Today's topic is brought to you by the letters Q and W, and by the punctuation mark ?

[Manny]

The government of Turkey has handed out fines to people who had the audacity to illegally use the letters Q and W at a Kurdish New Year's Celebration (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/25/turk.letters.reut/index.html).

On the one hand, this is part of a concerted drive against the human rights of Kurds, and the EU is properly all up in arms about it.

On the other hand, is it really all that different from Britain seizing the scales of a guy who had the audacity to sell bananas by the pound instead of the kilo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1120013.stm)? Mr. Thoburn was convicted of his "crimes" and eventually lost his appeal to the British House of Lords.

[Kerberos]

The government of Turkey has handed out fines to people who had the audacity to illegally use the letters Q and W at a Kurdish New Year's Celebration (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/25/turk.letters.reut/index.html).

On the one hand, this is part of a concerted drive against the human rights of Kurds, and the EU is properly all up in arms about it.

On the other hand, is it really all that different from Britain seizing the scales of a guy who had the audacity to sell bananas by the pound instead of the kilo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1120013.stm)? Mr. Thoburn was convicted of his "crimes" and eventually lost his appeal to the British House of Lords.
I'd say it's different because this represents a campaign against a cultural subsegment of the population, while the latter is just a campaign agaisnt silly measurement standards.

[Manny]

Right, and I agree that in that context it's worse. But on it's own? It's not like they've banned the Kurdish alphabet in favor of the Arabic one. They've banned the traditional Arabic alphabet too in favor of this new latinate thing. How is that more or less silly than imposing a new silly measurement standard and banning the old one, which old one had been in use for hundreds of years. What does the government care if I want to have a sign with an odd symbol on it or if I want to sell my bananas in Quatloos as long as the people I'm communicating with get the symbol and my buyer has a sense of how many quatloos per Pound Sterling makes a good value?

[mumblethrax]

Banning the Kurdish alphabet (in favor of the Turkish alphabet) is exactly what they've done.

Turkey adopted a Latinate alphabet in an attempt to westernize in the 20s. Kurds in Turkey also use a Latinate alphabet, with several additional letters to represent phonemes not present in Turkish.

But Turkey doesn't recognize the Kurdish alphabet. So Kurdish words, placenames, even surnames, cannot be used.

The intent is obviously to suppress Kurdish cultural identity. It's just not the same as standardizing units of measurement.

[Kerberos]

Right, and I agree that in that context it's worse. But on it's own? It's not like they've banned the Kurdish alphabet in favor of the Arabic one. They've banned the traditional Arabic alphabet too in favor of this new latinate thing. How is that more or less silly than imposing a new silly measurement standard and banning the old one, which old one had been in use for hundreds of years. What does the government care if I want to have a sign with an odd symbol on it or if I want to sell my bananas in Quatloos as long as the people I'm communicating with get the symbol and my buyer has a sense of how many quatloos per Pound Sterling makes a good value?
Sorry, but context is everything, at least in some cases, and I'd say this is one. The two things might be equivelant if we ignore the context, but then again we could say the same about murder and selfdefense.

[brodski]

The government of Turkey has handed out fines to people who had the audacity to illegally use the letters Q and W at a Kurdish New Year's Celebration (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/25/turk.letters.reut/index.html).

On the one hand, this is part of a concerted drive against the human rights of Kurds, and the EU is properly all up in arms about it.

On the other hand, is it really all that different from Britain seizing the scales of a guy who had the audacity to sell bananas by the pound instead of the kilo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1120013.stm)? Mr. Thoburn was convicted of his "crimes" and eventually lost his appeal to the British House of Lords.


there is a hughe differnce between govt regulating how buisnesses should conuct themselves (regulations on weights and measures in the UK have been arround for centuries), and banning indivudals right to freedom of expression.

[Beerina]

there is a hughe differnce between govt regulating how buisnesses should conuct themselves (regulations on weights and measures in the UK have been arround for centuries), and banning indivudals right to freedom of expression.

What in Holy Hell's business is it of yours if someone wants to sell bananas by the pound?

Serioiusly.

No, seriously.

[Luke T.]

I think the Turkish government should mind its own P's and Q's, and someone needs to put their 0.3048 meter up the English government's ass.

