NationStates Jolt Archive

General Assembly of the United Nations,

REALIZING the benefits of an international standard for weights and measures,

COMMENDING the efforts of Wortham for attempting to bring about these means,

REALIZING that the metric system is a widely ineffective system of weights and measurements for some things, such as nautical and astronomical distances,

FURTHER REALIZING that Resolution #24 is an early resolution, and like many earlier resolutions passed in the UN is poorly constructed, badly written, and generally ineffective and vague in implementation, causing adverse effects in many UN member nations,

OBSERVING that the conversion of all UN nations to the metric system would not effect free trade to the extent outlined by Resolution #24, thereby making it misleading, flawed, and needlessly damaging to the economies of many developed nations,

DISTURBED by Resolution #24’s insensitivity towards many nations who prefer their own system of weights and measures, especially those which may hold cultural significance, thereby impugning national sovereignty and/or national cultures,

OBSERVING that because of this, many UN member nations which are forced by international law to convert to the metric system harbor feelings of discontent and resentment towards the UN body itself for impugning national sovereignty and culture,

NOTING that non UN member nations outnumber UN member nations about three to one, therefore more than seven out of every ten nations remain totally unaffected by Resolution #24 and use their own system of weights and measures in matters of international trade anyway,

FURTHER NOTING that the fields of science and education would remain unaffected with or without Resolution #24 in place, as the metric system is already the standard system of weights and measures in both science and education,

REPEALS Resolution #24: Metric System.

Co-authored by Cobdenia and St Edmunds.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=metric

REALIZING that the metric system is a widely ineffective system of weights and measurements for some things, such as nautical and astronomical distances,


Nautical? Why should nautical distances be measured different from land distances? I mean, a kilometer is the same lenght no matter where you go. Secondly, the metric system is an effective form of measurement. It's names all correspond to each other logically (no going from inch to foot, instead centimeter to meter...logical connection). It is also based on blocks of ten instead of twelve, which is far easier to calculate and much more logical. As for astronomical distances, what ohter measurements are more effective, light years? Yes, but you can't measure the distance from Dancing Bananaland to Imperfectia with lightyears.


FURTHER REALIZING that Resolution #24 is an early resolution, and like many earlier resolutions passed in the UN is poorly constructed, badly written, and generally ineffective and vague in implementation, causing adverse effects in many UN member nations,

This I understand, the negative effects of a poorly written resolution can lead to lots of problems, and many if not all of the older resolutions do need overhauls.


DISTURBED by Resolution #24’s insensitivity towards many nations who prefer their own system of weights and measures, especially those which may hold cultural significance, thereby impugning national sovereignty and/or national cultures,

This I understand, the Dancing Bananalandian currency (The Glass Eye) has huge cultural significance and is a bastion of what it is to be a Dancing Bananalandier. We fully support this argument, however, an international standard of weights and measures for comparison against all others and international use is highly recommended for any resolutiion that should replace the repealed resolution....should it get repealed.


NOTING that non UN member nations outnumber UN member nations about three to one, therefore more than seven out of every ten nations remain totally unaffected by Resolution #24 and use their own system of weights and measures in matters of international trade anyway,


Irrelevant. If you use that argument whats the point of having any resolutions. Heck, whats the point of having laws in one coutnry if all the other countries don't. A totally worthless argument for any UN resolution.


OBSERVING that the conversion of all UN nations to the metric system would not effect free trade to the extent outlined by Resolution #24, thereby making it misleading, flawed, and needlessly damaging to the economies of many developed nations,

True, perhaps it is misleading in it's supposed affects on the trade, however I don't see this as damaging to the economy of a nation either.


FURTHER NOTING that the fields of science and education would remain unaffected with or without Resolution #24 in place, as the metric system is already the standard system of weights and measures in both science and education,

Since when was this emplaced?

Nautical? Why should nautical distances be measured different from land distances? I mean, a kilometer is the same lenght no matter where you go.

