Re: Losses? April 27 2004, 7:37 AM


<<
Besides, for every loss you gain in savings with increased exports, doing away with continuous conversions, standardisation, big runs of manufacturing batches, not wasting childrens valuable time, dual labelling and the list goes on.
>>

metre, can you explain to me how changing the signs from miles to kilometers would do accomplish any of the things you listed above? (except "standardization", which I can see).

Metre:
That post referred to metrication as a whole.
You either metricate, or don't. Half measures bring only costs and no benefits. After metrication cars imported into Australia came with odometres in km only. That must have reduced the price by some small amount. Literature coming with these vehicles were all in metric, saving on conversion and seperate small and therefore costly printing runs. Then we talk about fasteners used in Australian car production, costly small runs of inch bolts and nuts could be replaced with cheap and abundant metric ones. Take those ongoing savings over years and it adds up cosiderably. All that is indirectly and directly associated with changing from miles to km. A little more delving would surely yield more advantages. Besides, keeping mile signs would have made a farce of using 7L of petrol per 100 km.

Just because New Zealand and Canada could afford it doesn't imply that it was beneficial.

metre:
What a funny observation! Why would any country switch to metres if there are no benefits?
Canada reaps no benefits from half baked metrication, only costly duplication and confusion. Nor does Britain, or America.

As Martin points rightly out the one off cost of metrication per capita is is everywhere the same and so are forever accrueing benefits.
I do agree with you in switching signs from miles km. It has to be done nationwide in one go to avoid confusion and accidents.

<<
Why would any country switch to metres if there are no benefits?
>>
Governments very often do things to which there are no benefits. You could flip it and say, why would any country keep imperial if there are no benefits? You will say that the system is broken, the government is not rational, not doing what is best, etc. So what makes you think that Australia's government is wiser than America's? Because you agree with what they did. So then you say why would they do it if there are no benefits? And if there are benefits, why doesn't America do it?
See the circular logic?
Please note that in the above paragraph I have not attempted to argue whether or not there are benefits to metrication. That is a separate issue.

Correct me if i'm wrong. But it seems to me that britian no longer has problem of being partly metricated. Isn't almost everything made in Britian in metric now? It seems to me that Britian only has the road signs left to deal with. Also if/when Britian puts up new road signs, it could use dual Imperial/Metric signs so that not all the signs would have to be replaced at once. That way instead of trying to switch every sign in say one year. The dual label ones will just phase out the Imperial only signs.

"Correct me if i'm wrong. But it seems to me that britian no longer has problem of being partly metricated"

"Britain" doesn't, a minority of "people" do.

Roth, I think that dual imperial/metric road signs would be a major safety hazard, especially on motorways. This was one of the findings of the Australian metrication board.

I didnt know that Australia had those problems. Would dual signs be bad in Britian. I assume everyone knows both miles and kilometres.

Re: Unoiformity April 29 2004, 9:47 AM


<<
Why would any country switch to metres if there are no benefits?
>>
Governments very often do things to which there are no benefits. You could flip it and say, why would any country keep imperial if there are no benefits? You will say that the system is broken, the government is not rational, not doing what is best, etc. So what makes you think that Australia's government is wiser than America's? Because you agree with what they did. So then you say why would they do it if there are no benefits? And if there are benefits, why doesn't America do it?
See the circular logic?
Please note that in the above paragraph I have not attempted to argue whether or not there are benefits to metrication. That is a separate issue.

metre:
I fail to see any logic, circular or otherwise, in your argument.

Why do I have to repeat myself over and over! I asked you that question before: why do only imperial countries try to switch to metric. Show me one metric nation that wants to revert to antiquated units and you have won your un-winnable argument.

Now let's go down your convoluted and unsubstantiated path. You say: "Governments very often do things to which there are no benefits." First of all you have to prove that this statement applies to metrication. If you have done that we can argue further.

Many english speaking imperial countries have switched to metric.

But very few of their inhabitants have done the same.

Work it out.

METRE, WE DON'T WANT METRIC; WE CAN CHOOSE WHAT WE WANT; GO AWAY.

Metre: You said to show you one metric nation that wants to revert to imperial. I think Britian might be that one nation. Of all the polls i have seen Imperial has been more popular than metric. Also Canada could have gone all metric but they didn't. If they didn't want to keep their imperial measures then they would have become totally metric by now. Would they not? Also while I dont agree with your political views, dont go away. There will be noone to argue with then.

