New Falklands buildup

Remove all ads!

I think Sweden should launch a claim on the Falklands as well. See no reason not to, we could use some oil. Or even better, we could just dump a bunch of people on a raft in the North Sea and claim the British oil fields there as our own as there are people living there and they want to be Swedish so it is Swedish water.

 

Three mile limit LKD. It can go out to twelve miles for some commercial enterprises, but that's somewhat questionable in international law. Certainly outside of twelve miles the ocean is international waters.

 

I live in Alberta -- LANDLOCKED! Thanks for the clarification. So are the British trying to make a claim outside either the 3 or 12 mile limit? If not, then the Argentinians need to shut the <snip> up.

 

It's about the EEZ around the Falklands, which is greater than the territorial waters.

 

so does this EEZ really infringe on the rights of the Argentinians' to access the bounty of the ocean? Looks to me (just downloaded a map) that any UK activities wouldn't infringe on the Argentinians rights much. Looks to me like they merely want to extend their reach into the south Atlantic a bit. In one sense I can't blame them -- frickin UK is on the other side of the world! But possession is 9/10s of the law . . .

 

According to a conversion table, I found that a nautical mile is a bit bigger than a standard mile. It's exactly 1.852 km. So that's approximately 230 miles or 370 km from shore. That seems really, really far.

 

A nautical mile is the arc length obtained from a one mile chord through the ocean. It has been rounded to 2,000 yards.

 

Which sounds like it's a bit bigger than a standard mile...

 

I was not correcting you, I was simply providing useless trivia about the subject presented.

 

Talking about providing useless trivia about the subject presented, the length of a nautical mile in the metric system is 1,852 km. EDIT: Ooh Aldeth, I just now read your post.

Label this spam then.

 

Don't you mean 1.852? I don't think a nautical mile is nearly two thousand kilometers, as such a unit of measure doesn't seem like it would really useful!

In any event, back to topic -- I hope this doesn't erupt into a war again.

 

LKD, many parts of the world use a comma as a decimal. In German scientific literature, 1,852 IS 1.852.

 

Now I look like a provincial clown.

 

Why? It's a common mistake in graduate school -- the first time anyone gets information from a German periodical they're almost always off by a thousand.

 

But think of it, it is far easier to read the way we write it, for example:

$ 1.234.567,89

 

I review international docs as a part of my duties at work. I frequently see this type of German notation listed as the value. Unfortunately, it is misinterpreted consistently on both ends and kills any prompt clearance times with US Customs, especially annoying when your client needs/wants the goods asap. When I see the value listed this way, I always have to get the client to confirm the correct USD value in writing, otherwise it's a guarantee that US Customs will interpret the value incorrectly, no matter how you enter it or how many times you explain to the same Customs agent.

 

$ 1.234.567,89

$ 1,234,567.89

I don't know, Ragusa. I don't think either one is easier. It's just a matter of what you're used to.

 

Well, both of the methods above are wrong as long as the correct writing rules in Finnish are concerned.

There you'd write:
1 234 567,89 $

Note the missing thousand separators (sometimes space is used for clarity purposes only) and attaching the unit where it usually is, ie. at the end.

And yes, such notational differences are STILL a major PITA. It's about time someone (frankly I don't even care who anymore) lays down the law and standardizes the notation once and for all. And not only that, but anyone *not* following the new, improved and global guidelines is to be subjected to public humiliation.

Yes, I'm actually at least half serious about this. Bickering about stuff like this is idiocy when a simple standardization procedure* would make it all go away.

* = Well, however simple standardizing *anything* is, nowadays.

 

Well it would be simple to get it standardised to the correct procedure as long as other countries accepted that it had to be written £1,234,567.89

 

Lmao. I agree with Sir Rechet, though, that I don't even really care how it's standardized, so long as it is. I can learn to write 1 234 567.89 if I really need do.