20th may, Historical date!

[Donald Willard]

I agree.  And although there's nothing that can be done about it, metricization
has already gone too far, since many books already give measurements in metric
units, when I can conceptualize feet and yards, etc. more readily.

David Wilson wrote:

> Back in the 1970's, there was indeed agreement that we should all move in
> the direction of worldwide adoption of the metric standard.  A lot of grand
> gestures were made at the time, including rebasing US weights and measures
> on the metric system.  However, true adoption of the metric system in the
> US, which demands not only learning and thinking in terms of the metric
> system, but using it in preference to the US system, has largely failed.
>
> In the scientific arena, the metric system has been standard for quite some
> time.  This is good in the sense that it provides a common ground for
> scientific measurement around the world and proves the metric system is
> workable, but bad in that the scientific community now has little interest
> in promoting the system communally, having already arrived.
>
> In business, it is agreed that metricization would grease the wheels of
> commerce.  Adoption of metric units for shipping and billing materials
> certainly decreases conversion costs by leveraging the ubiquitous base-10
> numeration system.  But the main benefit of metricization is derived from
> producing goods in quantities that can be sold worldwide.  Instead of making
> 1 lb 10 oz boxes of salt for sale in the US and 500 gm (sic?) boxes for sale
> in the U.K, it would be cheaper and easier in the long run to make only 500
> gm boxes for a worldwide market, which could be relabelled for sale wherever
> needed.
>
> But that's in the long run.  In the short run, there is a lot of
> manufacturing equipment geared towards production of goods in US units, and
> retooling or replacing that equipment is expensive.  Also, any US company
> that adopts metric sizing must sell its goods on the same shelf with
> competing products packaged in more familiar US units, which will presumably
> put it at competitive disadvantage.  The costs of metricization are borne
> heavily by firms operating primarily within the US markets, while the
> benefits are reaped primarily by firms operating in global markets.
>
> Nevertheless, the 1970's push for metricization met with some limited
> success.  Many foreign manufacturers were able to find US markets for
> products that were already metricized, such as automobiles and heavy
> equipment (for which reason, Average American has both US and metric socket
> wrenches in his tool arsenal).  Most firms made the token gesture gesture of
> adding metric equivalents to their packaging.  Probably the most remarkable
> example of true metricization was the introduction of liter-sized beverage
> bottles onto store shelves, though 2-liter soda bottles still sit side by
> side with 12-ounce cans.
>
> Finally, there is the cultural issue.  While the metric system has benefits,
> the US system is present and perfectly workable.  We get along fine with our
> mm/dd/yy, a.m. and p.m, cups and teaspoons, feet, inches and miles.  What
> benefit would the average American actually derive from metricization?  For
> the most part, there would be little difference.  We would buy oil in liters
> instead of quarts, pills with mg instead of grains of medicine, flour in 2.5
> kg bags instead of 5-pound bags, but we would still dump the oil in our
> engine, take two pills at bedtime, and dump the flour in the canister (then
> use our cups and tablespoons to fetch it out).  The few times it did matter,
> it would simply be an annoyance to have to adjust our thinking to the new
> units (1200 km, how many miles is that?).  We start with a workable set of
> units, go through a painful adjustment period, and end up with a workable
> set of units.  Hmmm.
>
> In short, my argument is that metrization is a painful process for the
> average American citizen and American business, with benefits accruing
> mainly to multinational business interests.
>
> Good luck with the metric dates too.  It's all good to point a finger at the
> backwards Americans, so let's see the Europeans ante up and change the way
> they write dates.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Guy" <rkg at cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
> To: "Alonso Del Arte" <alonso.delarte at gmail.com>
> Cc: <alexandre.wajnberg at skynet.be>; <seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr>; "Math Fun"
> <math-fun at mailman.xmission.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:44 PM
> Subject: Re: 20th may, Historical date!
>
> >A little over 30 years ago, almost all nations
> > agreed (when else has this happened? --
> > over the postal system, perhaps -- not over
> > copyright ?) on the (adoption and) use of
> > the ``metric system''.
> >
> > I quote from the Metric Style Guide:
> >
> >   For example, April 7, 1975, is
> >   expressed as 1975 04 07.
> >   Alternative ways of writing this
> >   numeric date are 1975-04-07 or
> >   19750407.
> >
> > Times can be appended, using the 24-hour
> > clock.          R.
> >
> > On Wed, 11 May 2005, Alonso Del Arte wrote:
> >
> >> As much sense as DDMMYYYY makes (smallest unit to largerst unit), many
> >> of us live where MMDDYYYY is more prevalent, or even MMDDYY, as well
> >> as miles and gallons. So here 20 May 2005 is 5/20/2005, hardly special
> >> from the point of view of symmetry. Alonso
> >>
> >> On 5/10/05, alexandre.wajnberg at skynet.be <alexandre.wajnberg at skynet.be>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello dear Seqfans and friends,
> >>>
> >>> Nicolas Graner (member of the Oulipo litterary movement) has devised a
> >>> ...
> >>