I vote for the comma, it's more easily seen than the dot, (.5 or ,5) There
is a sign in Aspen that says Terminal .2 miles and I was telling someone one
day that it was more like 200 meters then he pointed out it was actually
point 2 miles, I'd missed the point every time I saw the sign for a couple
of years!
I also prefer to have a space between thousands instead of the comma, I
apply this to phone numbers as well as bank account spreadsheets,.this can
easily be done in Excel as a choice.
Mike Payne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Millet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 February 2007 04:47
Subject: [USMA:37958] Re: mm vs. cm
I don't care what they use as long as they get rid of the comma and use a
decimal point to denote tenths of a centimeter. I also noticed today that
all of my dress belts for my pants are marked in inches and centimeters
which is a first for me. I don't believe I've ever seen anything clothing
related marked in metric anything :).
Mike
On 2/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm wondering if our Australian folks can tell us what people Down Under
prefer to use when talking about the height cleared by a high jumper or
the
length of skis.
Ezra
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Harry Wyeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I cast my vote for continued use of cm. mm is useful, of course,
depending on
> the size involved. It's easy to say that a sliver in your finger is 3
mm long,
> but much more convenient to say your skis are 180 cm in length or that
the down
> tube on your bike is 46 cm or that the high jumper cleared 195 cm. My
height is
> 176 cm, or "one seventy six". People understand the differences
> between
mm and
> cm, and I don't really think there is danger of confusion. Using cm a
lot will
> not delay whatever progress we may make in metrication in this country.
>
> HARRY WYETH
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Harry Wyeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:06:17 +0000
Subject: [USMA:37956] mm vs. cm
I cast my vote for continued use of cm. mm is useful, of course,
depending on the size involved. It's easy to say that a sliver in your
finger is 3 mm long, but much more convenient to say your skis are 180 cm
in
length or that the down tube on your bike is 46 cm or that the high
jumper
cleared 195 cm. My height is 176 cm, or "one seventy six". People
understand the differences between mm and cm, and I don't really think
there
is danger of confusion. Using cm a lot will not delay whatever progress
we
may make in metrication in this country.
HARRY WYETH
--
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
