Hmmm, so, like in hyperspace, right? ;-)
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: James Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, a hectare is 100 square meters. So 200 square hectares would then
> be 20 000 square square meters.
>
> Jim
>
> Martin Vlietstra wrote:
> > Is the term "square hectare" really redundant? Surely a piece of land that
> > is 100 m by 100 m can be descried as a "square hectare"? After all, it is a
> > square.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> > Of James Frysinger
> > Sent: 14 June 2008 16:27
> > To: U.S. Metric Association
> > Subject: [USMA:41089] Square hectares
> >
> > The June 06 issue of Science contains a fascinating series of articles
> > written by Andrew Lawler on the Indus people. I spotted a glitch in the
> > first one that stimulated the following note to the author, with copy to
> > the editors at Science.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > Dear Mr. Lawler,
> >
> > I am reading your fascinating article, "Boring no More", on the Indus
> > people and I have just come across a jarring phrase. You speak of the
> > Mohenjo Daro covering "at least 200 square hectares". "Square hectares"
> > is redundant, as would be "cubic liters". The former is a unit of area
> > and the latter a unit of volume.
> >
> > Certainly this must have been just a "slip of the pen". I am rather
> > amazed that a technical editor at Science did not catch this error.
> >
> > Otherwise, thank you very much for your fascinating articles in this
> > series. I look forward to learning more about these ancient people and
> > their civilization as I read your articles.
> >
>
> --
> James R. Frysinger
> 632 Stony Point Mountain Road
> Doyle, TN 38559-3030
>
> (H) 931.657.3107
> (C) 931.212.0267
>
