Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!cluster!metro!natmlab.dap.csiro.au!ditsyda!macuni!mqccsunc!ifarqhar
From: ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mqcc.mq.OZ (Ian Farquhar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: ruler.ps - an inch/point ruler of your very own
Summary: Typesetting and metric.
Message-ID: <137@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>
Date: 21 Jan 90 10:30:10 GMT
References: <21772@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <1990Jan14.180821.18711@trigraph.uucp> <1990Jan16.154513.10892@intercon.com> <17677@rpp386.cactus.org> <51011@bbn.COM>
Sender: news@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz
Reply-To: ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mq.oz (Ian Farquhar)
Organization: Macquarie University, Sydney
Lines: 61

In article <51011@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:
>
>I know that this doesn't help you any, but far as I know there is no
>"metric typesetting measure".  The SI system, in general, is pretty
>stingy about providing really-useful units, and overall usually takes
>the attitude that 1.89257 whatevers is just as handy and intuitive as
>having a properly-sized special measure and being able to say "four
>whatsits".  On the other hand, a whole bunch of "nonofficial" unit have
>precise SI definitions [even though the units, themselves, are not
>sanctioned].  [e.g., there is no such SI unit as a "light year",
>although that distance is precisely defined and we can figure out how
>many meters long it is].

Utter garbage.  It is the "stinginess" as you call it that is one of
the three most useful things about the metric system (the other two
being the subdivision of units by powers of tens, and the fact that all
except weight can be generated independent of a physical item such as a
standard length bar).

I am just amazed by the above argument.  It basically says that the
metric system is unintuitive because it is impossible to express four
whatsits in a integer number of millimeters!  I could just as easily
criticise the imperial system for not providing an integer number of
yards the the meter.  What nonsense.

Incidentally, I believe that you will find the parsec is defined.  The
light year is a bit difficult - what sort of year do you take?  A
siderial year, or a calendar year, and EXACTLY how long is the later?

>In poking around some, it appears that the US definition of the point
>has won out: the 'official' point is defined to be 1/72.27th of an
>inch.  Since the inch has an SI equivalent [by def'n the standard
>international 'foot' is 0.3048 meters], you get the semi-official
>'point' as being 0.351 mm.

I was once a science teacher, and any student that used an imperial
measure in an assignment got zero marks.  I was never taught imperial,
but have picked up a bit over the years.  I fail to see that the system
has even one single virtue.  How can sensible people cling to a measure
such an an acre that was originally defined as the area that one man and
an ox could plough in one day?  Even sillier is the point: a unit
defined so that 72.27 fit within an inch, which is further defined in
terms of the metric system!

I think that this stream has diverged well away from the subject of
postscript.  Perhaps we should either make it a little more relevant to
the subject, or continue it by e-mail.


All hail Saint Fubar, parton saint of computer programmers.

+-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
|  Ian Farquhar                     | Phone : (02)  805-7420 (STD)  | 
|  Microcomputer Support            |         (612) 805-7420 (ISD)  |
|  Office of Computing Services     | Fax   : (02)  805-7433 (STD)  |
|  Macquarie University  NSW  2109  |         (612) 805-7433 (ISD)  |
|  Australia                        | Also  :       805-7205        |
+-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
|  ACSNet      ifarqhar@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz			    |
|              ifarqhar@mqccsuna.mqcc.mq.oz         		    |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
D