| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 66230 | 2006-02-15 20:20:00 | Numbers into Words | Parry (5696) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 430673 | 2006-02-16 21:55:00 | Hi Andrew and thanks for the offer. Im just in the preliminary stages and I am still considering whether the effort is worth it. Theres a few programs available on the net plus formula functions for Excel (my original target) so theres no sense re-inventing the wheel. | Parry (5696) | ||
| 430674 | 2006-02-16 23:57:00 | Theres a few programs available on the net plus formula functions for Excel (my original target) so theres no sense re-inventing the wheel. If you need a reason then how about 'because'? Nothing wrong with teaching yourself a few new tricks and expanding your knowledge base for the sake of knowledge. A |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 430675 | 2006-02-17 01:20:00 | centimetres are commonly used, and used to be part of the CGS scientific unit set. But that's no reason to encourage it. In science now MKS rules. :D The only reason I can see for centimetres is in the clothing industry. Many women might object to being described as "960- 600-960". 96-60-96 seems more svelte, though still a leap from the elegant 36-24-36. ;) However, centimetres cause many errors because they are too close to both millimetres and metres. I once saw a nicely built box made to measurements given as something like 30 by 30 by 10. It was made 10 times bigger ach way than wanted. For this reason, I think, in building and civil engineering at least, millimeters are used for anything up to 15 metres. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||