The text description also had an error = "91.44 m (330 ft)". I have however e-mailed them and with any luck they will have corrected it. (They are usually good at making this type of correction)
Concerning our new government - I think that their first question will be "How much will it cost?" If it can be proven to have an immediate benefit and no short-term or long-term cost they might consider it. _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 01 June 2010 08:35 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:47465] Classic example of a metric muddle ... on the BBC! I just happened to look at this BBC report on their web site about a lake that has formed in Pakistan because a mud slide has blocked the flow of melting snow: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10200876.stm The report lasts only a minute and a half and yet somehow the reporter manages to toss in various metric and Imperial units in an amazing hodge-podge. Talk about dissonance! Best of luck to our friends at the UKMA in finding a way to get their new government to "see the light" (no one is optimistic at this point, alas) and finish metricating once and for all! (And we certainly never want to end up in that same boat over here should we ever seriously start down the road to metrication.) Ezra
