NationStates Jolt Archive

I've submitted a UN proposal to repeal the Metric System. I ask for your support for this measure.

Thank you for your consideration!

The Federation of Ronikstan

It reads:

Once again a UN resolution tries to force nations to stop being individual and start doing what everyone else is. The arguments for UN Resolution #24 don't hold their weight (in ounces, pounds, or any other unit you want to use).

A nation should be free to choose whether or not they wish to use the Metric System or whether they wish to use measurement units which are traditional to their own country. The imposition of the metric system without recourse to the democratic process is wrong. It is an affront to the basic rights of our citizens. How we measure is part of our heritage and our way of life.

One of the main arguments put forward in favor of metric conversion and in UN Resolution #24 is that it is necessary for international trade. But no conflict exists between retaining a nation’s traditional unit for domestic use while maintaining compatibility abroad. Exporters can remain free to adopt metric units where international trade requires it, just as metric countries adopt inch-based specifications and labeling for the manufacture of computer equipment, car accessories and foodstuffs.

UN Resolution #24 states that "Science has already coverted over to the far superior metric system from all other localized forms of measurement". This is a false argument. The whole world hasn't switched over to the metric system. UN Members are required, by this resolution, to convert to the metric system. Also, the metric system is no longer scientific; if it ever was. Most scientists in our nations calculate with computers, which use the binary system (based on 2). The metric system, of course, is supposedly based on multiples of ten.

The metric system is argued to be simple yet today, the meter is defined as the distance of 1,650,763•73 vacuum wavelengths of light emitted by an electron tube containing the rare gas krypton 86. So much for precision-and simplicity.

Metric units, which are imposed, often have a conceptually different basis. Take grain from farms for example. Many nations measure this in bushels. A bushel is a unit of capacity. A bushel is based on the amount of space that the grain occupies. However, in metricated countries, the unit is the kilogram a unit of mass not weight. Conceptually, and abstractly, in the grain example, this refers to the amount of matter that makes up the grain. The unit of weight in the metric system is the Newton.

Today, converting a nation to the metric system might provide minor savings to a billionaire trying to build an industrial empire. It might please some egotist technophile who relishes the vision of a cloned world, dominated by cloned suburbs; everything all the same everywhere, no matter where you go.

Computer technology has made those visions of conformity obsolete. Today, conversion is all expense with no economic benefits. But, computer technology has made it possible to leap around language of measurement obstacles cheaply. In fact, this technology has made all arguments about expense relatively moot. And that leaves us mired in highly esoteric arguments between bureaucrats, businessmen, traditionalists, and billionaires about what are in fact, at best, relatively minor cost savings. For the rest of us, it no longer matters. Welcome to the information age.

there is no reason to repeal the "metric system".
one system for all the world make the connections between countries easier. areas like science, trade, and others could be better when there is common idea about the way you make things.
your claim for harm in individualism has no basis. if every individual invent different way to measure, you couldn't get anything. the situation with countries is as same. all the UN members had to measure at the same way, when they act in areas who requier cooperation with other countries.
in your state, you could measure with pigs if you want. but when you go out to the UN just be as same as the others.
I think this is like english is the language you usually talk when you meet people from other countrey (no matter what language you talk with your friends).
you better find other proposal to repeal.

Our arguments our sound.


You say if every individual invent different way to measure, you couldn't get anything. This is not a true statement. There are many nations that are getting along fine with their own measurements.

in your state, you could measure with pigs if you want. but when you go out to the UN just be as same as the others. Not sure what you are saying here, it's very broken, but if you mean that when you trade with other UN nations you need to be on the metric system in order to trade, I again disagree. Conversions aren't difficult, we do it with money all of the time.

I've submitted a UN proposal to repeal the Metric System. I ask for your support for this measure.

Thank you for your consideration!

The Federation of Ronikstan

Should be fun.

It reads:

Once again a UN resolution tries to force nations to stop being individual and start doing what everyone else is. The arguments for UN Resolution #24 don't hold their weight (in ounces, pounds, or any other unit you want to use).

Oh? Let's see if you have a good enough arguement.

A nation should be free to choose whether or not they wish to use the Metric System or whether they wish to use measurement units which are traditional to their own country. The imposition of the metric system without recourse to the democratic process is wrong. It is an affront to the basic rights of our citizens. How we measure is part of our heritage and our way of life.

