| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sc0rpion
   |
Posted - 2004.10.13 05:55:00 -
[1]
I don't know if anybody noticed, but we achieved a new simultaneous player record this past Sunday: 11,484 players.
edited the topic title abit, moved from eve general discussions-Eris Discordia
"The true secret to enjoying life is to live it dangerously."
-Freidrich Nietzche |
Sc0rpion
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 05:55:00 -
[2]
I don't know if anybody noticed, but we achieved a new simultaneous player record this past Sunday: 11,484 players.
edited the topic title abit, moved from eve general discussions-Eris Discordia
"The true secret to enjoying life is to live it dangerously."
-Freidrich Nietzche |
Psym0n
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 06:09:00 -
[3]
I noticed. Expected it to be on the "Eve-News" but never saw it..
_________________________________
_________________________________ |
Psym0n
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 06:09:00 -
[4]
I noticed. Expected it to be on the "Eve-News" but never saw it..
_________________________________
_________________________________ |
S'Daria
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 06:32:00 -
[5]
Yeah, 11,484 two days ago...why nothing?
|
S'Daria
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 06:32:00 -
[6]
Yeah, 11,484 two days ago...why nothing?
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:00:00 -
[7]
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 -
[8]
Because noone cares about 1,8% increase?
Records are interesting when they are broken, not steadily increased by a fraction on a regular basis...
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:16:00 -
[9]
True.
Hey.. did you type 1,8% on purpose? Or did you mean to type 1.8%?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:16:00 -
[10]
True.
Hey.. did you type 1,8% on purpose? Or did you mean to type 1.8%?
|
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:18:00 -
[11]
 Originally by: TheMiner
True.
Hey.. did you type 1,8% on purpose? Or did you mean to type 1.8%?
.
It's how they do decimals on most of continental Europe.
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:18:00 -
[12]
Originally by: TheMiner
True.
Hey.. did you type 1,8% on purpose? Or did you mean to type 1.8%?
.
It's how they do decimals on most of continental Europe.
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:22:00 -
[13]
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?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:22:00 -
[14]
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?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:28:00 -
[15]
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 07:31:45
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 07:30:57
Meehead,
Both your posts were very ignorant. First of all, I am not from the USA, if thats what you were thinking. And I dont use F.
Secondly, your second answer showed both hate for a nationality and lack of logic.
Can you tell me how one automatically knows that 185,454 and 185,454 are different numbers? In many cases a very wide range of numbers might suffice and there is no way you could just "know" what the write of that number intended.
If you are so smart, figure out this math problem, written in your silly form:
56,571 + 2,567 + 765,643
Ok big guy.. whats the answer?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:28:00 -
[16]
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 07:31:45
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 07:30:57
Meehead,
Both your posts were very ignorant. First of all, I am not from the USA, if thats what you were thinking. And I dont use F.
Secondly, your second answer showed both hate for a nationality and lack of logic.
Can you tell me how one automatically knows that 185,454 and 185,454 are different numbers? In many cases a very wide range of numbers might suffice and there is no way you could just "know" what the write of that number intended.
If you are so smart, figure out this math problem, written in your silly form:
56,571 + 2,567 + 765,643
Ok big guy.. whats the answer?
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:31:00 -
[17]
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 -
[18]
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 -
[19]
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 -
[20]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:33:00 -
[21]
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
Pretty hard to tell how much its worth just by glancing. Put those commas in and it is much easier. Man I wish all isk values were like that in EVE. I could scam people soooo easily...
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:33:00 -
[22]
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
Pretty hard to tell how much its worth just by glancing. Put those commas in and it is much easier. Man I wish all isk values were like that in EVE. I could scam people soooo easily...
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:39:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Meehan
It might seem inferior when your mind is not capable of handling those big numbers. Congratulations on belittling yourself 
986489948 is much harder to read than 986,489,948. If I have you a list of large numbers could you instantly tell me if they were in the 10s of millions, 100s of millions, hundreds of thousends, billions, or tens of billions?
6754654775 ----------- 8954894589 --------- 9848934 ---------- 9845895489 --------- 894893 -----------983489432 --------- 983498724 ---------3243898489 ---------- 8734789298 ---------- 9813429879841 --------- 7834278478 ----------- 87342897 --------- 983489 -------- 9832893
Much easier if it has commas. Can get it with 1 glance. Don't tell me its not easier with commas. Working with huge lists of large numers would get pretty annoying w/o commas... even if you were skillfull with it you'd still more likely miss a number here and there.
Inferior.
754547546754
54754756
54754753643
5634643
436757457
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:39:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Meehan
It might seem inferior when your mind is not capable of handling those big numbers. Congratulations on belittling yourself
986489948 is much harder to read than 986,489,948. If I have you a list of large numbers could you instantly tell me if they were in the 10s of millions, 100s of millions, hundreds of thousends, billions, or tens of billions?
6754654775 ----------- 8954894589 --------- 9848934 ---------- 9845895489 --------- 894893 -----------983489432 --------- 983498724 ---------3243898489 ---------- 8734789298 ---------- 9813429879841 --------- 7834278478 ----------- 87342897 --------- 983489 -------- 9832893
Much easier if it has commas. Can get it with 1 glance. Don't tell me its not easier with commas. Working with huge lists of large numers would get pretty annoying w/o commas... even if you were skillfull with it you'd still more likely miss a number here and there.
Inferior.
754547546754
54754756
54754753643
5634643
436757457
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:46:00 -
[25]
From what you've said so far it seems like you have ZERO experience with anything other than the North American system.
I'm not sure I agree with Mehaan about not using symbols either. Least here in DK (from a foreigners perspective) all numbers use symbols. For example:
North American: 4,567.98
Euro (DK): 4.567,98
The school system here teaches the , as the decimal "point" and the . as the separator. Works 100% just as well as the system I was taught.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:46:00 -
[26]
From what you've said so far it seems like you have ZERO experience with anything other than the North American system.
I'm not sure I agree with Mehaan about not using symbols either. Least here in DK (from a foreigners perspective) all numbers use symbols. For example:
North American: 4,567.98
Euro (DK): 4.567,98
The school system here teaches the , as the decimal "point" and the . as the separator. Works 100% just as well as the system I was taught.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:59:00 -
[27]
North American: 4,567.98 <---- No problem at all.
Euro (DK): 4.567,98 <---- No problem at all.
Nothing wrong with that at all. All I was ever saying is that 959,544 and 645,545 is stupid way to show numbers, as well as 89548954950943.
I am 100% correct.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 07:59:00 -
[28]
North American: 4,567.98 <---- No problem at all.
Euro (DK): 4.567,98 <---- No problem at all.
Nothing wrong with that at all. All I was ever saying is that 959,544 and 645,545 is stupid way to show numbers, as well as 89548954950943.
I am 100% correct.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:01:00 -
[29]
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 -
[30]
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.
|
Cardassius
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:05:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Cardassius on 13/10/2004 08:08:05
Funny thing is when you use a comma to separate a sentence could look like this:
"I've got 123,123,126,183,214.00 and also 128.38"
You can explain this sentence 2 ways, either there are 6 amounts of something, or there are 2.
Europeans would do it like this:
"I've got 123.123.126.183.214,00 and also 128,38"
Normally things are summed up by commas, not by dots. Thus dot separated is a lot easier to read then comma separated.
ASCI Recruiting! |
Cardassius
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:05:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Cardassius on 13/10/2004 08:08:05
Funny thing is when you use a comma to separate a sentence could look like this:
"I've got 123,123,126,183,214.00 and also 128.38"
You can explain this sentence 2 ways, either there are 6 amounts of something, or there are 2.
Europeans would do it like this:
"I've got 123.123.126.183.214,00 and also 128,38"
Normally things are summed up by commas, not by dots. Thus dot separated is a lot easier to read then comma separated.
ASCI Recruiting! |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:07:00 -
[33]
Humans cant read 8098980890715 as easily as they can read 809,898,090,715.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:07:00 -
[34]
Humans cant read 8098980890715 as easily as they can read 809,898,090,715.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:11:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Cardassius
Edited by: Cardassius on 13/10/2004 08:08:05
Funny thing is when you use a comma to separate a sentence could look like this:
"I've got 123,123,126,183,214.00 and also 128.38"
You can explain this sentence 2 ways, either there are 6 amounts of something, or there are 2.
Europeans would do it like this:
"I've got 123.123.126.183.214,00 and also 128,38"
Normally things are summed up by commas, not by dots. Thus dot separated is a lot easier to read then comma separated.
LOL Now its time for me to point out your ignorance of a foreign system!
"I've got 123,123,126,183,214.00 and also 128.38"
We would either say "I've got 123, 123, 126, 183, 214.00 and also 128.38" OR (depending on your meaning) I've got 123,123,126,183,214.00 and also 128.38."
You see, when making a list we dont only use a comma. We use a comma and a SPACE. LOL.
Fis, ducks, trees and cabbage. Not fish,ducks,trees and cabbage.
123,321,234 is a large 9 digit number, whereas 123, 321, 234 are three 3 digit numbers.
OWNED
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:11:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Cardassius
Edited by: Cardassius on 13/10/2004 08:08:05
Funny thing is when you use a comma to separate a sentence could look like this:
"I've got 123,123,126,183,214.00 and also 128.38"
You can explain this sentence 2 ways, either there are 6 amounts of something, or there are 2.
Europeans would do it like this:
"I've got 123.123.126.183.214,00 and also 128,38"
Normally things are summed up by commas, not by dots. Thus dot separated is a lot easier to read then comma separated.
LOL Now its time for me to point out your ignorance of a foreign system!
"I've got 123,123,126,183,214.00 and also 128.38"
We would either say "I've got 123, 123, 126, 183, 214.00 and also 128.38" OR (depending on your meaning) I've got 123,123,126,183,214.00 and also 128.38."
You see, when making a list we dont only use a comma. We use a comma and a SPACE. LOL.
Fis, ducks, trees and cabbage. Not fish,ducks,trees and cabbage.
123,321,234 is a large 9 digit number, whereas 123, 321, 234 are three 3 digit numbers.
OWNED
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:15:00 -
[37]
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 -
[38]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:18:00 -
[39]
There is nothing wrong with this:
"I've got 123.123.126.183.214,00 and also 128,38"
The above I am not disputing in the slightest. I do not care if you use . where I use , and , where I use .. Nothing wrong with that at all. What I *AM* saying is that saying:
"I've got 123123126183214,00 ..." is inferior.
I'm also saying it is silly for 343,555 and 343,555 to be able to mean 2 different things.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:18:00 -
[40]
There is nothing wrong with this:
"I've got 123.123.126.183.214,00 and also 128,38"
The above I am not disputing in the slightest. I do not care if you use . where I use , and , where I use .. Nothing wrong with that at all. What I *AM* saying is that saying:
"I've got 123123126183214,00 ..." is inferior.
I'm also saying it is silly for 343,555 and 343,555 to be able to mean 2 different things.
|
Cardassius
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:21:00 -
[41]
ROFL theminer, use common sense, check my grammar before you answer me.
Of course we use spaces after commas therein lies the problem, cause many font types kindof have different offsets and sometimes spaces aren't really that clear.
If you feel fine using commas then be my guest, oh btw, you are using the "english" format in case you were wondering. It also includes miles, inches, feet. You know where they drive on the left side of the road ;)
ASCI Recruiting! |
Cardassius
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:21:00 -
[42]
ROFL theminer, use common sense, check my grammar before you answer me.
Of course we use spaces after commas therein lies the problem, cause many font types kindof have different offsets and sometimes spaces aren't really that clear.
If you feel fine using commas then be my guest, oh btw, you are using the "english" format in case you were wondering. It also includes miles, inches, feet. You know where they drive on the left side of the road ;)
ASCI Recruiting! |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:21:00 -
[43]
No... you never answered the question. Let me quote it for you:
"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?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:21:00 -
[44]
No... you never answered the question. Let me quote it for you:
"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?
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:22:00 -
[45]
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 -
[46]
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?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:25:00 -
[47]
I think the english system is stupid. Miles, inches and feet are all inferior to the metric system.
Dont try to pull the "different font types using different spacing so some peopel can get confused!" bit.. nice try... but way lame.
You forgot how the comma system works and you made a stupid argument which I totally refuted. You lost. Dont try and make up silly font spacing arguments now.
Let me summerize. Your argument was that it is bad to use commas to give structure to a large number because we might not know if it is a list of several numbers or just one long number. I pointed out that 123, 123, 433, 454 and 123,123,433,454 are much different. The first is a list of several different numbers and the second is one large number. If there is any confusion then you need glasses, sir.
And your "comeback" is that "maybe wit hdifferent font types people might not see the spaces and then get confused." Weak. Weak.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:25:00 -
[48]
I think the english system is stupid. Miles, inches and feet are all inferior to the metric system.
Dont try to pull the "different font types using different spacing so some peopel can get confused!" bit.. nice try... but way lame.
You forgot how the comma system works and you made a stupid argument which I totally refuted. You lost. Dont try and make up silly font spacing arguments now.
Let me summerize. Your argument was that it is bad to use commas to give structure to a large number because we might not know if it is a list of several numbers or just one long number. I pointed out that 123, 123, 433, 454 and 123,123,433,454 are much different. The first is a list of several different numbers and the second is one large number. If there is any confusion then you need glasses, sir.
And your "comeback" is that "maybe wit hdifferent font types people might not see the spaces and then get confused." Weak. Weak.
|
Varia
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:26:00 -
[49]
Women that strive to equal men lack ambition. |
Varia
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:26:00 -
[50]
Women that strive to equal men lack ambition. |
Cardassius
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:28:00 -
[51]
Originally by: TheMiner
I think the english system is stupid. Miles, inches and feet are all inferior to the metric system.
English metric: 100,000,000,000.1830219843
Rest of europe: 100.000.000.000.000,22989032
You are calling the system you use stupid then.
ASCI Recruiting! |
Cardassius
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:28:00 -
[52]
Originally by: TheMiner
I think the english system is stupid. Miles, inches and feet are all inferior to the metric system.
English metric: 100,000,000,000.1830219843
Rest of europe: 100.000.000.000.000,22989032
You are calling the system you use stupid then.
ASCI Recruiting! |
MoLeH
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:29:00 -
[53]
Originally by: TheMiner
"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?
No, i dont think many people would recognise those numbers as teh same because ur not. when argueing something you should make sure anything you say is 100% correct for your arguement.
P.S. my spelling nor grammer has nothing to do witht eh current arguement.
--------------------------------------
Do you see people in real life whining that their enjoyment was ruined by a shark when they went swimming in dangerous waters? - Viceroy |
MoLeH
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:29:00 -
[54]
Originally by: TheMiner
"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?
No, i dont think many people would recognise those numbers as teh same because ur not. when argueing something you should make sure anything you say is 100% correct for your arguement.
P.S. my spelling nor grammer has nothing to do witht eh current arguement.
--------------------------------------
Do you see people in real life whining that their enjoyment was ruined by a shark when they went swimming in dangerous waters? - Viceroy |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:29:00 -
[55]
It doesn't. You made that up and stirred it on by yourself.
What you failed to explain on your very first post is that where you coem from , NEVER means . and . NEVER means ,. Instead you said "We dont need to use the symbols. We just write it as 8968969845 and instantly know what it is."
So are you telling me that 334,554 ALWAYS is a number in the hundreds and NEVER EVER a number in the hundreds of thousends where you come from?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:29:00 -
[56]
It doesn't. You made that up and stirred it on by yourself.
What you failed to explain on your very first post is that where you coem from , NEVER means . and . NEVER means ,. Instead you said "We dont need to use the symbols. We just write it as 8968969845 and instantly know what it is."
So are you telling me that 334,554 ALWAYS is a number in the hundreds and NEVER EVER a number in the hundreds of thousends where you come from?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:32:00 -
[57]
I am not one to nit pick at peoples grammar. I think it is a silly thing to do. This is not an english test..and I'm not your english teacher. :)
Meehead...you never answered my question...
And...
Yes, the metric system is superior to the system the Americans use.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:32:00 -
[58]
I am not one to nit pick at peoples grammar. I think it is a silly thing to do. This is not an english test..and I'm not your english teacher. :)
Meehead...you never answered my question...
And...
Yes, the metric system is superior to the system the Americans use.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:34:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Meehan
Originally by: TheMiner
So are you telling me that 334,554 ALWAYS is a number in the hundreds and NEVER EVER a number in the hundreds of thousends where you come from?
Yes. Congratulations, you have now reached the level of a six year old Swede.
PERFECT! You made the same mistake the Russian girl made. Instead of simply saying "," literally in *ALL* cases means "." and "." literally in *ALL* cases means "," you said "We dont need to use symbols because 89658958944389 is easy for us to read."
Why did you use the weaker argument and lead me to beleive your system was inferior?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:34:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Meehan
Originally by: TheMiner
So are you telling me that 334,554 ALWAYS is a number in the hundreds and NEVER EVER a number in the hundreds of thousends where you come from?
Yes. Congratulations, you have now reached the level of a six year old Swede.
PERFECT! You made the same mistake the Russian girl made. Instead of simply saying "," literally in *ALL* cases means "." and "." literally in *ALL* cases means "," you said "We dont need to use symbols because 89658958944389 is easy for us to read."
Why did you use the weaker argument and lead me to beleive your system was inferior?
|
Cardassius
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:35:00 -
[61]
Originally by: TheMiner
Yes, the metric system is superior to the system the Americans use.
The Americans use the English metric system, which includes a comma separator for thousands and a dot for decimals.
ASCI Recruiting! |
Cardassius
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:35:00 -
[62]
Originally by: TheMiner
Yes, the metric system is superior to the system the Americans use.
The Americans use the English metric system, which includes a comma separator for thousands and a dot for decimals.
ASCI Recruiting! |
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:36:00 -
[63]
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 -
[64]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:38:00 -
[65]
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."
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:38:00 -
[66]
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."
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:40:00 -
[67]
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 -
[68]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:41:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Cardassius
Originally by: TheMiner
Yes, the metric system is superior to the system the Americans use.
The Americans use the English metric system, which includes a comma separator for thousands and a dot for decimals.
That is correct... and your point?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:41:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Cardassius
Originally by: TheMiner
Yes, the metric system is superior to the system the Americans use.
The Americans use the English metric system, which includes a comma separator for thousands and a dot for decimals.
That is correct... and your point?
|
SwitchBl4d3
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:44:00 -
[71]
1,2.3,4
S.T,F,U
"Teh lord of Nonni"
|
SwitchBl4d3
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:44:00 -
[72]
1,2.3,4
S.T,F,U
"Teh lord of Nonni"
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:44:00 -
[73]
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?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:44:00 -
[74]
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?
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:46:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 13/10/2004 08:56:51
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."
173.879 (US) = 173,879 (Sweden)
173,879 (US) = 173879 (Sweden)
The first time I ever used the , as in 123,123,123.45 (US system) was probably after I started playing EVE.
I don't have any problems with either system, both work fine, so this discussion is kinda pointless imo.
We might use . or spaces for big numbers, like 112.123.123.123,12 or 12 000 000, but I rarely see it (except that it's common to use spaces when writing phone numbers).
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:46:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 13/10/2004 08:56:51
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."
173.879 (US) = 173,879 (Sweden)
173,879 (US) = 173879 (Sweden)
The first time I ever used the , as in 123,123,123.45 (US system) was probably after I started playing EVE.
I don't have any problems with either system, both work fine, so this discussion is kinda pointless imo.
We might use . or spaces for big numbers, like 112.123.123.123,12 or 12 000 000, but I rarely see it (except that it's common to use spaces when writing phone numbers).
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:47:00 -
[77]
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 -
[78]
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?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:48:00 -
[79]
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
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:48:00 -
[80]
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
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:48:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Wren on 13/10/2004 08:51:17
OMG I actually have to agree with theminer here.
Any freaking person would be much happier to read and use
1,234,567.89 as a price than
1234567,89 as a price.
If fact, if you showed me that as a price I would just slowly bring my leg back, then swing it forward into your nut sack and wait for you to fall over.
And EVE, for some reason, likes to just jumble numbers together with the . and just assumes if you type in a invalid number (like three numbers) after the . that you for some reason mean your entire wallet.
That is stupid, and so is the way EVE displays prices.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:48:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Wren on 13/10/2004 08:51:17
OMG I actually have to agree with theminer here.
Any freaking person would be much happier to read and use
1,234,567.89 as a price than
1234567,89 as a price.
If fact, if you showed me that as a price I would just slowly bring my leg back, then swing it forward into your nut sack and wait for you to fall over.
And EVE, for some reason, likes to just jumble numbers together with the . and just assumes if you type in a invalid number (like three numbers) after the . that you for some reason mean your entire wallet.
That is stupid, and so is the way EVE displays prices.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:50:00 -
[83]
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 -
[84]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:54:00 -
[85]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:54:00 -
[86]
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.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:57:00 -
[87]
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 -
[88]
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
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:58:00 -
[89]
No... from the beginning it has been his person agenda to make anyone who does not use his system look stupid.
I think that people from where he is from write numbers intelligently..but he is being stubborn and lying about their practices.
They write 400,323 as 400.323 which is 100% fine.. as long as they all know , = . and . = , ... and they do. No problem there at all.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:58:00 -
[90]
No... from the beginning it has been his person agenda to make anyone who does not use his system look stupid.
I think that people from where he is from write numbers intelligently..but he is being stubborn and lying about their practices.
They write 400,323 as 400.323 which is 100% fine.. as long as they all know , = . and . = , ... and they do. No problem there at all.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:59:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Wren
Any freaking person would be much happier to read and use
1,234,567.89 as a price than
1234567,89 as a price.
If fact, if you showed me that as a price I would just slowly bring my leg back, then swing it forward into your nut sack and wait for you to fall over.
You have 1.2M?
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 08:59:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Wren
Any freaking person would be much happier to read and use
1,234,567.89 as a price than
1234567,89 as a price.
If fact, if you showed me that as a price I would just slowly bring my leg back, then swing it forward into your nut sack and wait for you to fall over.
You have 1.2M?
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:01:00 -
[93]
Actually, dude...
The fact that you have absolutely no problem reading numbers not seperated by commas and a decimal point isn't our problem, it's an ability you have either been born with or cultivated with practice.
It is inferior to allow confusion in a system that could easily be removed by the addition of seperating place holding commas.
As to your is water inferior to sidewalk if you can't swim. Sure it is. I suppose the next time you are drowing I should just toss you a bag of asphalt.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:01:00 -
[94]
Actually, dude...
The fact that you have absolutely no problem reading numbers not seperated by commas and a decimal point isn't our problem, it's an ability you have either been born with or cultivated with practice.
It is inferior to allow confusion in a system that could easily be removed by the addition of seperating place holding commas.
As to your is water inferior to sidewalk if you can't swim. Sure it is. I suppose the next time you are drowing I should just toss you a bag of asphalt.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:04:00 -
[95]
Originally by: TheMiner
No... from the beginning it has been his person agenda to make anyone who does not use his system look stupid.
I think that people from where he is from write numbers intelligently..but he is being stubborn and lying about their practices.
They write 400,323 as 400.323 which is 100% fine.. as long as they all know , = . and . = , ... and they do. No problem there at all.
400,323 (US) = 400323 or 400 323 (Sweden)
400.323 (US) = 400,323 (Sweden)
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:04:00 -
[96]
Originally by: TheMiner
No... from the beginning it has been his person agenda to make anyone who does not use his system look stupid.
I think that people from where he is from write numbers intelligently..but he is being stubborn and lying about their practices.
They write 400,323 as 400.323 which is 100% fine.. as long as they all know , = . and . = , ... and they do. No problem there at all.
400,323 (US) = 400323 or 400 323 (Sweden)
400.323 (US) = 400,323 (Sweden)
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:04:00 -
[97]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:04:00 -
[98]
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.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:06:00 -
[99]
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 -
[100]
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.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:06:00 -
[101]
Originally by: TheMiner
just as silly as write it as 565895983894221 and expecting people to know what it is just by glancing.
You deal with this kind of big numbers frequently?
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:06:00 -
[102]
Originally by: TheMiner
just as silly as write it as 565895983894221 and expecting people to know what it is just by glancing.
You deal with this kind of big numbers frequently?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:08:00 -
[103]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:08:00 -
[104]
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.
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:09:00 -
[105]
No, but the chinese use chinese numbers, not some screwed up make believe system where they don't need symbols to seperate the characters out.
In fact, they probably have different character for hundreds of thousands vs millions or something, since they have a bajillion characters/symbols to begin with.
You, I, theminer, and everyone else here (well, except for the scandinavian peeps) use 24 alphabet symbols, 10 numbers, and a dozen or so symbols (,.";,.!@#$%^&**) and we have to use those SYSTEMATICALLY to express ourselves. A system that shrugs off the advancement of symbols is inferior. It is a throwback.
Please don't tell me you use a pressure keyed typewriter or that you put your cast iron iron in the fireplace to heat it up before you press your slacks, because then you are indeed using inferior systems.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:09:00 -
[106]
No, but the chinese use chinese numbers, not some screwed up make believe system where they don't need symbols to seperate the characters out.
In fact, they probably have different character for hundreds of thousands vs millions or something, since they have a bajillion characters/symbols to begin with.
You, I, theminer, and everyone else here (well, except for the scandinavian peeps) use 24 alphabet symbols, 10 numbers, and a dozen or so symbols (,.";,.!@#$%^&**) and we have to use those SYSTEMATICALLY to express ourselves. A system that shrugs off the advancement of symbols is inferior. It is a throwback.
Please don't tell me you use a pressure keyed typewriter or that you put your cast iron iron in the fireplace to heat it up before you press your slacks, because then you are indeed using inferior systems.
--------------------------------------------------
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:10:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Scorpyn
You deal with this kind of big numbers frequently?
Yes... LOL you just belittled yourself! you only deal with numbers like 5 and 18! LOL!
Originally by: Scorpyn
or 400 323 (Sweden)
Ahh.. the truth is comming out. You added a space in there for clarification. See?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:10:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Scorpyn
You deal with this kind of big numbers frequently?
Yes... LOL you just belittled yourself! you only deal with numbers like 5 and 18! LOL!
Originally by: Scorpyn
or 400 323 (Sweden)
Ahh.. the truth is comming out. You added a space in there for clarification. See?
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:12:00 -
[109]
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 -
[110]
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.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:12:00 -
[111]
Originally by: TheMiner
Originally by: Scorpyn
You deal with this kind of big numbers frequently?
Yes... LOL you just belittled yourself! you only deal with numbers like 5 and 18! LOL!
right...
Originally by: TheMiner
Originally by: Scorpyn
or 400 323 (Sweden)
Ahh.. the truth is comming out. You added a space in there for clarification. See?
Yes, I noticed that.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:12:00 -
[112]
Originally by: TheMiner
Originally by: Scorpyn
You deal with this kind of big numbers frequently?
Yes... LOL you just belittled yourself! you only deal with numbers like 5 and 18! LOL!
right...
Originally by: TheMiner
Originally by: Scorpyn
or 400 323 (Sweden)
Ahh.. the truth is comming out. You added a space in there for clarification. See?
Yes, I noticed that.
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:16:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Scorpyn
Originally by: TheMiner
No... from the beginning it has been his person agenda to make anyone who does not use his system look stupid.
I think that people from where he is from write numbers intelligently..but he is being stubborn and lying about their practices.
They write 400,323 as 400.323 which is 100% fine.. as long as they all know , = . and . = , ... and they do. No problem there at all.
400,323 (US) = 400323 or 400 323 (Sweden)
400.323 (US) = 400,323 (Sweden)
Are you being serious Scorpyn? Why would the swedish people use the comma as a decimal point?
*Wren goes to dictonary.com.
Quote:
Main Entry: decimal point
Function: noun
: a period, centered dot, or in some countries a comma at the left of a proper decimal fraction (as .678) or between the parts of a mixed number (as 3.678) expressed by a whole number and a decimal fraction
...... Why? Why why why? Why why why why why why why why why?
It's a decimal point.. not a decimal comma...
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:16:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Scorpyn
Originally by: TheMiner
No... from the beginning it has been his person agenda to make anyone who does not use his system look stupid.
I think that people from where he is from write numbers intelligently..but he is being stubborn and lying about their practices.
They write 400,323 as 400.323 which is 100% fine.. as long as they all know , = . and . = , ... and they do. No problem there at all.
400,323 (US) = 400323 or 400 323 (Sweden)
400.323 (US) = 400,323 (Sweden)
Are you being serious Scorpyn? Why would the swedish people use the comma as a decimal point?
*Wren goes to dictonary.com.
Quote:
Main Entry: decimal point
Function: noun
: a period, centered dot, or in some countries a comma at the left of a proper decimal fraction (as .678) or between the parts of a mixed number (as 3.678) expressed by a whole number and a decimal fraction
...... Why? Why why why? Why why why why why why why why why?
It's a decimal point.. not a decimal comma...
--------------------------------------------------
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:17:00 -
[115]
Am I the only one who considers this to be slightly off topic btw?
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:17:00 -
[116]
Am I the only one who considers this to be slightly off topic btw?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:18:00 -
[117]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:18:00 -
[118]
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.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:20:00 -
[119]
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 -
[120]
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.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:20:00 -
[121]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 13/10/2004 09:24:38
Originally by: Wren
Are you being serious Scorpyn? Why would the swedish people use the comma as a decimal point?
*Wren goes to dictonary.com.
Quote:
Main Entry: decimal point
Function: noun
: a period, centered dot, or in some countries a comma at the left of a proper decimal fraction (as .678) or between the parts of a mixed number (as 3.678) expressed by a whole number and a decimal fraction
...... Why? Why why why? Why why why why why why why why why?
It's a decimal point.. not a decimal comma...
In Sweden, it's a decimal comma and not a point. The first time many ppl encounter a decimal point is with computers, because most computer programs are designed for decimal point. This causes some confusion for those that don't know about it, but once you learn to use a decimal point when dealing with computers it's easy.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:20:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 13/10/2004 09:24:38
Originally by: Wren
Are you being serious Scorpyn? Why would the swedish people use the comma as a decimal point?
*Wren goes to dictonary.com.
Quote:
Main Entry: decimal point
Function: noun
: a period, centered dot, or in some countries a comma at the left of a proper decimal fraction (as .678) or between the parts of a mixed number (as 3.678) expressed by a whole number and a decimal fraction
...... Why? Why why why? Why why why why why why why why why?
It's a decimal point.. not a decimal comma...
In Sweden, it's a decimal comma and not a point. The first time many ppl encounter a decimal point is with computers, because most computer programs are designed for decimal point. This causes some confusion for those that don't know about it, but once you learn to use a decimal point when dealing with computers it's easy.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:21:00 -
[123]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:21:00 -
[124]
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.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:23:00 -
[125]
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 -
[126]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:23:00 -
[127]
Now you are trying to be all crafty and philosophical in order to avoid the shame which has been bestowed upon you. You are wrong. We are right.
784 848 838 959 is fine.
9858939889498 is not.
654,645,643 is fine.
644.654.563.645 id fine too...but it would be nice if someone changed so thatthe system was uniform...it can cause a lot of problems.. confusing people.. and computers might get al lscrewed up if you put a lot of 454.643.653.422 numbers into a 543,353,563,421 database. It could think you are trying to feed it IP numbers or something.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:23:00 -
[128]
Now you are trying to be all crafty and philosophical in order to avoid the shame which has been bestowed upon you. You are wrong. We are right.
784 848 838 959 is fine.
9858939889498 is not.
654,645,643 is fine.
644.654.563.645 id fine too...but it would be nice if someone changed so thatthe system was uniform...it can cause a lot of problems.. confusing people.. and computers might get al lscrewed up if you put a lot of 454.643.653.422 numbers into a 543,353,563,421 database. It could think you are trying to feed it IP numbers or something.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:26:00 -
[129]
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?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:26:00 -
[130]
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?
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:26:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Wren on 13/10/2004 09:30:35
Still, in any case, I don't care if you seperate the numbers with a tuna, 1[tuna]234[tuna]567[whale]89, it would still be better than 1234567.89 to quickly and easily tell that it was in the million range, and not the hundred thousand or ten million range.
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?
Because that is stupid.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:26:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Wren on 13/10/2004 09:30:35
Still, in any case, I don't care if you seperate the numbers with a tuna, 1[tuna]234[tuna]567[whale]89, it would still be better than 1234567.89 to quickly and easily tell that it was in the million range, and not the hundred thousand or ten million range.
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?
Because that is stupid.
--------------------------------------------------
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:28:00 -
[133]
You are 100% correct wren.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:28:00 -
[134]
You are 100% correct wren.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:29:00 -
[135]
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 -
[136]
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...
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:30:00 -
[137]
"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
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:30:00 -
[138]
"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
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:31:00 -
[139]
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 -
[140]
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
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:31:00 -
[141]
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...
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:31:00 -
[142]
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...
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:31:00 -
[143]
Language might not be finite, but the damn characters we use to express the language are you high horsed bastard.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:31:00 -
[144]
Language might not be finite, but the damn characters we use to express the language are you high horsed bastard.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:32:00 -
[145]
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 -
[146]
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 -
[147]
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 -
[148]
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...
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:33:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Meehan
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
I live in USA. I've lived here for 18 years of my 22 year life.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:33:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Meehan
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
I live in USA. I've lived here for 18 years of my 22 year life.
|
F4ze
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:34:00 -
[151]
In Belgium it is often noted like this:
11'484 or
11`484 or a high dot
and ofcourse a comma to seperate decimal values.
|
F4ze
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:34:00 -
[152]
In Belgium it is often noted like this:
11'484 or
11`484 or a high dot
and ofcourse a comma to seperate decimal values.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:34:00 -
[153]
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 -
[154]
Originally by: TheMiner
I live in USA. I've lived here for 18 years of my 22 year life.
Thanks.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:35:00 -
[155]
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...
Even your allies are correcting you now.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:35:00 -
[156]
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...
Even your allies are correcting you now.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:37:00 -
[157]
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 -
[158]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:37:00 -
[159]
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
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:37:00 -
[160]
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
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:38:00 -
[161]
Originally by: F4ze
In Belgium it is often noted like this:
11'484 or
11`484 or a high dot
and ofcourse a comma to seperate decimal values.
Thats 100% fine. No problem there at all.
I mean sure.. it would be nice if the whole world used the exact same system so that we could communicate more clearly (not saying which system is the best..but one certainly is..or has more advantages than the others.)
But I CAN tell you that the English system of miles, feet, and inches SUCKS compared to the metric system. Thats just a fact.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:38:00 -
[162]
Originally by: F4ze
In Belgium it is often noted like this:
11'484 or
11`484 or a high dot
and ofcourse a comma to seperate decimal values.
Thats 100% fine. No problem there at all.
I mean sure.. it would be nice if the whole world used the exact same system so that we could communicate more clearly (not saying which system is the best..but one certainly is..or has more advantages than the others.)
But I CAN tell you that the English system of miles, feet, and inches SUCKS compared to the metric system. Thats just a fact.
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:38:00 -
[163]
So, the progression is..
No numbers
knots on ropes
roman
arabic
and finally what we have today.
So, if no system is inferior, I ask again, why aren't we using roman numerals to program with or knots on ropes when we go to the store?
Because they were phased out as being inferior to the needs of society.
And in EVE, the society needs to not blow millions of ISK on accident due to scamming on prices using the way EVE displays numbers.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:38:00 -
[164]
So, the progression is..
No numbers
knots on ropes
roman
arabic
and finally what we have today.
So, if no system is inferior, I ask again, why aren't we using roman numerals to program with or knots on ropes when we go to the store?
Because they were phased out as being inferior to the needs of society.
And in EVE, the society needs to not blow millions of ISK on accident due to scamming on prices using the way EVE displays numbers.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:39:00 -
[165]
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 -
[166]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:40:00 -
[167]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:40:00 -
[168]
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.
|
Feyd Darkholme
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:41:00 -
[169]
... So I'm sitting here reading the first page of this thread thinking to myself, "Six pages, they can't all be bashing each others countries and arguing about punctuations..."... Turn right to page six, and sure enough...
---------------
|
Feyd Darkholme
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:41:00 -
[170]
... So I'm sitting here reading the first page of this thread thinking to myself, "Six pages, they can't all be bashing each others countries and arguing about punctuations..."... Turn right to page six, and sure enough...
---------------
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:41:00 -
[171]
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 -
[172]
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 -
[173]
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 -
[174]
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?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:41:00 -
[175]
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 09:43:34
And now you are blatanetly lying.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:41:00 -
[176]
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 09:43:34
And now you are blatanetly lying.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:43:00 -
[177]
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?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:43:00 -
[178]
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?
|
Elric Mortis
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:44:00 -
[179]
Meehan, if you live in europe you should know that we dont write numbers like that: 12345678, we write them this way 12 345 678, i guess some countries use "," or "." while there is no law that would forbid you from writing however you want most ppl still use SPACE over here to make things clearer.
"There can be no Light without the Dark." |
Elric Mortis
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:44:00 -
[180]
Meehan, if you live in europe you should know that we dont write numbers like that: 12345678, we write them this way 12 345 678, i guess some countries use "," or "." while there is no law that would forbid you from writing however you want most ppl still use SPACE over here to make things clearer.
"There can be no Light without the Dark." |
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:44:00 -
[181]
Originally by: TheMiner
But I CAN tell you that the English system of miles, feet, and inches SUCKS compared to the metric system. Thats just a fact.
Why? What proves that as a *fact*?
Personally I prefer metric versus imperial, but the point of this entire argument is simply: whatever you're used to is best for you. Not better than other ways categorically, just better for you.
What you stated above is not a fact, its an opinion.
I would guess it would be impossible to *PROVE* one systems superiority over anothers. If anyone can suggest a method to do so without resorting to any sort of "its easier this way" mumbo jumbo, please do so. Ease of use all depends on the persons experience with said system.
Silly arguement really. Fun, but silly.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:44:00 -
[182]
Originally by: TheMiner
But I CAN tell you that the English system of miles, feet, and inches SUCKS compared to the metric system. Thats just a fact.
Why? What proves that as a *fact*?
Personally I prefer metric versus imperial, but the point of this entire argument is simply: whatever you're used to is best for you. Not better than other ways categorically, just better for you.
What you stated above is not a fact, its an opinion.
I would guess it would be impossible to *PROVE* one systems superiority over anothers. If anyone can suggest a method to do so without resorting to any sort of "its easier this way" mumbo jumbo, please do so. Ease of use all depends on the persons experience with said system.
Silly arguement really. Fun, but silly.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:44:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Feyd Darkholme
... So I'm sitting here reading the first page of this thread thinking to myself, "Six pages, they can't all be bashing each others countries and arguing about punctuations..."... Turn right to page six, and sure enough...
Yeah, it got silly already back on page 1... I don't know why I bother with even reading this...
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:44:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Feyd Darkholme
... So I'm sitting here reading the first page of this thread thinking to myself, "Six pages, they can't all be bashing each others countries and arguing about punctuations..."... Turn right to page six, and sure enough...
Yeah, it got silly already back on page 1... I don't know why I bother with even reading this...
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:44:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Feyd Darkholme
... So I'm sitting here reading the first page of this thread thinking to myself, "Six pages, they can't all be bashing each others countries and arguing about punctuations..."... Turn right to page six, and sure enough...
Hey.. I have bashed no ones country.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:44:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Feyd Darkholme
... So I'm sitting here reading the first page of this thread thinking to myself, "Six pages, they can't all be bashing each others countries and arguing about punctuations..."... Turn right to page six, and sure enough...
Hey.. I have bashed no ones country.
|
Elric Mortis
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:46:00 -
[187]
Originally by: TheMiner
Can one school system be "better" than another?
yes
"There can be no Light without the Dark." |
Elric Mortis
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:46:00 -
[188]
Originally by: TheMiner
Can one school system be "better" than another?
yes
"There can be no Light without the Dark." |
Moneta
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:46:00 -
[189]
I am clearly superior to you all.
Well, maybe not, but at least I realised by page 2 that the whole grounds for this discussion is not decimal points v comma's or something but your interpretation of the term inferior
One of you is using it as describing the efficiency of a system, where the other is using it as describing the moral or cultural value of a system.
Morally, there is no inferiority.
Efficiencywise there is.
Originally by: Aneu Angellus
Iv held back from posting on this thread for quite some time, but i think the time had come for me to come in and post.
Aneu
|
Moneta
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:46:00 -
[190]
I am clearly superior to you all.
Well, maybe not, but at least I realised by page 2 that the whole grounds for this discussion is not decimal points v comma's or something but your interpretation of the term inferior
One of you is using it as describing the efficiency of a system, where the other is using it as describing the moral or cultural value of a system.
Morally, there is no inferiority.
Efficiencywise there is.
Originally by: Aneu Angellus
Iv held back from posting on this thread for quite some time, but i think the time had come for me to come in and post.
Aneu
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:47:00 -
[191]
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 -
[192]
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
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:47:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Elric Mortis
Originally by: TheMiner
Can one school system be "better" than another?
yes
Exactly!
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:47:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Elric Mortis
Originally by: TheMiner
Can one school system be "better" than another?
yes
Exactly!
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:47:00 -
[195]
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 09:50:37
Originally by: mahhy
.
I would guess it would be impossible to *PROVE* one systems superiority over anothers. If anyone can suggest a method to do so without resorting to any sort of "its easier this way" mumbo jumbo, please do so.
Hey.. I want you to PROVE to me that 7.0 is a higher number than 6.0 ..... But no using "becasue it has a greater value" or "its higher on a number line" mumbo jumbo. Please do so.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:47:00 -
[196]
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 09:50:37
Originally by: mahhy
.
I would guess it would be impossible to *PROVE* one systems superiority over anothers. If anyone can suggest a method to do so without resorting to any sort of "its easier this way" mumbo jumbo, please do so.
Hey.. I want you to PROVE to me that 7.0 is a higher number than 6.0 ..... But no using "becasue it has a greater value" or "its higher on a number line" mumbo jumbo. Please do so.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:48:00 -
[197]
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 -
[198]
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.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:51:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Moneta
Morally, there is no inferiority.
Efficiencywise there is.
PERFECT! I will win with this one for sure! Listen.
Lets say there are 2 cars (A and B) and a set of judges who are judging how good the cars are on "color" "speed" and "price(lowest)."
Both cars are 100% equal in color and speed, but car B has a lower price than car A. Do you not think that the judges would pick car B as the winner?
So there are 2 systems. Both are equal "morally" but one is superior in "effeciency."
Which is better?
OWNED!
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:51:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Moneta
Morally, there is no inferiority.
Efficiencywise there is.
PERFECT! I will win with this one for sure! Listen.
Lets say there are 2 cars (A and B) and a set of judges who are judging how good the cars are on "color" "speed" and "price(lowest)."
Both cars are 100% equal in color and speed, but car B has a lower price than car A. Do you not think that the judges would pick car B as the winner?
So there are 2 systems. Both are equal "morally" but one is superior in "effeciency."
Which is better?
OWNED!
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:52:00 -
[201]
although i acknowledge that the competition is stiff, this thread has to be a candidate for the title of "most pointless and inane thread ever"
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:52:00 -
[202]
although i acknowledge that the competition is stiff, this thread has to be a candidate for the title of "most pointless and inane thread ever"
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:52:00 -
[203]
Edited by: meowcat on 13/10/2004 09:54:58
although i acknowledge that the competition is stiff, this thread has to be a candidate for the title of "most pointless and inane thread ever"
edit: so much so that i had to say it twice
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:52:00 -
[204]
Edited by: meowcat on 13/10/2004 09:54:58
although i acknowledge that the competition is stiff, this thread has to be a candidate for the title of "most pointless and inane thread ever"
edit: so much so that i had to say it twice
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:53:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Meehan
Sigh... there's a difference between linguistics and physics, kiddo.
You are trying to use silly concepts which DO NOT APPLY to this conversation AT ALL in an attempt to take peoples minds from what we are REALLY taling about. It is VERY VERY simple:
9869409456 is inferior to 9,869,409,456 for general use.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:53:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Meehan
Sigh... there's a difference between linguistics and physics, kiddo.
You are trying to use silly concepts which DO NOT APPLY to this conversation AT ALL in an attempt to take peoples minds from what we are REALLY taling about. It is VERY VERY simple:
9869409456 is inferior to 9,869,409,456 for general use.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:54:00 -
[207]
Originally by: TheMiner
Originally by: Meehan
Sigh... there's a difference between linguistics and physics, kiddo.
You are trying to use silly concepts which DO NOT APPLY to this conversation AT ALL in an attempt to take peoples minds from what we are REALLY taling about. It is VERY VERY simple:
9869409456 is inferior to 9,869,409,456 for general use.
They both mean the same so why all the pedantry?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:54:00 -
[208]
Originally by: TheMiner
Originally by: Meehan
Sigh... there's a difference between linguistics and physics, kiddo.
You are trying to use silly concepts which DO NOT APPLY to this conversation AT ALL in an attempt to take peoples minds from what we are REALLY taling about. It is VERY VERY simple:
9869409456 is inferior to 9,869,409,456 for general use.
They both mean the same so why all the pedantry?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:58:00 -
[209]
"I am not not not not not not not not going to eat cake."
and
"I am going to eat cake."
both mean the same thing...but one is clearly an inferior way of expressing it. One has a greater chance of causing confusion than the other. One takes time to read through to get the precise meaning.
EXACT same thing with 43985893598 and 43,985,893,598.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 09:58:00 -
[210]
"I am not not not not not not not not going to eat cake."
and
"I am going to eat cake."
both mean the same thing...but one is clearly an inferior way of expressing it. One has a greater chance of causing confusion than the other. One takes time to read through to get the precise meaning.
EXACT same thing with 43985893598 and 43,985,893,598.
|
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:01:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Feyd Darkholme
... So I'm sitting here reading the first page of this thread thinking to myself, "Six pages, they can't all be bashing each others countries and arguing about punctuations..."... Turn right to page six, and sure enough...
I actually read through all this crap and I can't believe this thread hasn't been locked yet.
Well since I've read it all then I must comment. And Wren you do realize that Swedish people don't actually use the words decimal point to describe their decimal comma they speak Swedish for christs sake. Actually the word they use is 'decimalkomma'.
Icelanders do you use decimal comma. I do however see it as a problem because it causes a lot of confusion when nations have different definitions on how they interpret numbers but it's a hard to make a nation change their customs.
Americans (as far as I know) are trying to adopt the metric system but it's a hard thing to change so it probably won't happen very fast. The metric system does have a few advantages over the english system for example it is based on the decimal system and it has been adopted by the scientific community.
Now will you all please shut the **** up and have a nap or something.
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:01:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Feyd Darkholme
... So I'm sitting here reading the first page of this thread thinking to myself, "Six pages, they can't all be bashing each others countries and arguing about punctuations..."... Turn right to page six, and sure enough...
I actually read through all this crap and I can't believe this thread hasn't been locked yet.
Well since I've read it all then I must comment. And Wren you do realize that Swedish people don't actually use the words decimal point to describe their decimal comma they speak Swedish for christs sake. Actually the word they use is 'decimalkomma'.
Icelanders do you use decimal comma. I do however see it as a problem because it causes a lot of confusion when nations have different definitions on how they interpret numbers but it's a hard to make a nation change their customs.
Americans (as far as I know) are trying to adopt the metric system but it's a hard thing to change so it probably won't happen very fast. The metric system does have a few advantages over the english system for example it is based on the decimal system and it has been adopted by the scientific community.
Now will you all please shut the **** up and have a nap or something.
__________
Capacitor research |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:07:00 -
[213]
"Well since I've read it all then I must comment. And Wren you do realize that Swedish people don't actually use the words decimal point to describe their decimal comma they speak Swedish for christs sake. Actually the word they use is 'decimalkomma'."
We are not really disputing that.. it was a topic a while ago but everyone agreed that it is 100% fine ... except that it would be nice if all countries used the same number system... but thats just a passing wish.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:07:00 -
[214]
"Well since I've read it all then I must comment. And Wren you do realize that Swedish people don't actually use the words decimal point to describe their decimal comma they speak Swedish for christs sake. Actually the word they use is 'decimalkomma'."
We are not really disputing that.. it was a topic a while ago but everyone agreed that it is 100% fine ... except that it would be nice if all countries used the same number system... but thats just a passing wish.
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:08:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
They both mean the same so why all the pedantry?
It's not pedantry, it's nit-picking.
(i've wanted to say that for years) |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:08:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
They both mean the same so why all the pedantry?
It's not pedantry, it's nit-picking.
(i've wanted to say that for years) |
SkrittaK
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:08:00 -
[217]
i cant belive theres a thread here with 7 pages about numbers and decimal points...gimme a flame thread in the corp forum anyday 
Semper Fidelis
Legion boys, we are here, shag your women and drink your beer! :) |
SkrittaK
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:08:00 -
[218]
i cant belive theres a thread here with 7 pages about numbers and decimal points...gimme a flame thread in the corp forum anyday
Semper Fidelis
Legion boys, we are here, shag your women and drink your beer! :) |
Urmel
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:09:00 -
[219]
Originally by: TheMiner
"I am not not not not not not not not going to eat cake."
and
"I am going to eat cake."
both mean the same thing...
no, they dont!
once you have children, you will know 
Originally by: Moneta
One of you is using it as describing the efficiency of a system, where the other is using it as describing the moral or cultural value of a system.
|
Urmel
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:09:00 -
[220]
Originally by: TheMiner
"I am not not not not not not not not going to eat cake."
and
"I am going to eat cake."
both mean the same thing...
no, they dont!
once you have children, you will know
Originally by: Moneta
One of you is using it as describing the efficiency of a system, where the other is using it as describing the moral or cultural value of a system.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:10:00 -
[221]
Hypocrite! j/k :)
Looks like the anti-9868934893489 people won.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:10:00 -
[222]
Hypocrite! j/k :)
Looks like the anti-9868934893489 people won.
|
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:12:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Sc0rpion
I don't know if anybody noticed, but we achieved a new simultaneous player record this past Sunday: 11,484 players.
HEY, how about that new player record?! 
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:12:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Sc0rpion
I don't know if anybody noticed, but we achieved a new simultaneous player record this past Sunday: 11,484 players.
HEY, how about that new player record?!
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:12:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Urmel
no, they dont!
once you have children, you will know
Its not only with children that that can occur.. you are twisting my meaning by using a word game. Yes... using "not" several times in a row can add emphasis... but we both know thats not Not NOT(!) what I was talking about. ;)
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:12:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Urmel
no, they dont!
once you have children, you will know
Its not only with children that that can occur.. you are twisting my meaning by using a word game. Yes... using "not" several times in a row can add emphasis... but we both know thats not Not NOT(!) what I was talking about. ;)
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:13:00 -
[227]
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 10:15:50
"Your job is to explode."
I LOLed when I saw that.
"The "Fair Fight" argument is a lame ass excuse from the people who cant accept that they were outmanuvered, outnumbered, overpowered and generally OWNED." - Viceroy
Very true. We share a lot of mutual opinions.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:13:00 -
[228]
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 10:15:50
"Your job is to explode."
I LOLed when I saw that.
"The "Fair Fight" argument is a lame ass excuse from the people who cant accept that they were outmanuvered, outnumbered, overpowered and generally OWNED." - Viceroy
Very true. We share a lot of mutual opinions.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:15:00 -
[229]
Originally by: meowcat
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
They both mean the same so why all the pedantry?
It's not pedantry, it's nit-picking.
(i've wanted to say that for years)
*lol*
Cool.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:15:00 -
[230]
Originally by: meowcat
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
They both mean the same so why all the pedantry?
It's not pedantry, it's nit-picking.
(i've wanted to say that for years)
*lol*
Cool.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:15:00 -
[231]
Originally by: TheMiner
"Your job is to explode."
I LOLed when I saw that.
