Of course if you're familiar with a system, it doesn't matter what the numbers are. I'm only talking about perceptions by the body, not the eyes. My body temperature is important to that feel, that's all. Where I live, knowing that the water is freezing isn't as important as knowing if it feels cold (because it gets cold
1 cubic cm (cc) of water has a mass of 1 gram water freezes at 0C and boils at 100C... add 273 offset to that, you get Kevin.
"A pint's a pound the world around"
Human body temperature is about 100F. Human extreme cold is 0F.
Water's state is irrelevant to human perception.
There are reasons beyond history and romance to use non-metric units for non-scientific purposes.
Ugen wrote, What exactly is gained by change in units? As a metric "native" I can tell you that metric units are not based on real-world criteria. There is no way to naturally define an "approximate" centimeter or a gram (as opposed to approximate inch, foot or ounce, for example).
Yes, that. I use metric where (as a previous poster mentioned) it's convenient. Non-metric units of all kinds are human dimensions. Inches, feet, tablespoons, cups, pints, hands, etc., fall within easy human perception. Larger measurements (miles/kilometers, acres/hectares) are fine in any system with a little practice. Meters are great for certain measurements (as are yards), but a multi-number or fractional description is not necessarily helpful (0.2 meters or 20 cm). When doing recipes, for example, those decileters work out on a measuring cup, but I'll bet even metric users think in terms of numerical 'clumps' of decileters when not actually using a measuring cup. Of course, some measurements are simply 'romantic' -- and have specific uses for those who know them and also need to know how to read historical data: the aforementioned hands, plus fathoms, knots, etc.
I recall being confounded when building shelves for a friend in Europe when looking for the metric equivalent of a 2x4. And it's worth recalling that carpentry does divisions by halves, which is very clumsy in metric. How do you say "two inches less a sixteenth" in metric? And there are conventions beyond sizes (which would require retooling one of the largest industries in the world with no gain as there's nothing international about a house in Indiana). It makes me think of learning time in Dutch, when I was rushing for a train and the clerk told me to hurry because it was leaving at "vijf over half negan"
Replace "is" and "are" in your post with "should not be" and you have the user point of view. The frequency of screw-ups, changes, and work interruptions is often higher than with any other kind of productivity interference. Even the copier running out of paper reflects on you because a copier is undifferentiated from a printer. Copiers are tech. You're tech. QED, truth or not. In some examples I gave earlier, tech problems are the most significant workplace issue.
And in reality, their problem should trump all others when they are in your presence. It doesn't mean they will ultimately take priority, but at least they should feel that their requests are treated seriously and promptly, with a reasonably accurate schedule of response. Not like they "have the technical IQ of a carrot". In addition, IT often does the tech equivalent of stonewalling; they provide no information or provide it only in tech-speak.
Keep in mind that you are the 21st century equivalent of a secretary. Your job is piddle in the larger scheme of human endeavor. You do a job that will ultimately be replaced by the technology you now tend. For the moment, end users are your clients. They do not need to respect you, and will not respect you until you earn that respect in your skills and behavior.
Fortunately, I'm mostly self-employed, not in technology (any more), and maintain my own network and software at home.
But I do hear IT hate from colleagues (who remember when I ran a computer company and think I still have a clue)...
One works in a highly time-stressed professional setting where she moves from room to room to deal with clients, using the computer in the room (no laptops). The system responds slowly and the main reporting software (written by the organization's IT people) has an inconsistent interface and commands. Changes to commands are implemented without notice and using the wrong 'old' command causes lost work. She's given up calling IT because technical explanations are irrelevant to her work. Now she hand-writes everything to enter when she can concentrate on what the system expects.
Another works where the previous system's back-end changed from Windows to Linux. The change seemed smooth enough because the employees' machines remained Windows, but previously functioning software -- particularly media software, which he uses in this job -- no longer integrates well or functions at all. He is given technical explanations about network issues, all irrelevant to his work. Material that once got out promptly now lags hours or days until IT comes up fixes as problems arise. Nothing is comprehensively solved.
A third teaches at a college. Each instructor has to log in to the whiteboard computer -- at which point updates begin installing. The system hangs for upwards of a minute when media apps are called up (such as audio/video players, Flash, or PDF readers). He's way into IT hate for losing class time. And yes, he's one who tapes his monthly required password change on the desk. The Moodle system recently installed is so slow that he's stopped using it entirely (the previous system called Blackboard having been abandoned for the same reason!).
What these have in common, I think, is that either IT wasn't interested in knowing or wasn't required to understand how the people actually work in their jobs. Of course, understanding or not, it seems to me you shouldn't be building systems that make people wait in time-sensitive situations, nor should you create complicated and changing interfaces. Ultimately, the organizations should be aware that IT is hindering effectiveness, not enhancing it. In the meantime, there's some seething IT hate!
You can recover those degraded tapes. Contact me privately for info/help on this.
Dennis
I didn't delete files. Some materials are converted, some aren't, some are in original media, some are recovered from those media and restored when needed.
My response was to your comment about 10-year-old backups: "Do you even have any idea what is in those 10 year old backup tapes? If it's not on the computer, your company's not making efficient use of the stored info ". Whether archives and backups are different is really not relevant -- the OP was about opening old files, which is a combination hardware/software issue. That extends to backups as well as opening original media, including pre-digital
What it comes down to is this: There's a simple limit to the time available to up-convert
These are formidable archives and backups and original media. Didn't mean to get into semantic differences
Dennis
http://bathory.org/
A couple of points.
First, by its nature of being forward-looking and leading cultural change, much art, music and literature outside the popular realm does not get attention for quite a while -- that means the rewards don't come until there is a sufficient public to pay for it. (My own compositions from the 1970s are finally getting performances.) Items in the popular realm make their money at the beginning; other forms make it much later. Seven years would not recognize this split that began showing up about 100 years ago.
Second, the lifespan when the Constitution instituted copyright was about 35. It's now nearing 80. The 28+28 old copyright law showed how the copyright term based on the Constitution (Article I Section 8) grew with that, and I think it makes sense for the creators.
I support Creative Commons-style licensing and oppose unlimited copyright extensions, and especially the 19th century legalization of corporations as artificial persons. Take that away, and copyright has much less commercial value and would slowly fade as an issue.
The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine