And this is why I shifted to driving top-of-the-line Kraut Kans. Even an old one still commands respect. I can fly by at 80 in my 300SD, nothing. But go by at 70 in the Astro and they squint hard to see how Mexican you are. I'm working on prepping an A8 now, which should make me even more invisible. Paint's much better than my 300SD.

HAHAHAHA. If you buy a Supra or a 3000GT for $2,500, you'll be lucky if you can get it up to law-violating speed.

Because all drug charges are BS, except perhaps for driving under the influence.

It works against younger drivers, who are more likely to still have the points on their record. Once the accidents drop off your record, you don't tell the insurance companies about them, for fear that they will move you to a higher-risk group. Deny, deny, deny!

The Camaro is frequently driven by older drivers looking for a cheap Corvette substitute (some of the same engines have been there off and on.) Wrangler is slow. Focus is only fun at low speeds. Civic, same.

I've been bothered by this claim each time I see it. If you're willing to move big rocks for nothing but beer, are you any better than a slave? See also: Illegal immigrants picking lettuce.

So why would you ever use a decimal? Yet, that is how it's done.

But, I won't. I haven't bought any Windows software in a long time, and I'm continuing that trend. I play games on it, and it will continue to run my old games well after EOL so that's fine. I also have some automotive service software, but that will do fine in a VM.

Windows 7 is really fantastic to use in a lot of ways, and I've enjoyed it. I'm enjoying it right now. But Microsoft has gone full asshole. They were always pretty damned bad, of course — I've ranted and railed about them time and again, as mentioned nearby. But they always sort of pretended they cared about the user experience until recently.

Beyond the reason of "I didn't write it", what was wrong with the comment that was already there which asked the same thing, to which replies have actually been left, and is this a sock puppet to the account with the mod point that your comment received?

Yes. We don't use the decimals. Nobody says "It's going to be 73.2 degrees and sunny today!" because that would be stupid. You cannot feel a difference of less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, so why would anyone comment upon it? By comparison, centigrade requires you to use fractional degrees, because you can feel changes of less than 1 degree. The direct compatibility between centigrade and Kelvin scales is utterly irrelevant to the average person, who is never going to make use of it, and so it can safely be ignored during the scope of this discussion. Being better for some scientists who ought to be able to handle conversion is not an argument for everyone using it.

I am divided on the issue of English-style measures for volume; certainly, it's handy enough in the kitchen, but I don't have any trouble dealing with liters and dividing them down. In terms of measurements of distance, I am firmly in the metric camp. But when it comes to discussing the temperature of the air, which is what most people use a temperature scale for most of the time, the Fahrenheit scale simply makes more sense. The right tool for the job, please.

Because the numbers are bigger, but not so big that they're unwieldy. There's more variation. Arguably, there's more variation than is actually needed, because the average person cannot detect a variation in [air] temperature of less than two degrees Fahrenheit. But you get to talk about a broader range of temperatures, so the numbers seem more different. Since most people are unlikely to ever encounter weather far outside the 0-100 scale, it's very useful and it immediately makes extreme temperatures evident. This easily justifies having gradations smaller than what can be felt, or meaningfully used while cooking.

Yes, that is truly a testament to their ability to cherry-pick from a book in which their savior says that he is the law, that he comes not to replace the law... and who himself was a member of an ascetic sect big on the Word.

Tragic for who? Lewis' corpse, spinning in his grave? Child molesters who need funding to run their relocation program?

Seventh-day Advent Hoppists.

The reality is that the world is too complex and weather too chaotic to come up with 1 model that you're going to be able to plug what we know of what happened in the weather into and get out a simulation that follows what actually happens. The proof of this is that weather forecasters are commonly completely wrong, and they're dealing with the best-quality records we've got (e.g. the extensive weather doppler radar network in the USA) and only have to make predictions about rainfall, temperature, and cloud coverage for a day or a week in advance.

Our maps are just barely up to the task of modeling global weather in the way that you want, where we get to make specific predictions. Our understanding of localized weather patterns is inadequate to the task. However, that still doesn't prevent us from being able to make broad, generalized predictions from what we know of physics. And given that what we do know broadly fits the global warming narrative which in turn agrees with what we know of physics, there's no particular reason to doubt the overall picture. The globe is warming, and we're doing things which physics says should warm it. There are natural mechanisms which will serve to bring the system back into balance, like for example spreading extent of sea ice, but these mechanisms have literally never had to clean up a mess like the one we've made and it's unclear whether we're going to make it through the reset process because we don't actually know what that looks like. We've perturbed the regular cycle that we could have expected to survive in a somewhat unpredictable way, but we can still make some predictions. Just as the world is not black-and-white in the way that denialists want it to be when they argue that it's colder where they are so there can't be global warming, our lack of complete certainty does not make us completely unable to make predictions. If it did, then we would never be able to do anything, because we often find that our understanding is superficial — yet our previous models still enabled us to make useful predictions.