Yes Jim and even switching from ifp to metric screws also:
- 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.
How about changing from yardsticks to metersticks? Ask the first carpenter,
he'll give you ten times more arguments than your list above.
I said it and I am saying it again. ISO printing format is definetly not
something that will drive America towards metrication. It is however
something that will have to be on the to do list if we want to eliminate ifp
from daily use.
I support using it for MT as a *symbol* for our commitment to metrication.
UK has switched to ISO 216 some time ago. Did they succomb the process? No.
I don't know when Australia switched but surely they survived that change
also.
Jim, please answer me this question:
How would you define US metrication? What do you think that US should
achieve before we call it quits and we go about other hobbies or noble
causes?
A.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of James R. Frysinger
Sent: Friday, 26 April, 2002 15:21
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:19675] Re: A-series paper
"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
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