I cannot even remember if I made that up or got it from somewhere, but I have yet to find a better quote for my siggy. 
Originally by: TheMiner
"The "Fair Fight" argument is a lame ass excuse from the people who cant accept that they were outmanuvered, outnumbered, overpowered and generally OWNED." - Viceroy
Very true. We share a lot of mutual opinions.
Viceroy is my father.
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:15:00 -
[232]
Originally by: TheMiner
"Your job is to explode."
I LOLed when I saw that.
I cannot even remember if I made that up or got it from somewhere, but I have yet to find a better quote for my siggy.
Originally by: TheMiner
"The "Fair Fight" argument is a lame ass excuse from the people who cant accept that they were outmanuvered, outnumbered, overpowered and generally OWNED." - Viceroy
Very true. We share a lot of mutual opinions.
Viceroy is my father.
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Urmel
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:15:00 -
[233]
Originally by: TheMiner
but we both know thats not Not NOT(!) what I was talking about. ;)
we both know that you are "writing"...the rest is pure speculation  |
Urmel
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:15:00 -
[234]
Originally by: TheMiner
but we both know thats not Not NOT(!) what I was talking about. ;)
we both know that you are "writing"...the rest is pure speculation |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:17:00 -
[235]
Your head asplode.
Hey r you female irl? If so.. I will give you ISK and stuff..under a few conditions.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:17:00 -
[236]
Your head asplode.
Hey r you female irl? If so.. I will give you ISK and stuff..under a few conditions.
|
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:20:00 -
[237]
Originally by: TheMiner
Your head asplode.
Hey r you female irl? If so.. I will give you ISK and stuff..under a few conditions.
Nah. Sel here was made to try out a different race for a few days, then I realized she was actually a very good character and there was no way I was going to lose three whole days of training time starting over back then! Hopefully I haven't ruined too many fantasies with this admission...
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:20:00 -
[238]
Originally by: TheMiner
Your head asplode.
Hey r you female irl? If so.. I will give you ISK and stuff..under a few conditions.
Nah. Sel here was made to try out a different race for a few days, then I realized she was actually a very good character and there was no way I was going to lose three whole days of training time starting over back then! Hopefully I haven't ruined too many fantasies with this admission...
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:23:00 -
[239]
Dag, yo.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:23:00 -
[240]
Dag, yo.
|
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:27:00 -
[241]
Originally by: TheMiner
Your head asplode.
Hey r you female irl? If so.. I will give you ISK and stuff..under a few conditions.
Anyone else a little bit creeped out What are those conditions?
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:27:00 -
[242]
Originally by: TheMiner
Your head asplode.
Hey r you female irl? If so.. I will give you ISK and stuff..under a few conditions.
Anyone else a little bit creeped out What are those conditions?
__________
Capacitor research |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:32:00 -
[243]
Indeed... just what would they be?
There is only one way to find out.
------------------------
Your head asplode.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:32:00 -
[244]
Indeed... just what would they be?
There is only one way to find out.
------------------------
Your head asplode.
|
Karmic
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:33:00 -
[245]
Originally by: Seleene
Originally by: TheMiner
Your head asplode.
Hey r you female irl? If so.. I will give you ISK and stuff..under a few conditions.
Nah. Sel here was made to try out a different race for a few days, then I realized she was actually a very good character and there was no way I was going to lose three whole days of training time starting over back then! Hopefully I haven't ruined too many fantasies with this admission...
lol your secrets out now Seleene :D
- - - - - - - - -
|
Karmic
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:33:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Seleene
Originally by: TheMiner
Your head asplode.
Hey r you female irl? If so.. I will give you ISK and stuff..under a few conditions.
Nah. Sel here was made to try out a different race for a few days, then I realized she was actually a very good character and there was no way I was going to lose three whole days of training time starting over back then! Hopefully I haven't ruined too many fantasies with this admission...
lol your secrets out now Seleene :D
- - - - - - - - -
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:36:00 -
[247]
My fantasies all crumble in the end.
Teehee..
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:36:00 -
[248]
My fantasies all crumble in the end.
Teehee..
--------------------------------------------------
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:37:00 -
[249]
Edited by: Nafri on 13/10/2004 10:40:04
lol @ this thread
hey but why the **** is eve using this strange american system?
its giving me pain in my brain 
Wanna fly with me?
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:37:00 -
[250]
Edited by: Nafri on 13/10/2004 10:40:04
lol @ this thread
hey but why the **** is eve using this strange american system?
its giving me pain in my brain
Wanna fly with me?
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:42:00 -
[251]
Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 13/10/2004 10:44:59
Quote:
hey but why the **** is eve using this strange american system?
CCP are known for catering for the weak. The same way they cater for the carebears and their needs, they cater for TheMiner and his inferior brain.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:42:00 -
[252]
Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 13/10/2004 10:44:59
Quote:
hey but why the **** is eve using this strange american system?
CCP are known for catering for the weak. The same way they cater for the carebears and their needs, they cater for TheMiner and his inferior brain.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:51:00 -
[253]
Edited by: Wren on 13/10/2004 10:54:14
Quote:
CCP are known for catering for the weak. The same way they cater for the carebears and their needs, they cater for TheMiner and his inferior brain.
Maybe it is because of the British, Australian, American, Spanish, French, Italian, and other European countries besides the Swede/Scandinavian countries use the decimal point not the decimal comma.
Ever think of that? % of users using the more popular and wide spread system of ######.### to denote a fractional number? Hmmm?
DonÆt start that crap about being weak just because of the system being used now.
We just need a system where hundreds of thousands, millions, and tens of millions are easily distinguished and recognized.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:51:00 -
[254]
Edited by: Wren on 13/10/2004 10:54:14
Quote:
CCP are known for catering for the weak. The same way they cater for the carebears and their needs, they cater for TheMiner and his inferior brain.
Maybe it is because of the British, Australian, American, Spanish, French, Italian, and other European countries besides the Swede/Scandinavian countries use the decimal point not the decimal comma.
Ever think of that? % of users using the more popular and wide spread system of ######.### to denote a fractional number? Hmmm?
DonÆt start that crap about being weak just because of the system being used now.
We just need a system where hundreds of thousands, millions, and tens of millions are easily distinguished and recognized.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:58:00 -
[255]
Edited by: Avon on 13/10/2004 11:05:26
TheMiner keeps on going on about the 'English' system, I am assuming he means Imperial? (most of which is derived from Roman measurements, many of those comming from even older systems)
The best system to use it the one you understand, and more importantly one that your target audience can understand.
I measure most things using the metric system, although I think of peoples height in feet and inches. I am happy picturing the distance between places in either miles or KMs, but I measure my speed in MPH. I have only just stopped converting fuel prices in my head from litres to gallons, but that was mostly due to it being too depressing to contemplate.
Internationally pilots tend to measure altitude in feet, and airspeed in knots - both imperial measurements.
When I was studying nuclear physics and quantum electrodynamics it never occured to me to measure things in nano feet, it just wouldn't make sense.
And finally, if metric is so great and so much superior to Imperial, what time is it?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 10:58:00 -
[256]
Edited by: Avon on 13/10/2004 11:05:26
TheMiner keeps on going on about the 'English' system, I am assuming he means Imperial? (most of which is derived from Roman measurements, many of those comming from even older systems)
The best system to use it the one you understand, and more importantly one that your target audience can understand.
I measure most things using the metric system, although I think of peoples height in feet and inches. I am happy picturing the distance between places in either miles or KMs, but I measure my speed in MPH. I have only just stopped converting fuel prices in my head from litres to gallons, but that was mostly due to it being too depressing to contemplate.
Internationally pilots tend to measure altitude in feet, and airspeed in knots - both imperial measurements.
When I was studying nuclear physics and quantum electrodynamics it never occured to me to measure things in nano feet, it just wouldn't make sense.
And finally, if metric is so great and so much superior to Imperial, what time is it?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:02:00 -
[257]
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:06:31
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:05:28
Originally by: Avon
When I was studying nuclear physics and quantum electrodynamics it never occured to me to measure things in nano feet, it just wouldn't make sense.
And finally, if metric is so great and so much superiour to Imperial, what time is it?
Of course it nano feet wouldn't make sense. If I understand it correctly then 12 inches make up one feet where as nano is a prefix used in the decimal system.
Oh and the time is 13.02 GMT. Compared to this am pm system then I must admit our system is vastly superior
Edit: errm 11.02 I forgot I'm on Swedish time 
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:02:00 -
[258]
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:06:31
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:05:28
Originally by: Avon
When I was studying nuclear physics and quantum electrodynamics it never occured to me to measure things in nano feet, it just wouldn't make sense.
And finally, if metric is so great and so much superiour to Imperial, what time is it?
Of course it nano feet wouldn't make sense. If I understand it correctly then 12 inches make up one feet where as nano is a prefix used in the decimal system.
Oh and the time is 13.02 GMT. Compared to this am pm system then I must admit our system is vastly superior
Edit: errm 11.02 I forgot I'm on Swedish time
__________
Capacitor research |
stinky fecker
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:03:00 -
[259]
100101101010010111101011101001 |
stinky fecker
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:03:00 -
[260]
100101101010010111101011101001 |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:04:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Wren
My fantasies all crumble in the end.
I know the feeling, Wren. I was heartbroken the first time I talked to Miso in Teamspeak. 
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:04:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Wren
My fantasies all crumble in the end.
I know the feeling, Wren. I was heartbroken the first time I talked to Miso in Teamspeak.
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:05:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:06:31
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:05:28
Originally by: Avon
When I was studying nuclear physics and quantum electrodynamics it never occured to me to measure things in nano feet, it just wouldn't make sense.
And finally, if metric is so great and so much superiour to Imperial, what time is it?
Of course it nano feet wouldn't make sense. If I understand it correctly then 12 inches make up one feet where as nano is a prefix used in the decimal system.
Oh and the time is 13.02 GMT. Compared to this am pm system then I must admit our system is vastly superior
Edit: errm 11.02 I forgot I'm on Swedish time
But it isn't metric.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:05:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:06:31
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:05:28
Originally by: Avon
When I was studying nuclear physics and quantum electrodynamics it never occured to me to measure things in nano feet, it just wouldn't make sense.
And finally, if metric is so great and so much superiour to Imperial, what time is it?
Of course it nano feet wouldn't make sense. If I understand it correctly then 12 inches make up one feet where as nano is a prefix used in the decimal system.
Oh and the time is 13.02 GMT. Compared to this am pm system then I must admit our system is vastly superior
Edit: errm 11.02 I forgot I'm on Swedish time
But it isn't metric.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:06:00 -
[265]
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:09:41
What isn't?
Edit: oh right the time, well how to you tell time in metric system. Afaik you don't you can tell differences in time but then you use seconds.
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:06:00 -
[266]
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:09:41
What isn't?
Edit: oh right the time, well how to you tell time in metric system. Afaik you don't you can tell differences in time but then you use seconds.
__________
Capacitor research |
Valentine Keen
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:06:00 -
[267]
Edited by: Valentine Keen on 13/10/2004 11:09:05
Got to agree totally with Avon here - it's a matter of what you've learned to use.
If you've learned it all your life one way, it's always easier, at least to you, but not necessarily better or worse, just different.
As for the original post - great to see the numbers continuing to increase - no matter how you measure them.
Edited for spelling.
|
Valentine Keen
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:06:00 -
[268]
Edited by: Valentine Keen on 13/10/2004 11:09:05
Got to agree totally with Avon here - it's a matter of what you've learned to use.
If you've learned it all your life one way, it's always easier, at least to you, but not necessarily better or worse, just different.
As for the original post - great to see the numbers continuing to increase - no matter how you measure them.
Edited for spelling.
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:12:00 -
[269]
Time isn't.
But metric is based on base 10.
Time is based on groupings of 60's.
with really not 24 hours per day, but minus 3 minutes 56 seconds, that's why we have leap years
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:12:00 -
[270]
Time isn't.
But metric is based on base 10.
Time is based on groupings of 60's.
with really not 24 hours per day, but minus 3 minutes 56 seconds, that's why we have leap years
--------------------------------------------------
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:14:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:09:41
What isn't?
Edit: oh right the time, well how to you tell time in metric system. Afaik you don't you can tell differences in time but then you use seconds.
Why would you use an imperial measurement like the second?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:14:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 13/10/2004 11:09:41
What isn't?
Edit: oh right the time, well how to you tell time in metric system. Afaik you don't you can tell differences in time but then you use seconds.
Why would you use an imperial measurement like the second?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:17:00 -
[273]
What else do you suggest? Nuclear time or something using the time it takes for uranium to turn into lead or something?
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:17:00 -
[274]
What else do you suggest? Nuclear time or something using the time it takes for uranium to turn into lead or something?
--------------------------------------------------
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:19:00 -
[275]
Originally by: Wren
Time isn't.
But metric is based on base 10.
Time is based on groupings of 60's.
with really not 24 hours per day, but minus 3 minutes 56 seconds, that's why we have leap years
So you are saying that the Imperial method of measuring time is superior, but give no real reason.
You don't have to measure time in seconds, there doesn't have to be 24hrs in a day - it is just what you are used to.
An hour is an arbitary value, you could quite easily divide the day up using a metric system instead of an imperial one.
But, why bother? Everyone is used to, and understands, the imperial method for telling time - a metric system would feel unnatural.
Like I said, it is all a matter of what you are used to and what people around you understand.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:19:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Wren
Time isn't.
But metric is based on base 10.
Time is based on groupings of 60's.
with really not 24 hours per day, but minus 3 minutes 56 seconds, that's why we have leap years
So you are saying that the Imperial method of measuring time is superior, but give no real reason.
You don't have to measure time in seconds, there doesn't have to be 24hrs in a day - it is just what you are used to.
An hour is an arbitary value, you could quite easily divide the day up using a metric system instead of an imperial one.
But, why bother? Everyone is used to, and understands, the imperial method for telling time - a metric system would feel unnatural.
Like I said, it is all a matter of what you are used to and what people around you understand.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:20:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Avon
Why would you use an imperial measurement like the second?
Second is used as a basic unit in the SI system as is meter and they make the unit for speed m/s. Even though it is used in the imperial system doesn't mean it's not used in the SI system. The systems are not mutually exclusive.
As far as I recall there are 7 base units the most known are meters, seconds, kg (yeah I never got what's up with that why it's not g).
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:20:00 -
[278]
Originally by: Avon
Why would you use an imperial measurement like the second?
Second is used as a basic unit in the SI system as is meter and they make the unit for speed m/s. Even though it is used in the imperial system doesn't mean it's not used in the SI system. The systems are not mutually exclusive.
As far as I recall there are 7 base units the most known are meters, seconds, kg (yeah I never got what's up with that why it's not g).
__________
Capacitor research |
Cardassius
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:23:00 -
[279]
google on metric:
why use the metric system
comma and point notations are just a way of representing the data, people can do what ever they want to make it look better for them or someone else.
ASCI Recruiting! |
Cardassius
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:23:00 -
[280]
google on metric:
why use the metric system
comma and point notations are just a way of representing the data, people can do what ever they want to make it look better for them or someone else.
ASCI Recruiting! |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:24:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Originally by: Avon
Why would you use an imperial measurement like the second?
Second is used as a basic unit in the SI system as is meter and they make the unit for speed m/s. Even though it is used in the imperial system doesn't mean it's not used in the SI system. The systems are not mutually exclusive.
As far as I recall there are 7 base units the most known are meters, seconds, kg (yeah I never got what's up with that why it's not g).
Whoa there.
The second is a measurement adopted by SI, it was unchanged from its imperial value and is fundamentaly at odds with the metric system as a whole.
It was adopted because no-one could agree on a better measurement, not because it was in anyway metric.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:24:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Originally by: Avon
Why would you use an imperial measurement like the second?
Second is used as a basic unit in the SI system as is meter and they make the unit for speed m/s. Even though it is used in the imperial system doesn't mean it's not used in the SI system. The systems are not mutually exclusive.
As far as I recall there are 7 base units the most known are meters, seconds, kg (yeah I never got what's up with that why it's not g).
Whoa there.
The second is a measurement adopted by SI, it was unchanged from its imperial value and is fundamentaly at odds with the metric system as a whole.
It was adopted because no-one could agree on a better measurement, not because it was in anyway metric.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Kitten Hearder
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:25:00 -
[283]
This has so little to do with Shadowbane.
---------
Kitten Hearder
Evolution made my sig
Less Entertaining
than your's. |
Kitten Hearder
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:25:00 -
[284]
This has so little to do with Shadowbane.
---------
Kitten Hearder
Evolution made my sig
Less Entertaining
than your's. |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:26:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Avon
Whoa there.
The second is a measurement adopted by SI, it was unchanged from its imperial value and is fundamentaly at odds with the metric system as a whole.
It was adopted because no-one could agree on a better measurement, not because it was in anyway metric.
Yes it was adopted by the metric system and is therefore metric. It is also used in the imperial system so it is also imperial. Do you think the imperial system was the first one to define the second? They might have but I think not.
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:26:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Avon
Whoa there.
The second is a measurement adopted by SI, it was unchanged from its imperial value and is fundamentaly at odds with the metric system as a whole.
It was adopted because no-one could agree on a better measurement, not because it was in anyway metric.
Yes it was adopted by the metric system and is therefore metric. It is also used in the imperial system so it is also imperial. Do you think the imperial system was the first one to define the second? They might have but I think not.
__________
Capacitor research |
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:29:00 -
[287]
Well, maybe because if you divided a measurement metrically for time for a day, then divided that down again by 100 (so first you have D100 then each D100 is divided by 100) you would have something that is about 14.4 seconds long. Now.... can you imagine trying to use that for a time measurement, if you broke it down again (by 100) it would be too small to comprehend by the average human, but leaving it at the larger value would make telling someone to be someplace at 044.891 damn cumbersome. It's because the day isn't perfectly able to fall into metric, and so the hour and second don't either.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:29:00 -
[288]
Well, maybe because if you divided a measurement metrically for time for a day, then divided that down again by 100 (so first you have D100 then each D100 is divided by 100) you would have something that is about 14.4 seconds long. Now.... can you imagine trying to use that for a time measurement, if you broke it down again (by 100) it would be too small to comprehend by the average human, but leaving it at the larger value would make telling someone to be someplace at 044.891 damn cumbersome. It's because the day isn't perfectly able to fall into metric, and so the hour and second don't either.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:31:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Originally by: Avon
Whoa there.
The second is a measurement adopted by SI, it was unchanged from its imperial value and is fundamentaly at odds with the metric system as a whole.
It was adopted because no-one could agree on a better measurement, not because it was in anyway metric.
Yes it was adopted by the metric system and is therefore metric. It is also used in the imperial system so it is also imperial. Do you think the imperial system was the first one to define the second? They might have but I think not.
". However, metric time was never part of the metric system. In fact, the original metric system did not even include a base unit of time until nearly a century later, when the CGS (centimeter, gram, second) system was introduced in 1874 to facilitate scientific research.
"
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:31:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Wren
Well, maybe because if you divided a measurement metrically for time for a day, then divided that down again by 100 (so first you have D100 then each D100 is divided by 100) you would have something that is about 14.4 seconds long. Now.... can you imagine trying to use that for a time measurement, if you broke it down again (by 100) it would be too small to comprehend by the average human, but leaving it at the larger value would make telling someone to be someplace at 044.891 damn cumbersome. It's because the day isn't perfectly able to fall into metric, and so the hour and second don't either.
lol, but that is just a matter of perception and understanding - there is no reason why you can't do it! ... and that is my whole point.
Horses for courses.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:31:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Originally by: Avon
Whoa there.
The second is a measurement adopted by SI, it was unchanged from its imperial value and is fundamentaly at odds with the metric system as a whole.
It was adopted because no-one could agree on a better measurement, not because it was in anyway metric.
Yes it was adopted by the metric system and is therefore metric. It is also used in the imperial system so it is also imperial. Do you think the imperial system was the first one to define the second? They might have but I think not.
". However, metric time was never part of the metric system. In fact, the original metric system did not even include a base unit of time until nearly a century later, when the CGS (centimeter, gram, second) system was introduced in 1874 to facilitate scientific research.
"
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:31:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Wren
Well, maybe because if you divided a measurement metrically for time for a day, then divided that down again by 100 (so first you have D100 then each D100 is divided by 100) you would have something that is about 14.4 seconds long. Now.... can you imagine trying to use that for a time measurement, if you broke it down again (by 100) it would be too small to comprehend by the average human, but leaving it at the larger value would make telling someone to be someplace at 044.891 damn cumbersome. It's because the day isn't perfectly able to fall into metric, and so the hour and second don't either.
lol, but that is just a matter of perception and understanding - there is no reason why you can't do it! ... and that is my whole point.
Horses for courses.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Schroni
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:32:00 -
[293]
OMFG!
---
SNIGG Forums  my videos |
Schroni
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:32:00 -
[294]
OMFG!
---
SNIGG Forums my videos |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:34:00 -
[295]
What the hell are you talking about. First of if we were accustomed to this then it wouldn't really be a problem.
Let's say one day is 10 hours' which is the same as 24 hours so one hour' is the same as 2.4 hour which is ...
Why am I even bothering it's not like time is imperial anyway those are two different systems that's like telling me to measure womans hotness in SI system.
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:34:00 -
[296]
What the hell are you talking about. First of if we were accustomed to this then it wouldn't really be a problem.
Let's say one day is 10 hours' which is the same as 24 hours so one hour' is the same as 2.4 hour which is ...
Why am I even bothering it's not like time is imperial anyway those are two different systems that's like telling me to measure womans hotness in SI system.
__________
Capacitor research |
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:34:00 -
[297]
Edited by: Wren on 13/10/2004 11:40:30
Edited by: Wren on 13/10/2004 11:39:06
Okay, I can comprehend 14.4 seconds kinda. I might even be able to keep track of 1.44 seconds, but I would be damned to keep track of .144 seconds or 144 seconds. And could you imagine the clock faces?
###:###.###
That is UGLY and more than a little frightning.
Guy1: "Hey Bob, meet you at 88:025.500 tonight."
Guy2(bob): "No can do, I have an appointment at 84:455.900. Make it 90:000:750 or so."
Guy1: "Okay, but then you're gonna miss the dancers."
Guy2(bob): "Damn, I heard there is one chic who is .88 Hotness."
Screw that.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:34:00 -
[298]
Edited by: Wren on 13/10/2004 11:40:30
Edited by: Wren on 13/10/2004 11:39:06
Okay, I can comprehend 14.4 seconds kinda. I might even be able to keep track of 1.44 seconds, but I would be damned to keep track of .144 seconds or 144 seconds. And could you imagine the clock faces?
###:###.###
That is UGLY and more than a little frightning.
Guy1: "Hey Bob, meet you at 88:025.500 tonight."
Guy2(bob): "No can do, I have an appointment at 84:455.900. Make it 90:000:750 or so."
Guy1: "Okay, but then you're gonna miss the dancers."
Guy2(bob): "Damn, I heard there is one chic who is .88 Hotness."
Screw that.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:42:00 -
[299]
Well Avon I've been using the metric system as the same as the SI system but I guess that's not totally correct although it is referred to often as the modern metric system and the second is very much part of it.
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:42:00 -
[300]
Well Avon I've been using the metric system as the same as the SI system but I guess that's not totally correct although it is referred to often as the modern metric system and the second is very much part of it.
__________
Capacitor research |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:51:00 -
[301]
Edited by: Avon on 13/10/2004 11:54:01
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Well Avon I've been using the metric system as the same as the SI system but I guess that's not totally correct although it is referred to often as the modern metric system and the second is very much part of it.
I don't deny the second is part of the SI system, but it is not inherently a metric unit.
There are plenty of proposals for metric time, and I am sure if one was adopted it would be fine once everyone got used to it. My point is that metric measurements are not inherently superior to the imperial system as argued by TheMiner. The SI system was designed to aid the scientific community, whereas Imperial measurements are all about 'the real world'. Neither system is 'better', but their worth should be judged on how appropriately they are used.
Quickly back to the number seperator / decimal marker discusssion:
"SI uses spaces to separate decimal digits in sets of three. e.g. 1 000 000 or 342 142 (in contrast to the commas or dots used in other systems, e.g. 1,000,000 or 1.000.000).
SI used only a comma as the separator for decimal fractions until 1997. The number "twenty four and fifty one hundredths" would be written as "24,51". In 1997 the CIPM decided that the British full stop (the "dot on the line", or period) would be the decimal separator in text whose main language is English ("24.51"); the comma remains the decimal separator in all other languages. "
So there you have it. Use spaces to denote 3 number groupings in large numbers, and either a . or , as a decimal marker depending on whether your main language is English or another language.
so,
10 000 000.99 isk is correct
10 000 000,99 isk is correct
Anything else is not SI.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:51:00 -
[302]
Edited by: Avon on 13/10/2004 11:54:01
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Well Avon I've been using the metric system as the same as the SI system but I guess that's not totally correct although it is referred to often as the modern metric system and the second is very much part of it.
I don't deny the second is part of the SI system, but it is not inherently a metric unit.
There are plenty of proposals for metric time, and I am sure if one was adopted it would be fine once everyone got used to it. My point is that metric measurements are not inherently superior to the imperial system as argued by TheMiner. The SI system was designed to aid the scientific community, whereas Imperial measurements are all about 'the real world'. Neither system is 'better', but their worth should be judged on how appropriately they are used.
Quickly back to the number seperator / decimal marker discusssion:
"SI uses spaces to separate decimal digits in sets of three. e.g. 1 000 000 or 342 142 (in contrast to the commas or dots used in other systems, e.g. 1,000,000 or 1.000.000).
SI used only a comma as the separator for decimal fractions until 1997. The number "twenty four and fifty one hundredths" would be written as "24,51". In 1997 the CIPM decided that the British full stop (the "dot on the line", or period) would be the decimal separator in text whose main language is English ("24.51"); the comma remains the decimal separator in all other languages. "
So there you have it. Use spaces to denote 3 number groupings in large numbers, and either a . or , as a decimal marker depending on whether your main language is English or another language.
so,
10 000 000.99 isk is correct
10 000 000,99 isk is correct
Anything else is not SI.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:59:00 -
[303]
Quote:
so,
10 000 000.99 isk is correct
10 000 000,99 isk is correct
Anything else is not SI.