[Manny]

there is a hughe differnce between govt regulating how buisnesses should conuct themselves (regulations on weights and measures in the UK have been arround for centuries), and banning indivudals right to freedom of expression.As it happens, one of the things the Kurds were hoping to acheive in Turkey is autonomy to set their own standards for weights and measures.

In the present contretemps, why can't Turkey turn right around and say, "well, we're not limiting freedom of expression just a couple of characters -- we want there to be standards for expression just as there are standards for weights and measures. That way everyone knows what is being said. Keep in mind that England's "standard" is different from a standard which prevents fraud. It's one thing to say that if you use the term "kilo" to refer to a weight it must be such-and-such a weight and quite another to say that you may only use the term "kilo" and not "pound" or "quatloo" or "As much as Nigel's mom standing on that balance over there."

[Luke T.]

What in Holy Hell's business is it of yours if someone wants to sell bananas by the pound?

Serioiusly.

No, seriously.

Yeah!

I want to sell bananas by the snarf. 1 snarf is equal to 3.29000004 pleghs. 1 plegh is equal to the square root of 6 pounds.

My bananas will cost eighty-two golls per snarf.

Or I'll take a McDonald's Monopoly game piece for each banana.

[Lisa Simpson]

Or I'll take a McDonald's Monopoly game piece for each banana.

Cool. I have lots of McDonald's Monopoly game pieces.

Berrina, there need to be standards for weights and measures. What if California declared that a gallon is actually only 3 quarts, not four? Everyone would be ripped off buying milk or gas or anything else measured in gallons.

However, the alphabet thing is just stupid. Who would be hurt if California decided the 27th letter of the alphabet is the tilded n?

[hgc]

What in Holy Hell's business is it of yours if someone wants to sell bananas by the pound?

Serioiusly.

No, seriously.You think that's bad? Animal Rights has gone off the deep-end in Italy. The city of Rome has outlawed fishbowls and the city of Turin requires that you walk your dog 3 times a day.

[Manny]

Berrina, there need to be standards for weights and measures. What if California declared that a gallon is actually only 3 quarts, not four? Everyone would be ripped off buying milk or gas or anything else measured in gallons.But what Britain has done is different from standardizing a definition. If the Kurds held up signs with the letters K,C,U and F reversed and claimed it meant "I love the Turkish Parliament" then I can see Turkey telling them that no, that's not what it means.

[Ed]

there is a hughe differnce between govt regulating how buisnesses should conuct themselves (regulations on weights and measures in the UK have been arround for centuries), and banning indivudals right to freedom of expression.

I think that feet are at least as culturally relevant as a few letters.

[Lisa Simpson]

But what Britain has done is different from standardizing a definition. If the Kurds held up signs with the letters K,C,U and F reversed and claimed it meant "I love the Turkish Parliament" then I can see Turkey telling them that no, that's not what it means.

Not a definition, but they standardized how things are to be sold within their country. I think it's kind of silly (and giving into peer pressure, wasn't it?).

[Luke T.]

Cool. I have lots of McDonald's Monopoly game pieces.

Berrina, there need to be standards for weights and measures. What if California declared that a gallon is actually only 3 quarts, not four? Everyone would be ripped off buying milk or gas or anything else measured in gallons.

However, the alphabet thing is just stupid. Who would be hurt if California decided the 27th letter of the alphabet is the tilded n?

In the banana case, it was an individual vendor who decided to sell by the pound. And that is literally his business.

If people don't like it, he will find out in short order.

If a gas station decided to do a promotion and sell its gas in quantities of "tiger gallons", which were slightly larger than standard gallons, why should the government have any right to interfere?

[Lisa Simpson]

In the banana case, it was an individual vendor who decided to sell by the pound. And that is literally his business.

If people don't like it, he will find out in short order.

If a gas station decided to do a promotion and sell its gas in quantities of "tiger gallons", which were slightly larger than standard gallons, why should the government have any right to interfere?

Larger than standard size is never a problem. It's when someone tries to sell a smaller than standard size that the government gets involved.

[Luke T.]

You think that's bad? Animal Rights has gone off the deep-end in Italy. The city of Rome has outlawed fishbowls and the city of Turin requires that you walk your dog 3 times a day.

ROME - Dog owners in Turin will be fined up to 500 euros ($650) if they don’t walk their pets at least three times a day, under a new law from the city’s council.

It said the 20-page rulebook gives Turin the most stringent animal protection rules in the country. It even bans fairgrounds from giving away goldfish in plastic bags.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7601359/

:eek:

[Luke T.]

Larger than standard size is never a problem. It's when someone tries to sell a smaller than standard size that the government gets involved.

So if one restaurant has a smaller "small Coke" than most restaurants' "small Coke", they could get in trouble with the government? You think this is a good thing?

[Manny]

Or if that same gas station started selling by the liter?

[richardm]

Larger than standard size is never a problem. It's when someone tries to sell a smaller than standard size that the government gets involved.

Actually, not so. If you are a publican you must not serve more than the standard measure of alcoholic drink (which varies depending on which drink you're serving, of course). I've never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted for this, mind, and can happily report that I've met many landlords who cheerfully ignore it.

[Ed]

I guess some people really really cannot conduct their day to day lives without a rulebook.

[richardm]

In the banana case, it was an individual vendor who decided to sell by the pound. And that is literally his business.

If people don't like it, he will find out in short order.

If a gas station decided to do a promotion and sell its gas in quantities of "tiger gallons", which were slightly larger than standard gallons, why should the government have any right to interfere?

Britain has had standardised weights since the Magna Carta. It is a way of protecting the consumer from unscrupulous vendors. If everyone uses the same units it makes it easy to compare prices. If you start introducing different units it makes it easier to confuse people. I appreciate that there are some people who think that stupid people deserve all they get; I tend to disagree.

Suppose you sell your petrol as "tiger gallons". You say that it is slightly larger than a standard gallon. How much larger? How can I tell whether it's a good deal or not? Perhaps you haven't said that it's larger, but I'm just assuming that it is because "tiger" makes it sound.. bigger.. well, hairier, anyway ;) But it might not be.

Sure, I can start measuring my tiger gallons and compare them to ordinary ones - but why should I when there is an easier way for you to run your promotion: reduce your price for a standard gallon. That way everyone can see how good- or otherwise - your special deal really is.

What difference does it make to the actual bananas if you sell them by the pound? None whatsoever. And of course the same confusion and profiteering might occur when you mandate a change. Still, I think the change from Imperial to metric measurements is on balance a good one.

Bonus anecdote from my childhood! Cue sepia tones, and sounds of horse-drawn crinolines.

When I was about six , I used to take my pocket money down to the Post Office and buy sweets. It was a highpoint of the week. It was a proper job, with a wall full of glass jars of sweets, and scales on the counter, and little white paper bags. We used to buy sweets "by the quarter" in those days - "A quarter of Black Bullets, please!" or "A quarter of Sour Plums, please", or whatever we were having (they were both types of boiled sweet. And weren't we polite!). And the jar would come down, the sweets would be weighed on the big scales, bagged and handed over, and away we'd go rejoicing.

My favourites were Cola Cubes. They still are, although I never see them these days. I used to love the way the rough sugar felt on my tongue, and the way it dissolved off to leave the smooth cube underneath. I couldn't get enough of them. Now, on this occasion, I was a bit flush with cash - I can't remember why, but I had got some extra pocket money for some reason. And I determined that I would take advantage of this and have a double ration of Cola Cubes.

Now, I wasn't a stupid child (no, really - I don't know what went wrong since), and I knew that two quarters make one half. Simple. So - "A half of Cola Cubes, please!" should do the job.

The woman behind the counter looked at me skeptically. She knew that kids always wanted sweets by the quarter pound, and here's some kid who just wants half that.

"D'you mean two ounces?", she asked.

Well. Did I? I didn't know how ounces fitted into the equation. All I knew was that I normally had a quarter, and I now wanted two quarters. But adults know about stuff like that.

"Yes!" I replied confidently.

I got about four of 'em in my bag.

It was hardly the Cola Cube Bonanza I was hoping for. Okay. I wasn't robbed, because I only paid for the two ounces. But I was far too shy to correct the mistake, so I went away feeling most disappointed.

My point is that if I had been in the habit of asking for 100 grams of Cola Cubes, no confusion would have occurred, and I wouldn't have been left remembering that damned post office thirty years later. There's a lot to be said for metric.

[richardm]

Goodness me, that turned out to be longer than I was expecting!

[kenneth williams](Matron!)[/kenneth williams]

[Kerberos]

In the banana case, it was an individual vendor who decided to sell by the pound. And that is literally his business.

