2002-01-06

Thank You for your response!

Further info on the new binary prefixes:

The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers has prepared a
proposed standard (P1541) that parallels the IEC standard. Rather than
"binary prefixes", we are using the phrase "prefixes for binary
multiples". Balloting on that proposed standard is expected this spring.


Using old units may be a sense of pride to some, but to me it dates that
person.  It makes me feel their knowledge is stuck back in time.  That these
people are not up on new ideas.  That these people are plain and simple
Luddites.  I laugh when ever someone describes frequency in "cycles" instead
of hertz.  I have to ask them if they are a part of the 19-th century or the
21-st.

I want to look forward, not backwards.  In which direction are you heading?

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/
>

Reply via email to