The Logic Behind Metric Paper Sizes

Oily Pakora writes "Those of us in the United States are so used to our Letter and Legal paper sizes. We've seen the A4 paper size option in our printer trays and in printer preference menus. Metric sizes used almost everywhere in the world, save for the US and Canada. Here is an interesting article that discusses all of the aspects of metric paper. For those who enjoy a bit of math, did you know that in the Metric paper system, the height-to-width ratio of all pages is the square root of 2? This means that you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly, and two sheets of A3 will equal an A2."

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

News?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Leffe]

Not at all, I thought everyone knew this... I don't live in America though...

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[txviking]

That reminds me when I had to fold A0 drawings in order to fit them on A4 rings binders in a way, that you could unfold them without taken them out of the rings. Is something like this ever done with non-metric paper ?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[tymbow]

Yeah but it gets more interesting than that. 2 x A4 = A3 sure, but 2 x A3 = A2 and 2 x A2 = A1 and 2 x A1 = A0 and And 2 x A5 = A4 and I'm sure there is an A6 in there some where as well. All nice and logical.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[rnelsonee]

For U.S. residents, yeah. News to me anyway.

Not too surprised though - this article kind of sums up the entire metric system - it's very easy to use, and the numbers work out nice (with notable exceptions), so it works for us science types. But it has no practical basis (let's make A0 one square meter instead of using some sort of established paper size!).

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Sendy]

Metric? Why is this called metric paper? Because we say it's 210mm × 297mm? These numbers are clearly rounded.

Please enlighten me.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[syn3rg]

that whols "A" paper size is a big fat zero...:
Simplifying
2A * 4 = A * 3

Reorder the terms for easier multiplication:
2 * 4A = A * 3

Multiply 2 * 4
8A = A * 3

Reorder the terms for easier multiplication:
8A = 3A

Solving
8A = 3A

Move all terms containing A to the left, all other terms to the right.

Add '-3A' to each side of the equation.
8A + -3A = 3A + -3A

Combine like terms: 8A + -3A = 5A
5A = 3A + -3A

Combine like terms: 3A + -3A = 0
5A = 0

Divide each side by '5'.
A = 0

Simplifying
A = 0

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[hpa]

A0 paper is one square meter.

A4 paper is 2^-4 = 1/16 square meter.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Paper?? who still uses paper anyway??? E-mail it, or put it on a website!!!!

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there is an A6 in there some where as well.

Oh yes. My Wacom tablet is A6 and from what I've seen, they seem to be calling it with some ridiculous name in America.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[MonkeyCookie]

Before I lived in Germany, I had only seen "A4" mentioned in the printer dialog on my computer. I had no idea what it was or where it was used.

When I went to Germany to study, I naively brought some binders with me. Those binders were completely useless when I realized that not only was the standard paper different (A4 is a bit narrower and longer than letter-sized paper), but they punched the holes in it diffently. U.S. binders have 3 evenly spaced holes, but German binders usually have 4 evenly spaced holes. Sometimes I would see German binders and paper that ignored the two outer holes, and had just the two center holes.

Then I got used to it, and found U.S. paper rather bizarre when I moved back to the U.S.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[holizz]

I didn't know that until I saw it on the Open University. Mind you I was 7 at the time or some equally long-ago age. I didn't know A0 existed until I read that article though. Now maybe we need an article explaining American paper sizes to the rest of the world?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[criscooil]

Therefore, A=0 QED.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

You're joking, right?

> let's make A0 one square meter instead of using some sort of established paper size!

A0 _is_ 1 square meter.
(actually it's 0.999949 m^2)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

News?

Yes. Also, did you know that if you're hungry it helps to eat, and if you pour enough water in a glass, you'll end up with a full glass.

Seriously... come on! This is regular PAPER!

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[DustMagnet]

Metric? Why is this called metric paper? Because we say it's 210mm × 297mm? These numbers are clearly rounded.

They are rounded. The article says that one reason is that 210*297 ~= 10^6/2^4.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[boaworm]

This whole thing reminds me of a thing Jerry Seinfeld did, making fun of chinese people eating with sticks. He said something about that he could not understand why they kept eating with sticks, since "they have seen the fork".

It feels just like that hearing about "US Letter", Yards, Pounds, Stones, Miles et al. YOU HAVE SEEN THE METRIC SYSTEM ;-)!

(btw, thanks France!)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[rnelsonee]

Yeah, I was joking. I've got to remember sarcasm doesn't carry over well in posts like this :)

My point was just that, a lot of times, the metric system makes it's base measurement related to something that works out very well 'in the lab', often times at the expense of an already-established base, or one that is easier to create 'in the field'. An example of this is temperature. If you want to make a centigrade thermometer out in the woods, you'll need to get your hand on ice, as well as some boiling water to get the scale right. For Fahrenheit, you can use cold salt water and your own body temperature.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[king-manic]

lol, chop sticks are more versitile then forks. You can do eevry thign you do with a fork, but also some things you can't, like picking up a tiny grain of rice.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel I'm doing more compromising than necessary, considering we still have to use inches for monitor sizes. I'm not sure why though.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[king-manic]

This wont' work. Boiling has as much to do with air pressure as temperature, and freezing will also depend on the natue of the liquid and how pur it is. Both farenheight and Centigrade have the same issues.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[chris_mahan]

a square meter. a square meter is the base of a cube meter. The cube meter is the volume of one ton of fresh water at sea level at the equator at zero degrees Celcius. 1 ton is 1000 kilo gram. each kilo gram is thus 10cm*10cm*10cm, which happens to also be a liter. 1 gram is 1 millionth of a ton, of 1cm*1cm*1cm. so if a bottle of water is 1000 grams (1 kilo gram), it is also 1 liter. So now I know the volume, the weight, and the measurement of the container. Pretty nifty no?
Density is expressed in a ratio from fresh water at zero degrees at sea level at the equator. Let's say the density of velveta cheese is 1.001. With this, I could tell you the size of a kilo of velveeta, and how large a container to use, and thus how much paper to use to wrap it in. Then I could express this in how many per A0, A1, or A2, since they are derived from the meter. Get it?

Class dismissed.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

So A = 0

2 x A4 = A3

A8 = A3

Solve for A.

A = 0

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

The Logic Behind American Paper Sizes
by Anonymous Coward

American paper sizes are fucked up[1]. There's Letter Size at 8 1/2 inches by 11 inches, Legal Size at 8 1/2 inches by 14 inches, and the somewhat lesser-known Ledger Size at 11 inches by 17 inches. The question must be asked, why were these sizes chosen to be the de-facto standard?

Because. Now STFU n00b!

[1] - The technical term

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[dtrent]

lol, chop sticks are more versitile then forks. You can do eevry thign you do with a fork, but also some things you can't, like picking up a tiny grain of rice

Well, maybe *you* can, I can't even keep them in my hands :-) (how long does it take you to eat a bento one grain at a time anyway?)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[dadragon]

Oh yes. My Wacom tablet is A6 and from what I've seen, they seem to be calling it with some ridiculous name in America.

I have the same tablet. I'm in Canada, and it's called 4x6. Seems pretty logical to me, 4 inches by 6 inches, which is its approximate dimensions in the imperial system (It's actually 4.1x5.8, but they round).

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

chop sticks are more versitile then forks...like picking up a tiny grain of rice...

No wonder people in China are starving, they eat one grain of rice at a time!

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[rnelsonee]

Well I'm talking about making a quick, useful thermometer, nothing needs to be exact or anything. My point was you need more resources to make a Centrigrade thermomemter (who has boiling water and ice when they're hiking? What if you're stuck on the proverbial desert island?), while you can make a practical Fahrenheit thermometer with much less. Cold salt water is 0 degrees. Inside of your mouth is 96. Make those marks on a piece of paper with whatever you're using (assuming you have the tools to make a thermomemter), and fold it in half (five times over if you can). You'll now have a thermometer with nice whole numbers where the folds are (0, 3, 6...)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[ShyGuy91284]

The ultimate eating utensil... fork chop sticks!!!!!

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[TummyX]

Try eating a steak dinner with chopsticks...or even with chopsticks and a knife. It's not easy.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[cayenne8]

Metric paper? Dates in weird formats (day before month?)....what will they think of next over there....?

...get this..in French "chapeau means hat. Fromage means cheese. It's like those French have a different word for everything!"

--With apologies to Steve Martin

:-)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[CptNerd]

lol, chop sticks are more versitile then forks. You can do eevry thign you do with a fork, but also some things you can't, like picking up a tiny grain of rice.

That's why they invented sporks...

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[gunix]

Well, 1 kliogram is defined as the mass of the international kilogram protoyp stored somewhere in Paris.

The cube meter is the volume of a cube where each edge is 1m. 1m is defined as a the distance light travels in 1/299798252seconds.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[MikeXpop]

"I'll tell you what I like about Chinese people. They're hanging in there with the chopsticks. You know they've seen the fork. They're staying with the sticks. I don't know how they missed it. Going out all day on the farm with a shovel. Come on. Shovel. Spoon. You're not plowing 50 acres with a couple of pool cues." Jerry Seinfeld

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[gwjgwj]

who has boiling water and ice when they're hiking?
Who has cold salt water when they're hiking?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[rnelsonee]

Oh, I know, metric-to-metric conversions are easy, and thank God they use water as their base for their units. Makes it easy to replicate in labs around the world. But to play devil's advocate here for the non-scientists: who the hell walks around with a ton of water and a giant cube of plexiglass? Without that, you can't find out how long a meter is (without loss of congruence, you'll still need exactly a kg of water and a smaller cube to find a cm). As you probably know, the meter itself is derived from dividing the longitudinal line from the north pole to the goddamned equator, going through Paris. That's just insane, and not replicable when you really just want to cut your piece of wood to 1m in length. Oppose this to say, the foot. To do that, just look down (assuming you're about the same size as your current king ;))

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Phisbut]

Cold salt water is -18 Celcius. Inside of your mouth is +36 Celcius. Make those marks on a piece of paper with whatever you're using (assuming you have the tools to make a thermometer), and fold in half (five times over if you can). You'll now have a thermometer with nice floating point numbers where the folds are two-ninths of a degree each.

Not a *whole* lot more complicated when you're good in math ;-)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[harkabeeparolyn]

Nobody picks up a grain of rice with chopsticks. Chinese pick up the bowl and tip the rice dregs into their mouths just like anyone else with a brain.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[zerblat]

Actually, the fact that An == 2*A(n+1) is very useful in many situations. E.g. you can get two A4 papers by splitting one A3, or you can fit an A4 into an C5 envelope by folding it over.

As the article explaned, since A0 is 1 m^2 and the weight of paper is usually specified as x g/(m^2), the weight of an An paper is x/(2^n).

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[golgafrincham]

Try eating a steak dinner with chopsticks...or even with chopsticks and a knife. It's not easy.

in asia, cutting the meat is the job of the cook. then came someone from the west and invented "finger food" ;)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[simcop2387]

well try this, 96.8 degress F is 37 degrees C, and 0F is -17.7C

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[trentblase]

That makes me wonder about metric photo paper... do they have 4x6 and 5x7 or something else completely? I guess I'll go use my friend gooogle.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[jorlando]

I can use the same cold salt water, inside my mout is 36 fold it six times and have the same (lack of) precision in Celsius... so???

The Celsius scale was created using certaind standards: water, level sea.

proceding: measure the temperature when the water is freezing and call taht 0 degrees

measure the water again when it's boiling. let's call that point 100 degrees

divide with evenly spaced scales these two points in the termometer.

AFAIR the Farenheit scale was made the same way, the 0 being the freezing point of water and some salt and the 212 point water boiling. but the distance betwenn the water (without salt) freezing and boiling should be separated by 180 points

every scale is arbitrary. the only absolute is the measurement, that must be consistent among different scales. the resources to build a scale are the same, be it F, C, K or some funny scale that you seem fit for your purposes.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Bob McCown]

But to play devil's advocate here for the non-scientists: who the hell walks around with a ton of water and a giant cube of plexiglass?

The same place I store my 200 foot coil of rope, and 15 foot staff!

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[trentblase]

But what's the definition of a second? And don't tell me it's 299798252 * the time it takes light to travel a meter!

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[jorlando]

The metric units of volume and mass were created to have that consistence, but that doesn't mean that you should have the ton of water.

it was about standards. as you say, your current king may have a foot of 30cm or not... so it can be a standard. antropomorphics measures were widely used in the antiquity, but as the mankind evolved and it's needs evolved more precision was needed.

the meter was defined as a fraction from the distance to poles at the first time. today is the radiation (of sodium crystals?) in vacuum. something that can be replied at scientific labs around the world. scientific labs, not on the street, we are talking about national standards.

the most dificult standard to be stablished is the mass ok 1kg. the metal spheres used to create that standard are known to have lost mass, and scientists can't tell why. a google search would take to a very curious and insightful subject.

look here: http://www.npl.co.uk/mass/faqs/kilogram.html

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[fredrikj]

The second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom."

The kilogram is the only SI base unit that has not yet been defined in terms of a natural constant (speed of light, radioactivity, etc).

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Yet Another Smith]

Yeah, while I was in grad school, most of the folks from my lab would go out for lunch together most days. Whenever we hit the Chinese buffet places, the anglo-types would ask for chopsticks, but our Chinese collegue would stick with the fork. One day he got exasperated and asked us, "Why do you always ask for chopsticks? The fork is better! Look, you can do anything with a fork. You can cut with it, you can scoop things up with it, you can stab things with it - you can do anything! Chopsticks just grab things, thats all."

We all kinda looked at each other, and finally one of us says, "Well, yeah, but its just kinda cool to eat with chopsticks sometimes." Its just a matter of perspective, I suppose.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain why month/day/year is more logical than day/month/year ??? 2-1-3 instead of 1-2-3? I just don't get the logic in American dates.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Pfhreakaz0id]

Here's my guide to American's for non-americans:

1: WE LIKE BEING DIFFERENT. The fact that is irrational is only a bonus.

2: We like the fact that our system is hard for those who didn't grow up with it to understand. Ditto for language.

3: It's not hard if you've grown up with it. Sorry, but I can do division of inches and parts of inchees( I do woodworking. I do things like 'divide 12' 5/8" into 4 equal parts" in my head all the time. (answer 3' 5/32").

4. We don't give a shit.

5: we Like that we like sports other countries don't.

6: We don't really care that everyone else uses metric.

7: Did I mention we don't give a shit?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[randomencounter]

Sorry dude, If I can get 0 degree salt water to run Fahrenheit, I can get ice. Also, the temperatures of ice and boiling water are more stable, so I can make a better thermometer that way.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[king-manic]

It's a cutural thing, all chinese cousine is made for chopsticks(not chinese buffets). A lot of chinese people use forks too. But Chopsticks are anolgous to forks. You can stab things with em too. It is a matter of preference bu the parent put it down as a matter of progress. fork > chopstick when it's closer to fork ~ chopstick.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[huchida]

This whole thing reminds me of a thing Jerry Seinfeld did, making fun of chinese people eating with sticks. He said something about that he could not understand why they kept eating with sticks, since "they have seen the fork".

I wonder why Westerners insist on using both a fork and spoon to eat after they've seen the Spork.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[MeltUp]

Actually the current definition of 1 meter is the distance light travels in one xxxxxxxxxxx th of a second. A second being the time it takes for some crystal to pulse yyyyyyyy times. Still, I can show you a meter between my hands, and I won't be off more than 10 cm...

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[oolon]

Hah but did you know about the "B" sizes? B4 is A4 in landscape mode, quite useful when photocoping A3 Journals, as you can do a 50% size reduction for the perfect fit.

James

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[meta-monkey]

Ummm...little different. Utensil use is not government-mandated, and if I decide to eat with chopsticks that doesn't confuse all the fork-users at the restaurant. However, if the restaurant decides to measure all their portions in metric (half-kilo steak, anyone?) then the English-system using patrons are confused.

Anyway, yeah, I've seen the metric system...and I don't care. If we switched to the metric system, it would cost billions of dollars. Think of it...every road sign would have to be changed to list the distance to the next town in km instead of miles, speed limit signs would have to be changed, bridge clearance numbers, maps, everything. Every grocer would have to change his scales. BILLIONS of dollars to make this change. And what, exactly, would be the benefit?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[galt2112]

How is 2 x A4 -> A3 logical?

It should be 2 x A4 -> A8...

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Grishnakh]

It isn't more logical. I'd suggest you look up the word "sarcasm" in a dictionary.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[sl70]

My wife, who is Japanese, pointed out a VERY good use of chopsticks: for picking dropped objects like screws from the inside of computer cases (when your hand won't fit inside).
--

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Divide each side by '5'.
A = 0

Simplifying
A = 0

I'm having trouble following this last step - could you explain it?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[jandrese]

You know how hard it is to find a good sturdy spork you can just toss in the dishwasher? Almost every spork I've ever seen is some chintzy plastic affair.

Plus, the spork is lousy for soup and pretty useless as a fork.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Tree131]

fork chop sticks!!!!

Mommy!!! Look! Look! I just made 8 piercings in my tongue!

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't liter a volume measurement?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm having trouble following this last step - could you explain it?

A math challenged slashdot reader?

No way!!!!

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean a system of measures should be optimized to the situation when you need to recreate it in the field? How many times did this ever happen to be necessary (if ever)? Those are poor excuses. Let's face it: you have learned the US system as a child and now it's easier to use it for you then to learn a new system. Both systems have their pros and cons, but this 'recreation' thingy isn't one of either, cause it's irrelevant.

BTW, use whatever system is common in your country, I believe the pros and cons are both overrated -- most are artificial and they don't matter almost at all. You just have to have a system based on some usable units (both systems are).

It would be cool to have a single system all over the world. I believe the one should be the metric system, since it's used by majority of people and is is based on mathematics and physics. This should be a good compromise, unlike the US tradition-based system, which couldn't be accepted in many coutries just because it's like accepting someone else's culture. But I understand that the US people may see it the other way round -- since the metric system is so old, that it's no longer seen as a 'neutral compromise' between each countries national system of measures (which is what the metric system has originally been). I'd say US people don't like accepting the metric system because it feels like accepting other nation's culture.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Mantorp]

Who needs a thermometer on a deserted island? Go outside, note the weather, "yup it's bloody hot again".

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[91degrees]

The kilogram is the only SI base unit that has not yet been defined in terms of a natural constant (speed of light, radioactivity, etc).

Indeed. I've often wondered why they don't specify it as something like the mass of 5.02 x10^25 atoms of Carbon-12.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[tverbeek]

This whole thing reminds me of a thing Jerry Seinfeld did, making fun of chinese people eating with sticks. He said something about that he could not understand why they kept eating with sticks, since "they have seen the fork".

The fork is actually a rather recent invention, tableware-wise. The oldest is the knife, followed by the spoon. For centuries, those two (and more commonly, fingers) were the standard tools used by Europeans to eat with. To show off their wealth (and sometimes get ridiculed by commoners for their effeminacy) the upper classes might eat meat and such with a pair of knives. The fork was the clever invention of someone who figured that putting a pair of pokers on the same handle would give him more control. (This also allowed table knives to be made without pointed tips.) It wasn't until the 17th century that forks started becoming common on the tables of Europe, and later in North America.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Patrick]

a VERY good use of chopsticks: for picking dropped objects like screws from the inside of computer cases (when your hand won't fit inside)

A four-finger screw grabber does it better in an even narrower space, when even chopsticks won't fit inside.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone in Europe know this, it's the base of the "Système International", 1 liter of water = 1 kilograms = 1 dm, etc

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Cold salt water is 0 degrees. Inside of your mouth is 96. Make those marks on a piece of paper with whatever you're using (assuming you have the tools to make a thermomemter), and fold it in half (five times over if you can). You'll now have a thermometer with nice whole numbers where the folds are (0, 3, 6...)

In the highly inprobable case I needed a thermometer on a desert island, I would need a narow glass tube that is equally wide throughout the whole length. Ok, now assume the even more improbable case that I had this tube.

I can measure the temperature of cold non-salty water and mark a 0 (after all you HAVE to have some non-salty water with you, or else any thermometer won't save your life). I can measure my body temperature and mark 36.3 (it's 36.7, but to hell with precision). Now I'll fold the paper 10 times and get 3.63 C-grades. Add one of these 3.63 to the whole 36.3 scale, make a mark and write 40 there (36.3 + 3.63 = cca 39.93). Take the scale from 0 to 39.93, fold it four times, then each part 10 times and you get 1C. Done.

Now, this is clearly somewhat more complex then yout Fahrenheit case. So be it, each time you have to recreate a C thermometer on a desert island (with sand, a palm and a convenient glass tube), it will take you a few minutes longer. On the other hand, NOT using the metric system means that you have to convert feet to inches to yards to betelgeusian miles almost every time you add two lengths together. Now I find it more convenient for a system of measurements to be optimised for the latter case, but perhaps I just do not shipwreck as often as you do.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Taurim]

No. We have 10x15 (in cm of course), 20x30, 30x45, etc...

Never heard about 4x6 and 5x7 sizes.

By the way, how did you call a 24x36 camera ?

A 0.945x1.417 camera ? :-)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't that why you have a magnetized screwdriver?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

the 1dm should be 1dm^3 but /. ripped my nice "power of 3" character...

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Taurim]

A ton of water or 1000 liters of water ? Thanks to the metric system, it's the same quantity.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Enucite]

Sounds like a good way to create some jobs! Great idea!

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Celandro]

Was your use of the slang "chintzy" intentional?

As in a spork is usually as cheap and worthless as the chinese chopstick?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Yunzil]

Nah, olds. This was in the Straight Dope years ago.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[zod1025]

And what, exactly, would be the benefit?

Public denouncement of blatant stupidity, removal of useless mental hurdles to simple concepts, and the beginnings of expecting logic and reason from *everyone* ?

Just think of the jobs that the transition would create in the short term! All the new textbook editions, new signs, new scales... just think of the money that would change hands! Transactions, my friend, make the world go 'round...

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Alexei]

3: It's not hard if you've grown up with it. Sorry, but I can do division of inches and parts of inchees( I do woodworking. I do things like 'divide 12' 5/8" into 4 equal parts" in my head all the time. (answer 3' 5/32").

How about five parts?

(Sorry, don't mean to start anything, just had to point that out.)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[richie2000]

who has boiling water and ice when they're hiking?

I have matches and myself, making it easy to find +100 and +36 degrees on the centigrade scale provided that I have access to some firewood and freshwater. As a bonus, I often have some coffee grains so I can enjoy a nice cup while I make the rest of the thermometer. I do NOT have cold salt water when hiking. If I, by some odd chance of LSD-induced packing, only had cold salt water and my mouth with me, I could just as easily make a C thermometer as a F one.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[honkycat]

Go to your nearest outdoor store and if you're lucky you can find the wondrous eating implement that is the Titanium Spork! I never leave home without mine...

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[jrq]

I thought not being on the metric system had already cost many millions of dollars, in destroyed Mars probes.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[fredrikj]

There's a project underway to do that, with silicon atoms. There's information on it here: http://www.npl.co.uk/mass/avogadro.html

Defining the kilogram as a fixed number of atoms is of course possible, the problem is counting the atoms... you need a huge number of them to get decent precision.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[bar-agent]

And what, exactly, would be the benefit?

Well, we'd lose fewer space probes...

But seriously, switching to metric paper is a no-brainer, even if we don't go wholly metric. Copiers, printers, and paper handling machines already handle metric paper. Most filing cabinets handle legal size, so they can handle A4.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[pommiekiwifruit]

Well, the restaurant in France where they introduced the fork to the West (from Italy) is still running. I imagine they don't have Sporks there.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[EnglishTim]

Wait wait WAIT!

You're saying that you won't be able to get your hands on ice and boiling water but you will be able to get your hands on 'cold salt water' at -17C?

Surely whatever scale you use, your most reliable points to calibrate will be body temperature and the boiling point of water. With ice all you know is that the temperature is -17C.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[bfg9000]

(btw, thanks France!)

What is you saying? That the French is smarter then us?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[carlos_benj]

You mean, "...the French AM smarter then us"..."

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[jadavis]

Well, it wouldn't cost that much if we just made all replacement parts metric. People here are slowly learning metric anyway.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[carlos_benj]

Well, Epson's Photo 960 printer is European (didn't know that when I bought it) so I can't print a borderless 8x10, but I can print a borderless A4. So I have to print 8x10's on 8.5x11 sheets and trim.

Don't know about actual photographic (light sensitive) paper.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[festers]

Some food, such as sushi and noodles, are much easier to eat with chopsticks. (Sushi is typically meant to be eaten in one bite and a fork does not lend itself to that)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[rnelsonee]

Systems of measure should be optimized to the needs of those that use them. I don't expect a physicist working on interplanetary calculations to use Imperial, because it's just not suited for it. Scaling units by 10 is easy for the scientist, and his unit conversions will be a snap.

At the same time, I don't expect a carpenter working on a treehouse to use Metric. He doesn't care that a cubic centimeter of water weighs one gram, he wants to know how many 4" boards he can get out of 3.5' feet of wood. Since his measurments stay within one order of magnitude, and he's doing simple integer divisions, he should use Imperial.

Because of this, I use both. I use Metric most of the time (it's was easier to learn than Imperial), but if I'm doing something small, or I don't have anything to measure with, I use Imperial (it's a lot easier to snap a twig to the length of my foot than it is to measure the distance from the north pole to the equator and divide by 1,000, which is what a meter is).

But I agree with you... the differences are overrated by now, since it's not too difficult for a carpenter to grab a ruler, and a scientist most certainly has a calculator/computer within reach.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so let's see ... 33.96 kilos of Velveeta ... and it is about 783 kilometers from Marseille to Paris (my French office mate tells me) ... and FedEx ships at 492 kilos, 1 kilometer every 94 minutes and 29 seconds ... so to ship that will take um ... wait ...

Tell you what, I'll start using the metric system when metric users adopt a base 10 clock and calendar. Yes, I know they have been proposed. Yes, I know there's no great need to convert between length and time except for light speed. But just time conversions alone should make it worthwhile. For Science I use metric, for personal I use English, no big deal. Stop being so arrogant.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[gstoddart]

Actually, according to this
most of the measurements in the Fahrenheit scale are completely arbitrary and just a bunch of fudge factors.

And you'll node that 0 is NOT freezing point of water in Fahrenheit.

But then again, most of the older Imperial measures are based on the length of someone nose, the distance from London to Paris, or a whole bunch of arcane stuff that seemed like good ideas at the time.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[bfg9000]

sory, my bad.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Might I point out that it does make a certain amount of sense. It takes 2^3 sheets of A3 paper to make one piece of A0. Or 2^4 sheets of A4, etc...

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[agallagh42]

This is one of the biggest oddities of the imperial system. Letter sized paper is 8 1/2" x 11", but standard #10 envelopes are 4 1/8" x 9 1/2". In order for the paper to fit in the envelope, you have to fold it into thirds or fourths. Fold it in half and it'll be 1/4" too big. That's extremely annoying.

I wish Canada would finish the transition to metric as well. We're much farther along than the US, but we still use imperial for paper, most carpentry, some manufacturing, and even for our body weight and height most of the time.

We've done the hardest part by converting to km/h on the roads, and grams and litres on all of our retail products. Why not go the rest of the way?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Random832]

That word did not originate as you think it did.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Krunch]

Well I'm not sure I would use that thing to eat rice or anything.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[mattis_f]

Ok... Lets translate your inches and feet to metric system - the guy is then looking to see how many 1 decimeter boards he can get out of (about) 1 meter of wood. There are ten decimeters on one meter... I don't see how using 4 inches and 3.5 feet makes it any easier.

For the carpenter guy it's just a matter of what system he's used to using, for scientists it's good because everything fits together. So... We really just need one system. :-)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Krunch]

And what, exactly, would be the benefit?

$125 million + I wouldn't need to ask Google every time I would run into those weird unities like "lbs", "inches", "feet" and such.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[mehtars]

you can't tell how much paper ud need because u don't know the amount of surface area the cheese encompasses

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

See now you're getting carried away. I have found that as an American here in Norway, I often have to teach a person left and right first. I can't possible imagine how you can't make a simple association like "I write with my right/left therefore that side of my body must be right/left".

Past that point, I've had no problem transitioning to the metric system. I think as transparently in Metric as I do in US standards as well as Imperial (yes the gallon is still frigging different).

Things that tend to confuse me on occassion is the Norwegian/Scandinavian/maybe European term pronounced as Mile by every Norwegian I've heard saying it in Norwegian. Pisses me off something fierce when someone tells me "It's about 2 miles east" and then I start walking only to realize that they mean 10km/Mil (I think, it appears that Norwegians don't bother with remembering conversions, they just accept them.)

Of course, most stinkin brits which I know are terribly confused. They can't make up there minds which system to use. I believe that Queen And Country insists that in order to avoid losing their national identity (which in my oppionion is basically just plain confused), they mix and match metric and imperical. They insist on measuring the length of a room in meters but drive in miles. shipping weight in grams, body weight in stones. The only reason they're driving on the left side is because they'd be screwed like the Virgin Islands where they have the driver seat on the left and the car is on the left, instead they'd have the seat on the right and the car on the right and that would be a disaster.

Want to talk about a beautiful system that is mathematically impossible to correctly design. The round about. It's an item which some idiot implemented (probably while under the influence of Dutch herbs and ale) and everyone copied. If you install a single round about, it may improve traffic coming in one direction, but generally wrecks it going in the other. If you install 2 slightly misbalanced roundabouts within 100 meters, they become 5 times as misbalanced (in my mathematical simulations) in moderate traffic situations. People don't know how to use them. They insist on running through them like animals, and the second you add a tourist to the problem, just forget it.

Paper sizes are a pain in the butt. About 4 years ago, a professor friend and myself actually ran a "Usability Test" on paper sizes. We found out that noone gave a shit about the paper sizes and in fact most often preferred to purchase paper which was of a non-standard size for the asthetic design instead. As far as printing out on A4, well, I find that most paperback books I've come in contact with are more pleasing on letter half folded as opposed to the vicious design of the "Penguin Books" published for europeans (maybe excluding UK) which is A4 folded and is strangely enough bulkier.

All in all, if any of this really matters to you, then I highly recommend seeking medical attention, you may have a tumor or just regular brain damage. In fact, if you insist on writing a response to my snottiness, I won't bother reading it since I don't even remember what I've written. If you're offended by my writing, well, GOOD I LIKE PISSING PEOPLE LIKE YOU OFF, you know who you are and you know what I mean! I prey on you pathetic losers and take advantage of your obsessive need to butt your nose in hoping to tell the "Anonymous Coward" your 2 cents. Tell you what, move out of you mommy's house you 28 year old british loser. Stopping pissing away your entire paycheck in the pubs while screaming at inanimate objects (the TV you moron) insisting that your standing on an unsteady pub stool jumping up and down yelling will really impact the overpaid losers kicking the ball around and screwing posh spice and her ragged ass mama Old Spice and popping out puppies named after shitholes like brooklyn. Get your own f-ing apartment, doesn't have to be flat, it could infact extended upward by 8 feet or 2 meters to provide head space for you. Get it on

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[sparkeyjames]

That would also be .062 of a square meter for you decimal fanatics.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Chopsticks are anolgous to forks. You can stab things with em too.

But that's terribly bad manners. It's a bit like putting your knife in your mouth, or scooping with your fork in your left hand - sure, it might be convenient sometimes, but expect to be sneered at for it.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

If we switched to the metric system, it would cost billions of dollars. Think of it...every road sign would have to be changed to list the distance to the next town in km instead of miles...

Um, no, it wouldn't. We use the metric system in Britain - to the extent that some guy actually got prosecuted for selling someone a pound of bananas a while back - but all our road signs are still in miles.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[jhobbs]

I bow before the you O Wise One. (and I just ordered my titanium spork)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[The Conductor]

I didn't invent this phrase, but it is quite apt, "The size of a brick has more to do with a bricklayer's hand than the length of the Prime Meridian."

I have never seen a problem with using traditional units for traditional uses and using modern units for technical uses. Just as pound-denoiminated mesurements have no place on a space probe trajectory caluculation, metric units have no place in my kitchen. My electronic scale annoys me when it defaults to grams every time I power it on; I don't build bombs in my kitchen, so get those grams out of here. My heirloom recipe books will never be converted to metric.

Much of the proselytizing of the metric system seems to be motivated by the mistaken belief that, if only we could stamp out traditional units, then the world would be free of clumsy unit conversions forevermore. Even if traditional units never existed, we would still be stuck with conversions because people adapt measurement systems, like any other tool, for their own uses.

• I don't buy gemstones by the gram.
• Kilograms are more often a unit of force than mass.
• 120 volts is neither the nominal peak nor average voltage at a power outlet.
• My calandar is not marked in kiloseconds.
• Light-years and parsecs are not metric units, nor are barns and Angstroms.
• European weather reports don't give temperatures in Kelvin, the proper SI unit.
• And of course, pi and the square root of 2 don't co-operate with our nice, neat metrology schemes.

Unit conversions are with us to stay, because it is easier that way.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Blastercorps]

Because a while a spork does the job of a fork and a spoon it does neither nearly as good as the original implements.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[someguyintoronto]

an from what i've heard the spork was invented by the canadian army... can someone confirm this very important piece?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[spun]

I wonder why Westerners insist on using both a fork and spoon to eat after they've seen the Spork.

Especially when there are such informative sites dedicated to the use and appreciation of sporks.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[doktor-hladnjak]

M/D/Y goes in the order you usually say a date in English. Hence, May 14th, 2004 -> 5/14/2004.

Compare to a language like German: 14. Mai 2004 -> 14.5.2004 or Spanish (most Romance languages follow a similar form too): el 14 de mayo de 2004 -> 14.5.2005.

Of course, in Britain they don't do it the same way as in the US, but like other European countries. Perhaps they got caught in a pickle, trying to decide whether or not to be different from other Europeans or different from Americans (;

However, ignoring the whole "how you say it" issue, it does make more logical sense to say the date then month then year, because the most used and fastest changing information comes first.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[gotih]

what is this, flamebait? chomp.

americans don't know shit about the rest of the world. the rest of the world knows tons about america. not only do we export movies and tv shows, the rest of the world has informative news programs with correspondents reporting honestly on life in other countries and shedding light on global issues rather than focusing on the bad parts of a city like a teenager fretting over a breakout of zits (bad neighborhoods, like zits, will improve and possibly disapper with time and care but don't try to attack either).

1. WE LIKE BEING DIFFERENT

yeah, so does the rest of the world (except maybe japan). so stop trying to impose your values on them.

2. and 3. together are absurd. you could have at least seperated them a bit.

5. countries all over the world like sports which are not popular here. they like the sports but don't give a fuck who cares.

6. and one cares if you use the british system.

4, 7. "we don't give a shit" now that's a position to exalt with gusto! spoken like a real two year old who just learned to say "no".

grow up...
become a kid.

do i need to mention that america is not the center of the universe? military power, check. influencial, check back in 6 years. the highest standard of living in the world, uh, no.

why do I spend my valuable time with people I'd much rather kick in the eye?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Altizar]

Canada has converted to metric, its that this conversion will take three generations to complete is why we still use imperial. Oh, and offical we use our body weight/hight in metric its just that still 2/3rds of the population grew up using inches and pounds not centemeters and kilograms.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[opello]

you realize you can have colder ice... so that idea isn't the best one ... but I can't think of a better one

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[belroth]

I do NOT have cold salt water when hiking. If I, by some odd chance of LSD-induced packing, only had cold salt water and my mouth with me, I could just as easily make a C thermometer as a F one.

But you do have some form of temperature sensitive device to calibrate such as a tube partially filled with alcohol or mercury and a reservoir of same?
Why not carry a thermometer?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[rnelsonee]

Yeah, my bad, I got that backwards. I should've stated it the other way: supposing you have a fixed length, and you want to divide it into n segments. This particular example yields 10.5, an even more worthless number than 10 (how many times have you needed to cut a board into 10 pieces?). But as I stated in another thread, the carpenter will often want to divide his board in fourths (or to a lesser extent, thirds and sixths), in which case the 12" comes in handy. With metric, you only get to divide it in fifths (and half, but same with imperial).

But yeah, I wouldn't care if, as a modern society, we used metric 100% of the time. It would be a bit harder to do some things, but metric wins out over all.

Actually, a hybrid system would be best. One based on practical values, but still scales perfectly from there on out (for length, use the length from the elbow to the wrist for an average-size person, for weight, use, oh, the weight of water sitting in a cubic whatever-the-elbow-to-wrist-thing-is... etc.). So base it off something good, then use a factor of 10, and use the properites of water to scale it.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[perky]

We don't give a shit.
On the contrary - you've spent over 100 billion dollars in the last year showing just how much you hate other people doing things differently.

;)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[belroth]

Kilograms are more often a unit of force than mass.

The SI unit of force is the Newton.
Kilograms are often loosely used for weight in normal use. This is normally close enough to mass when shopping.

120 volts is neither the nominal peak nor average voltage at a power outlet.

In Europe we don't use 120, we use 220/240 (close enough not to matter) which I beleive is root mean square, like hi-fi power ratings.

Light-years and parsecs are not metric units, nor are barns and Angstroms.

How often are these used in daily life?
And barns and Angstroms have been replaced by nanometers.

European weather reports don't give temperatures in Kelvin, the proper SI unit.

No, but I can always add 273 and that's close enough for the weather. The nice thing about metric is that calculations are much simpler - you don't need most of those stupid factors that keep cropping up with Imperial.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[pjt33]

5: we Like that we like sports other countries don't.

So much that you don't mind naming your national leagues things like World Series.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[sketerpot]

This is the sort of thing that really makes metric seem worthwhile, aside from the really easy unit conversions. The metric system is generally well thought out, rather than being an ad-hoc, poorly specified, bug-ridden collection of old units that nobody wanted to give up. Metric pen sizes are also set up to scale with paper sizes in a sane way. In the article, there is the example of reduction of a magazine article with a copy machine onto smaller paper which just worked. That sort of thing is designed, and designed very well. Metric units fit together. Do acres and square inches fit together in any simple way? No! I rest my case.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[powderfinger]

So wrong!

Length (l)
Unit: metre (m)
One metre is defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 second. This standard was adopted in 1983 when the speed of light in vacuum was defined to be precisely 299,792,458 m/s.

All the rest is garbage too.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Diag]

Um, I would say "14th of May, 2004", unless I'm talking to American colleagues.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[HyperCash]

"he highest standard of living in the world, uh, no."

Hey, budddy, the only reason we're not in the top 5 is because they took education into account. Just because we're stupid doesn't mean we can't live well. Hell, we probably live better as a result, ignorance being bliss and all.

--HC

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[BJH]

Sushi's actually supposed to be eaten with your fingers - it was the original Japanese "fast food".

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[jimmars83]

We are sorry our president is an idiot. We didn't vote for him.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, man, its not that we don't like sporks, its just that JTHM doesn't particularly care for them.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Guppy06]

"Get it?"

I do, but you don't.

"The cube meter is the volume of one ton of fresh water at sea level at the equator at zero degrees Celcius."

No, a meter is the distance light travels in 1/(299,792,458) second. Period. A cubic meter is nothing more than that distance cubed.

"The cube meter is the volume of one ton of fresh water at sea level at the equator at zero degrees Celcius."

How many things are wrong with this statement?

1. The kilogram is a unit of mass, not weight. And density is a ratio of mass per unit volume, not weight.
2. The accepted (i. e. legal for engineering use) average value of average gravitational acceleration on the surface of the earth is just that: average. The internationally accepted standard is 9.80665 m/(s^2). Why would you use the extreme of ~9.780327 when very few people live there? You should be avoiding extremes anyway when it comes to defining things anyway.
3. "Sea level?" What's that? High tide? Low tide? Ebb tide? Neap tide? (To make life easier for everybody, the standardized "accepted" answer is 101,325 Pa.)
4. Why would you want to use the freezing point at any given pressure, anyway? If you so much as sneeze you throw everything out of whack (energy from sneeze melts some amount of water and/or sublimates some of it to water vapor, throwing off density, local absolute pressure and a host of other factors you look like you were trying to control)
5. Oh, wait you're not using the freezing point, you're using 0 degrees Celsius. 0 degrees Celsius isn't the freezing point of water, it's simply 0.01 Kelvin below the triple point of water. You see, with all the difficulties of basing a temperature scale on freezing and boiling points (with all the variables involved there), the science/engingeering community said "Fuck it!" and based everything on the triple point of water (273.16 Kelvin a/k/a 0.01 degrees Celsius, 1 Kelvin = 1.8 degrees Rankine and 0 degrees Celsius = 32 degrees Farenheit, all by definition). Now, with 0 degrees Centrigrade, yes, that was (by definition) the freezing point of H20 at 101,325 Pa, and it's "close enough" to Celsius for average, everyday work, but it certainly isn't really the same thing.
6. The density of water ice at 0 degrees Celsius is around 918 kg/(m^3). You're off by around 10%. Better luck next time!

"1 ton is 1000 kilo gram."

Is that a US ("short") ton or a UK ("long") ton? If you choose "US," you've just introduced another 10% or so of error. Either way, as a metric proponent you should be using the word "megagram" instead.

"each kilo gram is thus 10cm*10cm*10cm, which happens to also be a liter."

No, a liter is nothing more than a fancy name for "cubic decimeter." And one liter of water at 3.98 degrees Celsius is 0.9999750 kilograms. And, for reference, at the other extreme of 374.14 degrees Celsius (a/k/a the critical point of H2O) it's down around 0.316957 kg or so (but you'll have to push 22.1 MPa for that trick).

"1 gram is 1 millionth of a ton, "

A gram is simply 1/1000 of a kilogram. A kilogram is currently defined by a sign pointing to a particular chunk of metal that says "about this much" in French. (And a pound is currently defined as 0.45359237 kg.)

"so if a bottle of water is 1000 grams (1 kilo gram), it is also 1 liter. "

According to my steam tables, saturated liquid water at 25 degrees Celsius had a density of around 0.997 kg. I figure it's probably also around that number at 101,325 Pa as well.

"So now I know the volume, the weight, and the measurement of the container. Pretty nifty no?"

Well...

"Density is expressed in a ratio from fresh water at zero degrees at sea level at the equator."

Change "density" to "specific gravity," "zero degrees Celsius" to "3.98 degreees Celsius," "sea lev

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Crazy Eight]

... it's a lot easier to snap a twig to the length of my foot than it is to measure the distance from the north pole to the equator and divide by 1,000, which is what a meter is...

Wow! No wonder Santa can get so much done when he needs to. He can circle the Earth in 4 kilometers.

All kidding aside, I think the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light now.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Crazy Eight]

Does Relativity pose a problem here for defining an absolute measure of time? Is it (at least mathematically, if not practically) possible to use the speed of light and the Planck length to get an absolute measure of time?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Crazy Eight]

So long as he gives that velveeta a squared, bricklike shape (what's the 3D version of a rectangle?) the math is basic.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[IvyKing]

(And a pound is currently defined as 0.45359237 kg.)

At what value of assumed gravitational acceleration?? (Pounds are a unit of force, not mass - make more sense in defing slugs in terms of kilograms).

This is my one nitpick with your otherwise excellent post. I especially liked your rant on temperature (bullet point #5) - have yet to see anyone come up with a valid reason why Celsius is inherently better than Fahrenheit other than being part of the SI standard.

If you're going to taut the advantages of your measurement system, shouldn't you maybe know a thing or two about it before you try? I can get much better accuracy in my native system by remembering that pure liquid H2O at around 75 degrees Farenheit and about 14.7 psia has a density of about 62.4 lb/(ft^3), and I'll avoid some of the potentially dangerous mistakes you're making.

Reminds me of another rule of thumb - at 70F and 100% RH, there's 1 pound (lbm not lbf) of water per 1,000 cubic feet of air.

One final rant - the US letter size is defined as 8.5 by 11 inches exactly - which works out to 215.9 by 279.4 mm (exactly) and good quality paper will be +/- 0.1 mm. The author of the website rounded the letter size to the nearest integral number of mm, which is just as sleazy as rounding the metric size to the nearest 1/32nd of an inch. While the root 2 aspect ratio of metric paper is nice for folding, there is no way that you can maintain an exact aspect ratio and have the size in an integral number of mm.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you still using roman numerals?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[cascadingstylesheet]

americans don't know shit about the rest of the world. the rest of the world knows tons about america. not only do we export movies and tv shows, the rest of the world has informative news programs with correspondents reporting honestly on life in other countries and shedding light on global issues rather than focusing on the bad parts of a city like a teenager fretting over a breakout of zits (bad neighborhoods, like zits, will improve and possibly disapper with time and care but don't try to attack either

Yes, of course; that's why Al-Jazeera and Xinhua are my choice for news of all things American ;) Their consistently high standards of reporting honestly on life in other countries.

By the way, it is your attitude that is utterly, boringly, conventional, yet you think it is insightful and rebellious.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[DunbarTheInept]

The metric system is sensible in that it matches our numbering system. But, the metric system is nonsensical in that our numbering system isn't a very good one, and shouldn't really be used to map a physical entity you are going to have to divide a lot. There aren't enough common denominators of 10. If we had been born with six fingers ( My name is Anigo Montoya) on each hand, and thus had a base-12 numbering system, then the imperial system would make a lot more sense than it does now. It divides things up into parts easier.

The idea solution would be to have a counting system that makes more sense than base 10, and then have a measuring system that matches it.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[pyrrhonist]

How about five parts?

First cut the board to 12' 1/2", and then cut it into 5 pieces each 2' 1/2" long. Either that, or use a micrometer to measure out the last 25 thousandths of an inch for each piece after you've marked off 2' 1/2" using a ruler. It doesn't matter that much with wood, as you'll probably lose 1/40 of an inch just cutting the pieces anyway.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[DunbarTheInept]

It seems you have an inflated sense of the importance of arbitrary units of measure.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[mikis]

No. We have 10x15 (in cm of course), 20x30, 30x45, etc...

There is also 9x13, 13x18, 18x26... (cm)

By the way, how did you call a 24x36 camera ?

Leica? :) And what about 6x6 (Hasselblad)?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Noehre]

Yes, there is a smallest unit of time based upon Planck Legnth and c.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[mikis]

Lacking the proper equipment do measure 1/299,792,458th of a second, I'd say it is close enough.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Alexei]

Hmmm.... Your math is off. let's see... 12'5/8"
= 2'+(2'5/8")/5
= 2'4"+(4 5/8")/5
= 2'(4 + 7/8)" with 1/4" remaining.

End result = complicated calculation and easy to make a mistake. Case in point, really.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Bitsy Boffin]

M/D/Y goes in the order you usually say a date in English. Hence, May 14th, 2004 -> 5/14/2004.


Maybe that's an american thing too, here in New Zealand I would say 'The 5th of May 2004', never 'May the 5th 2004', and I think most other people would too.

D/M/Y and Y-M-D make sense, the values ascend or descend in scale, but M/D/Y is just all wrong.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[king-manic]

lol. The thing about using a fork in your left hand is indiosyncradic not universal.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[pyrrhonist]

Indeed. I've often wondered why they don't specify it as something like the mass of 5.02 x10^25 atoms of Carbon-12.

Because it introduces a circular dependancy on the mole.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[sadomikeyism]

Exactly how is a measurement system based on one arbitrarily chosen natural constant for each type of measurement any better than a system with no constants, only arbitrariness. I thought you europhilic fasco-socialist moral relativists loved arbitrary rules....

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

No... he just thinks he's right, and I agree with him.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[pyrrhonist]

Is that a US ("short") ton or a UK ("long") ton? If you choose "US," you've just introduced another 10% or so of error. Either way, as a metric proponent you should be using the word "megagram" instead.

1000 kg in metric is also called a "tonne" or "metric ton".
The official symbol is t, but mT and T are also used.

The word "megagram" is rarely used.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Guppy06]

"(Pounds are a unit of force, not mass - make more sense in defing slugs in terms of kilograms)."

Unfortunately we've all been lied to by our physics teachers. Pounds have been considered mass and related to the kilogram since at least the turn of the Twentieth Century, and the "1 lb = 0.45359237 kg" is the legal definition of the pound adopted by the English-speaking world in the 1950's and 1960's (around the same time we all agreed that 1 ft = 0.3048 m). After all, how do you accurately measure the "weights" of objects back in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries? Beam balances, which means they were measuring mass as compared to their pound standards.

I swear, I don't know which was worse: learning the truth about Santa or or the truth about slugs. If it makes you feel any better, at 9.80665 m/(s^2), 1 lbf = 4.4482216152605 N exactly.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Guppy06]

"1000 kg in metric is also called a "tonne" or "metric ton"."

Ah, but to be a true SI proponent that believes in global standards, you shouldn't do that. The only reason a megagram is called a "ton" in common usage is that it's within 2% of the UK ton. But the One True Standard hammered out by international treaty and put out by BIPM (the Defenders of the Faith) is "Mg." And that's spelled "megagramme," because the One True Standard is only official in French.

After all, if you want to call 1000 kg "ton," why should you balk when I call 0.3048 m "foot?"

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Pseudonym]

M/D/Y goes in the order you usually say a date in English.

Only in the US, and a lot of the time, not even then. Do you customarily call your national holiday "July 4th"? Didn't think so.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[pyrrhonist]

End result = complicated calculation and easy to make a mistake. Case in point, really.

It helps if you're not totally drunk off your ass, too.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife, who is Japanese, pointed out a VERY good use of chopsticks: for picking dropped objects like screws from the inside of computer cases (when your hand won't fit inside).

You should be using magnetic screw drivers where you don't want to have to dig around to fetch lost screws.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Dun Malg]

It wasn't until the 17th century that forks started becoming common on the tables of Europe, and later in North America.

I must add to this frenzy of cutlery tangents! The rounded-end knife replaced the pointy dagger-like knife at the table in the 17th century as well. Cardinal Richelieu was so disgusted by courtier's habit of picking their teeth with the pointy knives after dinner that he ordered a set of knives made with rounded ends.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Dun Malg]

Do acres and square inches fit together in any simple way?

Bah! 6,272,640 square inches to the acre! A rectangle 3630 inches by 12^3 inches. Plain as the nose on your face, man! (heh)

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Alexei]

Well, it's not the metric system's fault. Still, base 60 would be best, I suppose, and though I don't see it happening any time soon, it wouldn't be impossible. It would be an interesting experiment, a la esperanto. It would require new symbols and new spoken forms. One advantage would be that the time of day would be represented as a number with two digits after the "decimal" point. Hmmm, I wonder if there are Babylonian-style digital watches for sale?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Italy isn't in the west?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

This is funny because is commonly called July 4th, either is acceptable.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[bradleyjg]

I think they switched that to a more precise measure something about supercritical hydrogen.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[zeno_2]

Well we managed to get one day right..

The 4th of July =).

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[fferreres]

I know you know this, and everyone know this, but it took me a some time to figure why it's magically SQRT(2)...because what you want is to double one axis lenght only and reach the same ratio.

|---|X Lameness filter encountered.
| | Post aborted!
| | Reason: Please use fewer
|---| 'junk' characters.
1

|---|---|X Lameness filter encountered.
| | | Post aborted!
| | | Reason: Please use fewer
|---|---| 'junk' characters.
2

X 2
--- = --- => X^2 = 2 => X = SQRT(2)
1 X

I know, I know ... sorry

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[N1KO]

Do Al-Jazeera or Xinhua even have correspondents in the States? The only American news channels I get are CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. Many countries only get CNN, so you can't blame people for thinking the American news sources are biased.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[91degrees]

No it doesn't. The mole is defined as a specified number of atoms. No dependency on the gram at all. We simply need to define Avagadro's number to be a specific amount. The gram is defined as the mass of 1 mole of neutrons.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[calidoscope]

Unfortunately we've all been lied to by our physics teachers.

In my case it was my fluid mechanics professor - the textbooks made it very clear that pounds were a unit of force, e.g. pounds per square inch. To remove ambiguity, references were made to "pound mass" (lbm) versus "pound force" (lbf). As you said, there is precedence for using pounds as mass units - which isn't as disgusting as using grams/kilograms as force (weight) units.

You are correct in stating that a balance beam measures mass, but I will assert that a spring scale (strain gauge included) measures weight. The conversion does require agreeing on a "standard gravity".

I swear, I don't know which was worse: learning the truth about Santa or or the truth about slugs

Slugs can be very useful: 1 pound of force is required to accelerate a mass of 1 slug at a rate of 1 foot per second squared. This is exactly equivalent to saying 1 newton of force is required to accelerate 1 kg of mass at a rate of 1 meter per second squared. The metric system would have been much nicer had the meter been defined to be a factor of 9.80665 longer - then a kilogram would have weighed one newton at a standard gravity.

Along these lines, there are several other non-SI units that will take a long while to go away:
Measuring atmospheric pressure in mm or inches of mercury (latter is standard for aviation).
Oil is sold in units of barrels (42 US gallons).
Most states in the US regulate the sale price of natural gas in price per 10e6 BTU (which is approximately 1,000 cu. ft.)
Relay racks will be 19 inches wide, height in multiples of 1.75 inches and use 10-32 screws.
And the "what were these guys smoking?" award goes to HO scale: 1'=3.5mm
4 by 8 foot plywood sheets will be here a long time (in the US).
Plumbing will remain in inch sizes for the forseeble future (in the US)
RR track guage will remain 4'8.5" (a standard that's too entrenched to be replaced by better (read wider - 1.8m?) choices)

There are too many things in the US that have been standardized on "English" units for it to go completely metric in the next half century. Metric is creeping in where convenient, e.g. 2 liter soda bottles and metric pitch for surface mount components. On the other hand, the US uses 120V/60Hz power, Europe uses 230V/50Hz and I don't see either Europe or the US making changes. I suspect we will see a true paperless economy before the US switches from letter to A4 size paper.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Guppy06]

"The kilogram is the only SI base unit that has not yet been defined in terms of a natural constant"

Look closely at the defintion of the Ampere, the mole and the candela. They're all base units and they all rely on that artifact kilogram in one way or another (though it may be hidden inside words like "Newton" and "Watt").

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[pyrrhonist]

No it doesn't.

Technically, it does. The definition of the mole is:

1. The mole is the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12.
2. When the mole is used, the elementary entities must be specified and may be atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, other particles, or specified groups of such particles.

You can find this information directly from the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM)

Now, should they just scrap that definiton and just say that a mole is an Avogadro's number worth of elementary entities? I don't know. Maybe, but in that case, it would be based off an arbitrary value instead of tied to a physical representation whose value could be calculated experimentally.

The gram is defined as the mass of 1 mole of neutrons.