Personally I'd prefer to "argue" with someone who has a consistant and sound point of view.

Not just someone who uses hatred, insults everyone and say "no its not" as a basis for "winning an arguement"

<<
I didnt know that Australia had those problems. Would dual signs be bad in Britian. I assume everyone knows both miles and kilometres.
>>

Australia didn't have these problems. The metrication board there believed that these problems would arise if they had dual signs, so they avoided dual signs altogether. Australia's metrication was very swift and frill-free (i.e., forceful).
I'm sure everyone knows both miles and kilometres in Britain, but it would still be a hazard, especially on motorways. A driver would have to read two figures, determine which was which, determine which he wanted to use, and then compare that one to the standard that he has in his mind, taking care to compare it to the right standard. That would take significantly longer than reading one figure and comparing it to a mental standard, especially if you are rolling along at 70 mph.

Let's try this April 30 2004, 1:27 PM


METRE, WE DON'T WANT METRIC; WE CAN CHOOSE WHAT WE WANT; GO AWAY.


Respond to this message

metre:
With pleasure.
So, why do they teach metric at school, no fully metric country world wide teaches antiquated units.
Why do you have to buy your spirits and some soft drinks in litres? Why are all nutritional values in metric only in an USC country? Why are 40% of manufacturers fully metric. Why is your army switching to metric? Need more?

One Metric Nation April 30 2004, 3:13 PM


Metre: You said to show you one metric nation that wants to revert to imperial. I think Britian might be that one nation. Of all the polls i have seen Imperial has been more popular than metric. Also Canada could have gone all metric but they didn't. If they didn't want to keep their imperial measures then they would have become totally metric by now. Would they not? Also while I dont agree with your political views, dont go away. There will be noone to argue with then.

Neither Britain nor Canada is metric. Both made halfhearted attempts to do so. Remember, I said metric country, not attempters, that can't make up their mind.
For reasons often enough explained, no country will ever discard its measurements voluntarily, never mind how anriquated and cumbersome they are. Nor have the merits of a better system anything to do with switching from one to another.

Metre, your argument that no fully metric country wants to switch to imperial really doesn't make sense because no country has ever wanted to switch measurements. The system that people prefer is ALWAYS the one they are using, regardless of what the government tells them to use.

Re: You have it! May 3 2004, 7:43 AM


Metre, your argument that no fully metric country wants to switch to imperial really doesn't make sense because no country has ever wanted to switch measurements. The system that people prefer is ALWAYS the one they are using, regardless of what the government tells them to use.


metre:
What I am saying is that many, but by no means all metric people, switched reluctantly to metres. The paradox in measurement change is that merits, or otherwise of systems have no influence on peoples measurement choice. Habit dictates to the greatest extent what measurements people use. Or as an American so wisely said, they hate to leave their customary comfort zone.

As I said to you once, we have experts advising us on everything. Doctors, educators, scientists ......and metrologists. Ask the latter in any country imperial, or metric, and there will only be one answer, metric. So whats wrong with listening to experts , we do it in everything else.

metre/eric: "Neither Britain nor Canada is metric"

At last! An admition!

Perhaps you can now go to the metricsucks website and negate your post that said that only the mile and pint were legal non-metric terms in the UK?

Metre, how exactly is a doctor, educator, or scientist an expert in measurement? Measurement in designing a radio and measurement on the signs on roads are two different things. There is no such thing as an expert in measurement, because measurements are used for vastly different purposes by different people.

Metre, how exactly is a doctor, educator, or scientist an expert in measurement? Measurement in designing a radio and measurement on the signs on roads are two different things. There is no such thing as an expert in measurement, because measurements are used for vastly different purposes by different people.

metre:
You are really scraping the barrel to say something, anything. There are many experts in measurements, hence the metrication boards. Those are usually people, who deal professionally with measurements and their mer-, or de-merits. Governments employ them to advise them, or regulate and adjust measurements and so on.

Lets put it into context, maybe you understand it then.
A recent survey of people showed an appalling lack of common sense. Asked whether obesity contributed to heart failure fully 70% said they don't know. So whom would you listen to, the 70%, or the experts?

Metre, there are people who go to college and study heart failure. No one goes to college to study measurement.

I have no trouble believing that 70% don't know if obesity causes heart failure. But if you ask which system of measurement is better, you will never get 70% to say I Don't Know.

I really hate to agree with Metre. But yes, my pastor (before he went to seminary) got a degree from the University of Maryland in Physics with a concentration in measurement science. He then worked for a good many years for NIST in Washington doing standardization work.

By the way. He hates the metric system.

So metre, next question. What makes you so sure that the majority of "experts in measurement" support metric?

Re: Scraping the barrel? May 5 2004, 8:41 AM


Metre, there are people who go to college and study heart failure. No one goes to college to study measurement.
metre;
What the hell does that mean?

I have no trouble believing that 70% don't know if obesity causes heart failure. But if you ask which system of measurement is better, you will never get 70% to say I Don't Know.

metre:
Exactly, what a beaut way to describe their ignorance. Thanks, you deserve it.

Measurement Science May 5 2004, 9:07 PM


I really hate to agree with Metre. But yes, my pastor (before he went to seminary) got a degree from the University of Maryland in Physics with a concentration in measurement science. He then worked for a good many years for NIST in Washington doing standardization work.

By the way. He hates the metric system.

metre:
Poor sod, doesnt see a good thing when he stumbles over it.

Re: Measurement Science May 6 2004, 4:55 AM


So metre, next question. What makes you so sure that the majority of "experts in measurement" support metric?


metre:
Simple, many imperialist polititians realised that there must be better measurements than their cumbersome ones. To make sure, they asked the experts, and lo and behold most nations followed their advice.

Look in recent times at the British, Irish, Australian, Canadian, South African, New Zealand, and American experts advising their governments.
My bet would be for every 100 pro metric advisers you would find one that thinks like you.

<<
Poor sod, doesnt see a good thing when he stumbles over it.
>>

Metre, a while ago you were saying that we should listen to the experts when it comes to measurement. Now, when Matt tells you that he knows an expert who dislikes the metric system, you promptly disregard his opinion. Can you explain why you do that?

<<
Poor sod, doesnt see a good thing when he stumbles over it.
>>

Metre, a while ago you were saying that we should listen to the experts when it comes to measurement. Now, when Matt tells you that he knows an expert who dislikes the metric system, you promptly disregard his opinion. Can you explain why you do that?

Because his arguments rely on hatred, rather than opinion formation and discussion.

Metre, how do you define "expert".

metre, the reason that most of the advisors to governments of recently metricated countries support metric is because the governments chose people who support metric. The decision to metricate was made by legislators, and then they appointed a committee to do so. Obviously, they would appoint people who agree with the cause.
As a parallel example, take the US Environmental Protection Agency. Congress saw a need to protect the environment, and thus established an agency to do so. The people who serve on the agency would obviously have to agree with the need to protect the environment. Therefore you cannot say that you will determine whether or not the environment needs to be protected by asking the EPA members.

I think that is a very good point. Well Done. It only makes sense that those with political power appoint those with the same political beliefs.

Re: Thanks Bud May 6 2004, 9:20 AM


<<
Poor sod, doesnt see a good thing when he stumbles over it.
>>

Metre, a while ago you were saying that we should listen to the experts when it comes to measurement. Now, when Matt tells you that he knows an expert who dislikes the metric system, you promptly disregard his opinion. Can you explain why you do that?


metre:
I told you in yesterday's post, for every 100 pro metric experts there is one imperial inclined one, and he is it. Very similar to one person that believes in witches there are 100,000 who do not.

Re: Thanks Bud May 6 2004, 1:14 PM


Metre, how do you define "expert".


NIST Laboratories, located in both Gaithersburg, Md., and Boulder, Colo., conduct research in a wide variety of physical and engineering sciences. The labs respond to industry needs for measurement methods, tools, data, and technology. NIST researchers collaborate with colleagues in industry, academic institutions, and other government agencies. Read on for brief descriptions of each lab and links to their homepages. Brief descriptions of current NIST projects also are available from the Guide to NIST at www.nist.gov/guide.

metre:
All governments avail themselves, or run offices that monitor trading, measurements standards and anything comnnected with it. Governments draw on the expertise of those people. For your edification NIST is the American one.

