Flashes of Light on the Faith
Acrux
archaeological support to his Faith, the undecided one will perhaps be
capable of making a decisive step forward to live the "Blessed Hope",
the atheist will get irritated at seeing his thought being based
absolutely on nothing.
In this site, there are links with other writings of mine, which have
had more than 100.000 readers all over the world.
Nowadays, we are living on the surface and on the loss of information.
Let us think of the Vinci's Code which, even among many other anti-
historical events being therein described, makes reference to
documents being recognized as falsified from the authors themselves.
In spreading the Truth, we will honour Our Lord, we will help all the
people who are in need of consolation and hope, we will give our
contribution to fight against the darkness closed in upon us and
trying to steal our eternal destiny of life, to give us an equivalent
eternal destiny of death.
To everybody who will read this article, I wish a profitable reading,
with my best regards.
www.lorenzocrescini.it/archeo - ricer...@lorenzocrescini.it
Lorenzo Crescini
John Hatpin
>In this site, there are links with other writings of mine, which have
>had more than 100.000 readers all over the world.
My webstats only give me integer precision for hits. How do you get
0.001 of a hit anyway? Is that a glance at an URL?
--
John Hatpin
Hactar
Isn't that normal.ukEng, to use "." to separate groups of three digits
to the left of the decimal point and "," for the decimal point itself?
Or am I confusing that with another locale?
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
Mary
Well, if he can calculate the number of angels that can dance on the
head of a pin, I'm sure he can calculate the number of suckers who will
consider visiting his website.
Mary
Peter Boulding
<occ6b4-...@royalty.no-ip.org>:
>Isn't that normal.ukEng, to use "." to separate groups of three digits
>to the left of the decimal point and "," for the decimal point itself?
>Or am I confusing that with another locale?
You are. Much of Europe punctuates numbers as you describe, but we Brits use
the Merkin system (or vice versa).
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
landotter
wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:23:18 GMT, ebenZERO...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote in
> <occ6b4-s07....@royalty.no-ip.org>:
>
> >Isn't that normal.ukEng, to use "." to separate groups of three digits
> >to the left of the decimal point and "," for the decimal point itself?
> >Or am I confusing that with another locale?
>
> You are. Much of Europe punctuates numbers as you describe, but we Brits use
> the Merkin system (or vice versa).
There's a number punctuation system based on pubic wigs?!
Greg Goss
>On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:23:18 GMT, ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote in
><occ6b4-...@royalty.no-ip.org>:
>
>>Isn't that normal.ukEng, to use "." to separate groups of three digits
>>to the left of the decimal point and "," for the decimal point itself?
>>Or am I confusing that with another locale?
>
>You are. Much of Europe punctuates numbers as you describe, but we Brits use
>the Merkin system (or vice versa).
Except for the silly names for large numbers in britland.
(OKoGBaNI or England or British Isles or whatever disjunct name for
approximately the same thing applies here.)
Has the American usage for large number names penetrated into British
culture yet? Will it ever?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Hactar
Hactar <ebenZ...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In article <oio0u25lij6vf8ej9...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <use...@jfhgetridofthisbitopkin.kaandthisbittooroo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Acrux wrote:
> >
> > >In this site, there are links with other writings of mine, which have
> > >had more than 100.000 readers all over the world.
> >
> > My webstats only give me integer precision for hits. How do you get
> > 0.001 of a hit anyway? Is that a glance at an URL?
>
> Isn't that normal.ukEng, to use "." to separate groups of three digits
> to the left of the decimal point and "," for the decimal point itself?
> Or am I confusing that with another locale?
Change "normal.ukEng" to "normal.it".
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
They that can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin
Peter Boulding
<54bgabF...@mid.individual.net>:
>Except for the silly names for large numbers in britland.
>
>(OKoGBaNI or England or British Isles or whatever disjunct name for
>approximately the same thing applies here.)
Use "Britain" if you want to irritate half the population of Northern
Ireland, or "The UK" if you want to irritate the other half.
>Has the American usage for large number names penetrated into British
>culture yet? Will it ever?
I dunno. The only differences I know of are, or rather were, our milliards
(US billions) and our billions (million millions), but we fell into line
with the US a long while back. I would assume that we've done the same with
bigger $bignums too; please could one of the *educated* Brits confirm?
Hactar
Peter Boulding <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:00:15 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
> <54bgabF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
> >Except for the silly names for large numbers in britland.
> >
> >(OKoGBaNI or England or British Isles or whatever disjunct name for
> >approximately the same thing applies here.)
>
> Use "Britain" if you want to irritate half the population of Northern
> Ireland, or "The UK" if you want to irritate the other half.
>
> >Has the American usage for large number names penetrated into British
> >culture yet? Will it ever?