But eve doesn't, it uses 10000000.00000 and expects you to count zeros to make sure it is saying 10 million.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 11:59:00 -
[304]
Quote:
so,
10 000 000.99 isk is correct
10 000 000,99 isk is correct
Anything else is not SI.
But eve doesn't, it uses 10000000.00000 and expects you to count zeros to make sure it is saying 10 million.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:01:00 -
[305]
yeah that's very ebil of them.
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:01:00 -
[306]
yeah that's very ebil of them.
__________
Capacitor research |
Moneta
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:01:00 -
[307]
Originally by: TheMiner
Originally by: Moneta
Morally, there is no inferiority.
Efficiencywise there is.
PERFECT! I will win with this one for sure! Listen.
Lets say there are 2 cars (A and B) and a set of judges who are judging how good the cars are on "color" "speed" and "price(lowest)."
Both cars are 100% equal in color and speed, but car B has a lower price than car A. Do you not think that the judges would pick car B as the winner?
So there are 2 systems. Both are equal "morally" but one is superior in "effeciency."
Which is better?
OWNED!
No, both aren't equal morally because morals are subjective where efficience is objective.
You example is missing my point altogether, however I will attempt at using it to explain more.
In this case those judges, when asked to make a decision on which system is morally superior could only reach one conclusion if they hold to their own morals to judge it by:
no conclusion.
There IS no equality of morals. Morals are entirely subjective and essentially cannot be judged except by a different set of values then the one leading to them in the first place. Hence any comparison of morals is comparing apples and pears.
Originally by: Aneu Angellus
Iv held back from posting on this thread for quite some time, but i think the time had come for me to come in and post.
Aneu
|
Moneta
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:01:00 -
[308]
Originally by: TheMiner
Originally by: Moneta
Morally, there is no inferiority.
Efficiencywise there is.
PERFECT! I will win with this one for sure! Listen.
Lets say there are 2 cars (A and B) and a set of judges who are judging how good the cars are on "color" "speed" and "price(lowest)."
Both cars are 100% equal in color and speed, but car B has a lower price than car A. Do you not think that the judges would pick car B as the winner?
So there are 2 systems. Both are equal "morally" but one is superior in "effeciency."
Which is better?
OWNED!
No, both aren't equal morally because morals are subjective where efficience is objective.
You example is missing my point altogether, however I will attempt at using it to explain more.
In this case those judges, when asked to make a decision on which system is morally superior could only reach one conclusion if they hold to their own morals to judge it by:
no conclusion.
There IS no equality of morals. Morals are entirely subjective and essentially cannot be judged except by a different set of values then the one leading to them in the first place. Hence any comparison of morals is comparing apples and pears.
Originally by: Aneu Angellus
Iv held back from posting on this thread for quite some time, but i think the time had come for me to come in and post.
Aneu
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:08:00 -
[309]
Edited by: Avon on 13/10/2004 12:11:33
Originally by: Wren
Quote:
so,
10 000 000.99 isk is correct
10 000 000,99 isk is correct
Anything else is not SI.
But eve doesn't, it uses 10000000.00000 and expects you to count zeros to make sure it is saying 10 million.
I didn't claim that Eve used SI, my reply was to TheMiner.
Anyway, metric is dead - Plank Units are the way to go, without them quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and quantum gravity would be so hard to understand.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:08:00 -
[310]
Edited by: Avon on 13/10/2004 12:11:33
Originally by: Wren
Quote:
so,
10 000 000.99 isk is correct
10 000 000,99 isk is correct
Anything else is not SI.
But eve doesn't, it uses 10000000.00000 and expects you to count zeros to make sure it is saying 10 million.
I didn't claim that Eve used SI, my reply was to TheMiner.
Anyway, metric is dead - Plank Units are the way to go, without them quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and quantum gravity would be so hard to understand.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:10:00 -
[311]
Whoaaa!
Interesting discussion here, but I do have to ask if you all can be a bit more respectful in your replies to others.
If peopl don't agree with you, or refuse to get a point it does not excuse personal attacks or trolling.
Let's see how far we can let this thread continue.
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:10:00 -
[312]
Whoaaa!
Interesting discussion here, but I do have to ask if you all can be a bit more respectful in your replies to others.
If peopl don't agree with you, or refuse to get a point it does not excuse personal attacks or trolling.
Let's see how far we can let this thread continue.
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:12:00 -
[313]
Hey, Eris, your .99 hotness in my metric book.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:12:00 -
[314]
Hey, Eris, your .99 hotness in my metric book.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:13:00 -
[315]
metric time!?
but what do you base time on? it must be the length of day/orbit of your locale as time is only relative - what is a second equal to?
O.o
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:13:00 -
[316]
metric time!?
but what do you base time on? it must be the length of day/orbit of your locale as time is only relative - what is a second equal to?
O.o
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:16:00 -
[317]
Edited by: Avon on 13/10/2004 12:22:18
Originally by: Hakera
metric time!?
but what do you base time on? it must be the length of day/orbit of your locale as time is only relative - what is a second equal to?
O.o
"The unit of time is the duration of exactly 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of caesium-133 atom."
To be fair though, SI works the definition from the answer and not the otherway around :/
The fuller SI history is a bit more long winded:
"Historically, the second was defined in terms of the rotation of the Earth as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day. In 1956, the International Committee for Weights and Measures, under the authority given it by the Tenth General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1954, defined the second in terms of the period of revolution of the Earth around the Sun for a particular epoch, because by then it had become recognized that the Earth's rotation was not sufficiently uniform as a standard of time. The Earth's motion was described in Newcomb's Tables of the Sun, which provides a formula for the motion of the Sun at the epoch 1900 based on astronomical observations made during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The ephemeris second thus defined is
the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.
This definition was ratified by the Eleventh General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1960. Reference to the year 1900 does not mean that this is the epoch of a mean solar day of 86,400 seconds. Rather, it is the epoch of the tropical year of 31,556,925.9747 seconds of ephemeris time. Ephemeris Time (ET) was defined as the measure of time that brings the observed positions of the celestial bodies into accord with the Newtonian dynamical theory of motion.
With the development of the atomic clock, it was decided to use atomic clocks as the basis of the definition of the second, rather than the orbit of the earth.
Following several years of work, two astronomers at the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO) and two astronomers at the National Physical Laboratory (Teddington, England) determined the relationship between the hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium atom and the ephemeris second. They determined the orbital motion of the Moon about the Earth, from which the apparent motion of the Sun could be inferred, in terms of time as measured by an atomic clock. As a result, in 1967 the Thirteenth General Conference on Weights and Measures defined the second of atomic time in the International System of Units (SI) as:
'the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
The ground state is defined at zero magnetic field. The second thus defined is equivalent to the ephemeris second.'
The definition of the second was later refined at the 1997 meeting of the BIPM to include the statement
This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.
In practice, this means that high-precision realizations of the second should compensate for the effects of ambient radiation to try to extrapolate to the value of the second as defined above.
"
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:16:00 -
[318]
Edited by: Avon on 13/10/2004 12:22:18
Originally by: Hakera
metric time!?
but what do you base time on? it must be the length of day/orbit of your locale as time is only relative - what is a second equal to?
O.o
"The unit of time is the duration of exactly 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of caesium-133 atom."
To be fair though, SI works the definition from the answer and not the otherway around :/
The fuller SI history is a bit more long winded:
"Historically, the second was defined in terms of the rotation of the Earth as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day. In 1956, the International Committee for Weights and Measures, under the authority given it by the Tenth General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1954, defined the second in terms of the period of revolution of the Earth around the Sun for a particular epoch, because by then it had become recognized that the Earth's rotation was not sufficiently uniform as a standard of time. The Earth's motion was described in Newcomb's Tables of the Sun, which provides a formula for the motion of the Sun at the epoch 1900 based on astronomical observations made during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The ephemeris second thus defined is
the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.
This definition was ratified by the Eleventh General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1960. Reference to the year 1900 does not mean that this is the epoch of a mean solar day of 86,400 seconds. Rather, it is the epoch of the tropical year of 31,556,925.9747 seconds of ephemeris time. Ephemeris Time (ET) was defined as the measure of time that brings the observed positions of the celestial bodies into accord with the Newtonian dynamical theory of motion.
With the development of the atomic clock, it was decided to use atomic clocks as the basis of the definition of the second, rather than the orbit of the earth.
Following several years of work, two astronomers at the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO) and two astronomers at the National Physical Laboratory (Teddington, England) determined the relationship between the hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium atom and the ephemeris second. They determined the orbital motion of the Moon about the Earth, from which the apparent motion of the Sun could be inferred, in terms of time as measured by an atomic clock. As a result, in 1967 the Thirteenth General Conference on Weights and Measures defined the second of atomic time in the International System of Units (SI) as:
'the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
The ground state is defined at zero magnetic field. The second thus defined is equivalent to the ephemeris second.'
The definition of the second was later refined at the 1997 meeting of the BIPM to include the statement
This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.
In practice, this means that high-precision realizations of the second should compensate for the effects of ambient radiation to try to extrapolate to the value of the second as defined above.
"
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:21:00 -
[319]
Well.. maybe my math was wrong before, since 10000th of a day is 8.64 seconds....
So... if you took that again by a power of 10 down to .864 seconds, you get a unit almost as long as a second but there would be 100,000 of them per day, starting at just after midnight you would be at 00:000.000, working up to 99:999.999.
... hmm... can you imagine the pain of reading an analog clock?
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:21:00 -
[320]
Well.. maybe my math was wrong before, since 10000th of a day is 8.64 seconds....
So... if you took that again by a power of 10 down to .864 seconds, you get a unit almost as long as a second but there would be 100,000 of them per day, starting at just after midnight you would be at 00:000.000, working up to 99:999.999.
... hmm... can you imagine the pain of reading an analog clock?
--------------------------------------------------
|
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:23:00 -
[321]
Originally by: Wren
Hey, Eris, your .99 hotness in my metric book.
How does this measurement works is it number of fingers divided by 100 given you have hundred fingers?
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:23:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Wren
Hey, Eris, your .99 hotness in my metric book.
How does this measurement works is it number of fingers divided by 100 given you have hundred fingers?
__________
Capacitor research |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:23:00 -
[323]
you only have 1560 megaseconds left till school son!
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:23:00 -
[324]
you only have 1560 megaseconds left till school son!
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:24:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Originally by: Wren
Hey, Eris, your .99 hotness in my metric book.
How does this measurement works is it number of fingers divided by 100 given you have hundred fingers?
I have no idea, I don't even have a metric hotness book.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:24:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Originally by: Wren
Hey, Eris, your .99 hotness in my metric book.
How does this measurement works is it number of fingers divided by 100 given you have hundred fingers?
I have no idea, I don't even have a metric hotness book.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:25:00 -
[327]
You're all forgetting the crux of the metric/imperioal/stuff discussion.
How much pie do we get?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:25:00 -
[328]
You're all forgetting the crux of the metric/imperioal/stuff discussion.
How much pie do we get?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:27:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Wren
Well.. maybe my math was wrong before, since 10000th of a day is 8.64 seconds....
So... if you took that again by a power of 10 down to .864 seconds, you get a unit almost as long as a second but there would be 100,000 of them per day, starting at just after midnight you would be at 00:000.000, working up to 99:999.999.
... hmm... can you imagine the pain of reading an analog clock?
Well Swatch invented 'Internet Time', which basically divides the day into 1000 'beats', each one being 1 minute and 26.4 seconds.
Seems mad, but who cares.
I am not arguing for metric time, my point is that the Imperial method makes more sense that the 'superior' metric alternatives.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:27:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Wren
Well.. maybe my math was wrong before, since 10000th of a day is 8.64 seconds....
So... if you took that again by a power of 10 down to .864 seconds, you get a unit almost as long as a second but there would be 100,000 of them per day, starting at just after midnight you would be at 00:000.000, working up to 99:999.999.
... hmm... can you imagine the pain of reading an analog clock?
Well Swatch invented 'Internet Time', which basically divides the day into 1000 'beats', each one being 1 minute and 26.4 seconds.
Seems mad, but who cares.
I am not arguing for metric time, my point is that the Imperial method makes more sense that the 'superior' metric alternatives.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:27:00 -
[331]
I'm guessing this much
__________
Capacitor research |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:27:00 -
[332]
I'm guessing this much
__________
Capacitor research |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:27:00 -
[333]
Edited by: Hakera on 13/10/2004 12:31:20
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
How much pie do we get?
depends if your talking about a metric strawberry pie or warm metric apple pie!
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:27:00 -
[334]
Edited by: Hakera on 13/10/2004 12:31:20
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
How much pie do we get?
depends if your talking about a metric strawberry pie or warm metric apple pie!
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Mr McFish
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:30:00 -
[335]
Urgh my head hurts |
Mr McFish
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:30:00 -
[336]
Urgh my head hurts |
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:31:00 -
[337]
Originally by: TheMiner
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 09:50:37
Originally by: mahhy
.
I would guess it would be impossible to *PROVE* one systems superiority over anothers. If anyone can suggest a method to do so without resorting to any sort of "its easier this way" mumbo jumbo, please do so.
Hey.. I want you to PROVE to me that 7.0 is a higher number than 6.0 ..... But no using "becasue it has a greater value" or "its higher on a number line" mumbo jumbo. Please do so.
I was simply trying to suggest that the idea of one system being superior to another is entirely subjective, that is based on ones own experience. Its a valid question for both the decimal point versus decimal comma, versus lack of separators discussion as well as the Imperial versus Metric system arguments.
You don't like the way people in Scandinavia do their numbers, no problem. I personally don't like the Imperial system of measurements, I grew up using Metric. Imperial really makes my head hurt. But as an example of what I'm trying to get at, my grandparents think Imperial is much better than Metric I just don't get that.
So, without answering a question with a question, can you think of a way to prove one systems superiority over another? I can't... its all too subjective.
*shrug*
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:31:00 -
[338]
Originally by: TheMiner
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 09:50:37
Originally by: mahhy
.
I would guess it would be impossible to *PROVE* one systems superiority over anothers. If anyone can suggest a method to do so without resorting to any sort of "its easier this way" mumbo jumbo, please do so.
Hey.. I want you to PROVE to me that 7.0 is a higher number than 6.0 ..... But no using "becasue it has a greater value" or "its higher on a number line" mumbo jumbo. Please do so.
I was simply trying to suggest that the idea of one system being superior to another is entirely subjective, that is based on ones own experience. Its a valid question for both the decimal point versus decimal comma, versus lack of separators discussion as well as the Imperial versus Metric system arguments.
You don't like the way people in Scandinavia do their numbers, no problem. I personally don't like the Imperial system of measurements, I grew up using Metric. Imperial really makes my head hurt. But as an example of what I'm trying to get at, my grandparents think Imperial is much better than Metric I just don't get that.
So, without answering a question with a question, can you think of a way to prove one systems superiority over another? I can't... its all too subjective.
*shrug*
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:33:00 -
[339]
maths is one of the only faliuable(sp?) truths in existance (such as a triangle as three sides). I wouldn't question it! (recalls philosophy lecture a long time ago)
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:33:00 -
[340]
maths is one of the only faliuable(sp?) truths in existance (such as a triangle as three sides). I wouldn't question it! (recalls philosophy lecture a long time ago)
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:35:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Eris Discordia
Whoaaa!
Interesting discussion here..
Personally I thinks gone a bit towards the "weird" end of the scale
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:35:00 -
[342]
Originally by: Eris Discordia
Whoaaa!
Interesting discussion here..
Personally I thinks gone a bit towards the "weird" end of the scale
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:37:00 -
[343]
Originally by: Hakera
maths is one of the only faliuable(sp?) truths in existance (such as a triangle as three sides). I wouldn't question it! (recalls philosophy lecture a long time ago)
Infallible I think you mean?
Dictionary.com:
1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
3. Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.
And this entire discussion is like one big vague philosophy lesson now
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:37:00 -
[344]
Originally by: Hakera
maths is one of the only faliuable(sp?) truths in existance (such as a triangle as three sides). I wouldn't question it! (recalls philosophy lecture a long time ago)
Infallible I think you mean?
Dictionary.com:
1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
3. Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.
And this entire discussion is like one big vague philosophy lesson now
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:41:00 -
[345]
ty mahhy - i knew i was close but could not be bothered looking it up!
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:41:00 -
[346]
ty mahhy - i knew i was close but could not be bothered looking it up!
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
hatchette
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:57:00 -
[347]
To all european-metric naay sayers.. especially the miner.
To avoid confusion, europeans do not write dots (for thousands) for numbers smaller than 1million.
so 433,432.43(US) is always written as 433432,43(EU).. but if number is bigger than 1 million..
1,433,432.43 (US) it's written like 1.433.432,43 (EU)
since decimal comma can be only one, you always know which system is used.
|
hatchette
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:57:00 -
[348]
To all european-metric naay sayers.. especially the miner.
To avoid confusion, europeans do not write dots (for thousands) for numbers smaller than 1million.
so 433,432.43(US) is always written as 433432,43(EU).. but if number is bigger than 1 million..
1,433,432.43 (US) it's written like 1.433.432,43 (EU)
since decimal comma can be only one, you always know which system is used.
|
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:58:00 -
[349]
You can question mathematical thruths by questioning numbers and the existence of them.
Have you ever encounterd a 1 or a 2? You could say that numbers exist only in referance of somethig else. Like 5 exists in referance to 5 pages of a thread.
If you believe in objective values like Good or Wrong you can say that something is bad or inferior, but that would be an entirely different discussion. Especially if you count in the incommensurability of different theories.
Is that enough food for thought to get another few pages extra?
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 12:58:00 -
[350]
You can question mathematical thruths by questioning numbers and the existence of them.
Have you ever encounterd a 1 or a 2? You could say that numbers exist only in referance of somethig else. Like 5 exists in referance to 5 pages of a thread.
If you believe in objective values like Good or Wrong you can say that something is bad or inferior, but that would be an entirely different discussion. Especially if you count in the incommensurability of different theories.
Is that enough food for thought to get another few pages extra?
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:00:00 -
[351]
Exactly, Eris.
I, for one, would be highly dubious of 5 pieces of pie unless they appear right this second (or partial Swatch beat).
Good or bad, the pie is likely to be superior to the inferior quiche, too.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:00:00 -
[352]
Exactly, Eris.
I, for one, would be highly dubious of 5 pieces of pie unless they appear right this second (or partial Swatch beat).
Good or bad, the pie is likely to be superior to the inferior quiche, too.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:07:00 -
[353]
Originally by: Eris Discordia
You can question mathematical thruths by questioning numbers and the existence of them.
Have you ever encounterd a 1 or a 2? You could say that numbers exist only in referance of somethig else. Like 5 exists in referance to 5 pages of a thread.
Does anyone actually argue that numbers themselves exist? That seems a bit odd to me. Perhaps a mathmetician will step in at this point, which I'm definitely not
Originally by: Eris Discordia
...objective values like Good or Wrong
Aren't Good / Wrong subjective values? Is anything objectively good or wrong??
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:07:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Eris Discordia
You can question mathematical thruths by questioning numbers and the existence of them.
Have you ever encounterd a 1 or a 2? You could say that numbers exist only in referance of somethig else. Like 5 exists in referance to 5 pages of a thread.
Does anyone actually argue that numbers themselves exist? That seems a bit odd to me. Perhaps a mathmetician will step in at this point, which I'm definitely not
Originally by: Eris Discordia
...objective values like Good or Wrong
Aren't Good / Wrong subjective values? Is anything objectively good or wrong??
|
Durin
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:08:00 -
[355]
My god, what a trainwreck of a thread this has become!
Is it just me, or am i not nerdy enough to understand?
|
Durin
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:08:00 -
[356]
My god, what a trainwreck of a thread this has become!
Is it just me, or am i not nerdy enough to understand?
|
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:15:00 -
[357]
Originally by: mahhy
Originally by: Eris Discordia
You can question mathematical thruths by questioning numbers and the existence of them.
Have you ever encounterd a 1 or a 2? You could say that numbers exist only in referance of somethig else. Like 5 exists in referance to 5 pages of a thread.
Does anyone actually argue that numbers themselves exist? That seems a bit odd to me. Perhaps a mathmetician will step in at this point, which I'm definitely not
Philosophers argue about everything that is taken for granted.
Originally by: Eris Discordia
...objective values like Good or Wrong
Quote:
Aren't Good / Wrong subjective values? Is anything objectively good or wrong??
When you have an independant definition of Good or Wrong you can use it to compare other definitions with it. The alluring side of finding an objective definition of Good is that you can tell that some thinsg are bad not because only you think so, but because they are truely bad and should be avoided.
There are many philosophers who defend an objective meaning of Good and others who say Good or Wrong does not exist at all and it's only invented for other reasons. For instance we use good or bad to express a feeling and nothing more.
There are so many many views on this it will take ages to explain why you can defend a objective definition of good and why moral discussion is more then just expressing feelings.
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:15:00 -
[358]
Originally by: mahhy
Originally by: Eris Discordia
You can question mathematical thruths by questioning numbers and the existence of them.
Have you ever encounterd a 1 or a 2? You could say that numbers exist only in referance of somethig else. Like 5 exists in referance to 5 pages of a thread.
Does anyone actually argue that numbers themselves exist? That seems a bit odd to me. Perhaps a mathmetician will step in at this point, which I'm definitely not
Philosophers argue about everything that is taken for granted.
Originally by: Eris Discordia
...objective values like Good or Wrong
Quote:
Aren't Good / Wrong subjective values? Is anything objectively good or wrong??
When you have an independant definition of Good or Wrong you can use it to compare other definitions with it. The alluring side of finding an objective definition of Good is that you can tell that some thinsg are bad not because only you think so, but because they are truely bad and should be avoided.
There are many philosophers who defend an objective meaning of Good and others who say Good or Wrong does not exist at all and it's only invented for other reasons. For instance we use good or bad to express a feeling and nothing more.
There are so many many views on this it will take ages to explain why you can defend a objective definition of good and why moral discussion is more then just expressing feelings.
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:17:00 -
[359]
So is it good or bad to lie and say I have a metric book of hotness which Eris scores highly in?
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:17:00 -
[360]
So is it good or bad to lie and say I have a metric book of hotness which Eris scores highly in?
--------------------------------------------------
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:20:00 -
[361]
Originally by: Eris Discordia
When you have an independant definition of Good or Wrong you can use it to compare other definitions with it
This is getting way beyond me here, but how does one come up with a independant definition of a value? I read that to mean someones claimed to come up with a definition of good/wrong without being influenced by anything that could influence that definition? (clumsy...)
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:20:00 -
[362]
Originally by: Eris Discordia
When you have an independant definition of Good or Wrong you can use it to compare other definitions with it
This is getting way beyond me here, but how does one come up with a independant definition of a value? I read that to mean someones claimed to come up with a definition of good/wrong without being influenced by anything that could influence that definition? (clumsy...)
|
Moneta
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:31:00 -
[363]
Edited by: Moneta on 13/10/2004 13:35:31
Originally by: mahhy
Originally by: Eris Discordia
When you have an independant definition of Good or Wrong you can use it to compare other definitions with it
This is getting way beyond me here, but how does one come up with a independant definition of a value? I read that to mean someones claimed to come up with a definition of good/wrong without being influenced by anything that could influence that definition? (clumsy...)
Simple, Eris is being incomplete here.
You can compare sets of values objectively only for their absolute contents, not for their quality (their "correctness" value).
Definitions of good and wrong cannot be compared objectively as your own definition which you use as standard is not objective. Judging something subjective by a subjective standard can never yield an objective answer.
Therefore, no set of values can ever be wrong objectively.
Og course, subjectively speaking they can be, and people often go to great lengths to impose their values on others.
Originally by: Aneu Angellus
Iv held back from posting on this thread for quite some time, but i think the time had come for me to come in and post.
Aneu
|
Moneta
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:31:00 -
[364]
Edited by: Moneta on 13/10/2004 13:35:31
Originally by: mahhy
Originally by: Eris Discordia
When you have an independant definition of Good or Wrong you can use it to compare other definitions with it
This is getting way beyond me here, but how does one come up with a independant definition of a value? I read that to mean someones claimed to come up with a definition of good/wrong without being influenced by anything that could influence that definition? (clumsy...)
Simple, Eris is being incomplete here.
You can compare sets of values objectively only for their absolute contents, not for their quality (their "correctness" value).
Definitions of good and wrong cannot be compared objectively as your own definition which you use as standard is not objective. Judging something subjective by a subjective standard can never yield an objective answer.
Therefore, no set of values can ever be wrong objectively.
Og course, subjectively speaking they can be, and people often go to great lengths to impose their values on others.
Originally by: Aneu Angellus
Iv held back from posting on this thread for quite some time, but i think the time had come for me to come in and post.
Aneu
|
Moneta
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:32:00 -
[365]
Originally by: Wren
So is it good or bad to lie and say I have a metric book of hotness which Eris scores highly in?
If you think its is good to lie, objectively speaking from your viewpoint it is indeed good to lie.
Originally by: Aneu Angellus
Iv held back from posting on this thread for quite some time, but i think the time had come for me to come in and post.
Aneu
|
Moneta
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:32:00 -
[366]
Originally by: Wren
So is it good or bad to lie and say I have a metric book of hotness which Eris scores highly in?
If you think its is good to lie, objectively speaking from your viewpoint it is indeed good to lie.
Originally by: Aneu Angellus
Iv held back from posting on this thread for quite some time, but i think the time had come for me to come in and post.