Re: Thanks Bud May 7 2004, 1:36 AM


metre, the reason that most of the advisors to governments of recently metricated countries support metric is because the governments chose people who support metric. The decision to metricate was made by legislators, and then they appointed a committee to do so. Obviously, they would appoint people who agree with the cause.
As a parallel example, take the US Environmental Protection Agency. Congress saw a need to protect the environment, and thus established an agency to do so. The people who serve on the agency would obviously have to agree with the need to protect the environment. Therefore you cannot say that you will determine whether or not the environment needs to be protected by asking the EPA members

metre:
Yours is a bet each way, but much to simple to stand up to scrutiny. Running out of time, give you the answer to-morrow.

Its that sort of analogy that renders all your arguments completely useless.

Before that there just "of little use"

But NIST is a science and technology agency. They may have experts in measurement, but those people are experts in measurement AS IT RELATES TO SCIENCE and technology. Science and technology are not the only uses of measurement.

A bet each way May 7 2004, 7:47 AM


Re: Thanks Bud May 7 2004, 1:36 AM


metre, the reason that most of the advisors to governments of recently metricated countries support metric is because the governments chose people who support metric. The decision to metricate was made by legislators, and then they appointed a committee to do so. Obviously, they would appoint people who agree with the cause.
As a parallel example, take the US Environmental Protection Agency. Congress saw a need to protect the environment, and thus established an agency to do so. The people who serve on the agency would obviously have to agree with the need to protect the environment. Therefore you cannot say that you will determine whether or not the environment needs to be protected by asking the EPA members

metre:
Yours is a bet each way, but much to simple to stand up to scrutiny. Running out of time, give you the answer to-morrow.

metre:
My, my, is that the best you can do? All countries I mentioned are democracies with an opposition. All governments, except yours, are aware that it is impossible to convince people to change measurements voluntarily. To overcome this almost solely habitual resistance, people’s representatives are given the opportunity to debate the measure in parliament. Robust arguments take place for weeks to give both sides a say in the matter. Governments argue on the basis of expert advice, and so do oppositions. Comparative studies are commissioned to evaluate pros and cons, as I explained to Roth in another post. There are for and against on either side of the debate, but over time the composition changes. Representatives with an open mind on both sides soon grasp that metric advantages and simplicity are well worth the cost of change in the long run. When voting time arrives defenders of antiquated units have usually dwindled to a few misguided patriots and nut cases. In the end the vote is taken to decide the question and if the measure passes both houses, it is enacted. So, what is undemocratic about this process? Nearly all laws are implemented in this fashion.
The only decisive influence government has is to decide whether it should happen, or not. Conservative governments never pursue fundamental changes these are always left to progressive administrations.

Now let’s look at your wonky EPA example that shows a fundamental lack of knowledge how this process really works. Long before congress sees the need for environmental protection, experts and some astute lay people realised that certain practices are environmentally damaging From then on, it is a hard and arduous slog to convince representatives and administrations with facts that legislation is necessary to protect the environment. To safeguard their interests business soon follows suit, providing expert advice and lobbying congressmen and the president that these measures are superfluous, cost jobs and waste money. Now it depends entirely on how the incumbent administration is inclined whether the measure comes before congress. Bureaucrats, appointed by the government and running the EPA do not make environmental policies, they only monitor and implement them. Governments can easily use bureaus like the EPA for their own purposes, but they cannot do that with independent bodies like NIST. Government alone decides what, if any legislation, has to be implemented by the EPA. Your present administration shows that by its total neglect for the environment.
Should you be interested to learn how the process works, I recommend the book “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. An incredibly courageous lay woman, who took on many government agencies and the powerful chemical industry over the indiscriminate use of DDT in the 50s. In the process she became the foremost expert on DDT and won the case for your and everybody else’s benefit. If a person only half as dedicated to the cause would fight for metrication, you would have it tomorrow.

Re: Forgetful Bud May 7 2004, 5:49 PM


But NIST is a science and technology agency. They may have experts in measurement, but those people are experts in measurement AS IT RELATES TO SCIENCE and technology. Science and technology are not the only uses of measurement.


metre:
You keep on confirming my statement that you THINK you answer my questions, yet you very rarely ever do.

Your post in fact denies that the whole world uses one system for everything, science, industry and every day use, with great success.
If you would think your answers through more carefully it would be obvious that it leads back again to the same old question, why does only America need 2 systems?

Had you spent a little time it would have not been difficult to find out that NIST advises governments on matters relating to USC, metrication, its advantages, cost savings and so on. It can advise, but nothing else.

Australia April 30 2004, 3:39 AM

Roth:
I didnt know that Australia had those problems. Would dual signs be bad in Britian. I assume everyone knows both miles and kilometres.


metre:
Australia had no problems at all. The changeover took place within one week country wide. The only signs replaced later where in wilderniss areas, and little frequented places. Flood water indicators followed suit in a similar operation soon after.

<<
You keep on confirming my statement that you THINK you answer my questions, yet you very rarely ever do.
>>
metre, just because you disagree with my answers doesn't mean that I am not answering the questions. I disagree with your answers to my questions, but I never accuse you of things like that.

<<
If you would think your answers through more carefully it would be obvious that it leads back again to the same old question, why does only America need 2 systems?
>>
MattS and I have already given you a lot of information on this topic. You are being far too simplistic. I'm not sure you've understood the situation in America. You keep responding to anything I say with the same question.

<<
Had you spent a little time it would have not been difficult to find out that NIST advises governments on matters relating to USC, metrication, its advantages, cost savings and so on. It can advise, but nothing else.
>>
I am very well aware of that. I know how the American government works.
I don't see how that relates to anything though.

"Had you spent a little time it would have not been difficult to find out that NIST advises governments on matters relating to USC, metrication, its advantages, cost savings and so on. It can advise, but nothing else."

Obviously you misunderstand the word advise. In the US advice comes with lobbying. Lobbying is all about money and who gives it. People who want metric lobby Congressmen with lots of money to pass bills they want. The metric bills were lobbied hard by interested parties with the "backing" of NIST and so we have the laws we have without the people wanting them.

metre:
<<You keep on confirming my statement that you THINK you answer my questions, yet you very rarely ever do.>>

metre, just because you disagree with my answers doesn't mean that I am not answering the questions. I disagree with your answers to my questions, but I never accuse you of things like that.
metre:
Now lets put that statement to the test. This is what you had to say:
Bud:
But NIST is a science and technology agency. They may have experts in measurement, but those people are experts in measurement AS IT RELATES TO SCIENCE and technology. Science and technology are not the only uses of measurement

metre:
As I said, had you thought as most people would on this planet it would have been immediately obvious to you that you talk nonsense. Only in your and some of your ignorant compatriots mind, does metric relate to science only. To nearly all people on this planet it is the preferred measurement system for everything. So that leads to the same old question, that you are incapable of thinking outside the square of 2 measurements.

>>MattS and I have already given you a lot of information on this topic. You are being far too simplistic. I'm not sure you've understood the situation in America. You keep responding to anything I say with the same question.

metre:
Skewed and unsubstantiated information. If I do need information about the States, you 2 would be be last ones, I would get it from. How can one rationally argue with people that maintain that America uses only one meeas. system when it is patently obvious that it uses 2.
"You keep responding" b/c you never answer them, you think you do, as I have shown you above. So who is going in a circle?

Bud:
I am very well aware of that. I know how the American government works.
I don't see how that relates to anything though.

metre:
How did you manage then to get your EPA example so wrong?
Now it relates to nothing, you brought it up
so don't walk away from it.

NIST May 10 2004, 4:21 PM


"Had you spent a little time it would have not been difficult to find out that NIST advises governments on matters relating to USC, metrication, its advantages, cost savings and so on. It can advise, but nothing else."

Obviously you misunderstand the word advise. In the US advice comes with lobbying. Lobbying is all about money and who gives it. People who want metric lobby Congressmen with lots of money to pass bills they want. The metric bills were lobbied hard by interested parties with the "backing" of NIST and so we have the laws we have without the people wanting them.

metre:
In that context, god what nonsense. You also believe in UFOs no doubt. Well, you can't help it, some have to carry a heavier cross than others.

<<
As I said, had you thought as most people would on this planet it would have been immediately obvious to you that you talk nonsense. Only in your and some of your ignorant compatriots mind, does metric relate to science only.
To nearly all people on this planet it is the preferred measurement system for everything.
>>
You're back to your numbers argument. The whole world uses it for everything therefore we should too.


<<
Skewed and unsubstantiated information. If I do need information about the States, you 2 would be be last ones, I would get it from. How can one rationally argue with people that maintain that America uses only one meeas. system when it is patently obvious that it uses 2.
"You keep responding" b/c you never answer them, you think you do, as I have shown you above. So who is going in a circle?
>>
MattS said it quite well. We have one principal system and another system that we use remnants of for a few isolated things. In certain realms, this system is used extensively. But the two don't overlap or interfere. When I said we have one, I meant that we have one dominant system that is used for most day-to-day purposes. I did not mean to imply that there are no other measurements in usage, because there are several (including measurements from some Asian cultures). I should have figured out that you would interpret it that way though.