>
> I dunno. The only differences I know of are, or rather were, our milliards
> (US billions) and our billions (million millions), but we fell into line
> with the US a long while back. I would assume that we've done the same with
> bigger $bignums too; please could one of the *educated* Brits confirm?
FWIU there was a factor of 10^6 between .uk "-illion"s[1] and a factor of
10^3 between "-illion"s in the .us . Never got a straight answer as to
what .au, .ca, .nz or other English-speaking regions did.
[1] 10^6 and 10^9 are special.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
VIRGO: All Virgos are extremely friendly and intelligent - except
for you. Expect a big surprise today when you wind up with your
head impaled upon a stick. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_
Greg Goss
>In article <rvf1u214actb3qk5f...@4ax.com>,
>Peter Boulding <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:00:15 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>> <54bgabF...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>> >Except for the silly names for large numbers in britland.
>> >
>> >(OKoGBaNI or England or British Isles or whatever disjunct name for
>> >approximately the same thing applies here.)
>>
>> Use "Britain" if you want to irritate half the population of Northern
>> Ireland, or "The UK" if you want to irritate the other half.
>>
>> >Has the American usage for large number names penetrated into British
>> >culture yet? Will it ever?
>>
>> I dunno. The only differences I know of are, or rather were, our milliards
>> (US billions) and our billions (million millions), but we fell into line
>> with the US a long while back. I would assume that we've done the same with
>> bigger $bignums too; please could one of the *educated* Brits confirm?
>
>FWIU there was a factor of 10^6 between .uk "-illion"s[1] and a factor of
>10^3 between "-illion"s in the .us . Never got a straight answer as to
>what .au, .ca, .nz or other English-speaking regions did.
>
>[1] 10^6 and 10^9 are special.
Canada always followed the US version. Each 1^3 got a name.
Thousand, million. By Billion, they were using the latin numbers.;
John Hatpin
>In article <oio0u25lij6vf8ej9...@4ax.com>,
>John Hatpin <use...@jfhgetridofthisbitopkin.kaandthisbittooroo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Acrux wrote:
>>
>> >In this site, there are links with other writings of mine, which have
>> >had more than 100.000 readers all over the world.
>>
>> My webstats only give me integer precision for hits. How do you get
>> 0.001 of a hit anyway? Is that a glance at an URL?
>
>Isn't that normal.ukEng, to use "." to separate groups of three digits
>to the left of the decimal point and "," for the decimal point itself?
>Or am I confusing that with another locale?
Some countries in continental Yoop do the ,/. switch, but not the UK.
It's really pissed me off in the past, when I've written software for
international use and it screws up in, say, Spain and Greece because
it stores decimal numbers in CSV format according to the Windows
locale.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:00:15 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
><54bgabF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>Has the American usage for large number names penetrated into British
>>culture yet? Will it ever?
>
>I dunno. The only differences I know of are, or rather were, our milliards
>(US billions) and our billions (million millions), but we fell into line
>with the US a long while back. I would assume that we've done the same with
>bigger $bignums too; please could one of the *educated* Brits confirm?
While we're waiting for an educated Brit, I'll say that my own take is
that the US bignums have (thankfully) almost completely superceded our
own silly old system, especially in the fields of science and
mathematics.
--
John Hatpin
Guillermo el Gato
<p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>I dunno. The only differences I know of are, or rather were, our milliards
>(US billions) and our billions (million millions), but we fell into line
>with the US a long while back. I would assume that we've done the same with
>bigger $bignums too; please could one of the *educated* Brits confirm?
YRDLSH. The old words in Britain for 'billion' was 'milliard' (German
'Milliarden') and trillion was 'billion' (German 'Billion')? I guess
that 'bi-llion' as a shorter form of 'million million' makes sense.
Although I kind of like the Amerian million-billion-trillion sequence,
which has it's own symmetry.
Personally I would favor using the metric system: Mega=million,
Giga=billion, Tera=trillion, and I'd appreciate if rest of the world
dropped into line with my vision. Thanks!
Peter Boulding
wrote in <t4c5u2hgi64tjh0bv...@4ax.com>:
>YRDLSH
YRDLSH?
Guillermo el Gato
<p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:10:00 +0100, Guillermo el Gato <dev...@example.com>
>wrote in <t4c5u2hgi64tjh0bv...@4ax.com>:
>
>>YRDLSH
>
>YRDLSH?
You Really Do Learn Stuff Here.
Peter Boulding
wrote in <pm26u2phamjb11k0u...@4ax.com>:
>>>YRDLSH
>>
>>YRDLSH?
>
>You Really Do Learn Stuff Here.
SID. TY.
Greg Goss
I've heard megabucks many times. I'm sure that I've seen gigabucks in
US economy discussions. Dunno about terabucks.
So now we just have to generalize the term from dollar terms to
general usage.
I bought a car yesterday that gets good gas mileage. In Canada, gas
mileage is measured in liters per hundred kilometers. I've been
saying that my car takes 4 litres per hectokilometer. 4 l/HKm
Hactar
Phrase that as 40 liters per megameter and I'm with you.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP http://royalty.mine.nu:81
LEO: Now is not a good time to photocopy your butt and staple it
to your boss' face, oh no. Eat a bucket of tuna-flavored pudding
and wash it down with a gallon of strawberry Quik. -- Weird Al
Guillermo el Gato
wrote:
>In article <551t3hF...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> Guillermo el Gato <dev...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Personally I would favor using the metric system: Mega=million,
>> >Giga=billion, Tera=trillion, and I'd appreciate if rest of the world
>> >dropped into line with my vision. Thanks!
>>
>> I've heard megabucks many times. I'm sure that I've seen gigabucks in
>> US economy discussions. Dunno about terabucks.
>>
>> So now we just have to generalize the term from dollar terms to
>> general usage.
>>
>> I bought a car yesterday that gets good gas mileage. In Canada, gas
>> mileage is measured in liters per hundred kilometers. I've been
>> saying that my car takes 4 litres per hectokilometer. 4 l/HKm
>
>Phrase that as 40 liters per megameter and I'm with you.
Puh-leeze. 4 dekaliters per megameter.
Charlie Pearce
<dev...@example.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:07:11 GMT, ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <551t3hF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>> Guillermo el Gato <dev...@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Personally I would favor using the metric system: Mega=million,
>>> >Giga=billion, Tera=trillion, and I'd appreciate if rest of the world
>>> >dropped into line with my vision. Thanks!
>>>
>>> I've heard megabucks many times. I'm sure that I've seen gigabucks in
>>> US economy discussions. Dunno about terabucks.
>>>
>>> So now we just have to generalize the term from dollar terms to
>>> general usage.
>>>
>>> I bought a car yesterday that gets good gas mileage. In Canada, gas
>>> mileage is measured in liters per hundred kilometers. I've been
>>> saying that my car takes 4 litres per hectokilometer. 4 l/HKm
>>
>>Phrase that as 40 liters per megameter and I'm with you.
>
>Puh-leeze. 4 dekaliters per megameter.
40ml/km.
Charlie
--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs
Hactar
No, no, too useful.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Unix is user-friendly; it's just picky
about who it makes friends with.
Charlie Pearce
wrote:
>In article <o0rou2t0un8kuo7sj...@4ax.com>,
>Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:41:54 +0100, Guillermo el Gato
>> <dev...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:07:11 GMT, ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <551t3hF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> >>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I bought a car yesterday that gets good gas mileage. In Canada, gas
>> >>> mileage is measured in liters per hundred kilometers. I've been
>> >>> saying that my car takes 4 litres per hectokilometer. 4 l/HKm
>> >>
>> >>Phrase that as 40 liters per megameter and I'm with you.
>> >
>> >Puh-leeze. 4 dekaliters per megameter.
>>
>> 40ml/km.
>
>No, no, too useful.
My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
Greg Goss
That's probably the one I should be using.
Estron
>> >>> I bought a car yesterday that gets good gas mileage. In Canada, gas
>> >>> mileage is measured in liters per hundred kilometers. I've been
>> >>> saying that my car takes 4 litres per hectokilometer. 4 l/HKm
>> >>Phrase that as 40 liters per megameter and I'm with you.
>> >Puh-leeze. 4 dekaliters per megameter.
>> 40ml/km.
Hell with this meaningless noise. Let's see, 100 km times 0.621371 equals
62.1371 miles, 4 liters times 0.264172 equals 1.056688 gallons, divide both
sides by 1.056688 . . .
Ah. An understandable figure. 58.8 miles per gallon. Wow. Very
impressive, Greg.
(so how much did it cost in REAL money?)
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that, and are my own.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@kc.rr.com
Kansas City, Missouri
Greg Goss
>Previously, in alt.fan.cecil-adams , Hactar wrote:
>
>>> >>> I bought a car yesterday that gets good gas mileage. In Canada, gas
>>> >>> mileage is measured in liters per hundred kilometers. I've been
>>> >>> saying that my car takes 4 litres per hectokilometer. 4 l/HKm
>
>>> >>Phrase that as 40 liters per megameter and I'm with you.
>
>>> >Puh-leeze. 4 dekaliters per megameter.
>
>>> 40ml/km.
>
>Hell with this meaningless noise. Let's see, 100 km times 0.621371 equals
>62.1371 miles, 4 liters times 0.264172 equals 1.056688 gallons, divide both
>sides by 1.056688 . . .
