Democratic Values Re: stand with me

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Brij Bhushan Vij
Excellency, Madsm Hillary Clinton: 
I am a lone Ranger, having started my career as a boy of 11-years after post partition British India. Perhaps it was in HIS scheme of events to come that I was entrusted to re-kindle the light for Reform of the Gregorian calendar and provide a 'New light for count of Time of the Decimalised HOUR via Arc-Angle Pi/180 or "One Degree" and to present a replaced view for defining Nautical Kilometre (for shelving Nautical Mile). 
I have documented my investigations and discoveries at: http://www.brijvij.com/ opening 'knots' that I felt existed among - engineers and scientists in bridging Le Systeme Internationale d'Unites (SI in all languages), since 1971.... to fulfil Socio-scientific and Politico-Economic Reforms!
I did deprive my children my entire life so I could fulfill my parents dream to see me educated as an autodidact from an Airman to Engineer and "Earn my President's Comission". This is where I claim that United States of America can become the FIRST COUNTRY to complete the process of Metric SI System of Units and also Reform the Gregorian calendar in ONE stroke or in a deliberate 'Phased manner'. 
Yes, Excellency my sin was not to fall in line with - rowdies and become a cancerous rogue in society; and looked over my children as guide, who now are all US Citizens. I have lived as a prudent parent, providing them only the barest minimum, because of my commitments to education and Reasearch, without forcing them to their rights to ACT and think independent. 
I have No hesitation in admitting to see you in the Oval Office, like I recall my forecasted option for President Barrak Obama, during earlier Presidential elections. Unfortunately, I have NO VOTING rights. My children now know what they wish to do, when time is ripe!
I have given what I had come, to fulfil HIS dictates; and am aware HIS wishes shall be the command, during days to come.
My regards to President(s) Barrak Obama and Bill Clinton, who I am aware are your sources of inspiration.
Brij Bhushan (metric) VIJ
Friday, 2016 August 26H 12:82(decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 26, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Hillary Clinton <[hidden email]> wrote:

The Democratic Party
Friend --

I want to take a minute to address the idea that Donald Trump is anything other than the rock-throwing bully he's proven himself to be since day one of his candidacy.

This is a man, after all, who launched his bid for the White House by calling Mexican immigrants "rapists" and "criminals." This is a candidate who regularly retweets white supremacists. Who blasted out an anti-Semitic image over Twitter -- a graphic originally posted on a white nationalist website. A guy who publicly gushes over the reputation of Alex Jones: the conspiracy-theorist radio host who claims that the Sandy Hook massacre was just a hoax.

The people that Trump lifts up are the type who take pride in being prejudiced. They are eager to race-bait and enjoy fanning flames of discrimination and distrust. Today they support his campaign. If he wins this election, Trump will be elevating their voices from the White House.

Let's take one of his latest hires: Steve Bannon, the former leading man of the alt-right, conservative-fringe website Breitbart.

Under Bannon's leadership, Breitbart published articles with headlines such as: "Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?" and "Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage."

But Bannon's just the latest example of the nasty, toxic ultra-conservative undercurrent that's been influencing Trump for over a year now.

There's always been a paranoid fringe in our politics, steeped in racial resentment. But it's never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it, and giving it a national megaphone. Until now. Donald Trump has given them a microphone, bringing them out of the shadows and planting them center stage in our national dialogue.

Trump is running a campaign fueled by callousness and divisiveness. To me, that's flat-out unacceptable -- and should concern all Americans, regardless of party. Today, I'm taking a stand against this movement of hate. Please, chip in now to stand with me in this fight.

If you've saved your payment information, your donation will go through immediately.

QUICK DONATE: $3

QUICK DONATE: $10

QUICK DONATE: $25

QUICK DONATE: $50

QUICK DONATE: $100

Or donate another amount:

https://my.democrats.org/Stronger-Together

This is the most consequential election of our lifetimes. We need you more than ever.

Thanks,

Hillary





































 

Paid for by Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee authorized by Hillary for America, the Democratic National Committee and the State Democratic Parties in these states: AK, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI, and WY.

Contributions or gifts to Hillary Victory Fund are not tax deductible.

This email was sent to [hidden email]. If this isn't the best email address at which to reach you, update your contact information. Our email list is the best way we have of staying in regular contact with supporters like you across the country and letting you know about the work President Obama and other Democrats are doing. If you like staying in touch, but want to receive only the most important messages, click here. Click here to unsubscribe from our supporter list, but if you leave, it will be harder for you to stay involved in the organization that you've been such a critical part of. This organization is powered by you, and we'd love to hear your ideas. Send us any comments, criticisms, or feedback here, or just reply to this email! Thanks for supporting President Obama and other Democrats.

 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Amos Shapir-2
Hi Brij & Calendar people,

Considering that the USA had not yet even completed their move to the metric system (even though it's been federal law since 1976)
I suspect Hillary has no idea what she's getting into....


--
Amos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Amos, sir:
Thanks, does this mean a START is never to be made?
Brij B. VIJ

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Brij & Calendar people,
>
> Considering that the USA had not yet even completed their move to the metric system (even though it's been federal law since 1976)
> I suspect Hillary has no idea what she's getting into....
>
>
> --
> Amos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Phil De Rosa
Hi all.  Of course the US should adopt the Metric System and discard the
Imperial System of Weights and Measures.  It should have done so in the
early to mid 1970s.

But I don't believe it will be on their agenda for a
while to come though any efforts to revive a move for change should be
encouraged.

The only countries officially still using the 'archaic' Imperial System are
the US, Myanmar, and Liberia.

Phil De Rosa
BC, Canada



-----Original Message-----
From: Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 2:47 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Amos, sir:
Thanks, does this mean a START is never to be made?
Brij B. VIJ

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Brij & Calendar people,
>
> Considering that the USA had not yet even completed their move to the
> metric system (even though it's been federal law since 1976)
> I suspect Hillary has no idea what she's getting into....
>
>
> --
> Amos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir-2

The metric system has been legal in the US since the 1860s and all customary units have been defined in terms of standard metric units since 1880s In effect the US is on the metric system with auxiliary customary units

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Friday, August 26, 2016 Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Brij & Calendar people,

Considering that the USA had not yet even completed their move to the metric system (even though it's been federal law since 1976)
I suspect Hillary has no idea what she's getting into....


--
Amos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Bill Spencer
In reply to this post by Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Calendarists:

What a wonderful around-the-world discussion on US politics!

Brij:  The US has no present intention, interest, or prospect of converting
to SI.*  Any attempt to link a reform of or from the Gregorian calendar with
a simultaneous conversion to SI would simply doom the calendrical reform.
And, there is no universal acclaim that the Gregorian system must be
replaced, nor with what it should be replaced.  (Despite multiple good
solutions described on this list!)

As for relating it to Hillary Clinton -- I am not sure why the association
was made between her campaign donation solicitation email and unit
conversion or calendrical reform.  I'm sure all the candidates have heard
about the metric system, though they have not seen any good reason for
adopting it, but I'm sure NONE of them has any inkling that there are flaws
in their calendar.  They probably don't know that it's "Gregorian".

I would not expect Clinton to propose unit conversion or calendrical reform,
unless there were quite a few million-dollar campaign donations to draw her
attention to it as important.  I would not expect Trump to propose such a
thing, unless there were a way he could make some kind of a units or
calendar "deal" that would make America great again (and himself a bit of a
profit in the end).