If people don't like it, he will find out in short order.
The problem is that once a measurement system becoes standard you get "lock-in" and it becomes effectively impossible to change it through individual choice. For the brits to change to the metric system, a clearly superior sytem, they needed to do it by governement fiat, it's really not significantly more "forced" on them than the pound system was. The difference is just that it's forced on them by the governement, rather than the structural dynamics of the market.

[Luke T.]

The problem is that once a measurement system becoes standard you get "lock-in" and it becomes effectively impossible to change it through individual choice. For the brits to change to the metric system, a clearly superior sytem, they needed to do it by governement fiat, it's really not significantly more "forced" on them than the pound system was. The difference is just that it's forced on them by the governement, rather than the structural dynamics of the market.

Yeah. The government tried that here. Didn't fly.

[Kerberos]

Yeah. The government tried that here. Didn't fly.
Your loss. It did however fly in the UK, with the result that they now have a simpler and better system. Good for the wouldn't you say?

[Art Vandelay]

What if the government requires that all business be conducted in a particular language? Wouldn't the standarization argument apply even more strongly there? If I only speak Turkish, and a vendor refuses to discuss his prices in anything but Kurdish, aren't I at an "unfair" advantage? I could just not buy from people that refuse to speak my language or use units that I understand, but why not use the government to force them to do business the way I want.

Something other things I wonder: in England, is it illegal to denominate one's prices in currencies other than the pound and the Euro? If I offered bananas at 100 pesos per kilo, would that be as illegal as selling them per pound? What if I import See's chocolate from the US, and all the boxes contain exactly one pound of chocolate? Am I required to take them out of the boxes and repackage them in kilo lots?

The difference is just that it's forced on them by the governement, rather than the structural dynamics of the market.But's that's a very big difference. If there are no pro-Nazi newspapers because there's no market for them, that's good. If there are none because they are illegal, that's bad.

[Kerberos]

What if the government requires that all business be conducted in a particular language? Wouldn't the standarization argument apply even more strongly there? If I only speak Turkish, and a vendor refuses to discuss his prices in anything but Kurdish, aren't I at an "unfair" advantage? I could just not buy from people that refuse to speak my language or use units that I understand, but why not use the government to force them to do business the way I want.
Two differeces, first of all language is genrally much more tied to identity than systems of standardized measurement (and changing you language is much harder). Secondly, as I said context is everything, the language thing represents a campaign against a cultural subsegment of the population, while the the kilo/pound thing is just a campaign agaisnt silly measurement standards.

Something other things I wonder: in England, is it illegal to denominate one's prices in currencies other than the pound and the Euro? If I offered bananas at 100 pesos per kilo, would that be as illegal as selling them per pound? What if I import See's chocolate from the US, and all the boxes contain exactly one pound of chocolate? Am I required to take them out of the boxes and repackage them in kilo lots?
I think yoiu can use different currencies though it's just a guess. As for repackaging I'm almost sure that wouldn't be required, they'd just have to informs the customers that they contained 0,44 kg.

But's that's a very big difference. If there are no pro-Nazi newspapers because there's no market for them, that's good. If there are none because they are illegal, that's bad.
False analogy, there's a reason I said structural dynamics and not just the market. The barriers to entry for newspapers are relatively low and existing newspapers can gradually change. Therefore the newspaper market can and does change in response to individual choice. Once lock-in has been achieved the barriers to entry are so large that they're effectively impossible to overcome and a standardized measurement system cannot change gradually. Therefore it cannot and does not respond to indicidual choice. If there was only one media outlet in the world, it had a political bias that was not subject to change since it's creation
and it was impossible to change these facts through the market, then I'd be open to governement intervention in that area too.

[Psi Baba]

When I was about six , I used to take my pocket money down to the Post Office and buy sweets. It was a highpoint of the week. It was a proper job, with a wall full of glass jars of sweets, and scales on the counter, and little white paper bags. We used to buy sweets "by the quarter" in those days -

-- swirly clouds and fog --

My point is that if I had been in the habit of asking for 100 grams of Cola Cubes, no confusion would have occurred, and I wouldn't have been left remembering that damned post office thirty years later. There's a lot to be said for metric.

