EVE Search - New Record (+metric system discussion)

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

New Record (+metric system discussion)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 07:00:00 - [1] Because noone cares about 1,8% increase? Records are interesting when they are broken, not steadily increased by a fraction on a regular basis...
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 07:00:00 - [2] Because noone cares about 1,8% increase? Records are interesting when they are broken, not steadily increased by a fraction on a regular basis...
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 07:31:00 - [3] Another solution would be that we write "." where you use "," and vice versa. Not that we do, but anyhow. The only time we use a symbol is when we want to make a clear line between whole numbers and fractions of one. E.g; A Megathron is worth 98543123,28 ISK - not 98,543,123.28 ISK
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 07:31:00 - [4] Another solution would be that we write "." where you use "," and vice versa. Not that we do, but anyhow. The only time we use a symbol is when we want to make a clear line between whole numbers and fractions of one. E.g; A Megathron is worth 98543123,28 ISK - not 98,543,123.28 ISK
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 07:33:00 - [5] Originally by: TheMiner 56,571 + 2,567 + 765,643 Ok big guy.. whats the answer? Where I come from; 824,781 As I told you, we don't use symbols where none is needed.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 07:33:00 - [6] Originally by: TheMiner 56,571 + 2,567 + 765,643 Ok big guy.. whats the answer? Where I come from; 824,781 As I told you, we don't use symbols where none is needed.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:01:00 - [7] I reiterate: It's easy when you are used to it. I find running ten miles easy too - because I am used to it. A guy from fatcamp might not though.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:01:00 - [8] I reiterate: It's easy when you are used to it. I find running ten miles easy too - because I am used to it. A guy from fatcamp might not though.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:15:00 - [9] The system ain't that hard to me. Now if you go about and use plausible numbers found when you do physics, chemistry or economics you might see that too. Then again, judging by your character you might not.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:15:00 - [10] The system ain't that hard to me. Now if you go about and use plausible numbers found when you do physics, chemistry or economics you might see that too. Then again, judging by your character you might not.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:22:00 - [11] Originally by: TheMiner I'm also saying it is silly for 343,555 and 343,555 to be able to mean 2 different things. It doesn't. You made that up and stirred it on by yourself. What I am saying is it's all in the eye of the beholder. But I suspect you're not the kind of person who realizes there are more than 10000 languages on this planet and thus more than 10000 ways of perceiving things?
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:22:00 - [12] Originally by: TheMiner I'm also saying it is silly for 343,555 and 343,555 to be able to mean 2 different things. It doesn't. You made that up and stirred it on by yourself. What I am saying is it's all in the eye of the beholder. But I suspect you're not the kind of person who realizes there are more than 10000 languages on this planet and thus more than 10000 ways of perceiving things?
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:36:00 - [13] Originally by: Meehan Another solution would be that we write "." where you use "," and vice versa. Not that we do, but anyhow. The only time we use a symbol is when we want to make a clear line between whole numbers and fractions of one. E.g; A Megathron is worth 98543123,28 ISK - not 98,543,123.28 ISK I already gave you the answer you were looking for it seems. You even responded to it.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:36:00 - [14] Originally by: Meehan Another solution would be that we write "." where you use "," and vice versa. Not that we do, but anyhow. The only time we use a symbol is when we want to make a clear line between whole numbers and fractions of one. E.g; A Megathron is worth 98543123,28 ISK - not 98,543,123.28 ISK I already gave you the answer you were looking for it seems. You even responded to it.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:40:00 - [15] Originally by: TheMiner When I said "Hey so what happens if you are trying to write this number: 173.879? Would they write it like this: 173,879? How can they tell the diff between 173,(point)879 and 173,(comma)879?" You should have said "Because we would type a 6 digit number like this 123.432 and a three digit number which has a 3 digit fraction like this 453,344" Instead, you said "Europeans are smart enough not to need symbols differentiating their higher numbers for them." Read my answer as: We don't use 173,(comma)879 - which I meant then and still mean.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:40:00 - [16] Originally by: TheMiner When I said "Hey so what happens if you are trying to write this number: 173.879? Would they write it like this: 173,879? How can they tell the diff between 173,(point)879 and 173,(comma)879?" You should have said "Because we would type a 6 digit number like this 123.432 and a three digit number which has a 3 digit fraction like this 453,344" Instead, you said "Europeans are smart enough not to need symbols differentiating their higher numbers for them." Read my answer as: We don't use 173,(comma)879 - which I meant then and still mean.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:47:00 - [17] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Meehan Read my answer as: We don't use 173,(comma)879 - which I meant then and still mean. My question was: "Humans cant read 8098980890715 as easily as they can read 809,898,090,715. But I guess you read both of those numbers with just as much ease and recognizes them as the same? I suppose I could modify it so your tiny brain can understand.... "Humans cant read 8098980890715 as easily as they can read 809.898.090.715 . But I guess you read both of those numbers with just as much ease and recognizes them as the same? It ain't even the same number, numby. For the seventh time (or something like that): There is no inferior system, just a matter of what you are used to. How can that be so hard on you, thicky?