And, please do not confuse the US's Democratic Party with democratic values,
despite the similar name.  For example, this year, the party oligarchs
succeeded in nominating Clinton despite the popular support for Bernie
Sanders.  In a bizarre twist in the opposite direction, ordinary Republican
Party voters succeeded in nominating Donald Trump despite every impediment
the party oligarchs used to resist it.  And, of course, with the exception
of certain towns in New England that really are true democracies (voting at
town meetings), every bit of the US is structured as a Republic, not a
Democracy.  Democracy is more a talking point here in the US -- a conceit
and a bit of hyperbole, that we permit ourselves when discussing
hypothetically good government.

Phil:  I bear no malice to you for calling US units "Imperial", because that
is the Canadian usage, but the US created its units (now called USCS) 3
decades before Britain created Imperial.  (and ~1 decade before the French
created metric.)  

The British act establishing the Imperial System in 1824 was nearly a half
century after American independence, and a decade after the second war of
independence with Britain (1812-15).  There was no way the UK was going to
be guided by what its former colonies had adopted, nor was the US going to
adopt some system created separately and later by its former master and
repeated invader.  The name "Imperial" was never used in the US until
recently, where I now see some semi-literate people thinking, because the US
uses feet and pounds, that it must be Imperial.

It's why USCS and Imperial differ in gallons, pints, & fluid ounces, and in
hundredweight & tons.  But given the choice, I'll always take an Imperial
pint of stout over those smaller American pints... **

Cheers!
Bill Spencer



** But I'll sorry to say I'll take an American 12 oz. bottle of beer over a
Canadian bottle!  (341 ml = 12.0 fl oz Imperial = 11.5 fl oz US)


* If you're curious what I mean about the US not converting to metric, see
some of my posts about units and metrology on www.Quora.com .
 
Why hasn't the US switched to the metric system?
https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-the-United-States-switched-to-the-metric-sys
tem/answer/Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J

What are the disadvantages of the metric system?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-disadvantages-of-the-metric-system/answer
/Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J

Why do the Americans call their measurement system "imperial" while it is
different in some units from the real imperial ones?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-Americans-call-their-measurement-system-imp
erial-while-it-is-different-in-some-units-from-the-real-imperial-ones/answer
/Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J

Why do the US still use imperial measures (miles, feet, ounces, pounds) etc.
when decimal measures are much easier to understand?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-US-still-use-imperial-measures-miles-feet-o
unces-pounds-etc-when-decimal-measures-are-much-easier-to-understand/answer/
Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J


-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil De Rosa
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 7:56 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Hi all.  Of course the US should adopt the Metric System and discard the
Imperial System of Weights and Measures.  It should have done so in the
early to mid 1970s.

But I don't believe it will be on their agenda for a while to come though
any efforts to revive a move for change should be encouraged.

The only countries officially still using the 'archaic' Imperial System are
the US, Myanmar, and Liberia.

Phil De Rosa
BC, Canada



-----Original Message-----
From: Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 2:47 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Amos, sir:
Thanks, does this mean a START is never to be made?
Brij B. VIJ

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Brij & Calendar people,
>
> Considering that the USA had not yet even completed their move to the
> metric system (even though it's been federal law since 1976) I suspect
> Hillary has no idea what she's getting into....
>
>
> --
> Amos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Bill, sir:
I thank you for noting my views.
However, the question of reforms (both metric and that of calendar) have remained hung for several decades. Perhaps, somewhere some day need for re-kindling the ideas may emerge. I have only tried to place my efforts: http://www.brijvij.com/ - a man-on-street, being the son of a meare head clerk, then North Western Railway, who desired to see his son educated!
Thanks anyway, sirs,
Brij B. VIJ
Saturday, 2016 August 27H19:24 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:49 PM, Bill Spencer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Calendarists:
>
> What a wonderful around-the-world discussion on US politics!
>
> Brij:  The US has no present intention, interest, or prospect of converting
> to SI.*  Any attempt to link a reform of or from the Gregorian calendar with
> a simultaneous conversion to SI would simply doom the calendrical reform.
> And, there is no universal acclaim that the Gregorian system must be
> replaced, nor with what it should be replaced.  (Despite multiple good
> solutions described on this list!)
>
> As for relating it to Hillary Clinton -- I am not sure why the association
> was made between her campaign donation solicitation email and unit
> conversion or calendrical reform.  I'm sure all the candidates have heard
> about the metric system, though they have not seen any good reason for
> adopting it, but I'm sure NONE of them has any inkling that there are flaws
> in their calendar.  They probably don't know that it's "Gregorian".
>
> I would not expect Clinton to propose unit conversion or calendrical reform,
> unless there were quite a few million-dollar campaign donations to draw her
> attention to it as important.  I would not expect Trump to propose such a
> thing, unless there were a way he could make some kind of a units or
> calendar "deal" that would make America great again (and himself a bit of a
> profit in the end).
>
> And, please do not confuse the US's Democratic Party with democratic values,
> despite the similar name.  For example, this year, the party oligarchs
> succeeded in nominating Clinton despite the popular support for Bernie
> Sanders.  In a bizarre twist in the opposite direction, ordinary Republican
> Party voters succeeded in nominating Donald Trump despite every impediment
> the party oligarchs used to resist it.  And, of course, with the exception
> of certain towns in New England that really are true democracies (voting at
> town meetings), every bit of the US is structured as a Republic, not a
> Democracy.  Democracy is more a talking point here in the US -- a conceit
> and a bit of hyperbole, that we permit ourselves when discussing
> hypothetically good government.
>
> Phil:  I bear no malice to you for calling US units "Imperial", because that
> is the Canadian usage, but the US created its units (now called USCS) 3
> decades before Britain created Imperial.  (and ~1 decade before the French
> created metric.)  
>
> The British act establishing the Imperial System in 1824 was nearly a half
> century after American independence, and a decade after the second war of
> independence with Britain (1812-15).  There was no way the UK was going to
> be guided by what its former colonies had adopted, nor was the US going to
> adopt some system created separately and later by its former master and
> repeated invader.  The name "Imperial" was never used in the US until
> recently, where I now see some semi-literate people thinking, because the US
> uses feet and pounds, that it must be Imperial.
>
> It's why USCS and Imperial differ in gallons, pints, & fluid ounces, and in
> hundredweight & tons.  But given the choice, I'll always take an Imperial
> pint of stout over those smaller American pints... **
>
> Cheers!
> Bill Spencer
>
>
>
> ** But I'll sorry to say I'll take an American 12 oz. bottle of beer over a
> Canadian bottle!  (341 ml = 12.0 fl oz Imperial = 11.5 fl oz US)
>
>
> * If you're curious what I mean about the US not converting to metric, see
> some of my posts about units and metrology on www.Quora.com .
>
> Why hasn't the US switched to the metric system?
> https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-the-United-States-switched-to-the-metric-sys
> tem/answer/Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J
>
> What are the disadvantages of the metric system?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-disadvantages-of-the-metric-system/answer
> /Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J
>
> Why do the Americans call their measurement system "imperial" while it is
> different in some units from the real imperial ones?
> https://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-Americans-call-their-measurement-system-imp
> erial-while-it-is-different-in-some-units-from-the-real-imperial-ones/answer
> /Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J
>
> Why do the US still use imperial measures (miles, feet, ounces, pounds) etc.
> when decimal measures are much easier to understand?
> https://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-US-still-use-imperial-measures-miles-feet-o
> unces-pounds-etc-when-decimal-measures-are-much-easier-to-understand/answer/
> Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil De Rosa
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 7:56 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me
>
> Hi all.  Of course the US should adopt the Metric System and discard the
> Imperial System of Weights and Measures.  It should have done so in the
> early to mid 1970s.
>
> But I don't believe it will be on their agenda for a while to come though
> any efforts to revive a move for change should be encouraged.
>
> The only countries officially still using the 'archaic' Imperial System are
> the US, Myanmar, and Liberia.
>
> Phil De Rosa
> BC, Canada
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 2:47 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me
>
> Amos, sir:
> Thanks, does this mean a START is never to be made?
> Brij B. VIJ
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brij & Calendar people,
>>
>> Considering that the USA had not yet even completed their move to the
>> metric system (even though it's been federal law since 1976) I suspect
>> Hillary has no idea what she's getting into....
>>
>>
>> --
>> Amos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Walter J Ziobro