Oh dear...not a very good start.

OOC: Serously though, why do we need special naughtical distances? If there is a reason, please inform me (I am not a sailor).

Co-authored by Cobdenia and St Edmunds.


You can only list one co author

OOC: Serously though, why do we need special naughtical distances? If there is a reason, please inform me (I am not a sailor).

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/f71056e5.jpg

Using a standard measuring system everywhere reduces waste and increases productivity. We say nay.

OOC: Serously though, why do we need special naughtical distances? If there is a reason, please inform me (I am not a sailor).Main Entry: nautical mile
Function: noun
: any of various units of distance used for sea and air navigation based on the length of a minute of arc of a great circle of the earth and differing because the earth is not a perfect sphere.

Two can play at that game, Hack.

nautical mile
/nawtikuhl 'muyl/
noun a unit of measurement of length, used in marine and aeronautical navigation, equal to 1852 m, originally defined as one minute of latitude.
Formerly, international nautical mile.
A standard length, determined in the SI system. Dueling dictionaries gets in the way in cases such as this.

Two can play at that game, Hack.

A standard length, determined in the SI system. Dueling dictionaries gets in the way in cases such as this.Except that you didn't contradict me in the slightest. It's a measurement based off the curvature of the earth as opposed to the frequency of a certain wavelength of light.

Also, if you had taken the time to read, as opposed to hoping to be snarky, you would see that I wasn't quoting that to tell him what a nautical mile was, but that I was using it to show why a nautical mile is different than an Imperial mile.

You seem to have missed my point, Hack. I wasn't questioning that the nautical and imperial miles are different. What I was attempting to do was point out the problem apparent in the definition you cited - the nautical mile is regarded as being of a standard length, according to the Macquarie, and also to the Oxford (http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=nautical+mile&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname) and Cambridge (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=53097&dict=CALD) Dictionaries.

Indeed, now that you've made a point of it, why should the nautical and Imperial miles be different? The evidence you cited gave no reason.

[edit]Bah, forgot to log in properly. This is also the player behind Darsomir.

You can only list one co author

Which is why Cob created the nation named Cobdenia and St Edmunds. ;)

I firmly believe that keeping the metric system is the way to go. The only country that would really be effected in an ill manner would be the U.S. In schools today, the metric system is even being taught to children so the switch wouldn't even be hard on the common person. The only problem would be all of the street signs and text books, but I believe that the sacrifice of throwing away the old stuff and receiving new, books and signs changed to the metric system is outweighed by the strengthening of the world binds by being able to produce more of an item, and more accurate to specifications as well. The Euro has been a great change for Europe when all of them had different currency and that change could take place in a matter of years so this change wouldn't be as bad as speculation is trying to prove it to be.

We agree with the point made by the honourable delegate of Domnonia that the adoption of a common unitary system reduces waste and increases productivity, by providing a common frame of reference for economic transcations, scientific research and collaboration and international treaties, among many other things.

As for the nautical mile debate, we agree with Hack on this one.

And Theloria, what's the U.S.?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

We believe Abe Simpson said it best: "The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!"

Also: "I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missoura!"

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

1 km = 1000 m
1 m = 1000 mm

I personnaly think it's important for many communities or nations to avoid the death of their language, as language is related to emotions and creativity.

But measurement systems deal with with maths and logics, it's why I think they need to be logical, not fanciful.

Gruenberg has no real view on this. We support a repeal, but we'd probably also support some of replacement. We really don't care.

OOC: I like the metric system in general, but - and perhaps this is just my brain being wonky, and others disagree - I find imperial maths much easier. There's something about numbers that can divide by 3s, 4s, 6s, 8s, rather than simply being multiples of 2 and 5, that I find easier to relate to.

Gruenberg has no real view on this. We support a repeal, but we'd probably also support some of replacement. We really don't care.

