Foot, meter? eh, same thing.

brad's life

Brad Fitzpatrick

[	website	\|	bradfitz.com	]
[	userinfo	\|	livejournal userinfo	]
[	archive	\|	journal archive	]

[Mar. 11th, 2006|11:10 am]

Brad Fitzpatrick

[

Tags

news

]

I'm reading a (paper) article about the new Mars probe. The article starts by describing all the failures of previous Mars missions, highlighting especially the one where the metric/imperial units were messed up. But then the article goes on to say of the current mission:

... powerful camera, blah blah, imaging items as small as one meter .....

Then,

... unusual resolution and clarity, blah blah, imaging items as small as one foot across .....

*sigh*

Link

Comments:

From:

contestant
2006-03-11 07:35 pm (UTC)

Ah, the irony. Next thing you know they'll be using 1-liter/1 gallon champagne bottles at the launch.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

mcfnord
2006-03-11 07:46 pm (UTC)

Europeans have enormous shoes.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

dakus
2006-03-11 07:59 pm (UTC)

My grandfather used to always say, "close enough for government work..."

I guess that is what he meant.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:

supersat
2006-03-12 12:48 am (UTC)

Don't forget the International Foot vs. U.S. Survey Foot!. The International Foot is exactly 0.3048m, while the U.S. Survey Foot is defined to be 1200/3937m. Having worked on a few GIS-related projects, I can tell you that the difference IS significant. ;)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:

dakus
2006-03-12 01:02 am (UTC)

I like the way that article defines a foot using meters.

"a foot...which is defined to be exactly 0.3048 meters"

Kinda just leaves inches completely out don't they.
:_) Poor inches.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)