2002-01-06 A response!
John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelley L. Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2002-01-06 15:00 Subject: Re: Binary Prefixes > Dear John, > > Adapting metric prefixes to binary numbers has been a matter of usage, > which is all that the page in question was talking about. It is > interesting that there are new binary prefixes proposed. I had not heard > about that. I imagine they will catch on eventually. As for Angstroms, I > realize that they are passing out of usage; but I don't have to like it. > The nice thing about Angstroms and Fermis is that they are in the order of > magnitude of the sizes of atoms and nuclei, respectively. Perhaps > continuing to use Angstroms will irk some people, but then people have been > irking me for years by continuing to use ergs and dynes. The point of the > discussion was that customary units, whether traditional or recent, come > into usage often because they are appropriate to the material. The > one-size-fits-all metric system has its advantages mathematically, but > there are also disadvantages. I am therefore not entirely sympathetic to > the vigorous enforcement of SI orthodoxy. If that was the point of your > e-mail, I will have to beg your pardon. > > Yours truly, > Kelley Ross > > http://www.friesian.com/ross/ >