Aneu
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:33:00 -
[367]
I can't believe I've read these 10 pages. Wasted an hour of my life.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:33:00 -
[368]
I can't believe I've read these 10 pages. Wasted an hour of my life.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:34:00 -
[369]
Originally by: Moneta
Originally by: mahhy
Originally by: Eris Discordia
When you have an independant definition of Good or Wrong you can use it to compare other definitions with it
This is getting way beyond me here, but how does one come up with a independant definition of a value? I read that to mean someones claimed to come up with a definition of good/wrong without being influenced by anything that could influence that definition? (clumsy...)
Simple, Eris is wrong.
Definitions of good and wrong cannot be compared objectively as your own definition which you use as standard is not objective. Judging something subjective by a subjective standard can never yield an objective answer.
Therefore, no set of values can ever be wrong objectively.
Og course, subjectively speaking they can be, and people often go to great lengths to impose their values on others.
By your own definition, your statement that Eris is wrong, is wrong, thus you statement is wrong, thus Eris is wrong.
Er.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:34:00 -
[370]
Originally by: Moneta
Originally by: mahhy
Originally by: Eris Discordia
When you have an independant definition of Good or Wrong you can use it to compare other definitions with it
This is getting way beyond me here, but how does one come up with a independant definition of a value? I read that to mean someones claimed to come up with a definition of good/wrong without being influenced by anything that could influence that definition? (clumsy...)
Simple, Eris is wrong.
Definitions of good and wrong cannot be compared objectively as your own definition which you use as standard is not objective. Judging something subjective by a subjective standard can never yield an objective answer.
Therefore, no set of values can ever be wrong objectively.
Og course, subjectively speaking they can be, and people often go to great lengths to impose their values on others.
By your own definition, your statement that Eris is wrong, is wrong, thus you statement is wrong, thus Eris is wrong.
Er.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:36:00 -
[371]
Originally by: JoCool
I can't believe I've read these 10 pages. Wasted an hour of my life.
Sorry Jo... but speaking for myself I didn't have anything better to do today
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:36:00 -
[372]
Originally by: JoCool
I can't believe I've read these 10 pages. Wasted an hour of my life.
Sorry Jo... but speaking for myself I didn't have anything better to do today
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:37:00 -
[373]
Just to tie together two threads (the truth of maths here and another thread about puns..)
An Indian chief had three wives, each of whom was pregnant. The first
gave birth to a boy. The chief was so elated he built her a teepee made
of deer hide. A few days later, the second gave birth, also to a
boy. The chief was very happy. He built her a teepee made of
antelope hide. The third wife gave birth a few days later, but the
chief kept the details a secret. He built this one a two story
teepee, made out of a hippopotamus hide. The chief then challenged
the tribe to guess what had occurred. Many tried, unsuccessfully.
Finally, one young brave declared that the third wife had given birth
to twin boys. "Correct," said the chief. "How did you figure it
out?" The warrior answered, "It's elementary. The value of the squaw
of the hippopotamus is equal to the sons of the squaws of the other
two hides."
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:37:00 -
[374]
Just to tie together two threads (the truth of maths here and another thread about puns..)
An Indian chief had three wives, each of whom was pregnant. The first
gave birth to a boy. The chief was so elated he built her a teepee made
of deer hide. A few days later, the second gave birth, also to a
boy. The chief was very happy. He built her a teepee made of
antelope hide. The third wife gave birth a few days later, but the
chief kept the details a secret. He built this one a two story
teepee, made out of a hippopotamus hide. The chief then challenged
the tribe to guess what had occurred. Many tried, unsuccessfully.
Finally, one young brave declared that the third wife had given birth
to twin boys. "Correct," said the chief. "How did you figure it
out?" The warrior answered, "It's elementary. The value of the squaw
of the hippopotamus is equal to the sons of the squaws of the other
two hides."
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Vance Black
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:41:00 -
[375]
i havent fully followed this thread but wtf. geez this has to be one of the weirdest threads i have ever seen on these forums. i ask u agruing over the ways some people show their decimal points.
btw its a . or nothing
---------------------------------
Back from the Dead never forgotten |
Vance Black
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:41:00 -
[376]
i havent fully followed this thread but wtf. geez this has to be one of the weirdest threads i have ever seen on these forums. i ask u agruing over the ways some people show their decimal points.
btw its a . or nothing
---------------------------------
Back from the Dead never forgotten |
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:45:00 -
[377]
Originally by: Moneta
Edited by: Moneta on 13/10/2004 13:35:31
Originally by: mahhy
Originally by: Eris Discordia
When you have an independant definition of Good or Wrong you can use it to compare other definitions with it
This is getting way beyond me here, but how does one come up with a independant definition of a value? I read that to mean someones claimed to come up with a definition of good/wrong without being influenced by anything that could influence that definition? (clumsy...)
Simple, Eris is being incomplete here.
You can compare sets of values objectively only for their absolute contents, not for their quality (their "correctness" value).
Definitions of good and wrong cannot be compared objectively as your own definition which you use as standard is not objective. Judging something subjective by a subjective standard can never yield an objective answer.
Therefore, no set of values can ever be wrong objectively.
Og course, subjectively speaking they can be, and people often go to great lengths to impose their values on others.
When people try to come with a definition of good that is objective they will look for a definition that is acceptable to everyone. Here lies the problem (finding a definition that everybody agrees with), not that their definition is subjective because it was thought up by someone.
If you reason like this no one could say they are free from bias and you enter such a degree of scepsis that ensures that alot of professions could not survive.
Questioning is fine unless you end up killing the discussion because everything is personal and relative and there is no fundamental reason to listen or care. Anything goes then and people don't want that either
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:45:00 -
[378]
Originally by: Moneta
Edited by: Moneta on 13/10/2004 13:35:31
Originally by: mahhy
Originally by: Eris Discordia
When you have an independant definition of Good or Wrong you can use it to compare other definitions with it
This is getting way beyond me here, but how does one come up with a independant definition of a value? I read that to mean someones claimed to come up with a definition of good/wrong without being influenced by anything that could influence that definition? (clumsy...)
Simple, Eris is being incomplete here.
You can compare sets of values objectively only for their absolute contents, not for their quality (their "correctness" value).
Definitions of good and wrong cannot be compared objectively as your own definition which you use as standard is not objective. Judging something subjective by a subjective standard can never yield an objective answer.
Therefore, no set of values can ever be wrong objectively.
Og course, subjectively speaking they can be, and people often go to great lengths to impose their values on others.
When people try to come with a definition of good that is objective they will look for a definition that is acceptable to everyone. Here lies the problem (finding a definition that everybody agrees with), not that their definition is subjective because it was thought up by someone.
If you reason like this no one could say they are free from bias and you enter such a degree of scepsis that ensures that alot of professions could not survive.
Questioning is fine unless you end up killing the discussion because everything is personal and relative and there is no fundamental reason to listen or care. Anything goes then and people don't want that either
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:49:00 -
[379]
Originally by: Eris Discordia
Questioning is fine unless you end up killing the discussion because everything is personal and relative and there is no fundamental reason to listen or care. Anything goes then and people don't want that either
Oh brother, keep my relatives out of this.
\o/ more puns.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:49:00 -
[380]
Originally by: Eris Discordia
Questioning is fine unless you end up killing the discussion because everything is personal and relative and there is no fundamental reason to listen or care. Anything goes then and people don't want that either
Oh brother, keep my relatives out of this.
\o/ more puns.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
CmdoColin
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:50:00 -
[381]
Just the sort of twisted thread I want to read at work and pass a few hours with
I personally gotta agree I find 123456789 harder to read than either 123,456,789 or 123.456.789.
Neither the . or the , bother me but help me visually to break the number up into smaller chunks so my mind can cope with them.
Now what is a good system?
Well the Roman numerals are only inferior to the Arabic numerals we use today in one way. The Arabic system contains a nothing, a zero - 0 - The Roman system does not. ThatÆs the only reason we aren't using roman numerals alongside the Roman alphabet in the countries.. err.. that use themà
Yeah I know everyone doesn't use the roman alphabet and Arabic numerals - Scandinavian countries have more letters, and you've got different alphabets - but how you divide that in just one word I dunno...
Now which is better really I don't know, it is subjective, its what you are used to... but... The English language has the highest number of dyslexics. Far Eastern countries using a Japanese/Chinese style alphabet (sorry can't remember what you call it). There's been a series of studies recently getting very badly dyslexic people who's only language is English and teaching them other languages. The Japanese/Chinese based languages have actually come out the best for the human brain to cope with and English the hardest. So is that a way of saying what is best - and English isn't the best for the human mind to interpret...
I would say a metric system is best, because it the one IÆm personally more familiar with û but is this the easiest system for the human brain? I havenÆt read anything about thatà
Just a little more to chew over - I'd be glad if anyone can find the research - it was published in New Scientist awhile back.
Audita et altera pars |
CmdoColin
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:50:00 -
[382]
Just the sort of twisted thread I want to read at work and pass a few hours with
I personally gotta agree I find 123456789 harder to read than either 123,456,789 or 123.456.789.
Neither the . or the , bother me but help me visually to break the number up into smaller chunks so my mind can cope with them.
Now what is a good system?
Well the Roman numerals are only inferior to the Arabic numerals we use today in one way. The Arabic system contains a nothing, a zero - 0 - The Roman system does not. ThatÆs the only reason we aren't using roman numerals alongside the Roman alphabet in the countries.. err.. that use themà
Yeah I know everyone doesn't use the roman alphabet and Arabic numerals - Scandinavian countries have more letters, and you've got different alphabets - but how you divide that in just one word I dunno...
Now which is better really I don't know, it is subjective, its what you are used to... but... The English language has the highest number of dyslexics. Far Eastern countries using a Japanese/Chinese style alphabet (sorry can't remember what you call it). There's been a series of studies recently getting very badly dyslexic people who's only language is English and teaching them other languages. The Japanese/Chinese based languages have actually come out the best for the human brain to cope with and English the hardest. So is that a way of saying what is best - and English isn't the best for the human mind to interpret...
I would say a metric system is best, because it the one IÆm personally more familiar with û but is this the easiest system for the human brain? I havenÆt read anything about thatà
Just a little more to chew over - I'd be glad if anyone can find the research - it was published in New Scientist awhile back.
Audita et altera pars |
Arkanis
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:54:00 -
[383]
Edited by: Arkanis on 13/10/2004 14:02:54
Originally by: Cardassius
English metric: 100,000,000,000.1830219843
Rest of europe: 100.000.000.000.000,22989032
You are calling the system you use stupid then.
I'm not a mathematician but as far as I know, the reason why we use comma where the rest Europe uses the point is due to the comma being the separator in our language and that ends up separating the number to be easier to digest while the point, used to signify the end of a sentence also means the end of the integer number and the start of the float. At least, that's how I was taught it and explained it.
Originally by: Cardassius
You know where they drive on the left side of the road ;)
We drive on the left because the majority of sword wielders where right handed :) Its all down to the swords. Probably dragons too.
as far as I know, the majority of ccp's client base as well as themselves come from Europe, so I'm not sure why they're using the 'English' method of interpreting numbers while leaning more towards the 'North American' style of English. I want my U in armour hardener.
|
Arkanis
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:54:00 -
[384]
Edited by: Arkanis on 13/10/2004 14:02:54
Originally by: Cardassius
English metric: 100,000,000,000.1830219843
Rest of europe: 100.000.000.000.000,22989032
You are calling the system you use stupid then.
I'm not a mathematician but as far as I know, the reason why we use comma where the rest Europe uses the point is due to the comma being the separator in our language and that ends up separating the number to be easier to digest while the point, used to signify the end of a sentence also means the end of the integer number and the start of the float. At least, that's how I was taught it and explained it.
Originally by: Cardassius
You know where they drive on the left side of the road ;)
We drive on the left because the majority of sword wielders where right handed :) Its all down to the swords. Probably dragons too.
as far as I know, the majority of ccp's client base as well as themselves come from Europe, so I'm not sure why they're using the 'English' method of interpreting numbers while leaning more towards the 'North American' style of English. I want my U in armour hardener.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:58:00 -
[385]
Edited by: mahhy on 13/10/2004 14:01:01
Originally by: Vance Black
i havent fully followed this thread but wtf. geez this has to be one of the weirdest threads i have ever seen on these forums. i ask u agruing over the ways some people show their decimal points.
The guy who started it is probably doing exactly the same thing: "WTF? "
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 13:58:00 -
[386]
Edited by: mahhy on 13/10/2004 14:01:01
Originally by: Vance Black
i havent fully followed this thread but wtf. geez this has to be one of the weirdest threads i have ever seen on these forums. i ask u agruing over the ways some people show their decimal points.
The guy who started it is probably doing exactly the same thing: "WTF? "
|
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:09:00 -
[387]
Originally by: Eris Discordia
Whoaaa!
Interesting discussion here, but I do have to ask if you all can be a bit more respectful in your replies to others.
If peopl don't agree with you, or refuse to get a point it does not excuse personal attacks or trolling.
What if they refuse to get a comma?
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:09:00 -
[388]
Originally by: Eris Discordia
Whoaaa!
Interesting discussion here, but I do have to ask if you all can be a bit more respectful in your replies to others.
If peopl don't agree with you, or refuse to get a point it does not excuse personal attacks or trolling.
What if they refuse to get a comma?
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:11:00 -
[389]
Originally by: Andrue
Originally by: Eris Discordia
Whoaaa!
Interesting discussion here, but I do have to ask if you all can be a bit more respectful in your replies to others.
If peopl don't agree with you, or refuse to get a point it does not excuse personal attacks or trolling.
What if they refuse to get a comma?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:11:00 -
[390]
Originally by: Andrue
Originally by: Eris Discordia
Whoaaa!
Interesting discussion here, but I do have to ask if you all can be a bit more respectful in your replies to others.
If peopl don't agree with you, or refuse to get a point it does not excuse personal attacks or trolling.
What if they refuse to get a comma?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:13:00 -
[391]
Originally by: JoCool
I can't believe I've read these 10 pages. Wasted an hour of my life.
A serious suggestion
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:13:00 -
[392]
Originally by: JoCool
I can't believe I've read these 10 pages. Wasted an hour of my life.
A serious suggestion
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Etigo wyr
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:17:00 -
[393]
Question is simple and not as hard as many want it to be!
A system can be inferior but used,that doesnt mean that system in anyway is better.
Just as ya learn in early age one system and are used to it doesnt mean it is easy, more understandable then a new system.
There is a sayin in Sweden:You dont teach old dogs to sit!
Why? Cause he is used to stand or lay down.
Same is it with new systems VS old systems!
people used to a certain system will use it no matter what cause they allways used it!
Metric system is superior cause it is more understandable,easier to read and more up to date with the world today!
There are nothing wrong with the old system but its not up to date!
in some future we might even leave Metric for another system and this debate will arise again!
|
Etigo wyr
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:17:00 -
[394]
Question is simple and not as hard as many want it to be!
A system can be inferior but used,that doesnt mean that system in anyway is better.
Just as ya learn in early age one system and are used to it doesnt mean it is easy, more understandable then a new system.
There is a sayin in Sweden:You dont teach old dogs to sit!
Why? Cause he is used to stand or lay down.
Same is it with new systems VS old systems!
people used to a certain system will use it no matter what cause they allways used it!
Metric system is superior cause it is more understandable,easier to read and more up to date with the world today!
There are nothing wrong with the old system but its not up to date!
in some future we might even leave Metric for another system and this debate will arise again!
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:26:00 -
[395]
Originally by: Arkanis
We drive on the left because the majority of sword wielders where right handed :) Its all down to the swords. Probably dragons too.
We used to drive on the left side of the road in Sweden too, but then we realized that it was bad and changed it. Mostly because most of us don't use swords any more, especially not while driving.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:26:00 -
[396]
Originally by: Arkanis
We drive on the left because the majority of sword wielders where right handed :) Its all down to the swords. Probably dragons too.
We used to drive on the left side of the road in Sweden too, but then we realized that it was bad and changed it. Mostly because most of us don't use swords any more, especially not while driving.
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:28:00 -
[397]
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake! 
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:28:00 -
[398]
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Fojar
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:31:00 -
[399]
Edited by: Fojar on 13/10/2004 14:37:00
How long does this go on? Can sum give me a summary coz i can't be arsed to read 11 pages of a post!
As far i got was that theminer, didn't understand that europe(not including the UK) use a comma instead of a decimal point?
And this went on for 11 pages?
You Guys either have too much spare time, or are just really really annoying.
Oh and please stop using the word inferior, it makes you sound like a Superemisist or somthing, why not use the word worse etc?
Fojar
PS I agree with Hakera on Lefties ARE WEIRD!!
edit: extra point
|
Fojar
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:31:00 -
[400]
Edited by: Fojar on 13/10/2004 14:37:00
How long does this go on? Can sum give me a summary coz i can't be arsed to read 11 pages of a post!
As far i got was that theminer, didn't understand that europe(not including the UK) use a comma instead of a decimal point?
And this went on for 11 pages?
You Guys either have too much spare time, or are just really really annoying.
Oh and please stop using the word inferior, it makes you sound like a Superemisist or somthing, why not use the word worse etc?
Fojar
PS I agree with Hakera on Lefties ARE WEIRD!!
edit: extra point
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:34:00 -
[401]
Edited by: Admiral IceBlock on 13/10/2004 14:37:12
our decimal symbol is "," and digit grouping symbol is " ".
11 235,99
:D
also, the left hand is known to die by right hand.
"We brake for nobody"
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:34:00 -
[402]
Edited by: Admiral IceBlock on 13/10/2004 14:37:12
our decimal symbol is "," and digit grouping symbol is " ".
11 235,99
:D
also, the left hand is known to die by right hand.
"We brake for nobody"
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:42:00 -
[403]
Originally by: Hakera
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Hey! I find that offensive! Right handed people are obviously inferior.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:42:00 -
[404]
Originally by: Hakera
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Hey! I find that offensive! Right handed people are obviously inferior.
|
Arkanis
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:44:00 -
[405]
Originally by: Scorpyn
We used to drive on the left side of the road in Sweden too, but then we realized that it was bad and changed it. Mostly because most of us don't use swords any more, especially not while driving.
Yes but we're completely over ran by DRAGONS.
Its been proven guns don't kill them and only swords do.
We're required by law to carry a sword at all times incase of attack by DRAGON, or Millwall fans.
|
Arkanis
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:44:00 -
[406]
Originally by: Scorpyn
We used to drive on the left side of the road in Sweden too, but then we realized that it was bad and changed it. Mostly because most of us don't use swords any more, especially not while driving.
Yes but we're completely over ran by DRAGONS.
Its been proven guns don't kill them and only swords do.
We're required by law to carry a sword at all times incase of attack by DRAGON, or Millwall fans.
|
CmdoColin
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:51:00 -
[407]
Originally by: Etigo wyr
Metric system is superior cause it is more understandable,easier to read and more up to date with the world today!
I'd argue that point - but there are 10 pages of that already. It is only what the mind is acustomed too. In England we changed from an Imperial monetary value to a metric system on 15th February 1971. Yes I find that metric system easier. But the generation that grew up with it cannot get our new fangled decimal system. I find their system confusing:
4 farthings to a pence
240 pence to ú1
12 pence to a shilling (also known as bob)
5 shillings to a crown
20 shillings in a pound
21 shillings in a guinea
It's what you are used too. Unless you can scientifically prove that one of the systems is better on they human mind another. Whatever system is used, it only exists by being built up on interactions of neurons in your brain. The more you use one system, the easier it becomes.
Originally by: Scorpyn
Mostly because most of us don't use swords any more, especially not while driving.
rotflmao - that is magic...
Audita et altera pars |
CmdoColin
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 14:51:00 -
[408]
Originally by: Etigo wyr
Metric system is superior cause it is more understandable,easier to read and more up to date with the world today!
I'd argue that point - but there are 10 pages of that already. It is only what the mind is acustomed too. In England we changed from an Imperial monetary value to a metric system on 15th February 1971. Yes I find that metric system easier. But the generation that grew up with it cannot get our new fangled decimal system. I find their system confusing:
4 farthings to a pence
240 pence to ú1
12 pence to a shilling (also known as bob)
5 shillings to a crown
20 shillings in a pound
21 shillings in a guinea
It's what you are used too. Unless you can scientifically prove that one of the systems is better on they human mind another. Whatever system is used, it only exists by being built up on interactions of neurons in your brain. The more you use one system, the easier it becomes.
Originally by: Scorpyn
Mostly because most of us don't use swords any more, especially not while driving.
rotflmao - that is magic...
Audita et altera pars |
Cookie
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:00:00 -
[409]
Whats that in Gallons ??
|
Cookie
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:00:00 -
[410]
Whats that in Gallons ??
|
Aaron Rex
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:04:00 -
[411]
Back on one of the first pages of this thread I was going to post a constructive thought or opinion. However, after having read 12 pages of this I have a head ache and need to go lie down I think. All my simple, burned out brain can say now is Josh iz t3h b00m and Eris I LOVE YOU!!!
Aaron Rex - Remember the Scordite...
The Fated |
Aaron Rex
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:04:00 -
[412]
Back on one of the first pages of this thread I was going to post a constructive thought or opinion. However, after having read 12 pages of this I have a head ache and need to go lie down I think. All my simple, burned out brain can say now is Josh iz t3h b00m and Eris I LOVE YOU!!!
Aaron Rex - Remember the Scordite...
The Fated |
EvilEric
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:08:00 -
[413]
So...... I read this thread and here's what I heard...
Decimal points, commas... dumbass.
No... you're a dumbass.
I like Pie.
Metric is good, time is not metric.
What about the Pie?
Good and Bad are subjective.
We English have a lot to answer for.
I'd just like to add... The bigger the pie, the happier the clown.
|
EvilEric
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:08:00 -
[414]
So...... I read this thread and here's what I heard...
Decimal points, commas... dumbass.
No... you're a dumbass.
I like Pie.
Metric is good, time is not metric.
What about the Pie?
Good and Bad are subjective.
We English have a lot to answer for.
I'd just like to add... The bigger the pie, the happier the clown.
|
Ebedar
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:17:00 -
[415]
Originally by: Hakera
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Yes, definitely something sinister about them.
*Sits back and wonders who will get it without Googling*
My life in pictures:
   |
Ebedar
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:17:00 -
[416]
Originally by: Hakera
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Yes, definitely something sinister about them.
*Sits back and wonders who will get it without Googling*
My life in pictures:
|
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:30:00 -
[417]
Originally by: Ebedar
Originally by: Hakera
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Yes, definitely something sinister about them.
*Sits back and wonders who will get it without Googling*
But at the risk of restarting the thread I'll just say that as a programmer I never display numbers to my users without thousands separators (I do let the OS choose what character to use for them though). Most people do find it harder to spot the difference between:
12,345,678 and 12346788
I also allow my users to enter numbers using letter abbreviations eg;
12.2M (or even 12M2)
For me it's about usability. Some people my be able to read eight or nine digit numbers at a glance but most people can't. There's also no point in forcing users to type loads of '0's when a single letter will suffice :)
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:30:00 -
[418]
Originally by: Ebedar
Originally by: Hakera
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Yes, definitely something sinister about them.
*Sits back and wonders who will get it without Googling*
But at the risk of restarting the thread I'll just say that as a programmer I never display numbers to my users without thousands separators (I do let the OS choose what character to use for them though). Most people do find it harder to spot the difference between:
12,345,678 and 12346788
I also allow my users to enter numbers using letter abbreviations eg;
12.2M (or even 12M2)
For me it's about usability. Some people my be able to read eight or nine digit numbers at a glance but most people can't. There's also no point in forcing users to type loads of '0's when a single letter will suffice :)
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:32:00 -
[419]
Originally by: Ebedar
Originally by: Hakera
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Yes, definitely something sinister about them.
*Sits back and wonders who will get it without Googling*
Um, iirc sinister derives from the latin word for left, which is sinistra or something like it.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:32:00 -
[420]
Originally by: Ebedar
Originally by: Hakera
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Yes, definitely something sinister about them.
*Sits back and wonders who will get it without Googling*
Um, iirc sinister derives from the latin word for left, which is sinistra or something like it.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:32:00 -
[421]
Edited by: flummox on 13/10/2004 15:39:48
Originally by: Cardassius
Originally by: TheMiner
Yes, the metric system is superior to the system the Americans use.
The Americans use the English metric system, which includes a comma separator for thousands and a dot for decimals.
okay, man i hate to get into this discussion. but, i wanted to clarify something.
the "metric" system refers to measurement. usually in cases of distance and volume. it does not refer to the way i write my numbers. therefore, writing down 420,666.1 is not metric any more than the word "cheese" is.
i find the use of a comma (,) as a decimal separator a little weird, sure. but nothing i couldn't get used to after a while. at first, i wanted to say, "how stupid" or "how confusing". but when put into the context of "it's what you've been taught" it makes perfect sense. most of the time, though, i only see the comma used. until this thread, i had not seen anyone use the period(.) as a thousand separator. so, it was kinda confusing to see things like 420666,1 at first glance. but now i just ignore it. different? yes. inferior? uh, no...
now, back to the metric system. i kinda like the metric system, being an anal retentive kinda guy. having everything match up in 10's and 100's is really nice. but, i still enjoy the oddity of the american pounds and gallons and inches... um. oh my!
i'd like to pick up the knack of converting stones to pounds though. as well as improve my meters-to-feet calcs. it'll make it easier while reading models' stats in euro-nudiemags...
edit: the combined characters of p r 0 and n is filtered... lol ! now they only need to filter "teh", "your" and "you're", "wtfpwnd", and "!!!!11111one1eleven"
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:32:00 -
[422]
Edited by: flummox on 13/10/2004 15:39:48
Originally by: Cardassius
Originally by: TheMiner
Yes, the metric system is superior to the system the Americans use.
The Americans use the English metric system, which includes a comma separator for thousands and a dot for decimals.
okay, man i hate to get into this discussion. but, i wanted to clarify something.
the "metric" system refers to measurement. usually in cases of distance and volume. it does not refer to the way i write my numbers. therefore, writing down 420,666.1 is not metric any more than the word "cheese" is.
i find the use of a comma (,) as a decimal separator a little weird, sure. but nothing i couldn't get used to after a while. at first, i wanted to say, "how stupid" or "how confusing". but when put into the context of "it's what you've been taught" it makes perfect sense. most of the time, though, i only see the comma used. until this thread, i had not seen anyone use the period(.) as a thousand separator. so, it was kinda confusing to see things like 420666,1 at first glance. but now i just ignore it. different? yes. inferior? uh, no...
now, back to the metric system. i kinda like the metric system, being an anal retentive kinda guy. having everything match up in 10's and 100's is really nice. but, i still enjoy the oddity of the american pounds and gallons and inches... um. oh my!
i'd like to pick up the knack of converting stones to pounds though. as well as improve my meters-to-feet calcs. it'll make it easier while reading models' stats in euro-nudiemags...
edit: the combined characters of p r 0 and n is filtered... lol ! now they only need to filter "teh", "your" and "you're", "wtfpwnd", and "!!!!11111one1eleven"
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:39:00 -
[423]
Man TheMiner is like a carebear version of Skillz. Feel sympathy for me, I had to camp EC with this guy mining crokite in local.
_____________________________________
Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning.
"Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf |
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:39:00 -
[424]
Man TheMiner is like a carebear version of Skillz. Feel sympathy for me, I had to camp EC with this guy mining crokite in local.
_____________________________________
Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning.
"Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf |
Xenu
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:41:00 -
[425]
i stopped reading at page 4, as i could no longer handle the idiocy.
i would just like to ask Theminer to please stfu, because people think you're from north america and you're making the rest of us north americans look intolerant, ignorant, and just generally stupid.
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S STUPID. DIFFERENT PEOPLE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN ONE WAY HAS TO BE SUPERIOR.
end.
________________________________________________________
|
Xenu
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 15:41:00 -
[426]
i stopped reading at page 4, as i could no longer handle the idiocy.
i would just like to ask Theminer to please stfu, because people think you're from north america and you're making the rest of us north americans look intolerant, ignorant, and just generally stupid.
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S STUPID. DIFFERENT PEOPLE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN ONE WAY HAS TO BE SUPERIOR.
end.
________________________________________________________
|
DarkMatter
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 16:10:00 -
[427]
OMG was this thread ever hijacked
I'm glad I don't do that to threads on this board, I'd be hated for sure...
|
DarkMatter
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 16:10:00 -
[428]
OMG was this thread ever hijacked
I'm glad I don't do that to threads on this board, I'd be hated for sure...
|
Kaleigh Doyle
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 16:45:00 -
[429]
Originally by: Hakera
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Don't forget the redheads, they're all witches!
I'd offer TheMiner and Meehan a private room so they can both compare the sizes of their wee wee's, but I'd never get a straight answer 'cause they'd be arguing over decimals and commas, the metric system, inferiority of the other man, and the very existence of the 'wee wee' itself.
sheesh...
And to stay on topic, this is the first I've heard about 11,484 players!
Glamour Bunnies Entertainment Corporation
|
Kaleigh Doyle
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 16:45:00 -
[430]
Originally by: Hakera
left handed people are unnatural!
burn them at the stake!
Don't forget the redheads, they're all witches!
I'd offer TheMiner and Meehan a private room so they can both compare the sizes of their wee wee's, but I'd never get a straight answer 'cause they'd be arguing over decimals and commas, the metric system, inferiority of the other man, and the very existence of the 'wee wee' itself.
sheesh...
And to stay on topic, this is the first I've heard about 11,484 players!
Glamour Bunnies Entertainment Corporation
|
herot
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 16:49:00 -
[431]
Edited by: herot on 13/10/2004 16:52:52
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Decimal%20separator
I would personaly prefer for them to use the SI style(as in link above) in Eve and let us choose the decimal separator depending on country or preference.
|
herot
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 16:49:00 -
[432]
Edited by: herot on 13/10/2004 16:52:52
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Decimal%20separator
I would personaly prefer for them to use the SI style(as in link above) in Eve and let us choose the decimal separator depending on country or preference.
|
Kitten Hearder
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 16:57:00 -
[433]
Another pointless thread. Reminds me of "The Waterthread" (the thread, not the webside).
---------
Kitten Hearder
Evolution made my sig
Less Entertaining
than your's. |
Kitten Hearder
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 16:57:00 -
[434]
Another pointless thread. Reminds me of "The Waterthread" (the thread, not the webside).
---------
Kitten Hearder
Evolution made my sig
Less Entertaining
than your's. |
Racknan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 17:03:00 -
[435]
I feel dumber now that I read this supid post.
I'm also sad to admit that people like this actually play eve. Please return your computer to where ever you bought it and buy a Mac. Please.
|
Racknan
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 17:03:00 -
[436]
I feel dumber now that I read this supid post.
I'm also sad to admit that people like this actually play eve. Please return your computer to where ever you bought it and buy a Mac. Please.
|
Lan2
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 17:04:00 -
[437]
Originally by: herot
I would personaly prefer for them to use the SI style(as in link above) in Eve and let us choose the decimal separator depending on country or preference.
I believe you can, just edit the prefs.ini file. I think it's in there. Haven't poked around in that file for a while now.
|
Lan2
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 17:04:00 -
[438]
Originally by: herot
I would personaly prefer for them to use the SI style(as in link above) in Eve and let us choose the decimal separator depending on country or preference.
I believe you can, just edit the prefs.ini file. I think it's in there. Haven't poked around in that file for a while now.
|
Fortior
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 17:28:00 -
[439]
Heh, very interesting thread. I got tired after reading page 7. You can certainly draw a few conclusions about this:
1. Threads are very easy to high-jack.
2. Wars can most certainly be started over the most trivial things. If TheMiner and Meehan would have had this argument in real life, things could easily have escalated into a fist fight and I would've bet money on it
3. I really wasted 15 minutes of my life reading this, ultimately, pointless thread. More importantly, 15 minutes of Simpsons. Someone, give them back to me!
|
Fortior
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 17:28:00 -
[440]
Heh, very interesting thread. I got tired after reading page 7. You can certainly draw a few conclusions about this:
1. Threads are very easy to high-jack.
2. Wars can most certainly be started over the most trivial things. If TheMiner and Meehan would have had this argument in real life, things could easily have escalated into a fist fight and I would've bet money on it
3. I really wasted 15 minutes of my life reading this, ultimately, pointless thread. More importantly, 15 minutes of Simpsons. Someone, give them back to me!
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 17:28:00 -
[441]
Originally by: Arkanis
Originally by: Scorpyn
We used to drive on the left side of the road in Sweden too, but then we realized that it was bad and changed it. Mostly because most of us don't use swords any more, especially not while driving.
Yes but we're completely over ran by DRAGONS.
Its been proven guns don't kill them and only swords do.
We're required by law to carry a sword at all times incase of attack by DRAGON, or Millwall fans.
Ok... we don't have that problem, we killed all the dragons when we wanted a big party a few centuries ago...
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 17:28:00 -
[442]
Originally by: Arkanis
Originally by: Scorpyn
We used to drive on the left side of the road in Sweden too, but then we realized that it was bad and changed it. Mostly because most of us don't use swords any more, especially not while driving.
Yes but we're completely over ran by DRAGONS.
Its been proven guns don't kill them and only swords do.
We're required by law to carry a sword at all times incase of attack by DRAGON, or Millwall fans.
Ok... we don't have that problem, we killed all the dragons when we wanted a big party a few centuries ago...
|
Rask
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 17:54:00 -
[443]
Edited by: Rask on 13/10/2004 17:56:46
People think they can be objective about things. but they can't Everyone is influanced by there perceptions and experinces. you objective thoughts are within the context of what you have experinced in your life.
If you define some act as Good, then it is good from within the context of your mindset. Comunitys and sociaties share many common definitions, language is a comonly agreed appon set of sounds to repersent things/concepts. So nomater how yo define something someone else will have a slightly different concept of what that means.
so who you are defines how you see and judge the world, People argure that if you stay to facts (or numbers) then there is no room for interpitation. but they are wrong, a fact may have greater or lesser wait on a persons choice becuse of there experinces.
We are what we have experinced.
this is in respons to a bunch of posest on page 11.
|
Rask
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 17:54:00 -
[444]
Edited by: Rask on 13/10/2004 17:56:46
People think they can be objective about things. but they can't Everyone is influanced by there perceptions and experinces. you objective thoughts are within the context of what you have experinced in your life.
If you define some act as Good, then it is good from within the context of your mindset. Comunitys and sociaties share many common definitions, language is a comonly agreed appon set of sounds to repersent things/concepts. So nomater how yo define something someone else will have a slightly different concept of what that means.
so who you are defines how you see and judge the world, People argure that if you stay to facts (or numbers) then there is no room for interpitation. but they are wrong, a fact may have greater or lesser wait on a persons choice becuse of there experinces.
We are what we have experinced.
this is in respons to a bunch of posest on page 11.
|
The Mariachi
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 18:21:00 -
[445]
*yawn*
Somebody PLEASE lock this pointless and irritating thread!
A person's signature often reveals one's character, and sometimes one's name |
The Mariachi
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 18:21:00 -
[446]
*yawn*
Somebody PLEASE lock this pointless and irritating thread!
A person's signature often reveals one's character, and sometimes one's name |
Burga Galti
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 18:33:00 -
[447]
ROFLMAO - This is the best thread I've seen in ages!!
In reference to the numbers & metric argument I'd like to add this little story.
There were two teams helping to design a mars lander. One team was using metres, the other feet. Unfortunatly both teams thought they were using the same system.
The day comes when they are touching down. Team A reads 2 metres till touch down when Team B had programmed the craft and it was actually 2 feet above the surface. Oops.
Oh, and rather as write 90057365896946957 or 90,057,365,896,946,957 I'd write 9.006x10^16
Oh, and time cannot truely be defined as it is not constant. This has been proven using atomic clocks.
Right handed people win, because I'm right handed
The left is right okay.
And dragons are cool.
Tales from the EVE Cluster |
Burga Galti
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 18:33:00 -
[448]
ROFLMAO - This is the best thread I've seen in ages!!
In reference to the numbers & metric argument I'd like to add this little story.
There were two teams helping to design a mars lander. One team was using metres, the other feet. Unfortunatly both teams thought they were using the same system.
The day comes when they are touching down. Team A reads 2 metres till touch down when Team B had programmed the craft and it was actually 2 feet above the surface. Oops.
Oh, and rather as write 90057365896946957 or 90,057,365,896,946,957 I'd write 9.006x10^16
Oh, and time cannot truely be defined as it is not constant. This has been proven using atomic clocks.
Right handed people win, because I'm right handed
The left is right okay.
And dragons are cool.
Tales from the EVE Cluster |
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 18:46:00 -
[449]
Originally by: The Mariachi
*yawn*
Somebody PLEASE lock this pointless and irritating thread!
I disagree. This is FAR from pointless, as it's keeping a lot of pointless discussion here and not in the other threads and forums. :)
___winterblink/warp_drive_active/eve_nature_vraie// |
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 18:46:00 -
[450]
Originally by: The Mariachi
*yawn*
Somebody PLEASE lock this pointless and irritating thread!
I disagree. This is FAR from pointless, as it's keeping a lot of pointless discussion here and not in the other threads and forums. :)
___winterblink/warp_drive_active/eve_nature_vraie// |
Chade Malloy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 18:52:00 -
[451]
I gave up reading through all this too after page eight; one or the most ridiculous threads i had ever read
But i can remember this mars lander which burned in the atmosphere cause some of the technicans calculated the route in miles and other ones in kilometers
...and i write 12345,67 ;)
Patience wins. |
Chade Malloy
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 18:52:00 -
[452]
I gave up reading through all this too after page eight; one or the most ridiculous threads i had ever read
But i can remember this mars lander which burned in the atmosphere cause some of the technicans calculated the route in miles and other ones in kilometers
...and i write 12345,67 ;)
Patience wins. |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:00:00 -
[453]
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
uh, no...
you see, that much loved rope-knot method was developed as a smokescreen to fool the aliens that were their masters and kept careful watch over their civilization. the aliens wouldn't allow the Inca to read or write in the early days of the civilization.
the civ was still in alpha...
rope-knot = exploit!
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:00:00 -
[454]
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
uh, no...
you see, that much loved rope-knot method was developed as a smokescreen to fool the aliens that were their masters and kept careful watch over their civilization. the aliens wouldn't allow the Inca to read or write in the early days of the civilization.
the civ was still in alpha...
rope-knot = exploit!
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:09:00 -
[455]
Originally by: mahhy
Originally by: TheMiner
But I CAN tell you that the English system of miles, feet, and inches SUCKS compared to the metric system. Thats just a fact.
Why? What proves that as a *fact*?
Personally I prefer metric versus imperial, but the point of this entire argument is simply: whatever you're used to is best for you. Not better than other ways categorically, just better for you.
What you stated above is not a fact, its an opinion.
I would guess it would be impossible to *PROVE* one systems superiority over anothers. If anyone can suggest a method to do so without resorting to any sort of "its easier this way" mumbo jumbo, please do so. Ease of use all depends on the persons experience with said system.
Silly arguement really. Fun, but silly.
two groups of 1000 who have no understanding of anything. so, 2000 babies held in controlled environments. one taught the "us" way, the other taught the, not sure what to call either of them, uh, "euro" way. see which group does better...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:09:00 -
[456]
Originally by: mahhy
Originally by: TheMiner
But I CAN tell you that the English system of miles, feet, and inches SUCKS compared to the metric system. Thats just a fact.
Why? What proves that as a *fact*?
Personally I prefer metric versus imperial, but the point of this entire argument is simply: whatever you're used to is best for you. Not better than other ways categorically, just better for you.
What you stated above is not a fact, its an opinion.
I would guess it would be impossible to *PROVE* one systems superiority over anothers. If anyone can suggest a method to do so without resorting to any sort of "its easier this way" mumbo jumbo, please do so. Ease of use all depends on the persons experience with said system.
Silly arguement really. Fun, but silly.
two groups of 1000 who have no understanding of anything. so, 2000 babies held in controlled environments. one taught the "us" way, the other taught the, not sure what to call either of them, uh, "euro" way. see which group does better...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:16:00 -
[457]
Edited by: flummox on 13/10/2004 21:21:17
stupid double post!
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:16:00 -
[458]
Edited by: flummox on 13/10/2004 21:21:17
stupid double post!
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
Mephorios
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:16:00 -
[459]
IBTL
On a more, well, serious is the wrong word, but the closest I can come to, the term 'superior' in English seems to denote that there is a better or a higher outside of human cognition. That it would remain superiour or better with or without judgement. It would be an innate quality.
Does superior mean ease of use and application? Where would the ease come from? Experience of a particular system, perhaps? Since application of a system and familiarity with it with vary upon innumerable variables, you can't make the claim that something is 'superior' in general, only in reference to yourself.
If we were going for strait 'better' system of numbers, binary would be the way to fly. And yes, you could tell after a time at looking at that what the numbers where. But, since our minds don't work by allowing electrons to flow between points, we're more adaptable than that, and can associate many symbols with meaning.
Kinda like when I say stfu n00b.
|
Mephorios
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:16:00 -
[460]
IBTL
On a more, well, serious is the wrong word, but the closest I can come to, the term 'superior' in English seems to denote that there is a better or a higher outside of human cognition. That it would remain superiour or better with or without judgement. It would be an innate quality.
Does superior mean ease of use and application? Where would the ease come from? Experience of a particular system, perhaps? Since application of a system and familiarity with it with vary upon innumerable variables, you can't make the claim that something is 'superior' in general, only in reference to yourself.
If we were going for strait 'better' system of numbers, binary would be the way to fly. And yes, you could tell after a time at looking at that what the numbers where. But, since our minds don't work by allowing electrons to flow between points, we're more adaptable than that, and can associate many symbols with meaning.
Kinda like when I say stfu n00b.
|
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:17:00 -
[461]
Edited by: flummox on 13/10/2004 21:24:07
another stupid double post!
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:17:00 -
[462]
Edited by: flummox on 13/10/2004 21:24:07
another stupid double post!
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:18:00 -
[463]
Originally by: TheMiner
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 09:50:37
Originally by: mahhy
.
I would guess it would be impossible to *PROVE* one systems superiority over anothers. If anyone can suggest a method to do so without resorting to any sort of "its easier this way" mumbo jumbo, please do so.
Hey.. I want you to PROVE to me that 7.0 is a higher number than 6.0 ..... But no using "becasue it has a greater value" or "its higher on a number line" mumbo jumbo. Please do so.
because 7.0 smoked more pot than 6.0...
so seriously. what do you mean by "higher" ? i don't visualize numbers on any scale. so "higher" is not a good term. "greater" ? again, confused...
which brings us back to the "everything is relative" discussion.
if the law states that "less than 10 grams but more than 2.5" is a misdemeanor and "less than 30 grams but more than 10" is a felony, then i'd have to say that in this instance, being caught with less pot is "greater" than being caught with more...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:18:00 -
[464]
Originally by: TheMiner
Edited by: TheMiner on 13/10/2004 09:50:37
Originally by: mahhy
.
I would guess it would be impossible to *PROVE* one systems superiority over anothers. If anyone can suggest a method to do so without resorting to any sort of "its easier this way" mumbo jumbo, please do so.
Hey.. I want you to PROVE to me that 7.0 is a higher number than 6.0 ..... But no using "becasue it has a greater value" or "its higher on a number line" mumbo jumbo. Please do so.
because 7.0 smoked more pot than 6.0...
so seriously. what do you mean by "higher" ? i don't visualize numbers on any scale. so "higher" is not a good term. "greater" ? again, confused...
which brings us back to the "everything is relative" discussion.
if the law states that "less than 10 grams but more than 2.5" is a misdemeanor and "less than 30 grams but more than 10" is a felony, then i'd have to say that in this instance, being caught with less pot is "greater" than being caught with more...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
Turyleon Caddarn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:55:00 -
[465]
(i agree with TheMiner btw )
I use metric measurements, which makes a lot of sense to me, because we use a base 10 numerical system, so having some wierd imperial system just adds confusion. Plus the metic system is based on the size/weight of a molecule of water (correct me if im wrong), so eg, 1 litre wieghs 1 kilo. Makes logical sense to me, though i do use the imperial system, simply because some of things i do ivolve repairing foriegn products.
i also use numbers like this: 4,345,678.88 ISK
i do however use both 11:00PM and 2300 time measurements tho. again it simply depends onwhere i am/who im with. metric time is just wierd - And i dont wanna have to buy a new watch !!
"I know this game, it's called Cat and Mouse. There's only one way to win......... Don't be the mouse." |
Turyleon Caddarn
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 21:55:00 -
[466]
(i agree with TheMiner btw )
I use metric measurements, which makes a lot of sense to me, because we use a base 10 numerical system, so having some wierd imperial system just adds confusion. Plus the metic system is based on the size/weight of a molecule of water (correct me if im wrong), so eg, 1 litre wieghs 1 kilo. Makes logical sense to me, though i do use the imperial system, simply because some of things i do ivolve repairing foriegn products.
i also use numbers like this: 4,345,678.88 ISK
i do however use both 11:00PM and 2300 time measurements tho. again it simply depends onwhere i am/who im with. metric time is just wierd - And i dont wanna have to buy a new watch !!
"I know this game, it's called Cat and Mouse. There's only one way to win......... Don't be the mouse." |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 22:20:00 -
[467]
Edited by: Hakera on 13/10/2004 22:23:28
Originally by: Turyleon Caddarn
Plus the metic system is based on the size/weight of a molecule of water (correct me if im wrong), so eg, 1 litre wieghs 1 kilo.
correct, 1 litre of water = 1 kg when thinking about density (using water at 4c as the base unit of 1) . However litre is an imperial unit so you must use cm3 ie 1 litre = 1000 cm3 or 1dm3 and density is commonally g cm3
and using commas for thousand seperators is standardised in science journals as well to avoid confusion hence its 1,000,000.00
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 22:20:00 -
[468]
Edited by: Hakera on 13/10/2004 22:23:28
Originally by: Turyleon Caddarn
Plus the metic system is based on the size/weight of a molecule of water (correct me if im wrong), so eg, 1 litre wieghs 1 kilo.
correct, 1 litre of water = 1 kg when thinking about density (using water at 4c as the base unit of 1) . However litre is an imperial unit so you must use cm3 ie 1 litre = 1000 cm3 or 1dm3 and density is commonally g cm3
and using commas for thousand seperators is standardised in science journals as well to avoid confusion hence its 1,000,000.00
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 22:59:00 -
[469]
"4 farthings to a pence
240 pence to ú1
12 pence to a shilling (also known as bob)
5 shillings to a crown
20 shillings in a pound
21 shillings in a guinea"
The above system is obviously inferior to a base 10 system where
10 "cents" = 1 "dime"
10 "dimes" = 1 "dollar"
Yes, personal use will make one UNCOMFORTABLE in switching. But that has nothing to do with the actual logical superiority of the system.
"Superior" and "inferior" DO exist. A tank is superior to a slingshot. Paint the lasts 10 years is superior to paint that only lasts 2 years. Being in good health is superior to being in bad health. "Good health" and "Bad health" are somewhat general but you stil lcant argue with it is better to be fit and in shape and healthy than to be bed ridden and sick and stinky. Also, common sense must be applied in each of these comparisons. A tank is not superior to a sling shot if all you want to do is shoot your brother on the arm as a joke. But in general, using "common sense," when one says a tank is better than a slingshot all non-retarded people instantly know "for general use in a war where 2 sides are trying to kill eachother."
So go ahead and be all philosphical and silly and try and twist things (not saying all philosphy is "the twisting of things") but you cannot argue with me when I say that receiving a gold medal in the Olympics is better than getting beaten and robbed in a dark allyway.
Things can be better than other things. FACT.
Metric system(meters etc) is SUPERIOR to the English(feet) system. Your personal comfort does not matter. If all knowledge of each system was instantly erased from all humans minds, and then we were to chose which system all of us should learn and use for the next 50,000(fifty thousend) years it would only be logical and proper to chose the metric system. PERIOD. PERIOD. YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THAT. PERIOD.
-----------------------------
"And to stay on topic, this is the first I've heard about 11,484 players"
Only 11 players? FTP is up with the 484/1000ths of a player? (j/k)
-----------------------------
"i would just like to ask Theminer to please stfu, because people think you're from north america and you're making the rest of us north americans look intolerant, ignorant, and just generally stupid."
Um.. no sir. You are wrong. You obviously did not read everything. You give me specific reasons and I will refute them easily.
-------------------------------
"JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S STUPID. DIFFERENT PEOPLE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN ONE WAY HAS TO BE SUPERIOR."
You also, sir. You obviously did not read everything. so why are you ignorantly spurting this trash out of your mouth when you did not read everything? I have ZERO PROBLEM with people using , instead of . and . instead of ,. IN THE BEGINNING, before it was explained to me, I questioned it deeply -- untill people were intelligent enough to, without using flawed arguments, show me how their system works. I am in absolutly no way saying that it is bad to write numbers like this 5645,43 or 545 354 543,56.
What I *AM* saying is that it is bad to write 89458969843895 instead of 89,458,969,843,895.
Thats it! How can you argue against that? LOL. So weak! SO WEAK! People trying to talk about weird concepts that totally do not apply... LOL! If this msgboard was RL, then I just became the emperor of the universe.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.13 22:59:00 -
[470]
"4 farthings to a pence
240 pence to ú1
12 pence to a shilling (also known as bob)
5 shillings to a crown
20 shillings in a pound
21 shillings in a guinea"
The above system is obviously inferior to a base 10 system where
10 "cents" = 1 "dime"
10 "dimes" = 1 "dollar"
Yes, personal use will make one UNCOMFORTABLE in switching. But that has nothing to do with the actual logical superiority of the system.
"Superior" and "inferior" DO exist. A tank is superior to a slingshot. Paint the lasts 10 years is superior to paint that only lasts 2 years. Being in good health is superior to being in bad health. "Good health" and "Bad health" are somewhat general but you stil lcant argue with it is better to be fit and in shape and healthy than to be bed ridden and sick and stinky. Also, common sense must be applied in each of these comparisons. A tank is not superior to a sling shot if all you want to do is shoot your brother on the arm as a joke. But in general, using "common sense," when one says a tank is better than a slingshot all non-retarded people instantly know "for general use in a war where 2 sides are trying to kill eachother."
So go ahead and be all philosphical and silly and try and twist things (not saying all philosphy is "the twisting of things") but you cannot argue with me when I say that receiving a gold medal in the Olympics is better than getting beaten and robbed in a dark allyway.
Things can be better than other things. FACT.
Metric system(meters etc) is SUPERIOR to the English(feet) system. Your personal comfort does not matter. If all knowledge of each system was instantly erased from all humans minds, and then we were to chose which system all of us should learn and use for the next 50,000(fifty thousend) years it would only be logical and proper to chose the metric system. PERIOD. PERIOD. YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THAT. PERIOD.
-----------------------------
"And to stay on topic, this is the first I've heard about 11,484 players"
Only 11 players? FTP is up with the 484/1000ths of a player? (j/k)
-----------------------------
"i would just like to ask Theminer to please stfu, because people think you're from north america and you're making the rest of us north americans look intolerant, ignorant, and just generally stupid."
Um.. no sir. You are wrong. You obviously did not read everything. You give me specific reasons and I will refute them easily.
-------------------------------
"JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S STUPID. DIFFERENT PEOPLE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN ONE WAY HAS TO BE SUPERIOR."
You also, sir. You obviously did not read everything. so why are you ignorantly spurting this trash out of your mouth when you did not read everything? I have ZERO PROBLEM with people using , instead of . and . instead of ,. IN THE BEGINNING, before it was explained to me, I questioned it deeply -- untill people were intelligent enough to, without using flawed arguments, show me how their system works. I am in absolutly no way saying that it is bad to write numbers like this 5645,43 or 545 354 543,56.
What I *AM* saying is that it is bad to write 89458969843895 instead of 89,458,969,843,895.
Thats it! How can you argue against that? LOL. So weak! SO WEAK! People trying to talk about weird concepts that totally do not apply... LOL! If this msgboard was RL, then I just became the emperor of the universe.
|
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 00:18:00 -
[471]
Please discuss the metric system, philosophy and you're relatives but dont result into personal attacks or trolling.
Thank you
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 00:18:00 -
[472]
Please discuss the metric system, philosophy and you're relatives but dont result into personal attacks or trolling.
Thank you
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Power
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 00:29:00 -
[473]
Originally by: TheMiner
4 farthings to a pence
240 pence to ú1
12 pence to a shilling (also known as bob)
5 shillings to a crown
20 shillings in a pound
21 shillings in a guinea"
This system was used due to the fact that 240 had many divisors
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120].
So in essence it is a superior system that takes great skill to use but also provides great reward. Just a pity not everyone could handle its complex subtleties.
|
Power
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 00:29:00 -
[474]
Originally by: TheMiner
4 farthings to a pence
240 pence to ú1
12 pence to a shilling (also known as bob)
5 shillings to a crown
20 shillings in a pound
21 shillings in a guinea"
This system was used due to the fact that 240 had many divisors
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120].
So in essence it is a superior system that takes great skill to use but also provides great reward. Just a pity not everyone could handle its complex subtleties.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 00:52:00 -
[475]
I disagree. I mean... it makes more sense than it did before..but who cares if its all divisable by tons of diff numbers...it still is awkward in terms of looking at a unit of money and QUICKLY/ACCURATLY calculating how many of X it equals.
How many dimes in a dollar?
How many pennys in 4 dimes?
How many dollars in 17 dimes?
How many farthings in 18 pence?
How many shillings in 3 guinea?
How many pounds in 10 shillings?
sure, using each system will make you faster at either of them..but one system is remarkably easy and accurate.. while the other involves a lot more memorization and calculations.
The base 10 system is, indeed, superior.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 00:52:00 -
[476]
I disagree. I mean... it makes more sense than it did before..but who cares if its all divisable by tons of diff numbers...it still is awkward in terms of looking at a unit of money and QUICKLY/ACCURATLY calculating how many of X it equals.
How many dimes in a dollar?
How many pennys in 4 dimes?
How many dollars in 17 dimes?
How many farthings in 18 pence?
How many shillings in 3 guinea?
How many pounds in 10 shillings?
sure, using each system will make you faster at either of them..but one system is remarkably easy and accurate.. while the other involves a lot more memorization and calculations.
The base 10 system is, indeed, superior.
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 06:30:00 -
[477]
Edited by: F'nog on 14/10/2004 06:38:46
Puts on teaching hat:
sinistra is the feminine, nominative singular of sinister, as well as the neuter nominative/accusative plural, sinister being the masculine, singular, nominative and dictionary form of the word.
Now back to the bickering (which I find highly entertaining).
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 06:30:00 -
[478]
Edited by: F'nog on 14/10/2004 06:38:46
Puts on teaching hat:
sinistra is the feminine, nominative singular of sinister, as well as the neuter nominative/accusative plural, sinister being the masculine, singular, nominative and dictionary form of the word.
Now back to the bickering (which I find highly entertaining).
|
Etigo wyr
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 06:32:00 -
[479]
Arguing against the fact that there are no superior systems must be stupid!
its like saying a 1-legged man is the same as a 2-legged man!
Both will eventually get there but who¦s first?
If ya say both get there at same time i dunno where ya commin from!
But if ya say the 2-legged man ya say that there are superior systems!
It all comes down to efficency!!
If one system are more efficent then the other its also superior!
So today Metric-system are superior but not maybe tomorrow!
|
Etigo wyr
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 06:32:00 -
[480]
Arguing against the fact that there are no superior systems must be stupid!
its like saying a 1-legged man is the same as a 2-legged man!
Both will eventually get there but who¦s first?
If ya say both get there at same time i dunno where ya commin from!
But if ya say the 2-legged man ya say that there are superior systems!
It all comes down to efficency!!
If one system are more efficent then the other its also superior!
So today Metric-system are superior but not maybe tomorrow!
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 07:08:00 -
[481]
Miner, face it: you can declare victory as much as you want, but just like a certain ruler of a certain country, it doesn't mean it's true. This is a subjective argument. Therefore, you are entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. You can believe one thing is superior to another, but other people can disagree. It's just the way the world works. Deal with it.
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 07:08:00 -
[482]
Miner, face it: you can declare victory as much as you want, but just like a certain ruler of a certain country, it doesn't mean it's true. This is a subjective argument. Therefore, you are entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. You can believe one thing is superior to another, but other people can disagree. It's just the way the world works. Deal with it.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 08:20:00 -
[483]
Originally by: flummox
two groups of 1000 who have no understanding of anything. so, 2000 babies held in controlled environments. one taught the "us" way, the other taught the, not sure what to call either of them, uh, "euro" way. see which group does better...
Okay, just for clarification though, what decides which group does better? I'd suggest maybe a math quiz of estimated equal difficulty, one using metric one usthing the other measurements
Might **** off the mum's though if we kept their babies in a sealed environment.
And I simply cannot believe this thread is still going
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 08:20:00 -
[484]
Originally by: flummox
two groups of 1000 who have no understanding of anything. so, 2000 babies held in controlled environments. one taught the "us" way, the other taught the, not sure what to call either of them, uh, "euro" way. see which group does better...
Okay, just for clarification though, what decides which group does better? I'd suggest maybe a math quiz of estimated equal difficulty, one using metric one usthing the other measurements
Might **** off the mum's though if we kept their babies in a sealed environment.
And I simply cannot believe this thread is still going
|
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 08:38:00 -
[485]
We should all use binary systems of measurement!
You know it makes sense!
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 08:38:00 -
[486]
We should all use binary systems of measurement!
You know it makes sense!
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 08:46:00 -
[487]
I wanted to buy Eris a diamond ring, but the diamond and the gold were both measured in inferior imperial measurements, so I bought her some pie instead.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 08:46:00 -
[488]
I wanted to buy Eris a diamond ring, but the diamond and the gold were both measured in inferior imperial measurements, so I bought her some pie instead.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Burga Galti
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 09:03:00 -
[489]
Originally by: TheMiner
I disagree. I mean... it makes more sense than it did before..but who cares if its all divisable by tons of diff numbers...it still is awkward in terms of looking at a unit of money and QUICKLY/ACCURATLY calculating how many of X it equals.
How many dimes in a dollar?
How many pennys in 4 dimes?
How many dollars in 17 dimes?
How many farthings in 18 pence?
How many shillings in 3 guinea?
How many pounds in 10 shillings?
sure, using each system will make you faster at either of them..but one system is remarkably easy and accurate.. while the other involves a lot more memorization and calculations.
The base 10 system is, indeed, superior.
Well one things for sure, people who used the shillings & farthings system could do it quickly and accurately and were also much superior at mental arithmatic. Two superiorities for the price of one you could say!
Tales from the EVE Cluster |
Burga Galti
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 09:03:00 -
[490]
Originally by: TheMiner
I disagree. I mean... it makes more sense than it did before..but who cares if its all divisable by tons of diff numbers...it still is awkward in terms of looking at a unit of money and QUICKLY/ACCURATLY calculating how many of X it equals.
How many dimes in a dollar?
How many pennys in 4 dimes?
How many dollars in 17 dimes?
How many farthings in 18 pence?
How many shillings in 3 guinea?
How many pounds in 10 shillings?
sure, using each system will make you faster at either of them..but one system is remarkably easy and accurate.. while the other involves a lot more memorization and calculations.
The base 10 system is, indeed, superior.
Well one things for sure, people who used the shillings & farthings system could do it quickly and accurately and were also much superior at mental arithmatic. Two superiorities for the price of one you could say!
Tales from the EVE Cluster |
F'nog
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 09:03:00 -
[491]
If the children are in a sealed environment, won't they just sufficate?
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 09:03:00 -
[492]
If the children are in a sealed environment, won't they just sufficate?
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 09:21:00 -
[493]
The reason the Imperial system became so wide-spread is because it is actually easier to use for real-world, non-scientific, applications.
It all has to do with incremental divisors.
The human brain is much better at integer maths, until we get decent floating point brains this will always be the way.
So, you need a system that has the most possible division possibilities whilst maintaining integer answers. No one wants the pay for his or her goods rounded down, so maintaining integer results is preferred.
The metric system is based on the number 10, which has 3 natural divisors; 2, 5, 10 (1 is ignored because the result is unchanged).
The imperial system uses several base values, but 12 is a common value, so lets use that. 12 has 5 natural divisors; 2,3,4,6,12 (1 again is ignored). This gives a higher level of division accuracy whilst maintaining integer results.
Imperial was, and probably is, a superior system to metric for most simple real-life applications, simply because the human mind can cope better with the fractional maths which the Imperial system depends on, as opposed to the decimal mathematics which the metric system uses.
The metric system (using decimal numbers as opposed to fractions) really depends on a more abstract view of the world, one where integers are less important.
The Imperial system is really one for the physical world, metric is more abstract (but is better for scientific calculations).
It is all about application.
Finally, the units (Imperial or SI) are irrelevant. An inch is no worse a measurement that a centimetre. A second no worse than a beat. A gallon no worse than litre. All are arbitrary. All that matters is that we can in someway relate to the unit used as it applies to the world around us.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 09:21:00 -
[494]
The reason the Imperial system became so wide-spread is because it is actually easier to use for real-world, non-scientific, applications.
It all has to do with incremental divisors.
The human brain is much better at integer maths, until we get decent floating point brains this will always be the way.
So, you need a system that has the most possible division possibilities whilst maintaining integer answers. No one wants the pay for his or her goods rounded down, so maintaining integer results is preferred.
The metric system is based on the number 10, which has 3 natural divisors; 2, 5, 10 (1 is ignored because the result is unchanged).
The imperial system uses several base values, but 12 is a common value, so lets use that. 12 has 5 natural divisors; 2,3,4,6,12 (1 again is ignored). This gives a higher level of division accuracy whilst maintaining integer results.
Imperial was, and probably is, a superior system to metric for most simple real-life applications, simply because the human mind can cope better with the fractional maths which the Imperial system depends on, as opposed to the decimal mathematics which the metric system uses.
The metric system (using decimal numbers as opposed to fractions) really depends on a more abstract view of the world, one where integers are less important.
The Imperial system is really one for the physical world, metric is more abstract (but is better for scientific calculations).
It is all about application.
Finally, the units (Imperial or SI) are irrelevant. An inch is no worse a measurement that a centimetre. A second no worse than a beat. A gallon no worse than litre. All are arbitrary. All that matters is that we can in someway relate to the unit used as it applies to the world around us.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 10:48:00 -
[495]
Avon.. wrong. You are wrong. Its easier to fivide by 5 and 2 and 10 than by 6 and 4 and 12 and crap like that. Face it. You are wrong. Metric system is superior. EVERYONE KNOWS IT. It is common sense. I live in America where we use the Fricking English System (FES) and I went around in stores and at college today and asked people which system is "superior" (i used that exact word" and 9 out of 10, even though we dont use it here, said the metric system is superior. When I lived in the Philippines for a few years (where they use the metric system) they also beleived the metric system is better than the FES.
You people are only arguing against me because you do not like my, myself. You have a personal dislike for ME so you are bending your morals and lying to yourselves. The metric system is superior. Period.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 10:48:00 -
[496]
Avon.. wrong. You are wrong. Its easier to fivide by 5 and 2 and 10 than by 6 and 4 and 12 and crap like that. Face it. You are wrong. Metric system is superior. EVERYONE KNOWS IT. It is common sense. I live in America where we use the Fricking English System (FES) and I went around in stores and at college today and asked people which system is "superior" (i used that exact word" and 9 out of 10, even though we dont use it here, said the metric system is superior. When I lived in the Philippines for a few years (where they use the metric system) they also beleived the metric system is better than the FES.
You people are only arguing against me because you do not like my, myself. You have a personal dislike for ME so you are bending your morals and lying to yourselves. The metric system is superior. Period.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 11:02:00 -
[497]
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 -
[498]
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.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 11:12:00 -
[499]
Edited by: Avon on 14/10/2004 11:15:21
Originally by: TheMiner
Avon.. wrong. You are wrong. Its easier to fivide by 5 and 2 and 10 than by 6 and 4 and 12 and crap like that. Face it. You are wrong. Metric system is superior. EVERYONE KNOWS IT. It is common sense. I live in America where we use the Fricking English System (FES) and I went around in stores and at college today and asked people which system is "superior" (i used that exact word" and 9 out of 10, even though we dont use it here, said the metric system is superior. When I lived in the Philippines for a few years (where they use the metric system) they also beleived the metric system is better than the FES.
You people are only arguing against me because you do not like my, myself. You have a personal dislike for ME so you are bending your morals and lying to yourselves. The metric system is superior. Period.
Well, thank you for your insightful reply - you clearly spent some considerable time and effort constructing and considering it.
You have not yet explained to me how metric time is better than imperial time.
Both systems are different, but neither are inherently better than the other. They are, however, better suited to different tasks.
Your argument about division is ridiculous, it is no easier to divide by 5 than it is 6, 9, 11, 103, 42, whatever – so long as the result is an integer. The point is that some numbers have more possible natural divisors, which means that a greater level of divisional accuracy can be obtained more easily, simply because humans can cope with integer math better when doing mental arithmetic. That distinction is not important in scientific work, whereas the ability to directly relate measurements is.
It is easier to divide 309 by 103 in your head than it is to divide it by 5 in your head.
The Imperial system is about obtaining the best possible level of accuracy without resorting to mathematical calculation. Imperial units are generally easier for most people to perceive as they are based on the natural world and proportional relationships.
The metric system, however, is superbly suited to scientific work. The relationship between units, and the ease of calculation (not mental arithmetic), make notation, derision (something you know all about), and expression clearer.
Your argument is quite shallow. I am happy to accept both systems have their merits, whilst you dogmatically hold fast to your blinkered view.
Nature is not metric, and it seems to work just fine, so maybe there is more to the world and our place in it than your narrow mindedness will permit you to see?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 11:12:00 -
[500]
Edited by: Avon on 14/10/2004 11:15:21
Originally by: TheMiner
Avon.. wrong. You are wrong. Its easier to fivide by 5 and 2 and 10 than by 6 and 4 and 12 and crap like that. Face it. You are wrong. Metric system is superior. EVERYONE KNOWS IT. It is common sense. I live in America where we use the Fricking English System (FES) and I went around in stores and at college today and asked people which system is "superior" (i used that exact word" and 9 out of 10, even though we dont use it here, said the metric system is superior. When I lived in the Philippines for a few years (where they use the metric system) they also beleived the metric system is better than the FES.
You people are only arguing against me because you do not like my, myself. You have a personal dislike for ME so you are bending your morals and lying to yourselves. The metric system is superior. Period.
Well, thank you for your insightful reply - you clearly spent some considerable time and effort constructing and considering it.
You have not yet explained to me how metric time is better than imperial time.
Both systems are different, but neither are inherently better than the other. They are, however, better suited to different tasks.
Your argument about division is ridiculous, it is no easier to divide by 5 than it is 6, 9, 11, 103, 42, whatever – so long as the result is an integer. The point is that some numbers have more possible natural divisors, which means that a greater level of divisional accuracy can be obtained more easily, simply because humans can cope with integer math better when doing mental arithmetic. That distinction is not important in scientific work, whereas the ability to directly relate measurements is.
It is easier to divide 309 by 103 in your head than it is to divide it by 5 in your head.
The Imperial system is about obtaining the best possible level of accuracy without resorting to mathematical calculation. Imperial units are generally easier for most people to perceive as they are based on the natural world and proportional relationships.
The metric system, however, is superbly suited to scientific work. The relationship between units, and the ease of calculation (not mental arithmetic), make notation, derision (something you know all about), and expression clearer.
Your argument is quite shallow. I am happy to accept both systems have their merits, whilst you dogmatically hold fast to your blinkered view.
Nature is not metric, and it seems to work just fine, so maybe there is more to the world and our place in it than your narrow mindedness will permit you to see?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 13:09:00 -
[501]
One other thing to consider with Imperial measurements is that there is no global system of standards in place.
For example a metre is the same in France, England, and Japan.
But fluid ounces in the US are slightly different to those in the UK.
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 13:09:00 -
[502]
One other thing to consider with Imperial measurements is that there is no global system of standards in place.
For example a metre is the same in France, England, and Japan.
But fluid ounces in the US are slightly different to those in the UK.
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 13:50:00 -
[503]
Edited by: Avon on 14/10/2004 15:00:55
Originally by: Rodj Blake
One other thing to consider with Imperial measurements is that there is no global system of standards in place.
For example a metre is the same in France, England, and Japan.
But fluid ounces in the US are slightly different to those in the UK.
That is true, but then the importance of that comes back to application.
Real-life doesn’t generally depend on accurate and consistent measures, as can be seen in the phrases we tend to use in everyday speech.
Unfortunately there is no SI standardisation on:
The thickness of two short planks
How far people are from you when you keep them at arms length
How long a jiffy is (actually a jiffy is a discreet unit of time)
How long two ticks is
How long a moment is
How long it takes to shake a lambs tail twice
Total are covered by a swinging cat
What size horse a hungry person can eat
The exact measure of trouble when you are up to your neck in it
If an 8ft or 10ft barge pole is the standard length
The importance of such measures comes not from their accuracy or standardisation, but from the fact you can relate to them and understand them.
I’m not explaining this very well, am I?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 13:50:00 -
[504]
Edited by: Avon on 14/10/2004 15:00:55
Originally by: Rodj Blake
One other thing to consider with Imperial measurements is that there is no global system of standards in place.
For example a metre is the same in France, England, and Japan.
But fluid ounces in the US are slightly different to those in the UK.
That is true, but then the importance of that comes back to application.
Real-life doesn’t generally depend on accurate and consistent measures, as can be seen in the phrases we tend to use in everyday speech.
Unfortunately there is no SI standardisation on:
The thickness of two short planks
How far people are from you when you keep them at arms length
How long a jiffy is (actually a jiffy is a discreet unit of time)
How long two ticks is
How long a moment is
How long it takes to shake a lambs tail twice
Total are covered by a swinging cat
What size horse a hungry person can eat
The exact measure of trouble when you are up to your neck in it
If an 8ft or 10ft barge pole is the standard length
The importance of such measures comes not from their accuracy or standardisation, but from the fact you can relate to them and understand them.
I’m not explaining this very well, am I?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 16:35:00 -
[505]
Originally by: Avon
It is easier to divide 309 by 103 in your head than it is to divide it by 5 in your head.
Avon, i agree with your point of view. except on this right here. 309/5 is just as simple as 309/103. it's all on how you do your mathmatics, and will vary from person to person.
TheMiner, ever try getting change from a clerk at a gas station? ever stand there saying, "2 quarters, a dime, a nickle, and 3 pennies, you bafoon!" to yourself? these very people grew up around the base10 system their whole life. proof-positive that maybe base10 isn't really that superior...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 16:35:00 -
[506]
Originally by: Avon
It is easier to divide 309 by 103 in your head than it is to divide it by 5 in your head.
Avon, i agree with your point of view. except on this right here. 309/5 is just as simple as 309/103. it's all on how you do your mathmatics, and will vary from person to person.
TheMiner, ever try getting change from a clerk at a gas station? ever stand there saying, "2 quarters, a dime, a nickle, and 3 pennies, you bafoon!" to yourself? these very people grew up around the base10 system their whole life. proof-positive that maybe base10 isn't really that superior...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
Meehan
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 16:49:00 -
[507]
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 -
[508]
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.
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 16:57:00 -
[509]
If everyone knows metric is superior, why are you in the minority here, miner?
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 16:57:00 -
[510]
If everyone knows metric is superior, why are you in the minority here, miner?
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 17:14:00 -
[511]
Edited by: Avon on 14/10/2004 17:21:19
Originally by: flummox
Originally by: Avon
It is easier to divide 309 by 103 in your head than it is to divide it by 5 in your head.
Avon, i agree with your point of view. except on this right here. 309/5 is just as simple as 309/103. it's all on how you do your mathmatics, and will vary from person to person.
Apparently the most common way to divide by 5 is to move the decimal mark to the left (divide by 10), and then double the result. (next most popular is to double the original number and then move the decimal mark to the left - never understood why that wasn't the most popular method until it was explained to me that making the original number larger makes the brain see the problem as harder, odd)
It isn't difficult, but it is a 2 stage process because the brain would rather make multiple simple calculations, it's just the way it works.
I did a paper on this when I was training to be a psychiatric nurse. Wasn't really what I wanted to do, but the male to female student ratio was very favourable.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 17:14:00 -
[512]
Edited by: Avon on 14/10/2004 17:21:19
Originally by: flummox
Originally by: Avon
It is easier to divide 309 by 103 in your head than it is to divide it by 5 in your head.
Avon, i agree with your point of view. except on this right here. 309/5 is just as simple as 309/103. it's all on how you do your mathmatics, and will vary from person to person.
Apparently the most common way to divide by 5 is to move the decimal mark to the left (divide by 10), and then double the result. (next most popular is to double the original number and then move the decimal mark to the left - never understood why that wasn't the most popular method until it was explained to me that making the original number larger makes the brain see the problem as harder, odd)
It isn't difficult, but it is a 2 stage process because the brain would rather make multiple simple calculations, it's just the way it works.
I did a paper on this when I was training to be a psychiatric nurse. Wasn't really what I wanted to do, but the male to female student ratio was very favourable.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 19:48:00 -
[513]
Edited by: flummox on 14/10/2004 19:55:28
Originally by: Avon
Edited by: Avon on 14/10/2004 17:21:19
Originally by: flummox
Originally by: Avon
It is easier to divide 309 by 103 in your head than it is to divide it by 5 in your head.
Avon, i agree with your point of view. except on this right here. 309/5 is just as simple as 309/103. it's all on how you do your mathmatics, and will vary from person to person.
Apparently the most common way to divide by 5 is to move the decimal mark to the left (divide by 10), and then double the result. (next most popular is to double the original number and then move the decimal mark to the left - never understood why that wasn't the most popular method until it was explained to me that making the original number larger makes the brain see the problem as harder, odd)
It isn't difficult, but it is a 2 stage process because the brain would rather make multiple simple calculations, it's just the way it works.
I did a paper on this when I was training to be a psychiatric nurse. Wasn't really what I wanted to do, but the male to female student ratio was very favourable.
that is weird about the larger number being more difficult. would be an interesting study.
i enjoy math and i enjoy doing math in my head. i only pick up a calculator when it is absolutely needed for big numbers. i do a lot of my calcs from memory. kinda like memorizing a "times table" (which i always found kinda retarded, tbh). so, i know from "memory" that there are 20 "5's" in 100. multiply by 3 = 60. then figure out the rest. that's how a i do a lot of my math. breaking whatever numbers i have into more managable ones and just adding it all up when i'm done. but, everyone is different. sure, 309/103 would be easier for a "math novice". but for someone who does use math and not a calculator, there is a higher margin between pathetically easy and difficult.
calculators are ruining the human mind...
but yeah, i like the ideas/statements of your posts in this thread, Avon.
anyone heard from TheMiner lately? lol...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 19:48:00 -
[514]
Edited by: flummox on 14/10/2004 19:55:28
Originally by: Avon
Edited by: Avon on 14/10/2004 17:21:19
Originally by: flummox
Originally by: Avon
It is easier to divide 309 by 103 in your head than it is to divide it by 5 in your head.
Avon, i agree with your point of view. except on this right here. 309/5 is just as simple as 309/103. it's all on how you do your mathmatics, and will vary from person to person.
Apparently the most common way to divide by 5 is to move the decimal mark to the left (divide by 10), and then double the result. (next most popular is to double the original number and then move the decimal mark to the left - never understood why that wasn't the most popular method until it was explained to me that making the original number larger makes the brain see the problem as harder, odd)
It isn't difficult, but it is a 2 stage process because the brain would rather make multiple simple calculations, it's just the way it works.
I did a paper on this when I was training to be a psychiatric nurse. Wasn't really what I wanted to do, but the male to female student ratio was very favourable.
that is weird about the larger number being more difficult. would be an interesting study.
i enjoy math and i enjoy doing math in my head. i only pick up a calculator when it is absolutely needed for big numbers. i do a lot of my calcs from memory. kinda like memorizing a "times table" (which i always found kinda retarded, tbh). so, i know from "memory" that there are 20 "5's" in 100. multiply by 3 = 60. then figure out the rest. that's how a i do a lot of my math. breaking whatever numbers i have into more managable ones and just adding it all up when i'm done. but, everyone is different. sure, 309/103 would be easier for a "math novice". but for someone who does use math and not a calculator, there is a higher margin between pathetically easy and difficult.
calculators are ruining the human mind...
but yeah, i like the ideas/statements of your posts in this thread, Avon.
anyone heard from TheMiner lately? lol...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
Shade Widow
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 19:57:00 -
[515]
I am Americian... not sure why thats a bad thing but alright. Anyways as much as I can use the metric system and find it usefull at times, the imperial system is what I grew up and learned. I am able to use it fairly quickly because ive used it for so long.
---
|
Shade Widow
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 19:57:00 -
[516]
I am Americian... not sure why thats a bad thing but alright. Anyways as much as I can use the metric system and find it usefull at times, the imperial system is what I grew up and learned. I am able to use it fairly quickly because ive used it for so long.
---
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 20:22:00 -
[517]
Originally by: flummox
Edited by: flummox on 14/10/2004 19:55:28
Originally by: Avon
Edited by: Avon on 14/10/2004 17:21:19
Originally by: flummox
Originally by: Avon
It is easier to divide 309 by 103 in your head than it is to divide it by 5 in your head.
Avon, i agree with your point of view. except on this right here. 309/5 is just as simple as 309/103. it's all on how you do your mathmatics, and will vary from person to person.
Apparently the most common way to divide by 5 is to move the decimal mark to the left (divide by 10), and then double the result. (next most popular is to double the original number and then move the decimal mark to the left - never understood why that wasn't the most popular method until it was explained to me that making the original number larger makes the brain see the problem as harder, odd)
It isn't difficult, but it is a 2 stage process because the brain would rather make multiple simple calculations, it's just the way it works.
