That could be. Even though I "know" it, I am sometimes momentarily confused by it.
________________________________ From: Martin Vlietstra <vliets...@btinternet.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Tue, January 11, 2011 1:41:25 PM Subject: [USMA:49479] RE: Floods in Germany -- AP Reporting Just a thought - the underlying data might have been written 7,70 m and AP did not realise that that many people use a comma rather than a stop as a decimal separator. ________________________________ From:owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 10 January 2011 23:44 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:49468] RE: Floods in Germany -- AP Reporting Allow me to disagree. I am quite sure the underlying data from Germany was 7.70 m and the BBC got it essentially right, the AP showed their fundamental and total lack of understanding of metric, and inability to use it properly. (Note the BBC, as it usually does, omitted the space between the number and the unit. Also if Germany takes data to the centimeter, as indicated by a datapoint for another town, it should have been 7.70 m, not 7.7 m, the zero has significance. I admit that is a pretty petty point.) ________________________________ From:" a-bruie...@lycos.com " < a-bruie...@lycos.com > To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Mon, January 10, 2011 5:52:14 PM Subject: [USMA:49465] RE: Floods in Germany -- AP Reporting 25' 4" or 304" is 7.7216 m They were trying to do an American Standard notation 7 m 72 cm Id put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we dont have to wait til oil and coal run out before we tackle that. I wish I had a few more years left. -- Thomas Edison♽☯♑ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Vlietstra" <vliets...@btinternet.com> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:00:05 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [USMA:49459] RE: Floods in Germany -- AP Reporting A pity that AP cant do their times table either – when I went to school, 7 metres equaled 700 centimetres, not 70! From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 10 January 2011 17:02 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:49457] Floods in Germany -- AP Reporting Germany is experiencing river flooding from a quick thaw and heavy snow melt. AP and the Washington Post do a typically terrible summary of the water level: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011000658.html Officials were watching flood levels on the Rhine river in the city of Koblenz on Monday that were expected to peak at 25 feet, 4 inches (7 meters, 70 centimeters), and some low-lying parts of the city were under water. The BBC does better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12149935 Some low-lying areas of Koblenz are already under water and officials expect the waters to reach 7.7m (25ft) on Monday afternoon. The normal level is around 2.4m, reports say. A German news source (English service) describes the water level in another town as 8.19 m, so they apparently work to the nearest centimeter. AP, you have a few things wrong: 1) Since Germany is metric and obviously the source of the data, shouldn't the metric come first? 2) Metric doesn't use mixed units, 7 m, 70 cm is wrong. Use 7.7 m or 770 cm. 3) Assuming 7.70 m, 25 ft 4in is wrong. It rounds to 25 ft 3in, "about 25 feet" is better yet
