View Single Post
Old 10-13-2006, 05:44 PM   #15
NatCh
Gizmologist
NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
NatCh's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,605
Karma: 926222
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Republic of Texas Embassy at Jackson, TN
Device: Nook STGR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandito
And, yes, I do know that the ISO paper sizes are metric with the aspect ratio based on the square root of 2 so that each sheet is exactly half the size of the previous one and that the actual area of the paper has a nice, round metric value.
See, now that's just being arcane for the sake of obscurity to me. I mean, who came up with that approach? And why weren't they doing something a bit more useful than figuring out paper sizes based on the square root of 2, for cryin' out loud?!? Probably some crazy european ('cause it's metric) philosopher-mathematician-printer type.

Is there any actual advantage to it aside from being able to fold an A4 in half to reliably simulate two A5's?

That's all just crazy talk.
NatCh is offline   Reply With Quote