2002-04-24
In response to you first point, I would say that describing paper by its
actual dimensions is not done when using the A paper series. Nor is going
to the effort to figure out the actual area. If it is ever done, it is a
holdover from the FFU way of doing it, since the FFU way is to describe
paper by its two dimensional size.
When working with the A series you don't even need to know the actual
dimensions even when calculating mass for applying postage. All you need to
do is divide the density by the 2 raised to the size. For A4, that would be
2^4 or 16. Even without a calculator, one can estimate that a sheet of A4
paper at 80 g/m^2 has a mass of 5 g. That is an easy number to remember.
I'd bet no one in a country using A series even knows the dimensions of the
paper. It is just not necessary to know.
With A4 being the most common paper size world-wide, one wonders what the
makers of filing cabinets don't make them a little wider to accommodate A4
paper. It seems they would rather make them the way they are, export them
to other countries and thus attempt to create a market for FFU paper sizes,
as is being done in South America. Why go metric when you can sneak in FFU?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 2002-04-24 19:12
Subject: [USMA:19620] Re: Metric standards or not?
> I concur wholeheartedly with Bill Hooper's reply (USMA:19614) to Adrian
> Jadic's message (USMA:19610) regarding his letter to the editor of MT and
her
> reply. But I would like to add a few words of my own.
>
> Refering to Bill's points:
> "(1) The editorial in Metric Today is not erroneous."
> Indeed! I recently submitted a paper for publication in a journal, the
> authors' guide for which specifies paper dimensions of "approximately 28
cm
> by 22 cm". Those dimensions look just as metric to me as do 297 mm by 210
mm
> (or 30 cm by 21 cm). I suggest that Adrian has confused "metric" with
> "rational".
> Since the actual area of the sheet of paper is of minimal significance,
one
> is just as good as the other, in my opinion. For the nitpickers,
> neither (279 mm)(216 mm)
> nor (297 mm)(210 mm)
> equates to 0.0625 m2 exactly. In fact the former comes closer to a nice
> rational area, namely 0.60 m2. I would prefer telling people that this
makes
> a nice rule of thumb than I would flaunting the latter as "one-eigth of a
> square meter". Keep in mind, too, that the commercial specifications on
paper
> sizes are not always very tight.
>
> "(2) The editor of Metric Today is not an enemy of the metric system."
> You can have that statement cast in bronze, BIll. Valerie Antoine has been
> pushing the metric system longer than many of the people on this mail list
> have been alive. Just the number of hours she has worked voluntarily for
> metrication may exceed the lifetime employment history of some people
here.
> You could even double her salary without breaking USMA's bank account
since
> twice nothing is nothing. "An apology is required" hardly states the case!
>
> I would add:
> (3) Nature of the reply
> Adrian, in his first message, characterized Antoine's response as being
> "cold shouldered". Sheez! What did you want, Adrian? Chocolates and roses?
> She took the time to send you a personal reply, not a form letter. My
wife, a
> secretary in a public shcool, has observed that people who hear "no" as an
> answer to their requests often characterize the person (e.g., my wife) who
> gave that answer as being mean or cold. Antoine disagreed with you; she
did
> not brush you off or ignore you. Hopefully this is not the first time in
your
> life that someone did not share your opinion. If it is, then you have
> probably become very spoiled and filled with unreasonable expectations.
>
> And, lastly, in response to a comment in this message of Adrian's:
> (4) On USMA's mission
> On Wednesday, 2002 April 24 1425, Adrian Jadic wrote:
> ....
> > I don't know how other USMA members on this list feel about it but I for
> > one I find that it does not reflect USMA's real mission nor does it's
> > originator seem to understand what a metric transition truly implies.
> >
> > There is no way that we can talk about metrication in US without
involving
> > us in standardization. Like I said in my letter to MT, if USMA's
ultimate
> > goal is to have the metric system (solely) used throughout the country
than
> > this can ONLY be achieved by implementing *hard* metric standards.
>
> Thanks for inviting my opinion, Adrian. I will give it to you. There are
> thousands of standards in the world. Probably, the vast majority of those
are
> written with their dimensions in metric units. It is not USMA's mission to
> support all of those. I do not want my dues to be spread among a zillion
> campaigns; I want them to be dedicated to efforts promoting metrication of
> the U.S. Thankfully, I note that this is indeed the mission of the USMA.
>
> Furthermore, I think that your last phrase ("hard" metric standards) is a
> linguistic antagonist to our mission. Our mission is to get Americans to
> realize that the metric system is "easy" and that with metrication
> international dialogue and commerce becomes "easy". Since no more than a
> hundred Americans have actually read the specifications and standards for
> paper size, they are oblivious to the units used in those standards
> documents. As Bill said, they could be written so as to give the
dimensions
> in cubits and hardly anyone would be the wiser. Telling Americans that
they
> have to change out their filing cabinets and collections of notebooks or
put
> up with ill-fitting contents would be a good way to sabotage our cause. No
> thanks, Adrian.
>
> My response also is "no", and I mean that very warmly.
>
> Jim
>
> --
> James R. Frysinger University/College of Charleston
> 10 Captiva Row Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
> Charleston, SC 29407 66 George Street
> 843.225.0805 Charleston, SC 29424
> http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cert. Adv. Metrication Specialist 843.953.7644
>
