*98.6
On 2020-07-22 14:38, Bob Bridges wrote:
For weather I don't feel the need to distinguish between 67°F and 68°F. "High
60s" is close enough for most conversations.
I suppose you already know this, but when someone (I forget who) first worked out the
normal human temperature, he measured a number of people and arrived at an average of
37°C, plus or minus a few degrees. 37°C got translated to 96.6°F, which became a
way-too-precise number adhered to by way-too-many moms. "99! You have a
temperature! Get to bed!"
---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
/* It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then
don't say it. -Sam Levenson */
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David Spiegel
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:22
Yeah, except that Fahrenheit degrees are smaller. For the same accuracy,
you'd have to resort to digits to the right of the decimal point. Feh!
--- On 2020-07-22 12:15, Bob Bridges wrote:
Interesting; centigrade is the one system I use nowadays without having to
think much about it. It's so easy: 0s are cold, 10s are cool, 20s are
warm, 30s are hot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
