Dear Greg and All,
To support you in this discussion you might like to do a simple calculation
on the appropriate paper size. As I use A4 paper all the time I have used it
in this example.
Size of A4 paper is 297 mm x 210 mm.
As the default setting on some word processors and networks is 25.4 mm top
and bottom and also for the left and right margins, the net effective useful
area of the page is 39 195 mm2. (By the way the defaults are even more
wasteful on MS Word.)
If you set your margins at 20 mm all round your effective area increases by
4494 mm2 to 43 690 mm2, an increase of about 11.5 %, and in managing a
school budget a suggested saving on paper costs of this magnitude is not
insignificant.
I leave aside the arguments about pollution, recycling, greenhouse warming
etc. that might also be helpfully brought into this discussion - the network
administrator is not trying to maintain the old measurement methods - he is
playing havoc with the school's budget and he is trying to destroy the
world!
Good luck with your campaign.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin CAMS
Geelong, Australia
on 09.12.2000 06.28, Gregory Peterson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
