Hectares vs. Km of Piste

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:24:17 +0000, Alex Heney
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:20:22 +0100, Ace wrote:

The misleading term is the rarely-used 'kilometres square' which would
indeed indicate a 3*3km square, with an area of 9 km^2.

I would read km^2 as being kilometres square.

Well you'd be wrong then. This is a standard (as in, SI) way of
expressing units, not just something you can interpret how you see
fit.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

Alex Heney wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:20:22 +0100, Ace wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:01:45 +0000, Alex Heney
wrote:

On 11 Jan 2005 17:29:02 -0800, "Sammy"
wrote:

I can't let this one go: km^2 is just another way of writing sq
km, they are very much the same thing.

No they aren't.

3 sq Km is an area that would fit in a rectangle 1000m by 3000m.

3Km^2 is 9 Sq Km, which would need a 3000m by 3000m rectangle
(square) to enclose it.

No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. km^2 is the standard form of writing
what we'd normally say as 'square kilometre', in the same way as
other measures are used, e.g. lb/in^2 is spoken as 'pounds per
square inch'.

The misleading term is the rarely-used 'kilometres square' which
would indeed indicate a 3*3km square, with an area of 9 km^2.

I would read km^2 as being kilometres square.

So how would you interpret ms^-2 ? meters per square second?

Chris *:-)

Ace wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:35:19 +0000, Champ wrote:


On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 23:54:34 +0000, Sue wrote:


And the horrible food.

That's just plain wrong - sure you can find bad food in the US, but
there's great stuff too.


Says Mr. "I'm not really bothered about food" Champion... FWIW I agree
with Sue. I've had three 2-week trips to north merkania in the last
twelve months, and have always been mightily relieved to get back.

It's not that they don't have some good restaurants, but the more
normal eateries just have the same old crap everywhere. And frankly,
most of the stuff they put in bread and call a sandwich would be much
better just served on a plate without. Seems that many merkins have
lost the ability to use a knife and fork.



Out of curiosity I checked the meaning of a "merkin" and I am shocked
that a "counterfeit hair for women's privy parts" or "pubic wig" ever
had the ability to use a knife and fork and even more suprised that they
lost that abilty.

In message , Alex Heney
writes
On 11 Jan 2005 17:29:02 -0800, "Sammy" wrote:

I can't let this one go: km^2 is just another way of writing sq km,
they are very much the same thing.

No they aren't.

3 sq Km is an area that would fit in a rectangle 1000m by 3000m.

3Km^2 is 9 Sq Km, which would need a 3000m by 3000m rectangle (square)
to enclose it.

This is correct.


And while I'm at it, I think it is a bit harsh to "correct" our
European friend's written English: meter is a valid synonym for metre
in most of the world and it might just have been a typo.

Yes, I agree that "correction" was uncalled for.

Good pedantry skills I would have said! ;O)
--
Pete Devlin
[{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}]
"Mind the oranges Marlon!"

In message , pete devlin
writes
In message , Alex Heney
writes
On 11 Jan 2005 17:29:02 -0800, "Sammy" wrote:

I can't let this one go: km^2 is just another way of writing sq km,
they are very much the same thing.

No they aren't.

3 sq Km is an area that would fit in a rectangle 1000m by 3000m.

3Km^2 is 9 Sq Km, which would need a 3000m by 3000m rectangle (square)
to enclose it.

This is correct.

I now retract this statement! It is not correct but is in common usage
particularly when referring to miles.
--
Pete Devlin
[{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}]
"Mind the oranges Marlon!"

"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:24:17 +0000, Alex Heney
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:20:22 +0100, Ace wrote:

The misleading term is the rarely-used 'kilometres square' which would
indeed indicate a 3*3km square, with an area of 9 km^2.

I would read km^2 as being kilometres square.

Well you'd be wrong then. This is a standard (as in, SI) way of
expressing units, not just something you can interpret how you see
fit.


I am with you on this Ace... SI standard units mean that 'square km' is the
way say km^2. It is the same thing.

Amyway having started this thing, there is still no real comparison,
although I bet its a marketing ploy by all resorts to make it look as big as
possible. Another thing that makes me laugh is the way in the US so many
things are trademarked, including mountain names, meeting points, etc.

All the best,

Edi

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:30:56 +0000, pete devlin
wrote:

In message , Alex Heney
writes
On 11 Jan 2005 17:29:02 -0800, "Sammy" wrote:

I can't let this one go: km^2 is just another way of writing sq km,
they are very much the same thing.

No they aren't.

3 sq Km is an area that would fit in a rectangle 1000m by 3000m.

3Km^2 is 9 Sq Km, which would need a 3000m by 3000m rectangle (square)
to enclose it.

This is correct.


We seem to have significant disagreement on this :-(

And the more I think about it, the more I accept I am wrong. The
trouble is, we are not used to seeing it written as km^2, but as Km
with a small 2 above and to the right.

And yes, we do normally accept that as "square kilometre", rather than
"kilometres squared".


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
RamDisk is *not* an installation procedure.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

john elgy wrote:


My experience of Canada is that every possible variation from the lift
is marked and signposted as a seperate run. We even found one in
Whistler that was only 2m long (a drop off a cornice that then rejoined
the main route). My experience of skiing in the US is very limited.


That seems to be streching it a bit - where on earth is that run?

There are loads of runs at Whistler (and Blackcomb) that are not marked,
but I take your point, they do seem to mark a lot more runs than would
be the case in Europe.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:54:30 +0000, Steve Haigh
wrote:

john elgy wrote:

My experience of Canada is that every possible variation from the lift
is marked and signposted as a seperate run. We even found one in
Whistler that was only 2m long (a drop off a cornice that then rejoined
the main route). My experience of skiing in the US is very limited.


That seems to be streching it a bit - where on earth is that run?

There are loads of runs at Whistler (and Blackcomb) that are not marked,
but I take your point, they do seem to mark a lot more runs than would
be the case in Europe.

Apparently the patrollers have a map with every "run" named, only so many
of those make it onto the maps / signed. These are mostly the dropins from
cornices or areas that are now permanantly closed (loss of lift pass etc)
We did go in once to see the map but no joy so it may not exist?

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Felly sgrifennodd Ace :
No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. km^2 is the standard form of writing
what we'd normally say as 'square kilometre', in the same way as other
measures are used, e.g. lb/in^2 is spoken as 'pounds per square inch'.

Having done a little research, I have to concede that I was wrong. I wish
I hadn't started this now, I should have known better. Maybe it's the effect
of just having done 15 days' skiing on the trot.

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk