 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/05/2010 9:13 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Chances of making the new holes line up with the existing ones? Minimal.
> :-S
I would say 100%
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/05/2010 9:17 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Yes. That's why DEL is up at 127. Think about it.
>>>
>>> Oh... oh dear god. You *are* kidding me, right??
>>
>> He is not. It the smart thing to do. Is it not?
>
> But the really scary part, of course, is that today, 60 years later, the
> DEL code-point is *still defined* and still has the same value. WTF is
> up with *that*?!
Why not, what would you suggest?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But the really scary part, of course, is that today, 60 years later, the
>> DEL code-point is *still defined* and still has the same value. WTF is
>> up with *that*?!
>
> Why not, what would you suggest?
Firstly I would suggest that we no longer _need_ character encodings for
*control codes*. But more importantly, I would suggest that we shouldn't
still be using 60-year old technology.
But hey, who gives a fig what *I* think?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Because he doesn't realise he is using the same billions as America (as
>> have the rest of the UK for a few decades now).
>
> More exactly, I didn't realise that that is how Wolfram Alpha would
> interpret it.
Why not? As UK and USA both use 1 billion = 1e9, it makes perfect sense for
an English website to use that.
> I always assumed that 1 billion = 1 million million.
You assumed incorrectly. Whenever you see "billion" mentioned in the UK it
means 1e9. For example in this news article from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8686822.stm
The "59bn euro" means 59e9 euro. Ditto for all other places "bn" or
"billion" is mentioned. The universe is also 13.7 bn years old, that means
13.7e9 years old. Note in some languages/countries they have two separate
words for 10e9 and 10e12, so there is no such confusion.
> The solution, of course, is to simply never use the word "billion". Then
> there can be no ambiguity.
Or just be aware that in some places (but not UK or USA) "billion" (or a
word sounding like it) might have the alternative meaning.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/05/2010 9:50 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> But the really scary part, of course, is that today, 60 years later, the
>>> DEL code-point is *still defined* and still has the same value. WTF is
>>> up with *that*?!
>>
>> Why not, what would you suggest?
>
> Firstly I would suggest that we no longer _need_ character encodings for
> *control codes*. But more importantly, I would suggest that we shouldn't
> still be using 60-year old technology.
>
How long have we been using levers, wheels, pulleys etc.? Do you think
we should change everything every ten years or so.
> But hey, who gives a fig what *I* think?
Well it is up to you to make suggestions that are worth listening to.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/05/2010 9:20 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I always assumed that 1 billion = 1 million million.
That changed in 1975 when Denis Healey announced that the treasury would
adopt the US billion thenceforth.
How old were you then?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> The solution, of course, is to simply never use the word "billion".
Use "milliard" instead. And a thousand milliards is a thousand milliards.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Why not, what would you suggest?
>>
>> Firstly I would suggest that we no longer _need_ character encodings for
>> *control codes*. But more importantly, I would suggest that we shouldn't
>> still be using 60-year old technology.
>
> How long have we been using levers, wheels, pulleys etc.? Do you think
> we should change everything every ten years or so.
Yes, but levers, wheels, pulleys, etc are *useful*. Assigning character
codes to things that aren't characters isn't.
>> But hey, who gives a fig what *I* think?
>
> Well it is up to you to make suggestions that are worth listening to.
I doubt that's going to work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/05/2010 1:00 PM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Yes, but levers, wheels, pulleys, etc are *useful*. Assigning character
> codes to things that aren't characters isn't.
>
So is a rubber (eraser)
>>> But hey, who gives a fig what *I* think?
>>
>> Well it is up to you to make suggestions that are worth listening to.
>
> I doubt that's going to work.
That's your problem. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4bf3ae8a@news.povray.org...
> Note in some languages/countries they have two separate words for 10e9 and
> 10e12, so there is no such confusion.
>
There are strange countries in the world aren't they? ;-)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
