Everyone who supports the A* sizes of paper (start with a square meter because it's nice and clean, then just declare that all other paper uses that humankind might ever need should be specific fractions of that square meter and no other sizes are ever needed) should also support Swatch time.
Alternately, if Swatch time seems dumb to you, then you might also accept that paper should be sized to fit a usage, not just a "clean" measurement scheme.
Does this hold true for other things as well? Should all cell phone screens be sized to be a specific fraction of a square meter, just because it's "cleaner"? Or should they be sized to fit, you know, people's hands and pockets?
And for that matter, the math isn't even right! Because SQRT(2) is not rational, you'll get noticeably different sizes if you actually started with 4A0 and sliced it in halves until you got to A10 versus directly cutting an A10 piece. That should drive you math-obsessives crazy.
I agree that fanaticism over an arbitrary paper standard seems silly, but I don't buy your analogy. The reason Swatch time probably feels dumb is that the notion of changing the time format used by essentially the whole globe is itself dumb. The transaction costs are almost certainly higher than any benefits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time
Alternately, if Swatch time seems dumb to you, then you might also accept that paper should be sized to fit a usage, not just a "clean" measurement scheme.
Does this hold true for other things as well? Should all cell phone screens be sized to be a specific fraction of a square meter, just because it's "cleaner"? Or should they be sized to fit, you know, people's hands and pockets?
And for that matter, the math isn't even right! Because SQRT(2) is not rational, you'll get noticeably different sizes if you actually started with 4A0 and sliced it in halves until you got to A10 versus directly cutting an A10 piece. That should drive you math-obsessives crazy.