Dear Brij et al

As I have pointed out previously the metric system has been legal for use in the US and all customary US weights and measures have been defined in metric units both since the 19th century Anyone in the US may use metric units and many do Most consumer products in the US list their capacity or weight quantities in both systems Check the labels net time you go shopping

The only real issue in the US is whether the use of customary measures ought to be banned by law I see no need to do that

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Saturday, August 27, 2016 Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Bill, sir:
I thank you for noting my views.
However, the question of reforms (both metric and that of calendar) have remained hung for several decades. Perhaps, somewhere some day need for re-kindling the ideas may emerge. I have only tried to place my efforts: http://www.brijvij.com/ - a man-on-street, being the son of a meare head clerk, then North Western Railway, who desired to see his son educated!
Thanks anyway, sirs,
Brij B. VIJ
Saturday, 2016 August 27H19:24 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

>
On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:49 PM, Bill Spencer <Bill5@...> wrote:
>
> Calendarists:
>
> What a wonderful around-the-world discussion on US politics!
>
> Brij: The US has no present intention, interest, or prospect of converting
> to SI.* Any attempt to link a reform of or from the Gregorian calendar with
> a simultaneous conversion to SI would simply doom the calendrical reform.
> And, there is no universal acclaim that the Gregorian system must be
> replaced, nor with what it should be replaced. (Despite multiple good
> solutions described on this list!)
>
> As for relating it to Hillary Clinton -- I am not sure why the association
> was made between her campaign donation solicitation email and unit
> conversion or calendrical reform. I'm sure all the candidates have heard
> about the metric system, though they have not seen any good reason for
> adopting it, but I'm sure NONE of them has any inkling that there are flaws
> in their calendar. They probably don't know that it's "Gregorian".
>
> I would not expect Clinton to propose unit conversion or calendrical reform,
> unless there were quite a few million-dollar campaign donations to draw her
> attention to it as important. I would not expect Trump to propose such a
> thing, unless there were a way he could make some kind of a units or
> calendar "deal" that would make America great again (and himself a bit of a
> profit in the end).
>
> And, please do not confuse the US's Democratic Party with democratic values,
> despite the similar name. For example, this year, the party oligarchs
> succeeded in nominating Clinton despite the popular support for Bernie
> Sanders. In a bizarre twist in the opposite direction, ordinary Republican
> Party voters succeeded in nominating Donald Trump despite every impediment
> the party oligarchs used to resist it. And, of course, with the exception
> of certain towns in New England that really are true democracies (voting at
> town meetings), every bit of the US is structured as a Republic, not a
> Democracy. Democracy is more a talking point here in the US -- a conceit
> and a bit of hyperbole, that we permit ourselves when discussing
> hypothetically good government.
>
> Phil: I bear no malice to you for calling US units "Imperial", because that
> is the Canadian usage, but the US created its units (now called USCS) 3
> decades before Britain created Imperial. (and ~1 decade before the French
> created metric.)
>
> The British act establishing the Imperial System in 1824 was nearly a half
> century after American independence, and a decade after the second war of
> independence with Britain (1812-15). There was no way the UK was going to
> be guided by what its former colonies had adopted, nor was the US going to
> adopt some system created separately and later by its former master and
> repeated invader. The name "Imperial" was never used in the US until
> recently, where I now see some semi-literate people thinking, because the US
> uses feet and pounds, that it must be Imperial.
>
> It's why USCS and Imperial differ in gallons, pints, & fluid ounces, and in
> hundredweight & tons. But given the choice, I'll always take an Imperial
> pint of stout over those smaller American pints... **
>
> Cheers!
> Bill Spencer
>
>
>
> ** But I'll sorry to say I'll take an American 12 oz. bottle of beer over a
> Canadian bottle! (341 ml = 12.0 fl oz Imperial = 11.5 fl oz US)
>
>
> * If you're curious what I mean about the US not converting to metric, see
> some of my posts about units and metrology on www.Quora.com .
>
> Why hasn't the US switched to the metric system?
> https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-the-United-States-switched-to-the-metric-sys
> tem/answer/Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J
>
> What are the disadvantages of the metric system?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-disadvantages-of-the-metric-system/answer
> /Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J
>
> Why do the Americans call their measurement system "imperial" while it is
> different in some units from the real imperial ones?
> https://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-Americans-call-their-measurement-system-imp
> erial-while-it-is-different-in-some-units-from-the-real-imperial-ones/answer
> /Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J
>
> Why do the US still use imperial measures (miles, feet, ounces, pounds) etc.
> when decimal measures are much easier to understand?
> https://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-US-still-use-imperial-measures-miles-feet-o
> unces-pounds-etc-when-decimal-measures-are-much-easier-to-understand/answer/
> Bill-Spencer-9?srid=2s1J
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Phil De Rosa
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 7:56 PM
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me
>
> Hi all. Of course the US should adopt the Metric System and discard the
> Imperial System of Weights and Measures. It should have done so in the
> early to mid 1970s.
>
> But I don't believe it will be on their agenda for a while to come though
> any efforts to revive a move for change should be encouraged.
>
> The only countries officially still using the 'archaic' Imperial System are
> the US, Myanmar, and Liberia.
>
> Phil De Rosa
> BC, Canada
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 2:47 PM
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me
>
> Amos, sir:
> Thanks, does this mean a START is never to be made?
> Brij B. VIJ
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Amos Shapir <amos083@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brij & Calendar people,
>>
>> Considering that the USA had not yet even completed their move to the
>> metric system (even though it's been federal law since 1976) I suspect
>> Hillary has no idea what she's getting into....
>>
>>
>> --
>> Amos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Christoph Päper-2
Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]>:

As I have pointed out previously the metric system has been legal for use in the US and all customary US weights and measures have been defined in metric units both since the 19th century Anyone in the US may use metric units and many do Most consumer products in the US list their capacity or weight quantities in both systems Check the labels net time you go shopping

The only real issue in the US is whether the use of customary measures ought to be banned by law I see no need to do that

The last time I looked into this issue a couple of years ago, there were some regulations in place – I don’t remember if it was on a federal level – that *required* customary units on labels (incl. street signs). That means, metric-only packaging was not allowed.

Then there’s a whole lot of proprietary inch- or pound-based standards, e.g. paper sizes and screw diameters. Anyhow, that’s really getting off-topic here.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Amos Shapir-2
The way they do metric in the USA is to put up signs like I've seen in federal parks: "ELEVATION 609.60m (2000 ft)"  or even "WATER 15.24m (50 ft) =>".

So even though (on federal grounds at least) the metric units are the official measure, this way it leaves the impression that while imperial units are simple and easy to use, the metric system is something only rocket scientists can understand...

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]>:

As I have pointed out previously the metric system has been legal for use in the US and all customary US weights and measures have been defined in metric units both since the 19th century Anyone in the US may use metric units and many do Most consumer products in the US list their capacity or weight quantities in both systems Check the labels net time you go shopping

The only real issue in the US is whether the use of customary measures ought to be banned by law I see no need to do that

The last time I looked into this issue a couple of years ago, there were some regulations in place – I don’t remember if it was on a federal level – that *required* customary units on labels (incl. street signs). That means, metric-only packaging was not allowed.

Then there’s a whole lot of proprietary inch- or pound-based standards, e.g. paper sizes and screw diameters. Anyhow, that’s really getting off-topic here.



--
Amos Shapir
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

No Rocket Science hRe: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Amos, Christoph, Walter, sirs:
Banning the use of 'customary metric units' and/or labeling of packaging in 'metric only' is only fulfilling (partly) the obligation of law that US has adopted the Metric System.
This is why the down-to-earth  metric learner is made to feel that metric system and its use is meant only for the Rocket Scientist, leading to hard conversion and not permitting to understand the very base for EASE IN USE of "metric reform" causes its failure,as pointed by Amos. It is the rounding OFF operation, making the conversion - soft metric - and to be easily understood by  child in school/ down to parental leaching/learning that is mandatory. Voluntary Metric learning is the very cause of its failure making this appear to be the Rocket man's subject; more so understanding metric system as "decimal oriented" system of units is yet the other factor is only helping the "trader/profit monger".
In my posts, I have raised my meek attempt that - Any decimal sub-division of a unit or quantity does not make it to belong to the 'Metric System' unless the unit/quantity is also linked to length unit Metre. United States is unfortunate to be struggling with " -er vs -re" spellings for distinguishing SI metric Units. Naturally the traders has made to look metric reform as belonging only for the application of ROCKET scientist, a farce that is generated/brought down the line. I have exhaustively tried to make it appear to be a mole hill out of the 'considered mountain' as projected/discussed by me: http://www.brijvij.com/ and also presented among US intellegentia, in my mails. I have only tried to project the cause leading to its failure 'that metric system is a child's entertainment and not the task of a Rocket Scientist'!
My apology for casing this awakening and for following the norms of Le Systeme International d'Unites, sirs
My regards, 
Brij Bhushan VIJ <[hidden email]>
Monday, 2016 August 29H09:84 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 29, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:

The way they do metric in the USA is to put up signs like I've seen in federal parks: "ELEVATION 609.60m (2000 ft)"  or even "WATER 15.24m (50 ft) =>".

So even though (on federal grounds at least) the metric units are the official measure, this way it leaves the impression that while imperial units are simple and easy to use, the metric system is something only rocket scientists can understand...

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]>:

As I have pointed out previously the metric system has been legal for use in the US and all customary US weights and measures have been defined in metric units both since the 19th century Anyone in the US may use metric units and many do Most consumer products in the US list their capacity or weight quantities in both systems Check the labels net time you go shopping

The only real issue in the US is whether the use of customary measures ought to be banned by law I see no need to do that

The last time I looked into this issue a couple of years ago, there were some regulations in place – I don’t remember if it was on a federal level – that *required* customary units on labels (incl. street signs). That means, metric-only packaging was not allowed.

Then there’s a whole lot of proprietary inch- or pound-based standards, e.g. paper sizes and screw diameters. Anyhow, that’s really getting off-topic here.



--
Amos Shapir
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2
Dear Christoph, Amos, and Brij:

 Although the subject may at first glance appear to be off topic on a list whose primary purpose is to discuss calendars, past, present, and proposed, there is an underlying common issue: whether the use of a reform is to be compelled, and all prior and alternative systems forbidden, or whether a reform supplements any current or alternative system, and the use of any is voluntary.  I am a firm advocate of the latter position.

 While some may consider the use of alternative systems confusing, I believe that there are perfectly rational reasons why people might want to have alternatives.  In the case of the metric system, the supposed "simplicity" of base 10 is not so simple.  10 has only two factors: 2 and 5, whereas in many cases systems that use other bases can be factored in ways that are more convenient. Base 8 is ideal for cubic measure, as it is 2-cubed.  Base 12, 30 and 60 have been used - and continue to be used - in time keeping and angular measurement.  12 has factors 2, 3, 4, and 6, 30 has 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 15, and 60 has 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30. 

This limitation of the metric system was recognized very early by Napoleon, who authorized the use of alternative measurements.  As these alternative measurements were based on pre-existing units, they were called mesures usuelles, although they were all redefined in the newly created metric units.  They were allowed to enable merchants and consumers to continue to trade consumer goods in easily divisible quantities to which they were accustomed.  They are described in a Wikipedia article here: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesures_usuelles


Although King Luis Philippe deprived the mesures usuelles of their legal force in 1837, Frenchmen today still refer to 500 grams as a "livre" and 2 meters as a "toise"

 In fact, I have observed that many countries that are confidently said to be exclusively on the metric system often have auxiliary units from prior systems that are used concurrently with metric weights and measures.  Further, in some places the process of "metrification" was accomplished NOT by outlawing
the prior units, BUT RATHER by redefining all the customary units in terms of convenient metric equivalents.  This is the case, for instance,  in Thailand where a "wa" = 2 meters, and a "chang" or "catty" = 1.2 kg.


A similar situation exists today in the US.  The metric system was expressly authorized by law in 1866.  Public law Title15, Section 204 states:

"It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system."

But, there's more:  In 1893, the US discovered that the yard and pound standards that had been provided to them  by the British government were of less precision than the meter and kilogram standards that the French provided, so, by the Mendendhall Order, the US defined the yard as 3600/3937 of the meter standard, and the pound as 0.4535924277of the kilogram standard, and all other US customary units were defined in terms of those standards.  In effect, the US system of customary weights and measures became a type of mesures usuelles.

Admittedly, the equivalent units are not as convenient, but the convenient divisibility, for instance, of  gallons into 8 pints, or 128 fluid ounces, comes close to the ideal of base 8 for volumetric measures, and explains why these units continue to be preferred in the US.  In fact, historically, the entire English system of capacity measures prior to the legal adoption of the imperial system, was based on an ascending system of units, each of which was double the size of the smaller measure.  See the table that shows the relative sizes of the capacity units from tablespoon to butt or pipe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_units,  
 -
You will notice, further,  that the language of the US public law in no way prohibits the use of customary units.  Nor does it require customary units to be used concurrently with metric units.  Although there may be some federal regulations that require the use of both in certain circumstances, I would have to say that any such regulation is contrary to the spirit and intent of the law.