OOC: I like the metric system in general, but - and perhaps this is just my brain being wonky, and others disagree - I find imperial maths much easier. There's something about numbers that can divide by 3s, 4s, 6s, 8s, rather than simply being multiples of 2 and 5, that I find easier to relate to.


1760/3 = 586.333:)

I donno if my speculations are true or wrong, but i really think that at the origine:

1 mile was = 1728 yards (1728 is not so far from 1760)
because 1728 = 12*12*12
and 12= 4*3 or 2*6
And according to my speculations, the mile slipped from 1728 yards to 1760; for an obscur reason:p

1760/3 = 586.333:)
Well, I meant more in terms of weights: pounds and stone.

Well, I meant more in terms of weights: pounds and stone.

I didn't know much about US weights units, so I checked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._customary_units

1 grain (gr) 1⁄7000 lb
1 dram (dr) 27+11⁄32 gr
1 ounce (oz) 16 dr
1 pound (lb) 16 oz
1 hundredweight (cwt) 100 lb
1 (short) ton 20 cwt

Sorry:(

1 gramme = 1000 mg
1 kg = 1000 grammes
1 megagram (tonne) = 1000 kg

Interesting stuff L&E. I always wondered whether there was an internal logic to the Imperial system, or whether it was all dreamt up by a bored tradesman. It seems both were the case.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

the nautical mile is regarded as being of a standard lengthUm... actually, it's not an SI unit. At least, not according to the people who actually decide this sort of thing (http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table8.html). It's use is accepted, but it's not really SI. Also, it appears my definition was more historical, and not in keeping with the International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference, which set it as 1852 meters in the early 20th.

The measurement, however, was still based as I said. That's how it came about. You want to look historically, it makes sense that sailors would use a different measurement. On land, lengths were typically dictated by an object or item. That's all well and good when you can set your rod down on the ground, make a mark and then move it. It's rather less effective on water. Using a map and the curvature of the earth, however, you can make a small measurement and then expand it to longer distances. Since most people on dry land wouldn't be making their measurements based on charts and suchwise, they were likely only used by sailors, hence 'nautical'.

Or, it could be that since you can elevate or excavate on dry land, the curvature of the earth and its bulges are less important, so your measurment doesn't need to take into account such excentricities. When on water, however, any varience will have a greater effect, and one that must be accounted for. Since you can measure (arc) minutes rather easily, you can adjust for the irregularities of the earth. Had the earth been a perfect sphere, nautical miles might never have been created.

Now, I don't know if either of the two preceeding paragraphs are accurate. I haven't dug up any exhaustive histories of the nautical mile; however a quick check with Cecil and his gang suggests the my first theory is more accurate:

The nautical mile is the length of one minute of arc of a great circle. A great circle is the intersection of the surface of a sphere with a (geometric) plane passing through the center of said sphere. The Equator is one great circle, so essentially a nautical mile is the the length of one minute of arc on the Equator. Presumably they felt the need to define it this way because of the impossibility of measuring 5,280 feet on the trackless sea surface. It's just happy coincidence that this distance is approximately the same as a "regular" mile (hey, 15% isn't too far off when you're talking about the ocean).

So, there. That's why there's a difference. And now I know more about the nautical mile than I ever cared to know.

You use nautical miles because it is easier to measure from knowledge of your speed and heading, and it thus is far more easier to navigate with. If Km were in use, you would actually need to convert km to nautical miles and back again to work out your position, bearing, speed, etc (remember, not all ships even in that fictional place called the Real World use GPS).

OoC: I think; I wish I had paid more attention in the Cadets as opposed to ogling the rather attractive blond girl at the back...

I didn't know much about US weights units, so I checked:
--snip--
OOC: Not just US but also UK. I don't think the EU's strictures have had any substantive effect on the majority of Brits. The main difference seems to be that Americans quantify in pounds while Brits prefer stones.

It seems that imperial units are still strongly preferred for 'personal' measurements in the UK but have otherwise been superseded by metric. Except for road signs.

Which is why Cob created the nation named Cobdenia and St Edmunds. ;)
Gotcha. ;)

The Hack said:

The measurement, however, was still based as I said. That's how it came about. You want to look historically, it makes sense that sailors would use a different measurement. On land, lengths were typically dictated by an object or item. That's all well and good when you can set your rod down on the ground, make a mark and then move it. It's rather less effective on water.


OOC: Ok now I understand...seriously though, I'm not a sailor, I get seasick.


The Dancing Bananalandian accept this argument and acknowledge the importance of special nautical measurement. However we do stand by that the metric system (by common english mathamatics) is the most logical and easist to calculate known system of measurment.

OoC: I think; I wish I had paid more attention in the Cadets as opposed to ogling the rather attractive blond girl at the back...

OOC: No shame in that. More than a few of us would've been doing the same thing, I'm sure. ;)

Okay, Hack, you win this rather pointless but informative argument. But remember, I never said that the nautical mile is accepted in SI. I said that the nautical mile is now taken as being of a standard, specified length (1852m), which is easier to determine using SI than the Imperial system.

Though if you really wanted to, you could define it in terms of cubits.

Though if you really wanted to, you could define it in terms of cubits.I prefer measuring in rods ;)

Totally for the appeal. It is not for the UN to dictate a nation's weights and measures.
I'm not eve going tp bpther asking what moron came up with the original resolution or how the heck it ever managedd to pass...

--Rooty

If the metric system would make life easier for a country, let the country decide to use it. If it doesnt want to use it and is getting along fine, then why force it?

We support this measure.

Hey, though I'd add a bit of info as a professional sailor and continental european:

No matter if people chose the Metric or Imperial mesuring system, it would not affect the nautical mile. Example from work:


As described above, the nautical mile is based on one minute of the arcs of the earth (60 minutes = 1 degree) but the 1852m convertion is a generally accepted standardisation, although is only 100% correct on certain maps since the degrees vary the more you move closer to the equator.

BTW, the nautical milage system goes like that:

Fathom - Cable - Nautical Mile. Although each has it's own measure, I've found out that with the navigators I've sailed at least with in Norway, we just simplify the system too 1 cable = 185,2m and 1 fathon = 1.852m. A lot more easier.

But that is not the problem, what gets complicated is that when calculating trajectories and solutions to target other vessels, we get most of the number in metric system, like the speed in in m/s and range in km. But we plot their positions and calculate from there in nautical miles.

Why in such a delicate operation don't we use one same system? Well, because in the end, we get more acurate figures using the metric system, but it is a lot easier to navigate with the naut. mile system.

But I've never managed to understand the Imperial system. btw, about the usefullness of those systems. Doesn't the US Army use the metric system in operations? That should count as a good argument for the metric system.

NASA appears to have stuck with the imperial system. Which was unfortunate for one of the umpteen probes to have crashed into Mars...

NASA appears to have stuck with the imperial system. Which was unfortunate for one of the umpteen probes to have crashed into Mars...


OOC: NASA was in the process of changing systems, there was confusion because some of the values definedfor that probe were given in 'imperial' units whilst others were given in metric ones... The crash [probably] wouldn't have happened if they'd simply stuck with 'imperial' units throughout the project.

OOC: NASA was in the process of changing systems, there was confusion because some of the values definedfor that probe were given in 'imperial' units whilst others were given in metric ones... The crash [probably] wouldn't have happened if they'd simply stuck with 'imperial' units throughout the project.

OOC: Still their fault for using an archaic, idiosyncratic method of measurement in the first place.

OOC: Still their fault for using an archaic, idiosyncratic method of measurement in the first place.I disagree. Clearly the problem was in changing to this new-fangled "metric" nonsense. *nod*

OOC: Space exploration. Scientific mission. Imperial measurements.

Sigh.

OOC: Space exploration. Scientific mission. Imperial measurements.

Sigh.


