Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Hint 3: You can only develop an accurate data set by averaging
discrete temperatures every square mile of the Earth. That would be
approximately 197,000,000 data reporting instruments.

Why not require every square meter or every thousand square
miles? Why not every cubic mile?... seriously.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:11:36 -0800, -rick- wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Hint 3: You can only develop an accurate data set by averaging
discrete temperatures every square mile of the Earth. That would be
approximately 197,000,000 data reporting instruments.

Why not require every square meter or every thousand square
miles? Why not every cubic mile?... seriously.

He was being gentle. Cubic miles wouldn't work too well, can't get very
deep. Square miles may be a good measure out in Kansas, but in New York the
placement within that square could sure skew data.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Jan 8, 12:11*am, -rick- wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Hint 3: You can only develop an accurate data set by averaging
discrete temperatures every square mile of the Earth. *That would be
approximately 197,000,000 data reporting instruments.

Why not require every square meter or every thousand square
miles? *Why not every cubic mile?... seriously.

Exactly!

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:47:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 8, 12:11*am, -rick- wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Hint 3: You can only develop an accurate data set by averaging
discrete temperatures every square mile of the Earth. *That would be
approximately 197,000,000 data reporting instruments.

Why not require every square meter or every thousand square
miles? *Why not every cubic mile?... seriously.

Exactly!

Answered.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."