Fahrenheit?

[asu]

I noticed this on the IAAF web site.
<Despite temperatures in the low 80s Fahrenheit, Barsosio came home first in the women's event and also set a new course record by clocking two hours, 34 minutes and 10 seconds.>
What's next, feet and inches?

[MJD]

Re: Fahrenheit?

>I noticed this on the IAAF web site.
<Despite temperatures in the low 80s
>Fahrenheit, Barsosio came home first in the women's event and also set a new
>course record by clocking two hours, 34 minutes and 10 seconds.>
What's next,
>feet and inches?

No matter what you think of fahrenheit, it is more descriptive in this case. A range of low thirties(30.1c to 34.9 c) is much less informative than low eighties(80.1F to 84.9F).

[Powell]

Re: Fahrenheit?

No matter what you think of fahrenheit, it is more
>descriptive in this case. A range of low thirties(30.1c to 34.9 c) is much less
>informative than low eighties(80.1F to 84.9F).


No matter how descriptive it may be, it means little to over 90% of the world's population, so its use on the IAAF web site isn't appropriate.

[Asterix]

Re: Fahrenheit?

I'll bet they just cut 'n pasted a wire service report and didn't bother doing any conversions. A quick look on google news seems to show that most news outlets took a AP report verbatim, although some made the requisite metric conversions:

http://www.canada.com/sports/story.html ... 96D8B46C8E
(42.195km, 25 degrees C)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... DT0083.DTL
(26.2 miles, 77 degrees F)

Both missed on the over accuracy in reporting second place as "4.98 seconds back". Is that a FAT result?