Anyway, to make this issue relevant to this list, you may have noticed that I have proposed several different calendars from time to time and posted them on the list and the Calendar Wikia.  This is NOT, as some might suppose, because I change my mind often, BUT RATHER because I recognize that different calendars might be more useful than others to different groups.

-Walter Ziobro

----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Päper <[hidden email]>
To: CALNDR-L <[hidden email]>
Sent: Mon, Aug 29, 2016 6:28 am
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Walter J Ziobro <000000080342b460-dmarc-[hidden email]>:

As I have pointed out previously the metric system has been legal for use in the US and all customary US weights and measures have been defined in metric units both since the 19th century Anyone in the US may use metric units and many do Most consumer products in the US list their capacity or weight quantities in both systems Check the labels net time you go shopping

The only real issue in the US is whether the use of customary measures ought to be banned by law I see no need to do that

The last time I looked into this issue a couple of years ago, there were some regulations in place – I don’t remember if it was on a federal level – that *required* customary units on labels (incl. street signs). That means, metric-only packaging was not allowed.

Then there’s a whole lot of proprietary inch- or pound-based standards, e.g. paper sizes and screw diameters. Anyhow, that’s really getting off-topic here.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Christoph Päper-2
Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]>:
>
> Dear Christoph, Amos, and Brij:
>
>  Although the subject may at first glance appear to be off topic on a list whose primary purpose is to discuss calendars, past, present, and proposed, there is an underlying common issue: whether the use of a reform is to be compelled, and all prior and alternative systems forbidden, or whether a reform supplements any current or alternative system, and the use of any is voluntary.  I am a firm advocate of the latter position.

There’s also the second, which is both a unit of time keeping and time measurement, the difference between which comes up once in a while on this list regarding leap seconds in exact year lengths.

Since the calendar is a measure of chronology, the analogy doesn’t hold, though. You can use one set of calendar conventions and switch to another one (almost) seamlessly, as even the transition from Julian to Gregorian shows, but more so previous alterations to the Roman calendar. You can’t really do that with physical units of measurement. It’s a bit like measuring temperatures below the freezing point of water in kelvins and above that in degrees celsius.

> While some may consider the use of alternative systems confusing, I believe that there are perfectly rational reasons why people might want to have alternatives.

This far, I agree. For what it’s worth I even had some fun developing my own sets of metrified traditional units, e.g. at

<http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Metric_English_units>

I’ve also significantly contributed to the Wikipedia articles you mentioned, though that was years ago.

> In the case of the metric system, the supposed "simplicity" of base 10 is not so simple.

The simplicity lies in using a single general principle throughout, not in the actual, decimal base. That’s also why a 500-gram, i.e. half-kilogram, “pound” is almost as “simple”, but a 454.…-gram pound is not. English units do not use any base consistently anywhere: It’s not a system but a hodgepodge – not much unlike our month lengths. If it was truly duodecimal or powers-of-two (like prefixes in computing) I could have much more sympathy for it. The year, month and day, even the week, at least have some astronomic reasoning behind them, whereas non-metric units are just arbitrary.

One major reason why the US gets away with using the English pounds, inches etc. is that the rest of the world has pretty stopped to use their cognate units. The EU – or its predecessors – would have done us a major favor if they had just defined the pound to be an approximate measure of 500g ± 10%. That would have covered the Avoirdupois pound. An inch of 2.5cm ± 10% would cover the English – which is actually within ±2% – and many prior European ones as well.

> … Frenchmen today still refer to 500 grams as a "livre" and 2 meters as a "toise"

It’s more like the other way around. A “livre” is still understood as 500 grams (not 454 g or anything else).

> In effect, the US system of customary weights and measures became a type of mesures usuelles.

No. Initially, the French metric units were already related to prior custom units with fixed ratios. The generous rounding to achieve simple, convenient ratios to metric standard units is what made MU what they were. Current-day US units are clearly lacking that property.

> [the convenient divisibility] explains why these units continue to be preferred in the US.

No. There are some theories in sociology that can describe quite well why such a switch requires some force. It’s the dilemma of a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy and freedom that is innate to much of politics today, not only in the US.

> Anyway, to make this issue relevant to this list, you may have noticed that I have proposed several different calendars from time to time and posted them on the list and the Calendar Wikia.  This is NOT, as some might suppose, because I change my mind often, BUT RATHER because I recognize that different calendars might be more useful than others to different groups.

I’ve also included several features in the International Calendar that I’m not particularly fond of, but they fit within the general framework and provide options to users. I realize, though, that such flexibility also increases implementation complexity and costs.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Aristeo Fernando-3
 Dear Calendar People,

Why does the U.S. use the dollar, divided into 50, 25, 10, 5, and 1 cent?  Why did the UK abandon the shilling, and pence? So did Australia.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Christoph Päper <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]>:
>
> Dear Christoph, Amos, and Brij:
>
>  Although the subject may at first glance appear to be off topic on a list whose primary purpose is to discuss calendars, past, present, and proposed, there is an underlying common issue: whether the use of a reform is to be compelled, and all prior and alternative systems forbidden, or whether a reform supplements any current or alternative system, and the use of any is voluntary.  I am a firm advocate of the latter position.

There’s also the second, which is both a unit of time keeping and time measurement, the difference between which comes up once in a while on this list regarding leap seconds in exact year lengths.

Since the calendar is a measure of chronology, the analogy doesn’t hold, though. You can use one set of calendar conventions and switch to another one (almost) seamlessly, as even the transition from Julian to Gregorian shows, but more so previous alterations to the Roman calendar. You can’t really do that with physical units of measurement. It’s a bit like measuring temperatures below the freezing point of water in kelvins and above that in degrees celsius.

> While some may consider the use of alternative systems confusing, I believe that there are perfectly rational reasons why people might want to have alternatives.

This far, I agree. For what it’s worth I even had some fun developing my own sets of metrified traditional units, e.g. at

<http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Metric_English_units>

I’ve also significantly contributed to the Wikipedia articles you mentioned, though that was years ago.

> In the case of the metric system, the supposed "simplicity" of base 10 is not so simple.

The simplicity lies in using a single general principle throughout, not in the actual, decimal base. That’s also why a 500-gram, i.e. half-kilogram, “pound” is almost as “simple”, but a 454.…-gram pound is not. English units do not use any base consistently anywhere: It’s not a system but a hodgepodge – not much unlike our month lengths. If it was truly duodecimal or powers-of-two (like prefixes in computing) I could have much more sympathy for it. The year, month and day, even the week, at least have some astronomic reasoning behind them, whereas non-metric units are just arbitrary.

One major reason why the US gets away with using the English pounds, inches etc. is that the rest of the world has pretty stopped to use their cognate units. The EU – or its predecessors – would have done us a major favor if they had just defined the pound to be an approximate measure of 500g ± 10%. That would have covered the Avoirdupois pound. An inch of 2.5cm ± 10% would cover the English – which is actually within ±2% – and many prior European ones as well.

> … Frenchmen today still refer to 500 grams as a "livre" and 2 meters as a "toise"

It’s more like the other way around. A “livre” is still understood as 500 grams (not 454 g or anything else).

> In effect, the US system of customary weights and measures became a type of mesures usuelles.

No. Initially, the French metric units were already related to prior custom units with fixed ratios. The generous rounding to achieve simple, convenient ratios to metric standard units is what made MU what they were. Current-day US units are clearly lacking that property.

> [the convenient divisibility] explains why these units continue to be preferred in the US.

No. There are some theories in sociology that can describe quite well why such a switch requires some force. It’s the dilemma of a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy and freedom that is innate to much of politics today, not only in the US.


> Anyway, to make this issue relevant to this list, you may have noticed that I have proposed several different calendars from time to time and posted them on the list and the Calendar Wikia.  This is NOT, as some might suppose, because I change my mind often, BUT RATHER because I recognize that different calendars might be more useful than others to different groups.


I’ve also included several features in the International Calendar that I’m not particularly fond of, but they fit within the general framework and provide options to users. I realize, though, that such flexibility also increases implementation complexity and costs.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Bill Spencer
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2

In the midst of the American Revolution, the US wanted a currency independent of Britain.  In that time,

-          The Spanish real de a ocho, or Spanish dollar, “pieces of eight”, was a common “world currency”, and prevalent in America.  It is thought this was because most of the British pounds in the US went to Britain to pay for goods, and so the US had Spanish coins obtained through illegal trade in the West Indies.   This dollar is mentioned in Article I of the US Constitution (1788).
The US dollar was originally defined (1792) as the same amount of silver as was in a sample of worn Spanish dollar coins.  (I.e., slightly less silver.  Government sanctioned coin shaving.)  (The Spanish dollar was legal currency in the US until 1857.)

 

-          In the late 18th century, DECIMALIZATION was the “wave of the future!”.  There was a decimal fever in plans for new units of all kinds.  Rather than the Spanish division into eight parts (both their silver and their gold coins), the US adopted decimal multiples of their dollar.
$ 0.001 = 1 mill
$ 0.01 = 1 cent
$ 0.1 = 1 dime
$ 1 = 1 dollar
$ 10 = 1 Eagle
Other coins came later as convenient derivatives: nickel, quarter, half-dollar, half-eagle, double-eagle, etc.

 

-          But, note the resistance to change:  Equities on US stock exchanges persisted in being priced in eighths of a dollar for another two centuries, before decimalization at the NYSE in 1997.

 

-          Indeed, scientist Thomas Jefferson developed the first full decimalized system of weights and measures in the world.  But his bill failed to pass the US Congress, he retired to private life (after being Secretary of State and before becoming Vice President and President), the decimal measurement system failed, and his successors rapidly standardized a version of the English weights and measures (AKA US Customary System, USCS) in order to (in part) measure the Northwest Territory and open it to settlement.

 

-          France finished off the decimal Système international d’unités, (SI, metric).  But they only established the metre and kilogram initially.

 

-          Britain only decimalized the gallon (the volume of 10 pounds of water), creating their own “Imperial” weights and measures in 1824.  (But then continued to divide the gallon into 8 pints, making the pint now 1.25 pounds of water, and requiring 20 (smaller) ounces to fill a pint with 20 (weight) ounces of water.

 

-          The UK’s abandonment of 20 shillings per pound and 12 pence per shilling was part of the mid-20th-Century decimalization movement.  Decimalization, and the metric system, were again the wave of the future!  (The US also flirted with the metric system again, at its bicentennial.) 
The UK (mostly) adopted the metric system as a condition to join the European Union.  Since it did not join in the Euro, it could have retained shillings & pence, but it decimalized the currency too.  Its currency decimalization has been more complete and effective than its adoption of the metric system.

 

-          More pertinent to this list:  Decimalization of the SECOND was discussed. 
Indeed, we COULD be having 10 decidays per day (2.4 old hours each), and 1000 millidays (1.44 old minutes each), and microdays for small divisions of time (11.574… microdays = 1 old second). 
I wouldn’t be surprised if people called a half deciday an “hour”, and a milliday a “minute”.  Perhaps even 80 “seconds” in a milliday minute.

 

-          But, of course, decimalization of time failed, EVEN in the metric system.  Time was added to SI only after electrical units were needed, in the late 19th and 20th centuries.  But all those units were standardized around the old second = 1/86,400 day.

 

-          And, in our CALENDARS, the allure of the 7-day week persists, preventing (as one factor) the decimalization of days.

 

Whether it is weights and measures, or time, or calendars, change is hard for people.  The US got its decimal currency only in the midst of the American Revolution, but replacing weights and measures failed.  France got its kilogram and metre in the midst of the French Revolution, but replacing time and the calendar failed.  The Russian Revolution also introduced the Soviet calendar, but it too failed.

 

It seems a bit easier to change measures when it is part of a massive upheaval in society, so that EVERYTHING is different.  But even then, fixing some things that are imperfect, but “good enough”, is too painful to do.

 

If we humans are EVER to adopt a more perfect calendar, there will have to be a great motivating force, and one that the masses can understand (as opposed to, say, perfecting the vernal equinox year, etc.).

 

Bill Spencer

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Aristeo Fernando
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:04 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

 

 Dear Calendar People,

Why does the U.S. use the dollar, divided into 50, 25, 10, 5, and 1 cent?  Why did the UK abandon the shilling, and pence? So did Australia.

Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Aristeo Fernando-3
 Dear Bill and Calendar People,

Thank you, Bill, for your elucidation.

Maybe, we need a "massive upheaval in society, so that EVERYTHING is different".  That "massive upheaval" will soon take place.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Bill Spencer <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

In the midst of the American Revolution, the US wanted a currency independent of Britain.  In that time,
-          The Spanish real de a ocho, or Spanish dollar, “pieces of eight”, was a common “world currency”, and prevalent in America.  It is thought this was because most of the British pounds in the US went to Britain to pay for goods, and so the US had Spanish coins obtained through illegal trade in the West Indies.   This dollar is mentioned in Article I of the US Constitution (1788).
The US dollar was originally defined (1792) as the same amount of silver as was in a sample of worn Spanish dollar coins.  (I.e., slightly less silver.  Government sanctioned coin shaving.)  (The Spanish dollar was legal currency in the US until 1857.)
 
-          In the late 18th century, DECIMALIZATION was the “wave of the future!”.  There was a decimal fever in plans for new units of all kinds.  Rather than the Spanish division into eight parts (both their silver and their gold coins), the US adopted decimal multiples of their dollar.
$ 0.001 = 1 mill
$ 0.01 = 1 cent
$ 0.1 = 1 dime
$ 1 = 1 dollar
$ 10 = 1 Eagle
Other coins came later as convenient derivatives: nickel, quarter, half-dollar, half-eagle, double-eagle, etc.
 
-          But, note the resistance to change:  Equities on US stock exchanges persisted in being priced in eighths of a dollar for another two centuries, before decimalization at the NYSE in 1997.
 
-          Indeed, scientist Thomas Jefferson developed the first full decimalized system of weights and measures in the world.  But his bill failed to pass the US Congress, he retired to private life (after being Secretary of State and before becoming Vice President and President), the decimal measurement system failed, and his successors rapidly standardized a version of the English weights and measures (AKA US Customary System, USCS) in order to (in part) measure the Northwest Territory and open it to settlement.
 
-          France finished off the decimal Système international d’unités, (SI, metric).  But they only established the metre and kilogram initially.
 
-          Britain only decimalized the gallon (the volume of 10 pounds of water), creating their own “Imperial” weights and measures in 1824.  (But then continued to divide the gallon into 8 pints, making the pint now 1.25 pounds of water, and requiring 20 (smaller) ounces to fill a pint with 20 (weight) ounces of water.
 
-          The UK’s abandonment of 20 shillings per pound and 12 pence per shilling was part of the mid-20th-Century decimalization movement.  Decimalization, and the metric system, were again the wave of the future!  (The US also flirted with the metric system again, at its bicentennial.) 
The UK (mostly) adopted the metric system as a condition to join the European Union.  Since it did not join in the Euro, it could have retained shillings & pence, but it decimalized the currency too.  Its currency decimalization has been more complete and effective than its adoption of the metric system.
 
-          More pertinent to this list:  Decimalization of the SECOND was discussed. 
Indeed, we COULD be having 10 decidays per day (2.4 old hours each), and 1000 millidays (1.44 old minutes each), and microdays for small divisions of time (11.574… microdays = 1 old second). 
I wouldn’t be surprised if people called a half deciday an “hour”, and a milliday a “minute”.  Perhaps even 80 “seconds” in a milliday minute.
 
-          But, of course, decimalization of time failed, EVEN in the metric system.  Time was added to SI only after electrical units were needed, in the late 19th and 20th centuries.  But all those units were standardized around the old second = 1/86,400 day.
 
-          And, in our CALENDARS, the allure of the 7-day week persists, preventing (as one factor) the decimalization of days.
 
Whether it is weights and measures, or time, or calendars, change is hard for people.  The US got its decimal currency only in the midst of the American Revolution, but replacing weights and measures failed.  France got its kilogram and metre in the midst of the French Revolution, but replacing time and the calendar failed.  The Russian Revolution also introduced the Soviet calendar, but it too failed.
 
It seems a bit easier to change measures when it is part of a massive upheaval in society, so that EVERYTHING is different.  But even then, fixing some things that are imperfect, but “good enough”, is too painful to do.
 
If we humans are EVER to adopt a more perfect calendar, there will have to be a great motivating force, and one that the masses can understand (as opposed to, say, perfecting the vernal equinox year, etc.).
 
Bill Spencer
 
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Aristeo Fernando
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:04 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me
 
 Dear Calendar People,

Why does the U.S. use the dollar, divided into 50, 25, 10, 5, and 1 cent?  Why did the UK abandon the shilling, and pence? So did Australia.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Walter J Ziobro

Dear Bill and Aristeo

That massive upheavel is taking place right now The information revolution is changing everything The fact that we are talking about this without ever having met face to face is proof The world is much different than it was 50 years ago , and better for most IMHO O sure there are still hell holes like Syria but they are exceptional Most people in the world today are better off just about everywhere

Whether it's the work of the Holy Spirit I will leave it to you to decide

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]> wrote:

 Dear Bill and Calendar People,

Thank you, Bill, for your elucidation.

Maybe, we need a "massive upheaval in society, so that EVERYTHING is different".  That "massive upheaval" will soon take place.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Bill Spencer <Bill5@...>
To: CALNDR-L@...
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

In the midst of the American Revolution, the US wanted a currency independent of Britain.  In that time,
-          The Spanish real de a ocho, or Spanish dollar, “pieces of eight”, was a common “world currency”, and prevalent in America.  It is thought this was because most of the British pounds in the US went to Britain to pay for goods, and so the US had Spanish coins obtained through illegal trade in the West Indies.   This dollar is mentioned in Article I of the US Constitution (1788).
The US dollar was originally defined (1792) as the same amount of silver as was in a sample of worn Spanish dollar coins.  (I.e., slightly less silver.  Government sanctioned coin shaving.)  (The Spanish dollar was legal currency in the US until 1857.)
 
-          In the late 18th century, DECIMALIZATION was the “wave of the future!”.  There was a decimal fever in plans for new units of all kinds.  Rather than the Spanish division into eight parts (both their silver and their gold coins), the US adopted decimal multiples of their dollar.
$ 0.001 = 1 mill
$ 0.01 = 1 cent
$ 0.1 = 1 dime
$ 1 = 1 dollar
$ 10 = 1 Eagle
Other coins came later as convenient derivatives: nickel, quarter, half-dollar, half-eagle, double-eagle, etc.
 
-          But, note the resistance to change:  Equities on US stock exchanges persisted in being priced in eighths of a dollar for another two centuries, before decimalization at the NYSE in 1997.
 
-          Indeed, scientist Thomas Jefferson developed the first full decimalized system of weights and measures in the world.  But his bill failed to pass the US Congress, he retired to private life (after being Secretary of State and before becoming Vice President and President), the decimal measurement system failed, and his successors rapidly standardized a version of the English weights and measures (AKA US Customary System, USCS) in order to (in part) measure the Northwest Territory and open it to settlement.
 
-          France finished off the decimal Système international d’unités, (SI, metric).  But they only established the metre and kilogram initially.
 
-          Britain only decimalized the gallon (the volume of 10 pounds of water), creating their own “Imperial” weights and measures in 1824.  (But then continued to divide the gallon into 8 pints, making the pint now 1.25 pounds of water, and requiring 20 (smaller) ounces to fill a pint with 20 (weight) ounces of water.
 
-          The UK’s abandonment of 20 shillings per pound and 12 pence per shilling was part of the mid-20th-Century decimalization movement.  Decimalization, and the metric system, were again the wave of the future!  (The US also flirted with the metric system again, at its bicentennial.) 
The UK (mostly) adopted the metric system as a condition to join the European Union.  Since it did not join in the Euro, it could have retained shillings & pence, but it decimalized the currency too.  Its currency decimalization has been more complete and effective than its adoption of the metric system.
 
-          More pertinent to this list:  Decimalization of the SECOND was discussed. 
Indeed, we COULD be having 10 decidays per day (2.4 old hours each), and 1000 millidays (1.44 old minutes each), and microdays for small divisions of time (11.574… microdays = 1 old second). 
I wouldn’t be surprised if people called a half deciday an “hour”, and a milliday a “minute”.  Perhaps even 80 “seconds” in a milliday minute.
 
-          But, of course, decimalization of time failed, EVEN in the metric system.  Time was added to SI only after electrical units were needed, in the late 19th and 20th centuries.  But all those units were standardized around the old second = 1/86,400 day.
 
-          And, in our CALENDARS, the allure of the 7-day week persists, preventing (as one factor) the decimalization of days.
 
Whether it is weights and measures, or time, or calendars, change is hard for people.  The US got its decimal currency only in the midst of the American Revolution, but replacing weights and measures failed.  France got its kilogram and metre in the midst of the French Revolution, but replacing time and the calendar failed.  The Russian Revolution also introduced the Soviet calendar, but it too failed.
 
It seems a bit easier to change measures when it is part of a massive upheaval in society, so that EVERYTHING is different.  But even then, fixing some things that are imperfect, but “good enough”, is too painful to do.
 
If we humans are EVER to adopt a more perfect calendar, there will have to be a great motivating force, and one that the masses can understand (as opposed to, say, perfecting the vernal equinox year, etc.).
 
