2002-04-27
Pat,
You asked the riddle wrong. You should have asked how many AMERICAN
computer engineers. This continuos attempt to keep FFU alive is strictly an
American effort. Remember the design of the 90 mm floppy was a Japanese
invention and was designed strictly in SI. It was the American computer
industry that changed the name to 3.5 in and marketed it as that.
If Americans had invented it, it would have been a true 3.5 inch. If the
Japanese would have marketed it, it would be called a 90 mm floppy today.
It is catering to American whims that keep FFU alive in all aspects of the
computer industry world-wide. There has to be a way to change this. To
factor American ways out of the loop. But, will anyone be willing to take
on the challenge?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, 2002-04-27 22:39
Subject: [USMA:19723] Re: Answer from MT editors
Dear Han and All,
This same process happened in Australia as well. As the computer revolution
hit our shores it bought with it such incredibly inefficient things as:
11 inch by 210 mm paper
computer points as opposed to printers points
date formats from the USA
screen sizes in nominal inches
Fortunately, the paper issue has gone away (to be universally replaced by
A4), but unfortunately the other issues are still with us.
I think fairly often of the riddle:
Q How many computer engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
A None, they simply define darkness as the new standard.
I know that this is unkind to computer engineers � both software and
hardware � because they simply are working in an environment where they
often have no knowledge of standards so they have to make some up.
Unfortunately, they also seem to be completely unaware that others (such as
scientists and mechanical, civil, and chemical engineers) have spent
hundreds of years devising and refining standards that make all of our lives
simpler and easier.
I think that the basis of our frustration with computer engineers rests on
their apparent ignorance of even the most basic knowledge of standards. Two
of my favorites are the redefinition of the printer's point as the computer
point and the decision of Microsoft to divide centimetres into quarters.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
CAMS - Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist
- United States Metric Association
ASM - Accredited Speaking Member
- National Speakers Association of Australia
Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers
--
on 2002/04/26 18.19, Han Maenen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> First of all: I am NOT criticizing Jim Ellwell's choice of paper size..
>
> But I think the expression 11" by 210 mm is highly irrational: multiplying
> ifp by metric.
> When the dot matrix printer reigned supreme I saw it on boxes of computer
> paper, stacked to the sky, either 11"*210 mm or 12"*210 mm. I regarded
these
> sizes and these descriptions as abominations. We had an international
> standard based on our own system of units, which was under attack by a
pure
> ifp standard. A4 continuous paper was available, but it was considerably
> more expensive than the other sizes.
> Worse, in many cases A4 continuous paper simply did not work with dot
matrix
> printers; I had to use 12 inch paper because of it. I still have a box
with
> about 800 continuous sheets of "12 inch * 210 mm" paper in a cupboard. In
> the university some OKI printers were used which would ONLY accept 11 inch
> paper!
> Thanks to the laser and inkjet printers, they have gone, A4 rules supreme
> once again in our computer shops.
> Of course I reverted to A4 paper at once when I got an inkjet printer. And
> the university, which now uses inkjet and laser printers has reverted to
A4
> paper as well.
> An ifp assault was repulsed in the end!
> Now for the computer screens, dpi etc.
>
> Han
> Historian of Dutch Metrication, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
