RE: Squashed egos Now: 400% Longer

Subject: RE: Squashed egos Now: 400% Longer
From: Lisamarie Babik <lmbabik -at- winspc -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:32:54 -0400

I think the "corrected" version is technically more accurate because you're
discussing the amount of additional time, not the total time for the project.

--
Lisamarie Babik
lmbabik -at- winspc -dot- com
Documentation Specialist

DataNet Quality Systems
24567 Northwestern Highway
Fourth Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
(248)357-2200


-----Original Message-----
From: John Posada [SMTP:jposada01 -at- yahoo -dot- com]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 9:24 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: WAS: Squashed egos Now: 400% Longer

Hi, guys...I'd like to throw this out to the list...

Is this correction and explaination accurate? I'm not
attampting to dispute the person who sent me
this...the only reason I ask is that sometimes we make
similar statements in documentation and we/I may be
inaccurate in my math.

> > 4 months is 400% longer than 4 weeks...4 times
> > longer.
>
> Actually, John, 4 months is 300% longer than 4
> weeks, 3 times longer, or 4 times as long.
>
> Assuming 1 month equals 4 weeks:
> * One month is 0% longer than 4 weeks (1 time as
> long).
> * Two months is 100% longer than 4 weeks (2 times
> as long).
> * Three months is 200% longer than 4 weeks (3
> times as long).
> * Four months is 300% longer than 4 weeks (4 times
> as long).





Previous by Author: RE: Squashed egos... it ain't pretty!
Next by Author: RE: Thoughs on reproducing what's on screen
Previous by Thread: Re: Squashed egos Now: 400% Longer
Next by Thread: RE: Squashed egos Now: 400% Longer


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads