I realize now that there was a typo in my message. I said that "1070 mm would be technically accurate." Obviously, that should have been "technically inaccurate."
Bill ________________________________ Bill Potts Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of STANLEY DOORE Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 13:17 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:40779] Re: BMI, Metric at Costco OK. cm might be better in this case. Stan D ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:47 PM Subject: [USMA:40778] Re: BMI, Metric at Costco >I didn't say that I thought millimeters would be better for screen size. > What I did say, regarding millimeters, was that I endorse their use in > situations in which measurement is an essential part of the job. That was > the gist of my parenthetical remarks. > > Jim got it right, though. He and I agree on the use of centimeters for our > height and for screen sizes, where the value in centimeters is almost > always > rounded to the nearest integer. If I used 1070 mm, instead of 107 cm, I'd > be > implying precision, while being technically accurate. If I used 1067 mm, > I'd > be technically accurate, but using unnecessary precision. > > By the way, I'm 183 cm and 86 kg, giving me a BMI of 26 (rounded to the > nearest integer). However, if I'm feeling boastful, I cite the more > precise > (though no more accurate) value of 25.7. > > Bill > > ________________________________ > Bill Potts > Roseville, CA > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of STANLEY DOORE > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 06:54 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:40776] Re: BMI, Metric at Costco > > Agreed that mm for screen size would be better. I wish they would go > to > metric. Seeing screens and metric sizes next to each other in stores > would > be a great learning tool. > I saw a screen size in Costco of 40" and thought it was a nice round > number for the meter. cm is too cumbersome whereas mm avoid conversion > and > adds only one digit whereas cm requires a decimal point for refinement. > Stan Doore > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:29 PM > Subject: [USMA:40775] Re: BMI, Metric at Costco > > >> Where screen size is specified in metric (i.e., in most of the world), >> it's >> always in centimeters. >> >> If asked, I give the size of my Dell HDTV as 107 cm. >> >> Notwithstanding what Pat Naughtin says about standardizing on millimeters >> (something I heartily endorse for situations where people must actually >> design stuff or measure and work with materials), I think specifying >> screen >> diagonals in meters is somewhat ponderous and that specifying them in >> millimeters feeds the objections of those who believe that the use of SI >> units imposes an unnecessary degree of precision. They're wrong, as we >> know, >> but we still have to contend with that. >> >> Bill >> ________________________________ >> Bill Potts >> Roseville, CA >> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf >> Of STANLEY DOORE >> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 02:18 >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Subject: [USMA:40774] Re: BMI, Metric at Costco >> >> Another good way to promote metric is to specify new TV screens in >> metric. >> For example, a 40-inch TV screen equals one metre. Isn't this stealth >> metric? >> Stan Doore >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ziser, Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:41 PM >> Subject: [USMA:40772] Re: BMI, Metric at Costco >> >> >>> >>> --- Jim Elwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>>> The question is whether companies with employees and leadership not >>>>> particularly >>>>> friendly toward metric will change without putting up a fight. That's >>>>> the area where I think leadership at the government level could smooth >>>>> things over. >>>> >>>> We generally agree, but the nature of the government "leadership" has a >>>> big effect: if it is >>>> mandates, there will be a lot of resistance. However, as I've said many >>>> times in the past on >>>> this forum, if the US Federal Government is the single largest >>>> purchaser >>>> of goods and services >>>> in the country, and if it simply said "we buy metric," it would have a >>>> huge positive effect on >>>> metrication, without passing laws on private institutions. >>> >>> I wasn't advocating legally forcing anyone to use metric (though that's >>> an >> >>> interesting subject for >>> debate). I was suggesting that a presidential administration should use >>> its voice to tell people >>> that metric is coming and they better be prepared for it. The >>> presidency >>> could be used as the >>> proverbial "bully pulpit" to help persuade people that these changes are >>> here to stay, and not >>> something that will go away eventually. That was what I meant by >>> "leadership". >>> >>> Needless to say, I strongly agree that the US government should buy >>> metric. As to legislatively >>> forcing people to use metric, I don't think I have an opinion right now >>> whether that would have a >>> more positive or negative effect. >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________ >>> Do You Yahoo!? >>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>> http://mail.yahoo.com >>> >> > >
