Favourite computer history books?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Scanning to a multipage pdf?
Next: Apple co-branding
From: jmfbahciv on 7 May 2010 09:21 Charles Richmond wrote: > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> writes: >> >>> In article <hruvjg$bvo$7(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>> Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Two plus two equals five... for very large values of two. >>> No, for *sufficiently* large values of two. 2.251 is sufficiently large (in >>> applescript at least). >>> >>> round (2.251) + round (2.251) = 4 >>> round (2.251 + 2.251) = 5 >>> >>> (Applescript rounds numbers ending in .5 to the nearest even number unless >>> specified otherwise.) >> >> I would regard 2.251 as a *huge* value of two. > > But you always *did* see the glass as half full... > Not if it contains beer. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 May 2010 09:21 Charles Richmond wrote: > Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> On Tue, 04 May 2010 23:26:34 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer >> <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >> >>> Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> writes: >>>> Pessimist: Looks at the glass as half empty. >>>> >>>> Optimist: Looks at the glass as half full. >>>> >>>> Optometrist: Says "Does the glass look better this way, or this >>>> way... this way, or this way..." >>> Engineer: you know, that glass is twice as big as it needs to be.... >> >> Real Engineer: "That glass is 1.9 times bigger than it needs to >> be." (allowing for a tolerance) >> > > Two plus two equals five... for very large values of two. > > Or FORMAT statements which are too short. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 May 2010 09:21 Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On 6 May 2010 13:04:17 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> On Tue, 04 May 2010 23:26:34 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer >>> <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> Pessimist: Looks at the glass as half empty. >>>>> >>>>> Optimist: Looks at the glass as half full. >>>>> >>>>> Optometrist: Says "Does the glass look better this way, or this >>>>> way... this way, or this way..." >>>> >>>>Engineer: you know, that glass is twice as big as it needs to be.... >>> >>> Real Engineer: "That glass is 1.9 times bigger than it needs to >>> be." (allowing for a tolerance) >>> >> >>Software engineer: Look at all that unused space! > (pause) Uh, I need a bigger glass. > > (You missed the tail end of it, Barb.) > Fixed in the next release. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 May 2010 09:21 Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> >> then we invented the VAX, which sucked better. > > Or just more. Nope. > > Meanwhile, there is a brand of vacuum cleaner from Oz called the VAX > and one of their models is the Ultrixx. Did they really do that? /BAH
From: Ahem A Rivet's Shot on 7 May 2010 08:03
On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:01:11 -0400 Walter Bushell <proto(a)panix.com> wrote: > In article <hrtfov$o2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> wrote: > > > Walter Bushell wrote: > > > In article > > > <michelle-C54688.23171004052010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, > > > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > > > > >> In article > > >> <7b6d8ba5-ffab-4d20-b345-7085cf663b13(a)b18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > >> Mensanator <mensanator(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>>> That reminds me of the story about the guy who travels back in > > >>>> time to take Newton a calculator, thinking it would advance > > >>>> science. He is in the process of demonstrating some things when > > >>>> the answer happens to be, "666." Newton does not take that one > > >>>> well at all. > > >>> What was the problem? Summing the integers from 1 to 36? > > >> set x to 0 > > >> repeat with i from 1 to 36 > > >> set x to x + i > > >> end repeat > > > > > > 37*18 > > > > > > Sum of integers from 1 to n is ((n+1)*n)/2. > > > > > > And you don't even need induction to prove it. hint n-1 +2 = n+1 > > > etcetera. > > > > > > > Another "proof": > > > > 1 2 3 4 5 ..... (n-2) (n-1) n > > > > + n (n-1) (n-2) (n-3) (n-4) ..... 3 2 1 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > (n+1) (n+1) (n+1) (n+1) (n+1) ..... (n+1) (n+1) (n+1) > > > > > > The "sum" line above has "n" number of (n+1), but adding those up > > gives you *twice* the sum of (1..n). So divide by 2. > > That was the proof I had in mind, but you have to consider n even and > odd, for example 1+3 is 4 but 2 has no match. It makes no difference to the proof - put the numbers 1 to n in columns forwards in one row and then in the next put them in columns in reverse. Note that each column adds up to n+1 (trivial the colunm with m on the top has n-m+1 on the bottom) and that the first two rows add up to the sum you want and the row of column sums adds up to n*(n+1), so twice the required sum is n*(n+1). -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/ |