OOC: It was good enough for Dan Dare! ;)

OOC: Damn! How the hell can I counter that argument?

I should point out that this is the same NASA that had a rocket go haywire because of a wrong punctuation mark in the computer code.

OOC: Space exploration. Scientific mission. Imperial measurements.Eh. In all honesty, as long as you're consistant, you should be able to use whatever the Hell you like. Look at telling time. That's pretty ridiculous. 60 seconds in a minute. 60 minutes in an hour. 24(!) hours in a day. 365.25(!!) days in a year. I mean, that's all shades of messed up.

Clearly we need metric time! :p

Eh. In all honesty, as long as you're consistant, you should be able to use whatever the Hell you like. Look at telling time. That's pretty ridiculous. 60 seconds in a minute. 60 minutes in an hour. 24(!) hours in a day. 365.25(!!) days in a year. I mean, that's all shades of messed up.

Clearly we need metric time! :p
It's been attempted before. Part of the Reign of Terror in France. Didn't escape with a good reputation.

Though time does become metric as you get into smaller measurements - microsecond, nanosecond, picosecond etc.

Well, yes, but when was the last time you measured a yoctosecond? :p

Eh. In all honesty, as long as you're consistant, you should be able to use whatever the Hell you like. Look at telling time. That's pretty ridiculous. 60 seconds in a minute. 60 minutes in an hour. 24(!) hours in a day. 365.25(!!) days in a year. I mean, that's all shades of messed up.

Clearly we need metric time! :p


You right it's strange, but at least:
1 year = the time between two recurrences of an event related to the orbit of the Earth around the Sun

1 day = a single rotation of the earth with respect to Sun

1 second = 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom

and 60 and 24 can be divided by 12
(12 is the first numbe which can be divided by 2,3 and 4)
(60 is the first numbe which can be divided by 2,3,4,5 and 6)

So, yes it's not perfect, and yes, it's very earth-centered, but at least, it's not 100% fanciful:p

Do you have something better to popose?

1 second = 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atomHeh heh heh. Ah... memories...

Eh. In all honesty, as long as you're consistant, you should be able to use whatever the Hell you like. Look at telling time. That's pretty ridiculous. 60 seconds in a minute. 60 minutes in an hour. 24(!) hours in a day. 365.25(!!) days in a year. I mean, that's all shades of messed up.

Clearly we need metric time! :p
[I know this has all been in jest, but please humour me]

I think time is a special case but, anyway, my point is that international standards of measurement have been set for science. It seems odd to me that NASA (and the US in general?) hasn't followed suit. Even before EU-enforced metrication, UK science classes taught metric because the scientific community had come to a consensus long before that metric was a better system.

Now I think about it, one good reason to bin this resolution is that not all NSers are human, therefore not all have 'decimalised' bodies and ways of thinking. If you have four hands each with four fingers, you'll probably go hexadecimal...

Now I think about it, one good reason to bin this resolution is that not all NSers are human, therefore not all have 'decimalised' bodies and ways of thinking. If you have four hands each with four fingers, you'll probably go hexadecimal...
Who knows? Humans haven't only used the decimal system - the Mayans had a base-5 system, while Babylon went the whole hog with base-60. Which is why our circle geometry and time uses numbers that easily multiply or divide to give 60. Yep, it's the Babylonians fault.

I think time is a special case but, anyway, my point is that international standards of measurement have been set for science. It seems odd to me that NASA (and the US in general?) hasn't followed suit.Well, much of the scientific community uses metric. I've been a subscriber, for many years now, to Science News (http://www.sciencenews.org) which culls from various journals (Nature, Science, the Lancet, and even more esoteric ones) and they all use metric (yes, I know the Lancet isn't American). Science News itself only uses metric; very rarely it will parenthetically list Imperial measurements -- I believe it depends on the editor in question.