<<
How did you manage then to get your EPA example so wrong?
Now it relates to nothing, you brought it up
so don't walk away from it.
>>
The EPA example is perfectly valid. Congress has sole legislative authority in all cases, unless they choose to give it to some other organization or agency. In the environmental case, they decided to delegate a lot of authority. In the measurements case, they decided to have an agency advise them. In essence, it is easier for them to veto the decisions of NIST, because NIST's recommendations will not take effect until Congress passes them in a law, whereas EPA's recommendations will take effect unless Congress passes a law to the contrary. So the balance of power is a little different, but it doesn't really matter since Congress has the final say in either case.

>>Obviously you misunderstand the word advise. In the US advice comes with lobbying. Lobbying is all about money and who gives it. People who want metric lobby Congressmen with lots of money to pass bills they want. The metric bills were lobbied hard by interested parties with the "backing" of NIST and so we have the laws we have without the people wanting them.

metre:
In that context, god what nonsense. You also believe in UFOs no doubt. Well, you can't help it, some have to carry a heavier cross than others."


I hate to be the bearer of the bad news to you, but I really thing you're clueless. Lobbying is a HUGE part of American government. EVERYONE in the US knows it happens and expects it as a part of how the government works. It's KNOWN FACT that pro-metricators lobby the US Congress with large sums of money involved to get laws they want passed. It's the same with any other industry. This is not fictional!

metre:
In that context, god what nonsense. You also believe in UFOs no doubt. Well, you can't help it, some have to carry a heavier cross than others."


I hate to be the bearer of the bad news to you, but I really thing you're clueless. Lobbying is a HUGE part of American government. EVERYONE in the US knows it happens and expects it as a part of how the government works. It's KNOWN FACT that pro-metricators lobby the US Congress with large sums of money involved to get laws they want passed. It's the same with any other industry. This is not fictional!

metre:
Did I say in this context? Bring me proof, who, when and where. Till then it remains a figment of your active imagination.

Re: Civic lessons badly needed May 11 2004, 7:52 AM


<<
As I said, had you thought as most people would on this planet it would have been immediately obvious to you that you talk nonsense. Only in your and some of your ignorant compatriots mind, does metric relate to science only.
To nearly all people on this planet it is the preferred measurement system for everything.
>>
You're back to your numbers argument. The whole world uses it for everything therefore we should too.

metre:
We start again, is there any reason at all why American children alone have to waste precious time on learning 2 systems? That's what the whole thing was about. Just read it again.

<<
Skewed and unsubstantiated information. If I do need information about the States, you 2 would be be last ones, I would get it from. How can one rationally argue with people that maintain that America uses only one meeas. system when it is patently obvious that it uses 2.
"You keep responding" b/c you never answer them, you think you do, as I have shown you above. So who is going in a circle?
>>
MattS said it quite well. We have one principal system and another system that we use remnants of for a few isolated things. In certain realms, this system is used extensively. But the two don't overlap or interfere. When I said we have one, I meant that we have one dominant system that is used for most day-to-day purposes. I did not mean to imply that there are no other measurements in usage, because there are several (including measurements from some Asian cultures). I should have figured out that you would interpret it that way though.<<

metre:
You have 2 legal systems, USC and metric, so forget about Asian units. I interpret it, as you write it.


How did you manage then to get your EPA example so wrong?
Now it relates to nothing, you brought it up
so don't walk away from it.
>>
The EPA example is perfectly valid. Congress has sole legislative authority in all cases, unless they choose to give it to some other organization or agency. In the environmental case, they decided to delegate a lot of authority. In the measurements case, they decided to have an agency advise them. In essence, it is easier for them to veto the decisions of NIST, because NIST's recommendations will not take effect until Congress passes them in a law, whereas EPA's recommendations will take effect unless Congress passes a law to the contrary. So the balance of power is a little different, but it doesn't really matter since Congress has the final say in either case.

metre:
What has that to do with what I said. In hindsight you come up with something nobody mentioned, or disputed. The question was how are changes initiated, full stop. That's were you got it wrong.

I like the fact that young people in the UK are taught two systems of measurement.

They are also taught more than one language.

Diversity is a wonderful thing