Re: Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density

Philip Homburg spake thus:

> In article <45463d04$0$13806$822641b3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> David Nebenzahl  <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>>Why should I embrace a system that's cold and based on some abstract 
>>notions, such as an aspect ratio based on the square root of two, where 
>>the primary size (A0) from which the others are derived is defined, 
>>arbitrarily, as having an area of one square meter? It's all neat and 
>>consistent--and totally arbitrary, having nothing to do with real-world 
>>historical pro****tions and dimensions.
> 
> Because in metric world the use of units is much more practical. I guess
> that people in the US want to slow down daily life, because of some
false
> sense of tradition.

"More practical"? Not necessarily; that's a glib assumption, based on 
the supposed ease of doing arithmetic in decimal units, that's not 
always borne out in reality.

I can tell you that in at least two fields which rely heavily on 
measurements, here in the U.S., both the printing and building 
industries happily and reliably use non-metric measurements, and are 
likely to do so for the forseeable future.

In the case of printing, I have *never*--not once--been in a situation 
where it would be advantageous--or even possible--to divide a 
measurement by 10. Not even if one is printing something 10-up on a 
sheet does this ever arise. So much for the vaunted advantage of metric 
measure.

Every single shop I've worked in over here, including one I owned, used 
inches and fractions of inches exclusively. The one concession that 
printers must make to the great Metric gods is that foreign presses 
(namely Heidelberg) require you to make settings in mm and cm; what most 
printers do at this point is simply convert the sheet size in inches to 
mm and input it.

Even carpenters and cabinetmakers, who one would imagine would have more 
op****tunities to divide a length into equal parts which might 
conceivably be easier with metric measures, happily, easily and 
accurately use feet, inches and fractions of inches. Also not likely to 
change in the forseeable future.

> You don't have to know whether a measurement is supposed to be expressed
in
> centimeters or in meters, because most people can easily divide or
multiply
> by hundred. I wonder how many people in US can converted between inches,
> feet, yards and miles without resorting to tables of calculators?

For the most part, we can't "converted" (sic) without use of a 
calculator. But again, the much-hyped ability to multiply or divide by 
tens just by moving a decimal point is, in most cases, not useful.

> The same thing with the ISO paper series. You always know the name of
the
> size one bigger or smaller than the one you are currently using. 
> If you layout for A3, you can just proof on A4. Or print two A4s on an
> A3 and put a staple in the middle.

Well, we primitives over here have the same thing. For instance, two 
letter-size sheets (8-1/2 x 11") fit exactly on one tabloid sheet (11 x 
17"). And remembering a small number of paper sizes doesn't tax one's 
brain too much.

> Fortunately, the US did decide to go metric for the electricity
> (Volt, Ampere, Watt). 

Well, that's because there's no alternative system for those quantities. 
Besides, I don't see what's particularly "metric" about any of those 
measures, apart from the use of decimal multiples and divisions 
(millivolt, kilowatt, etc.).


-- 
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)