 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I had always assumed that credit cards exist *because* of electronic
> banking. :-P
Bank cards exist because of electronic banking.
Before electronic authorization, it was mostly things like cards for
particular gas stations or particular stores. You didn't have "mastercard"
or "visa" or (the original) "diner's club." You had "Exxon" cards or
"Texaco" cards.
It was hard to go over your credit limit when gas was $0.30/gallon and
that's all you could buy on the card. :-)
I never caught a bad card, and I think it only happened once or twice the
whole time my Dad owned the gas station. Or, to put it another way, we got
robbed more often than we saw bad credit cards. I think you just either
took the card away or refused to accept it, I don't know which. Most of the
customers using cards were regulars anyway.
There were a bunch of other security features too. Like you couldn't swipe
the same card twice, because the blanks were numbered and the gas company
would turn it down, figuring you put two blanks into the machine and had the
guy sign it. So when someone showed up with a fleet of trucks to get filled
up, we had to change the date on the machine up and down so we didn't get
turned down.
The best was when I handed the paper to the guy to sign, and he writes VOID
across it. I'm like "Excuse me?" He says "Look at the card." Issued to
Henry Void. "Oh, very good Mr Void. Have a nice day." I imagine he has a
worse time than "Mr New" does with that sort of stuff.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:48:40 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> I had always assumed that credit cards exist *because* of electronic
>> banking. :-P
>
>I remember getting utility bills on tractor feed paper, presumably
>printed by some huge line printer...
When I opened my first cheque book account I had to sign an agreement that had a
physical stamp on it. Signifying that stamp duty had been paid and the document
was legal. I should have had my own "Boston Tea Party". :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2009 1:37 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Given the miniscule difference, I don't think that has much to do with
> it. (I am, however, baffled as to why there's an area difference at all...)
You're baffled as to why two different rectangles with different side
lengths but equivalent diagonals have different areas?
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Given the miniscule difference, I don't think that has much to do with
>> it. (I am, however, baffled as to why there's an area difference at
>> all...)
>
> You're baffled as to why two different rectangles with different side
> lengths but equivalent diagonals have different areas?
Yes. I was under the impression that the square of the diagonal was
equal to the sum of the squares of the sides, which _should_ mean that
as one side gets shorter, the other side gets longer by exactly the same
amount, holding the area constant.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> Given the miniscule difference, I don't think that has much to do with
> >> it. (I am, however, baffled as to why there's an area difference at
> >> all...)
> >
> > You're baffled as to why two different rectangles with different side
> > lengths but equivalent diagonals have different areas?
> Yes. I was under the impression that the square of the diagonal was
> equal to the sum of the squares of the sides, which _should_ mean that
> as one side gets shorter, the other side gets longer by exactly the same
> amount, holding the area constant.
That would mean that if one of the sides had zero length, then the other
side would have the same length of the diagonal and the area would still
be the same. Which is obviously impossible.
You are confusing the sum of the squares of the side lengths with the
product of the side lengths. Obviously they are different things.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> You're baffled as to why two different rectangles with different side
>>> lengths but equivalent diagonals have different areas?
>
>> Yes. I was under the impression that the square of the diagonal was
>> equal to the sum of the squares of the sides, which _should_ mean that
>> as one side gets shorter, the other side gets longer by exactly the same
>> amount, holding the area constant.
>
> That would mean that if one of the sides had zero length, then the other
> side would have the same length of the diagonal and the area would still
> be the same. Which is obviously impossible.
>
> You are confusing the sum of the squares of the side lengths with the
> product of the side lengths. Obviously they are different things.
Yes. Obviously I am wrong, since the actual results do not match my
expectations. All I said was that I am surprised. ;-)
Ironically, I'm currently reading
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
I guess I'm too stupid to realise how stupid I am... :-/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible a écrit :
> Ironically, I'm currently reading
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
> I guess I'm too stupid to realise how stupid I am... :-/
I'm not sure inflated self-assessment is your main problem right now ;-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I guess I'm too stupid to realise how stupid I am... :-/
>
> I'm not sure inflated self-assessment is your main problem right now ;-)
Well, I don't know either. I have little to compare against. :-\
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm not personally authorized to make any kind of official
statement/commitment, but I will talk to the founder today; the board and
partners may be interested as well.
I will let you know.
ian
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49b81d05@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> The only way I'm getting that one though is if funding for this biofuels
>> startup comes through.
>
> I'm involved with prizecapital.net if you are interested in that. Sort of
> like X-Prize for biofuel start-ups.
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
> unable to read this, even at arm's length."
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
...
>>> The part I can't figure out is... how is the monitor electrically
>>> connected to the metal beam on the underside of my desk? (The desk
>>> itself is wood. And the monitor housing is plastic.) So how the hell
>>> did the charge get into the LCD??
>>
>> Charge doesn't only go through conductors, one of the tests we do is
>> to apply a discharge to the plastic casing of the display and to the
>> front surface (which is definitely not a conductor), it makes its way
>> fine to the electronics :-)
>
> o_O
>
> I guess if you apply a few thousand volts to something, life finds a way...
"Lec 1 | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=1
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
