 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch <lan### [at] usa net> wrote in message
news:37b41180@news.povray.org...
>
>
> I just find it disappointing that some people don't get what I mean and
> actually think the new millennium starts at the start of the year 2000,
and
> not the real start which is at the start of 2001.
>
Well I get a little weary of folk who can't see that while we all agree
that they may be mathematically correct about the number of years that have
passed, they are nonetheless quite wrong about when the Millennium ends. It
ends when we say it does.
But don't take it personally, some folk are just more literal minded
that others, right now, the less literal people rule...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:16:15 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> But don't take it personally, some folk are just more literal minded
>that others, right now, the less literal people rule...
>
You misspelled "literate." :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:16:15 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> > But don't take it personally, some folk are just more literal minded
> >that others, right now, the less literal people rule...
> >
>
> You misspelled "literate." :)
Troll !
--
Ken Tyler
See my 700+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker <par### [at] fwicom> wrote in message
news:37b47e81@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:16:15 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> > But don't take it personally, some folk are just more literal minded
> >that others, right now, the less literal people rule...
> >
>
> You misspelled "literate." :)
Hey! No fair!
Now I've got Breyer's Yogurt all over my monitor! Just when I was
going to type a witty and telling rejoinder about the value of a
mathematical mind being devalued in an age of Grade 8 reading level masses
of Astrology following minions of the Orwellian Newspeak driven media...
But now that I've been branded illiterate (and we all know how
painful -that- can be), I'll just have to say, "doy huh! I better go buys me
some lottery tickets befo them puters all get a y2k virus an I has to hide
up in the cellar wid my rifle and my cusins"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:48:06 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> Now I've got Breyer's Yogurt all over my monitor! Just when I was
>going to type a witty and telling rejoinder about the value of a
>mathematical mind being devalued in an age of Grade 8 reading level masses
>of Astrology following minions of the Orwellian Newspeak driven media...
Sorry about your monitor. Really. But I think Grade 8 is exaggerating a
bit, don't you? That's far above average.
> But now that I've been branded illiterate (and we all know how
Where did I say you rule? :)
>painful -that- can be), I'll just have to say, "doy huh! I better go buys me
>some lottery tickets befo them puters all get a y2k virus an I has to hide
>up in the cellar wid my rifle and my cusins"
Ah, yes. The lottery. "Ya gotta play to win!" Because of the lottery
(aka tax on people who can't do math) my taxes are lower. I feel like
a winner. I'd say you have to play to lose, really.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker <par### [at] fwicom> wrote
>
> Where did I say you rule? :)
>
< childish victory chant > I -RULE-! I'm number 1! I am the best! Best I
am the! I me best are a.... ummm... O yeah!...
... I Rule! < /childish victory chant >
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> Ah, yes. The lottery. "Ya gotta play to win!" Because of the lottery
> (aka tax on people who can't do math) my taxes are lower. I feel like
> a winner. I'd say you have to play to lose, really.
My wife and I have invested a total of $12 (USD) on the California lottery
and have won a total of $5005 (USD) before taxes. There are some winners
after all. We of course stopped playing after the second win so as not to
diminish the accomplishment.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 700+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:19:34 -0700, Ken wrote:
>
>
>Ron Parker wrote:
>
>> Ah, yes. The lottery. "Ya gotta play to win!" Because of the lottery
>> (aka tax on people who can't do math) my taxes are lower. I feel like
>> a winner. I'd say you have to play to lose, really.
>
>My wife and I have invested a total of $12 (USD) on the California lottery
>and have won a total of $5005 (USD) before taxes. There are some winners
>after all. We of course stopped playing after the second win so as not to
>diminish the accomplishment.
Oh, I don't dispute that. In fact, before I ever bought a lottery ticket
I was a winner because someone had given me a winning lottery ticket in
place of a bow on top of a Christmas gift. But I also win the lottery
every time I don't play, and that's a sure thing. I like those odds
better. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote in message <37b3c7bb@news.povray.org>...
>LOL, how did I know someone would start this up again? hehehe™
>
>No, all I was saying is that in our current date system, according to the
>date it will start on 01/01/2001 not 01/01/2000 (because there was no year
>0).
