Oops. There should be only one "/" in that equation. (I've become too accustomed to typing the double slash in URLs.)
Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Potts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 16:12 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: RE: [USMA:26284] Carpet prices > > >Shame on you, Pat. > >The price per square meter would be about 20% higher than per >square yard. However, the price per square yard would be a little >under 17% lower than per square meter [((12-10)//12)*100 = 16.67]. > >Bill Potts, CMS >Roseville, CA >http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Behalf Of Pat Naughtin >>Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 15:10 >>To: U.S. Metric Association >>Subject: [USMA:26284] Carpet prices >> >> >>Dear Tom, Han, and All, >> >>on 2003-07-11 03.46, Tom Wade VMS Systems at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> I intend formally complaining to the ODCA after checking with local >>> carpet shops. The problem, of course, is that price per square >>yard looks >>> cheaper. >> >>Have you used the '10 � 11 � 12 � 13' rule for approximate conversions. >> >>It is based on these approximations: >> >>10 metres is about 11 yards, >>10 square metres is about 12 square yards, >>10 cubic metres is about 13 cubic yards. >> >>On this basis the square yard prices of carpets would be almost 20�% lower >>than the square metre prices. >> >>Cheers, >> >>Pat Naughtin LCAMS >>Geelong, Australia >> >>Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication >>matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words >>subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>-- >>