If you found the weight measurements confusing, however did you sort out something like, "That will be one and nine and a half, please" and you hand over a crown, two tupence, a half penny and 7 farthings. How would you know if you received the correct change? :biggrin:

[Art Vandelay]

Secondly, as I said context is everything, the language thing represents a campaign against a cultural subsegment of the population, while the the kilo/pound thing is just a campaign agaisnt silly measurement standards.The English system is more complicated than the metric system, but I would hardly call it "silly".

False analogy, there's a reason I said structural dynamics and not just the market.In order for something to be false, it has to be a claim, which it is not, nor is it really an anology, so you're wrong on both counts. You claimed that market forces and government action are on some level equal, and I disagreed. Structural dynamics is simply a special case of the market.

The barriers to entry for newspapers are relatively low and existing newspapers can gradually change. Not really. In order to get high circulation, you need shelf space, a high profile, and lots of money to pay all your expenses. And to get these things, you need a high circulation. Starting a new newspaper is quite difficult.

Once lock-in has been achieved the barriers to entry are so large that they're effectively impossible to overcome and a standardized measurement system cannot change gradually. Therefore it cannot and does not respond to indicidual choice.I don't think that response to individual choice is such a crucial thing that it justifies throwing away our civil rights.

[Kerberos]

The English system is more complicated than the metric system, but I would hardly call it "silly".
I would, using a complicated system, when another simpler sytems is avaliable, is silly.

In order for something to be false, it has to be a claim, which it is not, nor is it really an anology, so you're wrong on both counts.
Please don't insult my intelligence. We're discussing a gobernement intervention in a market and you provide another example of a governement intervention in a market to illustrate why you disagree. Of course it is an anology, and a false one, because the situations are only superficially similar, which is what false analogy (http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/falseanalogy.asp) means.
You claimed that market forces and government action are on some level equal, and I disagreed. Structural dynamics is simply a special case of the market.
Actually i never claimed any such thing. i claimed that in the special case where structural dynamics are so sstrong that they effectively remove choice they're on some level similar.

Not really. In order to get high circulation, you need shelf space, a high profile, and lots of money to pay all your expenses. And to get these things, you need a high circulation. Starting a new newspaper is quite difficult.
Yes really, I said "relatively" easy. "Quite difficult" is a lot easier than "effectively impossible" wouldn't you say?

I don't think that response to individual choice is such a crucial thing that it justifies throwing away our civil rights.
And I don't subscripe to the libertarian dogma that the market is ipso facto superior to the governement. stating "I think it's bad" which is effectively what you do, is not much of an argument.

[Art Vandelay]

Please don't insult my intelligence. We're discussing a gobernement intervention in a market and you provide another example of a governement intervention in a market to illustrate why you disagree. Of course it is an anology, and a false one, because the situations are only superficially similar, which is what false analogy (http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/falseanalogy.asp) means. No, it's not an anology. There's a difference between using an example to illustrate a point, and an analogy. And it's certainly not a "false analogy". Look at what your link says: "The argument draws a conclusion from observed cases that are only superficially or apparently similar to the unobserved cases about which the conclusion is being drawn." I did not draw any conclusions from the similarity of the two cases, so it's not a false analogy. You're the one making a false analogy, by saying that because structural dynamics and government fiat result in similar effects, they are similar.

Actually i never claimed any such thing. i claimed that in the special case where structural dynamics are so sstrong that they effectively remove choice they're on some level similar.Seems like hair-splitting to me.

Yes really, I said "relatively" easy. "Quite difficult" is a lot easier than "effectively impossible" wouldn't you say?So relative to effectively impossible things, it's easy? That's a bit like saying that the QEII is relatively small, because the Moon is larger.

And I don't subscripe to the libertarian dogma that the market is ipso facto superior to the governement. stating "I think it's bad" which is effectively what you do, is not much of an argument.That's a bit of a strawman. First of all, the word "superior" implies that you mean "more efficient". I don't think that the market is necessarily more efficient than the government, I just think government intervention requires justification. Secondly, I never said that the market is "ipso facto" superior. In fact, I was expressing the exact opposite: in this particular case, government is not justified. By specifying that I was talking about this particular case, I think it should be clear that I am not talking about every case. Now, if you think that there is nothing wrong with the government interfering at their whim, there certainly is nothing I can say to prove it. But the same thing can be said regarding the question of whether murder is bad. I'm not trying to advance an argument, I'm simply expressing my position. The government should have a good reason before they start taking their citizens' liberty away from them.

