http://goldprice.org/gold-price-per-gram.html
Note that the price is listed for various countries in their currency but nowhere could I find the price per gram in US$. I remember years ago going to the Gold Souk in Dubai where the price of all jewelry was priced per the gram. Michael Payne On 14/05/2011, at 09:43 , Kilopascal wrote: > Instead of worrying about the AP stylebook, at least for now, wouldn't it be > better to concentrate efforts on metricating commodity pricing? It seems the > commodities market is awash in old units and rarely if ever is a metric unit > used or quoted. > > Isn't it high time to change those troy ounces to grams, those barrels & > bushels to tonnes, gasoline futures prices to litres or cubic metres? > > I'm curious though, does anyone know if commodity pricing on other countries > is fully metric or do they forced to adopt the US practice of using obsolete > units? How are commodities priced in Australia, the EU, China, etc? > > This is the best I could find so far on the price for a litre of gasoline in > the world, but it took a lot of hunting to find it. It must be old as it > gives the US price at about ).77 $/L when it is now about 1.10 $/L. It seems > there are a plethora of charts in US gallons. > > http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_gas_pri-energy-gasoline-prices > > Any ideas as to where up-to-date info can be found? > > > [USMA:50434] RE: AP Styleguide 2009 > > John M. Steele > Thu, 05 May 2011 12:20:06 -0700 > > Thank you, I found the pesky typos (it was one article) > > They plead "poverty" on special symbols (it's 2011. I don't understand why > they > don't have the extended ascii set available, but they claim they don't). > Therefore I wasn't really too bothered by the lack of a mid-dot in kW·h or > the > lack of a degree symbol in temperatures. Per SP811, section 6.1.5, note 2, > the > space may be omitted from kW h per ISO31-0, or other cases where it does not > lead to ambiguity, although SP811 recommends the dot or space always be used. > > I > don't think AP would use "kW h" and can't use "kW·h." I decided "kWh" was > good > enough although others can recommend they use "kW h" if they wish. > > > I omitted the becquerel because the AP article does not list the curie. I am > hoping they will use SP 330 as a reference and I don't have to explain the > entire SI to them. I am focusing on what I consider their significant > mistakes > that they have the ability to correct. I'm not sure (but I have VERY little > experience in measuring ionizing radiation) that measuring the radiation in > becquerels is entirely (or reasonable) equivalent as it ignores the amount of > energy per particle (and for gamma and x-rays, the probability that the > particle > will actually be absorbed). The energy that would be absorbed can be > measured > in grays by introduction of a suitable sensor, and if the radiation is > characterized, the "damage points" in sieverts can be calculated. (Anyway, > we > would need Jim to write a better paragraph as I don't consider myself > competent > on measurement of ionizing radiation.)
