2002-01-06 Hee Hee Hee Haw Haw Haw!!! I'm sorry, but I can't control my laughter. Kelley is not a lady. He is a man. But, then again we don't know what he does in private.
You can write him, his e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] I really don't want to bother with him anymore. He is a luddite, set in his ways, enjoying the fact that SI can be corrupted. He isn't worth my time. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2002-01-06 17:04 Subject: [USMA:17296] SI orthodoxy?... > On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:08:09 > kilopascal wrote: > ... > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Kelley L. Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Sunday, 2002-01-06 15:00 > >Subject: Re: Binary Prefixes > >...The > >> one-size-fits-all metric system has its advantages mathematically, but > >> there are also disadvantages. > > Please, John, convey the following message to this lady for me, if you will. > > Where are the *disadvantages*??? Honestly! Just because a prefixed size may not be entirely convenient valuewise does not impart the SI system any disadvantage whatsoever. So what if a certain value for a measurement would be 130 nm, instead of 13 angstroms?! This is akin to my having difficulties relating to 70 cL as opposed to 700 mL! Eventually one gets used to the values one uses in their profession. At least with SI we would be able to communicate seemlessly, whether you like cL or mL!!! > > As far as a *system* is concerned, please read my lips: there just isn't ANY disadvantage about the SI whatsoever, period! We live in a decimal-base system society, therefore, it stands to reason that one should use a perfectly compatible type of measuring system, that would integrate would that seemlessly. There simply can be no other choice for that. > > I am therefore not entirely sympathetic to > >> the vigorous enforcement of SI orthodoxy... > > Finally, this is not about 'SI orthodoxy', but about avoiding the trap of coming up with "convenient" sizes for every application under the sun! THAT is the nightmare we must avoid AT ALL COSTS, as it would open up the Pandora's worm can. I'd rather choose a slightly shorter or longer prefixed SI unit than to have to handle an inferno number of "convenient" sizes to measure every aspect of my professional life around me! > > Therefore, I'd strongly suggest you revisit the issue of 'SI orthodoxy' in light of the above. It's much more advantageous for us to tolerate the slight inconvenience of a slightly smaller or bigger value than to create exceptions every time a certain field would come up with their own "convenient sizes"! > > Have a nice day. > > Marcus > > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably > Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. > Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com >