It was passed using a democratic process. Point invalid.

One of the main arguments put forward in favor of metric conversion and in UN Resolution #24 is that it is necessary for international trade. But no conflict exists between retaining a nation’s traditional unit for domestic use while maintaining compatibility abroad. Exporters can remain free to adopt metric units where international trade requires it, just as metric countries adopt inch-based specifications and labeling for the manufacture of computer equipment, car accessories and foodstuffs.

Take a look at the problems the US has involving two systems. One invariably gets used more than the other. If you want a good example, look at that satellite that crashed into the Martian atmosphere because they forgot to convert feet into meters. Having two systems causes problems.

In this case, a universal measurement system makes trade infinitely easier by having everyone already familiar with the system. No need for expensive conversions.

UN Resolution #24 states that "Science has already coverted over to the far superior metric system from all other localized forms of measurement". This is a false argument. The whole world hasn't switched over to the metric system.

In reality? The world has. Even the US uses it. The US is actually a minority for not using it primarily.

UN Members are required, by this resolution, to convert to the metric system. Also, the metric system is no longer scientific; if it ever was. Most scientists in our nations calculate with computers, which use the binary system (based on 2). The metric system, of course, is supposedly based on multiples of ten.

DLE computers use two systems. The majority of data is in a binary system, while maps and schematics are in a trinary system.

Also, this arguement is flawed. The computers use data put into them and are programmed to accept the metric system. The binary system is only a type of programming anyway.

The metric system is argued to be simple yet today, the meter is defined as the distance of 1,650,763•73 vacuum wavelengths of light emitted by an electron tube containing the rare gas krypton 86. So much for precision-and simplicity.

That's pretty precise for a distance measurement. They give you exactly what you need in order to get the exact measurement they got.

That has no affect on simplicity. Simplicity is the fact it is a base-ten system.

Metric units, which are imposed, often have a conceptually different basis. Take grain from farms for example. Many nations measure this in bushels. A bushel is a unit of capacity. A bushel is based on the amount of space that the grain occupies. However, in metricated countries, the unit is the kilogram a unit of mass not weight. Conceptually, and abstractly, in the grain example, this refers to the amount of matter that makes up the grain. The unit of weight in the metric system is the Newton.

1) The bushel varies in amount depending on whether you are talking US or British Imperial

2) The metric measurement for the same thing is liters, not kilograms.

3) Provide evidence for this and every claim you have made.

Today, converting a nation to the metric system might provide minor savings to a billionaire trying to build an industrial empire. It might please some egotist technophile who relishes the vision of a cloned world, dominated by cloned suburbs; everything all the same everywhere, no matter where you go.

And now we get into the conspiracy theories.

Computer technology has made those visions of conformity obsolete. Today, conversion is all expense with no economic benefits. But, computer technology has made it possible to leap around language of measurement obstacles cheaply. In fact, this technology has made all arguments about expense relatively moot. And that leaves us mired in highly esoteric arguments between bureaucrats, businessmen, traditionalists, and billionaires about what are in fact, at best, relatively minor cost savings. For the rest of us, it no longer matters. Welcome to the information age.[/I]

An age that you have not taken advantage of by not bothering to research what you are claiming and by not even showing basic knowledge of the metric system.

DENIED

Using US and English systems as an argument doesn't apply because as this game has stated many times. This is Nation States, not the real world. Arguments using things going on in nations in the actual world shouldn't apply.

The final paragraph isn't a conspiracy theory. There aren't any men in black trench coats forcing use of the metric system. The proposal is just stating that the argument that it is more cost effective to use the metric system truly isn't a good one because technology allows us to use conversions easily.

Thank you for your critiques though, it helps for writing future proposals.

Using US and English systems as an argument doesn't apply because as this game has stated many times. This is Nation States, not the real world. Arguments using things going on in nations in the actual world shouldn't apply.

Then you're own proposal is illegal, as it is referencing a type of measurement unique to the British systems of measurement, on which the US system is based. All of the nations I have seen on here that use those systems use them as they are under either the US or the British Imperial systems.

If the systems are used on NS, the arguement is valid. The systems are commonly used, and I can provide plenty of evidence for it.

