NationStates Jolt Archive

CONSIDERING that while national soverignty is not all pervasive, it should extend to such insignificant matters such as the use of a unified system of mearsurements

REGRETTING that Resolution #24 is micromanagement

CONSIDERING that the UN has numerous other issues of considerably larger importance

DEEMING Resolution #24 as unnecessary legislation

REPEALS Resolution #24: Metric System

CONSIDERING that while national soverignty is not all pervasive, it should extend to such insignificant matters such as the use of a unified system of mearsurements

REGRETTING that Resolution #24 is micromanagement

On the contrary, Resolution #24 facilitates travel everywhere.

CONSIDERING that the UN has numerous other issues of considerably larger importance
But it's not like the resolution doesn't do anything, and you're not making way for a better ones.

CONSIDERING that while national soverignty is not all pervasive, it should extend to such insignificant matters such as the use of a unified system of mearsurements

Absolutely disagree. In the real world right now, we have absolutely insane problems with multiple systems of measurement. In fact, the problems were so great that even a large percentage of the American scientific community uses metric these days. Examples of problems range from various accidents at NASA to the fact that a large percentage of Americans have trouble with UNR 24. Personally, I think it's rather interesting every time I cross the American border - because I've got to reconfigure all my internal measurement units (which is especially annoying if I'm driving because it makes it so much harder at gauging my speed and distance).

Add on that you are allowed to keep your old system of measurement, so long as metric is employed along side it.

REGRETTING that Resolution #24 is micromanagement

No - micromanagement would be getting you to do all your measurements in meters, all your volumes in litres, and all your mass measurements in kilograms (as opposed to centimeters/kilometers, mililitres and grams/tons respectively).

CONSIDERING that the UN has numerous other issues of considerably larger importance

Actually, right now the UN has so few issues that it has taken issues with more things simultaneously that it dealt with earlier that it has a record number of repeals in queue.

DEEMING Resolution #24 as unnecessary legislation

Absolutely disagree

REPEALS Resolution #24: Metric System

I'd say over my dead body, but I think even my dead body would block this.

CONSIDERING that the UN has numerous other issues of considerably larger importance
This is the only clause of the Proposal which the Federation of Questionable Industries can support. Despite being less important than some other legislation, the implementation of a metric standard is a positive step. Now that it is in place, there are certainly more important matters than repealing legislation of little import.

Karlania opposes a repel as well. A standard system of measure makes life easier for everyone.

Dear Zyzz

We regret to inform you, The Protectorate of Jupali will not vote for this repeal on the grounds that it is not pratical, but also makes life unnecessarily difficult.

Sincerely yours,



Japuli

I would support a repeal, as metric system is a very poorly written proposal that actually, if you read it, changes countries to the metric system as opposed to changing the measurements whithin countries. Plus, there are problems with non-metric units that are the only useful units of measurement (nM, lightyears) in the fields they occupy, as well as being too limited in scope, applying only to roadways, and labeling, if memory serves. However, it would need a detailed replacement

I would support a repeal, as metric system is a very poorly written proposal that actually, if you read it, changes countries to the metric system as opposed to changing the measurements whithin countries. Plus, there are problems with non-metric units that are the only useful units of measurement (nM, lightyears) in the fields they occupy, as well as being too limited in scope, applying only to roadways, and labeling, if memory serves. However, it would need a detailed replacement

I'm working on one: Expect to see it quite soon...

*snip*
In fact, the problems were so great that even a large percentage of the American scientific community uses metric these days.
*snip*

Yes, but the difference is that they did so of their own volition and were not forced to do so by international law.

Yes, but the difference is that they did so of their own volition and were not forced to do so by international law.

I believe a better RL example of that is UK and the EU. The issue is not superiority of the metric system, but the benefits of having a unified system of measurement. As such, it requires international cooperation, so it really is an issue for the UN, and all members stand to gain from it. I am deeply confused at all the arguments claiming system A is better than system B. The particular unit used is totally arbitrary.

I believe a better RL example of that is UK and the EU. The issue is not superiority of the metric system, but the benefits of having a unified system of measurement. As such, it requires international cooperation, so it really is an issue for the UN, and all members stand to gain from it. I am deeply confused at all the arguments claiming system A is better than system B. The particular unit used is totally arbitrary.


Almost all of St Edmund's [currently thriving] external trade & tourism activity is with nations that are outside of the UN and that do not use the metric system: Forcing us to convert to metric units in the labelling of our products actually harms out competitiveness in those markets and thus damages our economy.
Now, how do we "stand to gain from" metrication?

I believe a better RL example of that is UK and the EU. The issue is not superiority of the metric system, but the benefits of having a unified system of measurement. As such, it requires international cooperation, so it really is an issue for the UN, and all members stand to gain from it. I am deeply confused at all the arguments claiming system A is better than system B. The particular unit used is totally arbitrary.

I'd agree with the honourable delegate from Fonzoland here, it is absolutely essential that scientists have a common system of measurement that enables quicker direct comparisons and furthers international cooperation in scientific matters. For those who say this is all very abstract, I would remind them of the RL example of a Mars Probe, sent to the planet by NASA a few years ago, that due to being given a set of instructions in Imperial measurements (when it had been programmed for Metric) disappeared and was never seen again, to the substantial fiscal and credibility cost of NASA.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Of course there is the problem that there may be nations that count in base 12, or other bases. In which case, Metric for them pretty inefficient.

But if you want to confuse people, just do what I do: have undecimalised currency...

I'd agree with the honourable delegate from Fonzoland here, it is absolutely essential that scientists have a common system of measurement that enables quicker direct comparisons and furthers international cooperation in scientific matters. For those who say this is all very abstract, I would remind them of the RL example of a Mars Probe, sent to the planet by NASA a few years ago, that due to being given a set of instructions in Imperial measurements (when it had been programmed for Metric) disappeared and was never seen again, to the substantial fiscal and credibility cost of NASA.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Can't protect people from their own stupidity.

