>Sometimes I think that the drive for uniformity is overdone.
Indeed - I refuse to eat Macdonalds, object to 'Total Quality Management'
and use only orphaned camera systems!
>I dread
>the day when everyone in the world resembles a character on a TV
>sitcom in speech and appearance and uses the metric system
>exclusively.
Nah - the characters will be in a US sitcom and they'll be eating quarter
pounders!
>There will certainly be fewer reasons to travel.
Can't agree - despite the rush to uniformity in some areas, the 'Tower of
Babel' effect will prevail. It's all dynamic.
>There
>is a lot of charm in hearing the weight of a Britisher in stones and
>a pleasant interchange to figure out what they mean in pounds.
Unfortunately, I can do this in hundredweight as well - no discussion of my
weight is pleasant!
>It
>also further separates us from our roots and makes for additional
>footnotes for any previously written books which refer to English
>units.
Ah, whatever happened to paper sizes like like octavo and double elephant?
>In these days of software and hand held computers the need
>for uniformity in every area is less, I think.
The invention of the printing press demanded the regularisation of
spelling. Before that, there was considerable whimsy involved. The
diffusion of computing into the community has demanded extreme uniformity -
ask anyone who uses a Mac but is obliged to use Word (ugh!) to conform or
has to use a PC at work. This is the "why do people keep sending me .exe
files" problem.
>The "easy to use"
>argument can also be used to reduce the choice of cameras to only
>point and shoots.
The SLR was an 'ease-of-use' innovation, especially when it had a built-in
TTL meter, automatic stop-down and an instant return mirror. Many very good
systems didn't survive it's introduction (TLR for example) and rangefinders
only just held on until their 'rediscovery' in the last few years by the
pro-am market.
>I have to agree that I find it easier to quickly divide a flash guide
>number by 8 feet in my head than by 2.4 meters, but then I am
>probably more challenged than most.
>Winsor Crosby
Classic error. Don't convert to exact equivalents. I don't think in terms
of 2.4 metres - but of 2 1/2 metres. In fact, 1m = closest possible, 2m =
close-up, 3m = small group, 4m = group (full length), and so on. A
six-footer isn't 1.83 metres tall but someone just under 2 metres. 180lb
becomes meaningless - 80kg is meaningful. When British and Australian
currency went metric, people attempted constant mental conversions for some
time, like tourists coping with zloty, but then eventually developed a feel
for the value of a pound/dollar. We are still plagued with packets of Corn
Flakes, tins of beans that are exact equivalents of a pound, two pounds,
etc. and timber in footage equivalents (1.8, 2.1, 2.4, etc.) but this is
often because the parent companies are American and dominate the packaging
requirements.
AndrewF
(Still driving on the correct side of the road!)
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|