.metric-conversion
Uses existing second level,
This is more of a social _issue_ than a scientific problem,
I like that.
edward ohare
Henningsen) wrote:
>1. This would be placed about as wrong as possible in us.*. Did you
>notice, perhaps, that the proponent is not an US citizen?
OK. Then tell him to keep his fingers off my feet, inches, and miles
per hour! Its none of his business how I measure things here. So
there! <G>
.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
Yeah, but what if the guy 3 doors down from you needs help in
dealing with an international transaction requiring hardware
compatibility? It becomes his business then. However, I do
have to say that the advocacy aspect is probably what bothers
me the most about the proposal. I can't figure out if that's
a good thing or a bad thing to have in it ("leave them alone"
vs "someone should push them").
James Logajan
Hmmm. Your post is miles off topic here, but would be on topic for
misc.metric-system! So perhaps you should vote YES and then if it passes
you'll have a place to rant against the metric system.
Time for a pint 'o beer.
Matthew Montchalin
|edward ohare <edward...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>On 10 Sep 2002 23:02:00 +0200, kaih=8WcFm...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai
|>Henningsen) wrote:
|
|>>1. This would be placed about as wrong as possible in us.*. Did you
|>>notice, perhaps, that the proponent is not an US citizen?
|
|>OK. Then tell him to keep his fingers off my feet, inches, and miles
|>per hour! Its none of his business how I measure things here. So
|>there! <G>
|
|Yeah, but what if the guy 3 doors down from you needs help in
|dealing with an international transaction requiring hardware
|compatibility?
Hmmm. Interesting premise.
|It becomes his business then.
It becomes a 'business' matter if he is willing to pay what I am willing
to charge.
|However, I do have to say that the advocacy aspect is probably what
|bothers me the most about the proposal. I can't figure out if that's
|a good thing or a bad thing to have in it ("leave them alone"
|vs "someone should push them").
Hmmm. An advocate who isn't willing to pay me to solve his bizarre
metric-system problem may not necessarily be 'worth' listening to.
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote, in news.groups:
>"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>
>> 1, The rationale indicates that the USA will be the primary focus
>> of the group.
>
>Are you sure you're just not being USA centric?
Yes. I'm sure.
>It's for discussion of the metric system.
And how to implement it in fields and regions where it has
not yet been implemented.
>Are you really suggesting that only countries which have not
>yet adopted the metric system are ever going to discuss it?
No. I'm suggesting that the real purpose of the group is to promote
metrication in the United States.
>Despite the fact that non-advocacy discussions of the metric system take
>place all the time on Usenet, among farflung hierarchies?
As do advocacy discussions.
>The proponent himself is not even a USA citizen, after all.
And -that- puzzles me even more. Why the emphasis on the US
in the rationale for an -international- group? Why does he not
mention the Treaty of the Meter, the International Bureau of
Weights and Measurements, and the international conferences
which led to the creation of SI? This would be much more
appropriate as a rationale for an international group than the
slow-to-adopt USA. And had the rationale said something like
that, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me.
>> 2. The group is misplaced in the misc. hierarchy.
>
>The choice of misc.* as opposed to some other hierarchy like sci.* was
>one of the main points hashed over in the discussions following the RFD.
>The group is not limited to advocacy, or scientific use, but also
>everyday use by everyday people, even ones that live in metric
>countries. Even the most fervent objectors to it being placed in sci.*
>or somewhere else seemed to acquiesce; it doesn't make much sense
>anywhere other than misc.*.
Hierarchical placement depends on the purpose of the group. A group
to discuss metrication world-wide is appropriate for the Big 8, but a
group to discuss metrication in the US is not. If you are creating an
international group, I'd much rather see it in the sci. hierarchy than
misc. Misc. is where you put orphan groups that don't fit anywhere
else. The metric system is taught in both math and science classes
in the USA, not in 'miscellaneous'. If you insist, however, in keeping
it in misc., I suggest you tie it to an existing second-level. and i like
Joe Bernstein's suggestion that misc.facts.metric-system might be
a good option. But misc.consumers. or misc.industry might also
work, depending on where you want to focus.
>> 'dissemination of information' -- 'metric product specifications' --
>> 'introducing the metric system'..... Sounds a lot like advocacy to
>> me.
>
>It reads "Its scope includes ..." not "Its scope is limited to ..."
During the discussion period, a couple of people suggested that
the proponent put a bulleted list of acceptable topics in the charter.
I think that was good advice, and I wish it had been done. That one
paragraph simply is not enough.
Henrietta
Phred
>
>But the Who used old terms in their song 'Magic Bus' - whooops, that
>was decades ago.
Keep away from that archaic decimal system.
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Leonard Pulver
Dick Wisan wrote:
>
> wis...@catskill.net Dick Wisan (that's me) says...
> >
> >measurements of many but not all kinds of things. (No metric
> >amps, for instance).
>
> Ooops! Repeat 1000 times:
>
> Megavolt, kilowatt, microamp, picofarad......
>
> (Face red)
>
> --
Yes there are a lot of American people ignorant of the
simplicity and accuracy of the metric system and the
extent that it has been used in America over the past century.
There is no question that this is an US national issue
since the rest of the world is metric. Therefore the
discussion belongs in us.issues.metric-system.
Leonard Pulver
John Stanley wrote:
>
> In article <3D7E0D67...@gta.igs.net>,
> Leonard Pulver <red...@gta.igs.net> wrote:
> >1) all of the world, except USA, including (UK
> >grudgingly) Canada (USA's largest trading partner) has
> >adopted the metric system which is more accurate and
> >simpler to read.
>
> Accuracy has more to do with the tool being used to make a measurement than
> the units of measure.
Perhaps I might better have used the term "finite"
> >2) It does not involve redesign of anything .... just a
> >restatement of dimensions.
>
> Lying does not help your argument.
>
> >3) All of the old British standards have been obsolete
> >for many decades ......
>
> Lying does not help your argument.
>
It would seem that Mr Stanley's vocabulary is rather
limited and his use thereof rather spurious.
Certainly his ignorance is abysmal.