>
>Ah. An understandable figure. 58.8 miles per gallon. Wow. Very
>impressive, Greg.
>
>(so how much did it cost in REAL money?)
12,300 Canabucks. Since Harper turned us back into a banana republic,
our dollar has fallen back to 84 cents, so that's $14,600 or so
bushies. Plus various costs. Since I was buying it privately from
out of province, I had to do a lot of checking and import bureaucracy,
making it closer to 13K.
When Honda was still making them, they went for $27K.
There's another Insight owner on AFCA. In the summer, with smoother
tires and better thermal balance in the engine, he regularly gets 70
something miles per US gallon.
This one has winter tires at the moment, and even the summer ones
aren't the ride-hard ones that shipped with the car.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2001car1tablef.jsp?column=1&id=16447
With the tires it was shipped with, good weather, and the somewhat
bogus EPA standardized test, it is rated at 64 combined miles per US
gallon.
The website forum catering to insight owners has lots of discussions
about managing the airflow to keep the engine from over-cooling in the
wintertime. "The ultimate" in anything attracts the mega-nerds, and
the Insight grabs them for gas mileage. In a run for Guinness, a
British Honda dealer ran one around the circumference of the island to
get 105 miles per (larger) gallon.
I just left it at my mechanic for the safety check required by the
provincial rules. I accidentally left the reading light on the night
before I dropped it off and the conventional battery was dead when he
went to start it in the morning. After phoning me to see if there was
some odd technique to starting hybrids, he jumped it via the
conventional battery and left it idling to charge. Some time later,
he came over to it, and it had turned itself off. It was sitting
there in neutral waiting for the light to turn green, carefully
avoiding wasting gas.
Hactar
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> Estron <est...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Ah. An understandable figure. 58.8 miles per gallon. Wow. Very
> >impressive, Greg.
> >
> >(so how much did it cost in REAL money?)
>
> 12,300 Canabucks. Since Harper turned us back into a banana republic,
> our dollar has fallen back to 84 cents, so that's $14,600 or so
> bushies. Plus various costs. Since I was buying it privately from
> out of province, I had to do a lot of checking and import bureaucracy,
> making it closer to 13K.
Might you have divided by 0.78 when you should have multiplied by it,
making it around 9,900 Bushies?
> When Honda was still making them, they went for $27K.
CAD 27K ~= USD 22K using your value of CAD 1 = USD 0.78 .
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al
Greg Goss
>In article <55bgeeF...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> Estron <est...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ah. An understandable figure. 58.8 miles per gallon. Wow. Very
>> >impressive, Greg.
>> >
>> >(so how much did it cost in REAL money?)
>>
>> 12,300 Canabucks. Since Harper turned us back into a banana republic,
>> our dollar has fallen back to 84 cents, so that's $14,600 or so
>> bushies. Plus various costs. Since I was buying it privately from
>> out of province, I had to do a lot of checking and import bureaucracy,
>> making it closer to 13K.
>
>Might you have divided by 0.78 when you should have multiplied by it,
>making it around 9,900 Bushies?
>
>> When Honda was still making them, they went for $27K.
>
>CAD 27K ~= USD 22K using your value of CAD 1 = USD 0.78 .
Wrong direction. You're right. But you copied the wrong value for
the canabuck.
Until we elected our own imitation Bush, our dollar was skyrocketing
against the US dollar. Even with Harper's ambush of oilfield
investors, our dollar has only fallen six cents or so.
Thus
Purchase price: CAD 12,300 = USD 10,300
Purchase price with overhead items: CAD 13,000 = USD 10,900
New price for 2006 version: CAD 27K = USD 22,700
You got the right answer for the new price, but your WORK is wrong.
Who are you copying from?!?
Hactar
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
>
> >Might you have divided by 0.78 when you should have multiplied by it,
> >making it around 9,900 Bushies?
> >
> >Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> When Honda was still making them, they went for $27K.
> >
> >CAD 27K ~= USD 22K using your value of CAD 1 = USD 0.78 .
>
> Wrong direction. You're right. But you copied the wrong value for
> the canabuck.
Oh, it's not USD 0.78? *browse* http://x-rates.com/ a-ha! USD 0.847!
> Thus
> Purchase price: CAD 12,300 = USD 10,300
> Purchase price with overhead items: CAD 13,000 = USD 10,900
> New price for 2006 version: CAD 27K = USD 22,700
>
> You got the right answer for the new price, but your WORK is wrong.
> Who are you copying from?!?
I guess I get the answer by intuition and a *miracle happens here* series
of steps, then try to come up with some plausible calculations to get
the same answer. In this case I screwed up.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81