[Art Vandelay]

And actually, I think that in many ways it is easier to change a measuring system than to start a new newspaper. If you want to measure everything in metric, there's nothing to stop you from doing so. If there is a significant number of people that want things expressed in metric, they will get that. "Virtually impossible"? Hardly. The reason changing is so hard is that there isn't much will to do so, not that the will is not well expressed.

[Roboramma]

And that if the number of people who all share the will to do so is below some threshold they will suffer by doing so because too few others will be using the same system.
Achieving that threshold is what's virtually impossible.

[Kerberos]

No, it's not an anology. There's a difference between using an example to illustrate a point, and an analogy. And it's certainly not a "false analogy". Look at what your link says: "The argument draws a conclusion from observed cases that are only superficially or apparently similar to the unobserved cases about which the conclusion is being drawn." I did not draw any conclusions from the similarity of the two cases, so it's not a false analogy.
You drew the conclusion that a governement mandated shift from one measurement standard to another was not justified, that's what the entire discussion is about. If you didn't try to draw such a comparison, what was the point? Did you just decide to entertain me with a story about nazi newspapers for no redeally apparent reason.
You're the one making a false analogy, by saying that because structural dynamics and government fiat result in similar effects, they are similar.
You really don't know what an analogy is, do you? Stating that two things (say a Skoda and a Mercedes) are similar is not an analogy. Stating that because a Mercedes is a status symbol, and because a Mercedes and a Skoda are similar a Skoda must also be a status symbol would be an anology, and a false one at that.

Seems like hair-splitting to me.
You really don't see the difference between saying two things are always similar and saying they're similar in specific cases?

So relative to effectively impossible things, it's easy? That's a bit like saying that the QEII is relatively small, because the Moon is larger.
Congratulations you've figured out the meaning of the word relatively. Of course words such as small and large are always relative. QEII is relatively large for a ship, which is the comparison we'd normally draw, but compared to the Moon it's indeed very small.

That's a bit of a strawman. First of all, the word "superior" implies that you mean "more efficient".
No, it implies I mean better, efficiency is good, but it's hardly the only measure of quality.

I don't think that the market is necessarily more efficient than the government, I just think government intervention requires justification. Secondly, I never said that the market is "ipso facto" superior. In fact, I was expressing the exact opposite: in this particular case, government is not justified. By specifying that I was talking about this particular case, I think it should be clear that I am not talking about every case. Now, if you think that there is nothing wrong with the government interfering at their whim, there certainly is nothing I can say to prove it. But the same thing can be said regarding the question of whether murder is bad. I'm not trying to advance an argument, I'm simply expressing my position. The government should have a good reason before they start taking their citizens' liberty away from them.
What liberty? As I said they have effectively no choice in the matter, the choice was made by their ancestors x hundred years ago and can only be changed by governement fiat (or perhaps some huge upheaval like nuclear war). I think getting a better system is worth loosing a non-existing freedom. Incidentially governement intervention is only necessary in a transition period, once the new system has been fully internalized (which it might already have been i haven't got the faintest idea how long that takes) such regulation can be removed, and nobody would revert to the old system, not just because the new one is superior, but because the barriers to entry etc. now favour the metric system.
And actually, I think that in many ways it is easier to change a measuring system than to start a new newspaper. If you want to measure everything in metric, there's nothing to stop you from doing so. If there is a significant number of people that want things expressed in metric, they will get that. "Virtually impossible"? Hardly. The reason changing is so hard is that there isn't much will to do so, not that the will is not well expressed.
You might think so, but you're wrong. Most of the problems with establishing a new newspaper can be solved with some money (how much depends on how big a newspaper you wish to start). Not to mention that you're ignoring that there is. as I said, potential for change withing the existing newspapers, and that there are alternatives to newspapers, such as an internet newsletter which could also be used to spread the word of the Jewish conspiracy. As for metric, sure you can use it, but you cannot change the standard, and as long as you cannot change the standard that means that using metric will not give you a simpler system in genral, but simply mean that you have to keep both systems straight in your head. You get all the disadvantages oflearning a new system but almost none of the advantages. Unless you do a lot of unit conversition (if you're a scientist or an engineer) it's just not worth the trouble, so few poeple, will do it, which mean there won't be a new standard, which mean the individual won't get any advantage from shifting, which means few people will do it etc. etc. The choice exist only on paper.