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:47:00 - [18] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Meehan Read my answer as: We don't use 173,(comma)879 - which I meant then and still mean. My question was: "Humans cant read 8098980890715 as easily as they can read 809,898,090,715. But I guess you read both of those numbers with just as much ease and recognizes them as the same? I suppose I could modify it so your tiny brain can understand.... "Humans cant read 8098980890715 as easily as they can read 809.898.090.715 . But I guess you read both of those numbers with just as much ease and recognizes them as the same? It ain't even the same number, numby. For the seventh time (or something like that): There is no inferior system, just a matter of what you are used to. How can that be so hard on you, thicky?
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:50:00 - [19] Originally by: TheMiner 543,533 and 543.533 to mean the same number is 100% fine. But not using symbols with large numbers is a good way to get errors. 984909054 904509340909 9043094093 893894982398895 98098690340969046902 In theory, yes. In practice, no. I'd try to make you understand that when using plausible numbers in any science you never get to the point where it makes a difference what system you use (supposed you're USED TO IT), but you don't seem to appreciate different ways of thinking so I'll just leave it at that instead.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:50:00 - [20] Originally by: TheMiner 543,533 and 543.533 to mean the same number is 100% fine. But not using symbols with large numbers is a good way to get errors. 984909054 904509340909 9043094093 893894982398895 98098690340969046902 In theory, yes. In practice, no. I'd try to make you understand that when using plausible numbers in any science you never get to the point where it makes a difference what system you use (supposed you're USED TO IT), but you don't seem to appreciate different ways of thinking so I'll just leave it at that instead.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:57:00 - [21] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Meehan It ain't even the same number, numby. LOL SEE?!?!? MY POINT IS PROVEN. IT TOOK YOU 40 MINUTES FROM WHEN I POSTED THAT (AND SOMEONE POINTING IT OUT AND ME POSTING IT ANOTHER 10 TIMES FOR YOU TO EVEN SEE THAT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME NUMBER. 8098980890715 and 809898090715 take some time to tell they are different. (40 mins for your "trained" mind. But 8,098,980,890,715 and 809,898,090,715 are CLEARY very DIFFERENT numbers. One glance by even a FOOL tells you that. Like I said, using the 9509540954094 system would be very easy to scam people with. One number difference can make an item MUCH MUCH cheaper or more expensive. Uhm, did it ever occur to you I was ignoring you alltogether? But if it makes you feel better, then go ahead and believe you've won. Considering this whole argument has been about trying to teach you there is no such thing as a superior system, it's even funnier. I've posted that from page one. You don't see me doing posts in Caps Lock about it. I maintain it's a matter of what you are used to. I have no problems reading numbers without punctuation or commation, the fact that you do is your problem alone
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 08:57:00 - [22] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Meehan It ain't even the same number, numby. LOL SEE?!?!? MY POINT IS PROVEN. IT TOOK YOU 40 MINUTES FROM WHEN I POSTED THAT (AND SOMEONE POINTING IT OUT AND ME POSTING IT ANOTHER 10 TIMES FOR YOU TO EVEN SEE THAT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME NUMBER. 8098980890715 and 809898090715 take some time to tell they are different. (40 mins for your "trained" mind. But 8,098,980,890,715 and 809,898,090,715 are CLEARY very DIFFERENT numbers. One glance by even a FOOL tells you that. Like I said, using the 9509540954094 system would be very easy to scam people with. One number difference can make an item MUCH MUCH cheaper or more expensive. Uhm, did it ever occur to you I was ignoring you alltogether? But if it makes you feel better, then go ahead and believe you've won. Considering this whole argument has been about trying to teach you there is no such thing as a superior system, it's even funnier. I've posted that from page one. You don't see me doing posts in Caps Lock about it. I maintain it's a matter of what you are used to. I have no problems reading numbers without punctuation or commation, the fact that you do is your problem alone
