I was only mildly bothered, really. I just assumed the implication was that I
was being sloppy.
No harm done.
--- James Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry you feel miffed, Jesse.
>
> IEEE standards are formal documents and you indicated that you would use
> formal writing in a formal document.
>
> As I indicated, engineers and physicists that I have worked with tend to
> be more casual in their speech. I saw this to be true with regard to
> units among the physicists I knew. That's merely an observation of mine
> and I hope it didn't upset you.
>
> So, I suppose you are miffed that, as I said, some folks would call
> casual speech "sloppy".
>
> Jim
>
> Ziser, Jesse wrote:
> > --- James Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> All my co-workers can be assumed to know the full set of metric prefixes
> >>> (they'll look it up
> >> if
> >>> they don't), and if they need to discuss a concept that has no name (i.e.
> >>> something that
> >> naturally
> >>> happens in units of 72 millimeters for some reason) they will actually
> >>> make up a temporary
> >> term to
> >>> simplify communication ("OK, this word salad is getting hard to follow.
> >>> Let's start calling
> >> these
> >>> lengths 'lambdas'"). I'm all for simplifying the units used to
> >>> communicate formally and to
> >>> interact with the ordinary public. But for informal engineering
> >>> discussions and the like,
> >> those
> >>> terms probably still have value.
> >> Neither "centiamps" nor "milliamps" would be acceptable in an IEEE
> >> standard. Unit names are to be spelled out completely or symbolized, as
> >> in "milliamperes" or "mA". It would be acceptable, though not
> >> preferable, to use "centiamperes" or "cA". Nor does IEEE accept "kilos",
> >> "klicks", or the like. In my experience while working in each field,
> >> yes, engineers are more casual (some might say "sloppy") in casual
> >> speech when using these units names but I found that physicists are even
> >> more so.
> >
> > *insert miffed emoticon here*
> >
> > I object to the characterization of efficient and concise speech as
> > "sloppy". Tell me, what
> > information is being lost by dropping the final syllable there? I am one
> > of the least
> "sloppy"
> > engineers you'll meet. I don't like doing extra work for no reason. I'd
> > rather expend that
> joule
> > of energy on noticing one more possible inconsistency in an idea than on
> > uttering one more
> > syllable of an unnecessarily long and easily abbreviated word.
> >
> > As I already implied, I would use formal writing in a formal document.
> > However, IEEE doesn't
> > regulate conversation, and if it did, nothing would ever get done. There
> > is a proven limit to
> the
> > length and complexity of a sentence that the human mind can understand.
> > Mistakes happen when
> > people don't do a good job of being concise. Concise matters.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> James R. Frysinger
> 632 Stony Point Mountain Road
> Doyle, TN 38559-3030
>
> (H) 931.657.3107
> (C) 931.212.0267
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