The final paragraph isn't a conspiracy theory. There aren't any men in black trench coats forcing use of the metric system. The proposal is just stating that the argument that it is more cost effective to use the metric system truly isn't a good one because technology allows us to use conversions easily.

Most conspiracy theories don't involve men in black trenchcoats either.

While technology allows for computer conversions easily, you are ignoring the fact that the majority of what is available in the Information Age isn't on the computer. If you are adapting a new system of measurement in addition to ones you already have, you need new tools, education programs to teach people the system (most people won't bother looking it up), changing signs to include the system, and many other changes based on what it is.

The problem is the fact that no matter how you look at it, the conversions are not a simple matter of computer math.

Thank you for your critiques though, it helps for writing future proposals.

Even if I have been a total ass.

your proposal is only about the real world. in the NS world all the UN members went sucssesfully to the metric system after more than year from the day the proposal pass.
I can't see any reason to divide the countries to many seperate system (and if you destroy the "metric system" proposal their number could be unlimited), that :
1- confused the civilians of the states.
2- turn over the globalization to total divide nations.
3- make the UN stuck while every proposal had to translatted to every system.
4- as DLE said it could lead to misunderstooding, problems, accidents, etc'. this isn't real world claim, that could be in NS, too.
5- the cost will be huge. after every measure equipment became metric, it will cost you more to create the old equipment again.
6- there is no reason to change. every body happy with the presnt situation, why you so want to change it?

The metric system is LOADS better than the english (or imperial, or whatever the American one's called), simply because the factors between units are all consistent (they're all tens, and have the same prefix for all the different units, rather than having a completely random 16/12/3/1760 system for imperial length)

However, the metric system, in itself, is also illogical (though not as much as the imperial system), on the basis that a decimal system is illogical. The concept of the "10-base" system was founded because cavemen of ancient times possessed only the creative powers to come up with 10 distinct symbols for numbers (0-9). Thus, we were stuck with a base-10 system.

However, in today's increasingly computerized world, a binary system, or alternately, a hexadecimal system, would be far superior in terms of being compatible with computers (Yes, computers work with decimal, but they don't "compute" in such. They take the decimal, convert it to binary, calculate it in binary, and then converts it back to decimal. It's an emulation process that isn't needed or could be made much similar if we all used binary or hexadecimal)

C'mon, c'mon... let's start the revolution!

0x0123456789ABCDEF spells hexadecimal fun!

Actually, that's not true, Tejasdom.

Not all cultures came up with a base-10 system. The Romans used a base-5, the Aztecs used a base-6, and I've heard of base-11 systems. I don't even want to think of what the Egyptians used.

The fact is that the base-10 for metric is used because they became lazy and assumed that people are stupid.

From DemonLordEnigmaEven if I have been a total ass.

Yes I see some people get very defensive over the metric system. :sniper:

From Green israel1- confused the civilians of the states.
2- turn over the globalization to total divide nations.
3- make the UN stuck while every proposal had to translatted to every system.
4- as DLE said it could lead to misunderstooding, problems, accidents, etc'. this isn't real world claim, that could be in NS, too.
5- the cost will be huge. after every measure equipment became metric, it will cost you more to create the old equipment again.
6- there is no reason to change. every body happy with the presnt situation, why you so want to change it?


1. Our civilians aren't idiots
2. Measurement systems don't divide nations
3. What? Please clarify
4. Anything could lead to misunderstandings, problems, and accidents
5. If you're metric you don't have to convert to anything. The repeal lets your nation decide to use any system it wants. You don't have to convert to "old equipment"
6. Obviously everybody isn't happy with the present situation. Why would this resolution get indorsements?

From TejasdomC'mon, c'mon... let's start the revolution! 0x0123456789ABCDEF spells hexadecimal fun!

That's the spirit. Have fun with this!

To clarify: The main thing is that a nation should be able to choose whether or not they want to use the metric system. If they want to trade with a country that's metric it should be up to them to decide whether or not they want to have their nation on the same system or whether they want to keep their own and convert to trade.

Yes I see some people get very defensive over the metric system. :sniper:

No, I'm just an ass. This is pretty much how I argue with everyone.

1. Our civilians aren't idiots
2. Measurement systems don't divide nations
3. What? Please clarify
4. Anything could lead to misunderstandings, problems, and accidents
5. If you're metric you don't have to convert to anything. The repeal lets your nation decide to use any system it wants. You don't have to convert to "old equipment"
6. Obviously everybody isn't happy with the present situation. Why would this resolution get indorsements?

1) Neither are mine. But they like the system.
2) The US is divided between the scientific community and the populous when it comes to measurements.
3) All UN proposals that use measurements must be in metric.
4) True.
5) True.
6) It got endorsements because delegates believed in it and passed because the majority of people thought it should.

about my 3 point,read DLE post. he clearified that very well. if you let every countrey choose her system you had to add many system on signs (like top speed or distance), on food (neto weight), drinks (capicaty) and others.
every company had to build different products to every countrey, in expensive cost.

I can't see your reasons. why you feel this is so important that your countrey "divide" herself from the UN and will had other measure system?
what is your proposal benefits (except the fact you didn't like the metric system)?
what the importance of "right to choose measure system by yourself"?
if you answer my questions, maybe we had something to debate on.

DLENo, I'm just an ass. This is pretty much how I argue with everyone. Well at least you have fun with it. I'm sure you've made some forums very lively.

GII can't see your reasons. why you feel this is so important that your countrey "divide" herself from the UN and will had other measure system?I'm not dividing from the UN. Because a country is different from others doesn't mean it's causing division.
what is your proposal benefits (except the fact you didn't like the metric system)?The benefit is that a nation can choose for itself whether or not it wants to use the metric system.
what the importance of "right to choose measure system by yourself"? if you answer my questions, maybe we had something to debate on.
You want to know why the right for a nation to choose something is important????

Well, personally, I think that the need for all nations to be on the same page concerning units overrides the want for a few nations to be "different."

Yes, problems could come from ANYTHING, but most certainly there are many problems (such as NASA with their rockets exploding and such) that would not have resulted if we all used the same system.

And additionally, I can not tell you how much of a pain it is to be a high school Physics student dealing with the imperial system.

I don't post here in the forums much, but here's my hit and run.

I will support the repeal. It's just one of the many unnecessary resolutions in the UN. People have traded for centuries, millenia even, with little to no complications. Get a life, repeal this stupid resolution, and learn how to count more than one way.........if you can!

I don't post here in the forums much, but here's my hit and run.

Which means you won't bother posting again.

I will support the repeal. It's just one of the many unnecessary resolutions in the UN.

Technically, they're all unnecessary.

People have traded for centuries, millenia even, with little to no complications.

Most of the time they did that, the traders looked at the good personally to make sure the amounts were equal. Then things got more complicated.

And, yes, complications have popped up from time to time.

Get a life, repeal this stupid resolution, and learn how to count more than one way.........if you can!

Arguement invalid due to the first and last parts of that comment.

Moo oink squee squee

Proposal:
Moo oink squee squee

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Isn't it nice to know we're all multilingual?

To try and find out differences between different measurment systems you have to do complex mathematics and i doubt that when someone puts up a proposal that others would want to pull out a scientific calucator to figure out what their systems equivelant of the other persons system would be. It is easy to just keep the Metric System.

Also, i have noticed that a lot of Decebmer nations are viciously attempting to undo all the good things that the United Nations has done up to this point. There is no sense in getting rid of a system that was set up by a extreme majority.

There is no sense in getting rid of a system that was set up by a extreme majority. Yeah because that Nazi thing worked out so well. (No I'm not equating this topic with Nazis, just saying that quoted argument doesn't hold up).

i think this proposal is one of the dumbest i've seen so far.... it has no logic in it..

Well, the argument is basically National Sovereignty vs Standardization. In this case, international commerce is greatly facilitated by the use of standard measurements. The Metric System serves its purpose in this regard.

The resolution would be a better one if only International Trade were required to take place with Metric measurements. If you want to measure in cubits, that's great. But please sell me that cloth in square meters when exporting.

In RL, I was driving in Illinois and happened to pick up Radio Canada. The weather report listed highs of 0-5 degrees for many cities, and this was November. I remember thinking, "Wow, that must be for some northern regions. That's pretty cold!"

Oh yeah, they're in Celsius!

We just don't think in metric, and don't want to carry around a calculator all day, converting back into English units.

International Trade is something the UN should be concerned with. And a standard system of weights and measures is good for commerce.

The metric system is a good system.
I fyou want to use your own system in your schools and other domestic instatutions do so.

Well resolution #24 never hurt me any... probably helped a little if nothing else. I suppose if your nations measurment system was part of your culture or you were some kind of fancy science people though... anyways I don't think it's that important. If it stands, the metric system is universal and I don't much mind it. If it's repealed then a some nations will be happy but most will still end up using the metric system still anyways. I quess I don't much care either way...

Getting a repeal to pass is a rarity in this UN.
i think this proposal is one of the dumbest i've seen so far.... it has no logic in it.. This resolution has obviously been researched and thought out. Look at most of the other "repeals". They are short and say things like "We should repeal this because its dumb and I'll give you one small reason why". This resolution doesn't do that. I ask you to help bring this to vote. Let the members of the UN see this argument and vote on it. The repeal doesn't get rid of the metric system it simply allows UN member nations to use the system of their choice.

Just a few days left. Please help bring this to a vote! :)

No.

Once again a UN resolution tries to force nations to stop being individual and start doing what everyone else is. The arguments for UN Resolution #24 don't hold their weight (in ounces, pounds, or any other unit you want to use).

Once again? The Res has been around longer than you have...


A nation should be free to choose whether or not they wish to use the Metric System or whether they wish to use measurement units which are traditional to their own country. The imposition of the metric system without recourse to the democratic process is wrong. It is an affront to the basic rights of our citizens. How we measure is part of our heritage and our way of life.

How we measure is of no consequence is irregardless of units. This imposes a system of units, not a forced way to measure. And this was IMPLIMENTED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.


One of the main arguments put forward in favor of metric conversion and in UN Resolution #24 is that it is necessary for international trade. But no conflict exists between retaining a nation’s traditional unit for domestic use while maintaining compatibility abroad. Exporters can remain free to adopt metric units where international trade requires it, just as metric countries adopt inch-based specifications and labeling for the manufacture of computer equipment, car accessories and foodstuffs.

Electronics is all metric. The concept is to remove the need of mindless unit conversions.


UN Resolution #24 states that "Science has already coverted over to the far superior metric system from all other localized forms of measurement". This is a false argument. The whole world hasn't switched over to the metric system. UN Members are required, by this resolution, to convert to the metric system. Also, the metric system is no longer scientific; if it ever was. Most scientists in our nations calculate with computers, which use the binary system (based on 2). The metric system, of course, is supposedly based on multiples of ten.

Science HAS been using Metric for some time. It's not a false argument.

You are confusing systems. Metric is a MEASUREMENT system of units. Binary is a NUMBER system.


The metric system is argued to be simple yet today, the meter is defined as the distance of 1,650,763•73 vacuum wavelengths of light emitted by an electron tube containing the rare gas krypton 86. So much for precision-and simplicity.

simplicity is in coverting between units in metric. 1g of pure H2O = 1 cm^3 = 1 ml


Metric units, which are imposed, often have a conceptually different basis. Take grain from farms for example. Many nations measure this in bushels. A bushel is a unit of capacity. A bushel is based on the amount of space that the grain occupies. However, in metricated countries, the unit is the kilogram a unit of mass not weight. Conceptually, and abstractly, in the grain example, this refers to the amount of matter that makes up the grain. The unit of weight in the metric system is the Newton.

Weight is the effect by gravity on mass. Weight is inferior, since gravity changes by distance, mass is constant.


Today, converting a nation to the metric system might provide minor savings to a billionaire trying to build an industrial empire. It might please some egotist technophile who relishes the vision of a cloned world, dominated by cloned suburbs; everything all the same everywhere, no matter where you go.


Dribble....


Computer technology has made those visions of conformity obsolete. Today, conversion is all expense with no economic benefits. But, computer technology has made it possible to leap around language of measurement obstacles cheaply. In fact, this technology has made all arguments about expense relatively moot. And that leaves us mired in highly esoteric arguments between bureaucrats, businessmen, traditionalists, and billionaires about what are in fact, at best, relatively minor cost savings. For the rest of us, it no longer matters. Welcome to the information age.

The issue is travel and trade. Not ease of conversion... It's to standardize the system in use, because of the history of errors in place, and incompatibilities... That's what STANDARDS are for.... Same concept as the ISO and IEEE.

VastivaNo.The point of that response was what? If you don't want to bring it to vote and you're a delegate then don't vote for it. But you're not a delegate so why are you posting your negative response?

This is a proposal and most of the major negative responses are coming from members not delegates. I'm trying to get this to vote so the members can have a say as to whether or not they want this repeal to go thru.

Lets be honest here. A lot of NS nations lean to the left. That's how things like the Hemp Production resolution are passed. This is a repeal mostly based on national sovereignty which is not a very left leaning idea. I'd just like it to be considered that on an issue like units of measurement that a nation can decide on its own how it wants to run things. A big reason nations don't join the UN is that the resolutions don't go with the way they want their nation run. I think the UN can be a place that all nations can work together to compromise on issues. Delegates, please help this resolution go to your members to vote on.

NationStates is a free nation simulation game. Build a nation and run it according to your own warped political ideals. Create a Utopian paradise for society's less fortunate or a totalitarian corporate police state. Care for your people or deliberately oppress them. Join the United Nations or remain a rogue state. It's really up to you.

This is from the Nation States homepage. UN Resolution #24 is one which, if you are a part of the UN, doesn't let you run your nation the way you want to and still be in the UN. There is a balance! Please bring this proposal to vote!

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)
My quote beats your quote because UN membership is optional

VastivaThe point of that response was what? If you don't want to bring it to vote and you're a delegate then don't vote for it. But you're not a delegate so why are you posting your negative response?

This is a proposal and most of the major negative responses are coming from members not delegates. I'm trying to get this to vote so the members can have a say as to whether or not they want this repeal to go thru.

Lets be honest here. A lot of NS nations lean to the left. That's how things like the Hemp Production resolution are passed. This is a repeal mostly based on national sovereignty which is not a very left leaning idea. I'd just like it to be considered that on an issue like units of measurement that a nation can decide on its own how it wants to run things. A big reason nations don't join the UN is that the resolutions don't go with the way they want their nation run. I think the UN can be a place that all nations can work together to compromise on issues. Delegates, please help this resolution go to your members to vote on.

Bluntly, no, this attempted repeal is a very bad idea, it removes standards and will make trade much harder. The writer apparently did not consider long range results.

No support.

National Sovereignty does not exist once you are a UN member. Since all of your legislation is subject to possible UN oversight. You have voluntarily submitted your nation, as a lesser authority, to the decision of the UN, as a higher authority. You are only sovereign, where the UN says you are, or where the UN has not spoken.

That being said.....

An argument that this resolution infringes on your ability to run your nation how you like. Is bullshit. You have no inherant right to run your nation in whatever way you wish; you lost such rights as soon as you submitted to UN authority.

This resolution pushes a standardization, for the benefit of international trade between members. And for the benefit of travelers between UN member nations. It is a UN area of concern, no matter what side of the fence you are on. And, as such, perfectly valid legislation.

It has no cultural impact, and has worked well over the years for those of us who have been here for awhile.

The basis for the repeal, shows serious errors by the author on the understanding of systems in general. As such, the proposal is considered to be based upon lies and false-information.... And will recieve no support from the UN membership as a whole...

. . . . and communism for all.

. . . . and communism for all.

Since when did standardization of measure become communism?

Are you really that retarded?

It was a mistake between English standard measurements and metric that caused an expensive spacecraft to burn up in the Martian atmosphere. I believe a standardized system for measurement is absolutely necessary. I stand by the metric system as the best universal tool for measurement.

I never said one word about this proposal, ronikstan.

The NSUN resolution didn't mandate use of metric time, did it?
You know, the original french system of 100 minute hours and stuff.

Why do you think that part of the metric system failed to ever catch on?

. . . . and communism for all.


com·mu·nism (P) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat

Sorry but i don't see how a DEMOCRATIC body that passed legislation for the metric system would be concidered a COMMUNIST act. Try looking up words before you beligerantly try and piss people off.

I have to ask, Shazbotdom, why bring this up now? This topic was long dead and buried, by more than a month.

Thread necromancy, even if it is for a thread from 13 days ago, is a bad thing. The thread zombies tend to cause problems and have to be shot. And the necromancers don't like our method of dealing with them.