I like it, but I doubt the committee will accept it.
I wish to particularly talk about point #2. If the units of measure are
decimally related, somechoice can be allowed, for example pricing per kilogram
or per 100 g. I can do the math in my head. However, if Customary is
retained, there
Is there a timeline yet on when the committee's document will be made available
for public comment?
It would be nice to know what they are thinking and make more germane comments,
rather than just commenting on old UUPR, per HB130.
On Monday, June 16, 2014 8:57 AM, John M. Steele
I think you meant Harold not Howard.
-Original Message-
From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of
James
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:36 PM
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:53977] Re: Rejoining USMA
I don't see that it should matter to any
Probably a good time to thank Don for coordinating this list for all these
years, I think we sometimes forget he is the quite guy keeping it going and
thanks to Colorado State for hosting.
I agree, unless we hit some sort of server limit to the number of users, the
more the merrier even if
Yes indeed, Thank you Don.
With 110 names on our list, one would think that those 110 people probably
live in at least ten or perhaps even twenty or so states. We have state
metrication legislation pending in Hawaii (HB36). We have state
metrication legislation pending in Oregon (LC44). Please
On Jun 16, 2014, at 8:33 PM, wrote:
The problem with state by state legislation is that some states already
*require*
units outside the SI for Unit Pricing, while even the current FPLA is silent of
the units of measurement that may or must be used in Unit Pricing.
Eugene Mechtly
