From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:04:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:04:30 -0400 Received: from mailout06.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.19]:62221 "EHLO mailout06.sul.t-online.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:04:19 -0400 Date: 21 Jun 2001 21:14:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <83JvUAC1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: <3B32280A.ADC08780@efore.fi> Subject: Re: temperature standard - global config option? X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh7 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? In-Reply-To: <3B32280A.ADC08780@efore.fi> X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org lauri.tischler@efore.fi (Lauri Tischler) wrote on 21.06.01 in <3B32280A.ADC08780@efore.fi>: > Richard J Moore wrote: > > > > > 59.42886726469 ±2°C is obviously ludicrous, even if that's > > > what my calculator gives me. I should instead write 59 ±2°C, since > > > > So, if I follow you argument then shouldn't you be writing 58 ±2°C or > > should it be 60 ±2°C ? > > What it means is that whatever dingus measured the temperature, reported > the temperature as 59C. Well, maybe. And maybe it reported the temperature as "76 units", where a unit is approximately 0.69°C, and zero units are approximately 6.99°C, and we happen to know the accuracy is 3 units. (That makes out to 59.43 ±2.07°C, or 57.36 to 61.50°C, whereas 59 ±2°C works out to 57.00 to 61.00°C - they do overlap, but they're not the same. Now you might not care - but then again, you might care.) MfG Kai