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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Tree131]

fork chop sticks!!!!

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[carlos_benj]

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

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

[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

[jhobbs]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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).

It's articles like this

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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... @_@

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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: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.

Obligatory

[swordboy]

PC Load Letter!? WTF does that mean?!

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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...

[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...

[ChrisMaple]

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

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

[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!)

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

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!!

[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. :/

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...

[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.

Pulp Numerology

[Bingo Foo]

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

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!

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...

[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.

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 !"

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.

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...

[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: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.

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?

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>

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.

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!

[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!

[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:Neat

[the MaD HuNGaRIaN]

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

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

[Frothy Walrus]

Now is that a solid ounce, a fluid ounce, or an apothecary ounce?

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.

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:Aka the golden mean

[odsign]

No it's not. The golden mean is (1+sqrt(5))/2. That page you linked even says so.

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!

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.

Obligatory homer paraphrasing

[bperkins]

OOOoo! Look at me! I use the metric system!

I only know how to divide by ten!

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 :)

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.

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: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.

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

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: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: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: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.

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).

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: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: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.)

Bah.

[Anonymous Coward]

My car is a jet dragster, you insensitive clod!

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: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: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 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."

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....

[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.

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.

Fight Metric!

[Quack1701]

We don't want a foreign Ruler!

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...

Re:Drugs teach American kids the metric system.

[WormholeFiend]

but metric paper makes much better airplanes.

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.

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: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.

Next in our series:

[R.Caley]

``Did you know knives have sharp edges so you can cut things with them''

Re:And this is superior why?

[MightyYar]

And you start without capitalization and end without punctuation.

Dick.

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.

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: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

[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.

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...

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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.)

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.

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

[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...

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.)

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.

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: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:Oooo.... root 2!

[chris_mahan]

ever tried folding?

wow

[tuggy]

wow! great discovery!
any ten-year-old in europe knows that...

Re:Oooo.... root 2!

[Amorpheus_MMS]

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

A0 is the biggest one.

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:I love it. It helped me get more points on a Ch

[proggoddess]

Newtons are fruit and cake.

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.

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.

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..

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: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.

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?!?"

Metric Fonts...

[grimace1969]

Metric paper is great but Points and Picas are based on the inch, how do they size fonts in metric?

-G

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.

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: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:Oooo.... root 2!

[reidbold]

A0 by the sounds of it.

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: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."

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).

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

[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>

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)

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: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.

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: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: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.

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.

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?

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: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.

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:I will fight this metric paper with every OUNCE

[jo_ham]

Is that an African or European swallow?

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.

Is fresh water...

[pluvia]

... the same as distilled water (pure H2O)?
I was wondering about that 0C too, thanks to the gp for clarifying.

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,....)

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.

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.!)

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!

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: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.

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: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: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

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: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?

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: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.