"Fardig, Paul S." wrote:
>
> Actually Jim, I have a need for consistent scaling all the time with
> photographic enlargements. ....
Jim, that makes absolutely perfect sense in your situation. However,
that need hardly ever arises for J.Q. Public. So the push to change our
national paper "standard" (of which there is actually none; it's
actually just a customary usage) would be lost on the public. The
average person would see the push for A4 as being something that
- does not meet any of their personal needs,
- makes life awkward during the transition time,
- proves that metrication is hard, fella!. and therefore
- something that should be avoided.
Hey, the need to wear seatbelts is not only logical, it is a matter of
reducing personal risk, and yet something like a fifth of all people
refuse to comply and another big chunk of them comply (at least
passively) but grumble. The situation's even more dire regarding helmuts
for motorcycle riders.
To think that we need to shift to A4 paper to improve the lives of a
few Americans ("Oh, yeah, there's that one guy out in Utah, and there's
....") is not going to be a big seller (think "marketing"). To associate
it with our metrication effort is like asking us to carry barbells as we
try to win the big marathon.
An adage that I use a lot with my physics students is "The best way to
eat an elephant is one bite at a time; trying cramming the whole thing
in at once is going to make you choke."
We must remember that we are "selling" the SI. People have to see that
fairly immediate improvements will come to them if they go along with
this. The A4 vs 216 mm by 279 mm paper argument is entirely too
mathematical to stir passionate support. Let's focus, folks!
Jim
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
