Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density B&W Film

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:15:25 -0500, "rafe b" wrote:

The USA has its head up its ass in far more ways
than I can enumerate in one post... But then again,
we've long since given up being "reality based."


rafe b

Right on the money Rafe.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:32:00 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Well, at least it was based on *someone's* body parts, instead of an
arbitrary, disembodied, intangible numerical concept.

So you would prefer "de pedibus Sancti Pauli" ???? As Jefferson stated
"There exists not in nature, as far as has been hitherto observed, a
single subject or species of subject, accessible to man, which
presents one constant and uniform dimension.". Of course Jefferson
didn't know a whole lot about energy. Perhaps someday the meter will
be finally defined as the distance light travels in 1/300,000,000 of a
second. I like round numbers ;)

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:07:57 +0000, Chris Hills
wrote:

Why should I embrace a system that's

Universally used in the rest of the world?

And agreed upon by the US government on May 20, 1875 ? But then we
don't really want to hold our governments accountable for their
agreements do we ? Heavens no ! The American Indians learned this
better than anyone.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:11:42 -0500, "rafe b" wrote:

First-order conversion is trivial. A meter is a yard.
A liter = a quart. An inch = 2.5 cm. Etc. etc.

But as has been said before "The Devil is in the details".

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:52:55 +0100, (Philip Homburg)
wrote:

Because in metric world the use of units is much more practical. I guess
that people in the US want to slow down daily life, because of some false
sense of tradition.

Nope. It's the engineers and machinists that are slowing down the
whole show. They would rather use what is loosely a base 8 system than
a more natural and precise base 10 system.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:04:17 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

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

You obviously never had to measure in 64's !

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:04:17 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

In the case of printing, I have *never*--not once--been in a situation
where it would be advantageous--or even possible--to divide a
measurement by 10.

Shoot ! What I'd give to see papers made in10X15,20X30 and 30X45 cm !


==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:25:30 -0500, "rafe b" wrote:

Kinda like
my digicam with its synthesized shutter noise --
a pacifier for folks wedded to "tradition."

And rooted in ignorance ?

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:34:18 +0100, (Philip Homburg)
wrote:

Apart from the factor that a watt is one joule per second and a
joule is one newton meter, and a newton is one kilogram meter per
second squared. And the ampere is specified as two (infinite) parallel wires
at a distance of one meter with a resulting force of 2e-7 N per meter wire.

No, it has nothing to do with metric.

LOL ! Yeah, nothin' at all !

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

In message , John
writes
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:00:57 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

And why, pray tell, would I want to do that? Just as I may ask why we
(the U.S., and even, for that matter, parts of the UK) should abandon
our venerable measurement system in favor of the metric system? (Don't
know if you're aware of it, but there's *trememdous* oppostion to
metrificiation both here in the U.S. and abroad.)


In short the metric system is far more precise and natural than using
any other common set of measurements.

Actually the reasoned justification is irrelevant. As the metric system
and in particular the paper sizes are in use world wide (including in
parts of the USA) why use a different and dying set of systems.

If you look at the comments and references in this discussion you will
find that even in the USA the metric system and ISO paper sizes are in
use. It is just that it is not in wide spread use as it is in every
other country in the world.

The world has standardised we just need the last few people in the US
to get with reality.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/