No, the second millenium ended approximately 3,759 years ago.
--
main(i,_){for(!_||(--i,main(i+2,i["FHhhTBFHdhTBFBQT\2TBF&]zRF$hh*:FHhh+&FBIs
bDF"]));i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_^=_,"\n")),_/=2);} /*-
Mark -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote in message <37b49064@news.povray.org>...
>Oh, I don't dispute that. In fact, before I ever bought a lottery ticket
>I was a winner because someone had given me a winning lottery ticket in
>place of a bow on top of a Christmas gift. But I also win the lottery
>every time I don't play, and that's a sure thing. I like those odds
>better. :)
Actually, the odds are even better when the jackpot (after taxes) is greater
than the odds of winning times the cost of a ticket. If you only buy
tickets when this is the case, then over the (very) long run, it is possible
to make a profit off of playing the lottery.
--
main(i,_){for(!_||(--i,main(i+2,i["FHhhTBFHdhTBFBQT\2TBF&]zRF$hh*:FHhh+&FBIs
bDF"]));i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_^=_,"\n")),_/=2);} /*-
Mark -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
> --
> main(i,_){for(!_||(--i,main(i+2,i["FHhhTBFHdhTBFBQT\2TBF&]zRF$hh*:FHhh+&FBIs
> bDF"]));i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_^=_,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Mark -*/
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
There everywhere !
--
Ken Tyler
See my 700+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The lottery would have to be running at a loss.
Margus
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> Actually, the odds are even better when the jackpot (after taxes) is greater
> than the odds of winning times the cost of a ticket. If you only buy
> tickets when this is the case, then over the (very) long run, it is possible
> to make a profit off of playing the lottery.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(!_||(--i,main(i+2,i["FHhhTBFHdhTBFBQT\2TBF&]zRF$hh*:FHhh+&FBIs
> bDF"]));i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_^=_,"\n")),_/=2);} /*-
> Mark -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: I never said I dissagreed I simply pointed out that there did not need to be
: a year zero when counting time as long as you have a zero reference point
: to start counting time from. Lance is so easy to bait he jumped in without
: even reading my message. I snicker in his general direction !
So we are living in the first millenium right now. Why? Because from
year 1 to year 999 is 999 years, so it's not a millenium. The first millenium
is, thus, from 1000 to 1999.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
>
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : I never said I dissagreed I simply pointed out that there did not need to be
> : a year zero when counting time as long as you have a zero reference point
> : to start counting time from. Lance is so easy to bait he jumped in without
> : even reading my message. I snicker in his general direction !
>
> So we are living in the first millenium right now. Why? Because from
> year 1 to year 999 is 999 years, so it's not a millenium. The first millenium
> is, thus, from 1000 to 1999.
You are arguing semantics. When this year ends 2000 years will have passed
regardless of WHEN the time period began. 2000 years just passed as I typed
this sentence. 2000 years will have passed again tomorrow. Knowing what time
you are at NOW makes it simple math to know when WHEN was. Oooops 1,000,000
years just passed when I typed this sentence. Go back to the zero starting
point of that 1,000,000 years and you will know it's WHEN. It really doesn't
matter what WHEN is as long as we know what NOW is. And for the world the NOW
at the end of this year will be 2000 years later than some WHEN of the past.
Remember that time is linear no matter what math you want to try to throw
at it.
Got it !
--
Ken Tyler
See my 700+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 01:44:34 -0400, Mark Wagner wrote:
>
>
>
>Ron Parker wrote in message <37b49064@news.povray.org>...
>>Oh, I don't dispute that. In fact, before I ever bought a lottery ticket
>>I was a winner because someone had given me a winning lottery ticket in
>>place of a bow on top of a Christmas gift. But I also win the lottery
>>every time I don't play, and that's a sure thing. I like those odds
>>better. :)
>
>Actually, the odds are even better when the jackpot (after taxes) is greater
>than the odds of winning times the cost of a ticket. If you only buy
>tickets when this is the case, then over the (very) long run, it is possible
>to make a profit off of playing the lottery.
Only if you can guarantee that no one else will have the winning combination.
Unfortunately, since the number of tickets sold goes up when the jackpot does,
this is far from a sure thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