Bill Spencer
 
<a name="_MailEndCompose" href="about:blank" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">  
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Aristeo Fernando
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:04 AM
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me
 
 Dear Calendar People,

Why does the U.S. use the dollar, divided into 50, 25, 10, 5, and 1 cent?  Why did the UK abandon the shilling, and pence? So did Australia.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2

Dear Christoph:

In response to my earlier post. you posted:
 

"English units do not use any base consistently anywhere: It’s not a system but a hodgepodge – not much unlike our month lengths. If it was truly duodecimal or powers-of-two (like prefixes in computing) I could have much more sympathy for it."

To which I reply:  There is much truth to what you say.  However, if we examine the English units of capacity prior to the Imperial System, we find a very
comprehensible, and consistent system of binary expansion from the smallest to the largest units.  The following table comes from the Wikipedia article
on English Units, which describes the earlier system:




 

tablespoon pony jack gill cup pint quart pottle gallon peck kenning bushel strike coomb hogshead butt/pipe 2n gal.
1 tablespoon = 1 12 14 18 116 132 164 1128 1256 1512 11024 12048 14096 18192 116384 132768 –8
1 pony = 2 1 12 14 18 116 132 164 1128 1256 1512 11024 12048 14096 18192 116384 –7
1 jack = 4 2 1 12 14 18 116 132 164 1128 1256 1512 11024 12048 14096 18192 –6
1 gill = 8 4 2 1 12 14 18 116 132 164 1128 1256 1512 11024 12048 14096 –5
1 cup = 16 8 4 2 1 12 14 18 116 132 164 1128 1256 1512 11024 12048 –4
1 pint = 32 16 8 4 2 1 12 14 18 116 132 164 1128 1256 1512 11024 –3
1 quart = 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 12 14 18 116 132 164 1128 1256 1512 –2
1 pottle = 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 12 14 18 116 132 164 1128 1256 –1
1 gallon = 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 12 14 18 116 132 164 1128 0
1 peck = 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 12 14 18 116 132 164 1
1 kenning = 1,024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 12 14 18 116 132 2
1 bushel = 2,048 1,024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 12 14 18 116 3
1 strike = 4,096 2,048 1,024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 12 14 18 4
1 coomb = 8,192 4,096 2,048 1,024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 12 14 5
1 hogshead = 16,384 8,192 4,096 2,048 1,024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 12 6
1 butt/pipe = 32,768 16,384 8,192 4,096 2,048 1,024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 7
It appears that the obsolescence of some of the units has created gaps in the system which has come down to the present day

I have seen the table of metrified English Units which you referenced at:

 
<http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Metric_English_units>

I am intrigued by this table because it is very similar to a system that was proposed by a British MP named William Husskison around 1825 as an alternative to the Imperial System, which was being legislated by the British Parliament at that time.  It appears to have been inspired by the French system of Mesures Usuelles, which was in use then.  I agree that this system more fully approaches the French conception than the current US system, but what both have in common is that the metric standards of the meter and kilogram  is the base for both of them.

-Walter Ziobro

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Päper <[hidden email]>
To: CALNDR-L <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 9:33 am
Subject: Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Walter J Ziobro <000000080342b460-dmarc-[hidden email]>:
>
> Dear Christoph, Amos, and Brij:
>
> Although the subject may at first glance appear to be off topic on a list whose primary purpose is to discuss calendars, past, present, and proposed, there is an underlying common issue: whether the use of a reform is to be compelled, and all prior and alternative systems forbidden, or whether a reform supplements any current or alternative system, and the use of any is voluntary. I am a firm advocate of the latter position.

There’s also the second, which is both a unit of time keeping and time measurement, the difference between which comes up once in a while on this list regarding leap seconds in exact year lengths.

Since the calendar is a measure of chronology, the analogy doesn’t hold, though. You can use one set of calendar conventions and switch to another one (almost) seamlessly, as even the transition from Julian to Gregorian shows, but more so previous alterations to the Roman calendar. You can’t really do that with physical units of measurement. It’s a bit like measuring temperatures below the freezing point of water in kelvins and above that in degrees celsius.

> While some may consider the use of alternative systems confusing, I believe that there are perfectly rational reasons why people might want to have alternatives.

This far, I agree. For what it’s worth I even had some fun developing my own sets of metrified traditional units, e.g. at

<http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Metric_English_units>

I’ve also significantly contributed to the Wikipedia articles you mentioned, though that was years ago.

> In the case of the metric system, the supposed "simplicity" of base 10 is not so simple.

The simplicity lies in using a single general principle throughout, not in the actual, decimal base. That’s also why a 500-gram, i.e. half-kilogram, “pound” is almost as “simple”, but a 454.…-gram pound is not. English units do not use any base consistently anywhere: It’s not a system but a hodgepodge – not much unlike our month lengths. If it was truly duodecimal or powers-of-two (like prefixes in computing) I could have much more sympathy for it. The year, month and day, even the week, at least have some astronomic reasoning behind them, whereas non-metric units are just arbitrary.

One major reason why the US gets away with using the English pounds, inches etc. is that the rest of the world has pretty stopped to use their cognate units. The EU – or its predecessors – would have done us a major favor if they had just defined the pound to be an approximate measure of 500g ± 10%. That would have covered the Avoirdupois pound. An inch of 2.5cm ± 10% would cover the English – which is actually within ±2% – and many prior European ones as well.

> … Frenchmen today still refer to 500 grams as a "livre" and 2 meters as a "toise"

It’s more like the other way around. A “livre” is still understood as 500 grams (not 454 g or anything else).

> In effect, the US system of customary weights and measures became a type of mesures usuelles.

No. Initially, the French metric units were already related to prior custom units with fixed ratios. The generous rounding to achieve simple, convenient ratios to metric standard units is what made MU what they were. Current-day US units are clearly lacking that property.

> [the convenient divisibility] explains why these units continue to be preferred in the US.

No. There are some theories in sociology that can describe quite well why such a switch requires some force. It’s the dilemma of a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy and freedom that is innate to much of politics today, not only in the US.

> Anyway, to make this issue relevant to this list, you may have noticed that I have proposed several different calendars from time to time and posted them on the list and the Calendar Wikia. This is NOT, as some might suppose, because I change my mind often, BUT RATHER because I recognize that different calendars might be more useful than others to different groups.

I’ve also included several features in the International Calendar that I’m not particularly fond of, but they fit within the general framework and provide options to users. I realize, though, that such flexibility also increases implementation complexity and costs.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Michael H Deckers
In reply to this post by Bill Spencer
   On 2016-08-30 16:19, Bill Spencer wrote:

 > ...
 >  France finished off the decimal Système
 >  international d’unités, (SI, metric).
 > ...
 >  Time was added to SI only after electrical units
 >  were needed, in the late 19th and 20th centuries.
 >  But all those units were standardized around the
 >  old second = 1/86,400 day.

    These are just a few of the many false claims in your post.
    For an outline of the history of the metric system and the
    SI you may for example consult the SI Brochure. There
    you can find when the SI was established, and by whom,
    and what the first definition of the SI second was.
    You are in for a lot of surprises.

    Michael Deckers.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Democratic Values Re: stand with me

Christoph Päper-2
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
>   <http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Metric_English_units>
>
> I am intrigued by this table because it is very similar to a system that was proposed by a British MP named William Husskison around 1825 as an alternative to the Imperial System, which was being legislated by the British Parliament at that time.

Psst, I’ll tell you a secret: That was a piece of misinformation I once planted on Wikipedia when I was drunk, just to see how far it got. It has been removed from Wikipedia since.
12