Dear Han, I think you are right � they are 'stark raving mad'.
But this is at a deeper level than you think. The computer programmers seem to default their mindsets to the unit pica, which they define as six (computer) points, which is equivalent to six seventy-seconds of an inch. And they appear to use the inch as defined in English speaking countries in 1959, ie. as 25.4 millimetres. However, this is not the traditional pica as used in the printing trade � it is a new pica that is a creation of the computer industry. Let me explain. The (printers) point traditionally derived from the fraction 1/72nd of the local inch. This fraction was chosen because the inch was divided by printers into lines of 1/12th of an inch and then these lines were divided into 1/6ths to give a printers point. When decimal numbers were introduced the fraction 1/72 became inconvenient because of the recurring decimals (1/72 = 0.0138888888...) so the ever-practical printers simply truncated the decimal fraction to a convenient four decimal places (1 (printers) point = 0.0138 inches exactly). The current situation in the computer-printer interface is that the computer programmers having corrupted the definitions of point, pica, elite, etc now find it necessary to corrupt the inch to accommodate their earlier corruption. The saddest part of this sorry saga is, in my opinion a mindset issue. It is clear to me that the computer programmers are using these ridiculous methods because they seem to firmly believe that the metric system is simply a fad that will go away and then the computer programmers can return to the old unit names that they believe they are familiar with. To repeat my original thought, "I think you are right � they are 'stark raving mad'." Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia on 2002-11-21 17.47, Han Maenen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Are they stark raving mad? Power point centimeters? > The metric-hostile computer industry is at it again. And I wonder who got > the idea that an inch is 2.4 cm. > Maybe using rulers with 2.54 cm intervals would make working in the metric > system also easier than working with rulers in 1 cm intervals. > If they defaulted their program, or at least the metric part of it, to > actual centimeters instead of to the inch (pica), there would be no need for > 'Power Point' centimeters in the first place. > It makes Power Point unsuitable for any measurement sensitive job when using > metric, you have to use USC for that. That is their devilish tactic of how > to wean metric users off metric into ifp! > > Han > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, 2002-11-20 18:45 > Subject: [USMA:23521] Re: 1 inch = 2.4 cm > > >> In a message dated 11/20/2002 8:41:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> I found the following definition of an inch: >>> >>> 1 inch = 2.4 cm >>> >>> >>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q189826 >>> >> >> >>> From that page came this most interesting paragraph: >> >> To improve its usability, PowerPoint slightly misdefines the size of a > centimeter to make the invisible gridlines fall at convenient points on the > ruler. With this conversion, there are 5 picas per centimeter and the > gridlines fall at very convenient points on the ruler. So convenient, in > fact, that working in the metric system is really easier than working in the > English system. The table below shows how much simpler the metric grid is in > "PowerPoint centimeters" than in actual centimeters. >> >> >