As for non-scientific applications... well... Americans know Imperial and they don't know metric, and therefore are resistant to change. And, well, in the grand scheme of things, it just doesn't much matter. If I only interact with Americans, I don't need metric. Since I do interact with non-Americans, I've picked up enough metric to do rough translations. I don't know the exact inch to cm conversion, but I don't know exactly how many feet are in a mile. Rough estimates suffice.

And, Hell, if I want exact conversions, google does a nice job of it.

It's been attempted before. Part of the Reign of Terror in France. Didn't escape with a good reputation.

I'm familiar with the attempt at the metric calendar with the 10 day week, but I was unaware they also attempted a metric clock. Fascinating. (I always thought the attempt at the 10 day week was an attempt to break the last vestage of Church power and doctrine which was strongly connected to the 7 day week.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Calendar

In fact with the exception of the 10 day week there is very little metric in it. Symetry is a feature of the calendar, each month is exactly 30 days, each season is exactly 3 months and the leftover days was thrown at the end.

"Clocks were manufactured to display decimal time, but it did not catch on and was officially abandoned in 1795, although some cities continued to use decimal time as late as 1801."

I'm familiar with the attempt at the metric calendar with the 10 day week, but I was unaware they also attempted a metric clock. Fascinating. (I always thought the attempt at the 10 day week was an attempt to break the last vestage of Church power and doctrine which was strongly connected to the 7 day week.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Calendar

In fact with the exception of the 10 day week there is very little metric in it. Symetry is a feature of the calendar, each month is exactly 30 days, each season is exactly 3 months and the leftover days was thrown at the end.

"Clocks were manufactured to display decimal time, but it did not catch on and was officially abandoned in 1795, although some cities continued to use decimal time as late as 1801."

Swatch reintroduced the decimal time in 1998, under the name "Swatch Internet Time":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time
The day is divided into 1000 "beats" of 1 minute and 26.4 seconds each.
http://www.dli.ch/Hobbies/Watch-out/watch_webmaster_small.gif

I would personnaly favour a non-human focused time system,

1 day =1728 (12*12*12) beats (or whatever)
Then a beat would = 50 seconds
and beats would be divided into 144 cbeats, and 1728 mbeats

But again, it will be human-focused, as a day is ...

Well, much of the scientific community uses metric. I've been a subscriber, for many years now, to Science News (http://www.sciencenews.org) which culls from various journals (Nature, Science, the Lancet, and even more esoteric ones) and they all use metric (yes, I know the Lancet isn't American). Science News itself only uses metric; very rarely it will parenthetically list Imperial measurements -- I believe it depends on the editor in question.

As for non-scientific applications... well... Americans know Imperial and they don't know metric, and therefore are resistant to change. And, well, in the grand scheme of things, it just doesn't much matter. If I only interact with Americans, I don't need metric. Since I do interact with non-Americans, I've picked up enough metric to do rough translations. I don't know the exact inch to cm conversion, but I don't know exactly how many feet are in a mile. Rough estimates suffice.

And, Hell, if I want exact conversions, google does a nice job of it.
Thanks, that's very interesting. And makes perfect sense, too. So it's purely a NASA balls-up!

As for the French Revolution stuff... I'm not commenting because it's my favourite period of history. I'll never get away from this damn screen if I start offering my tuppence - ha! if only it were that small an amount - worth.

Thanks, that's very interesting. And makes perfect sense, too. So it's purely a NASA balls-up!Actually, I think it was just a general FUBAR. For some reason, I think it was that NASA used metric, and the people they were working with thought they'd (NASA) would be using Imperial, so they (collaborators) used Imperial. I don't really remember the specifics, but it was -- to use a technical phrase -- all screwed up. I think a lot of people were left scratching their head wondering what in the Hell happened.

As for the French Revolution stuff... I'm not commenting because it's my favourite period of history. I'll never get away from this damn screen if I start offering my tuppence - ha! if only it were that small an amount - worth.Heh. Nothing like waxing poetic, hey?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/tupp.jpg