A conversion error I've not seen before

[Epiphany]

I was browsing in a toy store and saw a play mat-type blanket with
dimensions listed as: 7' 6" x 9' 6"
2.13 m 15.24 cm x 2.74 m 15.24 cm

I have not previously encountered any merchandise converted to metric
this way and I wonder if it was more unfamiliarity with Flintstone units
than metric that caused the gaffe.

[Stan]

It seems to demonstrate a poor understanding of both and probably the
result of a failed attempt to do the conversion with a calculator. The
person responsible didn't know that 7' 6" and 9' 6" should have been
entered as 7.5 and 9.5 respectively and then multipled by 0.305 to get
the two answers in metres. Instead they entered the ft and ins
separately and used m/ft, cm/in conversion factors. The fact that he/
she didn't realise that the result was nonsense suggests an equal
incompetence with using metric.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In misc.metric-system message <b6ydncwx9ebgKxzXnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@pghconne
ct.com>, Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:20:39, Epiphany <epip...@mailaka.net>
posted:

Perhaps a robotic conversion? Give the bar code, and the article
should be defined.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)