I did a paper on this when I was training to be a psychiatric nurse. Wasn't really what I wanted to do, but the male to female student ratio was very favourable.
that is weird about the larger number being more difficult. would be an interesting study.
i enjoy math and i enjoy doing math in my head. i only pick up a calculator when it is absolutely needed for big numbers. i do a lot of my calcs from memory. kinda like memorizing a "times table" (which i always found kinda retarded, tbh). so, i know from "memory" that there are 20 "5's" in 100. multiply by 3 = 60. then figure out the rest. that's how a i do a lot of my math. breaking whatever numbers i have into more managable ones and just adding it all up when i'm done. but, everyone is different. sure, 309/103 would be easier for a "math novice". but for someone who does use math and not a calculator, there is a higher margin between pathetically easy and difficult.
calculators are ruining the human mind...
but yeah, i like the ideas/statements of your posts in this thread, Avon.
anyone heard from TheMiner lately? lol...
Look up "crow epistemology (unit-economy)". This explains to some extent why the brain is bad at calculating longer numbers. I don't mean 'bigger' as in 'higher value', but longer as in more digits.
Once you get to numbers of 7 or more digits the brain tends to try and re-evaluate the numbers into something more managable.
Think of phone numbers. If you have a mobile phone and you know the number, say it out loud now...
no peeking....
.... did you take a pause breaking the number into two groups? If you have an eleven digit number it is common for the brain to split it into two groups, one of 5 digits, one of 6.
Try it with any string of numbers, you will usually find it easier to memorise if you break it into groups, credit card numbers are another good example.
Interesting, huh?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 20:22:00 -
[518]
Originally by: flummox
Edited by: flummox on 14/10/2004 19:55:28
Originally by: Avon
Edited by: Avon on 14/10/2004 17:21:19
Originally by: flummox
Originally by: Avon
It is easier to divide 309 by 103 in your head than it is to divide it by 5 in your head.
Avon, i agree with your point of view. except on this right here. 309/5 is just as simple as 309/103. it's all on how you do your mathmatics, and will vary from person to person.
Apparently the most common way to divide by 5 is to move the decimal mark to the left (divide by 10), and then double the result. (next most popular is to double the original number and then move the decimal mark to the left - never understood why that wasn't the most popular method until it was explained to me that making the original number larger makes the brain see the problem as harder, odd)
It isn't difficult, but it is a 2 stage process because the brain would rather make multiple simple calculations, it's just the way it works.
I did a paper on this when I was training to be a psychiatric nurse. Wasn't really what I wanted to do, but the male to female student ratio was very favourable.
that is weird about the larger number being more difficult. would be an interesting study.
i enjoy math and i enjoy doing math in my head. i only pick up a calculator when it is absolutely needed for big numbers. i do a lot of my calcs from memory. kinda like memorizing a "times table" (which i always found kinda retarded, tbh). so, i know from "memory" that there are 20 "5's" in 100. multiply by 3 = 60. then figure out the rest. that's how a i do a lot of my math. breaking whatever numbers i have into more managable ones and just adding it all up when i'm done. but, everyone is different. sure, 309/103 would be easier for a "math novice". but for someone who does use math and not a calculator, there is a higher margin between pathetically easy and difficult.
calculators are ruining the human mind...
but yeah, i like the ideas/statements of your posts in this thread, Avon.
anyone heard from TheMiner lately? lol...
Look up "crow epistemology (unit-economy)". This explains to some extent why the brain is bad at calculating longer numbers. I don't mean 'bigger' as in 'higher value', but longer as in more digits.
Once you get to numbers of 7 or more digits the brain tends to try and re-evaluate the numbers into something more managable.
Think of phone numbers. If you have a mobile phone and you know the number, say it out loud now...
no peeking....
.... did you take a pause breaking the number into two groups? If you have an eleven digit number it is common for the brain to split it into two groups, one of 5 digits, one of 6.
Try it with any string of numbers, you will usually find it easier to memorise if you break it into groups, credit card numbers are another good example.
Interesting, huh?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 21:07:00 -
[519]
Originally by: Avon
Look up "crow epistemology (unit-economy)". This explains to some extent why the brain is bad at calculating longer numbers. I don't mean 'bigger' as in 'higher value', but longer as in more digits.
Once you get to numbers of 7 or more digits the brain tends to try and re-evaluate the numbers into something more managable.
Think of phone numbers. If you have a mobile phone and you know the number, say it out loud now...
no peeking....
.... did you take a pause breaking the number into two groups? If you have an eleven digit number it is common for the brain to split it into two groups, one of 5 digits, one of 6.
Try it with any string of numbers, you will usually find it easier to memorise if you break it into groups, credit card numbers are another good example.
Interesting, huh?
yeah. i know what you mean, man. we might have picked up the breaking up of the phone numbers with the way we learned the system. i used to make math equations for my phone numbers. again, i said i was anal retentive and i have self-diagnosed OCD and AADD...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.14 21:07:00 -
[520]
Originally by: Avon
Look up "crow epistemology (unit-economy)". This explains to some extent why the brain is bad at calculating longer numbers. I don't mean 'bigger' as in 'higher value', but longer as in more digits.
Once you get to numbers of 7 or more digits the brain tends to try and re-evaluate the numbers into something more managable.
Think of phone numbers. If you have a mobile phone and you know the number, say it out loud now...
no peeking....
.... did you take a pause breaking the number into two groups? If you have an eleven digit number it is common for the brain to split it into two groups, one of 5 digits, one of 6.
Try it with any string of numbers, you will usually find it easier to memorise if you break it into groups, credit card numbers are another good example.
Interesting, huh?
yeah. i know what you mean, man. we might have picked up the breaking up of the phone numbers with the way we learned the system. i used to make math equations for my phone numbers. again, i said i was anal retentive and i have self-diagnosed OCD and AADD...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 05:14:00 -
[521]
LOL? You are saying the Imperial system is easier for humans to work with? LOL? LOL? LOL?
How many feet in half a mile? Takes a second.
How many meters in half a kilometer? EASY.
How many Inches in 8 feet? Takes a second.
How many centimeters in 8 meters? EASY.
Pls note that I do not use the metric system on a day to day basis. I use Imperial... yet metric is *STLL* easier for me to use. Thats because it is more logical and breaks things into 10's always.
About metric time... since EVERYONE already uses "Normal" time, and both systems are founded on different but equally logical systems... and since time does not get in the way of converting diff types of measurments on any type of a regular basis, who cares?
Ex: Miles per Hour and Kilometers per Hour are both just as easy to consider.
OWNED os har.d It is so hilariously funny to watch you lie to yourself and try to "prove" the weaker argument. How can you possible say the metric system is not superior to the Imperial system? LOL? LOL? LOL?
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 05:14:00 -
[522]
LOL? You are saying the Imperial system is easier for humans to work with? LOL? LOL? LOL?
How many feet in half a mile? Takes a second.
How many meters in half a kilometer? EASY.
How many Inches in 8 feet? Takes a second.
How many centimeters in 8 meters? EASY.
Pls note that I do not use the metric system on a day to day basis. I use Imperial... yet metric is *STLL* easier for me to use. Thats because it is more logical and breaks things into 10's always.
About metric time... since EVERYONE already uses "Normal" time, and both systems are founded on different but equally logical systems... and since time does not get in the way of converting diff types of measurments on any type of a regular basis, who cares?
Ex: Miles per Hour and Kilometers per Hour are both just as easy to consider.
OWNED os har.d It is so hilariously funny to watch you lie to yourself and try to "prove" the weaker argument. How can you possible say the metric system is not superior to the Imperial system? LOL? LOL? LOL?
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 06:16:00 -
[523]
I can safely say that that has to be the most obnoxious post I've ever read. You're lucky I don't have any control on whom my corp declares war.
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 06:16:00 -
[524]
I can safely say that that has to be the most obnoxious post I've ever read. You're lucky I don't have any control on whom my corp declares war.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 08:02:00 -
[525]
Yeah.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 08:02:00 -
[526]
Yeah.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 12:17:00 -
[527]
Edited by: Avon on 15/10/2004 12:33:15
I am baffled how you can make this point: Quote:
About metric time... since EVERYONE already uses "Normal" time, and both systems are founded on different but equally logical systems... and since time does not get in the way of converting diff types of measurments on any type of a regular basis, who cares?
in the same post you argue about the superiority of using decimal and the difficulty of imperial unit conversions.
Time units get converted constantly, and you have to take into account the varying lengths of months, an leap-years, and daylight savings; AND you have to convert the time on a country by country basis too. It is as far from the ideals of the metric system as possible.
It actually PROVES my point for me, and yet you post it as part of your arguement, odd.
60 seconds in a minute
60 minutes in an hour
24 hours in a day
7 days in a week
So, how many seconds in two weeks, four and a half days?
Surely a metric time system would make that question more simple?
Equally, no-one cares how many seconds it is - we communicate time in the most appropriate units to describe the timescale.
In exactly the same way we use the most appropriate units for size/distance.
It is no more important to know how many inches are in a mile than how many seconds there are in a week, or even how many centimetres there are in a parsec.
The reason the imperial measure of time is good comes back to those integer divisors. The hour, for example (12x5 minutes - there is that 12 again), can be split so nicely into many fractional parts. That is the beauty of it.
This leads us to the compromise of metric. The problem with metric scales is that they just aren't practical in the real world. The centimetre to small, the metre too long. The only SI unit of time is the second, it has no SI derivatives, and the second is too short to be useful.
Proponants of the metric system demand we measure the speed of our cars in kph instead of mph, which is laughable as kph is not a metric measure. Obviously they would have to convert to m/s, but even they realise an SI metric measure would be counter-intuitive and unworkable in the real-world.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 12:17:00 -
[528]
Edited by: Avon on 15/10/2004 12:33:15
I am baffled how you can make this point: Quote:
About metric time... since EVERYONE already uses "Normal" time, and both systems are founded on different but equally logical systems... and since time does not get in the way of converting diff types of measurments on any type of a regular basis, who cares?
in the same post you argue about the superiority of using decimal and the difficulty of imperial unit conversions.
Time units get converted constantly, and you have to take into account the varying lengths of months, an leap-years, and daylight savings; AND you have to convert the time on a country by country basis too. It is as far from the ideals of the metric system as possible.
It actually PROVES my point for me, and yet you post it as part of your arguement, odd.
60 seconds in a minute
60 minutes in an hour
24 hours in a day
7 days in a week
So, how many seconds in two weeks, four and a half days?
Surely a metric time system would make that question more simple?
Equally, no-one cares how many seconds it is - we communicate time in the most appropriate units to describe the timescale.
In exactly the same way we use the most appropriate units for size/distance.
It is no more important to know how many inches are in a mile than how many seconds there are in a week, or even how many centimetres there are in a parsec.
The reason the imperial measure of time is good comes back to those integer divisors. The hour, for example (12x5 minutes - there is that 12 again), can be split so nicely into many fractional parts. That is the beauty of it.
This leads us to the compromise of metric. The problem with metric scales is that they just aren't practical in the real world. The centimetre to small, the metre too long. The only SI unit of time is the second, it has no SI derivatives, and the second is too short to be useful.
Proponants of the metric system demand we measure the speed of our cars in kph instead of mph, which is laughable as kph is not a metric measure. Obviously they would have to convert to m/s, but even they realise an SI metric measure would be counter-intuitive and unworkable in the real-world.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 15:13:00 -
[529]
Its the Energizer Bunny.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 15:13:00 -
[530]
Its the Energizer Bunny.
|
Elita
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 19:34:00 -
[531]
Imperial time? What's Imperial time?
The way we measure time goes back a lot further than the British Empire. The whole base 60 system comes from the Babylonians, whose entire numbering system was base 60. And that comes from the fact that 60 divides nicely from 360, the number of days in a year.
I know what you're thinking: Even the Babylonians knew that there were 365 1/4 days in a year. They did, but 365 1/4 is such an ugly number, they and the ancient Egyptians defined a year as being 360 days, then tacked a few extra days on the end that weren't officially part of a year. They had 12 months of 30 days each, plus the extra days.
So 60 and 360 give us days, degrees, minutes, and seconds. So why 24 hours in a day? It must have something to do with the Babylonian's magic 6, and possibly the 12 that comes from the number of months in a year. Can anyone fill in that part of the story?
--
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke |
Elita
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 19:34:00 -
[532]
Imperial time? What's Imperial time?
The way we measure time goes back a lot further than the British Empire. The whole base 60 system comes from the Babylonians, whose entire numbering system was base 60. And that comes from the fact that 60 divides nicely from 360, the number of days in a year.
I know what you're thinking: Even the Babylonians knew that there were 365 1/4 days in a year. They did, but 365 1/4 is such an ugly number, they and the ancient Egyptians defined a year as being 360 days, then tacked a few extra days on the end that weren't officially part of a year. They had 12 months of 30 days each, plus the extra days.
So 60 and 360 give us days, degrees, minutes, and seconds. So why 24 hours in a day? It must have something to do with the Babylonian's magic 6, and possibly the 12 that comes from the number of months in a year. Can anyone fill in that part of the story?
--
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke |
Frank Horrigan
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 22:04:00 -
[533]
i say screw it all lets remake the whole damn thing!
360 days a year + extra, 20 hours a day, 50 min an hour, 100 second a min, and remake the time a second is
that above is horrible example but its nice and even or devidable by 2
just my opinion
Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: Bhaal
What has turned out better than expected?
Everything. Remember, we're from Iceland.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This i |
Frank Horrigan
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 22:04:00 -
[534]
i say screw it all lets remake the whole damn thing!
360 days a year + extra, 20 hours a day, 50 min an hour, 100 second a min, and remake the time a second is
that above is horrible example but its nice and even or devidable by 2
just my opinion
Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: Bhaal
What has turned out better than expected?
Everything. Remember, we're from Iceland.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This i |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 22:59:00 -
[535]
Edited by: Avon on 15/10/2004 23:06:23
Originally by: Elita
Imperial time? What's Imperial time?
The way we measure time goes back a lot further than the British Empire. The whole base 60 system comes from the Babylonians, whose entire numbering system was base 60. And that comes from the fact that 60 divides nicely from 360, the number of days in a year.
I know what you're thinking: Even the Babylonians knew that there were 365 1/4 days in a year. They did, but 365 1/4 is such an ugly number, they and the ancient Egyptians defined a year as being 360 days, then tacked a few extra days on the end that weren't officially part of a year. They had 12 months of 30 days each, plus the extra days.
So 60 and 360 give us days, degrees, minutes, and seconds. So why 24 hours in a day? It must have something to do with the Babylonian's magic 6, and possibly the 12 that comes from the number of months in a year. Can anyone fill in that part of the story?
Almost all Imperial measurements can be traced back to Babylonian and Egyptian systems. The Imperial system evolved from older systems. Some measures fell out of popular usage, eventually leaving the 'Imperial Standards'.
The further you study these old systems, the more impressive they become. It is also very enjoyable when you begin to realise how units are derived from each other. When you see the evolution of the units as the system is passed from one civilisation to the next.
Whilst the units have changed over time the basic mathematics behind the system has stayed pretty solid.
It is the very fact that the Imperial system is an evolved system that makes it so usable for real-life applications, whereas the artificial metric system is better applied to science.
I'm sorry if you thought my reference to 'Imperial Time' was claiming some sort of ownership of the system, that is not the case. The way we represent time now is refered to as Imperial Time, but that does not mean it was invented by the British Empire.
The 24 hours in the day derives from (and this is from memory, I'd have to check my notes), the Egyptian observation of the rising of 12 stars at night (and this system probably derives from the Babylonian observation of the movement of their 'Zodiacs', which share common stars with the Egyptian system). The period between each star rising was equal on any given night, although obviously the actual period would alter throughout the year. As the night was so easily divided by these twelve risings it made sense to split the day into twelve sections too. Primative sundials were created to split the movement of the sun into twelve sections, thus recording the passing of the day. The Egyptians refined sundials over time, and even produced water clocks. As water clocks produce a consistant measure of time passed the Egyptians would calibrate them with varying scales to take into account the seasonal changes in the length of their hour.
You have to keep in mind that the actual length of Egyptian hours varied over the year (seasonal temporal hours), but that was unimportant. Daylight lasted 12hrs, as did the night. It wasn't until much later that astromoners saw the need for standardising the length of the hour so it was constant throughout the year. This was the end of the distinct 12hr days and nights and the beginning of the 24hr days.
Hope this helps.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 22:59:00 -
[536]
Edited by: Avon on 15/10/2004 23:06:23
Originally by: Elita
Imperial time? What's Imperial time?
The way we measure time goes back a lot further than the British Empire. The whole base 60 system comes from the Babylonians, whose entire numbering system was base 60. And that comes from the fact that 60 divides nicely from 360, the number of days in a year.
I know what you're thinking: Even the Babylonians knew that there were 365 1/4 days in a year. They did, but 365 1/4 is such an ugly number, they and the ancient Egyptians defined a year as being 360 days, then tacked a few extra days on the end that weren't officially part of a year. They had 12 months of 30 days each, plus the extra days.
So 60 and 360 give us days, degrees, minutes, and seconds. So why 24 hours in a day? It must have something to do with the Babylonian's magic 6, and possibly the 12 that comes from the number of months in a year. Can anyone fill in that part of the story?
Almost all Imperial measurements can be traced back to Babylonian and Egyptian systems. The Imperial system evolved from older systems. Some measures fell out of popular usage, eventually leaving the 'Imperial Standards'.
The further you study these old systems, the more impressive they become. It is also very enjoyable when you begin to realise how units are derived from each other. When you see the evolution of the units as the system is passed from one civilisation to the next.
Whilst the units have changed over time the basic mathematics behind the system has stayed pretty solid.
It is the very fact that the Imperial system is an evolved system that makes it so usable for real-life applications, whereas the artificial metric system is better applied to science.
I'm sorry if you thought my reference to 'Imperial Time' was claiming some sort of ownership of the system, that is not the case. The way we represent time now is refered to as Imperial Time, but that does not mean it was invented by the British Empire.
The 24 hours in the day derives from (and this is from memory, I'd have to check my notes), the Egyptian observation of the rising of 12 stars at night (and this system probably derives from the Babylonian observation of the movement of their 'Zodiacs', which share common stars with the Egyptian system). The period between each star rising was equal on any given night, although obviously the actual period would alter throughout the year. As the night was so easily divided by these twelve risings it made sense to split the day into twelve sections too. Primative sundials were created to split the movement of the sun into twelve sections, thus recording the passing of the day. The Egyptians refined sundials over time, and even produced water clocks. As water clocks produce a consistant measure of time passed the Egyptians would calibrate them with varying scales to take into account the seasonal changes in the length of their hour.
You have to keep in mind that the actual length of Egyptian hours varied over the year (seasonal temporal hours), but that was unimportant. Daylight lasted 12hrs, as did the night. It wasn't until much later that astromoners saw the need for standardising the length of the hour so it was constant throughout the year. This was the end of the distinct 12hr days and nights and the beginning of the 24hr days.
Hope this helps.
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Burga Galti
|
Posted - 2004.10.16 12:49:00 -
[537]
Edited by: Burga Galti on 16/10/2004 12:56:59
I must say, I've been quite impressed by the quality of some of these posts. The thought and logic which has gone into them is brilliant. Though, I am quite disappointed about the one-sidedness of the discussion. Come on you Metric lovers, put some effort into it!
-edit- Just to give my own thoughts, I use metric units every day on my university course (engineering) and was schooled using them from my first lesson when I was 5. So I'm quite used to metres, kilos etc etc. Though when not working on some problem I always use feet & inches, stones & pounds etc as they are easier and always seem more logical for use in a day to day enviroment. So, as each system has it's place, neither is superior or inferior to the other.
Tales from the EVE Cluster |
Burga Galti
|
Posted - 2004.10.16 12:49:00 -
[538]
Edited by: Burga Galti on 16/10/2004 12:56:59
I must say, I've been quite impressed by the quality of some of these posts. The thought and logic which has gone into them is brilliant. Though, I am quite disappointed about the one-sidedness of the discussion. Come on you Metric lovers, put some effort into it!
-edit- Just to give my own thoughts, I use metric units every day on my university course (engineering) and was schooled using them from my first lesson when I was 5. So I'm quite used to metres, kilos etc etc. Though when not working on some problem I always use feet & inches, stones & pounds etc as they are easier and always seem more logical for use in a day to day enviroment. So, as each system has it's place, neither is superior or inferior to the other.
Tales from the EVE Cluster |
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.16 13:42:00 -
[539]
You are right about time. If we could erase our current knowledge of how we work time and create a more logical system, that would be best. Kinda like the metric system. It is best.
Something that is inferior is writing large numers like this 895489346894389 for general purposes. Always good to put commas in. Or decimal commas. Whatever you want to use. Just as long as you break the number up so it is easier to read.
Can you argue against this?
Nay, I say.
|
TheMiner
|
Posted - 2004.10.16 13:42:00 -
[540]
You are right about time. If we could erase our current knowledge of how we work time and create a more logical system, that would be best. Kinda like the metric system. It is best.
Something that is inferior is writing large numers like this 895489346894389 for general purposes. Always good to put commas in. Or decimal commas. Whatever you want to use. Just as long as you break the number up so it is easier to read.
Can you argue against this?
Nay, I say.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 10:22:00 -
[541]
Edited by: Avon on 17/10/2004 10:25:25
Originally by: TheMiner
You are right about time. If we could erase our current knowledge of how we work time and create a more logical system, that would be best. Kinda like the metric system. It is best.
Something that is inferior is writing large numers like this 895489346894389 for general purposes. Always good to put commas in. Or decimal commas. Whatever you want to use. Just as long as you break the number up so it is easier to read.
Can you argue against this?
Nay, I say.
No I can't argue against it, in fact I have already argued that point myself.
Metric (SI) you group numbers in three's and seperate with a space. The decimal mark should be the only punctuation in the number.
Only real problem is that spaces do not make it clear it is all one number.
Imperial system, avoid using huge numbers by using appropriate units. If likely to cause confusion, write the number as words to ensure clarity. If the number is too big to comprehend, invent new units! :)
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 10:22:00 -
[542]
Edited by: Avon on 17/10/2004 10:25:25
Originally by: TheMiner
You are right about time. If we could erase our current knowledge of how we work time and create a more logical system, that would be best. Kinda like the metric system. It is best.
Something that is inferior is writing large numers like this 895489346894389 for general purposes. Always good to put commas in. Or decimal commas. Whatever you want to use. Just as long as you break the number up so it is easier to read.
Can you argue against this?
Nay, I say.
No I can't argue against it, in fact I have already argued that point myself.
Metric (SI) you group numbers in three's and seperate with a space. The decimal mark should be the only punctuation in the number.
Only real problem is that spaces do not make it clear it is all one number.
Imperial system, avoid using huge numbers by using appropriate units. If likely to cause confusion, write the number as words to ensure clarity. If the number is too big to comprehend, invent new units! :)
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.18 21:13:00 -
[543]
i'd have to agree with the 12 hour system, or a base 12 system. the babylonian theory of the 60 minutes and 360 days a year is pretty cool. but, 60 is an even multiplier of 12 (5*12=60). so it can still apply.
let's see... what else do we have? oh yeah...
an Earth Year, as we know it today is not 365 1/4 days. it is 365.24 days. yeah, sure. is the .01 gonna make a huge difference? um.... abso-frickin'-lutely it will. or as an old guy named Walter used to say: "you betcha!" (picture old wirey white man with raspy voice)
365.25 * 4 = 1461.00 days in a leap year (4 years) * 25 (to calculate 100 years) = 36.525,00 days in a century (threw that "Yer oh peon" style in there for ya, TheMiner)
365.24 * 4 = 1460.96 days in a leap year (4 years) * 25 = 36.524,00 days in a century.
every century we gain (or lose - depending on how you look at it) a year. in a millenium, 10 days. 10,000 years = 100 days. and so on down the line. maybe some people don't really care, but i do.
not so big a deal, is it? 1 day every century? no biggie, right? yeah. sure. i guess so. if you like easy, no-thought systems. me, on the other hand, i prefer to do something right the first time. why create a system of measuring something that is inaccurate? it flys into the face of the theory of measuring something all together with.
sorry. just my little rant about time and how it's measured by "us advanced humans"...
"2000 years after the birth of Chri-"... hmmmm? 2000 "leap years" or 2000 revolutions around the sun??
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.10.18 21:13:00 -
[544]
i'd have to agree with the 12 hour system, or a base 12 system. the babylonian theory of the 60 minutes and 360 days a year is pretty cool. but, 60 is an even multiplier of 12 (5*12=60). so it can still apply.
let's see... what else do we have? oh yeah...
an Earth Year, as we know it today is not 365 1/4 days. it is 365.24 days. yeah, sure. is the .01 gonna make a huge difference? um.... abso-frickin'-lutely it will. or as an old guy named Walter used to say: "you betcha!" (picture old wirey white man with raspy voice)
365.25 * 4 = 1461.00 days in a leap year (4 years) * 25 (to calculate 100 years) = 36.525,00 days in a century (threw that "Yer oh peon" style in there for ya, TheMiner)
365.24 * 4 = 1460.96 days in a leap year (4 years) * 25 = 36.524,00 days in a century.
every century we gain (or lose - depending on how you look at it) a year. in a millenium, 10 days. 10,000 years = 100 days. and so on down the line. maybe some people don't really care, but i do.
not so big a deal, is it? 1 day every century? no biggie, right? yeah. sure. i guess so. if you like easy, no-thought systems. me, on the other hand, i prefer to do something right the first time. why create a system of measuring something that is inaccurate? it flys into the face of the theory of measuring something all together with.
sorry. just my little rant about time and how it's measured by "us advanced humans"...
"2000 years after the birth of Chri-"... hmmmm? 2000 "leap years" or 2000 revolutions around the sun??
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: [one page] |