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:06:00 - [23] Originally by: TheMiner No.. you are just being stubborn. Also... your statment concerning "there is no one system better thna another" is FALSE. Are you telling me using MMMDCCLXXVI is better than just typing 3776? LOL? Now think of trying to write 565,895,983,894,221 in roman numerals... LOL! just as silly as write it as 565895983894221 and expecting people to know what it is just by glancing. I once had a math teacher who made a thing out of counting with roman numerals. He did it with ease. Not that you will believe me but it still shows what a narrow mind you've been cursed with. Sad to say, you don't seem to have any chance of widening your mind either.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:06:00 - [24] Originally by: TheMiner No.. you are just being stubborn. Also... your statment concerning "there is no one system better thna another" is FALSE. Are you telling me using MMMDCCLXXVI is better than just typing 3776? LOL? Now think of trying to write 565,895,983,894,221 in roman numerals... LOL! just as silly as write it as 565895983894221 and expecting people to know what it is just by glancing. I once had a math teacher who made a thing out of counting with roman numerals. He did it with ease. Not that you will believe me but it still shows what a narrow mind you've been cursed with. Sad to say, you don't seem to have any chance of widening your mind either.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:12:00 - [25] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Meehan You still haven't answered me about the chinese written language either. Is that system inferior too because you have a hard time grasping it? I dont know enough about it to know if it is inferior or not. It could be though. Perhaps the payment for spending the time to learn it is a extremely powerfull vocabulary which can be used to quickly describe anything. But if not... then it is inferior to a more simple and logical system which has more descriptive potential. Do you not agree that a language in which it takes 50% as long to learn but gives you 3x the descriptive ability and only takes 50% as long to communicate what you want would be better? Actually I don't. I guess it's down to what you define as "better". Not that I expect you to comprehend that argument, but still. To Wren; if you're a whale you'd prefer the water to the pavement. And this is what I have been trying to say all along; it's all in the eye of the beholder. Kant postulated this a few centuries ago. Many philisophers have expanded that kind of thinking afterwards. The fact that is hasn't made a single impression into TheMiner's mind a few hundred years afterwards is depressing.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:12:00 - [26] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Meehan You still haven't answered me about the chinese written language either. Is that system inferior too because you have a hard time grasping it? I dont know enough about it to know if it is inferior or not. It could be though. Perhaps the payment for spending the time to learn it is a extremely powerfull vocabulary which can be used to quickly describe anything. But if not... then it is inferior to a more simple and logical system which has more descriptive potential. Do you not agree that a language in which it takes 50% as long to learn but gives you 3x the descriptive ability and only takes 50% as long to communicate what you want would be better? Actually I don't. I guess it's down to what you define as "better". Not that I expect you to comprehend that argument, but still. To Wren; if you're a whale you'd prefer the water to the pavement. And this is what I have been trying to say all along; it's all in the eye of the beholder. Kant postulated this a few centuries ago. Many philisophers have expanded that kind of thinking afterwards. The fact that is hasn't made a single impression into TheMiner's mind a few hundred years afterwards is depressing.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:20:00 - [27] Originally by: TheMiner Meehan... you are using invalid logic. I'm saying 1,742,385,569 is superior to 1742385569 when communicating a number to a person. And you are trying to twist what I say by saying "WELL WHAT IF YOU ARE A COMPUTER? (or a whale) THEN 1100111110110101011000110100001 WOULD BE THE BEST NUMBER TO USE!" Well... true... but thats not what I was talking about. Dont try to put weords in my mouth and change the subject in a stupid way. I'm not talking about how robots use numbers, or aliens, or geese, or cars. I am talking about how humans use numbers with humans. See the thing about you is you don't realize humans are as different when it comes to interpreting language as a whale/human is. At least save for body language, which is evident not the issue here.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:20:00 - [28] Originally by: TheMiner Meehan... you are using invalid logic. I'm saying 1,742,385,569 is superior to 1742385569 when communicating a number to a person. And you are trying to twist what I say by saying "WELL WHAT IF YOU ARE A COMPUTER? (or a whale) THEN 1100111110110101011000110100001 WOULD BE THE BEST NUMBER TO USE!" Well... true... but thats not what I was talking about. Dont try to put weords in my mouth and change the subject in a stupid way. I'm not talking about how robots use numbers, or aliens, or geese, or cars. I am talking about how humans use numbers with humans. See the thing about you is you don't realize humans are as different when it comes to interpreting language as a whale/human is. At least save for body language, which is evident not the issue here.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:23:00 - [29] Originally by: TheMiner Wren, let them use a , instead of a . Hey Meehan... so are you saying the English system is not worse than the Metric system? I'm an "ignorant little minded" who lives in a country where the English system is used and even I recognize that the metric system is superor. Okay... let's try to get this little piece of fact into your vaccuum for a brain: I don't think there is any system superior to another. But yeah, I personally prefer the metric system. Prefer, before you make up some value about that word, means I use it personally. That doesn't mean I consider it better.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:23:00 - [30] Originally by: TheMiner Wren, let them use a , instead of a . Hey Meehan... so are you saying the English system is not worse than the Metric system? I'm an "ignorant little minded" who lives in a country where the English system is used and even I recognize that the metric system is superor. Okay... let's try to get this little piece of fact into your vaccuum for a brain: I don't think there is any system superior to another. But yeah, I personally prefer the metric system. Prefer, before you make up some value about that word, means I use it personally. That doesn't mean I consider it better.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:29:00 - [31] Originally by: TheMiner LOL you are getting all philosophical and vague.. lolollolool "Nothing is superior to anything." "Everything is determined by personal preference." LOL. So a slingshot is just as good as a tank? Roman numerals are just as good as our current (Arabic) number system? LOL? There's a clear difference there. Whatever inbread reasons causing you not to see it is regrettable, but just something you have to live with. Here's a hint for you; finite efficiency determined by empirical testing. Another hint to get you going: Language ain't very finite...
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:29:00 - [32] Originally by: TheMiner LOL you are getting all philosophical and vague.. lolollolool "Nothing is superior to anything." "Everything is determined by personal preference." LOL. So a slingshot is just as good as a tank? Roman numerals are just as good as our current (Arabic) number system? LOL? There's a clear difference there. Whatever inbread reasons causing you not to see it is regrettable, but just something you have to live with. Here's a hint for you; finite efficiency determined by empirical testing. Another hint to get you going: Language ain't very finite...
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:31:00 - [33] By the way, TheMiner. You said you weren't from the states originally? Where are you from and how long have you lived there? Just personal curiosa, that's all
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:31:00 - [34] By the way, TheMiner. You said you weren't from the states originally? Where are you from and how long have you lived there? Just personal curiosa, that's all
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:32:00 - [35] Originally by: TheMiner "And if no system is superior or inferior to another, then why aren't we useing the Incan system where there were no written numbers and we used knotted ropes to show prices?" OWNED Because today we use math's where it's not practical? I'm sure it worked just fine back for them, considering the Incan civilization was way more mathematically advanced back then compared to the European nations. Whuh-oh, not so owned after all.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:32:00 - [36] Originally by: TheMiner "And if no system is superior or inferior to another, then why aren't we useing the Incan system where there were no written numbers and we used knotted ropes to show prices?" OWNED Because today we use math's where it's not practical? I'm sure it worked just fine back for them, considering the Incan civilization was way more mathematically advanced back then compared to the European nations. Whuh-oh, not so owned after all.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:33:00 - [37] Originally by: Scorpyn Edited by: Scorpyn on 13/10/2004 09:34:32 Meehan are you feeling grumpy today? Even if he's wrong in your opinion it's not a reason to insult him over and over... I can't help it. Ignorant people just makes me irritated...
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:33:00 - [38] Originally by: Scorpyn Edited by: Scorpyn on 13/10/2004 09:34:32 Meehan are you feeling grumpy today? Even if he's wrong in your opinion it's not a reason to insult him over and over... I can't help it. Ignorant people just makes me irritated...