Of course there is the problem that there may be nations that count in base 12, or other bases. In which case, Metric for them pretty inefficient.

For example... http://www.nationstates.net/happy_hexadactyls.

I'd agree with the honourable delegate from Fonzoland here, it is absolutely essential that scientists have a common system of measurement that enables quicker direct comparisons and furthers international cooperation in scientific matters. For those who say this is all very abstract, I would remind them of the RL example of a Mars Probe, sent to the planet by NASA a few years ago, that due to being given a set of instructions in Imperial measurements (when it had been programmed for Metric) disappeared and was never seen again, to the substantial fiscal and credibility cost of NASA.

Fine. St Edmund's space programme is a joint effort with Godwinnia, and the traditional Godwinnian system of weights & measures is the one that we're used to using: Yet again, a shift to metrication in St Edmund but not in our non-UN neighbours would actually prove more of a problem than a help...
(OOC: A couple of issues about space programmes both came up for both of these nations in the same week, and I gave the same affirmative answers to both of them for both nations, so a joint programme seems the logical situation...)

Of course there is the problem that there may be nations that count in base 12, or other bases. In which case, Metric for them pretty inefficient.

But if you want to confuse people, just do what I do: have undecimalised currency...

Oh dear God!!!! That's just cruel.

There's an idea for replacement, standardized system of counting.

*shudders - just had a horrid thought*

Whatever base you are using is base 10 to that base

Base 2: 2 = 10

Base 8: 8 = 10

Base 16: 16 = 10

.....

We like our kids to learn complicated maths, as opposed to easy peasy 100 doohickeys in one whatnot easy peasy stuff. You try working out how many overcoats you could buy with 500 pounds, each overcoat costing 8 pounds 11 shillings and nine pence; and how many half crown coins you'd need to pay for one overcoat

Yes, but counting to ten in base ten is:

1 10 11 100 101 110 111 1000 1001 1010

in base six it's

1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14

And counting to twenty-five in base 12 is

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ! % 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1! 1% 20 21 23

Yes, but counting to ten in base ten is:

1 10 11 100 101 110 111 1000 1001 1010

in base six it's

1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14

And counting to twenty-five in base 12 is

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ! % 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1! 1% 20 21 23

First of all, 23 in base 12 is 27 in base 10

Second

Count to 10, base 2

1 10

Count to 10, base 6

1 2 3 4 5 10

Count to 25 base 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ! % 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1! 1% 20 21 22 23 24 25

That's why I wrote ten and not 10...

And the irrelevance award goes to...

Seriously, the counting system used is close to irrelevant. A non-integer number of metres in base 10 will also be non-integer in base 27. Fine, we can deal with it. If someone counts using base 8, they might find it useful to represent something as 4.2 rather than 4.25. They are allowed to.

Using base 10 does make it easier to convert, say, m into km, but again, the main issue here is ensuring everyone is using the same units. Everyone who has tried to mentally convert temperatures between F and C will know what I mean.

In theory, I think the best bases are base 6 and base 12.

because we can divide 6 by 2 and 3, and 12 by 2, 3 and 4.

Base 60 could be nice also as 60 could be divided by 2, 3, 4, 5 and even 6 (but base 60 mean to a lot of characters, so may not be easy)

Base 2 (used by computers) is also ok, but is not pretty compact to use for us.


That said, most humans have 10 fingers, and it's why base 10 is used and why LAE favor base 10.

Personnaly I think that unit systems have to follow a base to be efficient, It's why we will oppose any system which don't follow a base, as the mile, yard, feet, inch system (1mile = 1760 yard = 3 feet = 12 inch)

*snip*

And that was indeed the state of the art, until the concept of fractions was invented.

And that was indeed the state of the art, until the concept of fractions was invented.

Any base will need fractions
and it's because we need fraction that Base 6 and base 12 are in theory the best.

Any base will need fractions
and it's because we need fraction that Base 6 and base 12 are in theory the best.

You missed my point completely. Any benefits of base 6 (divisibility) are equally attained by using the fractions 1/3 and 2/3.

Of course there is the problem that there may be nations that count in base 12, or other bases. In which case, Metric for them pretty inefficient.

But if you want to confuse people, just do what I do: have undecimalised currency...


St Edmund's currency: 12 pennies to the shilling, 12 shillings to the mark.

You missed my point completely. Any benefits of base 6 (divisibility) are equally attained by using the fractions 1/3 and 2/3.

I was just trying to put some arguments about this nice theorical debate:)

BASE 10
10/2=5
10/3=3.33333333333333....................
10/4=2.5=5/2

BASE 6
10/2=3
10/3=2
10/4=1.3=3/2

BASE 12
10/2=6
10/3=4
10/4=3

Of course and hopefully we used fraction anyway, but you can see it's more easy with base 6 or 12

That said, as I have said, I think one argument is in practice even stronger for BASE 10:
most humans have 10 fingers

It's not a hasard if time (hours), lattitude and longitude degrees are in BASE 60, as 60 is the next logical base after 12.

In theory, I think the best bases are base 6 and base 12.

The programmer has to disagree with you. Nothing beats Hexadecimal - I would LOVE to rewire my brain so I can do everything in Hexadecimal. Oh well.....

(Unfortunately, I can't use the abbreviated "Hex" because that IS base 6).

But yeah, imagine how much better off all our computing systems would be if we could all think in binary or hexadecimal - it would be much more intuitive! Especially number representation.

(1mile = 1760 yard = 3 feet = 12 inch)

I could've sworn it was 1 mile = 1760 yards = 5280 feet = 63360 inches