Han, et al.
My wife has been asking the network administrator at her high school to set the
computers' default measurement to metric. She is teaching typing and refuses to use
"1-inch" margins on "8� x 11-inch" paper and would rather the students set them to 2.5
cm on 21.5 x 28 cm paper.
The response she got was this (I am paraphrasing):
'The paper is still in inches so we're not changing the settings on the computers.
When the paper changes, we'll change. Lumber uses inches, too.'
BTW... the curriculum _still_ states that metric is the only measurement system to be
taught, yet once outside the math and science class all the teachers tend to revert
back to imperial for convenience sake using ridiculous arguments as above. No one is
holding the teachers or the administrators accountable for this disregard of the
official curriculum. (I have yet to figure out what the reference to lumber has to do
with computer settings and paper dimensions, unless the network administrator is
refering back to that school trustee proposal to reintroduce imperial into
saskatchewan schools.) One of the junior network administrators whom my wife has been
corresponding with completely agrees with her, but he is restricted from making such
large changes by his supervisor. The junior network administrator happens to be in his
late-20s, early 30s.
My wife has to ask the students to manually switch the computer settings to metric at
each workstation each time the students log on. This frustrates both her and the
students to no end, yet she still deducts marks for those students who happen to set
the margins to 2.5 inches!
So, even though letter paper is easily converted from 8� x 11-inches to 21.5 x 28 cm,
the label still states the size in Imperial (metric is either absent or **extremely**
tiny) and thus it is used for an arguement to continue to use Imperial on computers.
The chance that Canada will ever adopt the A-format paper is null, unless the US
adopts it first.
greg
>>> "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2000-12-07 01:30:24 >>>
I agree with Chris on all points. It is true that the sizes of A paper are
irrational but to me only in in the sense that we often talk about rational
or irrational ifp or metric sizes, but A series start with a square meter.
One simply uses the A-designation, not the sizes.
To me A-sizes *are* metric, it is interesting that they are based on the
binary system, the best of two worlds! I loathed having to use inch size
paper in the past with dot matrix printers; I used the 12 inch size.
I looked at this as a dangerous ifp invasion.When the new laser and inkjet
printers allowed people to revert to A sizes, and they did so massively, I
was relieved. Gone are they days when non-metric computer paper was stacked
up high in computer shops. An ifp assault on Europe was repulsed!
And boy, how much do I hate soft metric! Indeed, 568 mL milk cartons are
ridiculous, not a sign that a nation is going metric. We used to label USA
paper as 11 inch* 210 mm! This IS irrational and NOT the meaning of
irrational in the technical sense.
Han
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: woensdag 6 december 2000 21:14
Subject: [USMA:9577] RE: Paper sizes
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:22:36 -0700, "Dennis Brownridge"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I think we make a huge mistake by pushing ISO paper sizes. It's not an SI
issue at all, and it just inflames people against SI if we promote the
irrational ISO sizes as "metric."
> The ubiquity of A4 paper was one of the most potent signs to me that the
UK was serious about going metric.
>
Just as i don't consider labelling a milk carton '568 ml' as going metric,
neither do I think continued use of 10x8" paper described as 254 x 203 mm
would have been thought of as going metric.
> --
> Chris KEENAN
> UK Metrication: http://www.metric.org.uk/
> UK Correspondent, US Metric Association
>
>