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:34:00 - [39] Originally by: TheMiner I live in USA. I've lived here for 18 years of my 22 year life. Thanks.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:34:00 - [40] Originally by: TheMiner I live in USA. I've lived here for 18 years of my 22 year life. Thanks.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:37:00 - [41] Allies? I'm doing pretty on my own thank you, what they think is actually irrelevant, even though they happen to mostly agree with me in this case.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:37:00 - [42] Allies? I'm doing pretty on my own thank you, what they think is actually irrelevant, even though they happen to mostly agree with me in this case.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:39:00 - [43] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Meehan Because today we use math's where it's not practical? I'm sure it worked just fine back for them, considering the Incan civilization was way more mathematically advanced back then compared to the European nations. Whuh-oh, not so owned after all. LOL NO! You are SO OWNED! Are you saying if I introduced the number system we use now to the Incans that their wise and intelligent members of society would not recognize it as superior? Who wants to make 67 knots in a rope to tell a shopkeeper how many gold nuggets he needs to give you when you could just write a 6 and a 7? LOL It's a matter of necessity and not overdoing it. Fact remains, their mathematical knowledge was superior to ours, so your argument in this case is nill.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:39:00 - [44] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Meehan Because today we use math's where it's not practical? I'm sure it worked just fine back for them, considering the Incan civilization was way more mathematically advanced back then compared to the European nations. Whuh-oh, not so owned after all. LOL NO! You are SO OWNED! Are you saying if I introduced the number system we use now to the Incans that their wise and intelligent members of society would not recognize it as superior? Who wants to make 67 knots in a rope to tell a shopkeeper how many gold nuggets he needs to give you when you could just write a 6 and a 7? LOL It's a matter of necessity and not overdoing it. Fact remains, their mathematical knowledge was superior to ours, so your argument in this case is nill.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:41:00 - [45] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Meehan Allies? I'm doing pretty on my own thank you, what they think is actually irrelevant, even though they happen to mostly agree with me in this case. Dude.. sorry to say but if this was an EVE ship battle... you got podded 2x in a row without buying a clone an hr ago. Perhaps so, but I'd still feel sorry for you to be honest
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:41:00 - [46] Originally by: TheMiner Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 09:43:34 And now you are blatanetly lying. You're not very highly educated, are you?
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:41:00 - [47] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Meehan Allies? I'm doing pretty on my own thank you, what they think is actually irrelevant, even though they happen to mostly agree with me in this case. Dude.. sorry to say but if this was an EVE ship battle... you got podded 2x in a row without buying a clone an hr ago. Perhaps so, but I'd still feel sorry for you to be honest
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:41:00 - [48] Originally by: TheMiner Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 09:43:34 And now you are blatanetly lying. You're not very highly educated, are you?
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:47:00 - [49] Originally by: TheMiner Why? Is being highly educated a "good" thing or something? Are you saying being highly educated is "better" than not being highly educated? Can one school system be "better" than another? Evidently, yes. And with that I have a few miles in the track to attend. Good day to you
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:47:00 - [50] Originally by: TheMiner Why? Is being highly educated a "good" thing or something? Are you saying being highly educated is "better" than not being highly educated? Can one school system be "better" than another? Evidently, yes. And with that I have a few miles in the track to attend. Good day to you
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:48:00 - [51] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Elric Mortis Originally by: TheMiner Can one school system be "better" than another? yes Exactly! Sigh... there's a difference between linguistics and physics, kiddo.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.13 09:48:00 - [52] Originally by: TheMiner Originally by: Elric Mortis Originally by: TheMiner Can one school system be "better" than another? yes Exactly! Sigh... there's a difference between linguistics and physics, kiddo.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.14 11:02:00 - [53] I'm not disputing your argument, TheMiner, but don't you think it's time you step back and ransack yourself? You ever wondered why people would rather throw their icecreams away than give them to you? Well, I will tell you. Not because of your opinions, as I'm sure you are convinced of, but rather because of how you express them.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.14 11:02:00 - [54] I'm not disputing your argument, TheMiner, but don't you think it's time you step back and ransack yourself? You ever wondered why people would rather throw their icecreams away than give them to you? Well, I will tell you. Not because of your opinions, as I'm sure you are convinced of, but rather because of how you express them.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.14 16:49:00 - [55] 309 divided by 103 is 3, which is simple enough. 309 divided by 5 isn't that hard either if you try it (61,8) but I'm with Avon on this one. By the way, your examples are as clear as a bottle of distilled water Avon, at least to me.
Meehan	Posted - 2004.10.14 16:49:00 - [56] 309 divided by 103 is 3, which is simple enough. 309 divided by 5 isn't that hard either if you try it (61,8) but I'm with Avon on this one. By the way, your examples are as clear as a bottle of distilled water Avon, at least to me.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.