On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:51:51 Wizard of OS wrote: >L/Mm would be appropriate too
Excellent! I'm glad we're starting to come together on this one! :-) > but it wouldn't be reviewable for many people >because of the big numbers like Mm or 90 L! >... Well... Please allow me to say that that is something that can easily change. First the size of the numbers. Actually it would be rare to see car's fuel consumption being larger than 200 for l/Mm (usually such numbers should actually be inferior to 150 most of the time, with a value of 50 being outstanding!). 3-digit numbers are actually not that uncommon in many applications like draftsmanship, engineering, package labels, etc (as in, say, 250 mm, 400 MPa, 250 ml, etc). Second, the unfamiliarity with Mm. Again, here we can try to popularize the jargon "megs" when referring to it and create a "culture" of referring to road distances and all in megameters. We would certainly have such opportunities around here in North America since we have countries of continental proportions. Therefore, my suggestion is, like Nike folks say, "just do it"! ;-) Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
