At 08:26 AM 1/23/01 -0800, Darryl wrote:
>Oh, I can hear you say, "But with Fahrenheit we get more precision!"
>Bzzzzzt! Wrong! Sure, one degree C is two degrees F. But so what?
>When they predict the weather, or when they report the weather, what is
>meaningful? They say, "High seventies" or even "In the Fifties".
>Which means that meaningful temperatures are given in blocks of 5 or 10
>degrees!
Maybe they do things differently in Alaska, but we get forecasts down to
the degree here on the East Coast a day or two ahead.
Besides, everyone knows that freezing is a very relative thing anyways. I
have seen snow and ice many times at 34-35 F (or slightly above your
beloved 0 C). Plus, negative numbers are always slightly more
inconvenient than positive integers.
This makes comparision of memories of extreme weather conditions much
easier, by having convenient benchmarks at the extremes, instead of
irrelevant numbers like "below -10 C days," and "above 35 C days".
After all, 100 degrees is where it starts to get actually *hot*.
>And no, no one says, "Huh, the thermometer says 71F, but it feels like
>72F." No, your body cannot make such fine distinctions. And if you
>need to, say hello to our friend the decimal system! Y'know, 28.3 and
such-like?
Well, if you are going to bring decimals into it, then you have defeated
the whole argument. *Any* system is equally convenient if you are going
to make decimals part of the standard lexicon. The whole point of
Farenheit being better in mind is that we don't have to use decimals.
The point of having a convenient system for everyday use is that you don't
have to use decimals, and you can use readily accessable and manipulatable
integers.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ
#3527685
"Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today:
to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of
our lives and every life." - George W. Bush Inaugural Address 1/20/01