Well, not really. The gram is based off of the kilogram, which is equal to the mass of the international prototype.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[ajs318]

Metric measurements make sense when you express fractions in decimal rather than ratiometric notation. (In Britain and Europe, pocket calculators invariably display fractions in decimal notation; I don't know about American ones). So for example, if I have a space that is 1m. wide and I want to divide it into three equal spaces, each one needs to be 0.333333..... m. wide. Now my tape measure is accurate to 0.001m and (unlike most British ones) has centimetre and millimetre marks the full width, so it can be used from either end of the wood. All I need do, then, is to measure 0,333m. in from either end, and the cumulative error -- which, by simple mathematics, will be no bigger than 0.001m. -- will all be applied to the middle space. Thus preserving the symmetry.

If you want to, say, divide a space which is 4 feet 9 inches wide into 5 compartments, then you cannot do this so easily, because the fractional part (if written ratiometrically) will be in fifths; 4/5 feet, 1 4/5 inches. But inch rulers are invariably divided by 32nds, 16ths, 8ths and so forth. You cannot readily convert 1/5 into 32nds; it's about 3/16, but there is a 1/16in error {which is bigger than the 1mm. I had using the metric ruler and pocket calculator}.

Do US pocket calculators use ratiometric fractions? That might be a kind of cool feature ..... How many digits usually in the numerator and the denominator? How do you handle varying size numbers? Dot matrix display, mega-wide display so as to fit in 8+(8/8), or mode-switching for the integer, numerator and denominator? I'm curious.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Alsee]

A sheet of A-34 paper would be 17 billion square meters. Large enough for a map of the United States with a scale of 1 mile = 1 mile.

-

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

What a dick.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[LarsWestergren]

7: Did I mention we don't give a shit?

So why did you bother to post then?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Gumshoe]

Are you talking about Chinese or Japanese chopsticks? The Japanese variety traditionally taper to a point, which wouldn't be very hepful for picking up screws I would imagine.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[thogard]

Because in most cases the year isn't needed which means month-day has the most significant bit 1st which helps for sorting. You write numbers with the most significant parts 1st so why not dates?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[91degrees]

Well, okey. Changing the definition of the kilogram would result in changing the definition of the mole, but I was talking about how it worked in my proposal. I know that the kilogram is defined as the mass of an arbitrary lump of metal in Paris. It's just a little arbitrary.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[The Conductor]

The point I'm driving at is that even modern units, designed in a big creationist leap, and in common use for only a century or two, have grown warts, and require a handful of magic numbers. People are willing to trade conversion consistency (between interstellar units and terrestrial units, in the parsec/light-year example) for convenience in rule-of-thumb calculations within a certain field of endeavor. If you stamp out non-standard units, new ones crop up, showing that people want non-standard units and don't care about conversion factors.

So maybe some of those warts are really miswarts.

Whoever likes modern units is, of course, free to use them, but the bureaucratic mandate to force them in the face of people who don't want them is questionable.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[EnglishTim]

Darn - somehow I managed to delete a whole section of my post.

What I meant to say was that you're best not using ices because all you know is that it's = 17C.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Rich0]

The problem is that this is not a useful standard to actually use to calibrate something - because it is difficult to actually measure out so many carbon-12 atoms at very high purity.

There was an article on this very subject in Chemical and Engineering News a few years ago. Very fascinating...

The problem is that the kilogram standard that was constructed back in days of yore is just too good... It has been only touched a few times in all of history to verify the calibration of working standards which are frequently used, and over the decades the measurements only varied by incredibly small values.

One standard that was being investigated was based on the mass of some spherical volume of silicon. Due to the high-tech revolution we can apparently make silicon to very high purity, and it is possible to grow nearly perfectly spherical crystals of it. You can then use a laser to measure the radius of the sphere to high precision, thereby determining the volume and consequently the mass. The problem is that it still isn't as accurate as the dumb weight in a bell jar...

All the other units can be measured more accurately based on physical definitions than with standard clocks/metersticks/etc. However, the kilogram still is a hunk of metal that we hope never falls on the floor...

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Pseudonym]

My wife is from the US. Now admittedly this may be regional, but she uses the term "the fourth of July" to refer to the holiday and the term "July 4th" to refer to the day on which the holiday falls.

My point stands, though. People in the US use "day/month" occasionally.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[king-manic]

I'm guessing you got the poitn of all the other rebuttals but if you precisions not an issue, then just saying "it's warm" its "cold" is enough. If it is an issue your methods would be pretty inaccurate or else you had a themometer to begin with.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

"The fourth of July" sounds strange and stilted. It's simply July 4th (and if you want to take the peculiar step of separating it from its date, it's formally "Independence Day"). Likewise Mt. St. Helens erupted on May 18th and the WTC was attacked on September 11th (aka "nine-eleven"). The only times I ever put the month at the end are "the ides of March" (which comes from Shakespeare's dialect, which generally sounds pretty peculiar now) and "Cinco de Mayo" (which is only correct because it's in Spanish).

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Nifty would be "a liter is a cubic meter, a gram is the mass of a liter of water". All these factors of 10, 100, and 1000 sneaking into the relationships make them vastly harder to remember correctly, and only marginally simpler than imperial units--sure I know the mass of a liter of water is a power of ten, but which power of ten?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[HoppQ]

D/M/Y and Y-M-D make sense, the values ascend or descend in scale, but M/D/Y is just all wrong.

Actually, please don't use D/M/Y. I at least when seeing "/" used as a delimiter in dates assume the date is in the American M/D/Y order. The correct delimiter is "." as in D.M.Y (e.g. today is 16.5.2004).

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[greggman]

Maybe because chopsticks are better than forks in many cases. For example it's much easier to eat salad with chopsticks since you can actually grab things than try to spear lettuce or cabbage with a fork.

Someone talented with chopsticks can also pick up a large piece of food and bite off pieces. You can try to do this with a fork but often you'll pull the entire thing off the fork.

With chopsticks you can pick up tiny things like individual grains of rice or small pickle slices, something you can't do with a fork.

I wouldn't try to eat an uncut stake with chopsticks but I also wouldn't try to cook korean BBQ with forks.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Intriging question: What would be the effects, if any, of a plot to kidnap the international kilogram?

Are there any applications, such as remote sensing, nuclear science, or other precise science that would be disabled in a few years due to lack of a consisent mass standard?

I don't know and am just asking a retorical question. I guess the answer is no effect, given that the US hasn't already invaded France and taken the kilogram?

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[Rich0]

If that were to happen then the mass would probably be redefined based on a silicon standard or something like that.

The problem is that the silicon standard isn't as good as the existing standard. It is probably good enough for just about every conceivable current need, however, and eventually it will exceed the current system. The problem is just that there is no need to replace the current system right now.

If standards being stolen were a big problem then I'm sure people would move away from such standards fairly quickly.

The USA obviously could care less about the standard - all real life measurements are based on working standards derived from the international standard. The US NIST undoubtedly has such a standard which is for all intents identical to the international standard, but it just isn't blessed as the standard (and if future technology should show that they deviate in the 15th sig fig then the international standard is the accepted value, but of course since such future technology will be new anything calibrated against the US standard would have been calibrated to lesser precision and so it wouldn't matter anyway).

From what I understand the actual international kilogram has only been measured a few times in all of history (the last time many years ago). Nobody wants to risk causing damage to it, and each time it was taken out the working standards were found to still be in good shape. The one/two-off standards themselves are only used rarely most likely.

And if the internatinal kg disappeared and nobody wanted to accept a derived standard then everyone would just accept a one-off standard.

Re:2 x A4 = A3

[einhverfr]

A0 paper is one square meter.

A4 paper is 2^-4 = 1/16 square meter.

And I thought it was only the imperial system that was based on 2 ;-)

honestly, this is interesting because it shows that 10 is not a natural number for engineering purposes. The metric system uses it (foolishly, I think) because our number system is based on it. The Imperial system does have an advantage in this area because it is based on 2 and 3. Paper sizes are just one area where the utility of these numbers is so inescapably obvious that even the metric system cannot avoid them.

Now what we need is a metric system based on the number 12. Then we can even have reasonably comprehensible numbers in our paper sizes as well.

Of course, paper sizes cannot exactly maintain purportion when cut in half because the square root of 2 is not a rational number. But it would be nice to be able to convert units simply when dividing repeatedly by 2 and 3, which you *cannot* do in the metric system without rounding ;-)

It's articles like this

[Anonymous Coward]

That make me happy my rolling paper is not metric
-B

Re:It's articles like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine is....and two pinners side by side makes one phattie

Re:It's articles like this

[justforaday]

That make me happy my rolling paper is not metric

oh, i dunno...can't say i'd mind something rolled with a sheet of A0... @_@

Re:It's articles like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, 2 rizlas to a king size, 2 king size to a blunt, 2 blunts to a "marley joint"... thanks to the metric system they would all be rollable out of regular papers with a lot of licking and sticking.

Well, you can do it now, but they are funny shaped and fall apart...

We need metric rolling papers!!!

Side-by-sideness

[TyrelHaveman]

You can also put two 8.5x11 (Letter) sheets of paper side by side and it equals an 11x17 (Tabloid) sheet of paper...

Re:Side-by-sideness

[N1RCV]

In the engineering world (in USA). Letter size is A size. Tabloid is B size. 2 B sizes (22x17) is C size. And 24x36 is D size.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[The Blue Meanie]

And oddly enough, non-metric paper also comes in 5.5x8.5 (half of letter size), 23x17 (two 11x17s and a gutter), and 23x35 (two 23x17s and a gutter). This just makes sense to do, so you can print 16-page signatures for books or 8-up letter-size pages that can be cut down.
How is the metric version superior because they can get two of each size out of the next size up just as easily as we can?

Re:Side-by-sideness

[salzbrot]

That is true, but the 8.5 x 11 has a width-length ratio of about 1.29, whereas the 11 x 17 has a ratio of 1.54. A sheet of 17 x 22 again has the ratio of 1.29 and so on.

The DIN A formats all have the ratio of square root 2. That makes it very easy to scale stuff up or down, e.g. if you use a copy machine: copy 2 DIN A4 (= DIN A3) on one DIN A4 without messing up the margins. Cut the sheet in half and you have 2 DIN A5 pages that exactly look like the DIN A4 pages, only half the size.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[fava]

You can take it even further.

Take an 8 1/2 x 11 (A size) double the shortest dimesion and you get 11x17 (B size) do it again and you get 17x22 (C size) and again to get 22x34 (D size) and again to get 24x44 (E size). These are all standard paper sizes.

Historically I believe that it actually worked the other way around, they started with a large standard sheet and kept cutting it in half.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[SSpade]

But 11x17 is not the same shape as 8 1/2x11.

That's the real beauty of A4/A3 etc. All the sizes in a given series (A00, A0, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5... or B1, B2, B3...) are the same shape.

So you can photocopy an A4 document onto A3 paper expanding it by the right proportion and it'll fit perfectly. And you can copy two A4 documents onto A3 paper and it'll fit perfectly. Or use psnup to put A4 formatted documents reduced to 2-up on A4 paper with no wasted space.

Try that with letter or legal size....

Re:Side-by-sideness

[srussell]

Yes, but the metric system is designed so that this ratio applies all the way from the smallest size up to the largest. So, two A4 is one A3, two A3 is one A2, two A2 is one A1.

Putting them side-by-side isn't as interesting as cutting them in half, though. I discovered this when I started printing photos from my inkjet. Photo paper is generally available in the stores in limited sizes. I can buy a bunch of A4, and cut it in half, and I have two A5s. Do it again, and I have A6s, which is nearly a 4x6. Best of all, these paper sizes are all standard, which is good, because my printer doesn't like me to define my own paper sizes. With the American system, I have to measure and cut, which is more difficult.

When you discuss the advantages of metric, it really is about convenience[1]. There's nothing that you can do with metric that you can't with the English system; it is just, generally, more difficult to do with the English system. If you don't care about convenience, and you live in the USA, then you probably don't have any reason to use metric.

[1] Of course, using metric in the US imposes a certain amount of inconvenience from compatability issues, but that's another argument.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[realSpiderman]

Because you will always have the same ratio of height and width.
And you can nicely (perfectly) arrange two resized A4 (-> A5) pages on a single A4 sheet, because of this.

With letter sizes you can only do this for four letter-sized pages on one page.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Golias]

Wow. That will really come in handy when I want to expand my thesis to poster size.

Oh wait. That will never happen.

Standard sizes are built around the real-world needs of the printing business. "Gutter" space is very helpful to book binding shops. It sounds like the metric choice is built around an obsessive-compulsive person's mad desire to make everything "match up" just right, so the same irregular number is used for the ratio of all paper (as if that somehow makes things easier... wouldn't it have been much nicer to make the ratio a nice, round 1.5?) regardless of how the paper size in question is going to be commonly used. No surprise there, though. The entire metric system is built around careful and pedantic synchronization of all quantities with an incorrect measurement of the Earth done by a couple of sloppy Frenchmen working for Napoleon.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[dnoyeb]

Yea, I am sick of all this metric "system" non-sense. The fact that paper sizes are compatible has nothing to do with metric system, but paper design. As it is in so many other measurements. A number is a number.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

The "metric" system is called metric because A0 has an area of 1 m^2

Re:Side-by-sideness

[mattyrobinson69]

>>that you can't with the English system

its the american system. in england, we use metric (by law).

its illegal for shops to sell sweets in quarters over here now!

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can also put two 8.5x11 (Letter) sheets of paper side by side and it equals an 11x17 (Tabloid) sheet of paper..."

Which is a different shape, and onto which you cannot photocopy your letter-paper sized documents.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[barawn]

When you discuss the advantages of metric, it really is about convenience[1]. There's nothing that you can do with metric that you can't with the English system; it is just, generally, more difficult to do with the English system. If you don't care about convenience, and you live in the USA, then you probably don't have any reason to use metric.

That's not quite true - one of the reasons that the Imperial system is moderately convenient for building is that base 12 is divisible by 2,3,4 and 6, so you'll encounter less rounding error if you need to split things up into common numbers. Base 10 is only divisible by 2 and 5. (Incidentally, this is of course why one of the older civilizations used base 60 - it's divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and it's the reason we have 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour).

So, for instance, if you want to break a 1' object into thirds, you can do it exactly. Try doing it with meters - it's 33 and a third centimeters. Most people would say "screw it, it's 333 mm" - but if you now take those "1/3 m" sticks and put 300 of them end to end, you don't have 100 m - you have 99.9 m, and you're a full ten centimeters short. In imperial, 1/3 of a yard is 1 foot. No rounding errors.

There really *are* advantages to the Imperial system - most people, however, simply assume that Imperial sucks and leave it at that.

Metric paper, however, is better designed than US. Being able to print 2 A4 on 1 without much work really kicks.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a problem it would be solved... What do I care about ratio? I read a legal document and I know it is important being really long but not too wide. I read a regular paper it is just a regular size paper being a good width and height. I read a post note which isnt very important its boxy (not wide). The importance is the length long - you better read it very throughly, boxy - who cares its a note.

Now lets break this down. You have the exact same size just bigger. Great so I can now read my legal documents using either a postit notes or banners. What did that buy me? Nothing.

Who care anyway? I use a word formater to print my documents and I very rarerly poduce distribution requiring the same size no matter what. Yeah yeah you can say the phothographs are an example but that is what film is for.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[ryan_fung]

Are you sure about this? Can anyone confirm or deny?

If what you said is true, what is that "B5 size" that I have been hearing for a long time?

Re:Side-by-sideness

[ryan_fung]

Sorry, didn't RTFA.

The answer is in the article. RTFA if you what to know it.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

Irrational

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Greedo]

So, for instance, if you want to break a 1' object into thirds, you can do it exactly. Try doing it with meters - it's 33 and a third centimeters.

The converse of your argument applies also though. Try splitting a meter into fifths. Easy: 20cm. Now try that with a foot. Or a yard.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[cthulhubob]

You must be thinking of legal size (8.5 x 14") - going from letter (8.5 x 11") to ledger (11 x 17") is 141% on the ol' Xerox.

Not that metric paper doesn't make more sense (like everything in the metric system), but this is just wrong.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[plam]

Wow. That will really come in handy when I want to expand my thesis to poster size.

Oh wait. That will never happen.

Expand? No. But perhaps someone wants to copy your thesis 2-up, and that's a lot easier with metric sizes.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Fred Or Alive]

Frankly, I never quite got the hang of the stupid Imperial / English measurement system. I know 12" is 1', which is about 30cm, and a Yard is about 90cm. Other than that, they're all weird. I seem to remember doing something about it in Middle school Maths, but frankly, I think most British people wouldn't have a clue what most of the Imperial measurements (or indeed the 240d to GBP1 money system, where that's the only bit I can remember).

Beer shall forever be in pints though.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

You're conflating being able to sub-divide 12 into more whole units than 10 with the metric system as a whole.

Only some Imperial units are base-12; look at pounds and ounces or feet and yards. (And never mind that Americans think a pound is a pint for some reason.)

If you need to be accurately sub-dividing one-metre objects into three a lot (say, 100 times) but can't figure out where 1/3 of a metre is on your ruler, you have bigger problems than the Imperial system can help you with.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[ajs]

Also, if you take 3 8.5x11 sheets, line them up along their longer sides, attach them to eachother, put a staple through the middle of the first and second sheet join and then hang them from a height of approximately eye-level it makes the idea place for a picture of a naked "girl next door".

My buddy Heff taught me that trick.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[barawn]

Try splitting a meter into fifths. Easy: 20cm. Now try that with a foot. Or a yard.

Hence the reason that time is base 60.

You are, of course, correct. But splitting something in thirds and fourths is more common than 5ths. Splitting something in half is probably the most common.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want to break a 1' object into thirds [...] but if you now take those "1/3 m" sticks and put 300 of them end to end, you don't have 100 m - you have 99.9 m, and you're a full ten centimeters short

Don't tell me -- the 10cm is in the waiter's pocket, right?

Besides, what kind of genius, knowing he wants a 300m stick, and starting with 1m sticks, chops them all up into three first?

Re:Side-by-sideness

[sharkey]

But 11x17 is not the same shape as 8 1/2x11.

It's not a rectangle? Wow!

Re:Side-by-sideness

[barawn]

Only some Imperial units are base-12; look at pounds and ounces or feet and yards. (And never mind that Americans think a pound is a pint for some reason.)

Oh, come on. The metric system does not prevent you from confusing a liter and a kilo, and it happens often enough. People just happen to be lucky that water got defined as 1 kg/L.

And you, are, of course, correct - I won't try to justify any portion of the Imperial system other than the basic units.

1/3 of a metre is on your ruler, you have bigger problems than the Imperial system can help you with.

I could easily say if you can't remember what certain units are, you've got bigger problems as well, and if you really can't deal with fractions, you've got bigger problems also. I pointed out an advantage - pointing out that it's a weak advantage is poor. Metric is convenient because it's consistent - Imperial is convenient because it's divisible. I never suggested that Imperial was better, only that it had an advantage.

Imperial tends to be fraction-based, and metric tends to be decimal-based. Decimal-based trades ease for precision, whereas fraction-based trades precision for ease.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[ChrisMaple]

Right. Hence the words quarto and octavo, although I can't find a standard that they relate to.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[AmicoToni]

As a matter of fact, I am favourable to the pint in the UK (as it is 568mL), but I am utterly opposed to it in the US (where, if you are given a pint of beer, you get less than 1/2 litre!! :)

Re:Side-by-sideness

[barawn]

Besides, what kind of genius, knowing he wants a 300m stick, and starting with 1m sticks, chops them all up into three first?

The genius that doesn't want a stick, but wants a 100 meter brick wall, and wants three bricks per meter.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[tverbeek]

How is the metric version superior because they can get two of each size out of the next size up just as easily as we can?

The names of those sizes are shorter. :)

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the case with Imperial as well.

Try splitting 13 inches into 3 equal segments. (4.33 inches)

Or try splitting 30 cm in to 3 equal segments. (10 cm)

Real objects are not necessarily designed to be a single unit of whatever measurement system is being used.

In practical applications (splitting among them) metric is still more convenient and reliable than imperial.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[plugger]

I read somewhere that Base-60 (and Base-12) were used becasue of a method of counting on fingers.

Use your thumb on one hand to count using the segments of each finger (3 each), you can count to 12 on one hand.

Once you hit 12, put up a finger or thumb on your free hand and start again. You can then count from 1-60 on your fingers.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[lazarus corporation]

It comes in remarkably useful when you design a poster at A4 size. You can then enlarge it on a photocopier to exactly fit A3 size for larger posters, and also reduce it to exactly fit two A5 (or 4 A6) hand flyers on a sheet of A4 paper: a real-world example that I've used many times.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to expand your thesis to poster size because no one else cares to read it.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[orasio]

Screw it, the thickness of the blade is more than a milimeter, so you will break the meter into parts of more or less 33,3 cm (that's the measure we use for that kind of measures, mostly because a cm is about the width of a finger). Anyway, the real advantage or the metric system, is that we have ten fingers, and we can count with them, and adding is easy, while adding inches, and calculating how tall is a person who is 6'8" is very difficult without pen and paper, meters and cm and mm are just base 10, like regular mathematics.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[charlieo88]

is that we have ten fingers, and we can count with them, and adding is easy, while adding inches, and calculating how tall is a person who is 6'8" is very difficult without pen and paper

Wow! Here is the thing. If you can't multiply 6 by 12 and then add 8, all in your head without resorting to paper, then you are waaaaay on the wrong side of the bell curve.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[rpresser]

I submit that it's really not that big a deal. So you can expand or contract images to fit paper sizes without wasting any space. So what? Expanding and contracting isn't really that useful, and when it is useful the small amount of wasted paper is not important. I cannot see that switching my company's current workflows from US to metric paper sizes is going to either save money or open up new opportunities.

There are probably far more sheets of paper in the world that are US Letter size than any other size at all. And file folders to match. You want them all thrown away?

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Chazmati]

Actually, ANSI D-size is 22x34.

There's also E-size (34x44) and F-size (28x40). Not sure how they cooked up F-size.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[ahmosis]

Yeah, that sucks. how do you compare that to the size of the foot of the king ... what king was that ??????????? I forgot eeeeeehhh NO CARRIER

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

>And never mind that Americans think a pound is a pint for some reason.

A pint's a pound the world around

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Bob Uhl]

If you're printing 2-up, then you'll want to add additional space in between the two pages--the metric style won't allow for this, so you'll need to do some funky scaling and will end up with more whitespace than you wanted. Our system, being practical, does the better job.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

> People just happen to be lucky that water got defined as 1 kg/L.

I'm glad that they defined water the way it is!

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Bob Uhl]

...calculating how tall is a person who is 6'8" is very difficult without pen and paper...

Ummm, if you can't do 6x12 + 8 = 72 + 8 = 80 in your head, then there's a major problem, and it's not with feet and inches...

Re:Side-by-sideness

[orasio]

Thanks, that must be the explanation, I am on the wrong side of the bell curve.

Anyone who doesn't find the lenght of 80 thumb portions useful to estimate the height of a person must be on the other side of people from the US.

Taking into account that your elected leader is a person with below than average IQ, I must assume that you mean "IQ graph" by "bell curve", and that I have too high an IQ to understand the US feet - inches system. Thanks, I get that all the time, being a nerd and all, everybody thinks I have a high IQ but nobody had told me I had too high an IQ to understand something. It makes sense now, thanks.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[nine-times]

True.

Like the celsius/fahrenheit situation. People used to the metric system always think Celsius makes so much more sense. "It's actually based on something. 0 degrees is freezing, 100 degrees is boiling." Makes a certain sort of sense.

But with the Fahrenheit scale, what people often fail to recognize is that 0-100 degrees is the approximate range of habitable weather for people. I suspect that this is why it's been easy to get American scientists to use Celsius (or Kelvin) for experiments, but even American scientists use Fahrenheit for weather.

So, perhaps we might say that no unit is inherently better, just better for certain tasks and measurements? I mean, can you imagine measuring weather temperatures in Kelvin degrees, FedEx packages in AMU's, or paper size in light years?

Re:Side-by-sideness

[SamSim]

I would have infinitely greater respect for the Imperial system if all of it did indeed work in twelves, like with feet and inches. But inches are not divided into twelfths but sixteenths. Then there are three feet in a yard, 5.5 yards in a rod, 40 rods in a furlong, 8 furlongs (or a nice round 1760 yards) in a mile. 16 ounces in a pound, 14 pounds in a stone, 2000 pounds in a ton. Don't get me started on liquid measure. And ultimately, you have to measure so closely that you *have* to use decimal places of the smallest unit (like 11.6 inches or whatever) - which means tens all round.

Remind me again what makes it easier to use?

Just go with tens. Tens are simple.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[8Complex]

I was going to post the same thing, but I'll give you a MAJOR advantage of the US sizing system (A,B,C,D,E)...

Every single size sheet can fold down to an 8.5x11 size. This makes it VERY easy to keep a binder full of technical drawings.

I'm a draftsman/engineer by profession, so I use this a LOT. The main HQ of our company is based in Germany, so all of the drawings we get from them are all printed in US sizing so that they can all be bound and send in a complete binder.

The same ratio is nice for a few things, but the doubling the length of the long edge is MUCH more convienent for those of us that actually use large paper sizes in everyday life.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[chiph]

(Incidentally, this is of course why one of the older civilizations used base 60 - it's divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and it's the reason we have 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour).

What is "The Ancient Babylonians", Alex.

The thing that is really bizarre is how did everyone agree on 24 hours in a day? It's not a multiple of 60 or 10 or 5. But it *is* divisible into 360. Which in the days before knowing the world was round, raises the question: "How did they know?"

Chip H.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[srleffler]

...going from letter (8.5 x 11") to ledger (11 x 17") is 141% on the ol' Xerox.

Only if you don't mind losing 1" of your content in the narrow direction and having 1.5" of extra margin in the other direction.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[srleffler]

People have known the Earth was round for a lot longer than you think. The ancient Greeks not only knew it was round, they had a reasonably accurate estimate of the diameter.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that cutting something into 333.333 mm is just as impossible as cutting something into a THIRD!

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

I was told of the ultimate reason against imperial by and Engineer. Take a 5 year old and ask him/her to add 1mm + 5 + 12 + 25 and he may do it in his head. As an engineer to add 1/2" + 3/8" + 1" and watch him bring out the HPcalc

Re:Side-by-sideness

[sysopd]

That's the case with Imperial as well. Try splitting 13 inches into 3 equal segments. (4.33 inches)

In Imperial you don't have 13 inches you have 1'1", which is easily divisible to 4 1/3" by dividing each duodecimal digit by 3. Otherwise you're not using base-12 and lose the benefits. Just like you don't have 0x0G in hex you have 0x10.

A base-12 system makes it simple to do precise math in your head while increasing the number of commonly used factors. Since the introduction of the decimal system and decimal calculators, many people assume using a base-10 system is easier (after all its easier to count to 10 on your fingers). The Imperial base-12 system (and base-60 systems) make common problems simple using fractions and can be done largely in your head. I think people opt for metric because they either suck at fractions or are afraid of them.

Start doing all your math and divisions in your head, keeping all of the precision by using fractions rather than repeating fractions or truncating to a certain number of significant digits and you'll soon find that base-12 and/or base-60 is much better suited for everyday math problems.

Think about the fact that there are 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 12 hours on a clock, 12 months in a year. Base-12 prevents simple repeating fractions because it is in-between 11 and 13, two prime numbers.

Base-12 seems to have a lot more going for it than base-10.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[orasio]

Again, 80 times the size of a part of my thumb is a hard way to know the heigth of a person. I understand that you know your measure in feet and inches, calculate the difference and compare, but I was just saying that that comparison is easier when you are using base ten, because math is usually in base ten, so it's easier to know that a person 1,50m is 25% shorter than a person 2m tall, so you can instantly have an idea of a comparison, while 6'8" compared to 5' needs two calculations, 5-6, then 8-0, then i get 1'8", which I need to put in feet or inches to compare to 6'8". I understand that those are easy operatios when you learn them at school, but my point is that there is no need to learn a way to use arithmetics in the real world different than the one we use for regular mathematics. Unless you use base 12 for science too, which would explain the space shuttle, for example.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Bob Uhl]

Unless you use base 12 for science too...

Now, if the French were smart, that's what they'd have done. Base-12 is so far superior to base-10 that it's not even funny. Common fractions like 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 & 1/6 are all non-repeating, unlike in decimal where only some are. Twelve has a lot of interesting numeric properties--which is why it's so common in older measurement systems, and why many languages have words for the numbers 11 and 12, and why there are numbers like 'gross' (a dozen dozen--144) or 'great gross' (a dozen gross--1,728).

Unfortunately, the French revolutionaries settled on a much less satisfactory solution. I do think that for consistency fans of French units should advocate the Revolutionary calendar and day.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Nick_dm]

>wouldn't it have been much nicer to make the ratio a nice, round 1.5?

The whole point is that another number wouldn't work. If you have a piece of paper that is length A on one side and B on the other, then if you want two side by side to have the same shape you need B/A = 2*A/B. So B^2 = 2*A^2 so B = sqrt(2)*A.

If you picked 1.5 say, then two piece of paper together would have one length of 2 and width 1.5, so a ratio of 4/3 = 1.333333, which has now changed shape from your original ratio of 1.5

Re:Side-by-sideness

[orasio]

It is and interesting number, twelve, it would be nice to use base-12 everywhere, even taking into account that we have only 10 fingers, so counting with fingers would become harder.

The fact is that we use base 10 everywhere, so base-12 or base-60 is difficult. Even if we used base 7 for regular math, it would be better to use it everywhere.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Golias]

True, but is this even scaling really so important? Did somebody really say, "I need to be able to cut an A2 document in quarters and get four A4 sheets. It's so important, that I will tweak the default shape of all paper everywhere so that it conforms to this behavior."

I'll stick with eight and a half by eleven, thanks.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[tigress]

American scientists use Celcius (or Kelvin) for experiments, since the international science community use Celcius (or Kelvin) in documentation. American scientists use Farenheit for weather, because American scientists live in a country that use Farenheit for weather.

Unless they are American meteorology scientists, that is. Then they use degrees Celcius, like other international meteorologists.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're printing 2-up, then you'll want to add additional space in between the two pages

No, that's what the margins are for. The margins around both halfs will still be in the reduction, although (of course) reduced.

So, in the case of printing 2-up on A4 paper, you will still have a space of 0.707 * (right margin + left margin), and that's usually good enough.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

The genius that doesn't want a stick, but wants a 100 meter brick wall, and wants three bricks per meter.

Well, then, problem solved, the mortar between the bricks make up for the missing decimeter.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

Historically I believe that it actually worked the other way around, they started with a large standard sheet and kept cutting it in half.

I thought English units were all based somehow on the size of various king's body parts. I'm not sure what would be about 8.5" inches long except for one thing. Talk about the royal "wee". And you were just talking about cutting things in half. Youch!

Re:Side-by-sideness

[moonbender]

There are probably far more sheets of paper in the world that are US Letter size than any other size at all. And file folders to match.

Um, no, probably not. There are far, far more people using ISO A4 sized paper than US Letter, in countries that produce as much paper as the US. More if you want to believe Europeans lamenting their countries overabundance of bureaucracy...

Re:Side-by-sideness

[lorx]

is it counting with fingers, or show a number to another person?

it is easy to count to 12 with one hand - and possible but hard to count to 15.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[belroth]

You can of course count to 1023 on your fingers if you use binary.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

um

pint of water, pound and a quarter

Re:Side-by-sideness

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Uh...why would you want space between the 2 peices of paper?

Re:Side-by-sideness

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Expanding and contracting isn't really that useful

It's damn important when you have to print many things a certain size but dont't have the right paper (or printer doesn't doesn't support it).

Get over youself and just admit that the metric paper system makes more sence ;)

Re:Side-by-sideness

[HyperCash]

Okay, a few things. Nobody uses rods or furlongs so mentioning them doesn't really mean anything. Neither does stones.

And then you go and say this:
"And ultimately, you have to measure so closely that you *have* to use decimal places of the smallest unit (like 11.6 inches or whatever)"
Why couldn't I say 11 9/16ths inches? 16ths are actualy more accurate than tenths. And yes, you can say that you can just to go hundredths, but you cant really eyeball hundredths, you can eyeball 16ths.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Poodle]

Actually, it does work in sixes, but only if you use the pica as your unit of measure. A very common measure, BTW, in the printing and graphic design industry (which still uses the majority of all imperial sized paper manufacured each year). There are 6 picas per inch, which can be further subdivided into 12 points per pica. Simple, yet elegant. As a printer and graphic artist I used the pica measure exclueively for about 8 years, then had a hell of a time going back to inches when I changed jobs. I still occcasionally reach into my desk and use my pica rule out of habit.

And yes, the inch rule is not simple or convenient in the way the metric system is.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Bob Uhl]

Well, it goes to the heart of why one be doing two-up printing in the first place. There are two scenarios: one just wants to fit more data on the page (and doesn't mind squinting); or one is printing a book (each page of a book is generally a mere segment of a larger page--1/2, 1/4, 1/8 & 1/16th are usual).

In the first case, it really doesn't matter. A little extra space helps give some visual definition, which is nice (ever read one of those old two-column encyclopaedias where there's hardly any space between the columns?) but not necessary.

In the second case, though, part of the printed two-page (or four-page, or...) will become part of the binding (and in the case of page sets four or more, part of the slop which is sliced off), and thus not part of the visible page at all. In order to preserve the positioning of the margins &c., it becomes necessary to insert additional space.

Unfortunately, due to /.'s idiotic restriction on pre tags, I cannot demonstrate this, but imagine that a two-page set looks kinda like ----v----; the 'v' would actually drop down below the pages, and be caught up in the stitching/glue/&c.

Happily, the American standard conveniently inserts that extra space (the 'v' above). Yet another example of the standard system failing in theory yet being quite clever in practise, and the French system being clever in theory but dumb in practise.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[gotih]

hey buddy, if that american education of yours had taught you a bit more about the world you might know that the british still measure weight in stones. next time you're in england and someone asks you how much you weigh you better be able to divide by 14.

and you're telling me that you can eyeball 9/16 of an inch but you can't eyeball 0.56 inch? they're very nearly the same thing -- it's just what you are used to. or how adept you are in math (which gets back to your reply to my post where you brough up education and ignorance).

ignorance is just ignorance. bliss is drug induced.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[s.fontinalis]

For all intents and purposes nobody uses the rod or furlong. Where they still survive is interesting to note though - horse racing still uses the furlong to denote race length, and canoeing portages are still measured in rods.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[juhaz]

I was going to post the same thing, but I'll give you a MAJOR advantage of the US sizing system (A,B,C,D,E)...

Every single size sheet can fold down to an 8.5x11 size. This makes it VERY easy to keep a binder full of technical drawings.

Huh? What are you trying to say? That this doesn't work with metric papers? Every sheet from 4A0 will (well, would, given thin enough paper) fold down to miniscule A10 or more practically to A4.

This means that you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly, and two sheets of A3 will equal an A2."

Turn this backwards and it says: you can fold a sheet of A2 to just A3, and you can fold an A3 to exactly A4.

The same ratio is nice for a few things, but the doubling the length of the long edge is MUCH more convienent for those of us that actually use large paper sizes in everyday life.

Good then, that both systems use doubling of one edge to help folding, eh? Ratio is just extra bonus to help scaling, it doesn't prevent this.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there are three feet in a yard, 5.5 yards in a rod, 40 rods in a furlong, 8 furlongs (or a nice round 1760 yards) in a mile. 16 ounces in a pound, 14 pounds in a stone, 2000 pounds in a ton.

I'm from America and I can tell you, I've never come across rods. Furlongs are only used in horse racing. Stones aren't used at all. We use miles (5280 feet). This makes about as much sense as saying but the DECIGRAM!!! THE DECIGRAM!!!

If I wanted to really skewer you metric users, I'd say you're completely misusing the mass system. You're using scales, that measure force to express your weight, which is the force that the earth exerts on your body, in kilograms. Use the newton damn it. That's what it's for. We Imperial users know this, that why we measure weight (which fluctuates) in pounds, not slugs. :P

Re:Side-by-sideness

[AtomicBomb]

I know how to create a "Tabloid" now:
combining any two Letters between the PHB and his
secretaries :-)

Re:Side-by-sideness

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

But that's professional printing your talking about. They ain't going to be buying standard paper anyway, no matter if it's imperial or metric, so the point is kinda redundant. Anyway, I still don't get why the Imperial system is better in that case...It just means narrower pages, which is the case anyway when comparing the two. If anything, narrower is better because it is easer to read (not that the difference between the two is that great anyway).

And I'm sorry, but the metric way isn't dumb in practice. There are far more people using paper at home or in offices than there are print houses. BTW, what are you other examples? I hope you not going to bring out the tempurature argument.
Take it like a man, the metric system is better 99% of the time. There is no point it trying to argue against it.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[RogerWilco]

Don't forget the "hands" (4 inches) my (american) AD&D book uses them,
I had no idea it even existed (I live in europe)

Re:Side-by-sideness

[be-fan]

Actually, the rest of the world uses A4. My dad works for a US government contractor (the US government wants everything in 8.5x11 paper), and often the production people for his company have to take 8.5x11 paper with them overseas, because US-size paper is hard to find elsewhere.

You'd also be surprised how much money you'd save. People overseas send documents formatted for A4, and if you print without adjusting the format, you have to throw away your results. When you have to integrate these A4 documents into the 8.5x11 documents you have to send to the US government, then you have to bother with changing the format, and then deal with changes in pagination (strict page limits!) as a result.

Its the same thing with engineers who have to deal with old tables in English units. They spend a lot of time translating between English and metric (because modern science and overseas engineering is all done in metric).

Re:Side-by-sideness

[be-fan]

There is no possibility for rounding error for splitting into fourths. So the only thing left is thirds, and I don't see why thirds would be any more common than fifths.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[WNight]

30cm is 3/10ths of a meter. You want 1/3rd of that? 1/10th.

Fractions can be used by anyone, in any system. The problem is that Imperial doesn't easily turn into a decimal measure in the end to compare to other measurements.

How many 1'+3 7/8" distances are there in a mile? It's easy to see the relation between 4cm floor tiles, 1m doorways, 15m walls, and 6km roads. Imperial would have been mostly okay had there been just one measure. If we did everything in feet and said "I'm 5 & 7/24ths feet tall", or "I drove 16kilo-feet to the mall" it wouldn't really bother anyone. After all, as other people pointed out, there's no accurate relation between meters and the size of the Earth - just as there's no useful relation between "feet" and anyone's feet.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[be-fan]

.(Incidentally, this is of course why one of the older civilizations used base 60 - it's divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and it's the reason we have 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour
The Babylonians did that, and they inherited from the Sumerians. But it should be noted that neither culture had a base-60 equivalent of our decimal system (complex fractions were represented as a series of simple fractions). Our decimal system makes handling a base-10 measurement system much more practical than their system would have, while making things like unit conversions and multiplying/dividing much easier.

It should also be noted that there is no reason to lose precision for the common cases of dividing by 2, 3, 4, and 6. 10 / 2 = 5. 10 / 3 = 3 1/3. 10 / 4 = 2 1/2. 10 /6 = 1 2/3. Doing math with simple fractions isn't very complicated if you're used to it (just as you have to get used to multiplying by 12, etc, to handle the English system).

Re:Side-by-sideness

[innocent_white_lamb]

But that's professional printing your talking about. They ain't going to be buying standard paper anyway, no matter if it's imperial or metric, so the point is kinda redundant.

Really? Don't place any large wagers on that.

A friend of mine owns a small publishing business. He goes through about 30 cases of 11x17 paper each week printing 8.5x11 booklets.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[srussell]

one of the reasons that the Imperial system is moderately convenient for building is that base 12 is divisible by 2,3,4 and 6

I agree, by and large, ternary based systems are more efficient, and can be more convinient. As you said, there are reasons why these systems are in use; they're used in nautical environments (which is, I believe, where we got our hours, minutes, and seconds from) because 12 and 60 are divisible by three, which allows them to be divided into more equal, integer parts than base-2 systems. However, since our basic numbering system is base-10, base-10 measurements tend to be more practical in day-to-day use because they're easier for humans to multiply and divide.

By the way, I think we agree about the paper issue; I just thought of a couple of other things I wanted to mention, and they aren't in response to your post.

In the case of metric paper measurements, the focus isn't on the fact that it is base-10 -- because it isn't -- but is on the fact that dividing and multiplying is easier. Half an A4 is A5, double a B2 is B1, etc. Because the ratio is the "golden ratio", papers of all sizes share the same proportions, and given sufficient numbers of *any* single size paper, you can create *any* other size of the metric paper. Metric paper is fractal; metric paper is scalable.

Numerous people have mentioned that you can perform the same doubling trick with 8.5x11 and 11x17 paper -- but the proportions aren't the same. 8.5x11 has an ~.77 width-to-height ration; 11x17 has an ~.64. Imperial paper isn't scalable. Imperial paper sizes really have no advantage over metric paper sizes, except for arguable aesthetic values, or for compatability with who you're trading paper with. I'm not arguing that compatability isn't important; I'm merely saying that, objectively, metric paper sizes are superior to imperial sizes.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the British have already gone to metric, "stone" is a brain-damaged unit and I see no reason for anyone to take it seriously (especially foreigners).

Re:Side-by-sideness

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

A small publishing business is a bit different from a print house.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[Nick_dm]

I find it very useful, just when I'm copying stuff at university but needing to cut photocopier bills down, no need to mess around because all the size changes are standard.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[rpresser]

I know the rest of the world uses A4. But how many actual sheets of paper, including those that have been printed over the last six or seven decades, are actually in A4 versus those in US LTR?

And if my company does no business with international or overseas companies, the savings are zero and will remain so. You immediately cry "isolationist" and "ostrich", but the sad (to you) truth is that the US economy is large enough that vast sectors of it have no fucking use for international sales.

Paper sizes are not in the same category as engineering units; do not pretend they are.

Re:Side-by-sideness

[be-fan]

It really depends on what sort of things you need to do. You might not do business internationally, but everyone I know does. Nobody I know ever has to deal with decades old paper (anything archived is bound). Paper is only really used for printouts of electronic documents. So who's right? I don't have any statistics (and neither do you), but our economy is being more globalized, not less.

The Logic Behind Metric Paper Sizes

[errxn]

It isn't the crappy English measurement system. That's all the "logic" I need.

Re:The Logic Behind Metric Paper Sizes

[Anonymous Coward]

All units in the Standard system can be divided by 3. Let's see you take your board and devid it in into thirds...

Re:The Logic Behind Metric Paper Sizes

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right!

8 1/2 / 3 = 2.83333333333333...

11 /3 = 3.66666666...

You can divide them by 3!

Re:The Logic Behind Metric Paper Sizes

[Anonymous Coward]

8 1/2 is not a unit, dumbass. It's a number. A "yard" is a unit.

Of course, the granparent is wrong anyway. A gallon is not evenly divisible by 3, because the next unit down is the quart (1/4 gallons.)

Re:The Logic Behind Metric Paper Sizes

[connorbd]

The original "English" capacity system was base-2, actually... nobody uses drams or gills anymore, but there are other units apart from the ounce, pint, quart, and gallon. We just don't use the names anymore.

Re:Psst.

[StrawberryFrog]

Come-on really, Do I want to measure a piece of paper using the square root of two?

No, but it's very pleasant that an A3 page folded in half is exactly the same size as an A4 page. root-two is just the mathematical means to that end.

And this is superior why?

[FatSean]

I mean, I guess for those who create and ship paper it makes fiting boxes together easier...

But the average guy printing out documents could care less.

Re:And this is superior why?

[Anonymous Coward]

you start your post with "I mean" and end it with "could care less", wow you're *really* annoying before I even get to the content

Re:And this is superior why?

[Moderation abuser]

Because you can scale an A4 page down to A5 size and print two of them on each A4 sheet and they fit *exactly*. Saves paper.

If you are a *real* skinflint and have good eyes you can scale down to A6 and print double sided. It works quite well with a decent laser printer.

The reverse is true obviously if you want to scale up. You can tape (A4 usually because it's the most common) pages together to make A3, A2 and A1 sheets and it all fits together exactly.

Having said that, I kind of assumed that the same thing applied to US paper sizes. Surprised it doesn't.

Re:And this is superior why?

[swordboy]

Here's something really funny:

With cars, wheels come in several bolt patterns. In the US, 4.5" x 5 was a popular pattern. In Japan, 100mm x 5 was popular. But soon, we started seeing Japan switch to 114.3mm x 5. People started paying a premium for these "special" wheels.

That is, until everyone realized that 114.3mm is simply 4.5". Basically, the Japanese realized that there was an economy of scale to using the 4.5" bolt pattern. Obviously, they could not adopt the non-metric system of measurement so the 114.3mm x 5 pattern was borne.

Re:And this is superior why?

[MightyYar]

And you start without capitalization and end without punctuation.

Dick.

Re:And this is superior why?

[Deadstick]

could not adopt the non-metric system

...and weren't averse to letting the gaijin pay a little extra.

I bought OEM oil filters for my 240Z for several years until somebody translated the Japanese label for me. It said "Datsun: 240Z & 510, 1971-up; Ford: all."

rj

Re:And this is superior why?

[danhs32]

This sounds like a specific application of the cutting stock problem.

Cutting stock is an interesting integer programming problem.

The airlines particularly, have famously huge integer programming problems.

From what I've heard from friends who are researching the airline problem, there are approximately 800 constraints, and 9 trillion variables.

Another famous integer programming problem is the the travelling salesman problem.

Integer programming is a pretty interesting topic. There's a good deal of theory behind it, but if you just want to model some systems there are plenty of software packages that let you do that too. The most accessible one is probably solverwhich comes with Microsoft Excel.

Re:And this is superior why?

[deacon]

Even better, the tire sizes are a mix of metric and inch dimensions:

185 65 R 16

for example, is a tire 185 mm wide in the tread, fitting on a 16 inch rim, and the height of the sidewall is 0.65 times the 185 mm tread width.

And I still do heat transfer calculations using Watts for power and Cubic Feet per minute for air volume and Feet per minute for air velocity.

All calculations involving mass or weight, as well as the acceleration of gravity, I do in strict SI (metric units) or else my answer is always wrong by some multiple of 32 feet/second^2. In the metric system, a kilogram of mass weighs 1 kilogram of weight in earths gravity. Not so simple with the english system.

Re:And this is superior why?

[penguinoid]

In the metric system, a kilogram of mass weighs 1 kilogram of weight in earths gravity. Not so simple with the english system.

There is a common misconception about weight and mass. Weight measures force on a mass due to gravitation. Mass measures the amount of "stuff" in an object. A 1 kg weighs 9.81 Newtons.

As a side note, I do not think much of the kilogram, meter, second or the Celcius scale. They do not correspond to anything physical. They are somewhat convenient, and we are used to them (except for Americans). What really kicks ass is their division into subunits, which was chosen to be base 10 instead of the output of a random number generator. Also nice is the relation 1 g == 1 cm^3 of water.

A more useful set of units would be a 1/300000000 the distance light travels in a second for distance (or something similar that is on the right scale), something related to the number of atoms for mass and the appropriate combinations for the rest. (Time seems OK as it is as it comes in useful sized units that would be hard to use in base 10, I think)

Re:And this is superior why?

[The Wicked Priest]

We can't scale in the metric way; however, it's possible to put four or nine sheets together in a way that preserves the aspect ratio, or to divide a sheet into fourths in the same way. (I've done all of the above with resized printouts.)

Oooo.... root 2!

[raehl]

And this is interesting why?

Two shees of 8.5x11 = one sheet of 11x17 too. WOW!

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Janek Kozicki]

if only it was possible to mod your post +6 I'd do that.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Sirch]

This is the top hit on Google for "paper sizes" and, as such, I've been using it as a reference for a few years now. Look at the creation date.

created 1996-10-29 -- last modified 2004-03-10

I rest my case.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[jdavidb]

You don't get it. It keeps going, recursively. Two A4's equal an A3, and two A3's equal an A2, and so on. The deal is that the paper is in such proportion that all A* papers are in the exact same proportion. That's not true if you double a 8 1/2 by 11. The proportion there is .77272, while the proportion for a doubled sheet, 11x17 is .647059.

I'm betting the Golden Ratio comes into A4 paper somehow; anyone want to comment?

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[miskatonic alumnus]

You're missing the point. The ratio of sides of the smaller sheet is the same as the larger sheet. Cut the smaller sheet in half, and you get two sheets with the same proportions again. Ad infinitum.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Pxtl]

Constant aspect ratio. You don't have to remake your posters/flyers depending on what sheet you intend to print on. 11/17 != 8.5/11. It also makes shipping easier. Basically the only reason to stick with imperial measurements is inertia, as always.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

Constant ratio paper sizes no matter how big or small it is make Jack a dull boy. I mean, the golden ratio might be nice and all, but after a while, after seeing all paper in that exact ratio can be monotonous, if people don't consciously notice the size ratio. I'm glad I don't live in Europe.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Rupert]

Those aren't the same shape.

17 / 11 = 1.55
11 / 8.5 = 1.29

A4 paper is twice the size and the same shape as A5. A3 is twice the size and the same shape as A4. It goes up to A0, which is (ooh) 16 times bigger than A4.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[scottme]

I'm betting the Golden Ratio comes into A4 paper somehow; anyone want to comment?

RTFA - it's covered. They are not the same thing. But they are often confused.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[lc_overlord]

*cheesy homer imitation* mmmm... icon sized paper.
8.5mm x 11mm, i never heard of that paper size, it's like the world has gone crazy.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[prockcore]

Those aren't the same shape.

17 / 11 = 1.55
11 / 8.5 = 1.29

There are two primary shapes that repeat.

11/8.5 = 1.29
17/11 = 1.55
22/17 = 1.29
34/22 = 1.55
and so on.. A-F sizes.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[MightyYar]

Yeah, good luck throwing it on a paper cutter and cutting it in half.

When I made my wedding invitions I used 4 1/4 x 5 1/2 dimensions so that I could just cut a piece of 8 1/2 x 11 in half. If I had to keep looking for the 214 mm mark or whatever I would have killed myself after the first hundred or so.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

The golden ratio, [5^(1/2)+1]/2 = 1.618 is closer to the ratio for letter size than for the metricsizes.

Since no standard paper has a ratio close to this I suspect it has not had much influence.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[infochuck]

. Two A4's equal an A3, and two A3's equal an A2, and so on.

So... two A2's = one A1, two A1's = an A0, two A0's = an A-1, two A-1's = an A-2?

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[eples]

You don't get it. It keeps going, recursively. Two A4's equal an A3 [...]

All right, what's two A1's equal?

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[amacedo]

Actually, it doesn't ...

The numbers are simillar (1.414... , 1.618...) and that caused a lot of misinformation over the years, you can get more info at wikipedia.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[chris_mahan]

ever tried folding?

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[explorer]

Yeah, but the only reason I ever print on 11x17 is precisely because the aspect ratio is wider than 8.5x11. Great for printing schematics, board layouts, or even just files with really long lines.

Besides, the metric system is boring. Even a child could learn it. :)

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Amorpheus_MMS]

All right, what's two A1's equal?

A0 is the biggest one.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh... A0!

What's two A0's equal?... THAT's the question...

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what A5 paper is for.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

Im not opposed to ISO paper, but, try this:

Eg, 8 1/2 x 11, take 1/2 inch off the width, you get 8 x 11.

double the 8" side, you get 11x16, which fits nicely on an 11x17, leaving a 1" binding space. ;)

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Googo]

Folding would probably mess up the edges of the paper making it unsightly especially for an invitation.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[System.out.println()]

That must be A(pi)

(Apparently Slashdot doesn't support Unicode. Shame.)

It depends on what rules you go by.... A(-1) if you go linearly... just plain "1" if you go by the derivate pattern.... And on a scale of 1 to 10, this comment ranks 11 on the pointlessness scale.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Basically the only reason to stick with imperial measurements is inertia, as always."

NOT! There's also one hell of an investment in equipment, from the width of sheets produced by paper mills which are tied to the sizes of paper printing presses, folders, etc. are designed for, and even down to photocopiers; e.g., try changing the length of paper in that tall stack on the big, high-volume copiers, and you'll find that you have to replace the feeding unit. All kinds of office equipment, postage canceling machines, etc.

Then there's the cost of retraining an entire nation of people on new technology.

It's a far bigger problem than just inertia.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is what you described... *not* intertia?

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[chris_mahan]

Ever try folding then unfolding. You get a nice line. Did I say to cut the paper while folded?

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[reidbold]

A0 by the sounds of it.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[jdavidb]

lol; well, I didn't say it was perfect. I just thought it was kind of neat. I'm an American, and not sure I ever touched an A4 paper, myself, actually.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[jdavidb]

Right, as any geek can tell you. Simple system, huh? :)

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[jdavidb]

I was just explaining the advantage, not advocating. I'm not sure I've ever even touched an A4 paper.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

Golden ratio comes in nowhere.

Cut A4 paper in two, and the resulting pieces have the same side ratio.

Cut a _square_ off from golden ratio paper, and the _remaining_ piece again has golden side ratio.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[SamSim]

For a golden ratio-proportioned piece of paper, you can cut a big square off the end and end up with a big square and another golden-ratio proportioned piece of paper. You can keep chopping off squares forever. However, while fascinating, this property isn't as useful as the root 2 ratio, where you chop it in half and get two pieces of paper in the same ratio as before.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the idea behind this was that when you move from A(n) to A(n-1) you should:
1- Preserve aspect ratio
2- Double the area
3- Be able to put two A(n) sheets side by side to make an A(n-1) sheet.

So, if the A(n) sheet is XxY sized and A(n-1) is YxZ sized (condition 3) , then:
a) Y/Z=X/Y (condition 1)
b) Y*Z=2*X*Y (condition 2)

And using some really heavy maths ;) :

X=Y*Y/Z (from a)
Z=2*X (from b)
Z*Z=2*Y*Y (combining last two)

so Y/Z=1/sqrt(2) (aspect ratio)

there's no other way you can do it.

(applause please)

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[TheAwfulTruth]

Paper does not fold on an infinately thin line. Folding and unfolding the paper, then cutting down the center of the fold will indeed leave the cut edges messed up (Try it).

Ironicly, if you did leave the paper folded then cut off the fold, you would end up with clean edges.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[zhenlin]

It doesn't. The ratio is 1.414..., i.e. sqrt(2).

1.618 doesn't quite have the same property for aspect ratio.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[MightyYar]

LOL, I hope you were kidding... I don't think my wife would have liked that!

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[MightyYar]

That wouldn't solve my problem. They also make 4 1/4 x 5 1/2 paper, but the printer wouldn't take stuff that small.

I was joking originally. I'm sure that European paper cutters have guide lines at the appropriate place.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[MightyYar]

I deal with it all the time, since I'm in Singapore quite often. It is kind of annoying to deal with more than one standand - but no biggie. The most annoying thing is when we get a huge 400 page software spec from India and I fire it off to our Laserjet. Then I go get coffee, maybe a Danish, wander on over to the printer and it is just hanging there saying PC LOAD A4. D'oh! Forgot to change it to 8.5x11"! That being said, sounds like this is mostly a problem that printers and such have. As such, it is "Not My Problem"... I did not know that A4 has that quality of being 1/ sqr(2). That is cool and geeky, but it sure is narrow. Whatever.

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's two A0's equal?... THAT's the question...

A00. Well I don't really know, I live in the US. But that's how wire gauges work. When you get to 0, you just add more zeros. Seems like the Engineer thing to do.

Obligatory

[swordboy]

PC Load Letter!? WTF does that mean?!

Re:Obligatory

[Bazman]

Blah. That always causes people to think they have to stick something in the single-sheet-feeder tray on our printers. So they stand their feeding in 120 pages by hand, cos the printer keeps saying 'PC Load Letter'.

One button on the printer later and it says 'Would you like to print using A4 instead?'.

Re:Obligatory

[AndyElf]

Actually, newer (as in, say last 3-5 yrs) HP printers (proper ones, not the small crap that tends to spread like cancer in poorly managed offices) have a config option to always override this sort of a mis-hap.

One thing I was always curious though, is why is it asking 'PC' for letter-sized paper? Why not 'Dude, load letter'?

Re:Obligatory

[AndyElf]

And one more: with all the tons of domain-managed settings that are applied these days in any size of a Windblows network, I wonder if one day someone would finally force default document size to be not letter. Speaking of which -- I'd say if I say that my regional settings are not US, default letter size should be A4, just like it happened to be set automgically on my PowerBook...

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

PC = Paper Cassette, IIRC

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

PC stands for Paper Cassette. There's also MP (Multi-Purpose), LE (Lower Envelope), LC (Lower Cassette) and more.

Re:Obligatory

[Unkle]

Obviously, it wants the PC to load the paper. So in reality, you should hand the paper to your PC and have it load the paper in the printer.

Or the printer thinks you've changed your name to PC.

Re:Obligatory

[TheLink]

Maybe because:
PC = paper/printer cassette (not sure which).

So PC Load Letter means the printer wants you to load letter sized paper into the paper cassette.

Whereas the variation of "MLF Load Letter" probably means you're supposed to put letter sized paper into the Manual Feed tray.

Someone probably knows the exact terms.

Re:Obligatory

[YankeeInExile]

All of the error codes begin with a two-character error locator ... PC = paper casette

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

MILF load letter! load something.

Re:Obligatory

[telstar]

"PC = Paper Cassette, IIRC"

• You got a map to the long lost sense of humor too?

Re:Obligatory

[pe1chl]

>have a config option to always override this sort of a mis-hap

But that is useless! (or at least unwanted)
When you set that, it will print letter-formatted output on A4 sheets. May be tolerable in case you want to print some foreign PDF file, but often you will find that the application (like Word) has somehow found a way to set its papersize to letter, and all output from there is formatted for letter.
When you override that to A4, there will be a very large bottom margin on each page. Not good.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

truly one of the funniest movies ever...

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does it say paper jam if there is no paper jam?

Re:Obligatory

[belroth]

But that is useless! (or at least unwanted) When you set that, it will print letter-formatted output on A4 sheets. May be tolerable in case you want to print some foreign PDF file, but often you will find that the application (like Word) has somehow found a way to set its papersize to letter, and all output from there is formatted for letter. When you override that to A4, there will be a very large bottom margin on each page. Not good.

Very useful for those of not in the US and who use A4 paper. Hp et al probably sell more printers outside the US than in and it makes sense for them not to make two sets of electronics. Now if only the printer manufacturers and MS etc would make A4 the default on localized versions of their software - why should the UK version of word default to letter, it's irritating.

Re:Obligatory

[pe1chl]

The matter is more complicated than you apparently understand.
We are using A4 all the time, and I uphold my original posting (that "substitute A4 for letter" is not a good default solution to the problem).
Documents a user in an A4 country creates must NOT be formatted to letter size and then be printed on an A4 sheet that the printer uses as an override!

Besides that, the paper size selection algorithm is very complex in Windows. Way to complex.
It depends on settings of the printer queue (on a server), on the local settings of the printer, on the printing preferences of the user, on settings of the application (that can be dictated by policy, by local installation settings, and by user preferences) and finally by settings in the document.

We have been fighting with "PC Load Letter" for a long time. Sometimes it is gone for a while, then suddenly a user calls that she gets this at every document she creates. It is often unclear where the letter preference comes from.

But we refuse to give in by setting the printers to ignore the problem and substitute A4 instead.
For one, becuase it ruins our company letterhead (printing footer stuff way too high on the page).
But also because some reports have tables that do fit on A4 and not on letter, and will be misformatted.
The problem must be found and fixed, not worked around by printer setting.

Re:Obligatory

[AndyElf]

Jokes aside -- sometimes it is at least 3 places that can go wrong:

1. Particular document (or rather application) that defaults to letter vs. A4, e.g. MS Word that was not configured correctly.

2. Printer settings.

3. Printer document defaults.

That is from a user perspective. There can be more, if one gets a print server/domain with print queues involved.

While (1) should really be fetching details from (2) and (3). But if (2) and (3) contradict each other, I think that (3) has a precedence.

I agree that letter/A4 override may *sometimes* be unwanted -- but those would be times when you want things to really be perfect. In most other cases -- when you work for a "global" organization (read: you get mails/docs from US) all you want to do is just print the damn thing outfor the bloody conference call -- and at that point the fact that your margins are going to be a bit skewed does not matter less...

Re:Obligatory

[RogerWilco]

all you want to do is just print the damn thing outfor the bloody conference call

Then just push the "start" button and it will continue anyway. I agree with the other poster that accepting letter fromat and printing it on A4 is no solution.
Esp. NT4 keeps forgetting the "A4" setting. I do not understand why the dutch/french/etc. version of MS Windows/Office defaults to A4.

Re:Obligatory

[belroth]

Why do you say

The matter is more complicated than you apparently understand.

When I said:

Now if only the printer manufacturers and MS etc would make A4 the default on localized versions of their software - why should the UK version of word default to letter, it's irritating.

I think that speaks to your comments appropriately.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

That joke is in the title. From the "forty-rods-to-the-hogshead department."

Yes, but...

[jbellis]

Square roots of two are very mathematically cool, but... "ISO A4 is 6 mm less wide but 18 mm higher than the U.S. "Letter" format." [1/4" less wide, 3/4" taller.]

I dunno, longer, less-wide paper means that the perimeter contains its writing
area less efficiently. (A square would be most efficient for a
rectangle.) So despite making my notepad almost 3/4" more unwieldy,
moving to A4 actually reduces the area of the sheet by a small
amount. (Do the math.)

Sure it's silly to quibble about a square centimeter of area; I'm just
trying to quantify my aesthetic objection to skinnier paper...

Re:Yes, but...

[justforaday]

Sure it's silly to quibble about a square centimeter of area; I'm just trying to quantify my aesthetic objection to skinnier paper...

are you sure it has nothing to do with it being what you're used to???

Re:Yes, but...

[miskatonic alumnus]

The paper isn't optimized for area of printing (obviously). IIRC it is optimal to have about 70 characters per line. Thus, with a fixed text width (due to font size and width of paper) it is optimal to have the height of the paper larger than the width in order to put as much information on the page while maximizing readability.

Re:Yes, but...

[0x0d0a]

Because we read left-to-right before top-to-bottom, it's easier for people to identify and move to the next line of text if they have a skinnier piece of paper.

Re:Yes, but...

[realSpiderman]

And wider is better how?
Shorter lines are better to read! Just imagine your newspaper with a single line across the whole page.

The only case where you are right is: tables.

Re:Yes, but...

[FFFish]

You utterly neglect the fact that wider-width texts are more difficult to read. On a usability basis alone, A4 is better.

Re:Yes, but...

[ozbird]

I'm just trying to quantify my aesthetic objection to skinnier paper...

Who wants fat paper?

Being used to A4, I found US Letter paper to be unattractively squat, and US Legal too long to be practical. A4 sits nicely between the two sizes; the difference in width is much less noticable than the difference in length.

Re:Yes, but...

[BasilBrush]

The only case where you are right is: tables. That's right - for wide tables and spreadsheets. And that's where landscape printing comes in. And here again A4 beats Letter because it's wider in the landscape orientation.

Re:Yes, but...

[eaolson]

Shorter lines are better to read! Just imagine your newspaper with a single line across the whole page.

Well, yes,
but that
doesn't
mean that
there isn't
such a
thing as
*too* short
of a
line of
text.

Re:Yes, but...

[carlos_benj]

Shorter lines are better to read!

Then
you
are
sure
to
love
this
reply.

I
will
strive
to
remember
this
should
I
ever
reply
to
you
again.

Re:Yes, but...

[joebok]

Another way to be more efficient is to cut down on those darn margins. When my dad was in the Navy they did just that - everything was typed on 8 x 10 1/2 inch paper. Of course the special sized paper was more expensive but I've never heard of the government letting that get in the way of efficiency!

Re:Yes, but...

[ChrisMaple]

If Fermat had used American paper, we wouldn't have had to wait 350 years for a proof of his last theorem.

Re:Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing handier with skinnier notebooks...

...when you open it up it takes less space on the table (or coffee table, or airplane seat tray).

It's nice (aesthetically) to have a similar proportion for the open notebook as for the closed.

Re:Yes, but...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Talk about a poor defence. Narrow is better if you're talking about the written word. It's much easier to read stuff in a narrow collumn; ever seen a newspaper or a magazine?

I'm not sure why you think a square is the most effecient shape for writting. An infinitly long strip would be best for acctual writting.

Re:Yes, but...

[Calroth]

Whilst we're on the trivial factoids:

Skinnier columns of text allows you to get away with less line-spacing (or leading) - the blank space between lines of text.

It's why newspapers have text crammed together, whereas manuscripts for novels (for instance) ask for one-and-a-half or double spacing... because the text goes all the way across the page.

(The extra spacing makes it easier for your eye to track from the end of one line to the start of the next.)

Audi A4

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also an Audi A4, and if you put two of those side by side, people say "Look, isn't that a coincidence".

Re:Audi A4

[Anonymous Coward]

which cost the price of 2 Audi A3 ?

Re:Audi A4

[LEgregius]

Is the ratio of the width to the length of an Audi sqrt(2)?

Re:Audi A4

[aquabat]

According to Banach-Tarski, you can take an (ideal) Audi A4, cut it into five pieces and construct two identical, complete Audi A4s from the pieces, using only rotations and translations of the pieces.

Re:Audi A4

[Anonymous Coward]

Or "no way, I can't afford $2000 brake pads"

Re:Audi A4

[Dark$ide]

There's also an Audi A4, and if you put two of those side by side, people say "Look, isn't that a coincidence".

The Audi A4 is just an overpriced VW Golf. Both of those suck!

Re:Audi A4

[Golias]

Two Mini Coopers side by side == One Audi A4
Two Audis == One BAM ("Big Assed Mercedes")
Two Mercedes == One average European house.

Wow, those Europeans can apply simple metric system math to everything!

Meanwhile, in America:
Two Mini Coopers side by side == One speed bump for a Hummer H2.
Two Audis in the driveway == A good house to break into.
Two Mercedes == Really, really tacky.
Two Hummers == The energy consumption of a typical third-world country
Two thrid world countries == A re-unified Germany. (I keed!)

Re:Audi A4

[dublin]

There's also an Audi A4, and if you put two of those side by side, people say "Look, isn't that a coincidence".

You'll also find that if you put them right next to each other, you won't be able to get the doors open where they come together. This may or may not have anything to do with the square root of 2...

Re:Audi A4

[MosesJones]

And somewhat strangely the Audi A6 is BIGGER and the Audi A3 is smaller.

Those crazy germans and their sense of humour

Re:Audi A4

[BTO]

Actually, you'd have to cut each disjoint piece of each A4 into five pieces, but I appreciate the sentiment. Just takin' care of business.

Re:Audi A4

[Anonymous Coward]

A reuinfied Korea would have been a better example.

Re:Audi A4

[Anonymous Coward]

A man driving his Audi A4 is stopped at a toll booth. The man who stopped him walks up to his window and says "I can't let you through here."

"Why not?" asks the driver.

"Because that's an Audi A4. You have to have four people in there."

"What? A4 is just the name of the car!"

"I don't make the rules. I can't let you through."

"Then I want to talk to your supervisor!"

"You can't. He's busy with the two guys in that Fiat Uno over there."

Re:Audi A4

[Anonymous Coward]

Two thrid world countries == A re-unified Germany. (I keed!)

Gotta watch out for that "thrid world", I hear it's really nasty...

Re:Audi A4

[Anonymous Coward]

But less funny.

Re:Audi A4

[advance512]

...and of course, there's the Subaru B4, which is designed for a wider audience (who don't have the money to buy German cars).

Ain't it the darnest thang!

Re:Audi A4

[AgentSmit]

Two thrid world countries == A re-unified Germany

Being a Dutchman I won't argue 'bout that ;).
I love the metric system.

Re:Audi A4

[uradu]

> But less funny.

How so? Something is funny if it's got a grain of truth to it. While there's little argument about the DDR, how exactly was West Germany a Third World country? Not by even the most generous stretch of the imagination. Hence only the ignorant would find that funny.

Re:Audi A4

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooo... Sounds like he hit a nerve.

A grain of truth makes something funny, but only if it's just a grain.

Calling Korea "third world" isn't funny, because it's completely factual. When people say "third world", they are talking about places like Korea.

Calling both halves of Germany "third world" is kind of funny (though not the funniest thing about that post), because he's belittling Germany's importance on the world stage. With little or no military of their own since WWII, Germany was a bit of a Cold War chess piece (and I don't mean one of the big, interesting-shaped ones; I mean the little ones with spheres on the top) and not at all in control of it's own destiny. There's your "grain of truth."

I laughed at it, and I'm German. What's your problem?

Re:Audi A4

[uradu]

> I laughed at it, and I'm German. What's your problem?

Because you still don't make sense. What's a weak military got to do with being a Third World country? There's no connection there at all. Some Third World countries have some of today's largest military forces (think the old Iraq, India, Pakistan, etc.), and that still doesn't make them First World. The First World/Third world nomenclature refers entirely to economic matters. After WWII perhaps Germany could have been termed a Third World country for a decade or so, but it still woudn't really have fit the term. Methinks you find it funny because you WANT to find it funny, which hey, is fine, too.

Re:Audi A4

[Bryce_Taylor]

Hi Uradu, I know this does not have anything to do with Audi, as I'm a BMW freak from way back. But I saw you talking to someone about the old Zenith Cruisepads, I have 2 of these units and can't find any info to get them working. I would love to get these things controlling my MP3 jukebox :-), can you flick me any notes etc on what to use, I can't even find a card for laptop/PC to use to talk to them..? Can you email it to me brycetaylor@xtra.co.nz. Cheers Man, Bryce

Yet another reason for the US to switch to metric

[miketang16]

We claim to be one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world, but we can't adopt a useful standard that the _rest_ of the scientific community uses. Seriously, what is the problem with metric? I find it so much easier to use than the English system. Our government should at least make the attempt to switch over.

Paper airplanes

[incuso]

The articles does not point out the fundamental fact that sqr(2) ratio is the best for paper airplanes :)

M.
--
http://incuso.altervista.org

Re:Paper airplanes

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, can I quote you on this when I post this to /. ?

Re:Paper airplanes

[incuso]

I am not sure what you are meaning, but definitely my answer is an yes. Consider every my post as LGPLed.

M.
--
http://incuso.altervista.org

The Metric System Sucks!!

[USAPatriot]

I am of the firm belief that the metric system sucks. It is a global conspiracy created to cause the downfall of all things that we know and love. Upon careful examination it is clear that the metric system is at least indirectly responsible for most of the world's problems, including but not limited to:

* Government conspiracy
* Microsoft Windows
* Rap Music
* Hondas and their drivers
* Transistors
* Pokemon
* Jerry Springer
* Televangelism
* Toxic waste
* The Republicans
* The Democrats
* Defective and bogus hardware
* Wrenches that dont fit
* Starbucks coffee
* Communism
* Soccer
* The Euro

Re:The Metric System Sucks!!

[0x0d0a]

Why don't you like transistors?

Re:The Metric System Sucks!!

[chrism238]

Hey, come on now.
The metric system is OK, it's just difficult to bring before all of the old people die out.

Re:The Metric System Sucks!!

[Anonymous Coward]

* Wrenches that dont fit

Did anyone else read that as "Wenches that dont fit"?

Re:The Metric System Sucks!!

[Araneas]

Tubes have a warm friendly glow reminiscent of Mom and Apple pie. You can see them do their work. Transistors are nasty little alien looking things. Who knows if they're worrking or just sitting there.

Re:The Metric System Sucks!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be stupid....metric is already used in all things that we know and love

for instance

* 9mm
* 5.56mm
* 7.62mm
* 10mm
* 105mm
* 40mm
* 30mm
* 120mm

I mean, hey if your guns have all changed, isn't it time that you did too.....

Re:The Metric System Sucks!!

[Night Goat]

Way to plagiarize, buddy.
http://www.metricsucks.com

At least cite your sources if you're going to pass off others' humor as your own.

Re:The Metric System Sucks!!

[Bullseye_blam]

Hmmm, after reading the parent poster's username and some of his other comments, I'm not sure he was kidding. :/

I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE...

[Anonymous Coward]

I will fight this metric paper bedevilment with every OUNCE of courage I have.

Neat

[Sarojin]

Metric paper is cool. When I ran across another original article (about a year ago) about it, I went right out and bought some. Well, actually I didn't. Staples didn't carry it, and neither did WalMart or Office Max. The local stationers and office supply stores didn't even know what it was.

So then I tried the web. Not much luck there.

Called the 1-800-staples number. Asked the customer assistant for a ream of A4 paper (I'd order a box if necessary).

"A4 paper, hmmm, is that the big 11x17 stuff?"
"No, its metric size."
"Is that some kind of drafting paper?"
"No, its about the same size as letter paper."
"Oh, why don't you just use that?"

After making up some excuse about needed to product a document for a european customer, and international standards, I was transferred over to their "special needs" department, and then escalated through three levels of help there, where I finally found someone who knows more about paper than I do.

Tada, one ream of 8.27" by 11.69" paper.
Hammermill part number 10303-6. UPC 10199 00303

Re:Neat

[the MaD HuNGaRIaN]

did you get a box of 11.69" envelopes to go with that?

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you could have just gone to their website and entered "a4 paper" in the search box. :-)

Tada! You'd get this.

(Note that when clicking that link, you'll probably be asked to enter your zip code before seeing the page.)

Re:Neat

[kabocox]

Shouldn't your post be titled "Ordering A4 in US Pain Butt"? I don't know about you but I'd have been getting angry at whoever "needed" that A4 paper after so may transfers.

Re:Neat

[gnu-generation-one]

"Metric paper is cool. When I ran across another original article (about a year ago) about it, I went right out and bought some. Well, actually I didn't. Staples didn't carry it, and neither did WalMart or Office Max. The local stationers and office supply stores didn't even know what it was."

That's just plain scary, a stationary shop that doesn't stock A4 paper.

So you have to re-layout your documents when you want to print on a different-size paper, rather than just scaling it?

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just plain scary, a stationary shop that doesn't stock A4 paper.

Where I'm from, most shops are stationary.

Re:Neat

[chrism238]

The local stationers and office supply stores didn't even know what it was.

It's about to easy as buying US-Letter paper in Australia!

Re:Neat

[a1englishman]

Tada! You'd get this.
Now you've gone and done it. Thousands of people will be linking to Staples, and purchasing size A4. Staples in turn will start stocking nothing but A4, and the whole of American society will be turned on it's ear. Filing cabinets will be the wrong size, and all other social aspects will deteriorate. In the end, George W. Bush gets re-elected, and Chaney declares a war on intelligencia.

You bastard!

Re:Neat

[tdrury]

I was transferred over to their "special needs" department

Did they deliver the paper via their short yellow delivery van?

Re:Neat

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the chart I found using Google is handy, I'm not sure if I really need the paper.

The area doubling is a good idea, but that's not a problem with paper standards used in the US. "A" is standard 8.5" x 11", and each letter increment means that the smallest dimension of the previous size was doubled. B is 11x17, C is 17x22, D is 22x34 and so on.

I hadn't thought of the SQRT(2) thing, that's kind of nifty.

Re:Neat

[arekusu]

Speaking as a born-and-bred American citizen, our paper sizes are totally STUPID.

1) Walk into Kinko's with a set of UK magazines you wish to photocopy
2) Ask them for some A3 paper
3) Get stared at like you have lobsters crawling out of your eye sockets
4) End up fiddling with reduction factors and leaving huge gaping margins around everything
5) Try not to lose opposable thumbs in the paper cutter while getting rid of those margins

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone else who had been looking for A4 paper, I can tell you that the staples web site does not always (or usually) have A4 paper on it.

It really is difficult to find in the US, especially at retail stores.

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else think that is is funny that the metric paper is listed as a 20-lb weight?

Re:Neat

[rsclient]

When I needed some A4 paper (I was doing printer drivers, and the European office was getting antsy)....I had them hand-carry a ream over at the next sales training conference.

And yes, it's amazing how many paper retailers don't know what size "A4" is. Conversations would go:

"I need some A4 paper; do you having any?"

"What size is it?"

"A4"

"What size is that?"

"It's A4 size. A4 is the size. The size is A4. There is no other size; it's called 'A4'"

"But how big is it?"

Sigh...

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

Staples.com does have A4 paper listed, and A4 binders, and a hole puncher that seems to do 4-hole as well. All I did was search for "a4". Perhaps your call convinced them to carry it?

Re:Neat

[filth grinder]

Thats odd

I work for an independent office products dealer (sysadmin). We sell that hammermill paper HPG-103036. Hell, I found it in our inventory right away. We don't stock it, but we can get from one of our wholesalers for next day delivery. So, if you called us up and ordered it today, you'd have it tomorrow. Hell, looking for that paper I also turned up that we sell A4 sized binders (ACC-40813) and dividers (AVE80020). We don't stock any of that, but we can get it all for next day delivery. (We don't have a retail space, we only sell to offices and we deliver everything free next day)

Instead of going to the big guys, you should have tried an independent dealer, most of us are actually willing to do customer service and find what you want.

Re:Neat

[tunah]

Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria...

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

34/22 = 17/11 = 8.5/5.5 = 1.54 ~= golden mean (1.61)

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

I've learned that retail stores don't have "service personnel". They just have people to make sure that everything isn't just carried out the front door.

Wow!

[Black Parrot]

> did you know that in the Metric paper system, the height-to-width ratio of all pages is the square root of 2? This means that you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly, and two sheets of A3 will equal an A2.

The metric square root of two has some amazing properties!

Re:Wow!

[nine-times]

Yeah, I sure wish it worked with inches. Then my life would be so much better.

And imagine if they didn't use the metric square root of two, that whole placing two sheets of paper next to each other and it forming a bigger sheet of paper sure wouldn't work.

I mean, if I just go around making up names for paper, and say 5"x10" is size A, and 10"x10" is size B, I still can't put two sheets of A next to each other and make a B! Because, as we all know, 10/5 isn't the square root of 2.

It's official...

[Your_Mom]

I can't deny it anymore.

I just read an article on metric pages and found it incredibly intresting.

At one point I said "Wow, Cool"

I think I've gone beyond 'geek'.

I feel dirty.

Re:It's official...

[PaschalNee]

I feel dirty.
Luckily you can clean yourself up while being compliant to the standard!

In some countries (e.g., Germany) even many brands of toilet paper have format A6.

Re:It's official...

[rthille]

I don't know...when I told my co-workers that I bought a surplus geiger counter off e-bay they told me I'd broken their geek-meter!

Re:It's official...

[Your_Mom]

Actaully, the first thing that popped into my head when I read your comment was, "Wow, I should look for one of those"

*strolls off to eBay*

Re:It's official...

[damian]

I had no idea how exciting paper can be, or talking about paper.

I think there should be more websites devoted to it, maybe paperspotting.com or formatadmirers.com

Must be friday.

Re:It's official...

[halivar]

I think I've gone beyond 'geek'.

I feel dirty.

It's ok. Some people read sci-fi written by William Shatner. Others but his music album.

There, don't we feel better, now?

Re:It's official...

[Anonymous Coward]

All that *and* you've got a spelling mistake in your sig. Man, you really belong on /.

Re:It's official...

[druxton]

Luckily you can clean yourself up while being compliant to the standard!

In some countries (e.g., Germany) even many brands of toilet paper have format A6.

And further down: readers fascinated by the idea of Central Europeans using A6 as a toilet paper size might also be interested to hear that the U.S. have for the same application field a standard square format of 4.5×4.5 in = 114×114 mm, which is for instance documented in New Jersey Specification No. 7572-01 (May 1997), section 2.3.

Talk about being (sorry) anal retentive.

Re:It's official...

[PMuse]

Obligatory Wrath of Kahn quote: "Logic? My god, the man's talking about logic! We're talking about universal armageddon! You green-blooded, inhuman--"

Paper sizes aren't logical. They're like any other unit of measurement: they just happen. What kind of person would "design" a unit of measurement?! Next thing, you'll be telling me that I have to align the length of my wagon axel to 1,650,763.73 wave-lengths of the orange-red spectrum of krypton-86.

is this metric?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I make paper with irrational numbers as dimensions this makes my paper metric?

Re:is this metric?

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning... if you actually produce paper in irrational sizes the universe will disapear in a puff of logic.

Pulp Numerology

[Bingo Foo]

Hey, if pulp numerology is your thing, look here.

Re:Pulp Numerology

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone interested in numerology want to go look at a page about virgins?

(No, I didn't follow the link. I just looked at the server name.)

Re:Pulp Numerology

[RabidStoat]

Because that's about as close as a numerologist is going to get to a woman ?

Re:Pulp Numerology

[defMan]

My god, what a load of bullshit on that one page. The person who wrote that must be insane.

Re:Pulp Numerology

[Anonymous Coward]

Numerology IS pulp.

Mod parent up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, must be a slow day. I'll go search the net for something that was new 30 years ago and post it on Slashdot!

Already knew it

[jdavidb]

I had that explained to me in person in an excellent, unrelated presentation at YAPC 2002 by Mark-Jason Dominus when he failed to follow his own advice.

Of course...

[Tyranny12]

Metric has those traits nearly universally, and we're seeing some aspects of the metric system more often in everyday life.

But the sheer cost in productivity of shifting to the metric system, when nearly every North American office and person has the SI system encoded on a near-genetic level, would be astronomical.
The US "failing to meet the expectations of the global economy" (see article) by using SI units of paper is a little extreme of a comment. Whatever it costs to deal with the differences, it would cost more to enforce unilateral mindset change - in money, time, and even more.
We'll just wait as the units slowly creep into more and more aspects of everyday life.

Then again... I work with engineers. I always see and hear these units.

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

..SI system encoded on a near-genetic level, would be astronomical...

Ya mean Imperial, right?

Re:Of course...

[kmonsen]

I lived in england a few years ago when the system changed in all the stores. I almost didn't notice it happen. Same with the euro conversion in the Netherlands. It was fun for a few days then noone thought about it anymore.

I think it would be quite painless to change to the metric system in the US. You don't have to change everything immediatly.

Re:Of course...

[Jahf]

There is always a cost involved in migration.

Over time the cost of migration is regained by increase in productivity and interoperability.

It applies here, just as it does to international character sets (it cost to transition to double-byte character sets, but it paid off tremendously by opening foreign markets), operating system migrations, etc.

The unit has been slowly creeping in for -decades- (I own 2 20 year old motorcycles from Japan, guess what kind of wrenches I need?) and it just makes it -worse-. The cost of maintaining 2 distinct sets of tools (paper would be a "tool", the factory that has to produce different sizes to export to foreign countries is a "tool", wrenches are "tools", etc) for 50 years and going would, if I guess correctly, be much higher than the cost of converting once and for all.

The government doesn't have the authority to force everyone to go out and buy a metric ruler for their next art project (though most rulers do both, maybe a bad example) but they sure could force all government agencies and -contractors- to move, which would force a much faster transition.

Re:Of course...

[Tyranny12]

There is always a cost involved in migration.
Over time the cost of migration is regained by increase in productivity and interoperability.
...The cost of maintaining 2 distinct sets of tools... for 50 years and going would... be much higher.

True, but that cost is spread out over 50 years. Converting has a cost that is spread over 1 year or less. It's far easier to deal with an additional year of compliance costs than to allocate an immense amount to enact governmental or corporate standards when both types of organizations have so much on their respective plates right now.

Re:Of course...

[Draknor]

I don't know - losing that Martian probe cost quite a bit and was completely avoidable if the US was using the SI system.

It's basic economics - pay $X / year forever to live with the differences, or pay $Y[Z] for the next Z years, with Y[Z] going to zero as Z approaches 15, and Y[0] >> X. After maybe 25 years, you've paid off the cost to switch and you're now saving money by using metric.

Of course, that's far too long of a time-line for quarterly earnings-managers and 4-year elected officials to even consider. Much better to screw the long-term so we look good in the short term!

Re:Of course...

[Jahf]

No, it's not spread over 50 years, because after 50 years we are still not even close to having migrated, and have either lost business or paid more to gain it (which economically has the same result) in the meantime.

At this rate the gradual change over time will happen when? Never, because it hasn't started happening yet, we continue to use a co-existence model. So to be pendantic, the cost of the current method is infinitely higher than a conversion.

And I don't expect a conversion to happen over 1 year or less ... but it should have at least started by now. Unless we happen to think the rest of the world will someday realize their "mistake" and convert back (I would put a smiley here, but I have heard people make this argument before).

Re:Of course...

[weiyuent]

I lived in england a few years ago when the system changed in all the stores. I almost didn't notice it happen. Same with the euro conversion in the Netherlands. It was fun for a few days then noone thought about it anymore.

Some changes go smoothly because changing isn't actually a big deal. Other changes go smoothly because society at large realized that it wasn't a big deal and so put a hell of a lot of effort into preparing for the change. That's the case with the Euro switchover and UK going metric. I'd hardly describe the process as "painless".

Duh !

[totatis]

Well, I don't want to sound rude, but 99% of the world knows that metric paper sizes (and all metric mesures for that matter) are way more clean and nice than stupid, outdatted empire and non-conventionnal mesures.
And for the anecdote about 2 sheets of A4 = 1 sheet of A3, I remember learning that in elementary school.

How is that *news* for nerds ? Metric paper sizes are here since before the oldest slashdotter was born !

Next stories : "It looks like the Persian were wrong ! Pi does not equal to (16/9) !", "New units discovered : the meter !"

Re:Duh !

[mrgreen4242]

How is that *news* for nerds ? Metric paper sizes are here since before the oldest slashdotter was born !

News for American nerds, I guess.

Re:Duh !

[totatis]

Replying to myself : > Pi does not equal to (16/9) Of course, slashdot ate my square sign. I've got an idea : after you guys learn about some 200 years old metric system, what about learning about 8 bits ASCII and page codes ? The would allow for accents, which are used even in English.

Re:Duh !

[Jahf]

It was a wake-up call. News? Not really, but the motto notwithstanding, /. has always been as much of a technology activist site as it has a News site.

Re:Duh !

[Matthias Wiesmann]

what about learning about 8 bits ASCII and page codes ?

What about learning about Unicode?

Re:Duh !

[Deadstick]

Pi does not equal to (16/9)!

Of course not. (16/9)! does not exist. (16!)/(9!) does, though.

rj

Re:Duh !

[eluusive]

where might your square root sign have been put? That ratio is made up of perfect squares, why would you need a square root sign for any part of it?

A1

[revery]

This means that you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly, and two sheets of A3 will equal an A2."

and if you put two sheets of A2 side by sidem, you've got America's favorite steak sauce...
Mmmmmm, Tommy likey metric system.

Re:A1

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, to me that is a logic fault in the paper sizes then ... they go in reverse.

You are limited to an A1 (not counting fractions or decimals) size, and it is the largest size.

I would rather have "A1" be the smallest "regular" size, and then have the size increase as you increased the number, not shrink.

Silly question for Americans...

[Anonymous Coward]

European sizes are brilliant - if you're printing an A5 leaflet, say, you can print the pages side by side on to A4 and just fold the paper in half. Likewise for A3 and A4. It's something you just take for granted. A0 is one square metre, everything else is a subdivision.

But... What do you Americans do? Do you have half-Legal and double-Legal? Or do you have to stick with a few, non-compatible sizes?

I've got an A3 colour printer. Quite impressive, but only if you know what A3 is. What's the equivalent paper size in the USA? Or do you just have to stick with teeny bits of paper?

Re:Silly question for Americans...

[christopher240240]

Here's an answer for you. Don't use legal-sized paper. It is stupid. Tabloid (2X letter) and letter for me. Or if I am feeling adventurous, a 5 1/2 x 8 1/2

Re:Silly question for Americans...

[Chess_the_cat]

But... What do you Americans do? Do you have half-Legal and double-Legal? Or do you have to stick with a few, non-compatible sizes?

I use tabloid. Better yet, use a custom page size and charge the client extra for the cuts. Stupid wanker. BTW, I'm Canadian and will hold onto my Imperial paper sizes until you pry them from my cold dead hands. God save the Queen and her letter sized paper!

If you enjoy math..

[teamhasnoi]

remember that two 8 1/2 x 11 sheets equal an 11 x 17 sheet and four 4 x 5 cards can fit on a 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. A ream of paper is 500 sheets and if you divide that by two, you get 250 sheets which really means nothing; I needed two extra facts for my post about math.

Re:If you enjoy math..

[TheDormouse]

Actually, a ream was traditionally 480 sheets. A printer's ream is 516 sheets. A 500-sheet ream is pretty much a "metricized" ream.

Re:If you enjoy math..

[stanmann]

And here I thought a ream was traditionally 1lb.

Re:If you enjoy math..

[ChrisMaple]

You are what you eat.

Re:If you enjoy math..

[Idarubicin]

four 4 x 5 cards can fit on a 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper.

Well, yes, as long as you're willing to trim a quarter inch off each side and a half inch from the top and bottom. With trimming, you can also get four 4 x 5 cards out of an A4 sheet....

Four 2" x 3.5" business cards can fit on an 8.5 x 11 page, too, as long as you're willing to do the trimming. :D

Re:If you enjoy math..

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditionally, it is. A 1lb of paper without ink is 516 sheets. By the time they put the ink on it however, a 1lb of paper (with ink) is only 480 sheets.

Now-a-days, printing paper (to be printed by people at home on their computer printers) is sold in 500 sheet reams. This doesn't equal a 1lb of paper but it's carefully calabrated so that once it's been printed on, a pound of this paper (with ink) is the traditional 480 sheets.

Clearly, the reason for this difference between the traditional 516 ream and the 500 ream is because ink usedd in bubble jet and laser jet printers is lighter. So not only do they charge you a fortune for the ink, it's not even the correct weight!

It's all an elaborate scam I tell you.

Shocker....

[jmoen]

I guess I've been living in a metric world to long but seeing /. explaing that a4 + a4 == a3 is like seeing /. explain that 2 + 2 == 4. :)

More usefully...

[MartinG]

you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly,

More usefully, you can fold an a4 piece of paper in half and it will fit nicely in an a5 envelope.

Re:More usefully...

[Inda]

So why do we all fold them in three?

Re:More usefully...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, no. The A5 envelope doesn't exist as far as I know. And that's kind of logical. A4 folded is A5. A5 paper size and A5 envelop size... is exactelly the same. The envelope should be a bit larger. The ISO standaard takes care of that according to the article:

For example, an A4 size letter fits nicely into a C4 envelope, which in turn fits as nicely into a B4 envelope

Re:More usefully...

[Matthias Wiesmann]

So why do we all fold them in three?

Because envelopes are in C6/C5 format...

Re:More usefully...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we? Official letters in A4 format aren't folded in three, they always come folded in two in a C5 envelope, or there would be a risk of cutting the paper at one of the edges while opening the envelope.

Re:More usefully...

[System.out.println()]

Folding in thirds is such a pain in the ass. I distinctly remember not being able to do that until roughly the third grade without making the letter look like shit.

And obviously, I wrote maybe four letters in my life before I went completely (or as completely as possible) digital. What a waste of time, learning to fold things into thirds.

</uselessrant>

Re:More usefully...

[srleffler]

you can fold an a4 piece of paper in half and it will fit nicely in an a5 envelope.

Not quite. The envelope would be exactly the same size as the folded paper, which would be too tight a fit. The A4 paper folded in half fits beautifully into a C5 envelope, however, and if you fold it in half again it will fit in a C6. If you don't want to fold your document, you buy a C4 envelope. What a neat system.

Re:More usefully...

[MartinG]

yes - it's a bit larger. it's not a5 in size itself, but it's called an "a5 envelope" because it's designed to contain a5 sized paper.

Legal size

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the use of legal size, other than being cumbersome? I know - some people like to impress others (form over substance) but dog poop wrapped in legal size paper smells as bad as it is in letter size paper.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[aardvarkjoe]

So? Use metric for science-related stuff where it really matters. (Most in the US do anyway.) There's no good reason to go to the expense and trouble of switching from English to metric all at once. It's much more cost-effective to do it over the space of a couple generations rather than all at once.

2 x (8.5 x 11) = (11 x 17)

[MagnaMark]

This clever side-by-side feature applies to the 8.5 x 11 (letter) and 11 x 17 sizes that are quite common in the US and Canada as well.

I'm not sure about "legal" paper and the rest.

And don't worry everyone, Microsoft is aware of the problem! To quote: "The paper sizes in the United States and Canada (such as letter, legal, and so on) do not satisfy the needs of all users in the world market."

Fear not! They'll solve this problem by embracing and extending the ISO paper-size standard. The new sizes will be MS-A4, MS-A3, etc. Of couse, you will only be able to print to these pages from MS apps, but what else is there?

< / slashdot obligatory off-topic M$ bashing for karma>

Re:2 x (8.5 x 11) = (11 x 17)

[Shabbs]

That's because in Canada we primarily use the metric system (at least we try to). But, due to the large amount of trade between Canada and the US, we're forced to also use your Imperial system to make things easier.

America - please convert. It's long overdue!

Re:2 x (8.5 x 11) = (11 x 17)

[DavidBrown]

I'm not sure about "legal" paper and the rest.

Just so you know, "legal" paper is more or less out of vogue in the legal profession in most states. Letter size is in. I use legal paper only on yellow notepads.

Re:2 x (8.5 x 11) = (11 x 17)

[Chess_the_cat]

What are you on about? When a Canadian is asked for his height he replies in feet and inches and when asked for his weight replies in pounds and it has nothing to do with "the large amount of trade between Canada and the US." A real Canadian would know that he orders meat in pounds, expresses temperature in F, indicates lengths in yards, feet, and inches, buys fish tanks measured in gallons, and uses letter sized paper. Get off your high horse and take a look around at what's really happening in Canada: We like Imperial units and even though the government has switched to metric the people absolutely have not.

the metric system is fun

[revery]

This means that you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly, and two sheets of A3 will equal an A2."

And of course, 5 sheets of almost any metric sized paper folded into origami lions will inevitably merge to form Voltron, a robot so powerful that it will usually let it's enemies kick it's butt around for a good 15 to 20 minutes before it forms the blazing sword and finishes the fight.

Re:the metric system is fun

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - this is a useless post but I had to comment as I've been laughing for a good 5 minutes.

The Golden Ratio

[David Saxton]

The ratio of the side lengths is actually (1 + sqrt(5))/2, not sqrt(2).

Re:The Golden Ratio

[lambent]

that would be plus or minus in there, since it's the solution to a quadratic equation. 1.618 or -.618.

Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Cloud K]

For those of us living in A4-using lands, it's a real pain in the arse trying to set everything (especially in Windows) from Letter to A4! Then you think you have it susses and sure enough... "PC Load Letter" - aaargh!

Do you have any idea how much trouble and stress you've caused by making Letter the default even with UK set as the country? ;)

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[BBird]

For this you have of course to thank of friend Gate$ and its supeiror software.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Uma Thurman]

I have some idea, yes. You see, I've laid tile in the past, and one of the things you do is center the pattern on the floor, with equal sized partial tiles at the edges. This requires division of the distances by 2. It's really cumbersome to divide 34 7/8 inches by two in your head, for example.

So, I went out to get a metric tape measure. Couldn't find a single one in my tiny Texas town. Eventually, I went to the Internet (Amazon.com) to find it. I wanted to get a tape measure with just centimeters on it, but had to settle for one with both inches and centimeters.

Just so I'm never stuck without a metric tape measure again, I bought two of them. Cost me $25 apiece.

Signed, an American who loves the metric system, was scientifically trained with the metric system, and if made emperor of the universe would provide free metric system education to the population at government expense.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed....same as assuming that USA is the default install. Shouldn't it assume something cool like Mongolia as the default install location?

Much fairer.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[real_smiff]

yep. here's a little story (don't get excited, it's about paper). when i scan i often lose the edges of a document and have to redo the job. the difference between Legal (my scanner/software default) and the A4 paper in my printer is just subtle enough that at a glance the copy looks ok. later go to use the copy and.. woops, there's a bit missing. grrr, very grr!

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[in7ane]

The worst part is Mac OS X handles this properly (you can set paper size universally in System Preferences) and everything follows this, even Excel... but then there's Word - and the fucking thing just won't reset to anything other than US Letter as the default. Seriously, why?

/end rant

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[mark-t]

And do you have any idea how difficult it is to set everything that's formatted in A4 to letter?

A4 is 5.9mm narrower than letter and 17.6mm taller. The width difference is no big deal... it's tiny, and you can compensate for it feasably by just changing the left and right margins without causing any problems, but the height difference is large enough that if you try to adjust the top and bottom margins to make an a4 page fit on a letter page, your top and bottom margins can often be too small for a printer to manage at all (unless it's one of those photo printers that can print right to the edge of a page, and even then, there might be limitations on the circumstances in which that's permitted).

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that's bad? Set your country to Sweden. The keyboard is a Dvorak layout with 4 Js on the home row.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[thakadu]

Whats worse is that many users don't change the default paper size to A4 and then wonder why the print preview has bigger margins than the hard copy.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any Idea how much stress you've caused by making A4 the default in Abiword, KPrint, and OpenOffice writer even when the country is set to USA or Canada?

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Unregistered]

At least for a while oo.org defaulted to A4. That sucked. Then i got a new printer without a paralell port, so that might have been changed in the past few months.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Fred Or Alive]

It's far better than Mac OS X 10.1, which didn't have that. I really hated the way AppleWorks defaulted the stupid American paper sizes, having to change them for every new document gets annoying after a while. Seeing as the default paper size was added after Office was released, Word might not have been updated to get the correct paper size from the OS. Just a guess...

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dividing 34 7/8 by 2 is difficult?? Hmm, 34/2 = 17. (7/8)/2 = 7/16. So, that would be, oh, I don't know, 17 7/16? What was hard about that?

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Uma Thurman]

There's nothing hard about that, but there's a hell of a lot that's annoying about that. The same distance, 886 millimeters, is much easier to divide by two.

Plus, it's just too much damn work to curse at floor tiles AND fractions at the same time, is all.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[merdark]

Seeing as you are the minority in using Letter, I'd say your difficulties are your own fault.

Also, the parent was referring to software not using A4 even when the locality is set to non-US. You don't have this problem and techincally your complaint has nothing to do with the parent.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[wilper]

I don't bother. I just press "start" on the printer when it wants me to insert US paper. Leaves a little strip unprinted at the bottom of each sheet, but not really a problem.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, dividing inches & fractions of an inch by 2 is relatively easy, especially if you have an even number of inches.

It's adding 3-5/8" to 7-7/16" or subtracting 3-5/8" from 7-7/16" that's a real pain in the tuckus.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[deacon]

Not at all, not at all.

Half of 34 and 7/8 is

17 and 7/16

you just double the bottom of the fraction to cut it in half.

And if your example had been 35 and 7/8, then the answer is 17 plus 1/2 plus 7/16..

Seems easier to me than figuring out half of 885.825 mm, which is what your example comes to.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Uma Thurman]

Ah fuck, what have I gotten myself into? For some reason, every luddite in the country has taken it upon themselves to teach me how to do fractional arithmetic!

OK, I hate programming in APL. What's next? An APL tutorial by some grumpy old programmers?

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Overzeetop]

Yes, there are certainly some limitations, but ifyou take a page from sheetrockers, you can do everything in sixteenths (you're a geek, right? hex is in your blood).

It's not "four and a half inches" it's "four and eight" (sixteenths). Need a 32nd? Your sixteenth is either "strong" or "weak".

Of course, for probably less than your metric tapemeasures, you could have purchased a centering taple measure, with the correct scale on one edge and a half scale of the same numbers on the other. Read the regular side, then find the correspoding number on the other - its exactly half.

http://amos.catalogcity.com/cc.class/cc?pcd=5908 94 8&ccsyn=22

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have some idea, yes. You see, I've laid tile in the past, and one of the things you do is center the pattern on the floor, with equal sized partial tiles at the edges. This requires division of the distances by 2. It's really cumbersome to divide 34 7/8 inches by two in your head, for example.

Let's see, you basically admitted that you can't divide 34 in half and you can't double 8. More likely is that you don't understand that a fraction bar is the same as a division sign, nor do you understand the relation between the definition of division and multiplication and therefore can't apply fractions to practical use. In otherwords, you are mathematically functional at a 3rd grade level. Good for you.

With metric that would be 88.6cm/2 which is: 44.3cm.

If one can use simple fractions, then there isn't much difference at all for either method.

Signed, an American who loves the metric system, was scientifically trained with the metric system, and if made emperor of the universe would provide free metric system education to the population at government expense.


The sad thing is that a retard like you really CAN become the emperor of the universe, it was proven about 3 1/2 years ago.

It also points out why the metric system isn't taking hold in the States. Even its proponents are numerically illiterate morons. You don't happen to work for NASA, do you?

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat a bowl of cock.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, it's just too much damn work to curse at floor tiles AND fractions at the same time, is all.


If you choke on simple fractions and can't train yourself to work with them then you have some kind of a learning disability. No offense intended at all. But it is daft to think that just because you have this problem that it means that the metric system is good for everyone. How else can you explain that you can divide a larger number like 886 yet can't divide a simple fraction like 7/8 which consists of multiplying 8 * 2. I am not that good with higher level math so I'm not speaking from an ivory tower, but I don't (and many fellow wood workers I know) expend any more mental effort dividing small mixed fractions than dividing whole numbers.

As a number system goes, most civilizations have found base 10 to be one of the worst choices. In fact, the ONLY good thing about the imperial measurements are their number system choices. Measuring systems use base-60 (geographical systems and time), base-2 (volume measurements for trade like pint, quart, etc), base-12 (length). But to be honest, humans are very good at adapting to any choice of number system that are accustomed to early on. So I don't spend too much time arguing this one. I only point it out to counter the argument that the metric system has a mathematical advantage.

And that is the biggest problem with metric adoption, is that humans are really good at learning these relationships when they're young. For most people with no peculiar mathematical blocks the Imperial math is no easier nor harder than metric. Which means that you can't convince too many people that using the metric system is easier if they're accustomed to metric. In fact, when using the systems in the real world for things other than just finding centers, it is damn hard to internalize the base measures. I can eyeball feet, miles (when deadreckoning), inches, I can weigh many items. I can't do it with the metric system. If I pick up an object and estimate it's weight, I think it in pounds. If I want kilos I have to convert. Same with length measures. Despite what some snot-nosed Eurotrash will tell you, the metric system offers NO great mathematical benefits and it takes time to internalize it (something I have not done yet). The ONLY advantage of the metric system is enhanced world-wide communication, which is the only reason why I support it.

You might find it interesting to read "Positional Number Systems" in Vol. 2 of Knuth.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat a bowl of cock.
Ah c'mon Uma. On Slashdot that would have been modded Insightful.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Word 2004 doesn't respect default paper size either. You cannot argue that they didn't have enough time to update it.

It looks like Word has paper size saved in the template. This works: Format|Document..., page setup, set A4, OK, then click Default... button, close the dialog and agree to save changes into Normal template.

Now if there was a way to save default language. It persistently ignores whatever I set up as default in Language dialog.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[belroth]

Now that's a decent challenge and if it weren't for the lack of the characters in unicode....

One example I remember was two APL one liners to do the same thing, one version took one hundred thousand times longer to run than the other.
I kind of like APL though.

I never did much APL which is why I quite like it, even though I can't remember much really.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, can't be too careful, N3WB13

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Uma Thurman]

If you choke on simple fractions and can't train yourself to work with them then you have some kind of a learning disability.

Never said that I choke on them. I took ALL the math. Algebra, Calc I, II, III, IV, DiffEQ, and finally stopped at predicate calculus. Did well in all of them.

I dislike fractions because they are ANNOYING. Same reason I hate programming in APL, though I got an A in the class.

Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cock that's a male chicken isn't it ?
yummy with some curry !

Cubits

[Anonymous Coward]

Cubits damnit, I want cubits!

Re:Cubits

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? The only place you'd be able to spend them in on Battlestar Galactica.

What does the "A" Stand for?

[beatleadam]

...A4 paper size option in our printer trays and in printer preference menus...

Actually a pretty interesting article. It really reminded me of the type of material that 'Ole Cliffy Clavin would be reading on a regular basis :-)

But seriously, after reading the whole article I see not mention as to what the "A" stands for?

Re:What does the "A" Stand for?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they have other papers sizes called B1, B2, ..., C1, C2, ..., etc.

Re:What does the "A" Stand for?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the alphabetical equivalent of one. If you check the article, you'll find a table listing the standard ISO (so-called metric) paper sizes. They're called A0..A10, B0..B10, and C0..C10.

Only on /.

[DR SoB]

Would a metric discussion of PAPER be taken this far/seriously.. Only on /.

This is stuff that matters? Too WHO?!

Re:Only on /.

[DR SoB]

Bah no doubt you bought that UID on Ebay.. I mean who has a 5 digit UID with no Karma bonus?!

Re:Only on /.

[roguebfl]

Bah no doubt you bought that UID on Ebay.. I mean who has a 5 digit UID with no Karma bonus?!

Being only Occational mosters some of us 5D get Missed' by moders hence our karma is balanced.

Rember Balance is the key, not lop-sided karama ;)

Re:Only on /.

[shish]

/me points to the title - "Slashdot. News for Nerds"

Re:Aka the golden mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll. At least one sucker mod bit.

RTFA - Redundant...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the article before making that "observation"...?

Re:Psst.

[Joe U]

I never understood why some people love to number backwards. Why not x1 - confetti square, x500 - wallpaper? Anything under x1 would be too small to work with anyway.

No, someone thought, hey A4, A3, A2, A1, A0, 1A0, 2A0, that's not annoying or confusing at all.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Ubergrendle]

Origin of the phrase "one for the road". In London, while on the way to the gallows, the cart would stop at each pub along the way. The criminal would be allowed a drink at every pub, almost always 'on the house' so that the soul would not come back to make due on a debt. Also, i suspect pity played a large role.

Re:Aka the golden mean

[NeoDragon]

Wow...1.6180339887499 now is equal to root 2... Funny for as I can remeber root 2 was more like 1.4142135623730... Guess I need to alter ever calculator I own to correct their grevious error giving me the actual root of 2 so that they will give me your new fangled Golden mean instead...Or not...

Re:Aka the golden mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't that the point of the article? And sqrt(2) = 1.41421356..., the golden ratio is 1.61803399...

Oh right. A troll.

Harmony door

[BBird]

I think this special proportion 1:sqr(2) was fisrt discovered by the Old Greeks who called it the "Door of Harmony" or something of the kind.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[JesseL]

You don't really think the size of our paper has anything to do with our level of scientific advancement. There are many reasons why the metric system is good and we should all learn to use it - standardizing our paper sizes isn't one of them. (BTW the metric system sucks for times when you really do want to use fractions)

metric will win in the end

[garglblaster]

This is my personal opinion, however:

I think the metric system is like Open Source:
It's going to win in the long run -
simply because it's the logical way to go!

If you look at the evolution of things, there have always been different ways of doing stuff, but in the end one of them won - simply because it was undeniably the best way to go - and the others lost out..

Re:metric will win in the end

[RimmerExperience]

Hmm best and most logical always wins - like VHS over Betamax?

Re:metric will win in the end

[PaschalNee]

I'll open a can of worms here and say - "VHS,Betamax".

Re:metric will win in the end

[christopher240240]

So think about it... If it takes the amount of time for open-source to catch on in the US as the metric system- I will be long dead before it wins out.

Re:metric will win in the end

[krokodil]

I have good news for you: it already won. Most of the world is already using it.

Re:metric will win in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like betamax was technically superior to VHS
Oh wait.....

Re:metric will win in the end

[bjdevil66]

Actually, VHS was the best and most logical way for a couple of reasons. 1) VHS HQ (2nd generation) was almost as good as Beta while being cheaper. 2) At the time when 2 hour movies were the standard, VHS 6 hour tapes held 3 movies. Beta 4.5 hour tapes held 2 movies and wasted considerable tape space.

Re:metric will win in the end

[javatips]

It depends how you define your logic. In that case, if you define that better technology should win is logic, then you are right.

On the other end, if you define that lower price should win is logic, then you are wrong.

When consumer have to decide between two product based on limited amount of money, I beleive that VHS winning more consumer over Betamax is very logic.

Re:metric will win in the end

[wazzzup]

Think again. I work for a civil engineering firm that designs highways for the Ohio Department of Transportation. There was a short stint where the DOT required all plans to be in metric. The contractors complained and started inflating their bids on projects that were designed in metric.

We had completed design on 2/3rds of a $150m dollar interchange project that was done in metric and the DOT asked us if it would be too much trouble to convert the project to english (about 6 yrs. worth of design work). It was going to be outrageously expensive to convert the project- simply multpying everything by 0.3048 and be done was not a solution.

So we ended up completing the project in metric and it's under construction now but the pushback from the contractors was too much and it was costing them real money.

Personally, I like the metric system but people hate change and change cost money in this case because stupid contractors were unwilling to learn a new system.

Re:metric will win in the end

[amightywind]

I think the metric system is like Open Source: It's going to win in the long run - simply because it's the logical way to go!

U.S. units vs. metric debate is like Gnome vs. KDE. Both sides are entrenched, the debate is isometric. Is the distance 1/10000000 the distance from the equator to the north pole really better than the length of King George's foot? Logic plays no part. At least time units are standard.

Re:metric will win in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the civilized world though, which is the part that counts.

Re:metric will win in the end

[Paulrothrock]

I heard they redefined the meter to be "the distance traveled by light in 1/299,792,458 seconds." (Which is 1/what my TI-89 says is c.) In any case, a unit based on a physical property of our planet is better than one based on a body part of a dead guy. Heck, that body part probably doesn't exist anymore.

The metric system also allows for easy changes between units. A gram is the mass of a cubic centimeter of water, which is also a milliliter. It makes problem solving a lot easier when you don't have to convert pounds/cubic foot -> gallons using godawful conversion rates.

Re:metric will win in the end

[irontiki]

To all the sibling posts citing Betamax vs. VHS, it isn't a valid comparision.

It was a complete fumble on the part of Sony; they killed Betamax themselves. They didn't license the technology to other manufacturers so VHS was cheaper and more available (link) and they refused to allow prOn on Betamax (link).

We can put it to a vote but my suspicion is that inferior-technology-prOn beats superior-technology-non-prOn every time.

Further, the whole superior technology thing was kind of a myth anyway (link).

Re:metric will win in the end

[roguebfl]

Oh ye of short sight. both shall loos to DVD 8)

Re:metric will win in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

No,it just show that your definition of civilized is backwards.

I'll add a deliberately provocative statement: this is especially true since Bush is in the White House.

Re:metric will win in the end

[stanmann]

I'm not dead and my thumb is ~1inch my hand is ~6in and my cubit is ~18in... any questions?

Re:metric will win in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

i've read an arcticle some time ago about the definition of "whole product" (this is marketing speech). as a "whole product" vhs was better for several reasons:

- most people can't tell the picture/sound quality diference between VHS and beta, the same way most people can't tell mp3 from ogg based on how they sound.
- vhs was cheaper
- vhs had many manufacturers, meaning a vhs user wouldn't be locked to sony forever
- vhs's tapes always were 120min (best quality mode) in lenght, while the first beta tapes were 60min, making atomated tapping of movies impossible

and many more reasons. so in the end logic prevailed. beta with it's better picture moved to the professional niche and stayed there until digital while vhs took over the home market.

Re:metric will win in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? How do you explain religion?

Re:metric will win in the end

[Bullseye_blam]

Yes, but does the metric system have guns and bombs to defend its freedoms? I THINK NOT!

Re:metric will win in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

A mix of lack of education and lack of self-conscienceness

Re:metric will win in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the feeling that we don't know everything about everything...

There's a reason why it's called "faith."

Re:metric will win in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

The bottom line is that doing the work in metric costs the contractors more money. Learning a new system costs time and money. I don't blame the contractors, I blame the Department of Transportation.

Re:metric will win in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion encourages a fixed-faith
While science encourages faith in what can be really beleived in, even if this have to change over the time.
Science ideology follow the humanity knowledge, religion follow a book written many years ago.

Re:metric will win in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever built anything out of wood, or cooked anything?

Re:Aka the golden mean

[Anonymous Coward]

for those of you that enjoy a little math:
square root(2) = 1.41421356
golden mean = 1.61803399

These two numbers are not the same.

Re:Aka the golden mean

[Anonymous Coward]

NOT informative.
Phi != sqrt(2)

Re:Aka the golden mean

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not. The golden mean is (1 + sqrt(5))/2, or somewhere around 1.6. Your own link says it. sqrt(2) has the nice property that it's _close_ to the golden mean, while still preserving the doubling property, but it certainly isn't the golden mean.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Jahf]

Either that was tongue-in-cheek, which I respect, or you are under the age of 30.

They did try ... I was in elementary school at the time. I agree, metric makes a lot more sense in -all- manner of implementation. Unfortunately by the time I left elementary school (lets see ... 1982?) they had all but given up.

It definitely makes international travel interesting. It is bad enough when you have to explain your country's politics, but explaining your measurement system (especially in the areas where said system originated) is plain frustrating.

Do the math, indeed

[lambent]

Square milimeters of paper:

Letter: 60322.46 mm^2 (215.9mm x 279.4mm)

A4: 62370 mm^2 (210mm × 297mm)

A4 - Letter = 2047.54, or about 3 and 3/16 square inches.

A4 is bigger.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[beachplum]

When I was in elementary school in the 70s, we were taught the Metric system and were also taught that within ten years the US would be using Metric exclusively.

Obviously, this, like many other predictions of the future, did not come to pass.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

commie.

Metric Printing

[AnomalyConcept]

I know this may be deviating a little bit from the topic, but what about metric labels?

Most label manufacturers (eg. Avery) have labels, and not all of them are 'intuitive' dimensions. Perhaps the same ideas would carry over?

Actually not used EVERYWHERE

[curri]

In Mexico, we use letter size most of the time (and we do use the metric system).

I don't know what other countries do, but I don't think metric paper sizes are as widely used as the metric system in general.

Re:Actually not used EVERYWHERE

[Walrusss]

Dunno if it is really the cause for this, but Mexico, the US and Canada are part of a free trade treaty, this may be actually normal that you (and we) use letter sized paper.

In Canada, even if we use metric system everywhere, you often have to go back to the old imperial system, especially in paper, construction, food (everything that we have a tight bond with the US for). Not that it's logical, it's simply not legal for trade. But when you go to buy a piece of wood, you have to ask for a 2' X 4' X 8' .... sadly, because when you look at it, measuring with millimeters is fairly more precise than with inches (of course, you can use 1/16th of an inch, but it gets confusing rapidly).

Re:Actually not used EVERYWHERE

[Ruediger]

in Brazil we only use metric paper sizes.

Re:Actually not used EVERYWHERE

[kidgenius]

I think you mean 2"x4"x8', otherwise, that's a huge ass piece of wood that is going to be bigger around than a tree. Want something else that will blow your mind? A 2x4 isn't even 2" by 4".....it's 1.5" x 3.5" :)

Re:Actually not used EVERYWHERE

[Araneas]

My house is 100+ years old. The 2x4 and 2x6 studs are full sized 2"x4" and 2"x6". Makes renovating a pain in the ass.

Re:Actually not used EVERYWHERE

[Anonymous Coward]

They typically start at 2" x 4" when rough-cut wet, but after being dried and planed, they end up a bit smaller.

Re:Actually not used EVERYWHERE

[jorlando]

metric is the official standardized size, but you can find other sizes.

I mistankely bought a pack of letter sized paper at carrefour once. I spent the whole packing cursing the people that don't identified it in the shelf.

Mirror

[mirror_dude]

I'm not sure how this server is going to handle it , so I put a mirror of the article up here

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[Frothy Walrus]

Now is that a solid ounce, a fluid ounce, or an apothecary ounce?

If the brits managed to switch...

[Anonymous Coward]

...why can't the americans?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

care to back that up or are you pulling it out of your ass? Many countries have made the switch over in recent times. How is it more efficent to always have two sets of wrenches? Or mars probes crashing. The cost of the probe alone would go a long way to pay for swicthing.

I can finally die

[jrf83317]

I can finally die now that I know this very useful piece of information.

Thank you SOOOO Much for wasting my time!!

As a European, I like 'letter'

[Peter Cooper]

Okay, this is entirely cosmetic, but I actually prefer the look of Letter sized paper to A4. A4 is so skinny and tall, whereas Letter seems more proportional and better for letters (no pun intended).

Re:As a European, I like 'letter'

[Peter Cooper]

As an aside.. anyone know where I could buy Letter sized paper in the UK? I've looked around Staples and places like that, with no joy. It'd definitely make my business letters and invoices stand out.

Metric system?

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

Metric system?!?
Go away! We like our rulers!

Thomas Jefferson once said that the people get the rulers they deserve.

--

Re:Aka the golden mean

[odsign]

No it's not. The golden mean is (1+sqrt(5))/2. That page you linked even says so.

Who Cares?

[Wicked187]

The rest of the world needs to get over it's superiority complex and just follow suite. Duh.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

(BTW the metric system sucks for times when you really do want to use fractions)

Care to explain?

Re:Huh?

[rnelsonee]

I can... metric is obviously heavily biased to factors of 10 - a pretty useless number as it only has a few divisors (2, which always a factor of the base/radix used, and 5). So when you want to divide your 1 meter board into 4, you're now stuck with 2.5 cm pieces. Okay, not too bad. What about dividing it by 3? A repeating decimal is now your new measurment. Bah, same with 6. If you get stuck in classes for most of your life, you probably won't care about this. But try to build a bar with a metric ruler and you'll see why these are desirable traits.

Compare that with, say, the foot. 12 inches - easily divisible by 3, 4, and 6. Makes building that shit a lot easier :)

Same goes with volumes - it's easy to convert gallons to quarts to pints. You have to memorize more units (which I agree sucks), but it makes making that recepie easier when you realize you have more guests coming.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded or something?

What about 5/12? "A repeating decimal is now your new measurment." (sic)

Re:Huh?

[rnelsonee]

Number of divisors 10 has: 4
Number of divisors 12 has: 6

I think it's pretty obvious which one wins here.

I'm not saying Imperial is perfect (personally, I like Metric better as it suits my needs), but it clearly would be an advantage if we used base 12 for our measuring systems.

Re:Huh?

[wtrmute]

I'm sorry, but it's easy to convert milliliters to liters, too. Why is it that if you have more guests coming it's easier to use two gallons rather than eight liters?

Anyway, I guess it will never be obvious to Imperials until they've tried to scale a plan using calculators...
73.66 mm * 3 = 220.98 mm.
2' 5" * 3 = ????

Re:Huh?

[rnelsonee]

... and it should also be obvious that people need to divide numbers by 4 (and to a lesser extent, 3) much more often than by 5, so it really helps to have those numbers divide evenly.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

So? Why would anyone in their right mind want to use fractions, and turn them to decimals anyway?

You can have 1/3 or 1/4 or 2^-x of a meter just as well as you can have 1/x of a foot. Just as long as you keep it in fractional notation, you'll not have a problem.

Why, exactly, anyone would want to do that is far beyond me. Perhaps they're just used to feets and inches.

I always prefer to use a metric ruler/tape measure, and I'm in the US; of course, I design stuff in metric. I won't try and convert someone else's designs to metric. To me, trying to divide 87" and 13/16 by any number is just fucking irritating. It's much easier to do 240 centimeters / 2 = 120cm / 4 = 60cm, it's tons easier to do in the head.

Re:Huh?

[Mikkeles]

This would be better fixed by using a base 12 number system; then it would allow both the most common practical divisions (2, 3, 4) and ease of scaling by shifting the duodecimal point!
That is: metric and Imperial in 1!

Re:Huh?

[kidgenius]

2' 5" * 3 = ????

Why it's 6' 15" of course :)

Re:Huh?

[Dayflowers]

Actually, you're forgetting something alot more useful (imho): conversions. When you're tryin' to see convert from inches to feet, or whatever, it gets really confusing :\ I must say, I had no idea the US didn't use the same system we do. I always just ignored the letter size, I thought it was some weird size used for letters ^^

Re:Huh?

[king-manic]

The thing is, the entirty of the rest of the world can do? is it too hard for americans? Measuring in Metric of English isnt' a huge issue. You get used to it no matter which way it goes. IT's simply easier for you to be in tune with the rest of the world. Science is alreayd metric down there.

Re:Huh?

[grumbel]

One of the major benefits of '10' is that the human has 10 fingers. And as a lot of people use their fingers to do everydays calculation, using a base 10 system helps a whole lot here making the calculations easier and feel more natural.

Re:Huh?

[king-manic]

by ths logic, base 22^124 shoudl be even more ideal because it has lots more divisors. Yup, 22^124 will get the job done.

Re:Huh?

[rnelsonee]

That's just stupid. I'm assuming everyone here is smart enough to realize there are practical limits invovled. If our minds could easily identify 22^124 dots on a piece of paper, and we had the tools to cut a piece of wood into exactly 22^124 smaller pieces... etc., then yes, 22^124 would be a nice number to use (although 12^144 would be even better).

Re:Huh?

[Yobgod Ababua]

I think he meant to refer to the case when you have -fewer- guests coming, or when you want to take that industrial 'serves 12' recipe and scale it back to serve only 4.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the real obvious answer is to switch the whole world to base-12 numbering. Then we could all be happy. How can metric users consider themselves so scientifically advanced when they still use an obsolete counting system???

Re:Huh?

[barawn]

So instead of using a system which has more fundamental benefits (base 12 vs. base 10), we use one which allows stupid people to try to build things.

Hm, what am I missing? :)

OK, that's a little harsh, but suggesting that base 10 is good because people count on their fingers is crazy. Base 10 is good because it's what people are taught in school, that's all. (Interesting that we're basically saying that metric's advantage over imperial is essentially legacy support - I say we all move into the modern era, chuck base 10, go with base 12, and move on. :) )

And if base 10 is what everyone uses to count - what about time, which is still in base 60? (which is, of course, even better than base 12, as it's divisible by 2,3,4,5 and 6.) Metric time never seems to catch on. I wonder why. :)

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't need a calculator, or even a pencil, to multiply 2'5" * 3. Six feet plus 15 inches is 7'3". Done.

Re:Huh?

[leshert]

Try "more divisors that are commonly used".

Incidentally, 22^124 is probably one of the worst examples you could have used, because you're stuck with only two prime factors, one of which won't come up in most measurements (can't remember the last time I had to divide a meter 11 ways).

If you had been any good at trolling, you would have picked something on the order of "By this logic, base 2310 should be even more ideal because it has lots more divisors. Hopefully, even you can figure out why this number is a better choice to troll with here.

Re:Huh?

[humuhumunukunukuapu']

ever heard of millimeters????

Re:Huh?

[king-manic]

I'm just pointing it out how arbitrary it all is. Metric has a different set of arbitrary assumptions but they both do. The logic of having more divisirs = better system is just as arbitrary as "we have 10 fingers so we should use base 10."

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you don't count thumbs, we actually have two sets of four. And if you count on feet as well (minus the big toes) you have four sets of four. So perhaps we should all move to a base-four system? (Works with computers a lot better, too.)

Re:Huh?

[usrusr]

pity that we do not use a base12 numeric system (but still, who would not vote for base13 if he had the chance? ;)

Re:Huh?

[billtom]

Your argument would carry weight only if 12 were used consistantly throughout the system.

You convieniently picked a couple of relationships that are 12s (feet and inches, gallons and quarts), but you ignored all the other relationships that aren't multiples of 12 (e.g. feet to miles, pounds in a ton).

So yes, I agree with you in part. If imperial used powers of 12 throughout, I could get on board. But a mixed bag of conversion ratios that can't be deduced, only memorized? Count me out.

Re:Huh?

[ChrisMaple]

So when you want to divide your 1 meter board into 4, you're now stuck with 2.5 cm pieces.

Wow, I'd like to see your saw. It leaves a kerf of 30 cm.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, every bar in Europe built since they've switched to the metric system is all fucked up. Just last week, I heard about some bar in Munich that collapsed. One of the surviors was saying "If we only hadn't switched to the metric system more people might be alive" -- of course that's a translation from what she said.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? Idiotic!

1/3 of a cm is just as valid as 1/3 of an inch - there is nothing about the metric system that forces you to use decimal number representation, but it is more convenient to work that way.

When working in inchs you need to work in 1/8, 1/16 or 1/32 - what is the difference?

There are lots of fractions that don't fit into either division.

To take an example from the parent, 1/3 of an inch can't be directly measured with a standard US ruler - they are in 1/16 or 1/32 of an inch.

At least with metric you have a chance! I think most people will have just as much luck measuring 3.3mm than 10 2/3 * 1/32 from a ruler!

I spent my first 12 years and the last few years in the imperial/US system, and the middle part in the metric system, so I can claim to have first hand experience with both systems.

US/Imperical sucks.

It only makes even vauge sense if you're still calculating by counting your fingers and toes. You may not have noticed, but there are calculators and digital calipers there days.

If you want to stay in the past, OK, but don't claim there is any reason except you don't want to change.

(Though I think gills per furlong is a great measurement for fuel economy) .esq.

Re:Huh?

[Malc]

"Same goes with volumes - it's easy to convert gallons to quarts to pints."

Of course, those aren't part of what the Americans refer to the English system. The English have 20 fl oz in a pint whereas the Americans have 16. Also, there is a slight difference between the size of a fl oz too. Then there's the American ton, but that's another story...

Re:Huh?

[rpresser]

gallons and quarts??? a gallon is four quarts, that's not 12.

Re:Huh?

[Mal-2]

Compare that with, say, the foot. 12 inches - easily divisible by 3, 4, and 6. Makes building that shit a lot easier :)

There are also rulers marked in 1/10 inch increments, which at least places equally with metric for scaling things down. There are also 1/12 inch increment rulers, but those are mostly for 1 inch = 1 foot type floorplans. And of course there are those rulers that look like gigantic elongated Risk pieces that are very entertaining to hit people with.

Mal-2

Re:Huh?

[SharpFang]

Okay, so why do Americans still use Base10 maths? Go switch to base 12 in schools, 8+5=11 :)

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when you want to divide your 1 meter board into 4, you're now stuck with 2.5 cm pieces.

Actually you would be stuck with 25 cm pieces (1 meter = 100 cm = 1000 mm).

This argument is moot. If it was really important the whole imperial system would be based on 12 not just some parts of it (e.g. a yard should be 12 foots as a foot is 12 inches).

People use base 10 to count on a daily basis, not base 12.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The thing is, the entirty of the rest of the world can do?

Two other civilized countries can't either: Liberia and Burma.

Re:Huh?

[leoxx]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I recently converted a car port to a covered garage and I used primarily imperial measurements, but I still had to deal with all sorts of fractional measurements for everything. The fact is you get used to is, just as you would with metric.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't need a calculator, or even a pencil, to multiply 2'5" * 3. Six feet plus 15 inches is 7'3". Done.

Yes, and you did at least four operations (two multiplications, one modulus, one sum) instead of one.

Now try multiplying by 213 instead of 3. Yes, you can use a calculator and the GP poster can also.

By the way, since the answer is rather long, it should be expressed in yards+feets+inches in your case, and meters+decimeters+millimeters for his case. Lets see who gets the answer first.

Re:Huh?

[pjt33]

If you have to measure everything precisely when cooking, then I'm surprised you have the confidence to cook for guests. It doesn't take much experience of cooking before you learn that precise quantities don't matter: what matters is being able to judge when you've got enough of something. So, for example, my sponge recipe calls for 75g of marge, but I scale it down to 50g and add more if needed.

Re:Huh?

[belroth]

You're quite right, the French haven't had any bars since they went metric. No houses either.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same goes with volumes - it's easy to convert gallons to quarts to pints.

I'd like that measurement in hogheads please. How many pounds does that weigh? And what do you do if you wan't to know the volume in cubic inches? How many are there in a gallon again?

Ask someone who grew up in a metric country how many cubic centimeters there are in a liter and what it weighs and, if they can't remember, it'll only take them a second to work it out (its a nice even 1,000 cubic centimeters and it weighs 1 kilogram).

You've fallen for the same "metric system isn't easier! Look at my division!" crap most Americans have.

Re:Huh?

[Guppy06]

" I'm sorry, but it's easy to convert milliliters to liters, too."

This is one of my qualms with the metric system: Why would you want to? How often do people need to make conversions along an order of magnitude?

For example, no, I don't know off the top of my head how many teaspoons are in a (US) gallon, but the things I measure in teaspoons and the thigns I measure in gallons have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Why would I want to know how many gallons of sugar I put into my cup of tea in the morning, or how many teaspoons of water I use to brew it?

And because you're using such an obnoxiously large converstion as factors of 10, you end up with either decimals or multi-digit integers, which aren't as easy to remember or manipulate as much as single-digit intervals. If you're in metric land, go into your kitchen and look at your measuring spoons and cups and look at all the "?00 mL" and "?50 mL" options you have. Here in my US kitchen I have numbers like "1 tsp" and "1 tbsp (3 tsp)" and "1/4 cup" and the like. Even if you get everybody to start using centileters instead of mililiters you're still stuck with ?0 or ?5.

Alright, I admit there are times when it's useful to use decimals. But what's the advantage measuring gasoline in decimal liters over decimal gallons?

And there's one more, unrelated beef I have with metric that I've come to notice while working for a real estate abstracting company: 10 is pretty, sqrt(10) is not. 1 m^2 is a 1-meter square, and 100 m^2 is a 10-meter square, but how do you measure out a square that is exactly 10 m^2? You can start using "ares" and "hectares" if you'd like, but since they're all based on the linear meter...

You can't fit 1 acre into a square with rational sides, but nobody who buys property that small deals with squares anyway (ever lived in a square house?). However, a 660-ft square is exactly 10 acres, and you'd want to buy plots that big in squares so that it makes it easier for you to figure out what pattern to drive your tractor across it and it's cheaper than 100 acres (at which scale you'll run into geographical obstacles, anyway). And if you take 64 of these 10-acre squares and made them into a giant chess board, you have a 1-mile square.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was so stupidly flawed I don't even know where to begin.

You can't get exactly 1/5 or 1/3 of an inch no matter how many times you divide by 2.

You can multiply stuff in metric too. As a bonus, you can often do it without switching units.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now try multiplying by 213 instead of 3. Yes, you can use a calculator and the GP poster can also.

What are we measuring here? If it's boards, they come in 8' lengths, so you can get 3 out of each length. 213/3 = 71. You need 71 8' boards. You can't go out and buy exactly 514' 9" of wood, and it wouldn't be enough if you could because you don't have a perfectly 2 dimensional saw blade.

If you're measuring something else then other conventions apply, but it's very rare that you need to do such a multiplication.

By the way, since the answer is rather long, it should be expressed in yards+feets+inches in your case, and meters+decimeters+millimeters for his case.

Why? Yards are used for sports and fabric. Nearly everything else is measured either in small units (feet, inches) or in large units (miles). There are very few in-between objects. That's why the particularly nasty 5280 feet/mile is still usable.

floor space is square feet
land space is acre or square mile
the size of a semi truck is feet
the distance it travelled is miles
the amount of fabric you need for a dress is yards
the height of the person who will wear it is feet and inches

Bet you tried to tell your grandmother how to suck eggs, too.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask someone who grew up in a metric country how many cubic centimeters there are in a liter and what it weighs and, if they can't remember, it'll only take them a second to work it out (its a nice even 1,000 cubic centimeters and it weighs 1 kilogram).

Only if you're talking about water at what, 20 degrees C? (and 1 atmosphere, whatever the standard units are for that) Clearly using metric in your daily life doesn't automatically make you a better scientist.

You've fallen for the same "metric system isn't easier! Look at my division!" crap most Americans have.

Actually, most americans fall for the "who gives a crap" crap. We have a measurement system that works well enough and the majority of the population is not comprised of nerds.

Re:Huh?

[Frogbert]

Count your fingers! You have 10. So lets see how many different states we can have. 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Whats that? Yes your fingers are actualy base 11.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need better examples. Everyone who measured anything in "hogsheads" is long dead. And the density of water isn't that easy to remember--was it 1 g/mm^3? 1 kg/cm^3? It's certainly not 1 g/m^3 in the fundamental units (which actually would have been simple). At any rate, it's cute but useless the moment you measure anything other than water and have to go look up an ugly conversion factor again.

Re:Huh?

[thogard]

We used to have a base 12 number system. Count in english.... nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Once you get to twelve there aren't any non-compound names until you get to twenty (a score).

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is easy to show your way is better when you choose a single example that happens to work well.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are dependent on a calculator? That is sorry to hear.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

US/Imperical sucks.

It only makes even vauge sense if you're still calculating by counting your fingers and toes.

You may have noticed that the metric system is designed for people who count on there fingers.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so why do Americans still use Base10 maths? Go switch to base 12 in schools, 8+5=11 :)

The US system is not base twelve. The conversions are different for different scales and selected for practicality. It is impractical to select an arbitrary number and use that as a universal factor.

Re:Huh?

[calidoscope]

There are also rulers marked in 1/10 inch increments, which at least places equally with metric for scaling things down.

US surveyors typically use tapes marked in units of 0.01 foot (slightly smaller than 1/8 inch).

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the amusing reply.

I was trying to show that for a mathematical operation picked up randomly, (as opposed to a simple multiplication by 3), measuring things in feet and inches is impractical. And furthermore, the arbitrary factors of the English/Imperial/whatever system makes conversion of units a real pain.

These types of operations are something I deal with every day, by I accept that they are relevant mainly in the science/engineering areas, where the metric system is being widely adopted even in the USA. As you show, in more common life they're not so relevant.

Please keep in mind that technical people from other countries don't really make a distinction between a "technical" operation and an "everyday" operation because for us both are equally easy, since we use the same units for everything.

On the other hand, you uncovered something that has bugged me since I've been living in the US (almost two years): Here you need to know a lot of "trivia" in order to measure things. "This type of object" is measured in "these units". You have to know these things beforehand, and if you are not familiar with the units arbitrarily chosen to measure "the type of object" that you are dealing with, you can't communicate with others effectively.

If you stop to think about it, you will realize that it sucks. You don't realize it now because you have been submerged in that chaos all your life.

How is the metric system better in that sense? Well, if you messed up and used the wrong (unusual) units, "fixing" everything in order to communicate is a matter of shifting the decimal point.

Re:Huh?

[dave420]

You not only have to memorise more units, but their relation to other units. With metric, it's all the same thing. Distance, weight, volume, whatever. All intrinsically tied together.

And what about when you want to divide a foot by 5? Your argument is a bit thin :) This is not an attack, but when you use the metric system every day, the imperial system really shows its age.

Re:Just in case the server crashes and burns...

[BillyZ]

hmmm Original site must have been a vampire.. cause I don't see it in your mirror. ;o)

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[compro01]

if i remember corectly a "hogshead" is 63 gallons.

and a rod is 5.5 yards or 16.5 feets so....

damn your car is a gas guzzeler!

504 gallons to go 1 mile!

Re:Aka the golden mean

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are not correct !

sqr(2) ~ 1.4142...

That's nowhere near The Golden Mean.

Re:Aka the golden mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously wrong! golden mean is obtained by

(1+sqrt(5))/2 != sqrt(2)

American Paper is ugly

[Potor]

I am a Canuck expat in Europe, and I grew up with 8.5x11 paper. Now, however, I shudder when I see it. A4 is so much more aesthetically pleasing to me, probably because it looks less clunky than its fatter and shorter American cousin. And, since the headline asks, I have found the scaling of the metric series to be very handy; it is easy to ask for precisely the size of paper you want.

Re:American Paper is ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

>it is easy to ask for precisely the size of paper you want.

really? i never had trouble asking for Letter sized paper

Re:American Paper is ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

I can ask for what I want precisely, too.

17" x 22" is a full sheet.
11" x 17" is FOLIO
8.5" x 11" is QUARTO
5.5" x 8.5" is OCTAVO
4.25" x 5.5" is 16mo.

There are also a number of other intermediate sizes, too, like 12mo and royal octavo.

I'm not just a geek, I'm a paper and type geek, too.

Re:American Paper is ugly

[stienman]

it looks less clunky than its fatter and shorter American cousin

Hey, don't you talk about us Americans that way!

-Adam

Re:American Paper is ugly

[Zoop]

Hold both by one hand and try to read it. Doesn't matter on what side, bottom or top. U.S. Letter stays straight at your average letter or copier paper weight, but A4 will fold, making it hard to read.

Now you see why, despite having lived in Europe, I loathe A4 paper. I'm sorry guys, measure it in Metric if you like, but U.S. Letter is simply more practical.

Re:American Paper is ugly

[Potor]

I just tried your experiment, on various sheets of A4. I did not reach the same results as did you; I guess, like cold fusion, it is unrepeatable.

So..

[Anonymous Coward]

The Metric system is better..
English is one of the worst structured languages around..
Windows isn't as good as the alternatives..

And your point is???

We're America!!! We don't care what is better!!

(Isn't Brittney Spears proof enough for you?) :-)

Obligatory homer paraphrasing

[bperkins]

OOOoo! Look at me! I use the metric system!

I only know how to divide by ten!

Re:Obligatory homer paraphrasing

[Compulawyer]

I wish I had mod points right now ... +10 F-in hilarious!

Re:Obligatory homer paraphrasing

[Anonymous Coward]

OOOoo! Look at me! I don't use the metric system!

I only know how to measure distance with my thumb and my foot!

Re:Obligatory homer paraphrasing

[Anonymous Coward]

OOOoo! Look at me!

OpenOpenOffice.org.org?

The real advantage...

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

Is not only that 2 pieces of A(n) are the size of a piece of A(n-1), but that all paper sizes are the same shape. That means that you can scale things up or down, print 2-up and everything works more neatly than with any other ratio.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[cybermace5]

That's great logic: change what works. Seriously, I don't see what metric paper sizes can do that A, B, C, D, and E size sheets can't. Leave it to Europeans to spend more time fussing over the paper itself, rather than putting something useful on the paper.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[SkankhodBeeblebrox]

Your government did try to switch over, not once, not twice, but three times! (with limited success, according to the 2nd link)

Also according to that 2nd link,

"Federal agencies were required by this legislation, with certain exceptions, to use the metric system in their procurement, grants and other business-related activities by the end of 1992. "

Not sure what that means to a typical U.S. Citizen, but it appears the U.S. will be metric someday :)

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[compro01]

the metric system is still advancing 2.5cm at a time.

FIGHT HARDER!!

north american paper sizes

[count0]

The equivalent to A3 paper is tabloid or ledger paper; at 11x17" (28x43cm) ( it is twice the size of a standard 8.5x11" (21.6x28cm) letter-size sheet. (you're on your own for the rest of the metric conversion in this post)

Typical printers do letter and legal (8.5x14"), large format office printers also does tabloid. Some large format photo places will do prints up to 24x36". Plotters typically work on a 36 or 48" wide roll.

Having lived a couple years in Australia, the elegance of metric papers is appreciated, though I'm not sure what the 'legal' paper equivalent would be - B something.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[silence535]

Actually your government signed a paper back in 1975 agreeing that the US would adopt the metric system (aka SI = Systeme Internationale).

It has only been around thirty years to adopt, maybe it needs a little more time...

*grinning*

-silence

Re:Aka the golden mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does sqrt(2)==1.6180339887499 ?

1.6180339887499 (or it-s reciprocal - 0.6180339887499) is called the Golden Ratio, or phi which is (1+-(sqrt(5)))/2

sqrt(2)==+-1.41421356

Re:Aka the golden mean

[Anonymous Coward]

actually the golden mean is ( (5)^1/2 + 1 )/2, according to Fermi

Letter vs A4 is not metric vs imperial.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says Letter and Legal aren't metric??
Letter is 215.9 x 279.4 mm
Legal is 215.9 x 355.6 mm
Does it matter that it's not a round number? No way! Only envelope and binder makers would care. Letter vs A4 is not an argument of metric vs imperial.

And btw, I use 11x17" all the time, which is *surprise* exactly twice the size of Letter.

Re:Letter vs A4 is not metric vs imperial.

[rjstanford]

And btw, I use 11x17" all the time, which is *surprise* exactly twice the size of Letter.

Twice the area of letter, I think you mean. Exactly 187in2 compared to letter's 93.5in2. But not really twice the size. That would be a more useful 12.0175" x 15.56064" (approximately). That would be what you need to give you a piece of paper that has the same ration as a US Letter sheet, but twice the area.

Why is this useful? Enlargements and reductions. You can actually design on any convenient A* piece of paper and print on any other A* piece of paper with no changes (except for the final size). Same with the B* series, et cetera. As an added bonus, because of the ration that they chose, you still get the ability to make two side-by-side pages fit on the next size up. Pretty cool, eh?

Re:Letter vs A4 is not metric vs imperial.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it important that all sizes have identical aspect ratios? Why is 2-up such a magic number? What if you wanted 3-up side by side? Or just wanted to scale by 1.6? There's nothing so special (or metric) about sqrt(2).

Re:Letter vs A4 is not metric vs imperial.

[Bake]

Isn't that like saying inches are metric since an inch is 2.54 centimetres?

Re:Letter vs A4 is not metric vs imperial.

[rjstanford]

Why is it important that all sizes have identical aspect ratios? Why is 2-up such a magic number? What if you wanted 3-up side by side? Or just wanted to scale by 1.6? There's nothing so special (or metric) about sqrt(2).

Oh, its not important that all sizes do. And so all sizes don't, even in that scheme. However, it is useful to have some that do. Hence, the letter. The letter (A,B,etc) denotes the aspect ratio. The number (0,1,2,3,etc) denotes the relative size. Simple, really. And damned useful.

Metric is good

[tnmc]

I'm a Canadian and I work in England and the pain of dealing with this is that I've got to maintain two different versions of my CV, formatted slightly differently for Letter and A4, paper being one of very few metric bits the UK adheres to.

And while I admit I was annoyed about A4 when I first moved here, I like it much better now.

In fact I like all the metric system stuff I've been converted to down the years since the government started introducing it in Canada when I was a kid.

Re:Metric is good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find that UK is predominantly metric. There are two notable exceptions. Road markings, where the prohibitive cost makes a change to the metric system unfeasible and the other being beer.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[gammoth]

The Reagan administration conspired with powerful interests with incentive not to adopt best practices to kill the move to metric.

What a waste. Thanks, Republicans. Just another example of your lot dropping the ball.

Well, nearly... (nitpick)

[GregWebb]

It's not far off but if you try and do that from A6 (105mm x 148mm) all the way up to A0 (841mm x 1189mm) you'll be a few mms out.

Moral - if you want to design something like this and make it nitpicker proof, scale from the base of the series :-)

Established paper size

[levell]

They /are/ the established paper sizes, at least here in the UK. A4 is used everywhere. I'm not sure I've seen a "letter" sized piece of paper, I only know about them though printer preferences!

Re:Established paper size

[1u3hr]

I'm not sure I've seen a "letter" sized piece of paper, I only know about them though printer preferences!

I've never seen the actual paper, but all software I've used has defaulted to using Letter, despite my living in a metric country. And I've had innumerable documents print badly or truncated because they were formatted Letter. Most irritating is that I have to make files to send to Americans and thus have to use Letter, which throws up an error that I have to bypass when I proof them on my laser.

Re:Established paper size

[jonbryce]

The old dot matrix printers with continuous paper with the holes down the side used to use Letter sized paper.

You get it on correspondence from America (complete with the date typed back to front) and sometimes Word / oo.ow will try to print to it if you forget to change the defaults.

Re:Established paper size

[dadragon]

(complete with the date typed back to front)

What do you mean by the data being typed back to front?

Re:Established paper size

[s_wardman]

The old dot matrix printers with continuous paper with the holes down the side used to use Letter sized paper.

You mean like this box of tractor feed paper I have which is labelled as 'Computer Listing Paper - 11 2/3 x 9 1/4 [inches]'? Taking the holes off results in a piece of paper very much the same size as A4 (210 x 297 mm or approximately 8 1/4 x 11 2/3 ins), which is a bit far away from Letter (8 1/2 x 11 ins).

Re:Established paper size

[jonbryce]

They say that the date today is 5/14/2004 rather than 14/5/2004. This example I can almost cope with, as 14 is not a valid value for the month. Sometimes it isn't so easy.

Of course, most of the time in England, we type the date as 14 May 2004, so there can be no possible confusion.

Re:Established paper size

[J'raxis]

Date.

British: 14/5/2004
American: 5/14/2004
ISO8601: 2004-05-14

(Incidentally, the ISO8601 page is maintained by the same author as this Metric paper page.)

Re:Established paper size

[s_wardman]

If we wanted consistent numeric dates we could always use the format described in ISO 8601:1988 and write 2004-05-14. It also has the nice property that if you wanted to sort a list of dates in chronological order, you can sort it as a string (at least for the ASCII, ISO-8859-x, and UTF-8 encodings).

Re:Established paper size

[91degrees]

Yup. I often use this format for precisely this reason.

Re:Established paper size

[bhtooefr]

I live in the US, and that's what I use. Simple enough to figure out (OK, he put the year first), and not confusing (to Americans) like 14-05-2004 (there have been many /. articles that were called as old news when it was released the day before because of this).

Re:Established paper size

[Emil Brink]

This, actually, is the official date format in Sweden. It's beautiful. This of course does not in any way mean that you in Swedish always say dates like that, it's just a writing thing. Absolutely lovely. Logical, sorts well, and even is an international standard. Now, if only it were used in even more places (like best-before dates on all foods) I'd be happy. Um. Make that "happier", there are more important things I guess.

Re:Established paper size

[asmellysock]

Is the form "May 14, 2004" ever used over there, or is that also a USA-only thing?

Re:Established paper size

[dadragon]

My bad. I read "data", when you said "date". I get it now :)

Incidently, in Canada, you see both. It's not uncommon for dates to use the written month just because we see so much American and European dates that it gets to confusing for us to pick just one.

Re:Established paper size

[JohnsonWax]

Most irritating is that I have to make files to send to Americans and thus have to use Letter, which throws up an error that I have to bypass when I proof them on my laser.

Yeah, it's not so much that we're more productive in the US, we just toss these little productivity speedbumps in the paths of the rest of the world in order to stay on top.

LIttle secret: we don't watch TV in the US. It's just something that we export to distract y'all. Don't tell anyone...

Re:Established paper size

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah, it's not so much that we're more productive in the US, we just toss these little productivity speedbumps in the paths of the rest of the world in order to stay on top."

We're #1. We're #1.

Fuck. You yanks really are delusional.

Re:Established paper size

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean by the date being typed back to front?

OK, middle to front.

metric act

[wannasleep]

The Metric Act of 1975 and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 actually mandate the usage of the metric system for business activities in the US. Which is why you sometimes see road signs with Km in them

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Planesdragon]

I agree, metric makes a lot more sense in -all- manner of implementation.

Divide a pound of meat into six patties. How heavy is each patty?

Divide two kg. of meat into six patties. How much meat is in each patty?

There IS a reason for the SI's odd numbering.

Re:Aka the golden mean

[//-izer]

Bzzt, try again.

Sqrt(2) is the silver mean for all the reasons outlined in the article.

But note that the diagonal of an A* page is sqrt(5) in proportion to the base, and phi is (sqrt(5) +/- 1)/2, so you can use silver-mean paper for nice modular origami with golden-ratio-related shapes such as the dodecahedron and icosahedron.

A1 through A5

[spaceyhackerlady]

Actually, the whole series of metric paper sizes from A1 to A5 are made by repeatedly folding sheets in half. And the width-to-height ratio is certainly not the Golden Mean! As others have pointed out...

I used to develop software that printed things, and always had a supply of A4 paper handy so I could make sure I didn't have any paper size-related bugs lurking. If I was lucky the folks at the local office supply place would know what A4 was, but they certainly wouldn't have it (not even in Canada). So I'd wait for the next business trip to Europe and grab a package when I was there.

"Anything to declare?"

"I went to Paris and bought a package of paper."

...laura

Re:Psst.

[Anonymous Coward]

let me guess, didn't RTFA?

It just works

[johnmrowe]

Whilst I appreciate people's devotion to measurements based on the toe nail of some long-dead king, what they don't seem to realise is that the "root two" system really works well in practice.

It makes it really easy to take an A4 document (the normal paper size) and print it double-size on an A3 printer or photocopier. It's equally easy to print a document two-per page (or four or whatever) or to make an A5 pamphlet by printing it two pages per sheet and folding it in half.

And nothing needs to be rescaled or reformatted.

It's one of those "once you tried it you'll never go back" IT experiences, like full-screen text editors, network graphics systems, PVRs and video projectors.

John

Re:It just works

[jpetts]

the "root two" system really works well in practice.

I especially like this system when I am in Australia...

Re:It just works

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst I appreciate people's devotion to measurements based on the toe nail of some long-dead king, what they don't seem to realise is that the "root two" system really works well in practice.

And the distance between Paris and the North Pole is a more logical basis for a system of measurement?

Re:It just works

[johnmrowe]

Of course not but choosing the kilometre as 1/10000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line going THROUGH Paris is.

It certainly makes it easy to remember the circumference of the earth..

John

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh. I don't know of any scientist in the US that uses imperial units. Skilled trades and the general populace do still use it, but what exactly is wrong with that?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Paulrothrock]

And why the heck would you want to use fractions? They're hard to do addition and subtraction with. (But a little faster for multiplication and division.)

1/4 + 1/8 = 3/8 doesn't make sense (1+1=3???) .25 + .125 = .375 makes sense.

That's why kids have such trouble with fractions; until you *get* it, it's counterintuitive. That's why I buy tape measures with decimals and fractions. (Of course, when I'm measuring stuff my fiance insists I use feet and inches instead of just inches, so I have to multiply, add, then divide by twelve, then find the modulus!!!)

Re:Psst.

[wmeyer]

It's also pleasant for the manufacturers of 3-ring binders, and such, since the length of an A4 sheet is greater than the height of a US standard binder.

Is this a record?

[Quila]

Must be, for oldest article put up as news by Slashdot. I found this in '96 when I started doing prepress work in metric paper sizes in Germany.

But what the article doesn't mention is that for many of these, there's an oversize, like A3 oversize when you need to do full-bleed on an A3 page (printing goes to the edge of the paper).

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[leenoble_uk]

We claim to be one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world, but we can't adopt a useful standard that the _rest_ of the scientific community uses.

No what usually happens is the rest of the world capitulates and starts using your standards instead.
Whatever happened to the Thousand-Million?
Oh right, that's a Billion now.
So what's a Billion?
Oh that's now a Trillion....

Ratio Not Only Factor

[SlipJig]

The height-to-width ratio of the pages isn't solely responsible for the fact that metric pages "add up" when placed side-by-side. They also have to be the right size, and that has nothing to do with the metric system. I could design any arbitrary measurement system, and a paper standard based on it that would have the same properties.

On an unrelated note, one benefit of the English system is that measurements tend to be divisible in more ways. For example, 10 is evenly divisible by 1, 2 and 5. 12 (upon which much of the English system is based) is evenly divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Not that I think that's a reason not to switch over :)

Re:Ratio Not Only Factor

[Medevo]

Yes, things like 10/3 and 10/6 are ugly and repeating, but they aren't that hard to thing about (1 or 2 thirds).

But there is always 12/9... 1 and 1/3

Metric when divided by the numbers below results in 3 whole numbers, 2 simple fractions (10/4 = 2.5), 3 nice repeating fractions, and 1 ugly fraction (10/7)

Imperial results in 5 whole numbers, 3 simple fractions, 1 nice repeating fraction, and 2 ugly fractions

While Imperial has a higher ratio of nice clean whole numbers when divided, can you tell me 12/7 or 12/11 without a calculator, 10/7? Isn't nice either but all you can really glean from this is that there will always be ugly numbers no matter what system you use.

Metric has a huge advantage with units and scientific notation, how many inches are in a light-year? With metric turning light-years into cm is a lot easier.

At the end of the day though, most of the advantages or disadvantages of using either are nullified by using technology. Creating a worldwide standard system is more important to remove issues in calculations between the two systems.

They are all relative systems as well, as long as unless one system has some "magic relationship" with nature I haven't heard of (metric is based off natural things yes, but water was a bad choice) its simply a choice and a system of standards.

Medevo

Re:Ratio Not Only Factor

[shirai]

Doh! I know I'm too late to get modded up on this but I just have to say it.

12 is a great number but it is NOT a good reason for having 12" in a foot. It IS a great reason why our numbering system should have been base 12 to begin with! Barring changing our numbering system though, metric works great.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[gfxguy]

BTW the metric system sucks for times when you really do want to use fractions

Can you describe a few of these times? I'm being serious... as a novice work worker and DIY home improvement and maintenance guy, I find using mixed fractions very annoying. Yes, you get accustomed to them, but I hardly say that makes it acceptable (hey, people get accustomed to Windows crashing, and find it acceptable to have to reboot or reinstall - I'm not one of them).

Besides, it's not like you can't use fraction in metrics, either - so you say 1/2 cm instead of 5 mm, if it floats your boat.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Logic is the defeator of all that should be done.

Bah.

[Anonymous Coward]

My car is a jet dragster, you insensitive clod!

Paper and Condoms

[Basehart]

When I used to live in the UK the metric paper system used to make so much sense, yet three thousand miles later, in possibly the most technologically advanced nation in the world, I'm working with Victorian era weights and measures.

Unfortunately that's not the only Victorian era throwback that Americans are living with

I saw some ads this morning that recently aired in the UK, ads for condoms, that are smart and funny, yet would not be aired on US television because of all the sick and twisted censorship this land of the free is having to deal with right now.

At least God gave us the internet, and the christian right can't take away away, right!?

Trojan Games

Re:Paper and Condoms

[Jim McCoy]

I think you are mistaken about who gave you the Internet. It was, as is the case for most of the innovations you cherish, the Americans (who sometimes think they are God...)

Re:Paper and Condoms

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw some ads this morning that recently aired in the UK, ads for condoms, that are smart and funny, yet would not be aired on US television because of all the sick and twisted censorship this land of the free is having to deal with right now.

This is a touch off topic (AC for great justice).... but thought I'd set the record straight as this is turning into America VS rest of the planet dialog.

I see comercials for condoms often on commedy central. I don't know what other stations broadcast them. I've only seen adverts for Trojen Condoms, with the friendly neighborhood Trojen Man on his quest to give condoms to adults in need, and also taking the time to market the ribbed for her pleasure and hot gel varities.

But far more often I see comercials for Enzyte , the once a day natural male enhancement. These are far more tacky then "Looks like you two need a condom". The comerical's main character (see link) Smiling Bob is burt into the eyes of everyone I know.

In all fairness your statement about network television might be true, it's possible such things are not advertised for reasons of censorship or perhaps the networks (ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/WB/UPN) don't want to run the risk of offending anyone with scholong related products. But cable television does not have to conform to the rules that network television does, and I don't know anyone without cable.

It also should be noted that our PBS network, a publicly funded educational network, is far less prone to censorship. Nudity / Profanity laws don't seem to apply to them, but is usualy only seen in import and indy films. But it's a comercial free zone.

Re:Paper and Condoms

[Anonymous Coward]

the Americans (who sometimes think they are God...)

Hey, I take offence. I'm an American, and I am GOD you insensitive clod!

Re:Paper and Condoms

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, PBS is full of advertisements. The only difference between it and regular "commercial" networks is that the ads are only at the beginning and end (not in the middle) of the programs, and they call them "special messages from the sponsor".

Re:Paper and Condoms

[smithmc]

Hey, I take offence. I'm an American, and I am GOD you insensitive clod!

OK, first of all, I'm God, not you. And second, although I am American, that's not why I'm God.

Just as Interesting

[Momomoto]

It's frightening how well they've thought out things like this. From the article:

Technical drawing pens follow the same size-ratio principle. The standard sizes differ by a factor sqrt(2): 2.00 mm, 1.40 mm, 1.00 mm, 0.70 mm, 0.50 mm, 0.35 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.18 mm, 0.13 mm. So after drawing with a 0.35 mm pen on A3 paper and reducing it to A4, you can continue with the 0.25 mm pen. (ISO 9175-1)

Call me an incorrigible geek, but that little tidbit made me giddy.

Re:Just as Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

how would you measure nanometers or picometers without the metric system? 1/268435456 of an inch?

we need the metric system! :)

Re:Just as Interesting

[dave420]

Damn that's pretty tight thinkin' over there at the ISO dens. Wow. They thought of pretty much everything :) I'm truly impressed with that one.

Never happen in the US!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just sitting here drinking my 2-liter soda and I'm thinking: we tried the metric system, and it failed. So what do I care about paper? /irony

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[gfxguy]

D'oh... "wood" worker.

Al Gore Invented the Metric System

[Anonymous Coward]

What /. topic would be complete without some good, old-fashioned Al Gore bashing?

Re:Al Gore Invented the Metric System

[EdMcMan]

The Logic Behind Metric Paper Sizes

Metric system just not high priority in US schools

[FerretFrottage]

My wife (what, a /.er who is married?) is a 7th and 8th grade teacher and the focus is on standardized testing (in her district, poor std scores == less money). Memorize this, memorize that, and if we have time, then we'll try to teach you how to think. There are high school graduates you can't even tell time on a on non-digital clock. When I went to school, they even tried to teach us how to tell time on a sun dial. Maybe metric time would solve part of the problem :)

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

An ounce is defined as the maximum weight that can be carried by 1 swallow.

I don't usually agree but....

[carrett]

WHO CARES!?

I love it. It helped me get more points on a Chem

[MisanthropicProgram]

test.
This happened years ago. I had a Chem. test and the question had something to do with densities - I can't remember. But the point is, I remembered that the density of water is one, all the units where metric, and calculating the density, volume, and mass were a no brainer with the metric system.

I once got into a friendly argument with an engineer over the merits of the metric system. His argument "Foot-Lbs. I know what that is - that's obvious! Newton - what the fuck is a Newton."

Re:Psst.

[MightyYar]

Who modded this guy off-topic. Sheesh - I'm gonna go meta-moderate.

Not as English as you think....

[rilister]

Honestly, US companies are genuinely converting to Metric, believe it or not. I work in a consultancy and work with a variety of clients, including a bunch in the worlds of science and medicine.

Since I design things (not code), I have to ask what units they want their things in - I remember one conversation with a wholly US based company going like this:

"What units do you want the database delivered in?"
- [SARCASM BOLD] "We are a scientific company.[/SARCASM BOLD]>
"Oh, right."

They made me feel pretty stupid for asking. I'd say across the product industry it's something like 50/50 right now.

Re:Not as English as you think....

[Anonymous Coward]

I am impressed when companies choose to use metirc.
I am angered when companies switch to metric and then use crazy units like kgf/cm^2 for pressure.

YES UOP, I AM TALKING ABOUT YOU.

Re:Not as English as you think....

[sugar and acid]

Absolutely, as a chemist working in the US, everything is and should be metric in my world. Also Al is aluminium NOT aluminum (which is an old marketing tradename and not a metal).

Re:Not as English as you think....

[21mhz]

They made me feel pretty stupid for asking.
Recalling one spectacular $1e8-figure failure somewhere in the Solar System, I think it's sometimes better to ask.

Re:Not as English as you think....

[Dahan]

The IUPAC seems to think that "aluminum" is just fine. As is "cesium."

Finally, for American readers, it is noted that alternate English language spellings for the names of aluminum and cesium are used in the USA and do not constitute erroneous spellings. -- linky

P.S. Al was named "aluminum" back around 1807 by Sir Humphry Davy. He later decided to go with "aluminium" to match the "-ium" suffix of other elements. I have no idea whether "aluminum" is a marketing tradename or not, but it's definitely not the origin of the "-um" spelling.

Re:Not as English as you think....

[IncohereD]

my roommate (an engineering physics student) was recently bitching about having to use the "inverse centimeter" as a unit of measurement for one of his quantum classes. It's pretty mind bending.

Re:Not as English as you think....

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, it wasn't NASA, was it?

Of course, no other mission exemplifies your "50/50" rule!

Re:Not as English as you think....

[more]

The right way to design software is to use all units in metric inside the system, all ratios as 100% = 1.0, not 100.0, etc. Simple principles like these remove a lot of unnecessary bugs. Unfortunately, there are many text books, even recognized books like Large Scale C++, that use imperial units in examples. Using imperial units or even scaled metric units (like cm) is asking for trouble. Stick to m, kg, s, etc. and do the conversions only when needed: in user interface and system interfacing.

Re:Not as English as you think....

[sita]

"What units do you want the database delivered in?"
- [SARCASM BOLD] "We are a scientific company.[/SARCASM BOLD]>
"Oh, right."


Natural units?

google is your friend

[www www www]

This web-page: International Standard Paper Sizes contains all the information you would ever need about the history and advantages of A4 paper and its relationship with the US standards.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Fizzlewhiff]

We claim to be one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world, but we can't adopt a useful standard that the _rest_ of the scientific community uses.

All the good scientific theories start on the back of a napkin anyway so what is the point.

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[Frothy Walrus]

I see where this is leading, and wish to point out that you swallowed at least a quart last night.

Fight Metric!

[Quack1701]

We don't want a foreign Ruler!

? for metric printers (the people, not hardware)

[The Blue Meanie]

So I was just thinking about this after I posted my remark mentioning gutters. I have a legitimate question for any metric-using folks that might have worked in the printing industry.

One of the reasons non-metric paper has the 1" gutters in the larger 'standard' sizes is because books are generally made by combining 16-page folded signatures, binding them, then 3-side trimming them to make them square and clean. If all metric paper sizes are exactly twice the size of their next smaller size, do all of your books wind up undersized? Or do you have the equivalent of our larger sizes, where there's a gutter available to be trimmed off after folding/binding to get you down to a 'standard' size?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Too Much Noise]

What if you have to divide by 5? or 8? How heavy is each patty then?

It's easy to pick the numbers you like. There are always numbers a given multiplier won't divide nicely to.

When all else fails...Press "Shift-Continue"

[HDlife]

HP really should of replaced that with a "Just Print My Darn Document, you smart-ass metricly-challenged printer" button.

They FINALLY put a cancel button on their inkjets that actually cancels the whole job so you don't keep getting the remaing 500 pages of PCL interpreted as text.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[madman101]

IMHO, the metric system is doomed in the US because it's not American. That's not meant to be funny, sarcastic, or anything other than a simple fact. Well, perhaps it's meant to be a comment on the American psyche...

That's *cubic* rods to the hogshead

[shpoffo]

and it's actually 0.00160697889 cubic rods to the hogshead.

Thank you Google, bu you missed the Hogshead unit.

.
-shpoffo

Re:That's *cubic* rods to the hogshead

[geoffspear]

And I suppose your car's milage is measured in cubic miles per gallon.

Irrational ratio

[dhasenan]

"For those who enjoy a bit of math, did you know that in the Metric paper system, the height-to-width ratio of all pages is the square root of 2? This means that you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly, and two sheets of A3 will equal an A2." Um...you don't need metric to have a certain ratio be valid. If it works in millimeters, it works in inches. But why do I want to use an irrational number in my paper size? It's bad enough dealing with halves and primes; set the ratio to 1.5 and have 8x12" paper--or 20x30cm, college ruled.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[WormholeFiend]

but metric paper makes much better airplanes.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[poot_rootbeer]

We claim to be one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world, but we can't adopt a useful standard that the _rest_ of the scientific community uses.

The American scientific community does use metric, regardless of whether or not the layperson measures things in inches or centimeters (or centimetres!).

Sure, the government could AGAIN throw many at trying to get Joe and Jane American to measure their fuel economy in kilometers per liter, but the effect on the scientific community would be practically negligible.

oops

[jbellis]

you are correct; I subtracted 8 instead of 18mm.

skinnier is still ugly though. :)

Re:oops

[edalytical]

Yes, but skinnier is easier to read. That's why newspapers are split into columns. It's easier to move to the next line if your eyes don't have to trace back 8 1/2 inches. Although, I don't think A4 is skinny enough to make a difference.

Re:oops

[Anonymous Coward]

"skinnier is still ugly though. :)"

So that's why you American folks are rather ... chunky ;)

Re:oops

[gnu-generation-one]

"Yes, but skinnier is easier to read. That's why newspapers are split into columns."

Yet when this is carried across to newspaper websites, who constrain their text to a 300-pixel column (yes it looks as bad on a big monitor as it sounds), somehow it is not as easy to read as pages which use the full width of a monitor.

Re:oops

[Araneas]

Obviously you haven't seen the boneracks they call supermodels over here. If I wanted my women to look like boys, I'd be gay.

Re:oops

[lambent]

I agree with your sentiment, too.

Re:oops

[MattWillis]

It's for this reason that I always buy 11x8.5" laser printer paper instead of 8.5x11". Sure, it costs like $15 extra, but it goes sideways. :)

I forgot...

[MisanthropicProgram]

the Chem teacher didn't count the question anyway. Which sucked, because I was one of two people who got it right. The question wasn't counted because she didn't say that water had a density of one on the exam.

What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

News or trivia?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[0x0d0a]

We claim to be one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world, but we can't adopt a useful standard that the _rest_ of the scientific community uses.

It's a power game.

Switching involves the replacement of massive amounts of documentation, tools, machinery, equipment, and so forth. Whoever forces the other people to undergo a change enjoys the upper economic hand for a while.

The problem is that the US is *not* going to win the metric battle, and the slow switchover is in fact just increasing economic costs.

The federal government uses metric for most things now. Engineering is a mix of metric and imperial. Common usage is generally imperial (I walk seven miles, not ten kilometers).

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[hpa]

It's worse than that.

The U.S. has had metrification as its official policy since 1863 (yes, as in one hundred forty-one years ago), when the inch was redefined in terms of the meter (1/39.37 m at that time, it was changed in the 1960's to 25.4 mm) to ease the transition, and it's always been about "10 years into the future."

Unfortunately it seems like something that can be easily appealed to for kneejerk conservatism and xenophobia, and thus noone actually has the guts to make it happen.

Re:Just in case the server crashes and burns...

[pjotrb123]

Apparantly the "~" got translated by the mirror. Replace it by its %(hex) equivalent to see the mirror page.

Until it gets slashdotted, that is ;-)

hey jimmy carter!

[pauly_thumbs]

Go back to russia - I like my measuements based on the boiling point of chicken blood and the length of an 8yr old horses tooth!

Next in our series:

[R.Caley]

``Did you know knives have sharp edges so you can cut things with them''

Re:Psst.

[Fizzlewhiff]

You would actually have to have the A3 page cleft in twain to be exactly the same size.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Sirch]

Not quite. The saying actually refers to the trip from the prison to the Tyburn Tree in London. The prisoner to be hanged would be given drink to calm him down for the hanging. The closest pub to the place of hanging that lay upon the route was a mile away. The prisoner would have a drink at this last pub, and then be given a drink to have on his way to the gallows. Interestingly, this is also the origin of "on the wagon" as one of the guards travelling with the prisoner was not allowed to enter the pubs with him. So couldn't drink, and had to stay on the wagon.

Some lovely linkage:here, here and here.

American Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Never ceases to amaze me. Your measuring systems are completely ridiculous. Funny thing is - the metric system was here before your system came around. And yet, you have invented your flawed system. What's the logic behind your temperature system, per example?

Re:American Stupidity

[man_ls]

The Farenheit system was not invented by an American, it was invented by a Danish man. The temperature 0 is when an equal mixture of water and salf freezes.

Re:American Stupidity

[zakezuke]

Funny thing is - the metric system was here before your system came around.

We get our system from the English actually.

Also, the metric system I believe started in France post revolution, so 1790s or so (correct me if I'm wrong). The american revolution was 1776, but modern america under the current constitution was 1787. The metric system only became the exclusive standard of France at the start of 1840. While the French were most helpful in the American Revolutionary war as i'm sure Corwallis noticed... we were not exactly on good terms with France after the war. Something to do with fear of a new anglo-saxon alliance, as well as our desire to extend from sea to shining sea. And because the French goverment wasn't exactly stable, it didn't seem wise to adopt their system of measurement. Besides by the early 1800s there already was a standard of measurement common among all the states. Converting to metric would require going to France to double check measurements.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[proj_2501]

1/3 is a lot faster to write down than 0.33333333 (stupid lameness filter) 33333333333333

Don't forget ugly

[nagora]

There's a reason most publications even in metric countries don't come in "A" sizes: it looks shit. The golden ratio makes for much better looking pages and layouts. A4 in particular is a dog of a size for anything serious.

TWW

Re:Don't forget ugly

[pe1chl]

You must be misinformed, 99% of all magazines here are in A4 size.

Re:Don't forget ugly

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Is the US Letter based on the golden ratio?

Re:Don't forget ugly

[nagora]

You must be misinformed, 99% of all magazines here are in A4 size.

Where is "here"? In the UK I have never seen a professional magazine or book which was A4 despite almost all paper, binders, laminators etc. in shops being A-sizes for many years. I don't think I ever saw an A4 publication in France either and I do tend to notice these things.

TWW

Re:Don't forget ugly

[pe1chl]

In the Netherlands, nearly all magazines are A4.
Books of course tend to be smaller than that (for other reasons) but A4 books also exist.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Cili]

I totally agree. I won't be surprised to see USA sticking with M$ and their products when all the world will have long switched to Linux, just because it's The American Way(TM).

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[d_lesage]

Divide a pound of meat into six patties. How heavy is each patty? Divide two kg. of meat into six patties. How much meat is in each patty?

Divide a pound of meat into five patties. How heavy is each patty?

Divide two kg. of meat into five patties. How much meat is in each patty?

*shrug* Toma-to, tomah-to.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[fireduck]

except that the US apparently sanctioned the metric system in 1886, and the American Bureau of Standards made the metric system it's standard in 1964. (nice timeline here ). There've been various attempts to further adopt in more recent history, but basically the US doesn't want to change. The metric system is nonexistant as far as general use is concerned. The only "off the top of my head" metric use I can think of are 2 L bottles of coke. nothing else gets metric treatment.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

what's the point of using thousand-million if you don't also use ten thousand-million and hundred thousand-million? also look at the syllable savings alone

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[proj_2501]

2.6666666667 oz. and 333.33333333 g respectively. you had to pick a lousy example, didn't you?!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[rsidd]

That's why kids have such trouble with fractions; until you *get* it, it's counterintuitive.

You must be one of those funny foreigners. Americans don't have trouble with fractions, they have trouble with decimal digits. That's why fuel stations advertise "gas" (petrol, which is a liquid here same as everywher else) at $ 1.85 9/10 to a gallon (or whatever). I had to be told what that means: it means $ 1.859, ie the 9/10 means 9/10 of a cent, but if you wrote it as the decimal number 1.859 people would get confused about what it meant.

Also makes weight calculation easy

[hazee]

The metric system also makes it easy to calculate the weight of an amount of paper. Photocopy paper is typically 80 grams per square meter. A0 paper is exactly 1 square meter, hence 80 grams; keep halving this until you arrive at 5 grams for a sheet of A4 paper. Easy! Could be useful when trying to calculate postage, typically done by weight. Try doing that with weird-o imperial sizes...

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[Anonymous Coward]

the metric system is still advancing 2.5cm at a time.

you mean 2.54 cm at a time, right?

Another Cool Ratio

[donscarletti]

Although having paper with a 2^0.5 aspect ratio is by far the most practical solution it is not the most aesthetic solution. Photos and slides use an aspect ratio that is not used by any other type of paper. That ratio is (1 + 5^0.5) / 2 or approximately 1.61803399 .

This number is otherwise known as the "golden ratio", it was discovered back in classical Greece and it was known to be the most aesthetically pleasing of all ratios. The Parthenon in Athens was built so that its length and width were dictated by this ratio, it was also used by many Renaissance artists to draw the human body so it seems "perfect".

It is impossible of cause to prove mathematically that this ratio is the best looking of all irrational numbers any more than it is possible to prove mathematically who is the most attractive human, however it's endurance seems to suggest that it has some base to it. It has links with Fibonacci numbers, it also is encountered when drawing regular pentagrams and decagons.

Due to the aesthetically pleasing nature of this ratio I think it would be fairly cool to have a series of paper sizes based on this ratio for artistic uses, rather than the practical but bland "A" series or the fairly pointless American and Canadian series.

Re:Another Cool Ratio

[Anonymous Coward]

But the US sizes are based on the golden ratio, or its half-size cousin, which is why they persist:

3 x 5 index card: 5/3 = 1.66
5 x 8 typical book size: 8/5 = 1.6
8 x 10 photo size: half of 16 x 10: 16/10 = 1.6
8.5 x 11 letter size = half of 17x11 tabloid: 17/11 = 1.54
8.5 x 14 legal size: 14/8.5 = 1.64
22 x 35 parent sheet size: 35/22 = 1.59

Re:Another Cool Ratio

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the Most Pleasing Rectangle poll refutes your assertion.

Re:Another Cool Ratio

[hak hak]

Another cool fact about the golden ratio (phi) is that it deserves the name `most irrational number': for any real number it is possible to construct a sequence of fractions that converges to it (using continued fractions). The series of `best' approximations (i.e. the approximation closest to phi that has denominator smaller than a given upper bound) for phi is 1, 1 + 1/1, 1 + 1/(1 + 1/1), 1 + 1/(1 + 1/(1 + 1/1)), and so on. Because all denominators are 1, the error in these estimates shrinks only very slowly. To approximate the golden ratio within a given error, you need fractions with large numerator and denominator; transcendental numbers such as pi can (perhaps surprisingly) be approximated much better by fractions.

something else that doesnt make sense in the USA

[WormholeFiend]

is why everyone uses Philips head screws and screw drivers.

the Robertson screws and screwdrivers are much superior.

Re:Neat - Excellant Karma Whoring Troll

[deadlinegrunt]

You are indeed an excellent troll.
Kudos to you and how you offset your trolling habits with karma whoring.

Examples:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
and here

I am actually quiet impressed with how you fool the moderators. Skillfull indeed you are with your time. Quiet funny actually.

Reports

[jhughes]

It doesn't matter what measurement system we use, no matter what size paper you print on, your report will always come out too small to be read without a magnifying glass.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[wtrmute]

2kg / 5 = 400g
2kg / 8 = 250g
2kg / 13 ~ 154g

Whatever divisor you may choose, there's a division. Of course, there may be some rounding involved, but we can't keep infinite significant figures...

By contrast, two pounds divided by 13 is one and 3/13 ounces... a clumsy number for use.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[lactose]

Divide a pound of meat into six patties. How heavy is each patty?

I don't have a clue, because I have no idea how many ounces are in a pound (8? 16? who the fuck cares!), and I've lived in the US for 22 years.

Divide two kg. of meat into six patties. How much meat is in each patty?

333 grams, or 1/3 kg each. That was hard, wasn't it?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Atomic Frog]

Uuuh...dude, most scientist and engineers are using metric. Go have a look at the US NIST labs.
It's the rest of the American public that doesn't get it.

Well

[MC68040]

This isn't that new for us in the "rest" of the world that always used the metric system. It really makes things easier to handle that you just got to divice/multiply by 2 to get the next size...

PA4 - the compromise format.

[hpa]

A4 is 210 x 297 mm. US-Letter is 216 x 279 mm.

If you're formatting electronic documentation (e.g. PDFs), it's useful to use the so-called PA4 format, 210 x 279 mm, mentioned in a note in the article.

PA4 PDFs print correctly on both A4 paper (with extra tall margins) and letter paper (with extra wide margins.)

You guys are completely missing the point...

[arashiakari]

This is just an example of how America is AGIANST globalization!

Metric & The US

[bobej1977]

I used to support using the metric system in the US after going through converting the different units in physics during high school and college, but I've since reconsidered.

I was once talking with some of family and I happened to say something like: 'It was 2 meters from me...' Immediately, one of my uncles interjected a joking comment about how I was the 'product' of the 'new' Math. We then proceeded to go off on a tangent about the merits of the two systems and how expensive it would be to switch to metric.

At that point though, I was struck by how his comment was loaded with negative connotation, which obviously did not stem simply from an aversion to the cost of a hypothetical switch to metric. I realized that the source of his distaste for metric was really just the instinctive reaction social animals use to build communities. The 'Us Vs. Them' filter that we all use to clump ourselves into social groups.

From this perspective, a human perspective, it makes complete sense to have differing systems of measurement. There would be obvious advantages if we all spoke the same language, but no one is proposing that we make everyone learn Chinese (quit being ethnocentric!). Even if everyone DID speak Chinese, people would still use their native languages at home, en familia. Why? Because the stratification of languages helps us to identify our social groups. In this way, we're 'The people who use miles', and they're/you're 'The people who use kilometers'. Communities, when you come down to it, are just sets of these bifurcations.

Taking all that into consideration, I've thrown in with the english system curmudgeons. Why? For the same reason I'm in favor of driver's tests in 16 languages. Because being human ain't about being efficient, it's about communities.

Re:Metric & The US

[cmpalmer]

I love the metric system, but I learned to use too late and in the middle of a society that refuses to use it, so I *think* in pounds, inches, etc. If I have to work a physics problem, I'd much rather work in metric.

My favorite metric relation (even though it's not strictly true by definition anymore) is the 1 cm**3 of water = 1 ml = 1 gram.

Anyway, my nine year old son was talking to me the other day about a big insect he saw. I asked how big it was and he said, "about 2 centimeters", so maybe there is hope for the future...

Re:Metric & The US

[Idarubicin]

From this perspective, a human perspective, it makes complete sense to have differing systems of measurement. There would be obvious advantages if we all spoke the same language, but no one is proposing that we make everyone learn Chinese (quit being ethnocentric!).

Don't tell George Bush that he's using Arabic numerals...

Re:Metric & The US

[Anonymous Coward]

One reason that it would be difficult for the US to switch (which no one seems to be talking about) is because of the way that our country grew. We divided our counties (especially in the midwest) based on miles and acres. These grids form our road system and determine the intervals between them. Sure you could say it's 1.61 kilometers from 5 mile road to 4 mile road, but it seems off. Because of our surroundings we grow up with a system based on the English system of measurements for distances and so they are much easier for us to visualize.

Temperature is also more intuitive because it is based on humans. 0 is cold, 100 is hot so it is the relative feeling of temperature rather than the scientific basis of water.

English works great for estimates but for science go with Metric all they way. However it will be a long time before it ever dies completely.

Re:Metric & The US

[Mex]

Well, even tho Mandarin is the official language in China, every zone still conserves their own dialect as a primary means of communication. Last count there were about 50+ different dialects spread all over. And even tho Mandarin is the most official language, in Hong Kong they still speak mostly Cantonese.

So, at least, the US should comply with both standards, in order to interoperate more easily with every other country in the planet. Refusing just makes it harder for everyone.

Re:Metric & The US

[geekoid]

"I'm in favor of driver's tests in 16 languages."

not me, if you can't speak the language the police officers speak, read the public signs, and be able to communicat in a crisi situation, you should not be behind the wheel.

I believe thats the way it should be in any country. I can't speak mandarin, so I won't drive in china. It's just dangerous.

Not to mention its damn expensive.

Re:Metric & The US

[Open Council]

speak chinese ??

If we could get americans to speak "English", like the rest of the world does, it would be a good start !

Re:Metric & The US

[dinaui]

Taking all that into consideration, I've thrown in with the english system curmudgeons. Why? For the same reason I'm in favor of driver's tests in 16 languages. Because being human ain't about being efficient, it's about communities.

Interestingly, this is only a short distance from the rationale used by the English "official language" crowd to demand that driver's tests be English-only: if people are allowed to use their own language, they don't have to join the American community.

Re:Metric & The US

[Denial93]

I realized that the source of his distaste for metric was really just the instinctive reaction social animals use to build communities. The 'Us Vs. Them' filter that we all use to clump ourselves into social groups.

So this filter would likely be more pronounced in regions of the world where the metric system has not been accepted yet. Funny I can get international politics explained to me while reading stuff about sheets of paper.

Re:Metric & The US

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think he is using Arabic numerals either..

Re:Metric & The US

[more]

The centimeter is not a recommended unit. Wait until he says 20 millimeters.

Re:Metric & The US

[IkeTo]

> Temperature is also more intuitive because
> it is based on humans. 0 is cold, 100 is hot
> so it is the relative feeling of temperature
> rather than the scientific basis of water.

Scientifically, different human being perceives temperature differently, especially when the different individual lives in different part of your country. Do you prefer to have a different temperature unit for each of the states? (e.g., at my place the temperature never falls below 35F. I'd consider 50F already pretty cold. So your reasoning doesn't work for me at all.)

Re:Metric & The US

[Anonymous Coward]

But he IS, as we all are.

Or maybe you don't use 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 0?

The romans hadn't invented the 'zero' char, and forced them to use the PREFix/POSTFix approach to writting big values.

It was the arab mathematicians that invented the the zero and the base10 writting, circa 100bc (IIRC).

I'm sure that he is using them, albeit understanding them is completely out of his league. Maybe that's what you meant with your comment! :-)

Re:Metric & The US

[infinite undo]

Beware of how you define your cultural identity. Cultural identity, like language, changes over time. Cultures that stridently resist all change eventually fall behind. Cultures that mindlessly accept whatever entertains them eventually fall down (or get pushed). For metric vs imperial, the conversions and consequences are trivial. For other notions of 'us vs them' the consequences can be tragic.

• 'We're the ones with the one true god on our side.'
• 'We're the ones who know a woman's place.'
• 'Our ancestors were enslaved, therefore we are not responsible for our actions.'
• 'We were harmed therefore we have the right to retaliate indiscriminately.'
• Etc.

Re:Metric & The US

[dave420]

"I've told you before, Mr. Calcamulator, you're either with me or against me. 2+2. Help me out here..."

Re:Metric & The US

[danila]

Do you also listen to the latest pop music and watch Friends? I am sorry to disappoint you, but following the herd ain't about being human, it's about being a sheep.

And if your uncle is so retarded as to think worse of you because you use metric, I pity you and your family.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

1/6 of a pound, and 2/6 (or 1/3) of a kilo, respectively.

What exactly is the difference to you? Seems logical to me both ways.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[kidgenius]

If you walked ten kilometers, you actually only walked 6.2 miles :)

Re:Canada does use Metric

[aquabat]

I'm in Canada. I went into Staples one day to try to buy a package of A4 paper. The guy behind the counter looked at me like I had two fucking heads. He then called his supplier, who told him that he didn't have any, but that he could order some from England, that I could have it for $23, and it would be here in three to five weeks. (I said no, but thanks for trying).

I realize this guy was clueless, but I still haven't found a walk-in place where I can buy A4. ...

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Too Much Noise]

Thank you for detailing my point :-)

Bicycles

[Dr. Evil]

Hey, aren't most bicycles in the U.S. metric? Can anyone confirm?

Re:Bicycles

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're not. They're generally described by their wheel diameter in inches. 20" bicycles are the single-speed off-road bicycles your 12 year old rides through the woods. 24" bicycles are the somewhat larger 3-10 speed bicycles with wide knobby tires that your 15 year old rides through the woods. 26" bicycles are the 10-20 speed bicycles with very narrow tires ridden on the side of the freeway by faggots in spandex.

I hope that clears things up for you.

The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[bob_shoggoth]

The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US is that A4 doesn't fit in our file cabinets! We'd have to get rid of our file cabinets and folders and get new ones. Any A4 papers I have get all messed up in my filing cabinet as they don't fit!

As an American physicist, I use SI units for work, but happily use US units for everything else. I don't know why it just pisses off the rest of the world that we like Farenheit, inches, etc. WHO CARES! Why doesn't Europe get ONE FREAKING TYPE OF ELECTRICAL PLUG!

I found it funny that the article predicted the US switching, as I really don't see it happening.

Can anyone tell me why any A4 paper I get in Europe has a purple tinge to it? I find that very annoying.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[lmpinto]

Well, you have your reason about the cabinets - however believe me... It's very weird for an european to see the air conditioner at 74 degrees :-) About the electrical plug, we use the same all over Europe, except UK (they allways have been some weird folks).

The purple tinge on the paper - have no idea what you're talking about - my paper is perfectly white...

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[bob_shoggoth]

Okay, I've been to only England, Germany, and France for any period of time, so I've only seen plugs from
those countries. I found it interesting that Germany and France have different wall sockets, but use the same plug. The English socket is a monster, but comes with a handy on-off switch!

Most of the A4 paper I have gotten was from England, so maybe that's where the purple tinge is from.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[t_allardyce]

UK plugs all have fuses and and are keyed so you can only stick it in one way around (i dont know why thats needed on an AC system but hey) and also the earth pole (which is always there) is a little bit longer so it makes contact before the live poles do. Also most european plugs can fit UK sockets cos the holes are the same space appart. UK plugs rock!

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[easter1916]

Did it say "Purple-Tinged A4 x 500 Sheets" on the packaging?

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[Mattintosh]

The superiority of Fahrenheit makes them jealous. How is it superior? Resolution.

To illustrate, in Celcius, 0 is the freezing point of water, 100 is boiling. In Fahrenheit, 32 is freezing, 212 is boiling. In Celcius, there are 100 integral degrees separating these two points. In Fahrenheit, there are 180.

So it's 33 degrees Fahrenheit outside this morning... that's 0.555555555555-> degrees Celcius. By noon, it gets up to a whopping 40 degrees Fahrenheit. That's an oh-so-easy-to-calculate 4.44444444444-> degrees Celcius.

"But," you whine, "32 is such a stupid number to base your calculations from!" Agreed. It is. So let's use something everyone agrees on - absolute zero. Celcius becomes Kelvin, Fahrenheit becomes Rankine. Now we have a logical starting point AND higher resolution.

We're not so crazy after all.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[bob_shoggoth]

> Did it say "Purple-Tinged A4 x 500 Sheets" on the packaging?

Okay, I don't know if you are being sarcastic or serious (this is Slashdot!).

Basically, I get stuff printed out for me when I go places for experiments, and it seems to always be purple-tinged. I never actually open any paper packages. We don't have any such paper in the US. Our colored paper is colored, meaning it is blindingly colored, and meant to really grab attention.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[Jott42]

You are kidding, right?
You know, ther is this nice thing called decimals. So the temperature goes from 0.5 degreed Celcius to 4.5 degrees Celsius. With a resolution of half a degree, which is standard, you get 200 steps from ice to boiling. But that comparison is meaningless, as you could just as easily add resolution to the Fahrenheit scale.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[easter1916]

Sorry Bob, I was just being sarcastic and trying to get a laugh... I've worked all over Europe for years (I'm Irish) and never noticed this.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Like your name -- easter1916

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[fish waffle]

You know, ther is this nice thing called decimals. So the temperature goes from 0.5 degreed Celcius to 4.5 degrees Celsius.

I had a choice of choice of celsius or fahrenheit for the replacement of the heating control of a house. I chose celcius, only to be surprised that (like the fahrenheit model) it allowed temperature settings of integer degrees only---presumably due to limitations of the lcd display. The coarser temperature adjustment was noticeable compared to the previous control.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[weiyuent]

The superiority of Fahrenheit makes them jealous. How is it superior? Resolution. ...

So it's 33 degrees Fahrenheit outside this morning... that's 0.555555555555-> degrees Celcius. By noon, it gets up to a whopping 40 degrees Fahrenheit. That's an oh-so-easy-to-calculate 4.44444444444-> degrees Celcius.


You gotta be fuckin' kidding me. Do you really care about the numbers after the decimal point? Do you really need a factor of 2 advantage in resolution?

Here's the temperature scale that for all intents and purposes the rest of the human race goes by: T-shirt weather, sweat-shirt weather, wool sweater weather and down-jacket weather (add waterproofing as desired). Unless you're a real wimp, a precision of +/- 5C (10F) enough to decide what to wear.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Another difference is that a British plug and socket was designed to cope with 250V at 13 amps - which would melt a continental one.

The reason? Some say it's the British love of a cup of tea. You've got to be able to power that electric kettle somehow...

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[hoofie]

UK plugs are also shuttered - the earth pole when it is inserted into the socket, moves shutters out of the way over the live pins - presumably to stop little kiddies zapping themselves when they try to stick things into the socket. Also, the plugs themselves have to carry internal fusing at all times, rated to the amperage of the appliance it is connected to.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[PitaBred]

Because on an AC system there's still a positive and negative potential on each lead.
Do yourself and your children a favor... never play with electricity, mmkay?

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[aaronrp]

Ikea sells a set of drawers designed to fit A4 paper in the US.I can't imagine anybody using them for that here. If I were looking for work I would use A4 paper so my pages would stick out on top.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[t_allardyce]

That still doesnt explain why its keyed while in other countries you can plug it in either way around!

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why doesn't Europe get ONE FREAKING TYPE OF ELECTRICAL PLUG!"?
LOL, learn some geographics one day now, will ya?

It might be because EUROPE ISN'T ONE FREAKING COUNTRY, LIKE THE US!

*sighs*...

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"It might be because EUROPE ISN'T ONE FREAKING COUNTRY, LIKE THE US!"

They sure act like it a lot of the time. European citizenship, European laws, European currency.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"UK plugs all have fuses and and are keyed so you can only stick it in one way around (i dont know why thats needed on an AC system but hey) and also the earth pole (which is always there) is a little bit longer so it makes contact before the live poles do."

The three-pronged Edison plug we use in the US is similar. The plug is polarized (one blade is longer than the other) and the ground is longer than the other two prongs.

Plugs can be two or three prongs, polarized or not. Most "wall wart" transformers are not polarized, which is convenient because you can plug them into either plug in the socket without blocking the other socket.

Not every plug is fused, but usually there are only a few sockets on a circuit (and the sockets are rated for higher current draw than the breaker - so the breaker will trip before the blug goes). Circuits are usually 15A or 20A; plugs which require 20A have one pin turned sideways so they only fit in a 20A socket.

GFCIs are required in wet areas (bathrooms, kitchens). They automatically stop the current flow if a ground fault occurs (e.g. someone drops a hair dryer into the tub). Some homes (such as my own) have GFCIs everywhere.

Higher-powered devices (ovens, electric driers) are 230V, 30A. That's 6.9KW of power, plenty for most applications.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[mcpheat]

The reason the plug is keyed is to ensure that the fuse is on the live wire. If the plug could be reversed then you could blow the fuse and the current would stop but you still have live voltage in your equipment.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[t_allardyce]

A 3rd year engineering student should really know that. :\ :( :O

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[sparrow_hawk]

I agree in general that Celsius is a simpler system, and makes more sense than Fahrenheit. Besides, who wants to remember what 0 Celsius is in Rankin or Kelvin -- they're even worse than Fahrenheit.

I have noticed that people will use whatever measure they're used to, and don't like to switch between them. For instance, I have friends who will happily talk about the weather in terms of degrees Fahrenheit, but when asked how hot their CPUs run, automatically switch to Celsius.

The one interesting characteristic of Fahrenheit is that one degree is about the smallest temperature change sensible by the human body, so Fahrenheit makes sense from a day-to-day standpoint. This would change, however, if thermostats, etc. allowed you to see or set a half degree Celsius, which is slightly smaller than a degree Fahrenheit, achieving the same effect.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[aXis100]

Unpolarised is fine in double-insulated equipment, but in other appliances, having unpolarised plugs is dangerous.

This is because sometimes the neutral is tied to earth, so if you swap it around, the chassis between two appliances can have the whole mains potential difference.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[more]

We in Europe have had our own special units for most things: weight, distance, volume, etc.

We paid the price of conversion in favor of more efficient international co-operation. Today, we are still paying the price for you not being able to do your part. Many people operating with you need to know about these completely unnecessary imperial units. Every now and then an airplane drops from the sky because they thought they filled in gallons, a patient is killed due to an inch/cm translation error, or a mars probe goes wild.

US will need to pay the price for getting more compatible with the rest of the world. The cost of not being compatible is huge to the American industry, and getting metric is fundamental to the American economy.

We did our part. Now it is time for you to do yours. It is really rude to pull of a "it is so expensive" trick when everyone else has already paid their part.

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[sita]

The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US is that A4 doesn't fit in our file cabinets! We'd have to get rid of our file cabinets and folders and get new ones. Any A4 papers I have get all messed up in my filing cabinet as they don't fit!

Technology lock in is not as strong argument as you would think. All of Europe have switched from various local standards to the A4 et al. and that is quite recent. Hell! If Sweden could change from left hand side driving to right hand side driving it can't be difficult to change paper sizes!

Why doesn't Europe get ONE FREAKING TYPE OF ELECTRICAL PLUG!

We do. The europlug. Works everywhere (except Britain...). It is even designed to be a bit flexible to fit in French sockets!

Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US

[dave420]

"Only for sale to Americans"

My Company is paperless you insensitive clod.

[Dak_Peoples]

Except for one of my 40 year old coworkers that love to go through reams and reams of peper a week.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

What? No, no, no. The Thousand Million became 'Gig', and the Billion became 'Tera'... weren't you paying attention? :-)

Damn engineers

[Scott Richter]

I once got into a friendly argument with an engineer over the merits of the metric system. His argument "Foot-Lbs. I know what that is - that's obvious! Newton - what the fuck is a Newton."

I hate that shit. I'm a scientist, an American even, and it drives me crazy when our on-campus machine shop acts like we're idiots when we don't have a concept of how long a mil is (no, not a millimeter, but a 1000th of an inch I believe).

As for the concept of ft-lb vs newtons - all we need to get rid of is one generation. Then it will be "I know what a Newton is - that's obvious. What the fuck is a ft-lb?" The idiotic thing is, it would take maybe a month to figure it out and have a feel for the units. And then people could mentally convert between pretty much any unit on EARTH knowing the speed of light, planck's constant, and the density of water.

Re:Damn engineers

[plastik55]

Do you have the >$100k to set up your machine shop with metric tools?

Maybe you should try working with your hands for a while, it cures you of insufferable elitism.

Re:Damn engineers

[lucas teh geek]

Do you have the >$100k to set up your machine shop with metric tools?

Maybe you should try working with your hands for a while, it cures you of insufferable elitism.

and maybe you should try doing some physics, to cure you of the very condition you've described

Re:Damn engineers

[plastik55]

Ah yes, physics, the discipline which has holy wars over cgs versus mks units. Makes english versus metric seem like a walk in the park.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[hpa]

Err?

Most gas stations I've seen advertise something like $2.299 (I live in the Bay Area :) where the final 9 is in a smaller type (so it's easier to overlook and doesn't make the number look bigger.) On the actual pump the digits say 2.299 without any funnies.

What costs ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, almost every printer there is can print both Letter and A4... so no cost there. You just have to buy the A4 paper and set Page Properties in your document.

You can even keep the existing documents without too much hassle. Most official documents have margins so big, that there is no need for resizing , you just need to change margins.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

..but switching from gallons to liters as measurements would be a GREAT way to lower the US gasoline prices ;)

Pedantry at its finest

[KevinKnSC]

For what it's worth, metric paper isn't actually the same shape, either. It just comes a lot closer than non-metric paper does.

Example:
A4 = 210x297
297 / 210 = 1.41428571429

A5 = 148x210
210 / 148 = 1.41891891892

Furthermore, none of these has a ratio equal to the square root of 2, since that's impossible using integer lengths for the sides. Still a better standard for paper sizes than what we're using in the U.S., though.

Re:Pedantry at its finest

[Random832]

the numbers given are just guidelines, the actual a4 size is the size with sqrt(2) aspect ratio that is exactly 1/16 of a square meter. if i remember correctly

Microsoft thinks/thought Canada is Metric

[Dr. Evil]

If you set the regional settings to Canadian, the default paper size in Win95 is A4. It's so annoying that you're better off just leaving the OS as U.S.

I don't recall if MS fixed it

Re:Microsoft thinks/thought Canada is Metric

[Anonymous Coward]

That's probably because CANADA is officially metric, but being so close to the US we use imperial measurements in everyday life.

While we see kilometres on the highway and Celsius in the weather forecast, we still use letter sized papers.

Their not metric

[Anonymous Coward]

Their ISO and not covered as "metric" and their SI mesurements anyways. I worked at a SR print house for a good while. Trust me ISO paper sizes and weights kick ass.

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[Anonymous Coward]

...surely you mean 25.6mm-ing forward!

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Ubergrendle]

Thanks for the clarification. Your memory for the details supercedes mine... you've jogged my memory...I remember all these details now from the tour a few years ago.

Joke on USers:

[Qbertino]

The funniest (sadest?) thing is that you kicked the british out and kept the worse thing they had voluntarily. The *imperial* system!
Even thought the french helped you! That's the real loser part.

BTW: It was Napoleon who established the metric system big time in large parts of his area of influence.
Shame he couldn't follow the other guidelines:
Universal Rule Number One: Never start a land war in Asia.

Re:Joke on USers:

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, since the French helped us in the Revolution many years before their own revolution and their adoption of the metric system, your logic is a bit hard to follow.

Maybe the next time you Germans decide to start a World War, you can have the American system imposed upon you when we kick your asses again.

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean - an African or a European swallow?

Web site its easier

[Midnight Thunder]

Just did a quick search on the Canadian Staples web site for A4 and after entering my postal code (you can try 'H2Y 1V7' if you are outside of Canada and don't know of one), quickly found a few entries listing A4 related products, including a box of A4 paper. The US Staples web site also list some (I specified 68000 as the zip code).

Looks like the results you get just depend on how you go about your search.

Re:Web site its easier

[kernelfoobar]

For 'anonymous' identity on the web, I always use 90210 for US zip code and Santa's postal code for Canada: H0H 0H0 (zeros not 'oh's). It is a valid code btw, special, but valid.

Canadian postal codes are always LNL NLN (L=letter, N=number).

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[SEWilco]

but metric paper makes much better airplanes.

And they always fly a decimal fraction of the Earth's circumference.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[hpa]

Try reducing a 11x17 drawing only a letter-sized sheet and you'll find out.

A complex way to point out simplity.

[MrChuck]

...factor of 2

Gee, I just learned that if you take a sheet of A3 and cut it in half, that's A4.
Need a couple sheets of A5? Fine, grab paper from the printer and cut come A4's in half. (or A3's into 4).

But geez, about making a really simple system sound complex...

Me? I've just personally given up Fahrenheit. The GirlF is coping with "wow, it must have dropped 5 degrees in the last half hour."

I'll be ready, cause I saw the movie in school, 'splaining that we'd be all metric by 1976.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Tony-A]

Gee, I just learned that if you take a sheet of A3 and cut it in half, that's A4.

If you take a D-size sheet of drafting paper,
cut into halves, you have two sheets of C-size drafting paper
cut into quarters, you have four sheets of B-size drafting paper, aka quarto
cut into eight pieces, you have eight sheet of A-size, aka letter, aka octavo.

The metric sizes preserve aspect ratio, the english sizes do not.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[cayenne8]

Hell, I just learned there was metric paper!!

I had no idea....never heard of it before...

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[mrzaph0d]

I'll be ready, cause I saw the movie in school, 'splaining that we'd be all metric by 1976

weird thing is, i saw that same movie in 1987

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[eljasbo]

The US actually has two guys who work for the NIST whose job is to promote the metric system on the american public. Unfortunately, one had to do some quick mental arithmetic when he was asked how much he weighed in kilograms.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Grooby]

Does this apply to Volumes?!?! cut a D-Cup size bra to get 2 C-cCup size bra?!?!

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you do get a funny looking hat.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[ZeLonewolf]

No, but since you ask:

The number is the measurement below the bust.

an A-cup is a 1-inch difference between the measurement below the bust versus around the bust.
B-cup is 2 inches, C-cup is 3 inches, etc.
DD is the same as E, DDD is the same as EE which is the same as F. This holds valid through an H cup. After that, the interval is 2 inches, with the doubled letter being the in-between value.
This, H-cup is 8", and I-cup is 10", and a 9" difference would be an HH-cup.

The largest bra size manufactured without a special order is a size 60N.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

60N...Wow.

That's 60" under the bust (HUGE), plus another 20" for the bust... It sounds like this bra would require three people and a crane to attach. Is it made of reinforced carbon-fiber or something?

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[MrChuck]

I showed up to work in the UK for a few months in a worker exchange program (filling in for someone being trained in NYC).

While a pint of beer in America *IS* smaller than a pint in the UK, that's usually alright. Because the beer in the UK *also* had more alcohol and flavor.

And chatting with a coworker about managing to drink two pints at lunch (do as the romans do, and all that), he asked me how many stones I weighed. WTF. I guess that would depend on the stone. I knew I was 18 hands tall (grew up around horses), but stones? (I now know I was 12 stones).

So, it's about 25 here in the Bay Area today. Nice to not need a coat.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[servognome]

maybe its strictly designed for slingshot use. Probably take down a medieval castle with that thing.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... and there's countries that aren't part of the US, too.

It's called "The Rest Of The World". You'll find we do a lot of things differently here, if you ever bother to look.

Um. Sorry. Bad day. :-/

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[iminplaya]

Can I do that with flashlight batteries also?

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[iminplaya]

Yeah... and there's countries that aren't part of the US, too.

Not for long...

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well! You've certainly done your research, haven't you?

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take a D-size
cut into halves, you have two sets of C-size
cut into quarters, you have four sets of B-size
cut into eight pieces, you have eight sets of A-size

Wait, are we talking about breast size or paper size? :-P

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[jadavis]

Well, since weight is measured in units of force, and not mass, it doesn't surprise me that he was confused.

Maybe they should have asked him how many Newtons he weighs.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most...informative...post...ever.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

just to be picky, that's not quite right:

The number is the number over the bust. The cup letter determines the underbust.

if the overbust is 34" or up, add 5" to the cup size difference.
if the overbust is 32" or down, add only 3.

That means someone wearing a 36C has a 36" overbust and a 28" underbust. (36" -3" -5")

So a 32C (32-3-3=26") has the same underbust as a 34A (34-5-3=26", also)...

(and AA is 1/2" instead of 0.)

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a story about paper sizes. is that an important part of your culture?

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

I now know I was 12 stones

you fat american bastard,

--ed

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[That's Unpossible!]

I sure as hell hope you're not writing that from England.

Like they can talk...

Put another shrimp on the barbie?

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You told me more about bra cup sizes than I wanted to know.

Now, for 5 bonus points: what are the metric equivalents?

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the English use metric.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

A person's weight in stones is a friendly, manageable number like "9" or "13", rather like "6" is a civilized number to measure height in. Nobody cared whether you measure 187cm or 190cm, or weigh 180lb or 182lb.

You're 6' tall, and weigh 13st. End of story.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[carlos_benj]

I know a lot of my weight is a result of Fig Newtons....

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[glenalec]

And if you want to make an A5-sized booklet, print it 2-up on A4, appropriately interleaved, staple down the middle and fold.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[mah!]

>>Yeah... and there's countries that aren't part of the US, too.
>
>Not for long...

Naah, as from the famous quote:

"But we are not without cunning. We shall not make Britain's mistake. Too wise to try to govern the world, we shall merely own it. Nothing can stop us." -Ludwell Denny, America Conquers Britain, 1930

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Bigman]

England not become part of the US? I wish it would.. then I'd be able to move to mainland US where they know that a lap dance isn't a finnish folk custom..

P.S. Barbie has a seafood fetish? Does Ken know??

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the locals from the shire of England, Queensland, are hopeless, they cannot talk for (s)quids....

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if men's cups are the same, I'm a DDD, sweet!

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Anonymous Coward]

America... the ugly, red-headed bastard child that should have been smothered at birth... and would have been had not the French intervened and fought your war for you... no matter; they got theirs in 1805 and 1815.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[cfuse]

english

I don't know about anywhere else (I'm in AU), but we call it the 'imperial' system.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[cfuse]

No oil, and white english speaking population where I am. I'm not worried.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Alsee]

there's countries that aren't part of the US, too.

Ummm, you mean Alaska and Hawaii?

-

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[innocent_white_lamb]

And if you want to make an A5-sized booklet, print it 2-up on A4, appropriately interleaved, staple down the middle and fold.

And if you want to make a letter-sized booklet, print it 2-up on ledger (11x17) paper, appropriately interleaved, staple down the middle and fold.

Re:A complex way to point out simplity.

[Thu Anon Coward]

I don't get it... you gots any pictures you can show me since I is a visual type of guy?

pics that can _REALLY_ explain the difference :)

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that be an African or a European swallow?

What's wrong with what we have?

[Anonymous Coward]

a b-sized sheet is to 8.5x11 sheets.. or 11x17
a c-sized sheet is four 8.5x11 sheets.. or 17x24
a d-sized sheet is eight 8.5x11 or 24x36
an e sized sheet is 36x72

now.. according to my old boss it was entirely possible to fold several d sized sheets stapled together with archetictual drawings into the same size as an 8.5x11 to fit in the filing cabinet. I found that once you get to about 8 sheets.. it gets exceedingly difficult..

E sized sheets make great paper airplanes as well.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[twd]

Both of these sound suspiciously like folk etymologies--sort of an urban legend--to me.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[carlos_benj]

Nick berg's head is useful for so many things...

Perhaps, some day, your head will be marginally as useful....

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Planesdragon]

It's easy to pick the numbers you like. There are always numbers a given multiplier won't divide nicely to.

I didn't say that there weren't. But there are reasons for the SI numbers, and they work well enough for the US to resist changing.

(oh, and 8 is easy. 2 oz.)

Yet another reason not to give a damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Both systems work. Both systems, for the most part, do what the users need them to do. There's no good reason to switch from the one you know to the one you don't, unless you're moving to a place where the other system is used.

I swear to Me, I'm getting *really* tired of hearing people who naturally assume that the "other" system is the "wrong" system or somehow non-standard. As long as it works, use what you're most comfortable with and leave it at that.

Re:Yet another reason not to give a damn

[Anonymous Coward]

EXACTLY! I wish more people understand that. Both system are really good in their own way. It is the conversion between the two that is so difficult. So why should we convert? A lot of people are just arrogant.

A4 better to read from...

[major.morgan]

The A4 format is a much better size for laying out type. 8.5" is just a bit too wide for easy reading, A4 lets you layout aesthetic pages, and at the proper width for faster reading.

US sizing also doubles/halves for other standard sheets, but the other sizes are akward to work with (think 17x22 or 5.5x8.5).

Most any printer, typesetter or graphic designer in the US will tell you that they'd rather work with metric.

[OT] christian rights

[Anonymous Coward]

If God says 'thou shalt not kill', then why is there a deathpenalty?

Metric envelopes

[Mick Ohrberg]

Since it seems that most all envelopes I came in contact with in Europe were *slightly* larger than A5 size, a printed A4 sheet folded in half fit perfectly - none of this folding threeways stuff that you have to do in the US.

Re:Metric envelopes

[mali]

Typically envelopes are using C series sizes: The the one fitting a A5 sheet of paper (or a A4 sheet folded in half) is C5 ...

Re:Metric envelopes

[Mick Ohrberg]

You're absolutely right. I just couldn't remember the name for the envelope sizes.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[beholder77]

Napkins?! It should be done on an A8 ;)

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[rsidd]

Most gas stations I've seen advertise something like $2.299 (I live in the Bay Area :)

I live in the northeast and $2.29 9/10 is ubiquitous. I think I've seen that style in California too, but couldn't swear to it.

Hmmm, So it IS useful to be able to divide...

[arfonrg]

...by 2 and not always 10!?!? I guess that's why pints, guarts, half-gallons and gallons were naturally derived as opposed to the metric units of capacity.

I guess that just helps the argument that the UK/US system is better in some ways than the metric system...

I mean, to be REALLY a metric type, A4 vs A5 vs A6 should all be powers of ten!!!

Re:Hmmm, So it IS useful to be able to divide...

[s_wardman]

I guess that just helps the argument that the UK/US system is better in some ways than the metric system...

I'm from the UK and I learned the SI units (metric) at school, although we were taught how to convert some imperial measurements.

Paper in the UK is now predominantly measured according to the ISO standards, although I do have a couple of Foolscap sized folders.

Re:I love it. It helped me get more points on a Ch

[Deadstick]

I got into a not-so-friendly argument with a grad school prof teaching me a course in rocket propulsion. Those rocketry guys not only wouldn't use metric, they couldn't even figure out how to use the English system consistently. They insisted on using pounds for mass, so their version of Newton's 2nd was "f=gma"...and they'd cancel pounds-mass against pounds-force whenever they damn well felt like it.

rj

Point?

[LordoftheLemmings]

And what is the point of this? If I wanted a bigger paper size I would buy the bigger size, but if I took to smaller peices and taped them together I would overlap them so they would not be the same size as the bigger paper. So someone want to tell me a good reason why we should switch, we don't use metric anyway.

Re:Point?

[Teun]

Lord of the Lemmings eh?

Or, when you can't handle it you jump over the cliff.
Rather an apropriate name to go with the comment!

The advantage of the 'Metric' paper sizes is obvious, the mill only makes one size stock (A0) and (someone) can cut it to any requested size without loss.

An other advantage, when you get a, say A4 envelope, you know how to easily fold an A3 or A2 sheet to fit in it. No need for a large inventory of funny sized envelopes or odly folded documents.

Re:Point?

[mrdaveb]

RTFA - the metric paper is much more convenient than most other systems.

When I want to photograph 2 pages of an A4 book, I can fit them perfectly on 1 sheet of A4 paper by using the preset size reduction. I'm sure there are many other conveniences as well, but I don't use hard copies much :-)

Of course, I don't recommend converting a whole country full of incompatible printing infrastructure just for these benefits. But it's nice to have them!

Re:Point?

[mrdaveb]

erm... I of course meant photocopy, not photograph

Re:Point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Manufacturing with minimal waste. While most other posts here point out that 2 x A4 = A3, the value is in A3/2 = A4, i.e., the paper manufacturer simply cuts an A3 in half and get two A4's with only the kerf wasted.

Re:Point?

[s_wardman]

The properties of the ISO paper sizes are nice for photocopying, especially when scaling.

If you have two sheets of A4 and want them on the same piece of paper, you can photocopy onto A3 which is exactly the right size for the job.

If you have something on A3 paper that you want to fit on the smaller size of A4, you can scale it down and it will fit exactly, with no horrible gaps or bits being cut off.

Re:Point?

[Alan Shutko]

Do mills really work that way, or do they cut it as needed. I'd think that repeated cuttings to get down to A4 would result in rather inaccurate paper.

Re:Point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants you to switch? Just carry on using whatever you use today...

Re:Point?

[banzai51]

Or maybe what made our country great in so many ways was our willingness to thumb our noses at Europe. Why alter what's working so well?

Re:Point?

[Spudley]

An other advantage, when you get a, say A4 envelope, you know how to easily fold an A3 or A2 sheet to fit in it. No need for a large inventory of funny sized envelopes or odly folded documents. ...except that the standard envelope sizes are called D4/D5/etc, because they're slightly larger, so that the paper will fit into them.

Re:Point?

[calidoscope]

The advantage of the 'Metric' paper sizes is obvious, the mill only makes one size stock (A0) and (someone) can cut it to any requested size without loss.

Say what?!

You can do exactly the same thing with US customary paper sizes. Cutting an 11 by 17 shet in half gives you 8.5 by 11 - a 17 by 22 will yield two 11 by 17 - and so on.

Re:Point?

[banzai51]

Guess the mods don't read history.

Re:Neat - Excellant Karma Whoring Troll

[pla]

I am actually quiet impressed with how you fool the moderators. Skillfull indeed you are with your time. Quiet funny actually.

I don't know that I'd consider him a troll, from the examples you gave.

Sure, they all got modded down as trolls, but IMO, very mild ones. At worst, too short and a tad uninformed, the sort of thing I might have modded "overrated" (or more likely, just ignored completely) but certainly not as a troll.

We all post stupid comments occasionally, or comments that people take wrong (comparing with my own posting history, almost everything I've posted in an Apple-related topic end up modded down as troll or flamebait, despite my intending them as neither). Seems a bit harsh to assume he trolls deliberately, when he has an otherwise good track record.


Of course, having mentioned my posting history, you might call me a karma-whoring troll as well. I generally get modded up, have exellent karma, yet occasionally the mods crucify me. Yet, I neither post for karma, nor deliberately troll (at worst, in a foul mood, you could accuse me of the occasional flame).


That said, looking at some of his positive mods, I have to suspect him as a bit of a braggart. He has apparently done everything and knows it all. Now, he may actually tell the truth in that regard (one of my grandfathers, for example, really has "done it all"). But as long as he remains factually correct, I'd say he still doesn't warrant a "troll" label.

What's wrong with ANSI?

[bryansj]

I'm not sure that metric is much different than U.S. ANSI sized paper. ANSI A is 8.5" x 11", ANSI B is 11" x 17", ANSI C is 17" x 22", ANSI D is 22" x 34", and ANSI E is 34" x 44". With this you can have any size sheet twice as long in one direction or double the size all around. From what I see Metric A() sizes do the same thing. The difference is that one is in inches and the other in mm. FYI, I'm in aerospace design engineering and usually use none of the above, but instead use other sizes that are 22" tall, but very long.

Re:What's wrong with ANSI?

[GoneGaryT]

I'm not sure that metric is much different than U.S. ANSI sized paper.

Yeah yeah, we know. Try blithely saying that when your printer driver keeps reverting to US legal and your A4 fanfold is no longer at the races on page 26 and your thesis is due in tomorrow morning or else...

Re:What's wrong with ANSI?

[Anonymous Coward]

ANSI C is 17" x 22"
Well, my copy of K&R is much smaller.

Blame the English

[mitchell_pgh]

We didn't start this crazy system... It was forced on us by the English, and I feel, as a U.S. citizen that they should flip the bill to convert us over.

Re:the metric system is fun - hhhhahha

[bushboy]

ROTFFLMAO

(insert obligatory swearword into the above acronym after the third letter)

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Niles_Stonne]

The simplest example I can think of is this...

You have something that you are building that is one unit(foot or meter) long, you want to put 4 equally spaced legs along the edge... Which means three spaces in between.

Take a foot (12 inches) divide by 3 - you get 4 inches. Very easy to work with - hey, it's even one of those large lines on the ruler!

Take a meter (100 cm) divide by 3 - you get 33.3333333 repeating. Find that on a ruler.

I remember seeing a document talking about fractions in relationship to the imperial system.

Think of this:

One foot can be divided in these ways to make integer values of inches:

2 - 6"
3 - 4"
4 - 3"
5 - not an integer
6 - 2"

That's 5 different ways to divide it and still not need to worry about fractions or decimals at all.

Now look at Metric. Let's take a meter and divide that:

2 - 50 cm
3 - not an integer
4 - 25 cm
5 - 20 cm
6 - not an integer

I know there is a much better write up on this someplace, but you get the idea. Imperial units end up with more "useful" divisions than metric.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Knos]

I wonder why this expression exists litterally in french.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[king-manic]

In this case, only Americans would be confused. Our gas prices are $0.883/liter and it's perfectly obvious to everyone.

Re:Psst.

[Anonymous Coward]

A0 = folded no times, 0.84 x 1.189m.
A1 = A0 folded once, 0.594 x 0.84m.
A2 = A1 folded once = A0 folded twice, 0.42 x 0.594m.
A3 = A2 folded once = A0 folded 3x, 0.297 x 0.42m.
A4 = A3 folded once = A0 folded 4x ,0.21 x 0.297m.
and so on. The number counts how many times a one square metre sheet has been folded in half. Makes blinding sense really. I've been used to A4 size paper all my life and couldn't understand why anyone would want anything else.

BTW, since someone mentioned paper and drugs: if you fold an A4 sheet of 80g/m2 paper {the most common gauge} at 45 degrees from a corner so one short side lines up along the long side, then cut off the excess so you are left with a square, then that square will weigh - as near as damn it is to swearing - 3.5g, equivalent to 1/8oz -- the canonical street measure for hashish in the UK. {Class A's are usually metric though :-) "Going metric" is a euphemism in the drug dealing industry for expanding one's operations from small-time street dealing -- either buying hash by the kilo, or selling powders by the gramme.}

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[ebh]

"Powerful interests with incentive"

Yeah, like the ENTIRE construction industry. For them to move to metric would be like forcing every computer installation everywhere to go to Linux: In most cases a Good Thing, in some not, but an EXTREMELY painful transition that would take many years.

Most of us can switch back and forth between English and Metric like inhaling an exhaling. "Add 1 cup milk" vs. "Add 250ml milk"--turn the measuring cup around, no big deal.

But ask anyone in the auto industry (where there's a large incentive to standardize on metric parts) how much fun their transition has been. Now, see how much the construction industry, whose sessile products are not intended for sale on the world market, would want to go through that for almost no benefit.

wow

[tuggy]

wow! great discovery!
any ten-year-old in europe knows that...

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[jwd-oh]

The reason that the non-metric measurement systems exist is that for many of them, you do not have to carry a measurement device to get very close to the right answer. For example, length of most men's dominant hand' thumb is approximately one inch.

We (our body parts) are the tool for approximating the measurement. We don't have to carry around any other tools.

Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides paper format, Canada use the metric system. We buy liquids by litres, gaz by litres, etc.

Construction material uses English system, only because the USA buy them or sell them to us. That's all. It's a misconception that Canada use the 'deprecated' English system.

Re:Canada

[Theriault]

Indeed - but nobody seems to care.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Mattintosh]

Well, there's the problem. Neither "systeme" nor "internationale" are words. We don't know what to switch to.

Maybe if you hadn't let the French dictate all your "standards", maybe we'd go along with it. Until you wise up and use something with a slightly less gay sounding name, maybe something like "International Standard", forget it.

And in return, you get to standardize on OUR DOLLARS. No more "Canadian dollars", "Australian dollars", or "Euros". We'll use your measurement units if we get to make you our financial bitch.

(And for the humor impaired, this is supposed to be funny.)

Metric Pink Slips

[Anonymous Coward]

On a side note, it turns out my companies modernization program consisted of handing out pink sheets of A4. At least I learned something from it besides how to make an oragami carnation.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Scaling is a pain in the ass for the drafters of the US now.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Belgand]

1/6 lb. and 1/3 (0.333 if you'd like) kg. ... duh!

The difference is that 1/3 kg. easily transforms into the more sensible 333 g. whereas 1/6 lb. is just unwieldly, I don't have any idea how much that would be. Hence the reason (aside from pure marketing to make it look big) American restaraunts tend to refer to burgers as 1/2 lb. or 1/4 lb. rather than by... well... whatever the other measurement is (oz.?) I'm a scientist and despite being an American I never really managed to pick up the Standard measurements. Much easier to tell that if a tsp. is 5g and I need 3 tsp. I really want to just use 1 Tbsp. or 15g than to remember the conversions or use a bunch of smaller measures.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Dayflowers]

Don't worry. Engineering *will* move to the SI. The mix of metric with imperial is mostly just felt in the US. Its not all that hard to switch, if people were really forced the whole transition could be done in a couple of years. Just look at what happened with the Euro. Everyone now uses it, and though in my country the transition was kinda easier (1 Euro =~ 200 Escudos) in other countries (like spain, for instance) it wasn't that simple and still the transition was quite smooth.

Re:? for metric printers (the people, not hardware

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

Just use the B sizes and trim down to A sizes when finished

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[SEWilco]

damn your car is a gas guzzler!
504 gallons to go 1 mile!

With its big gas tank, of course it is.
However, I'm putting one of them newfangled "wheel" things on the vehicle next week. We'll see if that improves the MPG. If it does, I'll try two of them. I've got room for about twenty wheels, so there is some possibility for improvement.

Ah that's the A3

[DABANSHEE]

The A4's an expensive Passat

Re:Ah that's the A3

[Unregistered]

Nope, the A4 is a Jetta derivitive. The A6 is the Passat derivitive.

Re:Ah that's the A3

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, quattro AWD kicks ass. Otherwise Passats are just as expensive when you get the moonroof, leather, cd changer, and big engine.

A4 3.0 quattro = awesome car. Get one with 15K miles already on it and you're price/performance ratio beats just about everything on the road.

Pricey parts? Sure but you don't need as many parts as often, the resale is better, etc.

Craftsmanship, yep that's the word I was looking for. No not Carroll Shelby but much more practical.

Re:Ah that's the A3

[Analogy Man]

And the TT is a Beetle with no headroom.

Re:Ah that's the A3

[belroth]

And the TT is a Beetle with no headroom.

The Beetle is a Golf with no luggage space.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[RevAaron]

It's an SUV! It's his right to drive such a beast! God bless the American Way (tm)! And yes, he whines about gas prices.

what it "means" ??

[da_reboot]

"the height-to-width ratio of all pages is the square root of 2? THIS MEANS that you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly"

No, that's not what it MEANS.

For the ration to MEAN something, find me a relation between A and B paper, not between A4 and A3...

The fact 2 A4 equals a A3 is because A3 was chosen to be twice as big. Exactly like 8.5x11 and 11x17!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it so much easier to use than the English system

Nice of you to try and state the case for metric as a xenophobic rant. The paper size you use is called "US Letter", it is not an imperial unit.

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[wtrmute]

2.54cm at a time, you mean :)

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

To my understanding, the common metric measurement for fuel efficeincy is liters per 100 km.

This puts the measurement for consumption at the begining to the equation -- and I can't imagine Americans ever accepting that concept. Many Americans don't want to own up to the concept of how much they consume.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Azghoul]

I think you're wrong. I think it's simple inertia.

Look, what about the UK? You think it's in the UK's psyche to have essentially half-and-half?

The fact is, everyone's grown up on feet, inches and miles, and that's it. Familiarity.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[king-manic]

2kg of meat into 6 patties is 0.333... of meat each. Hardly rocket science. You'll get used to what ever system you learn but Metric is the defacto measure of science and thus it's counter-productive to have to learn both.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Belgand]

Part of the reason for the scientific community using metric (aside from, well, the simple logic of it, the ease of conversion and necessity of this, and using a valid international system) is because often the units involved are very, very small. Much more than Standard units would be fit to deal with without making things into a huge mess or making up new measurements.

In my lab I typically work with microliters down to the level of .5 microliters or so. I honestly can't think of a Standard measurement designed to measure something that small without simply taking on a long string of zeroes between it and the decimal point.

Obligatory MP reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but is it an African or European swallow?

Re:Neat - Excellant Karma Whoring Troll

[deadlinegrunt]

Good form.

The irony of your post in context of what this about. Absolutely hilarious!!!

This almost overshadows Sarojin's entertainment. (If you a truly this clueless, follow the links; all of them)

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[forrestt]

Actually, it has to do with apple pie. Since there is nothing more American than apple pie, the apple pie recipe is considered sacred. It has been passed down from generation to generation since the start of this glorious nation. Unfortunatly, it has been passed down on the female side of our ancestry, and we men have been telling our women that:

|------| = 10 inches, when in fact
|---------| = 10 inches.

This has caused them to become totally confused with regard to units of measure, and they are thus unable to convert imperial to metric units. Thus, if we were to switch to using the metric system, we would no longer be able to bake apple pies, a situation we are just not willing to accept.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Mattintosh]

Actually, it's just that the rest of the American public doesn't give a shit.

I make CAD drawings for a living. They're not heavy on details. They don't even have to be to scale most of the time. But when I do need something to scale, I get a ruler and count the ticks. I don't even care to look at whether I'm reading metric or imperial units on that ruler. I then match my drawing up tick-for-tick. Guess what... It's to scale. 1 ruler unit to 1 screen unit, whichever unit happens to be in use on each device.

Welcome to the wonderful, stress-free world of not caring a whole lot.

I wish I had mod points

[3770]

This was very interesting.

I do think that the U.S. should switch to metric, it just makes sense.

But this discussion was very thought provoking.

But I have to add, that even more than being about communities, in my opinion, it is about "how it's always been" or tradition.

Maybe it is "culture", or the amalgamation of community and tradition, that stops the U.S. from adopting the metric system.

Shelves

[80N]

One thing the article doesn't mention is that metric sized ring binders (folders) are a bit too high to fit on the shelves of most standard US office shelving units. You guys are gonna have to buy new shelves before you can even start using modern sized paper.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Hooptie]

Wheneven I hear about drug busts, the news always reports kilograms of cocaine, but pounds of marijuana.

Go figure...

Hooptie

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Sirch]

Guess where I first heard it? =o) Should have cited The Big Bus Company!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Most countries were not industrialized prior to the rise of the Metric System, and therefore there was no infrastructure to retrofit, so adoption was easy. Not so in the US.

Imagine, for a moment, that somebody came up with a system that was vastly simpler than metric. (It's not hard to do.) How quick would Europe and Asia be to change over? The mere suggestion of doing so immediately and completely would be laughed at.

Re:I love it. It helped me get more points on a Ch

[proggoddess]

Newtons are fruit and cake.

I remember when...

[GoneGaryT]

...in school, we had to learn to manipulate pounds shillings and pence. 20 shillings to the pound. 12 pence to the shilling. I intuitively knew that there was something very fucked up going on. Then, in 1971, we "decimalised" and the price of sweets doubled. Bastards.

So going metric is the only way to go in the US, but accept the downside that your kids generation will be damaged for life, although, to be fair, with the advantage of being slightly less obese.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

> Take a meter (100 cm) divide by 3 - you get 33.3333333 repeating. Find that on a ruler.

33.3 cm is precise enough. Metric rulers are divided in cm's which are divided in mm's. There are few applications where greater precision than mm is needed. (And I suspect that metric is used in all those application as well.)

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[mdielmann]

Like he said, every one. I bet if he starts with the apothecary one, though, that the metric people will stop fighting and just sit there smiling...

Oh, and you forgot the troy ounce (used for measuring precious metals). But don't tell, they're keeping that one back for reserves.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Planesdragon]

2kg of meat into 6 patties is 0.333... of meat each. Hardly rocket science. You'll get used to what ever system you learn but Metric is the defacto measure of science and thus it's counter-productive to have to learn both.

True. And, by the same logic, all other scientists should forget their native language and learn English.

Or we can just do what we've done and what we do--note all SI measurements with metric afterwards, and include an English version in all non-English papers.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, i suspect pity played a large role.

No, just capitalism... no doubt the pubs did a booming business that day with all the folks following along with the crowd who also wanted to stop and have a drink with the condemned man.

Not unique to metric paper sizes

[Eric Smith]

you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly, and two sheets of A3 will equal an A2.

So? The same is true of many of the non-metric sizes. You can place two sheets of A side-by-side and they will equal a B sheet exactly, and two sheets of B will equal a C, and so on up to E at least. (I've never seen F, but presumably it would be the size of two Es.)

If you're going to brag about a feature, at least brag about the part that is better. With metric paper sizes, the described relationship exists, and the paper sizes all share the same aspect ratio, so you can reduce or enlarge to different paper sizes without having to worry about the margins.

Re:Not unique to metric paper sizes

[3riol]

True. And indeed, the advantages could be duplicated by any other system similarly constructed rationally from the ground up to be entirely self-consistent.

But another, significant advantage of A? paper sizes is their widespread use in just about every part of the world where the Latin alphabet is used, and a fair lot of others.

Also I am selfish and want my word-processors, printer drivers, and postscript-using programs to always have metric standard sizes as the default. ^-^

[troll]I mean, is the US-modified Imperial System even an ISO standard?[/troll]

Re:Not unique to metric paper sizes

[BBird]

You are quite right. The particularty of A0 standard is the ratio sqr(2):1 which is the only ratio that allows half of it to keep the same (aspect) ratio. You could measure it in inches on any other lenght measurement unit.

Holy crap.

[Gannoc]

For those who enjoy a bit of math, did you know that in the Metric paper system, the height-to-width ratio of all pages is the square root of 2?

Slow News Day of the Year Award nominee here.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Paulrothrock]

Put a bar over the three and it means the same thing. And that's why you were taught significant digits in science class. Measure to however accurate you can, and drop the rest.

'Word Processors"

[Anonymous Coward]

Documents should not be written to a particular page size. The margins, formatting, typefaces sizes, etc, should be applied *when* the document is printed, not when it is written.

Have a good read over

http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html

It explains perfectly.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[mattyrobinson69]

a dot (like a full stop) over the top of a number denotes a recurring value. its not in any ascii fonts that i can see, so pretend a # denotes a full stop on top of the number before:

0.33333333 recurring = 0.3#
0.84848484 recurring = 0.8#4

IHBT. i bite.

[ViVeLaMe]

nope, it isn't the same shape.
Long side / short side = ?
17/11 = 1.54545(54...)
11/8.5 = 1.29411(..)
they haven't the same shape.
you were right to post anonimously..

Billions and Billions

[doodlelogic]

They still use the term Milliard for "thousand million" in France and Germany. It is probably the unwieldy nature of the English-language term that caused the common (though not universal) transition to the American Billion.

The most populous country with English as an official language, India, uses a different counting system again. As they grow in economic and scientific strength, will lakhs (hundreds of thousands) and crores (tens of millions) become part of everyday speech in the West? They are easier to say!

Lakh=a Hundred Thousand
Million
Crore=Ten million
Milliard=Billion=Thousand Million
English Billion=Trillion

Re:Billions and Billions

[leenoble_uk]

I there's any justice they won't.
There is a logic to the scientific numbering system which dictates you only use a different term when you run out of options and you can't duplicate prefixes like million million.

I tried to post a long winded list of numbers here from 1,000 up to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1 Trillion: The proper 1 Trillion the one that's one more than Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Million Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine)
But it didn't pass the lameness filter.

Re:Billions and Billions

[leenoble_uk]

Oops I missed out the Billions

Re:Billions and Billions

[leenoble_uk]

Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Million Billion Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Million Nine hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine.

Is that right. You're right it does get complicated. Who said scientists were logical?

sig

[Anonymous Coward]

-- I randomly moderate down people who describe their abuses of the mod and metamod system in their sigs. --

This is a joke right? Sure hope so...

Cheaper approach

[pommiekiwifruit]

Go to Ikea. Get a tape measure for free!

Re:Cheaper approach

[Anonymous Coward]

A 9 meter tape? Steel? Damn, that's worth driving to Houston (nearest Ikea) for.

Re:Cheaper approach

[pommiekiwifruit]

Your house is too big if you need a 9 metre tape measure :-)

Damn that's a big bookshelf!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Paulrothrock]

I am an American, but I feel less and less welcome here each day. I would prefer 1.859 or 1.86 to the rather sleazy notion of putting 1.85 in big letters and then 9/10 in small letters. I know I'm spending 1.86 on gas, but others see 1.85 and go there instead of the place that puts 1.86.

Besides, where the heck do you live that gas is $1.86 a gallon??? :-)

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[Anonymous Coward]

laden or unladen?

Americans will never adopt the metric system...

[Anonymous Coward]

...because they are stupid!

You sir, do not know what you are talking about

[ashpool7]

Try owning one first.

http://forums.audiworld.com/a4/msgs/222262.phtml

Re:You sir, do not know what you are talking about

[elemental23]

Thanks, but I'd rather not (see: overpriced).

Also, I hate cars that only come in four door models (eg, most Audis and Volkswagons).

Dude...

[farzadb82]

I love your sig.

Postal convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

Related to this:

• An A0 sheet is exactly one square metre
• Standard copier paper has a weight of 80 grams per square metre
• 16 A4 sheets make up one A0 sheet
• Therefore, one A4 sheet of standard copier paper weighs exactly 5 grams

Assuming an envelope weighs about the same as a few sheets of similarly-sized paper, you can now guess fairly accurately how much it'll cost to post a letter printed on A4 (or A5, A3, etc.) paper without actually having to weigh it.

To paraphrase "Ma" Ferguson...

[ConceptJunkie]

If 8-1/2" x 11" was good enough for the Apostles Peter and Paul, then it's good enough for me.

Besides, the Stonecutters have seen fit to keep the Metric System down despite its obvious superiority. I would love to be able to purchase my toilet paper by the milliare.

iso-paper.c: oOOoooh!

[duffel]

I'm SO compiling it and putting it in /usr/bin!

[localhost:/usr/bin] % isopaper
4A0 = 1682 mm x 2378 mm
2A0 = 1189 mm x 1682 mm
A0 = 841 mm x 1189 mm
A1 = 594 mm x 841 mm
A2 = 420 mm x 594 mm
A3 = 297 mm x 420 mm
A4 = 210 mm x 297 mm
A5 = 148 mm x 210 mm
A6 = 105 mm x 148 mm
A7 = 74 mm x 105 mm
A8 = 52 mm x 74 mm
A9 = 37 mm x 52 mm
A10 = 26 mm x 37 mm

B0 = 1000 mm x 1414 mm
B1 = 707 mm x 1000 mm
B2 = 500 mm x 707 mm
B3 = 353 mm x 500 mm
B4 = 250 mm x 353 mm
B5 = 176 mm x 250 mm
B6 = 125 mm x 176 mm
B7 = 88 mm x 125 mm
B8 = 62 mm x 88 mm
B9 = 44 mm x 62 mm
B10 = 31 mm x 44 mm

C0 = 917 mm x 1297 mm
C1 = 648 mm x 917 mm
C2 = 458 mm x 648 mm
C3 = 324 mm x 458 mm
C4 = 229 mm x 324 mm
C5 = 162 mm x 229 mm
C6 = 114 mm x 162 mm
C7 = 81 mm x 114 mm
C8 = 57 mm x 81 mm
C9 = 40 mm x 57 mm
C10 = 28 mm x 40 mm

Yay!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Bastian]

I do D.O.T. contract work, and for me it means that everything I do is in this weird mix of Metric and English Standard.

Not that things have to be in both - that would be easy. Instead, some things are in one, others are in the other.

MOD PARENT FUNNY!

[Fred Foobar]

Am I the only one who gets the joke?!

It's pretty funny, man.

Paper Weight (Thickness)

[pr0t0]

As an american graphic designer, I can tell you I would love it if we used the metric paper measurement system. This is not only because of the image-scaleability, but also because of consistent weight measuring.

In the States, we measure the weight, or thickness of paper by pounds, as in 24# paper. This weight comes from measuring 500 full-size sheets. The problem is that different papers come in full-size sheets of different sizes. One type of stock may have a full-size sheet size of 23x35 inches, and another may have a full-size sheet size of 25x37. It's totally stupid!

The metric measurement for paper weight is grams per square meter which seems far more accurate. We also use micrometers to measure the physical thickness of a stock, but this too can be misleading because thickness doesn't always equal rigidity.

Can any of our friends across the pond give their experiences with using the metric measurement for paper weight determination? Does it work?

Re:Paper Weight (Thickness)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it works exactly as described in the article. I for example regularly have to mail magazines. I use 80 g/m^2 paper (weighting 5 grams each). The 100 g Mail Limit is hit if your booklet has 80 Pages (20 sheets).

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, everyone's grown up on feet, inches and miles, and that's it. Familiarity.

So did my grand father, but he somehow managed to change with the times. You know, it wasn't that long ago that most of Europe used inches and related/similar oldish measurements.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[mog007]

First example : One fifth of a pound.

Second example : Two fifths of kilogram.

Wow that was tough!

origins

[hachete]

The origins of the meter is quite interesting. In essence, it's here: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html

But of the 2 guys tasked to do it, one went mad trying to find the "truth" (or the "exactness") whilst the other realised it was a measure determined by committee -or the representatives of the people, if you will.

Most of the other measurements *before* were determined by medeival methods - the Yard is defined thus:

"A yard was originally the length of a man's belt or girdle, as it was called. In the 12th century, King Henry I of England fixed the yard as the distance from his nose to the thumb of his out-stretched arm. Today it is 36 inches, about the distance from nose to out-stretched arm of a man."

http://www.iofm.net/community/kidscorner/maths/o ri gin.htm

Rather than breathing life into the influence of royalty in my life - and I have enough reminders that the UK isn't a democratic state in the truest semse, thankyou very much - I'm going to stick to meters.

h.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Chucklz]

In Eastern PA where Im currently sitting, I can get gas at $1.82 a gallon, well at least I could yesterday, I havent been out yet today to see.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

• Examples
• 500 mg of Ibuprofin
• 10 cc injection
• 200-meter dash
• 750 mL of wine/liquor (we call it a fifth [of a gallon], but they use metric as the official size)
• 100 kW (watt = 1 joule/second = 1 newton*meter/second = 1 kilogram*meter^2/second^3 : obviously this is a metric unit)

Metric is being used in US. However, Metric will not be accepted until we can measure distance in km, weight in kg, height in m, volumes in L, temperatures in C. When people can think in terms such that the speed limit is 90 kmph, their weight is 80 kg, they are 1.8 meters tall, and their car is only getting 10 km per liter, then meric will be allowed to succeed. Metric can not work in the US unless everyday people use if for everyday things. Until then, we will have to use google to convert (it is 32 C today).

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's simpler because you used a common divisor (1000). You could just as easily written 2/8 + 1/8 = 3/8, and have it be just as sensible.

Personally, I find quarters to be the most natural way to divide things up. I wish we all used a base-4 system. In fact, the US monetary system does close to that (mix of 4 and 5), if you look at common denominations:

base: .01 (penny)
x5 = .05 (nickel)
x5 = .25 (quarter)
x4 = 1 dollar bill
x5 = 5 dollar bill
x4 = 20 dollar bill
x5 = 100 dollar bill
etc, etc

symantics

[seamusfp]

Root 2 is an irrational number, so saying that the aspect ratio is root 2 is a by definition false. though the 297/210 ratio is equal to root 2 to 4 or 5 signifigant figures.

Re:symantics

[Zork the Almighty]

What about if I construct the square root of 2, using a compass and straight-edge. What will you say then ?

Re:symantics

[s_wardman]

The actual paper sizes are determined by root 2, then rounded.

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[Anonymous Coward]

fortnight?

Metric vs Imperial/English

[pxpt]

At school I was taught to use the metric system of measurements. Now I'm older and doing DIY I tend to use imperial measurements. They seem to be just the right type of units for measuring wood etc. I still use metric for everything else its just that imperial is so darn convenient.

The ISO A4,A3 etc paper sizes have an aesthetically pleasing ratio of width to height. I always thought they based on the golden ratio or something that artists and ancient Greek mathematicians use.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[blobglob]

Exactly. I think it's all to do with upbringing and reluctance to change.

I was born and live in England, and was brought up on the metric system. If anything, I hate the fact that "English measurements" is always used to refer to the older, mostly less sensible system (with the exception of in the construction inductry, from what I hear).

As for paper sizes, I had absolutely no idea that you people over the Atlantic used something other than the familiar metric paper size system. In fact, I had no idea that A4, A3, and so on were metric - I thought they were just the common paper measurements.

Not English

[Gonoff]

The metric sizes preserve aspect ratio, the english sizes do not

The sizes of paper you use are not English. In England, and the rest of this country, we use the international standard that includes A4. I suspect that you can buy other standards but I have no idea whatI would have to do if I needed "letter" or "legal" size paper.

Re:Not English

[beanyk]

The sizes of paper you use are not English. In England, and the rest of this country, we use the international standard that includes A4.

This confused me for a while after moving to the U.S. from Ireland. When they say "English" here about units of measurement, they mean what we call "Imperial".

Re:Not English

[WhyCause]

Actually, not quite. For example, When I ask for a pint and get a glass with a bulge it is (usually) an Imperial pint (i.e., 20 fluid ounces). A a stright-walled glass is a U.S. pint (or English), and is, sadly, only 16 fluid ounces.

Distinctions are made between the 'English' (or U.S.) and 'Imperial' systems of measure, it's just that most people do not often run into the Imperial system except at bars, and debating the differences between measurement systems is no way to pick up chics.

Re:Not English

[Spudley]

Not only do we not use 'English' paper sizes in England, but we never used them.

Before we adopted A4 as our standard printer paper, typing paper was generally sold here in the wonderfully named Foolscap page size.

It was only a few years ago that stationery shops in England stopped selling Foolscap paper... around about the same time that Inkjet printers finally killed the market for dot matrix.

It was standardised printer models that killed off the Foolscap standard.

Re:Not English

[Kulaid982]

"PC Load Letter? What the fuck does that mean?!?"

Re:Not English

[jepaton]

For myself, it usually means I've forgotton to switch from letter -> A4 before printing. PC stands for Paper Cassette.

Re:Not English

[BuckaBooBob]

Well if the US would stop holding up the bandwagon Letter and legal would thier closest Metric Equiv.. and you would probably still use those terms to describe them... and Canada is metric.. its required to have metric on everything that has measurements (also in French :) )... We live too close to the US which wont adopt Metric so we understand both systems..

Re:Not English

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that as "experimentation" into the relative merits of Imperial or US pints of beer continues, debate tends to deteriorate.

Sometimes quite significantly.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you buy coke in grams but dope in ounces (or fractions thereof). Or so I've heard.

Metric Fonts...

[grimace1969]

Metric paper is great but Points and Picas are based on the inch, how do they size fonts in metric?

-G

Speaking as an european...

[^DA]

This means that you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly, and two sheets of A3 will equal an A2. well....duh!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Bastian]

Methinks the trick is to get schools to use metric.

To me, all this transitioning seems half-hearted, since we're still raising our kids to prefer 'standard' units. If they're taught metric in schools first, then when they get to 'standard' they should immediately see it as the baneful monstrosity it is. Once they grow up, we'd finally have a public that prefers metric, and the transition would be easy.

WHAT?

[Galvatron]

I don't know about you, but I have no problem picking up a single grain of rice with a fork. In fact, I'd say it's just the opposite: I can do everything with a fork that I can with chopsticks, and more.

Re:WHAT?

[tverbeek]

I can do everything with a fork that I can with chopsticks, and more.

How do you play the piano with a fork?

Re:WHAT?

[iceburn]

How do you play the piano with a fork?

How do you tune a piano with chopsticks?

Why not golden ratio paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, seriously. Golden rectangles are aesthetically pleasing and should have enough fun properties to write articles about.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[ozbird]

The metric system is the tool of the devil!

But A4 paper has hidden biblical references... (From the pulling-numbers-out-of-my-butt dept.)

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[3riol]

There's no good reason to go to the expense and trouble of switching from English to metric all at once.

Well, it's about the only way for it to work. The metric system has already been standard in the US for several generations and people still seem to use nothing but unwieldy units from the middle-ages and whatever-base-fractions.

Most importantly, switching to metric would allow you to actually understand and be understood by people from (the rest of) the civilised world. Same applies for temperatures in Fahrenheit degrees, which no-one uses outside the USA anymore, and hardly anyone understands. I was actually recently amazed to notice that there were kitchen appliances in the USA displaying temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit...

Come on, if even Japan, which uses an incompatible mobile phone system and 110V sockets, uses the metric system, it shouldn't be difficult to follow the British lead (they invented these units) and switch... ;-)

I'm sure a lot of people here are used to using standard units in science anyway...wouldn't it be nice to have units that relate logically to Degrees Kelvin, Amperes, Volts, Joules, Litres...? ^-^

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[mog007]

Does that also apply to numberology? For example will the comma be replaces by the period or space in large numbers? Will "billion" be replaced by "thousand million"?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Chucklz]

After working in a lab for a few years, using SI units of course, I feel like a math cripple when someone asks me to do anything with English weights/volumes. Example, how many gallons of water do I need to fill my 1600 cubic yard pool ?

One small part of the US does use metric

[Jon_Hanson]

There is one part of the US that actually uses metric. The I-19 that runs between Tucson, Arizona and the Mexican border has all of its distances in metric ("...next exit 500 m"). However, all of the speed limit signs are still imperial. Can you imagine what would happen if those were in metric as well? "I can do 120 on this road now?"

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much more cost-effective to do it over the space of a couple generations rather than all at once.

Great, i'd like to apply that also for other switching. Here in Ireland (where I live now), they drive in "proper" side of the road, on the continent (read: Europe) where I come from they drive on the "right" side of the road. Lets do the switch over a couple of generations too. Everybody born after 1980 will drive on the right side, everybody else... eh, nevermind.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[BasilBrush]

The OP didn't know either. Otherwise he wouldn't have thought dividing a pound by 6 was trivial. 16 ounces are in a pound, so divisors like 4 and 8 work well but not 6. He was probably thinking it was the same as inches in a foot.

It's far easier to remember metric to metric conversion factors than imperial to imperial. With metric it's always 10, 100 or 1000. Again Metric demonstrates it's superiority.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[poot_rootbeer]

504 gallons to go 1 mile!

Yep, sounds like a True American car to me.

Re:Canada does use Metric

[Anonymous Coward]

True, we do use metric, but we kind of do it half assed. I have never seen A4 paper for sale, granted, I'm not in the printing business, but I have bought a few reams of paper over the last few years. We are still trying to fully accept the metric system. We still rate cars by miles per gallon, even though your odometer is in KM, and you buy fuel by the litre. OK they list it also as litres per 100 kilometers, but who the hell knows what that means? We sell meat in stores in dollars per 100 grams, but the labeling usually has a price per pound equivalent as well. In a restraunt, your steak is always an "xx ounce yy type steak" not a 350 gram porterhouse. This continues for so many cases it is hard to list them all. Through school, as far back as I can recall, everything was taught in metric, yet we still refer to many weights and distances in imperial measurments. Odd, eh?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

They're hard to do addition and subtraction with. (But a little faster for multiplication and division.)

1/4 + 1/8 = 3/8 doesn't make sense (1+1=3???) .25 + .125 = .375 makes sense.

They are not hard to do when you know the rules. If you are adding/subtracting fractions, it is not that hard to change 1/4 to 2/8, then it becomes very easy:

2/8 + 1/8 = 3/8

Makes sense now?

I'm not arguing which is better, just noting that you make the above out to be alot harder than it really is.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

The Reagan administration conspired with powerful interests...

Damn you, Stone-cutters!

May I offer you a tinfoil hat?

Eh!?! A4's wider but shorter

[DABANSHEE]

I distinctly remember when Australia replaced foolscap with A4, & the A4 sheets were squatter. Foolscap being about 200x330mm, while A4's about 210x300mm.

Foolscap being the standard Imperial letter size, or don't tell me, a US 'letter' is different from a Imperial 'letter'???

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[BasilBrush]

Yet again ignorance and xenophobia walk hand-in-hand.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Paulrothrock]

That's weird. I'm in south central PA (Harrisburg) and I can't find anything under $1.90/gal

American units of paper weight

[xyote]

are confusing also. There's one for ordinary paper and one for card stock, and they're both in pound units.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

while we leave to you the tedious job of posting stupid uninformed comments. Sounds like a deal.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[megarich]

We're just a stubborn nation. Also, I was talking about this when someone at work and he makes a valid point in that the economics involved would be huge. Virtually everything would have to be changed over from screws to socket wrenches to containers to road signs, etc. Doing a switch over would literally take years and probably confuse alot of people in the process....

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Because marijuana is usualy produces in backward british ex-colonies, cocaine on the other hand...eh, forget it.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[king-manic]

A lot of cientists do pick up english, so they can support their work at important confrences and symposiums.

US Flag proportions

[t1deman]

I wonder what proportions the US flag has? Why don't you guys take your metric system, fly up to the moon and measure it.

Fscking metric system. When's the last time I was sitting around wishing I could make a legal sheet of paper by taping together 2 letter sheets?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

[Parent discusses the fact that 12 can be more easily divided by more denominators than 10 can, while comparing building stuff thats one foot or one meter (which is a factor of three or so off]

Yes, and while that's true it's more a function of the number than the unit. And for that reason a standard "building module" in Europe is 60 centimeters (or rather 600 millimetres).

That beats your 23.622 inches hands down. :-). Seriously, we used to use the inch (not quite the US one but close enough) for quite a bit longer when building, I still remember as a boy when the carpenters folding rulers where switched from having both inches and millimeters to just millimeters, and people will still speak of a "two-by-four", but it's all gone away. It's just so much more convenient to build stuff in metric. Trust me. (And don't get me started on machinery, imperial is just evil there.)

P.S. And being a traditionallist (and many with me) I still only buy folding rulers with the inch/metric marking, as the purely metric one just "doesn't look right". I feeling others share, since they put the old style back into production ten years back or so.

SR sizes used in real world

[Andy_R]

The article mentions SR series paper sizes, but doesn't really go into detail about how and why they are used.

Printing presses require a sacrificial bit of extra paper that they grip the sheet by, and also a bit to be cut off the sides to create the effect that ink goes right up to the edge of the page, so commmercial paper is actually bought in SR sizes, not A sizes.

SR sizes are trimmable to the same number A series, so SRA3 trims easily to A3 or two A4s. The fact that SR paper is always going to be trimmed means you can store it without as much care and attention to not damaging the edges, and the paper seller can get away with being less accurate with the cutting and accuracy of 90 degree corners.

Since only commerical printers tend to buy SR sizes, it's quite common for trade prices or bulk discounts to apply to all SR sizes automatically, so it's often cheaper than the smaller A series it gets trimmed down to, which can save you a lot of money when purchasing paper.

Yet another reason for the EUROPE to switch to SAE

[NachoDaddy]

Acadamia and thier holyier than thou attitude can always come up with a reason why metric is better, but they fail to see the practicality of switching the worlds largest economic force to a new system of measurement. Attempting to mix the two is not healthy. I seem to recall a space shuttle disaster that was the result of a conversion from SI to SAE. Engineering is not on board with metric either. Most stuff designed in the US uses inches, mils, etc. The paper size thing is a joke. Only valid argument I have read here is when scaling down an A3 to an A4, it fits a little better. The cost to retool the entire US paper industry, packaging, and printing for one small 'neato' benfit does not make sense.

US greenbacks

[whovian]

Well, the aspect ratio is 3:7, or about about 0.3 * sqrt(2). Ha! I finagled sqrt(2) in there somewhere!

Another neat topic would be the reasons for different countries' paper money sizes.

About the gram

[Anonymous Coward]

(Kilo)gram is a unit of mass, not weight.

Re:About the gram

[Black Acid]

(Kilo)gram is a unit of mass, not weight.

This is correct. The metric unit of weight is the newton. Imperial pounds measure weight; the imperial unit for mass is the slug.

LPT i

[poot_rootbeer]

Square root of two? Big deal. ALl of MY paper has an aspect ratio of square root of NEGATIVE ONE!

Saves a lot of toner that way.

2 things

[CdnShaggy]

First off, maybe the slightly smaller papersize will reduce the total amount of paper used. As far as the metric system goes, I use it up here untill it comes to wood, and cable length. 4x8 sheet of ply, 300ft of wire. Mostly because of being an American product, and that we work with american crews all the time. Hate to confuse them. As far as why to switch. It makes sense. Everything is a division/multiplication of 10. I can ALMOST figure out why you used 12 inches instead of 10 to make a foot. But why use such an odd number of feet to make a mile? 5240 Not even 5000. Km is 1000meters, half a km is 500, how many feet in a quarter mile ? Nothing makes sense, at that level.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

What my profs in engineering school pointed out was the huge investment in machinery and tooling that would have to be discarded in order to adopt new thread sizes, wrenches, gauges, etc.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

...because it's not American.

Even worse, its Un-American! Invented by French. We do not need it here.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[merdark]

True. And, by the same logic, all other scientists should forget their native language and learn English.

English already IS the language of science. Non-english sicentists do write all their papers in english (with a few exceptions no dobut).

This does not require those scientists to forget their native languages either.

The problem with the US is important companies institutes still write their papers in SI rather than metric. But hey, maybe you LIKE losing probes due to such stupidity.

US standard paper sizes also double

[Secrity]

Funny how you can double non-metric paper sizes and get a standard paper size too:

A folded and trimmed 8 1/2" x 11" page = 5" x 8" (a standard page size).

Two 8 1/2" x 11" pages = 11" x 17" (a standard bond paper size).

Two 11" x 17" pages = 17" x 22" (the standard Bond paper size for determining basis weight).

Re:US standard paper sizes also double

[Stavr0]

No they are not proper doubles:
5/8 (0.625) != 8.5/11 (0.7727) != 11/17 (.647) != 17/22 (0.7727)
However 8.5/11 == 17/22 (4:1)

The point is you don't need to trim ISO paper sized

Re:US standard paper sizes also double

[SquarePants]

I beg to differ. Who cares whether they are "proper" doubles (whatever that means). The parent's point is that the doubling form size to size is not limited to "euro-sized" paper.

Two "A" size sheets make a standard "B" size sheet. Two "B"s make a "C", two "C"s make a "D" and two "D"s make an "E". In other words, you can get exactly 16 sheets of "A" size out of a single sheet of "E" ... no trimming.

I went through 4 years of engineering school never having to "trim" or use ISO sized paper. The only way I know this is that I always had trouble remembering the exact dimensions of anything except "A" size and you can figure them out easilly just by doubling.

Re:US standard paper sizes also double

[multi io]

I beg to differ. Who cares whether they are "proper" doubles (whatever that means).

It means that the aspect ratio (W/H) does not change when folding or doubling sheets, which is the prerequisite for not having to re-layout anything and at the same time not wasting any space on the paper. This only works if H/W==sqrt(2).

US bashing is boring

[cascadingstylesheet]

Well, to me, anyway.

Lot's of things make sense in an abstract sort of way. That doesn't necessarily mean that they make sense to do, in a given situation.

Frankly, for most purposes our paper sizes suit us just fine. We may switch over some day, when we're good and ready. Probably it will be piecemeal. Yawn. If it makes you feel better about yourself to crow about friggin paper sizes, have at it.

There are often reasons for things, you see, if only historical. Take phones - we don't get all worked up about wireless the way you do, because we've had an awesome wired infrastructure for, oh, approximately as long as there have been wires.

Ah well, have fun :) I'll probably get called something for replying to US-bashing, as though it were me pushing my ways down your throat.

Re:US bashing is boring

[zpok]

yeah well, US bashing is boring, but reading interesting historical tidbits isn't. So what's your problem?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Sizes of new car engines are now almost always quoted in metric. No more 269 cu in V8 it's now 4.7 litre, no 347 cu in Hemi it's now the 5.7 litre hemi.

Speaking as an english man about the only good thing to come out of France was the metric system

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

and their car is only getting 10 km per liter,

Oh, we're even more evil than that in that we've got the rate the other way arround. The official EU standard is "litres per 100 km." :-)

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Delta-9]

" this is also the origin of "on the wagon" as one of the guards travelling with the prisoner was not allowed to enter the pubs with him. So couldn't drink, and had to stay on the wagon."

I followed your link to "The Idler" and that site tells a different tale about the origin of "on the wagon," quoted below:
--
"Incidentally this also is the origin of 'on the wagon', after finishing his drink from the last tavern before the gallows, the prisoner would be put 'on the wagon' for the last time, destined never to drink again before his death."

Ever heard of the Commonwealth?

[DABANSHEE]

Oz, New Zealand, India, South Africa & hundreds of Islands (plus maybe even Canada?), they were all quite used to Imperial but had no problems going over to metrics.

Admittedly I'm 39 & still think in feet 'n inches in regards height, even though Oz changed over in 1975, but Australians 10 years younger think 100% in metric measures. Even so in most measures I'm metric-centric, while in regards weights I'm as comfortable using kilos or stones.

Re:Ever heard of the Commonwealth?

[fish waffle]

Oz, New Zealand, India, South Africa & hundreds of Islands (plus maybe even Canada?), they were all quite used to Imperial but had no problems going over to metrics.

Actually, although Canada has switched to the metric system, it was not entirely an easy transition. People (businesses) had to be forced to use metric through threat of law. I (vaguely) recall tv images of a gas station owner avowing to never switch to metric, and being arrested for it.

But I'd agree that the US would not be (is not) even as willing to change. Witness the relative reactions to the introduction of the coins in place of paper currency. In the US the Susan B. Anthony dollar was shunned, whereas Canadians quite quickly took to the loonie.

It's kind of funny that americans would latch onto a system of measurement they inherited from a former enemy as some sort symbol of national identity.

Re:Ever heard of the Commonwealth?

[thogard]

Oz is in a mixed up state where people seem to be clueless about sizes of anything. Ask your coworkers how big the room they are in? See if any of them get it within 50%

The Aussie police tend to figure that if you report a suspect as 5'8, they will be in the range of 5'6 to 5'10 however if you report them as 170 cm, they will assume 150 to 190 cm.

Nevertheless... :-)

[xant]

It's unintentionally funny. The "English" system is also not American.

Throw them both out.. Go for the Jersey system!

irrational not irregular...

[Cryptnotic]

the same irregular number

It's an irrational number, meaning that it cannot be represented by a ratio of two integers. For any rational number r, there exist two integers x and y, such that x/y = r.

But anyway, regardless of the choice of a standard ratio of height to width, there will always be a need for other ratios of height to width. All you have to do is look at photography to see all kinds of weird ratios for film and print sizes (e.g., 4:5, 2:3, 4:3, 1:1, 6:17).

Re:irrational not irregular...

[Golias]

Mea Culpa. The last math class I took was over 15 years ago. My point is still valid even if my vocabulary was flawed.

Re:irrational not irregular...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking back, I see my orginal post has been slammed from 5 all the way down to 1 as "Flamebait." I guess it's now flamebait to point out facts which people don't want to acknowledge, such as:

1. The Metric System was mostly Napoleon's idea.

2. The measurement of the Earth used to determne the length of the meter (done by a pair of Frenchmen who were sloppy and careless) was incorrect.

3. Grades of "Standard" ("English", "Impirial" whatever) measurement units tend to be based on how people use them (i.e. paper sizes based on what suits the desires of the printing industry), while metric units rigidly scale according to base-10, which makes the math easier for engineering applications, but is not always the ideal for other situations.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it not a fact. Your just America bashing. The idea that Americans don't accept anything that wasn't invented hear is the stupidest thing I've read in long time. There are tons of items and concepts that were not specifically invented here that Americans use every day.

What you think the day the Declaration of Independance was signed there was ban on adopting all ideas and cultural practices from the rest of World? Um Okay.

FYI the metric system is being used in the US. In fact it was legalized as a form of measurement by Congress in 1866. They also passed the the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act in 1988 "which designates the metric system of measurement as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce."
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/usme tric.html

Anyway, nice Troll. You've unsuccessfully tried to paint every single American as acting the same way and believing the same things. Its bad enough when Trolls try to say every Slashdoter thinks the same way. Saying an entire country does it just makes you look like a jackass.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[bw5353]

The metric system is definitely superiour in most situations. But consider that one computer bit is 125 millibyte.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[BasilBrush]

You're using our measurements already. Various imperial meaasures originated in various parts of Europe, the Middle East and Africa, before being collected together by the English and adopted by the Americans. You are using our old and outdated system. ;-)

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[aggieeit]

It's all well and good to say, "Hey, it's easier to do unit conversions within the SI system, so it must be a better system. Let's get everyone to start using it." As I see it, the problem is teaching people to think in a new system. Even in my work, I'll look at a metric drawing and think, "This ship is 30480 millimeters wide, so that's, ummm... oh yeah, 100 feet." Teaching the SI system should be treated just like teaching a foreign language in order to get to a point where you don't even need tp try to "translate" an SI measurement back into the English system.

The summer before my junior year of college, I worked for the state Department of Transportation. At the time they were putting forth a huge effort to start engineering and building new projects using SI units. It proved to be a nightmare for the engineers and designers (re-stationing the entire highway system, brand new design standards) as well as the construction inspectors, guys who had spent 30 years of their professional lives thinking of truck loads of dirt in terms of cubic yards suddenly being forced to start thinking in tonnes. Needless to say, when I went back two years later, everything had reverted back to English units.

Re:Neat - Excellant Karma Whoring Troll

[the MaD HuNGaRIaN]

Dude...you obviously didn't follow any of the links in the examples given. Grade A major troll.

s/Sigh.../$THISPOST

[ChristTrekker]

"It's one-sixteenth of a square meter with 1-by-root-2 proportions, you insensitive clod!"

dates

[ivano]

i can handle your bad spelling and your weird paper siZes, but the amount of time and waste i had debugging software and using a innumerable amount of Java classes just to deal with dates would st&agger an american. why? why? why did you need to recorrect a date format? you purposely thought "lets fuck up every single program not developed in america for americans that tries to insert dates into a database" there is no reason why you guys needed a new date system "but it makes so much sense May 9, 2004" who gives a fuck. i'm talking about databases, programs, things that need to talk to each other to make our modern world work. but no you just had to throw a spanner in the works. and you guys probably think "would of" is good english ciao and rot in hell

Re:dates

[Pope]

"Hey Kettle, you're black." - Pot

Re:dates

[Enucite]

You're both wrong, it makes the most sense to say 2004, May 9.

Take a look at RFC 3339

Re:dates

[Christopher Whitt]

Of course, that RFC is based on, and explicitly refers to the more authoritative ISO 8601 standard, which makes so much sense that I sometimes feel like printing it out, rolling it up and beating some Americans over the head with it.

Re:dates

[Lars T.]

The FAQ that on the line 5th says "July 2002", not " 2002, July"?

Re:dates

[DunbarTheInept]

In computer databases, I always use year,month,day, and so does every other American I've met who programs. The only time the weird month,day,year order is used is when displaying to a user or receiving input from a user. Once inside the database, it's ordered the right way around (which is neither how Americans nor Europeans write it).
So it's only relevant in the user interface, and nowhere else. It's no different than the problem of taking an input like "7:30 pm" and converting that into "19:30" (or seconds since epoch, or whatever you use) for internal purposes.

Re:dates

[Enucite]

Thanks, that's actually what I wanted to post, but only had a link to the RFC handy.

Re:dates

[Anonymous Coward]

the more authoritative ISO 8601 standard,

Damn straight, and it's language neutral too. And it sorts perfectly. YYYY-MM-DD. Worship it. Then feel incredibly silly.

- an American Coward.

Re:dates

[efti]

In computer databases, I always use year,month,day, and so does every other American I've met who programs. The only time the weird month,day,year order is used is when displaying to a user or receiving input from a user. Once inside the database, it's ordered the right way around (which is neither how Americans nor Europeans write it).

Well, some Europeans do use this format... I'm from Hungary, and this is how we've always written our dates. For example, 5:20PM on 29th October 2004 is written like:

2004 Október 29. 17:20

I therefore propose that Hungarian should become the official language of the Internet. It's a perfectly sensible language and at least 10 million people speak it already.

I'll submit an RFC (in Hungarian) for this end. If I don't receive any feedback, then it shall become an official IETF recommendation and I will rule the world! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

There used to be a 8.5x10.5 in the US as well!

[bob_shoggoth]

There used to be a 8-1/2x10-1/2 paper size that competed with the 8-1/2x11 paper size, so be glad that was thrown out!

I snared the following from the American Forest & Pulp Association website.

---

Why is the standard paper size in the U.S. 8 ½" x 11"?

Back in the late 1600's, the Dutch invented the two-sheet mold. The average maximum stretch of an experienced vatman's arms was 44". Many molds at that time were around 17" front to back because the laid lines and watermarks had to run from left to right. Sounds big?...well to maximize the efficiency of paper making, a sheet this big was made, and then quartered, forming four 8.5" x 11" pieces.

This was well before paper machines dominated hand made paper labor. A couple centuries later when machines dominated the trade (although many hand made paper makers still existed), and the United States decided on a standard paper size, they stuck with the same size so as to keep the hand made paper makers in business.

Oddly enough, the United States used two different sizes - the 8" x 10.5" and the 8.5" x 11". Separate committees came up with separate standards, the 8" x 10.5" for the government and the 8.5" x 11" for the rest of us. Once these committees found out about each other a couple years later, they agreed to disagree until the early 1980's when Reagan finally proclaimed that the 8.5" x 11" was the official standard sized paper.

United States History

Not until World War I or shortly after was a standard paper size agreed to in the United States. Interestingly enough, within six months of each other, two different paper sizes were set as the standard; one for the government and one for the rest of us.

1. In 1921, the first director of the Bureau of the Budget established an interagency advisory group with the President's approval called the Permanent Conference on Printing which established the 8" x 10½" as the general U.S. government letterhead standard. This extended an earlier establishment made by the former President Hoover, the Secretary of Commerce at the time, who established the 8" x 10½" as the standard letterhead size for his department.

2. Now, during the same year, a Committee on the Simplification of Paper Sizes consisting of printing industry representatives was appointed to work with the Bureau of Standards as part of Hoover's program for the Elimination of Waste in Industry. This group came up with basic sizes for all types of printing and writing papers. The size for "letter" was a 17" x 22" sheet while the "legal" size was 17" x 28" sheet. The later known U.S. letter format was these sizes halved (8 ½" x 11" and 8 ½" by 14").

Even in the selection of the 8 ½" x 11", no special analysis was made to prove this was the optimum size for commercial letterhead. The Committee that developed the sizes did so using one objective - "to reduce inventory requirements for paper into sizes which would cut from a minimum trimming waste."

References:

1. Labarre Dictionary of Paper and Paper-Making Terms, 1937 Edition.

2. Kuhn, Markus . 1996. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

3. Dunn, A. D. 1972. Notes on the Standardization of Paper Sizes. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/dunn-paper sizes.pdf

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[3riol]

Well, not so fast.

Both Canada and the United Kingdom have officialised the metric system very recently, and it's in the process of public adoption now...

They're industrialised, adoption isn't easy, but it certainly isn't impossible. Most of Europe just switched to the Euro, after all, and it seems that the advantages of having a standard currency far outweigh a few months of having to calculate. Having a committed government helps.

By the way, the UK changed its entire currency system in 1971 from the old Pound/Shilling/Pence system to decimal.

It's legal in the USA to use the metric system for everything, too. Who can dispute the beauty of a rational, unified standard system of measurement? ^.-

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 320 rods to the mile, and 84 gallons to the hogshead, so you're only getting about 0.0015 MPG. My car gets over 800000 R/H.

You Europeans and your perfect ratios...

[default luser]

Funny that, I always thought the A6 was TWICE the car the A4 was, and the A8 was THREE TIMES the car the A4 was.

At least, that's the impression you got from the sticker price. YOWZA!

But once you get a good look at them, you realize that 1.46 * A4 = A6, and 2.68 * A4 = A8. You crazy Europeans always have such inconsistent conversion factors!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there is nothing more American than apple pie, the apple pie recipe is considered sacred.

Hehe.. BUT apple pie is not really american :)

Quote: The origin of most customs and foods in America can be traced to Europe. The same is true of American Apple Pie. Not to upset the founding fathers, but apple pie, is not really American at all...

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[3riol]

Right, forgot a small addition: if I understand correctly, a significant part of US industry and engineering already use the metric system, so there would not be a large infrastructure problem.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[flying_mushroom]

That's what has been done in the UK (as far as I know). Stuff is still being measured in miles per hour and feet and inches, but the majority of the younger generation is more aware and ready to use the metric system.

The Conservatives, however, keep making this an issue of "national identity" (?) and resist any attempts to try and make it more common.

Apparently it will make you French if you buy 33cl bottle of beer instead of a pint... <sigh>

Like the QWERTY?

[Anonymous Coward]

It surely won against Dvorak.

I always find it funny when it comes to the...

[xystren]

metric system, being a Canadian down in the states, with my car, when I give people rides and such, they always look at the speed-o-meter/odometer and the outside temp gague and say, geez, I didn't think it was that cold, or geez your car has a high top speed....

I always reply, "That's how cold it is and how fast we have to move in the *REST* of the world"

I generally get a dirty look at that point [LOL]

Wrong

[ChrisMaple]

The density of water is defined as 1 at its maximum, 3.98 degrees C. Zero would be a poor choice, because water likes to freeze there and its density changes drastically. (Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 58th edistion, page F11)

Re:Wrong

[chris_mahan]

Yeah, well, that was a stretch already for US people. I'm glad you striaghtenes us out, at least :)

Re:Wrong

[powderfinger]

Also wrong.

Both the metre and the kilogram are base units
in the SI system. Neither are defined in terms of
the density of water. The density of water is NOT
defined to be 1 under any circimstances.

Re:Wrong

[thorgil]

ahhhh, but the kilogram was based on the mass of 1 litre of pure water at ~4 degrees Celsius.
giving it the density of 1.

Re:Wrong

[dbIII]

Zero would be a poor choice, because water likes to freeze there

Phase changes take energy - you don't get instant ice the second the water hits zero, you have to remove a lot of energy before the water goes solid and the temperature starts going below zero again. The density stays the same until you have ice - mush IS ice in water, you don't get instant mush either.

Re:Wrong

[Guppy06]

"but the kilogram was based on the mass of 1 litre of pure water"

Yeah... until 1889 at the latest. Might want to get with the times. Oh, and we don't base the second on the length of the year 1900 any more, either.

"at ~4 degrees Celsius."

Why, look! It's our good friend Circular Logic!

1. The density of water varies not only with temperature but also with pressure. It's not important for most applications, but should definitely be considered when you're trying to make a standard of measurement.
2. Basing pressure off of local atmospheric pressure at some point on the earth's surface is unfeasable due to weather. You'll need to have a standardized pressure independent of geography and the like, based solely on some independent force per unit area.
3. Force is based on mass
4. Your mass standard is based on the mass of water at some given temperature and pressure
5. GOTO 10

Can you see now why we gave up on that idea and why our current practice of copies of copies of copies of an artifact is actually both more useful and more accurate?

Re:Wrong

[Guppy06]

"(Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 58th edistion, page F11)"

Just because it's in a book doesn't make it right. At best it's out-of-date. From the horse's mouth:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

The kilogram is the unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram.

The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water.

The temperature in degrees Celsius is further defined as the temperature in Kelvin offset by 273.15 (putting the triple point of water at 0.01 degrees C).

And according to the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, the density of air-free water at 4.0 degrees Celsius is 0.999972 g/(cm^3), which is the same number you get at the same accuracy from 3.8 degrees C to 4.2 degrees C. 0.999972 != 1

Re:Wrong

[Calroth]

Put another way, at zero degrees C, liquid water stays liquid and ice stays ice. (This is a simplification, so if you respond and add detail, you're missing my point.)

Re:Wrong

[vrt3]

It's not defined that way. The reason is also wrong: if you wanted to define the density of water this way, you would choose that temperature because at that temperature (and standard atmospheric pressure), the density of water is at its maximum, and closest to 1 kg/l (but still less, with the difference showing at the 4th or 5th place after the decimal point IIRC). Both at heigher and lower temperatures, the density increases.

Re:Wrong

[Rich0]

The density of water also varies based on the purity of the water - both chemically and isotopically. As a result, it is a poor standard for mass. If two labs were to try to prepare a 1 kg standard using water, they'd come up with values that vary significantly based on the metal alloy that is the real standard...

Re:Wrong

[dbIII]

Put another way, at zero degrees C, liquid water stays liquid and ice stays ice.

Obviously not - ice does melt and water does freeze. Once the ice melts completely or the water freezes completely any furthur change in energy can then change the temperature of the material. Impuritities change this, so you get pure water freezing first out of your orange juice.

This is a simplification, so if you respond and add detail

No - it's just wrong.

Screwdrivers...

[cr0sh]

It might have to do with "farm mentality" - not that it is wrong.

Basically, both phillips and standard screws/screwdrivers can be easily made on a farm (or in the garage or shop) with a minimum of special tools - a standard screw can simply be notched on one end, and a flat piece of metal can turn it. Same with phillips (two notches and a small dimple, and a nail's pointed end reworked with some common tools and grinder to give you a "phillips" screwdriver).

Such cannot be said with other forms of fasteners. I have never heard of "Robertson screws" (hmm - googling shows a square inset with square bits - screwdrivers could be improvised on the farm, but the the screws themselves couldn't - still, I have seen such screws, now I know the name for them - thanks!) - personally I prefer Torx (at least those can sometime be removed with hex bits and wrenches of the right size).

Re:Screwdrivers...

[WormholeFiend]

what makes Robertson's better is that you can put a screw on the screwdriver and it'll stay there without falling at lower angles than the Philips... and the square shape is also less likely to fray, compared with the cross angles of the Philips.

Re:Screwdrivers...

[cr0sh]

I agree this is an important property (having worked on more than a few PC's and "losing" screws by having them fall off my screwdriver while cursing, I can attest to this!). I also agree with the "anti-strip" feature such a head shape would have. There is always plenty of room for improvement in fastner design - but you are always going to run up against the "tried and true" (regardless of how well they work in practice), at least until enough time passes to render them completely obsolete (and for fasteners, that can be a very long time - it hasn't been too long in the history of things that nails look like they do today - and that is a very old fastening device).

Re:Screwdrivers...

[calidoscope]

what makes Robertson's better is that you can put a screw on the screwdriver and it'll stay there without falling at lower angles than the Philips... and the square shape is also less likely to fray, compared with the cross angles of the Philips.

You're missing one of the chief advantages of the Phillips - that the screwdriver will cam-out when the screw is all the way in. For situations where cam-out is undesirable, typical American practice is to use hex pattern and Allen wrenches (which are available in both "english" and metric sizes).

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[aaron_ds]

My car gets forty rods to the hogshead
1.10229*10^-4 miles/gallon?
You must be driving an SUV.

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[Anonymous Coward]

And the meter, is that a thermometer, a barometer, or a perimeter?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[efagerho]

I don't think this is any different than what most Europeans had to get used to when countries changed their currency to the Euro. To me it took about a year before I could start thinking in Euros. For example if someone told me that xxx cost yyy euros, I had to convert the number to Finnish marks, so that I could tell if it's cheap or not. Now I don't have to do that anymore.

It would be a pain at first, but people do get used to it.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[BasilBrush]

It'll certainly make you more sober. Which may explain the high levels of drunkenness in the average UK city center on a friday night compared with the continent. ;-)

America will never use metric because...

[vapor22]

..FOOTBALL

Yes people. America CAN and WILL keep an antiquated measuring system JUST for football.

I'm an engineering student and I use metric all the freaking time. I love metric. I get pissed when my professors don't use metric in their problems forcing me to convert.

But seriously, what does a car traveling at 88km/hr or 25m/s mean to you? I can tell you that it means nothing to me. I have no internal frame of reference for anything metric. But I do know what 55mph is and so does everyone else in America.

Metric will ALWAYS fail for that reason.
----

Re:America will never use metric because...

[SharpFang]

Well, if you lived in Europe you'd very well know 88km/h is enough that the police will detect you're speeding but won't bother to stop you because you're low enough above the margin, plus in case of accident you stand quite a decent chance of survival, so it is a very reasonable speed to travel :) For me, 60mph is rather meaningless, 5ft7in tall is completely meaningless. 150cm is a shortie, 200 is a big badass, 175 is just average.

Re:America will never use metric because...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean PAPER football?

Missing the joke

[phord]

It's not news; it's funny.

Inconsistent use of SI units and international standard paper sizes remain today a primary cause for U.S. businesses failing to meet the expectations of the global economy.

Bwaaaa-haa-haa-ha-ha-ha!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[xsbellx]

As a Canadian of a certain age, I have gone through the grand metric flip. When I was but a child (most would say that hasn't chnaged), I learned the Imperial system in school (160 ounces in a gallon versus 132).

Around about the time I was 13 years old, the metric came into play. Temperature was now reported in something called Celcius and milk was purchased in litres rather than quarts or gallons. Guess what, everyone, including my grandparents soon learned that 32C was hot not freezing, 16C was comfortable, 15cm of snow was not really worth getting excited about and a 5kg bag of potatoes had a few more potatoes than a 10 pound bag.

The only thing that I still find VERY confusing is the way fuel consumption is reported. Gone is the familiar Miles/Gallon where bigger is better only to be replaced by Liters/100Km where smaller is better!

I am sure there is a conspiracy or two lurking there somewhere.

In India it's unlawful to use English system

[Anonymous Coward]

For all government and public sector organisations, it's actually unlawful to use non-metric system with stiff penalties

Keep the English system to yourself

[Halden]

Don't lump Canadians in with the Yanks. We use Metric!

Re:Keep the English system to yourself

[BlacKat]

Yes, we do, but we do NOT use metric paper sizes up here by default, which was the point of the article.

I was introduced to metric paper when I lived in the UK for four years, and I do have to say that the ability to scale up/down evenly is quite a nifty feature of the system.

Re:Keep the English system to yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Englishman, I would like to point out that US paper sizes are NOT English. I am old enough to remember what we used in England before A4 etc. came in. It was sizes like Quarto (10"x8") and Foolscap (13"x8") - although these sizes are cut paper sizes. The same name applied to larger sizes, when these are aimed at printing, when allowance needs to be made for trimming, e.g. after folding to form a book.

Also, the correct term for the measurement system using Feet, Inches, Pounds etc. is the Imperial system. That's the British Empire, of course.

Actually...

[cr0sh]

This number is otherwise known as the "golden ratio", it was discovered back in classical Greece and it was known to be the most aesthetically pleasing of all ratios. The Parthenon in Athens was built so that its length and width were dictated by this ratio, it was also used by many Renaissance artists to draw the human body so it seems "perfect".

These supposed "truisms" are actually mostly false - most are due to attempting to find the ratio where it didn't exist in the first place (ala Hoagland's "City of Mars" "mathematical layout", the Great Pyramid's "mathematical layout", etc)...

If you want a great book on the subject of the phi, check out the book "The Golden Ratio" by Mario Livio (ISBN 0-7679-0816-3) to learn more about it than you would ever care to know...

Re:Actually...

[goon]

check out this article featured on plus magazine (maths web magazine by cambridge university - part of the millennuim mathematics programme.) by Livio entitled, "The golden ratio and aesthetics".

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[usrusr]

heh, and then they would still be alone with their fuel efficiency measurement, because everyone else uses liters per 100 kilometers.

ps: now the little hobby psychologist could argue that americans obviously want to know "i have x units of fuel, how far can i get away from here?" while the rest of the world thinks "i want to reach point B, how many units of fuel do i need?", but i don't feel really pushing this kind of argument today.

Another place we are all too familar with.

[sideshow]

Instead of 5ths Jack Daniels, along with all hard alcohol, comes in 750ML's.

Re:Another place we are all too familar with.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about engine sizes? They are given i Liters and not in gallons ;-)

Then stop the Stonecutters

[Snap E Tom]

Because everyone knows they're the ones keeping the metric system down.

As I look at my printer.

[/dev/trash]

I see the A4 and the 8.5x11 tick marks. They are very close to each other. How does that small area makeit easier to read a A4 paper?

Re:As I look at my printer.

[major.morgan]

It may not be much, but when you set margins and such, the perceived "tallness" of the paper seems to make much more "readable" layouts.

I will back up from claiming to speak for all others.

Re:Neat - Excellant Karma Whoring Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, pla.... I am actually one of your fans. You're right about MOST of those posts by Sarojin, but this one is really inexcusable:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106758&cid=909 1402

It's a link to his own web page, via a redirect through about.com, which opens up as many browser windows as it can (dozens and dozens of them, each opening more), of someone with a stream of diarrhea going into his own mouth.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who posts things like that should be sent into permanent -1 prison.

Re:Psst.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it's very pleasant that an A3 page folded in half is exactly the same size as an A4 page. root-two is just the mathematical means to that end.

Except that a skinny ratio is very unpleasant aesthetically, especially when it's your only choice. With the American system you have a more appealing 8.5:11 ratio and then a "widescreen" 11 x 17. As someone who only uses larger paper for artistic purposes, the American system wins out for me. As someone else pointed out, the metric system would be much better if it used the Golden Ratio. Even then, the lack of variety would bite a little.

One question for all you metric fans - if basing everything off of 10 is so great, why isn't the aspect ratio of metric paper 1:10?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[g1zmo]

I'm sure it's just because I'm used to the system, but in *my* head, adding those fractions is faster than adding the decimals. And I can visualize the fractions in my head much easier.

Plenty of people who deal with measurements every day (construction, machine shops, etc.) can very easily rattle off the sums of fractions from a tape measure.

"Cut that board 8 feet long, plus 2 1/2 inches for the top, 5/8" for spacing, 1 9/16" at the bottom and add 1 1/4" just to be sure."

What I absolutely hate is on cars that use a bastard mix of metric and standard sized bolts. My starter, from the factory, has a metric bolt on top and a standard bolt on the bottom. And it's like that all over the vehicle. Makes finding the right socket difficult sometimes.

What really blows my mind is when guys start mixing the two systems in the same measurement.

"Bore this hole out by seventy three thousandths of an inch."

Huh?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that the French, Afghani, and Iraqi people use the metric system. The average American is reactionary enough to reject it for that reason alone. Why, if our measuring system made sense like the rest of the world, that'd be the first step toward world government! Before you know it we wouldn't be able to blunder around with no regard for other cultures -- the beginning of the end of America as we know it.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

One more thing I didn't know. Is that standard practice across Europe? What about Asia, etc.?

That's great and all but

[Merk]

How many furlongs in a mile? How many inches in a mile? How many fluid ounces in a barrel? How many tablespoons in a quart? How many square feet in a square mile?

It's marginally easier to sub divide a foot into inches, but it's harder to divide a yard into feet, and you're really in trouble when you try to deal with something that's not a normal number of units away from the other thing.

If I want to convert from km to cm, it's easy. I just divide by 100,000. If I want to convert from miles to inches, it isn't nearly as easy. Metric is also far easier when you're doing conversions between types of measurement. If I have 2kg object travelling at 1km/s I know that it will have a kinetic energy of 0.5*2*(1000^2) = 1,000,000J = 1MJ. Easy, right? Try doing that with miles/s, pounds, and whatever energy unit you prefer.

Re:That's great and all but

[ratsnapple tea]

When would you ever convert from km to cm? The measurements are commonly used for entirely different purposes.

Printer Default Config

[Kenshin]

Metric paper sizes aren't used in Canada (unfortunately), so howcome whenever I install a printer its config settings always default to A4 sized paper instead of Letter?

Just an oddity. (I didn't even notice until the edges were wrong on some photos I was printing for a portfolio.)

English units

[old_unicorn]

The funny things in England we're half and half. A cold is around 0 or -2 (degrees C), but a hot days is in the 80's, 90's or even over 100. People talk stone when comparing weights, but put Kg on forms and for doctors. As we now buy fuel in litres, can "miles per litre" fuel consumption be far away?

The biggest reason the U.S.A. doesn't use metric

[GlobalEcho]

Though all the speculation about US backwardness and hostility toward foreign systems is certainly entertaining, there's a benign historical explanation that I find compelling. It goes something like this:

Recall that industrial mass production is essentially a 20th century invention, and that by the 1940's it still had not really spread beyond the U.S. and Europe. In World War II, most European industrial capacity was destroyed at one point or another, providing a clean slate to rethink standards for every industry, and to adopt logical standards with no switchover cost.

After WWII, Europe wisely went to the metric system. Developing countries wisely adopted it as well. But the U.S., with its factories intact (and now back to making cars and vacuum cleaners) was saddled (and remains cursed with) with tremendous switching costs. The expense in lost customers and supplier confusion is too great for a company in most industries to unilaterally change. And agreements to change all at once are very hard to achieve.

Empirical evidence:

Newer US major industries (e.g. semiconductors) usually work in metric

(As noted elsewhere) US science is in metric; because switchover costs are lower scientists could switch almost right away.

Well-meaning attempts to effect a switch have been ignored by industry (because of the cost)

US industries with a big international component are often metric (bicycle manufacture)

I suppose the conclusion to draw is that the US is unlikely to switch until either something destroys its industrial factories, or the "old" unswitched industries become so dwarfed by new metric ones that it is actually cheaper for them to change.

Just Wondering

[Tharian]

Would that be JIS or ISO papers?

(btw: Both stocks have the same property where an A3 paper cut in half would yield two sheets of A4. The main difference would be in the dimensions between the two similarly named stocks.)

Re:Just Wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

JIS A4 is ISO A4. JIS B4 on the other hand is derived from A4 and A3 differently than ISO B4 (one is the arithmetic mean of A4 and A3, the other geometric, I don't recall which way around they are).

There are minor differences between JIS, DIN and other national standards for A4, but ISO specifies tolerances, and all the national standards fall within those (DIN is closest, I'm not sure where JIS falls).

But no one seems to know the English system

[Anonymous Coward]

When I lived in the U.S. I once needed to know how many fluid ounces is 2 cups. Puzzled looks. No American could answer. I had look it up myself.

And the U.S. sizes for nuts, bolts, screws and wires are even crazier.

Re:But no one seems to know the English system

[AK Marc]

Better yet, ask someone how much 2 cups of water weighs. I've yet have anyone correctly answer, "about a pound." The weight link between oz. liquid and oz. weight seems to be lost. But try to get someone to specify lb. mass and lb. force, and they will call you a communist.

Don't ask me, I'm unitly bilingual.

Next Rest Stop 114 miles / 183.465 kilometers

[Secrity]

The US is not going metric any time soon and it seems that the US is going AWAY from metric. Over 20 years ago I remember that new Interstate Highway signs were in both English and Metric values. The speed limits were in both kph and MPH, distances were in both miles and km. After a period of time with dual english/metric, all of the signs went back to just MPH and miles -- so much for encouraging Americans to metrify. I am not even sure that American car manufacturers still include km/h on speedometers any more. Personally, I can use either metric or english measurements but I default to english. A particular peeve I have is with the metric temperature scale. The celsius scale is less precise than the fahrenheit scale (unless you do decimal degrees). It also used to be that rulers and tape measures were marked in both english and metric units, now most are only in english units. Twenty years ago many secondary American schools used to have meter sticks in classrooms (with both inches and metric markings), I noticed that now at least some secondary schools have yard sticks (with only inch markings) in their classrooms instaead of meter sticks. The only two common measuring devices that I see today that have both english and metric scales are electronic devices that have a metric/english switch and glass measuring cups.

Re:Next Rest Stop 114 miles / 183.465 kilometers

[Secrity]

I forgot one other thing that shows both metric and english units: a urinal -- 3.8 Lpf / 1.0 gpf.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Fjord]

here in Jax FL, it's under 1.80 a gallon for 87. I get the 89 octane, tho so that's about what I pay

Interesting...

[FatSean]

Thankfully nobody is calling for the USA to switch over in the name of progress. For some things, the cost outweighs the benefits of standards compliance...I think this is one.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Idarubicin]

damn your car is a gas guzzeler!

504 gallons to go 1 mile!

From here, the gas mileage of a modern aircraft carrier is seventeen feet per gallon...so he's getting 40% less distance per unit of fuel.

Consequently, I speculate that his vehicle must be an aircraft carrier...operating on land.

My only question is, where the hell does he park it?

news for american

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the kind of "news" that reminds me how alien to the rest of the world America is.

the trouble with metric

[amwassil]

is nothing's quite right:

1. the mm and cm are too small, the meter too long and you can't divide it into thirds

3. the kilometer is too short

4. the metric ton is too big

5. A4 paper is too small, A3 is too big

6. the gram is too small, the kilogram too large

7. and on and on...

All of which are due to using some arbitrarily determined base with no reference to human dimensions. Sure, the metric system is mathematically more convenient to work with, which is why scientists use it. But for the real world of work and commerce the so-called "imperial" system is far more useful.

Re:the trouble with metric

[SharpFang]

Eh, 1mm is very useful when it comes to small things - it's damn hard to measure more precisely with just a ruler. 1cm is very handy for writing, 0.5 between baseline and top, 0.5 for all the tall and short characters. 10cm^3 of beer is just enough to get in quite good mood without risk of breaking anything important 1m is about the safe parking distance, good height for tabletops, stands and anything you pick up things from. 2m is about the upper limit for that. 10x10m is a reasonable, comfortable apartment size. 100m is a good distance to place poles by the road, so the next one is visible from the position of the previous even in fog. 100x100m known as 1 hectar is about the smallest reasonable farming field size which pays to use tractors instead of horses. 1000m or 1km is just the right distance to walk without getting a car. 3km is the usual distance of horizon in reasonably varied terrain. 10km is about the least distance you should definitely take a car for unless you have a good reason (i.e. you're hiking.) If you plan a long walk, it's the reasonable distance too. 100km is between most major towns, so you don't have to travel very far if you want to buy some more exotic stuff or do some other business. 1000km is a good diameter for a reasonable country with below-average population of megalomaniacs. 10000km is 1/4 way around the earth, which is pretty useful if you travel that far.

1g, if it's meant to be really light, it shouldn't be more. 10g, just enough to get a taste, 100 g, about as much sweets as it's healthy to eat a time. 1 kg... see 10cm^3. 10kg, about as much as you can carry around without cursing, 100kg, if you weight more, start worrying, 1 ton, reasonable amount of cargo to transport, also enough coal for one house for a mild winter, 10 ton, about the most an average road is meant to withstand, 100 ton an amount of stuff worth making a big deal about, 1KT of TNT, a pretty neat unit of measurement for nukes.

A6 is for postcards and other smallish leaflets, A5 is good for school kids, A4 for normal use (FYI, it's bigger than Letter), A3 if you're doing excessive stuff (great most of heavyweight equations fit on A3 along), A2 if you're doing really big project, A1 for posters and wallpapers, and A0 by width is just the reasonable width to be produced in factory, rolled into a bale and loaded on a truck, across.

IMHO a minute is too long, units of 10, 100, 1000 s would be more handy.
Conversion between inches, yards and feet is hopeless.

Re:the trouble with metric

[amwassil]

You should have gotten +5 for very funny! :-)

Re:the trouble with metric

[Herz]

10cm^3 of beer is just enough to get in quite good mood without risk of breaking anything important

That must be one hell of a beer :)
(10 cm = 1 cl)

Re:the trouble with metric

[SharpFang]

err, that's 1l, that is two standard 0.5l mugs or cans. Of course there are people who won't feel a thing after as much, but for me it's perfectly enough. 1.5l is rather "on the heavy side", 2l with empty stomach make me plain drunk, after about 3l drank over short period of time, I'm getting sick. 5l and wash my vomit.

Re:Psst.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it's very pleasant that an A3 page folded in half is exactly the same size as an A4 page. root-two is just the mathematical means to that end.
I don't understand how this got modded 5. One size of paper is 4x2 and another is 2x2 guess what, you cut the first in half and you get the second. You know what, US paper sizes, when cut in half will make two of the next smaller size, i.e. 8.5x11 and 17x11. Notice that root-two has absolutely nothing to do with folding a piece in half and getting the next smaller piece. It is all about keeping the aspect ratio when you do so.

A? conversions

[TheRealFoxFire]

... and two sheets of A2 become steak sauce.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Tree131]

but metric paper makes much better airplanes.

Funny? NO!!! Insightful!
Metric paper does make better airplanes... they are more balanced - at least the way I make them.
American paper throws it all out of whack...

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[cardozo]

Oh, please, Mr. Simpson, 40 rods to the hogshead is only 0.0019840952 miles per gallon!

It's golden

[msblack]

It's called the "Golden Rectangle." Ask anyone who has seen the Disney educational feature Donald [Duck] in Mathematic Land and they can tell you, it is indeed a very special shape with lots of interesting properties.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Paulrothrock]

I can imagine that visualization makes it easier for you to add fractions. I, unfortunately, don't work that way. So I end up substitution fractions for decimals, performing the function, then switching back if I'm working with someone who prefers fractions. It's how I always got As on math tests with fractions in school.

1/4 + 1/8 = 0.25 + 0.125 = 0.375 = 3/8

This makes cooking really easy for me because I can scale recipes by moving the number to decimal and multiplying or dividing

1/2 cup * 3 = 0.5 * 3 = 1.5 = 1 1/2 cups

I guess it's just a matter of how you see the world. (And I think it helps that I have a lot of programming experience and am used to storing variable values in *wetware* memory and plugging them into the syntax of a function in my head.)

But I understand the car problem. I had a 13 year old VW that had been fixed by at least 10 different mechanics. It had Torx screws in it in addition to metric and standard bolts and nuts.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[slayer111]

As an English person living in England, can I please request everyone stops calling Imperial 'the English system'? We use Metric nowadays! A4 all the way, baby!

An example of "contradiction"

[hkfczrqj]

Here in Chile we use full-blown metric system: m, km/h... Yet the de facto standard paper is LETTER!! And for legal documents the paper size is 8.5 x 13 inches. Yes, inches. I don't know when in history a transition happened, if it happened (maybe after WWII --just speculating).

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[John Newman]

We claim to be one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world, but we can't adopt a useful standard that the _rest_ of the scientific community uses.

That's a little over-the-top. The US scientific community obviously does use metric. Certainly in the life sciences, where I work, it has for a long time. It's only the popular mind that metric has had a hard time penetrating, and probably for some good reasons. Customary units are evenly divisible by more numbers and correspond to natural/body measurements, making them easier to visualize. Ease of interconverting units and calculating orders of magnitude doesn't matter much when you're measuring a couch, or cutting a string into thirds.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Jahf]

Assuming each patty being identical mass, each patty is 1/3rd of a Kg.

How much is that? Obviously it is 333 grams.

I've lived in the U.S. all my life, but I still don't find the above any harder to imagine than trying to remember that a pound is 16oz, and therefore those 6 patties from the pound are a confusing 2.66~ ounces.

Dividing in fourths might have been better for your example.

However, since my kitchen scale switches between ounces and grams on the fly, it wouldn't make my cooking any hard.

Ease of measurement is based on experience. The longer you work in a system, the easier it is to relate to it. I work in U.S. measurements almost all the time and yet I still find metric more logical and easier to process.

Napkins

[CaptainFrito]

You see, those stinking Brits... All my good ideas get written on napkins, but now I'm not sure how much better those ideas would have been if they were on a sheet of metric paper. In fact I could probably speak French by know if I only used the correct aspect ratio paper when I was practicing that crap. What a chump I've been. I completely underestimated the importance that the various paper sizes I use have a traceable reference back to the "pi". Um, sorry, I meant "e". Oops...I meant the square root of two.

What was I thinking?!?

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Consequently, I speculate that his vehicle must be an aircraft carrier...operating on land. My only question is, where the hell does he park it?

If it's still fully equipped and armed, then the correct answer is:

Wherever he wants to.

golden ratio?

[MoFoQ]

wait a sec, didn't the golden ratio have a sqrt of 2 in there some where? could it be that that influenced the original committe back in the day into deciding that all metric paper sizes will have that ratio? (I remember hearing something about the golden ratio and "aspectic beauty" in ancient times....was it Euclid?)

Re:golden ratio?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Not sure about the relationship between the two. But I do know that the metric paper sizes are sometimes refered to as the silver ratio.

DID YOU MISS CLASS LAST PUNDAY SLACKER?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[AnonymousKev]

My only question is, where the hell does he park it?

That's easy. He parks it diagonally across the last few spaces in the parking lot!

English system?

[payndz]

I find it so much easier to use than the English system.

The irony is that here in England, we call it the imperial system.

And even then, it's not consistent. American gallons are smaller than British gallons.

I'm unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, since I have two standards to choose from instead of just one!) of the age where I was taught and use both systems. I use miles, yards, feet and inches for most measurements, but for my job (publishing) I use centimetres and millimetres. (I never use kilometres for anything, though.) My car's fuel efficiency is measured in miles per gallon, but I can only buy petrol priced by the litre. I measure my weight in stones and pounds, but buy produce in kilograms and grams. (Since I don't smoke weed, I have no use for ounces.)

I'm amazed I can work *any* measurements out!

Re:I love it. It helped me get more points on a Ch

[Idarubicin]

His argument "Foot-Lbs. I know what that is - that's obvious! Newton - what the fuck is a Newton."

But...foot-pounds are a measure of torque, whereas a newton (lowercase 'n' for the metric unit) is a measure of force. The appropriate comparisons would be pounds vs. newtons, or foot-pounds vs. newton-meters.

What's a foot-pound? (Briefly.) A force of one pound applied at a distance of one foot. What's a newton-meter? A force of one newton applied at a distance of one meter.

Both presuppose an understanding of what is meant by the terms foot, pound, newton, and/or meter. For the benefit of your engineer friend, there's about 4.5 newtons to the pound, and 10% more than three feet to the meter. Consequently, a newton-meter is about three quarters of a pound-foot.

metric system is all "interlaced"

[BBird]

metric system is all "interlaced" like this: 10 cm 3 = 1 litre or in other ways 1 m3 = 1000 litres 1 litre of water = 1 kilogram 1000 kilograms = 1000 litres of water = 1 m3 water = 1 (metric) ton. needless to say (maybe) 1 km = 1000 metres = 100,000 cm and so on

Re:metric system is all "interlaced"

[Anonymous Coward]

The interlaces are deeper, 1N=1kg*1m/s^2, 1A is 1N between 2 infinite wires 1m apart, etc.

Metric leads to mistakes.

[Chris Y Taylor]

The problem I have with the metric system is that all the conversions are based on 10.

If I have a calculation that looks like it is an order of magnitude off, then it is probably a convesion factor... but which one? In English, I'd check inches to feet first. Where do you start in metric. They are all the same. Metric makes it too hard to catch mistakes.

Despite the claimed mathematical advanatges of metric conversions, my HP calculator seems to be able to multiply by 12 just as fast as it can by 10. I am, however, a lot less likely to get in a hurry and enter 52800 instead of 5280 than I am to mistakenly enter 10000 instead of 1000.

Re:Metric leads to mistakes.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a serious problem with your brain.

Re:Metric leads to mistakes.

[Alexei]

I don't know the buttons on an HP, but on my TI I find it convenient to enter E3 (i.e. 10^3)-- fewer keystrokes, and you're also less likely to accidentally hit E4.

Re:Metric leads to mistakes.

[Chris Y Taylor]

If you want fewer keystrokes, why are you using a TI?

(I'll take "I'm still in high school and my teacher makes me use it" as an acceptable excuse for having a TI over an HP)

Re:Metric leads to mistakes.

[Alexei]

Eh, I have a ti-89 and it's served me well for years. Simple to use, but the entry does get a bit annoying sometimes, especially if I forget to put the right number of open parentheses at the beginning. If I ever replace it, I'll definitely look at HP.

Re:Metric leads to mistakes.

[Krunch]

Just type 10^3 instead of 1000.

Re:Metric leads to mistakes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, of all the excuses I've heard for not liking metric, this has got to be one of the lamest...

Re:Metric leads to mistakes.

[mdwh2]

The fact that you need to use a calculator for imperial shows the advantage of metric ;)

Re:Metric leads to mistakes.

[Pseudonym]

Not really.

Similarly, my favourite programming language is Brainf***. It's better because it takes so much effort and brain power even to write "hello world" that once I've done it, I know I've gotten it right.

about the SI

[Frederic54]

for people who still think in foot, hand, and inch, you can can find more about the SI of course at the Wikipedia entry, but also for people in the USA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has a lot of page about the SI where yes, they talk about meter for distance, and kilogram, for mass.

Real Men Use English, Metric is for Wimps

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole thing reminds me of a thing Jerry Seinfeld did, making fun of chinese people eating with sticks. He said something about that he could not understand why they kept eating with sticks, since "they have seen the fork".

It feels just like that hearing about "US Letter", Yards, Pounds, Stones, Miles et al. YOU HAVE SEEN THE METRIC SYSTEM ;-)!

I know you're joking, but having seen the metric system, I am not greatly unimpressed. The metric system got the meter from a miniscule fraction of the (incorrectly measured) distance from the pole to the equator (snobbishly measured through Paris). Of what use is that? I can't carry the earth around with me as a ruler and chop it into 10 million pieces. On the other hand, the English system is derived from average lengths of body dimensions, giving us a ready way to make quick measurements.

In addition, the metric system is based on the number ten, a relatively worthless number that can only be divided in halves or fifths. The more practical English system often bases measures on 12 (or 16) of a smaller unit. As a result you can divide a unit (say a foot) and have it come out in even-sized smaller units (i.e. 6, 4, 3 or 2 inches) not never-ending decimal numbers like .333333333.... That's marvelous for doing real work in the real world.

Alas, the metric system is a typical product of French philosophers, abstract and useless. About the only thing it has going for it is that the speed of light quite accidentally turned out to be a relatively handy number, 300,000 km/sec, which is easier to work with than 186,000 miles/sec. That's why radio and electronics everywhere adopted the metric system.

In short, real men doing real work with caloused hands and LOUD power tools use the English system. Metric is for pasty-faced wimps.

Mike Perry, Inkling Blog, Seattle

P.S. Those with math-oriented minds might look into what might have happened if we had had 12 or 16 fingers and used base 12 or 16 math. Would that allow us to have the moving-the-decimal advantage of the metric system AND the easy-to-divide advantage of the English system?

Re:Real Men Use English, Metric is for Wimps

[s_wardman]

If we had 16 fingers there might be even more competition in the IT industry -- I'll stick to 10.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[cluckshot]

US Aircraft carriers of the currently used type don't use gasoline or Oil of any type for propulsion

Re:golden ratio? not a convention

[BBird]

The issue is that if you reduce lines (say a drawing) so that the area is half of the original, you are
reducing the lengh of the lines by sqr(2), not by 2.

This is why photocopy machines have this inintiutive ratio of 1.42 X reduction.

This is the only ratio where half its area keeps the same proportions. It is not a convention.

Re:Psst.

[Joe U]

Well, actually I did.

What I was trying to say is even though it's mathematically correct, it's not an intuitive numbering scheme for the average joe. Or in this case the average secretary who really won't care if it's a logical formula or not.

(Numbers count down while size increases to A0, then the numbers count up while size increases)

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Brandybuck]

Unable to innovate, they stole the phrase wholesale from the brits.

Ouch! Stop it! I know I'm only supposed to make fun of Americans. Ow! That hurts! Okay, I'm sorry. Just don't make me sing the Frenchie song again...

I use metric all the time

[FrivolousPig]

"Hey baby , he may be 8inches but I'm 14CM" works every time!

A4 more convenient for ClickBook

[Anonymous Coward]

Folding in half and maintaining the aspect ratio is very useful with programs like ClickBook which let you print your document as a booklet.

In the US paper sizes, the aspect ratio changes and the photos appear slightly squeezed. It is not noticable with text, but the effect is there.

With the metric paper sizes (A4), the aspect ratio is perfect and the pages render flawlessly.

d'oh

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll laugh in the store if you ask for that. Envelopes are what the "C" size is used for. An A4 paper fits in a C4 envelope.

The benefit is way too small for the cost

[rpresser]

To consider just one thing, can you imagine how many billions of dollars it would take to replace all the speed limit signs in the USA?

And what would it gain us? Tourists would be 0.004% happier seeing km/h on the road instead of mph.

NOT WORTH IT

Re:The benefit is way too small for the cost

[3riol]

what would it gain us?

Your children could relate the speed they use everyday to what they'd see on traffic signs when they drive abroad, study in physics at school, or read anywhere.

It would cost a few millions probably, but you could take that out of the military budget any day. Or levy a sensible fuel tax, which would fund that multiple times.

Anyway, I'm not trying to tell your government what to do, just promoting the shamelessly extremist agenda of reason in a perhaps misguidedly humorous way...

Re:The benefit is way too small for the cost

[rpresser]

a) It would cost BILLIONS (as in 10^9) of dollars, not millions (as in 10^6). Remember that the USA has many times more miles (all right, km) of road than any European country, indeed many times more than all of Europe combined.

b) I do not now have nor do I plan to ever have any children.

The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when people from several countries try to work together, and they don't use the same system, mistakes can occur. And mistakes cost money too.

Re:The problem is...

[innocent_white_lamb]

And mistakes cost money too.

And sometimes could cost lives. This is an account of an error in filling the fuel tanks on a passenger jet due to incorrect conversion factors.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Mal-2]

The only thing that I still find VERY confusing is the way fuel consumption is reported. Gone is the familiar Miles/Gallon where bigger is better only to be replaced by Liters/100Km where smaller is better!

This is because you guys were still mostly driving big Detroit iron hulks that looked much better if expressed in gallons per mile rather than miles per gallon. :)

Mal-2

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[chgros]

IMHO, the metric system is doomed in the US because it's not American
That's why this was designed!

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[jo_ham]

Is that an African or European swallow?

VHS was better than Betamax

[Anonymous Coward]

Any quality difference between VHS and Betamax most users could barely notice on standard television screens (most people saw absolutely no difference in picture quality). Betamax blank tapes were too short and sucked if you wanted to record something longer than an hour. VHS offered a bigger choice of hardware at lower cost, the tapes were cheaper and more easily available, Betamax units were more expensive to buy. Betamax fucking sucked.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, except to fuel the airecraft, perchance?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[gammoth]

I appreciate your points. However, other countries have done it. If we'd gone through with it back in the 70s then I bet dollars to donuts that the pain would be over.

The construction industry would now have the benefit of a larger pool of suppliers. American producers would have the benefit of a more homogenous market.

(Sessile. Awesome word choice. I had to look it up.)

People need to stop and think about the numbers

[wersh]

To all of you who are complaining about sqrt(2) bein g a bad factor because it's irregular and to all you who keep saying that you can put two 8.5x11's together to get 11x17, you're missing the point.

Take a moment to think about it mathematically. Paper has two dimensions, length (L) and width (W). If you take two pieces of paper of size L x W and put them side by side, the new paper's size would be of width L and length 2W. So we have to sizes of paper here: L x W and 2W x L. What would really be nice is if the proportion of the width to the length of both sets was equal, that way you could keep doubling or halfing paper infinitely. So mathematically, you want to solve for W/L = L/2W. If you solve the only solution to that problem is L = sqrt(2) * W. So if you want to half paper or double paper and keep the same proportion, you have no choice but to use sqrt(2). It's not some number somebody pulled out of their ass.

As for the crowd who keeps saying that the English system is better because 12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6 while 10 is only divisible by 2 and 5, you people need to think a bit more about the numbers too. I think I can divide 12 centimeters into thirds much easier than I can divide 10 inches into thirds. Since you people obviously aren't concerned about the actual specific length involved (given that your only complaint in comparing meters to yards or inches to centimeters is divisibility) and are only concerned about divisibility, you can easily accomodate any divisor in either system merely by choosing a size that is divisible by your divisor. Neither the metric nor the English system accomodates dividing a length into seven portions evenly using a single unit (or the multiplier), but if you use seven or fourteen or twenty-one of a given unit, it works pretty damn well in any system you care to use.

Let's make a dope deal

[ACNiel]

"bob, how many joints in a lid."

"Two."

"Two?!?!"

"I roll big joints."

Re:Neat - Excellant Karma Whoring Troll

[200_success]

Yes, but if you consider that he says in his profile that he is a "26 year old Indian programmer and technical columnist operating out of Mumbai", his story about making a special order with Staples doesn't seem so plausible anymore.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Kiryat Malachi]

You need $10 to give to the kid down the street to sit there with the hose while it fills, while you get drunk on Bud.

It's about FOLDING!

[gidds]

Nice as it may be to be able to cut an A(n) sheet into two A(n+1) sheets, or stick two A(n+1) sheets together to get an A(n) one, the real benefit that I get is being able to fold sheets in two or four, and still get a standard size. I can get A3 paper, fold it in half, and get a nice A4 booklet. (Jolly handy for photocopying sheet music -- for personal use only, of course!)

Is fresh water...

[pluvia]

... the same as distilled water (pure H2O)?
I was wondering about that 0C too, thanks to the gp for clarifying.

Re:Canada does use Metric

[Anonymous Coward]

You can buy A4 paper. When I was in drafting we used A4 and A2 a lot. Perhaps a wholesaler would have some.

Just More Evidence...

[Royster]

...that *way* too much thought went into the Metric system.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it not a fact. Your just America bashing. The idea that Americans don't accept anything that wasn't invented hear is the stupidest thing I've read in long time. There are tons of items and concepts that were not specifically invented here that Americans use every day.


Ok, it seems that it's just correct grammar and diction that you Americans don't accept.

Re:WHO GIVES A FUCK, GET A FUCKING LIFE MAN!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said!

And letter margins work perfectly fine on A4

[akajerry]

I always get a kick out of the face that, in India at least, everyone seems to use A4 paper in their printer but set their print margins to Letter. There's a good .5 inches wasted at the botton of every page. That's 5% more trees needlessly killed.

Only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

> This means that you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly, and two sheets of A3 will equal an A2." ...only an American could see this as a new concept !

yeah, i used to ...

[magefile]

Then one day I was fixing my PHB's computer. One of his hard drive screws came out. Now said screwdriver is ... well, let's just say he put it where the sun don't shine, and it hurt a lot.

A4 Engineering Computation Pads

[justzisguy]

Does anyone know of the existence of A4-sized engineering computation pads-those green pads with the back side cross-section grid that show through just enough. I'm a computer engineering student and these things are great for everything!

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Scarblac]

Consequently, I speculate that his vehicle must be an aircraft carrier...operating on land.

My only question is, are you an evil war lord? And if so, what kind of powers do you have? Do you use them for good, or for awesome? Would you like to join forces? I just happen to be the greatest criminal mind of our time. -Strong Bad

Because he doesn't think in RPN?

[magefile]

Seriously, is there an actual advantage to RPN? I would assume the extra time spent converting from RPN to infix would outweigh the time saved by not having parens.

Re:Because he doesn't think in RPN?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an orphan, you insensitive clod!

Re:Because he doesn't think in RPN?

[connorbd]

I don't know that there's an advantage per se, except for the fact that you don't have to deal with operator precedence. It makes things easier for computers to deal with -- take a course in programming language design some time. RPN conversion is usually one of the first lessons, if you didn't do it already in CS2.

As for using the notation itself, well, it's sort of like using Lisp. It looks funny, but there's a certain rhythm to it that just seems cleaner when coding. There's a very good reason why Forth and HP users are so militant about their respective platforms -- RPN just has a flow to it, kind of pouring data into data, that most styles of programming don't. It's the same elegance that functional language proponents get all up ons about, but RPN users can rely on their notation to do some of the work for them. It's a matter of personal taste, but there's a good reason for it.

ObPaperCommentary: when I was in college I always wanted to get my hands on a stack of A4 and hand in a paper or two on it, just to see what the professor said...

10 fingers for metric calculations

[HermanZA]

and 12 toes for a foot? No wonder the Brits and the French hate each other so much. Those old Brits with their 6 toed feet must have looked funny indeed...

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Noren]

The US debated adopting a decimal measurement system in 1790, before the French adopted what we now call the metric system. It's not "The Metric System" as the unit sizes differ, and the standardized prefixes aren't yet there, but it was a proposal to make measurements based on decimal units- which is at the core of the advantage of using the metric system. Alas, the US didn't follow through with that, though if it had it might even have competed with the existing metric system as a logical way of doing things.

Another proposal in that linked document did result in a related early US innovation which was unknown at the time but is now universally standard: decimal money. I suspect the UK was one of the last nations to give up non-decimal currency partially because we colonials were the ones who came up with it.

Look at the numbers...

[imsabbel]

and you will see as a true geek that process structure sizes use the same shrinking factors (0.35um, 0.25,0.18,0.13,0.09,....)

Re:Look at the numbers...

[Noehre]

Dude, you just totally blew my fucking mind.

I need a beer.

No, what happens

[Sycraft-fu]

Is you realise it's not as big a deal as the rest of the world makes it out to be. I am totally fluent in the metric system, having taken lots of lab science and being a Canadian citizen and spend lots of time in Canada. I am also totally fluent in the US system, being an American citizen (I'm both) and living in the US my whole life.

Transitioning back and forth is no great feat at all, I just use whatever system those around me are using. When I was a surveyor's assistant, most jobs were in US units, but government jobs were metric. No problem, set the gun (digital theodalite) to metric and go.

What you discover is that, for day to day usage, the units are irrelivant so long as you are farmilar with them. All the fancy inter unit conversions that are what make the metric system really cool, you just don't use. What you need to have is a sense of how much a unit is. To be able to estimate how many feet, or metres, soemthing is away. To have a feel for how fast 60 mph, or kph, looks from a car. To know about how hot or cold 40 degrees F or C is.

In the lab it's different, metric is the only way to go or your calculations will be needlessly complex, but in everyday life it makes no difference at all.

You also find that if you use both systems, different things are more natural to you in one or the other. Air temperature I do better with in Farenheight, liquid and solid in Kelvin cooking however is Farenheight again. Driving I think in mph, but ballistics I think is metres/second.

That's why there's no big care to transition. For 99.99% of the population is just doesn't matter. The US units work just fine, since they aren't dealing with any inter-unit conversion (like the mass of 1000cc of water or something). Those that do, ie scientists, learn the Metric system and can use it proficiently. It's not hard to know, and use, both in your life.

Re:No, what happens

[jonwil]

One of the biggest problems with transition would be all the things that would need to be translated.

For example:
All the road signs marked in Miles and Miles Per Hour.
All the car speedos and such marked in Miles (can you imagine what would happen if you had a speedo in miles per hour, saw a sign saying "speed limit is 80 kilometers per hour" and proceeded to go 80mph?

Or all the gas pumps and other things measured in Gallons.

Or all the thermometers and temprature measuring equipment thats in degrees Fareheight

Or (to be on topic) all the printers, printing presses, photocopiers, imagesetters, paper mills and other things that are measured in US paper sizes?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

One more thing I didn't know. Is that standard practice across Europe? What about Asia, etc.?

Well, it's the EU standard as I mentioned. Here in Northern Europe (Scandinavia etc) it used to be liters per 10 km but we changed. As in our cars changed, but we still mostly speak of "liters per (swedish) mile". (The old Swedish mile was close to 10 km so we carried it over.)

Don't know about Asia really. I'm pretty certain Volvo and SAAB are in liters per 100 km to all "metric" contries, but don't quote me.

The scary thing is

[empaler]

that you can prolly buy movies with titles like "N-Cup Fuck" or shit like that. *eeeew*

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Sirch]

Hmm. Shouldn't have used that as a reference then. It totally compromises my explanation.

Silly websites, with their alternative opinions.

Also,

[empaler]

We have units that correlate... So 1 cubic decimetre equals 1 litre... it's fucking amazing... and don't get me started on how our temperature system actually relates to something sane...
(The funny thing is, it was a countryman of mine who invented what later became modified to be the Fahrenheit system - and it was based on stuff like "the temperature of a healthy mouth" and the temperature under the arm of a sick person" etc.!)

Re:Also,

[Anonymous Coward]

It kinda goes back to "Man is the measure of all things".

I loved the quote "Inconsistent use of SI units and international standard paper sizes remain today a primary cause for U.S. businesses failing to meet the expectations of the global economy".

Failing to meet expectations... Hmmm... And that's why our economy could eat any other ten economies for lunch, is that it?

Re:Also,

[Capsaicin]

Hmmm... And that's why our economy could eat any other ten economies for lunch, is that it?

"could"?!

It's not the paper size -- it's the hole punches

[chiph]

Honestly, I could care less about A4 vs. Letter. Both are fine to me (although the geek in me admires the elegance of A4, and I would probably choose that if given a choice).

What I hate with a passion is the EU tendency to use a two-hole punch on the side of the paper to hold it in notebooks. The holes aren't far enough apart to give the paper some structural integrity, thus requiring a paper clamp be integrated into the notebook. Why can't they use a 3-hole punch, which distributes the force to hold it more evenly?

Chip H.

When I was in the army

[empaler]

we saw a movie that warned us about the dangers of Trench Foot - it was made around the time of WWII, in the US.

My first day in the army was the 3rd of December, 2001. Ahem.

Re:When I was in the army

[sketerpot]

It's good to see that the army is using creative money-saving measures, rather than blowing a few million on a big special-effects-filled movie on the same subject. Now maybe they can buy more guns!

4 degrees Celsius

[karlandtanya]

actually

Upgrade your Motorcycle

[hburch]

At the price of gasoline these days, your motorcycle needs some serious upgrades. You're spending $1,300+ in gasoline per mile. Take a day off, and the money saved in your commute should be able to buy you a much better bike.

Would Cowboy Neal wear a 37.8541 litre hat?

[karlandtanya]

Didn't think so.

Fortunately, a 10 gallon hat actually holds a little over 2.5 gallons.

or about 10 litres.

I use them all the time.

[Beardo the Bearded]

I get them at my local college's bookstore because it's the cheapest place in town.

Funnily enough, my University doesn't carry the paper. It's about 1/2 price at Camosun compared to the local merchants.

I liked the paper because nobody else used it - when the profs hand back a giant stack of white paper, you can grab the green and walk away.

Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[empaler]

Here:

a unit of weight equal to 6.35 kilograms or 14 pounds, used especially when talking about a person's weight:
I weigh ten and a half stone.

She has lost a stone.

AFAIR it used to be linked to the weight of the reigning queen, and would be set once a year after an official weighing. Yay, Imperial weighting.
Very sneak method of regulating trade, however.

Re:Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[belroth]

I have a relative who runs a chip* shop and I think he still buys wet fish in stones. I still feel a touch confused when he talks about 3 stone of cod.

* For non-UK (and probably Aus and NZ) readers chips are what the US knows as French/Freedom Fries only thicker, tastier, healthier and much nicer. Should be cooked in beef dripping ideally. (the beef dripping makes them less healthy but more tasty).
NB what the US calls chips we call crisps because, well, they are.

Re:Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[fireman sam]

"For non-UK (and probably Aus and NZ)"...

As an Australian, I take offense to being equated with those in the world who are so self centered that the do not know anything that is outside their own borders (You know who I mean).

In Australia, we have fish and chip shops where you can still go in and buy a "minimum chips"*.

*Minimum chips - a standard measure for the sale of chips that equates to about 10 large fries from McDonands. and costs between $2 - $4 dollars.

BTW. The only difficulty with using the metric system is the transition from the other way. It can be compared to switching from Windows to Linux, may be confusing at first, but it is much easier in the long run. Plus, in Australia, we get to drive a 110

Re:Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[belroth]

I actually meant that I expected Australians and New Zealanders to know what fish and chips is but that I wasn't 100% sure.

I assume that Oz and NZ are culturally more clued up than most of the rest of the world.
My sister in law is Australian. My father in law emigrated in the 50s, most of his family followed, then my mother in law went too and married him.
Then he came back to the UK (with wife and child) for health reasons. It's bizarre at first sight but he moved to Manchester because of the climate.

Re:Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[Anonymous Coward]

The day you try fried chips in olive oil is the day you'll know how they are expected to taste.

Re:Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[MrChuck]

A woman I know of, a VP at a large 'merican financial trading firm, was traveling to australia. As she went through customs, they asked the usual questions - why she was there, how long she expected to be there, where she was born, had she every been convicted of a felony.

Without missing a beat, she said: "Oh! I didn't know that was still required..."

All of us over 5 years old know that McDonalds food is all crap. Buy using a fair amount of SUGAR in the freezing of the "fries", they make children like them. And fat Americans (I'm just 12 stone and 18 hands tall (to top of head, not horsey shoulder) so I don't include myself there).

But only those who learned to cook in england (and optionally thrown out of england) would cook a fine potato in beef fat.

Re:Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[Zugok]

Actually, the best fish and chips are cooked in lard. It sure as hell doesn't stop me from eating fish and chips. People have a huge palatability for fat.

Re:Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[dspratomo]

I think UK's climate is colder than Australian? I'm curious because most people I met didn't move to UK because of the climate (I thought Manchester also rainy-I live there for one year). Sorry, couldn't help because I think it's a little bit odd.

Re:Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[ComaVN]

Yes, making fun of underpaid people in uniform is still the fastest way to a full body cavity search.

I agree as far as the potatoes are concerned though.

Re:Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[belroth]

In my father in law's case it was because Manchester is damp. I believe Manchester has the highest rainfall of any city in the UK (Cumbria has more rain but no cities). He has severe asthma and the outback in summer was, almost literally, killing him.
I've heard some fun tales about outback hotels in the 50s, they were designed to be bearable in the heat of summer but in winter they were cold.

Re:Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

[zcat_NZ]

Us Kiwi's know what fish and chips are..

Auzzies refer to them as "Feesh and Cheeps"

The square root of two doesn't exist.

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the comments I have read are all using division by two. This is not the same as the root of two. the square root of two is an irrational number. It is impossible to cut anything so that it has the length of the square root of two. If you don't believe me here is a link you can see for yourself.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/sqr t2 .10mil

This gives the first ten million digits of the square root of two.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Twelve (inches) are divisible by 2, 4, 3, and 6. A yard is three feet, and a half yard is a foot and a half (18 inches). A foot also seems to be a nice "human" scale measurement. I find it awkward to talk in fractional meters or tens of centimeters. Decimeters might be more convenient, but can you remember the last time someone said decimeter before I did?

You can divide the gallon (128oz) in half seven times (half gallon, quart, pint, cup, half cup, quarter cup = 1 oz.). You also have cups and ounces dividing nicely in to tablespoons and teaspoons. However, when you divide a metric measurement in half, all of the sudden you have 5 of something else, then 25, 1.25, etc ...

So, in conclusion:

Metric: good for engineering and computation.
Standard: convenient for every day life.

Can't we all just get along? Must we have this annoying and petty invective from the likes of the article author and ... well ... you?

I don't even see how this discussion of paper sizes plays in to the metric system. The last time I looked, \sqrt{2} was an irrational number,
thus precluding any nice fixed measurement from really complying. It just so happens that the designer of the European paper size standard happened to be using metric at the time, to round to.

Re:The metric system is backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

For its intended use, scientific measure, any base will work since you usually aren't dividing those up and it scales well. For day-to-day stuff, though, metric sucks [metricsucks.com].

My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like it!

What is he thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

This asshole seems to be under the mistaken impression that he can change Americans by whining and making fun of us. Why do people think this way?

Metric Printing

[DynaSoar]

If my printer will do 6 pages of letter size per minute, how many A4 pages will it do in metric time? Is there a converter for the cartridges for using metric ink? My present printer can handle 8 bits in parallel. We call that a "byte". If I get a metric capable printer, will it handle 10 bits in parallel? And what would that be called. "Tea"?

I hope we don't end up having to get both kids of equipment. I had to get both kinds of wrenchs for working on the car. They're called "this one works" and "get the hammer".

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[AnalogFile]

I still find VERY confusing is the way fuel consumption is reported. Gone is the familiar Miles/Gallon where bigger is better only to be replaced by Liters/100Km where smaller is better!

I was born with metric and do not understand Miles/Gallon (well, I do. Just not used to them). But I can relate very well as I was used to km/l (that's kilometres per litre) and still have problems figuring out the l/100km everybody is using now.

However I think there's a stronger reason than cospiracy. After all you are measuring a consumption and what you consume are the litres not the kilometres. So that's what should be at the numerator. Think it this way: how would you expess a cost instead of a consumption? Dollars per 100 miles would make much more sense than miles per dollar. Switch that to metric and consumption and what you get? Litres per 100 kilometres. Makes sense. Even if it doesn't figure.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[JimBobJoe]

IMHO, the metric system is doomed in the US because it's not American.

Exactly, but we Americans aren't stubborn enough to admit that there is an advantage to such a system. What we need is a uniquely American way of solving this problem.

For that reason, we shall create a new base-10 system called New Imperial which shall be terribly convenient and comfortable for everyone to use. There shall be 10 new inches in a new foot, 1000 new feet in a new mile, 10 new quarts in a new gallon, et cetera.

And then we shall force the rest of the world to use our delightfully thought out system, and then decades later make them kiss our feet for saving them from whatever entirely illogical system they were using previously.

Silly Metrics...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the metric system, but I think it has its flaws - what if we ever switch to base 12, or base 16? Everything will still be easily scalable by 10, but 10 isn't necessarily the best base to work with - only 2 divisors. Using divisors (within a resonable number of digits, say 16 or less) is a practical way to pick a base number system. 10 has no more value than say, 14. 10 and 14 only have 2 divisors. 12 has 4. 16 has 3, but they are all powers of 2, and using a base that's easily divisible by 2,3,4 and 6 would be ever so convenient.

The centimeter seems a little small anyway. Not very practical. Any central length could have been chosen and divided between, why did we end up with what we did?

Re:Silly Metrics...

[connorbd]

Good book to read: The Measure of All Things (don't have the ISBN -- my copy's a preprint). Tells the whole story, including an error in measurement.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that is the correct etymology for "on the wagon" - a prisoner destined for the gallows is unlikely to be unescorted.

Definition of "on the wagon", as an originally American term:
http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-wag1.htm

MMM MMM MMM

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like my kind of woman! Remember, the big ones need love'n too if (__)(__) is good (____)(____) is better More cusho' for da push'n

Re:MMM MMM MMM

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take the large size thanks, but could you make mine not so flat on the bottom?

Re:MMM MMM MMM

[kjd]

They're pressed against the bottom of the line for your viewing pleasure.

So do they ask this on the Kinko's interview?

[cdtoad]

It's amazing, but having worked at Kinko's for 10+ years I never knew this. I think from now on when hiring, there should be a math question and ask the applicatant to find the area of A29 paper!

Religion

[ttsalo]

The need to be immortal

--

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek NG uses metric
So it does win.

HA

Stupid Westener!

[empaler]

You think you are so smart with your straight eyes and Imperial traditions!
Proper persons eat with proper utensils! (I especially like the silver chopsticks)

It's not like the change has to be that fast

[empaler]

Give it a decade or two - start by making it mandatory that all cars show their speed in both Imperial and Proper units, and after a few years, start changing the signs.

Patience, my friend, is something you westerners must learn. A decade isn't that long.

Re:It's not like the change has to be that fast

[mph]

Give it a decade or two - start by making it mandatory that all cars show their speed in both Imperial and Proper units, and after a few years, start changing the signs.

Which US-market cars don't show both mph and km/h? Every car we've had for a decade or two has had a speedometer with both scales.

Re:It's not like the change has to be that fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Every car I've had has just has mph.

Re:It's not like the change has to be that fast

[doktor-hladnjak]

Ya, most cars I've driven do, but on a lot of them the print is small and not always backlit. I was driving my US late model Honda back from Vancouver to Seattle once at night and the metric part of the speedometer wasn't visible. Fortunatly, on a highway you can sorta follow the flow of traffic and be ok.

Easy

[empaler]

Potted plants would fit that description, and backwards as they may be (with their nationalist parties and all that), the French are a little above potted plants.

Now I'm gonna get modded down and flamed

[Anonymous Coward]

for forgetting to make i tmore obvious that this was sarcasm...

Re:It's not the paper size -- it's the hole punche

[Anonymous Coward]

actually there are 4-hole punches quite popular out there in a4 segregators and notebooks. but use them at our own risk

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[srleffler]

Not necessarily. Canada, for example, uses the metric system but still uses a decimal point rather than a comma and uses "billion" for 1000 times one million. Not sure about the current status of comma-vs-space for separating the thousands in large numbers. Spaces are a pain on computers with word wrapping.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the 1.05PT Wather bottel standing in front of me, which is 500mL (or just 1/2L).

You, Sir,

[empaler]

are a fool.

But, seriously, read the linked article, and it will all make sense. Otherwise, ask again, and I will make you smarter.

A6 toilet paper makes perfect sense

[leoxx]

What else would you print SCO, Enron, and Northern Telecom stocks on?

American paper is shorter and fatter than European

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to describe us Americans in general. Even our paper is shorter and fatter than the Europeans' paper.

That just removes an obstacle

[empaler]

(I've been to the United States once, and I only drove in busses or cabs... no point in trying to look at the speedometer)

My point still stands; if there was will to do a conversion, it would just be a matter of having the transition done at such a pace that it would not harm the economy nor hinder the understanding of the new system.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

> but metric paper makes much better airplanes.

No.

U.S. paper makes airplanes, everybody elses paper makes aeroplanes.

Logical

[empaler]

I don't understand why it hasn't been widely accepted, even in countries enlightened enough to use SI units. Possibly, I think, because most people are used to saying the date "14th of March" rather than the other way around (at least in Germany, France and Scandinavia).

Re:Logical

[J'raxis]

A similar problem exists in American adoption of the format: people here are perfectly used to saying "March 14th," except they're used to saying "March 14th, 2004" instead of "2004, March 14th." So each country has their own problems with getting used to the new format, which, despite that fact that it's in the same largest-to-smallest order as everyone already write times, is novel to everyone.

Anybody notice that inane comment at the top?

[Anonymous Coward]

Globalization starts with getting the details right.
Inconsistent use of SI units and international
standard paper sizes remain today a primary
cause for U.S. businesses failing to meet
the expectations of the global economy.


I mean, what the fuck. How can an economy have expectations and when was the last time anyone heard of the US failing to meet them?

Its kind of funny to that in the past 2 years we have been having great difficulty with our German compressor suppliers. Apparently they can use SI units and metric paper sizes but they can't build a device that works. Our definitions of economic expectations differ.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kuhn, the US does not have the insight gained from the Third Reich to meet global expectations. Maybe after reading Mein Kampf and throwing all the minorities in gas chambers we'll be able to understand your point of view!

* You might not like my tone, but I believe it is quite fitting in this case. Think about it.

Re:Anybody notice that inane comment at the top?

[multi io]

Unfortunately, Mr. Kuhn, the US does not have the insight gained from the Third Reich to meet global expectations. Maybe after reading Mein Kampf and throwing all the minorities in gas chambers we'll be able to understand your point of view!

Godwin's Law.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

Actually

[geekoid]

the US was on course to be completly metric years ago, unfortunatly Reagon cut the funding. I remeber learning the metric system in grade schools in the 70's. Some road signs started appearing that had both speeds on it, as well as speedomoeters. Every public displayed thermometers showd Celsius and Farenheit. Factories had begun the process of changing over, then no more funding.
But, if the only way to get elected is to 'cut taxes', what do you think is going to happen?

Re:Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all Reagan's fault? What nonsense.

Here is a useful timeline of events in the history of the metric system, particularly with respect to the US.

Changes on this scale don't happen because of "government funding". Not even the US government can afford to retool all the factories in the US. People just haven't been interested, because in real life the practical benefits didn't outweight the practical disadvantages.

And simply changing the labels isn't a true metric conversion. If you're buying 454 gram sacks of beans, or buying 122 cm x 243.8 cm sheets of drywall for your house, you aren't really using the metric system, nor do you have any convenient arithmetic advantages. (Quick, how many 40.64 cm spaced studs are there across that sheet of drywall? It's a lot easier to tell if it's 16"-on-center and a 4-foot sheet, eh, even with an extra units conversion thrown in. Unless you tear down your house and completely rebuild it, you're not going to be able to use 100cm x 200cm wall panels, no matter how convenient the arithmetic is.)

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[pclminion]

From here, the gas mileage of a modern aircraft carrier is seventeen feet per gallon

Assuming you know how fast the thing is moving, you can calculate the horsepower of the aircraft carrier from that...

Suppose the carrier is moving at 15 knots. It takes about 0.67 seconds to travel 17 feet at that speed. So the carrier is expending the energy content of 1 gallon of diesel every 0.67 seconds.

Diesel has about 140 megajoules per gallon. So the average power = 140MJ/0.67s = 204 megawatts. 204 megawatts. That's about 275000 horsepower.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Sirch]

Note my strategic use of the word "one" when referring to the plural "guards".

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

One foot can be divided in these ways to make integer values of inches:

2 - 6"
3 - 4"
4 - 3"
5 - not an integer
6 - 2"

Cool! I want to do that with volume conversion. But 1 gallon is 128 fluid ounces (US fl oz, 160 Imperial fl. oz), and that is not divisible by 3 or six. The US system for liquid volumes is based on powers of two.

OK, let's do it with mass. 1 pound = 16 oz. No luck again... it seems this "advantage" only works for distances.

OK, let's stick to distances. 1 mile is 1760 yards. No luck again. Fortunately, 1 yd = 3 ft so the conversion of miles to feet does allow you to divide by 3 and by 6. So 1/6 of a mile equals... er... 5280/3/2 = 1760/2 = 880 feet. Cool. Not very practical, though.

By the way, the fl oz vs mass oz thing is realy confussing. Is there some common material that at normal conditions will have a density of 1 oz per fl oz? That would clear things up.

(1 ml = 1 cm^3 = 1000 mm^3 of water at 4C at sea level, (that is when water is most dense) has a mass of 1 gm.)

Re:Slow news day indeed

[matthewd]

I'm not sure what's sadder, the fact that there's 1041 comments at the moment, or the fact that I clicked on the link.

I'd like to see that

[supernova87a]

Wait a second. There is no way that the paper can have *exactly* 1:sqrt(2) proportions.

Sqrt(2) is an irrational number, which means that no

modern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder what you mean by "modern aircraft carrier"?

Modern carriers, like modern submarines, are powered by nuclear reactors. The only liquid fuels on board are for the aircraft and back-up power. Might want to check where your numbers are coming from..

Of course, this is Slashdot, and this thread was fairly silly from the start, it's probably a tad late for pedantry..

I'd like to see that!

[supernova87a]

Wait a second. There is no way that the paper can have *exactly* 1:sqrt(2) proportions.

Sqrt(2) is an irrational number, which means that no unit of measure can produce exactly sqrt(2).

So what is it really??? :)

Re:I'd like to see that!

[HuguesT]

A4 = 21 x 29.7 cm

29.7/21 = 1.41429

sqrt(2) = 1.41421..

Pretty damn close.

Re:Psst.

[Anonymous Coward]

The key factor in the A paper sizes is that the aspect ratio stays the same. So you can put your A3 document on the photocopier and have it reduced down to A4 and have it fit exactly.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you watch Futurama to see the future, you crazy cult follower!

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Omerna]

17 feet per gallon? That's nice, but modern aircraft carriers (at least all the one built by the US now) have nuclear reactors. No gas.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Knos]

oh oh. though you might want to know about william the conqueror.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Guppy06]

"US Aircraft carriers of the currently used type don't use gasoline or Oil of any type for propulsion"

You mean like the USS Kitty Hawk, USS Constellation and the USS John F. Kennedy?

(For those of you who can't catch subtlety, they're all conventionally-powered supercarriers currently in the US fleet. They boil their water the old-fashioned way.)

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Tim C]

Also, iirc a program I saw a couple of months ago, famously one prisoner refused his last drink (as some did), and so was hanged earlier than he might have been. Had he accepted the drink, his stay of execution would have arrived at Tyburn before him, and he would have lived.

Apparently, after that, very few prisoners refused the drink.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[JacobO]

I think that would have to be aeroplanes, not that the two differences necessarily correlate.

Spelling aside, I have to agree.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

bloody Norseman....

Logic?

[TheAwfulTruth]

Starting out with a master paper size of 841 x 1189 so that divisions immediately cause fractional mm widths is logical? Since A0 is defined as being 841x1189 and A1 as 594x841, is it some new math that 594*2 == 1189? (Or 1189/2 == 594?)

Officially those fractions are rounded off. This is quite serious! You still need to keep a spec of every paper size to make sure you have it right. You CAN'T just do math in your printing application to resize things for different papers! You will either over or underprint on full bleed or your margins will be wrong.

The worst part is, the much touted "constant" ratio thing is less useful than people make it out to be. It has some utility for cutting and folding, but for layout with margins, it is no longer a constant ratio between paper sizes and resizing to different paper sizes but with the same margin size does force a relayout just as on imperial paper sizes.

I worked on printing software for 6 years and these descrepensies are not to be taken lightly. The Germans especially will take out a loupe and of you are off in your printing or margins by 1/10 of a mm then it's NO GOOD!

Serisouly, the application of the metric system to pleasing and useful paper sizes is a kludge at best. It's almost like trying to apply a metric system to time. It really doesn't fit. There is no inhereant beauty or usefulness to it at all (210x297 is as ugly as 8.5x11 for any kind of "math"). And pluses such as folding and cutting efficiency are offset by the difficulty of dealing with such odd "sizes" mentally and there is no improvement at all for the generation of content by computer programs.

The ONLY good thing about the entire world switching to metric paper sizes is that then there will not be two competeing "standards" and everyones lives will be a little easier for it.

Re:Logic?

[TheAwfulTruth]

Doh, I also forgot to mention that the fact that there are two sets of metric paper sizes (A and B) that essentially cover the same peper sizes and that the B set is actually two different sets (ISO and JIS) where B0 means either 1000x1414 or 1030x1486 makes really want to scream and stick with Imperial papers after all. :)

did you know ....

[fullofangst]

"did you know that in the Metric paper system ..."

What is this ? Did Slashdot run out of geeky unix articles to waffle about ?

By the way, welcome to 2004.

Re:did you know ....

[Anonymous Coward]

nah.... they ran out of MS bashing items... but not for long....

Re:Psst.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the aspect ratio stays the same! That's the whole bleeding point of having a range of paper sizes: the aspect ratio must be the same in all of them. That just makes sense -- otherwise you wouldn't be able to photographically reproduce a document from one size paper on another size. There's nothing remotely unusual about the aspect ratio being constant across the range; that's a given. We would in any case have paper in sizes something like say, 15 x 22.5, 20x30, 30 x 45, 40 x 60 .....

The beauty of the ratio sqrt 2:1 {apart from just looking good to the eye} is that you can make a smaller size just by folding a larger size. With my hypothetical 5cm range above, two 15cm wide pieces together are wider than a 30cm tall piece; but two 30cm tall pieces together are not as tall as one 30cm wide piece. If you use 1.414, then you get foldability as well as a constant aspect ratio.

Resistance to metric adoption

[markjhood2003]

I think one of the reasons there's so much resistance to the metric system is that it's not usually human-oriented. The most egregious example of this is using degrees Celsius for temperature. The Farenheit scale was reasonably designed to encompass, within a range of 0 to 100 degrees, the extremes of temperature across the temperate regions of the world: relatively few places go below 0 degrees F or above 100 degrees F. The metric world instead insists on reporting the weather using a scale based on the freezing and boiling points of water. That's appropriate for chemists and physicists, but it's ridiculous for describing the weather, where the temperate range for most of the world is approximately -17.8 to 37.8 degrees C.

Re:Resistance to metric adoption

[aXis100]

Living in a metric country like Australia, I have no problem with the celcius rating for weather.

Strangely, i find it usefull knowing that a temp of 0 degrees is literally freezing, and 100 is bloody boiling.

Your argument is ridiculous. The reference points are all arbitary, arguing one based on *your* familiarity is narrow minded.

Re:Resistance to metric adoption

[tuxedobob]

Refuting the claim simply by claiming narrow-mindedness (?) is also narrow-minded.

I for one didn't know why the Fahrenheit system was set to where it was. If the poster is correct, it makes sense, as it roughly resembles a percentage. A bit of research turns up that this isn't the origins.

I've also heard that one degree Fahrenheit is the smallest temperature change the human body can detect, but I can't find that factoid anywhere.

Slashdot is SO TRAGIC sometimes...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's tragic that this has to be tought through slashdot. Is this web-site for americans or anyones? The metric paper sizes and its correlations are things everyone should be aware of. The jamming of "bad" paper sizes is probably greater outside the US than within. In US you have problems with A4 jamming the printer, _everybody_ else in the world have problems with some badly written software defaulting the paper size to one nations.

Please, don't let slashdot be the place where americans are being tought internationally accepted and implemented standards, you've had enough time to do that already. (Everyone - Americans) already know it, and the internet (hence slashdot) is international, isn't it?

Practially every country except the US has accepted this kind of standard, just like every other standard there is... Americans might be farmers trusting feet and inch and such "units", now, we others aren't farmers and we ain't heading there neither. SI, ISO etc are there for a reason. Once you realize that, you'll want to adapt. /Gustaf

Re:The metric system is backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Both metric and imperial systems are base 10. In any case, it is not the base that is the problem, it is the units representing the base. Octal makes as much sense, and is as convenient to use, as base 10. Why? Because there are individual glyphs representing all integers from 0 to 7 (hence, octal, base 8). The same applies to base 10, a "natural" system for humans (I'll let you figure this one out). Base twelve however, is not, and has never been, in use (the imperial system is not base 12). That is, we do not have individual glyphs specifying "10" and "11". If we did (for example "A" and "B" - taking from the hexadecimal representation of base 16) then we would use 0..9,A,B, where "12" would be A0. In that case, it would be as easy to use base 12 as it is to use base 10 (assuming of course, proper time to get used to it). We don't however; we only have representative glyphs up to "9", hence the "superiority" of the metric system.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[DavidBrown]

From here, the gas mileage of a modern aircraft carrier is seventeen feet per gallon...so he's getting 40% less distance per unit of fuel.

Modern aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered. Every US aircraft carrier built after 1968 has been nuclear powered. Therefore there are no modern aircraft carriers operating on boilers/diesel, etc.

So the real question is this: How many grams of plutonium/uranium per mile?

Re:Neat - Excellant Karma Whoring Troll

[pla]

You're right about MOST of those posts by Sarojin, but this one is really inexcusable:

Ack!

Okay, that one did it for me (I didn't follow that particular link, originally).

I retract my defense of Sarojin. Going out of his way to hide a link like that pretty much guarantees trolldom, no possible excuses whatsoever.

Ugh. I feel dirty. :-(

But pilots mangle the two systems better

[BeerCat]

but metric paper makes much better airplanes

Meanwhile, in the real world, IIRC, the International Standard Atmosphere is: (big breath)
+15C, 1013.2mb* pressure, with the tempaerature decreasing by 1.98C per 1000ft until 36,090ft, where the temperature is assumed constant at -56.5C

And then there's speed in knots (nautical miles per hour), which is yet another measurement system, being based on degrees of longitude at the equator.


* which I think was chosen as it is 29.92 in Hg

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, at least in this metric country of mine (New Zealand), Coke and other soft drinks don't come in 2L bottles.

It comes in 355ml (cans), 385ml, 600ml, 1L, 1.5L, and 2.25L. It probably has something to do with portion sizes.

Lots of other stuff does tho. Milk (used to be pints, then 600ml, now almost always 1,2,3 litres), fruit juice, icecream, etc.

all well and good, but....

[jefe289]

You can't buy A4 paper here for even close to 2X the price of letter.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

(BTW the metric system sucks for times when you really do want to use fractions)

Oh yes! *slaps forehead* I forgot that metric numbers are incompatible with fractions.

Re:Psst.

[vipw]

If you do the math you'll see that a .21 * .21 sheet at 80g/m^2 will weigh 3.528g. And .21 is actually rounded down from the real number derived from the square root of 2. But I'm sure purchasers don't mind the tiny bit extra they get.

Actually, since 1/8oz is 3.5437g, they're still getting a tiny bit shortchanged since the perfect square would way 3.5355. Heh, pointless fun with google's calculator. :P

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[silence535]

It would be funny, if I would not remember the one guy who seriously (!) claimed that he liked the imperial system better, because 'miles' SOUNDS better than 'kilometers'.

Ironically the metric system is actually more sound than the imperial.

Oh my...

-silence

So where do you buy A4 paper in the U.S.?

[Doppler00]

As much as I would like to print things in metric, it's not like I can just go down to Staples or Costco and buy a box of A4 laser paper. Not to mention the other varieties and qualities of paper that are normally available in letter sizes (weight, brightness, laser, copier, transparency, inkjet, photo). Even if A4 sizes WERE available, I'm sure it would cost 50%-100% more since it wouldn't be produced in bulk here.

As long as U.S. manufactures make paper for the U.S. market I don't think we'll see A4 becoming popular anytime soon.

Re:So where do you buy A4 paper in the U.S.?

[hiroshi912681]

I actually looked and couldn't find a single place that carried it. I was surprised that even Kinko's didn't carry it. But, I did find some available online on the Office Max and Office Depot websites. It's available, just not at your local stores.

Yes, but...

[Cyno01]

The cube meter is the volume of one ton of fresh water at sea level at the equator at zero degrees Celcius.

A standard gravity is part of the definition, so from that you can get a mass.

*twitch*

[Guppy06]

"For those who enjoy a bit of math, did you know that in the Metric paper system, the height-to-width ratio of all pages is the square root of 2?"

This is a site for geeks, and nobody has apparently caught this?

The square root of 2 is an irrational number! There is no way to get an aspect ratio of root(2) because at least one of your sides will have to be an irrational length i. e. something you will never be able to measure accurately whether you use meters, feet or light-years!

Here I thought y'all in metric-land were supposed to be real big on your system because you like moving decimal points around, but you look at me funny for basing my measurement system on 0.3048 meter and yet you can say stuff like this with a straight face?

Re:*twitch*

[aXis100]

It's actually called the *ISO* paper system. Metric has nothing to do with it.

System makes sense

[oilypakora]

I thought this article was good because it displayed the thought process behind the metric paper system. For instance, an A4 page will fit in a C4 envelope - makes sense. Imperial measure paper is just a big hodge-podge of different sizes and names. Letter, Legal, etc. Does this mean I shouldn't write a letter on a legal sheet of paper? Or does it mean that I cannot draft a legal document on a letter sheet? It's all very strange. Ironic that we have readily adopted 35mm film and 8mm videotape here in the US, and not forced manufacturers to make an imperial measure of those media.

Yeah...

[Cyno01]

10 hours a day, 100 minutes an hour, 100 seconds a minute, 100000 seconds a day, makes more sense than the prayr schedual of 11th century monks or whatever... Lunch at around 5:00, tv shows run 25 or 50 minutes, movies around an hour... 1 metric second = .864 "standard" seconds. A metric calander would be trickier, since 1 revolution of the planet = 1 day and 1 year = 365.25 days, no simple divisor (10 months, 5 of 36 days and 5 of 37, keep ther leap year?) and the month now is loosly based on the lunar cycle.

Thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's taken years, but I've finally learnt something from slashdot.

Well done! And thank you very much!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[jonwil]

Here in australia we get 375ml (cans), 390ml, 600ml, 1.25l and 2l (at least last time I looked, dont normally have much cause to notice the larger sizes

Re:Side-by-sideness and n-up

[worldcitizen]

That also explains why n-up printing is more efficient with DIN ratios, a 2-up printing will fill its 2 half-pages better than a 2-up printing of Letter size.

Dear colleagues of the "Americans for waste" league, let's lobby for not going metric :P

Making fun of other countries

[Anonymous Coward]

While we are at it: have you seen these pictures of Japan? Other countries can be funny!

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Pig Hogger]

(For those of you who can't catch subtlety, they're all conventionally-powered supercarriers currently in the US fleet. They boil their water the old-fashioned way.)

You mean in a tea kettle???

Actually,

[Anonymous Coward]

the average american hillbilly has twelve fingers.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Bastian]

you got me there. Screw 33cl; they can pry the pints out of my cold, dead hands.

Granted, that shouldn't take too long with how many pints I drink on a given night. . .

Nothing to do with metric

[DunbarTheInept]

The fact that the D/C/B/A1/A2/A3/A4.. standard has that cut-in-half aspect ratio is a good thing, but it has ZERO to do with the fact that it's measuring things in metric, and everything to do with the fact that it's a newer standard invented with machinery in mind. The same efffect could have been had with inches as with centimeters, and if there was some compelling reason to re-do the paper sizes in America, the same thing would probably happen.

Re:Nothing to do with metric

[tuxedobob]

Except that A0 is a square meter. You can read the whole article of you want to know why this is deemed desirable.

Re:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to take a measurement and compare to something universal to both systems. Really clever.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[DunbarTheInept]

Wow, that's really bad, given that a modern carrier is nuclear powered. What the hell are they using for reactor fuel where it depletes a whole a gallon of it to go 17 feet?

Re:Slow news day indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's comforting at all, most of the posts are retards rehashing the same old metric vs. imperial arguments. Much the same way how half of every Microsoft post is people talking about how great Linux is.

Re:The biggest reason the U.S.A. doesn't use metri

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a convincing argument. The only way to convert them is too destroy them! It's for thier own good. :D

2-up

[zlel]

Over here in Singapore, people like me have have been using A4 all our lives and have never questioned it so much so that it's taken for granted that you can do 2-up printing if you just print each page at half the size... I used to use mpage on unix to do that and wondered why so many Windows printer drivers don't support it - now I know... and yes, it's so irritating to be sending jobs with drivers defaulted to "letter" sized paper when all we have in the whole office is A4 stock.

Base 12! WTF!

[thygrrr]

Hmm, oookay.

Assuming a sensible unit would be one twip. There are 12 twips in a twap, 12 twaps in a twup, and 12 twups in a twoop.

How many twips in a twoop again?

While exponential notation (12^3) makes sense, it's nigh impossible to imagine as a number (rightfully so, though, because we're used to think in the decimal system). We'd have to start calculating in the Base12 system as well!

I'd prefer the Metric system, because all you do is add zeros, and you have a learning bonus as a child because you can use your 10 fingers and count the carry when it goes above that.

1 Meter, 10 Meters in a Decameter, 10 Decameters in a Hectometer, 10 Hectometers in a Kilometer.
1000 Meters in a Kilometer (10^3).

I prefer 1000 in 1 to 1728 in 1. Though I might sit down and device nice names for Base12 numbers above 10 decimal. In particular, how would you pronounce 2A in Base12 ? Ouchie :)

When metric is not metric....

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to hate the way that Americans used a different paper size than the rest of the world (it's still annoying that so many pieces of software insist on US letter) but I changed my mind when I worked for a Japanese company for a while and discovered that they use a paper size that they call A4 but it's _not_ the same size as everyone else's A4!!!

At least the Americans have the common decency to call thier paper by a different name.

Re:When metric is not metric....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Japanese A sizes are standard. It's their B sizes that are different than the rest of the worlds (arithmetic mean vs geometric mean of surrounding A sizes, I don't remember which is which).

ummm, is basic algebra really that

[Dan9999]

that's all I had to say

bla

Metrics/Imperial - nah -- better w/Picas & Poi

[angeles13]

I have to laugh at all the arguemenets over metrics vs Imperial measurements when it comes to paper.

12pt (points) = 1p (pica)

letter is 51p wide x 66p high
A4 is 49p7.3 wide x 70p1.9

I love to work with and prefer to deal with Picas and Points. Far more accurate for layout and design. Mainly divisable by 2, 3 and 6. It is a great way to make sure something fits correctly. And before all of you start yelling about a measurement system so old -- this is still used in the printing industry.

fragile superciliousness

[Doc Ruby]

An oddly American view from an apparently non-american poster. The world outside the US is hardly monolithic. Have you ventured to visit a country outside your own continent, or haven't seen on TV?

doesn't take much to impress so...

[Dan9999]

If I take a 1, and I add another one, I get 2!!!

that's gotta be at least worth a 4 "insightful" no?

I'm writing this when there are already over 1000 messages here, does "lowest common denominator" mean anything anymore?

bla

anthrometric

[Doc Ruby]

Since I learned physics before "avoirdupois" was inculcated (or whatever stupid name they use for the American artifact for British agrarian measurements), I prefer metrics for its mathematical facility. But the exception to human scales is temperature. Farenheit has a sensible range, from 0: about as cold as it gets anywhere nonspecialist humans live, to 100: about as hot as it gets in those areas. Water thaws a third of the way up, and becomes warm enough to enter another third of the way. The average temperature of the planet is about halfway through. And each degree is about the smallest unit of temperature change sensible to the skin. Too bad it doesn't integrate with the rest of the metric measures, but I've got a distributed cluster of neurons well travelled in a "*9/5+32" network.

Re:anthrometric

[pwarf]

Well, if you care about calculation, you should be using Kelvin anyway.

As a chemist, I appreciate the metric system. However, there really isn't a compelling reason to make the general population change, especially with the prevalence of computers.

One thing I never use the metric system for is human-scale distance estimates. Meters are long enough that they are unwieldy, and no one I know uses decimeters. Feet are just the right size for most estimates I do. Actually, acre-feet give me the best mental grasp of large volumes, despite being the most cumbersome unit this side of a half-bushel. I do use liters instead of gallons for small volume estimates, though.

Also, another poster noted that 1 cubic decimeter is one liter. Well, that's still ugly. Your base length unit cubed should equal your base volume measure. Granted, that's a large volume with base length of 1 meter, but the choice of 1 liter = 1000 cubic centimeters is pretty arbitrary.

Re:anthrometric

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, another poster noted that 1 cubic decimeter is one liter. Well, that's still ugly. Your base length unit cubed should equal your base volume measure.

But the current way, 1 litre of water at some standardised temperature weighs (strictly, has a mass of) 1kg. So it's swings and roundabouts.

Re:anthrometric

[Anonymous Coward]

So a fraction of a cubic meter has a mass of a multiple of 1 g. How random.

So it's swings and roundabouts.

Uh, is that good or bad?

Modern Aircraft Carriers

[oldCoder]

Modern Aircraft Carriers use nuclear power.

Re:Modern Aircraft Carriers

[compro01]

try the Queen Elizibeth 2. it gets better GPM than his car. the thing moves 17 feet per gallon of diesel it burns.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[sadomikeyism]

Same with 'english' paper, bucko. Two Papers (8 1/2" x 11") will equal a Tabloid (11" x 17"), and two of those will equal newsprint (17" x 22"), etc... What, you think that American printing companies have been throwing away tons of paper all these years?

Rather than basing the paper size on some cute mathematical trick, it was based on the capacity of common sheet fed offset presses to handle a maximum printed sheet size of 22" x 34" plus a one inch border on the raw 24" x 36" sheet produced by paper makers (a 2 foot by 3 foot sheet) to handle registration and crop marks.

So the origin of these sheets is the desire of paper wholesalers to sell their product in easy integer units of 2' by 3' size, where 500 sheets of the standard density equals 20 pounds (which is where the term '20 lb paper' comes from).

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[metric_bigot]

So which system is "American"? ...imperial? UNC/F threads?

Bravo! Re:Yes... it's your damn fault!

[metric_bigot]

Bravo!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Darren.Moffat]

Metric has been taught in UK schools for a long time. I started school in the UK in 1978 and it had started long before that.

While very thing in school was done in metric our parents still spoke and worked in imperial. It wasn't until the 1999 (I might be off 1 year either side) that the UK officially required that legal weights and measures be metric - remember that even our currency wasn't metric until 1971!

Today in the UK there is a very strange situation. You by fuel for your car in metric but we all still talk about miles per (imperial) gallon. If you go into a pub you buy beer by the imperial pint, but spirts in metric, if you are underage your milk can be in a pint but your soft drink is in metric.

All roads are still in miles. Temperature is given in C but most people 30 and over still understand F as well.

My wife is an Aussie and grew up completely metricated. While we were living in the UK the imperial to metric switch happened and she was happy to be familar with weights and measures again. 6 months later we moved to the US and their "English" system!

Printing or copying one sized document to other

[devilsandy]

To print or copy a letter sized document onto a A4 and vice-versa here is what you need to do

"Letter" documents have to be printed with 97% size to fit on the 3% less wide A4 format.

A4 size documents have to be copied or printed with a 94% magnification factor to fit on the 6% less tall "Letter" paper.

I challenge anyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

To measure root(2) using a conventional ruler!
Whats the f-ing point?!

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Navy still has one non-nuclear aircraft carrier in active use, the USS Kitty Hawk.

For a full list of the Navy's current aircraft carriers, go here.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, according to that page, the Nitmitz (nuclear powered) went 30 years before having to be refueled. That's some good mileage, especially considering it weighs as much as 54,000 automobiles.

metric?

[staticdaze]

Metric my ass, we have been familiar with this paper system for quite a while. It's called binary.

except maybe Japan

[jpkeating]

If you think Japanese don't like being different, you don't know Japan. The "Japan is unique" attitude is one of the prime tropes for Japan-bashers, so I'm surprised anyone thinks Japanese really want to be anyone else. The Japanese genius is to digest anything and everything from abroad and make it their own, usually improving it.

Metric will win in the end...

[MalusCaelestis]

... just like Betamax and Mac OS.

on the math of metric paper sizes...

[Anonymous Coward]

a bit of math for the non-metric paper people...
did you know that the height-to-width ratio for the non-metric paper sizing also works out:
8.5"x11", 11"x17", 17"x22", 22"x34" etc. is how size most commonly increments (and of course 8.5"x14" is an exception)..

also, paper weight is determined by a 'ream' of paper: a ream being defined as 500 sheets of 11"x17" paper: so 500 8.5"x11" sheets of 20lb paper weighs 5lbs.

Re:It's not the paper size -- it's the hole punche

[aaaurgh]

The three hole punch is larger and therefore less convenient. Furthermore the clamps are only provided on the larger binders, the smaller ones don't need or use them. The main reason is that the larger binders tend to be lever driven not sprung and the clamp stops the paper from moving against the clamp joint and tearing the holes. I can't believe anyone could consider that a small weak clamp could ever be providing structural integrity by pressure - the clamps simply aren't that strong.

One additional point about the two hole punch is that it can easily be used to punch the four hole page which, by your definition, is even more stable and robust - convenient AND adaptable!

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

And in New Zealand the cans are 355ml. This corresponds to 12 fluid ounces, apparently.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Calroth]

I'm not arguing which is better, just noting that you make the above out to be alot harder than it really is.

Not so. It's easy and obvious for you. It's easy and obvious for me. In fact, it's easy and obvious for most Slashdot readers out there.

The point of the original post is that it's confusing for large chunks of the population, and especially confusing for large chunks of the population who are in grade school, where they're learning it.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[cfuse]

if i remember corectly a "hogshead" is 63 gallons.

This is going to so totally destroy my karma, but I just can't help it, here goes ...

So, how much iraqi blood is that?

Keep it real

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont get it. The connections are layd out, and was layd out first. These decadish connections is all US people have to focus on.

The nifty _definitions_(that is all thy are) of the SI base elements was made afterwards as a backup in case the retards in France loose their 1 metre top level hierarchy reference. It might get abducted by aliens or what do I care.

The point is the base of the SI units have to be reproduceable in a lab, say... on another planet. This should give you guys (americans) good enough security to change to the metric system.
Seems like you guys are waiting for it to be 'stable' or somthing. It is not a farking linux distro. Damn you are slow.

Re:Keep it real

[Guppy06]

"The nifty _definitions_(that is all thy are) of the SI base elements was made afterwards as a backup in case the retards in France loose their 1 metre top level hierarchy reference."

No, all the base units with the exception of the kilogram are based on physical constants because the artifacts change over time! If you're using a piece of metal and you give it the name "meter," what happens when the temperature changes and the metal shrinks or expands? What if it gets warped? What if it oxidizes? I mean, just look at all the hoops BIPM has to jump through just to maintain the kilogram artifact:

The unit of mass, the kilogram, is the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram kept at the BIPM. It is a cylinder made of an alloy for which the mass fraction of platinum is 90 % and the mass fraction of iridium is 10 %. The masses of 1 kg secondary standards of the same alloy or of stainless steel are compared with the mass of the international prototype by means of balances with a relative uncertainty approaching 1 part in 109.

The mass of the international prototype increases by approximately 1 part in 10^9 per year due to the inevitable acumulation of contaminants on its surface. For this reason, the CIPM declared that, pending further research, the reference mass of the international prototype is that immediately after cleaning and washing by a specified method. The reference mass thus defined is used to calibrate national standards of platinum-iridium alloy.

In the case of stainless-steel 1 kg standards, the relative uncertainty of comparisons is limited to about 1 part in 10^8 by uncertainty in the correction for air buoyancy. The results of comparisons made in vacuum, though unaffected by air buoyancy, are subject to additional corrections to account for changes in mass of the standards when cycled between vacuum and atmospheric pressure.

And it's important to do all this so that everybody agrees on exactly what a "kilogram" is.

"This should give you guys (americans) good enough security to change to the metric system."

We already have! The US went SI a long time ago, probably before your home country. Everything we do is based on the SI system. It just so happens that, just as you call 1000 kg a "ton" and 0.001 m^3 a "liter," we call 0.3048 m a "foot" and .45359237 kg a "pound." You can go back and forth between inches and milimeters with infinite precision just as you can between centimeters and milimeters because it's all based on the SI definition of the meter.

"Seems like you guys are waiting for it to be 'stable' or somthing."

The US signed on to the first so-called "Treaty of the Metre" in 1866, making trade in SI units legal in this country. The US standards for length and mass have been based on SI units since at least the 1890's. The last time those definitions changed was in the 1950's, and even then it wasn't by any meaningful amount. The only thing left to our "conversion" is for us to stop assigning special names to certain SI measurements, which in many ways is no worse than the special names used here and there in the "metric" world.

Look at yourselves! Just about everybody here nods their head in agreement when some uninformed SI proponent tells everybody that the density of liquid water at 3.98 degrees Celsius is 1 g/mL. It's not. You think water freezes at exactly 0 degrees Celsius. It doesn't, nor does it boil at exactly 100 degrees Celsius and 101,325 Pa. I've seen metric people call 0.5 kg "pound," 500 mL "pint" and 250 mL "cup," and these are people in continental Europe saying these things. Why? "Common usage" is the answer usually given, "just the way people do things, I guess." "Close enough?" "Just because?" What's the point in beating the drum about global standards when you yourselves don't use them?

You put a stamp on an envelope and it's good to send up to 30 grams. I put one on

Metric is Better, but not Best

[kf6auf]

While metric(SI, or MKS, standing for meter, kg, seconds) is much better than American^H^H^H^HEnglish units, it is obnoxious to use because there are all sorts of conversion factors like mu and epsilon that you have to use when dealing with things like eletricity and/or magnetism. CGS (stands for cm, gram, seconds) is much better in that converting from one unit to another never require a numerical factor. Something that is kinda funny: astrophysicists use centimeters and grams to describe astronomical distances and masses. Just a thought, though I am not sure how this relates to paper sizes.

-Scott

Re:golden ratio? not a convention

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the only ratio where half its area keeps the same proportions.

Shrinking something by sqrt(2) always keeps the same proportions... But this is the only ratio where cutting the rectangle in half keeps the same proportions.

You can do a similar trick with a golden rectangle though... Instead of cutting it in half, you cut it into two uneven pieces. One is a square, and the other is a golden rectangle.

Of course, this is not so practical for copying books. But in my opinion the book-copying thing is overrated. You can reduce two pieces of letter-size paper so that they fit on a single sheet. The advantage of the silver rectangle size is the factor of 2 and the fact that less paper is wasted around the edges. But when you copy a book, you will waste a comparable amount of paper on the destination-copy just due to the binding. And if you want a factor of 2 area reduction for a technical diagram with any copier... you just select 50% on the copier. If the digram is so big that it doesn't fit on letter size paper, you'd probably have to use a special copier anyway if you want the whole thing to fit on the bed.

Nice theory, but...

[SofaMan]

How does Australia fit into it? We didn't formally adopt metric standards until about the same time as we adopted decimalised currency (late 1960's). Australia suffered very little wartime destruction of infrastructure. Post-WWII, we also moved into manufacturing (before and during the war, we were mostly primary production, with some manufacturing), building cars and such. Yet still, we didn't begin to formally implement metric until the late 1960's.

Within a decade, it was basically done - Australia was a metricated nation. Why? Because we had leaders who recognised the value of the metric system, and had the political will to make it happen - they laid down the law: "You will be metric, or else we'll send the boys round..." We had the same trading partners as the US, only we weren't in a position to be hard-assed about doing things 'our way' - our economy wasn't and isn't anything like the size of the US's.

Our trading partners were metric, so we accepted that we would benefit from being like them. The US being as economically powerful as it, it could afford to thumb their nose at the standards of others, and still does today.

I still regard this as the best explanation of the US reticence to adopt these standards across the board, though I think you make some excellent points. I certainly don't think my argument invalidates yours, but I think my points are worth reconciling.

Re:Nice theory, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"How does Australia fit into it?"

The population and infrastructure of Australia is very, very small.

Re:Nice theory, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Still an economy of scale so the costs of changing are the same per company and most likely a simlar percent of the GDP

Also I think "very very small" should be just "very small"... New Zealand is "very very small"!

Re:Not English - customary?

[pwarf]

I'm an American, and I use the term "customary units" (using it as a technical term, not whatever units are customary) to refer to inches, feet, pounds, slugs (non-metric unit of mass), etc.

While maintaining the aspect ratio of paper is a nice trick, I hope that elegantness of the solution for division didn't trump ergonomics or convenience. I believe A4 is negligibly different from 8.5" by 11" ("letter" size), so it sounds like it doesn't matter.

By the way, "legal" paper (8.5" by 14") is the size it is so that you can photocopy "letter"-sized paper and then affix signatures and legal stuff at the bottom. Having a standard size that is longer than the commonly used sizes makes sense for these purposes. I'm curious: Is there something equivalent in international standard paper sizes?

Eyeballing...

[SofaMan]

Why couldn't I say 11 9/16ths inches? 16ths are actualy more accurate than tenths. And yes, you can say that you can just to go hundredths, but you cant really eyeball hundredths, you can eyeball 16ths.


And if we divided centimetres into 16ths, I would agree with you.

Problem is, 1" = 2.54cm, so 1/16" is still bigger than 0.1cm (1mm) (1/16" = 1.58mm). Where exactly is the 'eyeballing' advantage?

The smallest units on my steel ruler are 0.5mm, which you can eyeball - using the logic above, these are still finer resolution than 1/32".

Now, if you're gonna tell me that you can eyeball 1/64", then you've got better eyesight than me.

Re:Eyeballing...

[HyperCash]

"Problem is, 1" = 2.54cm, so 1/16" is still bigger than 0.1cm (1mm) (1/16" = 1.58mm). Where exactly is the 'eyeballing' advantage?"

I didn't really think it through that far, I was looking at the 11.6 inches in the post I replied to, but you're right. Thanks for pointing that out.

--HC

ratiometric fractions?

[pwarf]

Sorry, but what an ugly name for fractions as opposed to decimal equivalents. Yes, many US pocket calcs have a result->fraction button. Most non-graphing still just have eight digit displays.

Hmm, I don't think I've ever had to measure anything smaller than 1/32 of an inch with a ruler. Figuring out what 1/5 is in 32nds just means solving. 1/5 = x/32. Crossmultiplying and solving gives x = 32/5 or 6.4 (six and two fifths.) So, you go 6 tic marks and just shy of half of another. The inherent inaccuracy is less than 1/32 of an inch, and I can't cut anything that exactly. ;) Also, that's about the same uncertainty as you quoted for the metric ruler.

A slight bit more math is involved than with metric, but really not that much. For a surprisingly large majority of people, the most complex manipulation of units they do is estimation. Unit conversions and divisions in your head are simply not a necessity of modern life for most people.

Re:ratiometric fractions?

[ajs318]

Figuring out what 1/5 is in 32nds just means solving. 1/5 = x/32. Crossmultiplying and solving gives x = 32/5 or 6.4 (six and two fifths.) So, you go 6 tic marks and just shy of half of another.

A slight bit more math is involved than with metric, but really not that much.

And, over time, all those slight bits add up. Ting! Next, please.

The metric system was designed around the decimal notation from the word go. When you naturally think of a quarter as being "point two five", it just sort of makes sense.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[iainf]

Apparently it will make you French if you buy 33cl bottle of beer instead of a pint...

Funny, the bottle of Theakson's Old Peculier here by my elbow is 500ml - the so-called "metric pint". Only a few beers are (still) sold in pint bottles these days - Marston's Pedigree, for example.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan has talked about switching to the the right side. Once that happens, what will happen to the cost of cars with the steering wheel on the wrong side? It will leave the UK, Aus and NZ driving on the wrong side but since NZ gets most of its cars from Japan, it will change within a decade of Japan.

Re:Canada does use Metric

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a graphic artist in Canada and the first class we had was a math class where we were taught Imperial measurements. We were told that the US uses Imperial and they're our biggest customer so we'll be using Imperial too. Made sense to me and besides I grew up with 8.5x11 and 4x6 and everything else. And you have to admit that a quarter inch margin is so much more elegent than 6.35 mm. No thanks, I'll be sticking with Imperial.

Architects view of A sizes and scaling documents

[mamahuhu]

... one of the reason the Imperial system is moderately convenient for building is that base 12 is divisible by 2,3,4 and 6, so you'll encounter less rounding error if you need to split things up into common numbers

I'm an architest and I can tell you that the Imperial system sucks big time and is not convenient at all.

Adding up Imperial measurements is a freaking nightmare.

In the rest of the world we use standard sizes for construction materials like 150x150mm wall tiles, 300x300 floor tiles, 600x600 raised floor tiles, 900x900 carpet tiles, 1200x2400 (or higher) gypsum wall panels.... get it - it's all on a sensible module that you can use to line everything up on .... AND it doesn't stop you from use the exact same convenient divisor of base 12. In fact the above building material sizes show this exactly.

And you can easily add them all up.

The other thing that no one has mentioned is scale and the A system.

The majority of drawings we make are A1 sizes - which nicely scales to A3. A 1:50 drawing at A1 becomes a 1:100 scale at A3 - not the freaking ridiculous Imperial scales.

Then you can get a ruler with a 1cm scale on it and every cm is a metre.

Note that if you scale a A3 to A4 then everything becomes an inconvenient scale. What happens is that you reduce A3 to A4 for a Fax transmission the receiver scales it back up to A3 to use.

Note that the same issue occurs with A1 to A2 or A2 to A3. You need to scale down two levels in the A system to maintain scale - which is fine for most uses.

So the Imperial system sucks in all ways for Architects and construction in general.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[pipingguy]

we men have been telling our women that:

|------| = 10 inches, when in fact
|---------| = 10 inches.

Adam to Eve: "Stand back, I don't know how big this thing gets."

Re:Not English - customary?

[instarx]

By the way, "legal" paper (8.5" by 14") is the size it is so that you can photocopy "letter"-sized paper and then affix signatures and legal stuff at the bottom.

I find that explanation suspicious since there was legal-sized paper long before photocopiers.

Office Space - the movie

[BigBlockMopar]

"PC Load Letter? What the fuck does that mean?!?"

My father had precisely the same reaction with that message from a LaserJet II that I gave him a few years ago. I'm pretty sure that's exactly the message.

I don't understand why it's such a confusing message, but I also wouldn't have phrased it the same way. It's one of the most classic examples of the reason why engineers and developers should never be allowed to design user interfaces. (When they do, you end up with stuff like xine.)

Given a fixed number of display characters (14, IIRC), why not alternate - "OUT OF PAPER" with "LETTER - TOP" or "LETTER - BOTTOM" or "LEGAL - TRAY". I'm sure it would have been only slightly more expensive to do - a couple of extra lines of software, would have reduced tech support calls, and would have been useful even up to a III/IIID with the second (bottom) tray. Even easier would have just been "OUT OF LETTER", "OUT OF LEGAL", in situations with plain letter in the top cassette and letterhead in the bottom, I'd hope that whoever had put the paper in it originally could also figure out that there should have been letter-sized paper in both cassettes.

How 'bout the LaserJet I? I think "out of paper" was a 21 error.

And how f**king annoying is it...

[Zilch]

And how f**king annoying is it...when everytime you set up a new printer and say yes to a test page it never comes out?

What's worse is you hold everyone elses print jobs up in the office because the printer is sitting there saying "Insert letter paper" until you hit the "Continue" button.

Argh!

Zilch

Re:America Junior switched

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada switched even though having a similiar amount of industrialization as the US.

Easy...

[empaler]

1 cubic meter of water equals 1 metric ton of water, and you divide your way down from there...
It's just easier to start from the lower figure, mostly, as I have yet to use a ton of water for my experiments... :O

Points and Picas

[Mutok]

You can take this idea further with two standard measurements used by graphic designers: the point and the pica.

There are 6 picas in an inch, and there 12 points in a pica (making 72 points in an inch). Points are used regularly to describe the size of a font, and make the inch evenly divisible by 2, 3, and 4. 10 point is a standard book type size -- with a standard two points of leading (extra space for linespacing) it takes up 12 points, 1 pica, per line of text. With 6 picas in an inch it is easy to count how many lines of text fit into a vertical space. That's why type sizes are usually 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 72 as relatively clean subdivisions of an inch.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[amorsen]

You are wrong about Northern Europe and even Scandinavia. In Denmark all mileage is reported in km/l. I really can't see any reason to switch to the reciprocal times 100. Why 100? And why pick something that gets you worse mileage with larger numbers?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

In Denmark all mileage is reported in km/l. I really can't see any reason to switch to the reciprocal times 100. Why 100? And why pick something that gets you worse mileage with larger numbers?

Interesting, didn't know that. Then again Denmark doesn't have any car industry so there's no real reason I should have, now is there. :-)

The liter / 100 km is as I mentioned the EU standard, and most (all?) cars manufactured in the EU market has it at least as an option. I know for a fact that SAAB and Volvo are delivered that way, even in the Danish market, so if you want it the other way around you'll have to do it in your head.

The only reason I can see is that it's the way it's always been. You complain that your 'mileage' will go the wrong way, but of course if you instead think in terms of fuel comsumption rate the tables are reversed. In fact all other fuel consumptions traditionally have the reciprocal the 'other' way. Stationary diesels (or semi stationary, think tractor :-) are traditionally measured in liters (or other volume) per hour. Same in aviation (though of course the Americans use gals/hour). Heavy trucks are usually liters per tonne kilometer to recognise the fact that the load the truck carries have a significant impact on fuel consumption rates.

The 100 factor I can only guess is to get nice round (small) numbers, with typical consumption rates between 5 and 15 liters per 100 kilometers. As I said in Sweden that would be 0.5 - 1.5 which is also workable, but introduces a decimal point.

In fact the question should be why there are useages that have the reciprocal with the distance as the numerator given the historical usages. It's easy enough to get used to the idea that a smaller fuel consumption is the better car. For me it's the other way around, having a larger value mean a better fuel consumption is 'backwards.'

No A5 envelopes

[sita]

Actually, it won't. That's why there are no A5 envelopes. There are C5 envelopes, that are slightly larger than an A5, so that an A5 will fit inside.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually i just treat it like a big ole block of granite, just hack away anything thats not an airplane!

folding an A size sheet of paper in half

[The_Rook]

isn't that just the same as taking an "A" size sheet and folding it in half to make two A1 sheets, folding an A1 sheet in half to make two A2 sheets, folding an A2 sheet in half to make 2 A3 sheets, folding an A3 sheet in half to make two A4 sheets, and so one?

Re:Architects view of A sizes and scaling document

[innocent_white_lamb]

it's all on a sensible module that you can use to line everything up on

But in carpentry you DON'T want to line everything up. You don't want the rigid foam insulation seam to line up with a seam in concrete block wall (where you offset the blocks), and you don't want the wall paneling to line up with the seam in the insulation. Offset is the name of the game, not "make one seam that goes all the way through to the great outdoors".

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[innocent_white_lamb]

as a novice work worker and DIY home improvement and maintenance guy, I find using mixed fractions very annoying.

As a "DIY home improvement and maintenance guy" you have probably realized that all existing American construction was done in Imperial units using lumber and materials cut to Imperial lengths. 4x8 plywood sheets, 8' 2x4's, 7'9" 2x4 studs, and so on.

Now what do you do when the 2x4 is no longer exactly 1.5"x3.5" and shorter than 8' long when you need to add a piece to your house?

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Sri Lumpa]

"But there are reasons for the SI numbers, and they work well enough for the US to resist changing."

This sentence doesn't make sense since the SI = Systeme International = metric system.

So you mean that there are reasons for the metric system that work well enough for the US to resist changing? ;)

Re:It's not the paper size -- it's the hole punche

[Anonymous Coward]

What I hate with a passion is the EU tendency to use a two-hole punch on the side of the paper to hold it in notebooks.

That is also a standard and very expandable:
You can punch them again using the two-hole puncher twice or using a four-hole puncher once. Then it will fit a four ring ordner (notebook). You can also sync it with a 23 hole puncher and use a 2, 4 or 23 ring ordner.

Also you can cut an A4 with two holes into 3 pieces of paper horizontally and then the middle one fits in a bankaccount booklet. You can use the two-hole puncher to make the other two exactly the same. Now a weekly banking overview uses only 1/3 A4 paper per week and you can archive one account in a booklet or two accounts in a standard 4 ring ordner.
--
Dennis SCP

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[amorsen]

In general I don't have to do it in my head, I just go to the menu and switch the appropriate setting.

Re:America Junior switched

[justins]

Canada switched even though having a similiar amount of industrialization as the US.

Canada has never had anything approaching the amount of "industrialization" (or to be more precise, industrial capacity) that the United States has. That's probably a function of having a population one-tenth our size.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[dbIII]

The point of the original post is that it's confusing for large chunks of the population, and especially confusing for large chunks of the population who are in grade school, where they're learning it.

Very true. When my parents grew up they had to learn their sixteen times table, while I, growing up in a metric age only had to know up to ten - until I had to worry about drill sizes in fractions of imperial units.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[gfxguy]

I use the units I have to, which is imperial, I never said I didn't. I can simply see how, if everything were metric, it would make most things simpler.

"Niles_Stonne", who also responded, made the point I was looking for. However, planning ahead, I think you don't run into those problems often - how many things would I want to put four equally spaced legs along one side? Sure you can make a contrived example, but it'd more likely be two or three for a simple piece of furniture (which, with my expertise, is about as good as it gets).

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Not in a SAAB or Volvo then I take it. What car are you driving?

Re:It's not the paper size -- it's the hole punche

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to disagree. As a geek, I'm appalled they have to approximate when they kill trees because they've specified the exact size using irrational numbers. In the ugly kludge contest, it's right up there with deriving all scientific measurements from one particular hunk of platinum.

Re:Not English - customary?

[pwarf]

True, I shouldn't use the word "photocopy" as a generic term for copying paper.

Of course, originally copies of paper were prepared by hand and then by typewriter long before the invention of the photocopy machine. However, I stand by my claim that the reason legal paper is the size it is is so that signatures and seals can be affixed.

replying to the right post?

[pwarf]

"Ting! Next, please."? That's just obnoxious.

To recap:

You were curious and asked "Do US calculators use ratiometric fractions?"

I satisfied your curiousity and replied that they did, and meanwhile noted that the assumption that "you cannot readily convert 1/5 into 32nds" is not true if you are used to it, and that there is no extra inaccuracy in using a US measurement ruler instead of a metric one.

Sure, the slight bits add up. However, you are not accounting for all the small bits that are downsides to switching (completely switching - US scientists and engineers generally know and use metric):
1) conversion cost. Relabelling, educating the older generation, some period of time with signs with both, etc. If this were the only objection, it would make sense to switch during the next boom and get it over with for the sake of future returns in efficiency.
2) overlooked conversion costs. The enormous number of books that are still useful, but would become obsolete if no one knew miles, feet, inches, etc. anymore. Just think of all the obsoleted cookbooks alone.
3) The cultural cost. This is the most overlooked, but there are so many books and poems that are an important part of our culture that would be less accessible if people weren't familiar with the units. To give a small example, I don't ever use leagues, so this was the first time that I realized that the 20000 Leagues in Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea is nearly ten times the diamter of the Earth! To some extent conversions can be done, but losing personal familiarity with older units does cost some understanding of the text for most readers.

Using both as most convenient works just fine. And there's nothing the rest of the world can do about it. Neener, neener, neener. ;)

Re:replying to the right post?

[CaptainAvatar]

2) overlooked conversion costs. The enormous number of books that are still useful, but would become obsolete if no one knew miles, feet, inches, etc. anymore. Just think of all the obsoleted cookbooks alone.

Pish, tosh. You just have conversion tables where necessary - Australian cookbooks still often have these up the back of the book, a generation after we switched to metric. Older ovens often have the conversion printed on them or people would pin up a converstion table on the fridge. Sure, it's irritating, but if we could handle it, I'm sure you Yanks could too.

The cultural cost. This is the most overlooked, but there are so many books and poems that are an important part of our culture that would be less accessible if people weren't familiar with the units. To give a small example, I don't ever use leagues, so this was the first time that I realized that the 20000 Leagues in Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea is nearly ten times the diamter of the Earth! To some extent conversions can be done, but losing personal familiarity with older units does cost some understanding of the text for most readers.

That's a fair point (I didn't realise that about 20,000 Leagues under the Sea! Well, I'm sure I must have checked in my geeky childhood but have forgotten. I guess then it refers to the length of the submarine voyage around the world, rather than the depth under the sea, as I had always assumed.) But even so lots of people here still know what a mile is, what a foot is and so on. I still express my height in feet and inches, not cm, because it's familiar and customary. But we use metric for all the important stuff :) What I'm saying is that even a fully metric system does not preclude the use of some customary units on an informal basis.

Like that'll fit in your pocket!

[leonbrooks]

Our paper's a light-nanosecond long. Makes chip design a lot easier, too. (-:

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[amorsen]

Toyota Yaris, last time I had a mileage counter. It could do mpg as well.

Re:Not English - customary?

[Anonymous Coward]

While maintaining the aspect ratio of paper is a nice trick, I hope that elegantness of the solution for division didn't trump ergonomics or convenience. I believe A4 is negligibly different from 8.5" by 11" ("letter" size), so it sounds like it doesn't matter.

If only most printers (or their drivers) thought the same.
I've lost count of the number of times I've had to stand there hitting the continue button because some prick 1) forgot to change windoze default settings, and 2) forgot to go to the printer to collect their crap.

And yet...

[Any Web Loco]

Neither of these guys have actually SEEN a real, live breast.

Re:And yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Neither of these guys have actually SEEN a real, live breast.

Ba-Doompt.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[nadaou]

Can you describe a few of these times? I'm being serious... as a novice work worker and DIY home improvement and maintenance guy, I find using mixed fractions very annoying.

You need to drill a hole to put a bolt through. You drill it 1/64th bigger than the bolt's outer diameter. Bolt slides in easy without wiggle. To get the same effect with (small) metric holes, you need to smash your drill press to make it spin non-true, as metric drills usually just come in 0.5mm gradations. Exactitude demands more!

After using them for a while, the fractions become second nature and you can usually guess which wrench etc you need by application and looking at it.. and that's a pleasant day. Also exact calculations in your head are easier (possible) in fractions than in floating point.

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[dave420]

The new Hummer is out?

that's why

[ashpool7]

you buy used. :) good cars all those germans make.

Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr

[Anonymous Coward]

my kitchen scale switches between ounces and grams on the fly

And just how many grams can you fit on the fly?

Or maybe that's one of those unanswerable philosophical questions.

Forks and Knives

[solprovider]

Disclaimer: I am an American. This was told to me by someone who researched it, but I did not check the research.
---

A long time ago, everybody ate with a knife. About the time America was being colonized by Europeans, Europeans started using the fork. They used the fork in their good hand, and kept the knife in their other hand. Around the time of the American Revolution, Americans noticed the fork. Being at war with England, and very aware of appearing civilized, they invented the weird etiquette of using their good hand for the primary utensil, constantly switching the fork between hands.

I occasionally eat with Europeans (usually Germans), and they are amused by my constantly switching utensils.

Re:Not English - customary?

[gryphokk]

I believe A4 is negligibly different from 8.5" by 11" ("letter" size), so it sounds like it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter until you try to publish a document using both sizes. While both dimensions are close to 8.5 x 11, A4 is actually narrower (11)taller.

Which means you can't just scale the items on your page up or down; the aspect ratio has changed. If you scale the page as a whole, you wind up with very unattractive margins (close on the sides, with acres of white space top & bottom).

When I need a layout to work on both international and U.S. paper sizes, I generally start with 8.5 x 14, which reduces more closely to A4 without distortion or rearrangement. Also scales nicely to other U.S. sizes I use:
5.5 x 8.5, 11 x 17, 22 x 34.

8.5 x 11 is aesthetically a horrible rectangle (IMHO, as is any comment using the string "aesth").

It is not that complex

[Anonymous Coward]

The goal is to retain proportions when you cut the sheet in half (or if you glue two smaller sheets into one). Let's imagine we have two smaller sheets X wide and Y long. The combined big sheet will be Y wide and 2X long. We want to maintain proportions, so 2X/Y = Y/X, which gives 2X^2 = Y^2, which resolves to X = Y/sqrt(2). Easy. What is not easy to understand is the bizzare numerical sizes, like 210 × 297 for most commonly used A4. Why??? Neither of them is round number and neither of them divide fully to sqrt(2). I don't know, maybe these dimensions provide for the least errors?

Depends on what country you are in

[blorg]

D.M.Y is a common European date style; I presume you use this in Finland. D/M/Y (with slashes) is the standard date style in the UK & Ireland (and a number of other European countries also). The date with the dots is understandable, given context, but certainly not standard. Taken in isolation, certain dates could be taken as a time rather than a date here. 09.10 for example would be seen as 10 minutes past nine, not as the ninth of October (although colons would be more standard for time).

I vaguely remember that Sweden almost uniquely use ISO-style dates (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD). I may be wrong.