Thanks Phil,
I use that button but, as you know, from time to time you have the simple
joy of rebuilding your whole method of operating your computer (crashes,
line spikes, and other joys) and these are the little things I forget to
readjust.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Geelong, Australia
61 3 5241 200
Dear Nat,
A visit to your purchasing department might reveal the cost of paper used by
your organisation in a year -- 2 % of that amount might be substantial!
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Geelong, Australia
61 3 5241 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.metricationmatters.com
on 2005-03-22 04.32, Nat Hag
> Some time ago, After I changed the default settings in MS Word to
> millimetres, I noticed that all new pages were routinely set at
> the default
> for page margins (25.4 top and bottom and 31.7 millimetres on each side).
>
> I now routinely reset these to 20 millimetres all round and it
> took a
That's really cool. I wonder if it'll work with U.S. currency. U.S.
bills are 155 mm x 67 mm. Can anyone verify the Canadian dimensions?
A web page I found gives the dimensions as 152 mm x 70 mm.
-
Jason D. Darfus
Columbus.OH.US
<>
I've set mine to 25 mm (even) for years, and probably drives everyone
nuts when they pull my documents up on their machine with margins set
for 0.984 inches. But I've never had a proposal kicked out for margin
violations, and I think I'd make a federal case if they did!
Nat
-Original Message-
I've set mine to 25 mm (even) for years, and probably drives everyone
nuts when they pull my documents up on their machine with margins set
for 0.984 inches. But I've never had a proposal kicked out for margin
violations, and I think I'd make a federal case if they did.
I probably get an extra 2%
Forbes magazine continues to move towards metric units of measure. A recent
article (28 March 2005, page 108) on "corn plastics" (plastics made from corn)
includes a chart comparing the total energy and material usage of corn plastics
versus plastics made from petroleum. The chart is 100% metric
In the not too distant past CO2 was not measured in g/km, but in g/mile
Han
At 21 03 05, 04:19 AM, Pat Naughtin wrote:
>> The document title is "American Softwood Lumber Standard" and its designation
>> is "Voluntary Product Standard DOC PS 20 99".
>
>Can you have a standard that's 'voluntary'?
I suspect 99% of all standards are voluntary. Sure, there are some mandatory
At 20 03 05, 08:45 PM, Pat Naughtin wrote:
>Some time ago, After I changed the default settings in MS Word to
>millimetres, I noticed that all new pages were routinely set at the default
>for page margins (25.4 top and bottom and 31.7 millimetres on each side).
>
>I now routinely reset these to 20
Y'all might like the metric twist to this product.
John M. Nichols
Assistant Professor
Room A414 Langford AC MS 3137
Department of Construction Science
College of Architecture
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-3137
Phone: (979) 845 6541
Fax: (979) 862 1572
Email: [EMAIL PRO
On Monday 21 March 2005 06:19, Pat Naughtin wrote:
> Dear Jim,
> Can you have a standard that's 'voluntary'?
The point raised by this question is not trivial. In the United States
many
standards are voluntary! I am tempted to say "most" but I've never taken a
count of them and one
Dear Jim, again,
If for a second you don't succeed, go for a third.
Go to http://www.boltsantiquetools.com/ToolsFRAME.htm then click on 'Tool
Standards' on the left is the reference I'm trying to pass on.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
on 2005-03-20 02.30, James R. Frysinger at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Dear Jim,
Going to http://www.boltsantiquetools.com/ToolsFRAME.htm might be easier
than the reference I gave previously.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
on 2005-03-20 02.30, James R. Frysinger at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's some interesting reading on lumber standards. One document, discussed
> be
Dear Jim,
I have interspersed some comments.
on 2005-03-20 02.30, James R. Frysinger at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's some interesting reading on lumber standards. One document, discussed
> below, is found at a link on
>http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/sccg/vps.htm
> which I got to by go
The CO2 part is to do with taxation on company cars
From: Pierre Abbat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association"
Subject: [USMA:32520] Re: More Metric Muddle
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:33:05 -0500
On Sunday 20 March 2005 20:16, Ezra Steinberg wrote:
> Was perusin
From: "J. Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association"
Subject: [USMA:32502] It's impossible to not use metric units
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:06:48 -0800
Stephen Humphreys wrote:
The best example in the US was the Mars Orbiter fiasco.
Some might say that 'i
I don't think that's true but if I'm wrong then USMA are welcome to tell me
so. Their goal is unashamedly to metricate the US fully to all intents and
purposes.
In this respect how do you stop people using imperial?
Would you advocate the removal of inches on a ruler (in the UK we have cm on
one
> Some might say it was due to mixing systems - equally wrong IMHO.
> The correct answer would be - communication, ie lack of.
The correct answer is for the whole aerospace industry to go metric. Dual
measures are a liability that will always present an avoidable risk no
matter how you try patch o
19 matches
Mail list logo
