To: UnklGene
weighs nearly 992.07 poundsNEARLY 992.07 pounds??? Couldn't they say "nearly 1,000 pounds" Who proofs this stuff?
BTW: That's a big snake!
8 posted on
12/29/2003 12:00:36 PM PST by
lafroste
To: lafroste
Isn't there a big snake in Washington DC?
I guess I better be more specific, at the Museum of Natural History.
10 posted on
12/29/2003 12:04:01 PM PST by
mware
To: lafroste
The original article probably said 450 Kg, and the reporter converted it to pounds without rounding (or thinking).
To: lafroste; dighton; aculeus
NEARLY 992.07 pounds??? It was actually 992.068581 pounds, but the editor obviously wanted to round it off ;)
31 posted on
12/29/2003 12:53:01 PM PST by
general_re
("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
To: lafroste
Couldn't they say "nearly 1,000 pounds" Who proofs this stuff? Most likely it was a metric conversion thing. Probably the original said something like "almost 450kg". BTW, I bet a nickel the snake measures out at less than 40' when some real experts show up.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson