The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: Lewis on 2 Mar 2010 04:38 On 28-Feb-10 18:07, Peter Moylan wrote: > Nick wrote: >> Peter Moylan<gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: > >>> At my confirmation my fingers definitely were crossed. In addition, I >>> was muttering under my breath "a promise made under duress is not >>> legally binding". >>> >>> Nobody asked me whether I wanted to be baptised or confirmed, and in any >>> case I was too young to make an informed decision. Especially in the >>> case of the baptism. >> >> Seems a bit pointless to me. You might as well go through it >> wholeheartedly. After all, if it's rubbish then it's harmless - and if >> it's not you probably wanted to do it. > > And if I picked the wrong god? I can think of at least one god who is > hostile towards those who worship a different god. Aren't they all this way? Brings to mind a quote from the sig file, attached as my sig. -- BILL: I can't get behind the Gods, who are more vengeful, angry, an dangerous if you don't believe in them! HENRY: Why can't all these God just get along? I mean, they're omni- potent and omnipresent, what's the problem?
From: Peter Moylan on 2 Mar 2010 05:01 Lewis wrote: > On 28-Feb-10 18:40, Peter Moylan wrote: >> The computer I'm now using has a processor that's about 100 times >> as fast as the one in the first PC I ever had. > > My first computer had a 1MHz processor. My current machine has a 4 core > processor running at 2Ghz. 8 *thousand* times faster. Sorry, my calculation error. I was better at working out orders of magnitude back in the slide rule days. Of course, software bloat has mucked around with my intuition. Everything seems to run a bit more slowly than it did on the 1 MHz processor. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: Lewis on 2 Mar 2010 05:23 On 28-Feb-10 15:59, Hatunen wrote: > I do hope you mean celsius degrees. They're the only degrees worth mentioning (well, kelvin, but those degrees are the same, just a different zero). -- Hi, I'm Gary Cooper, but not the Gary Cooper that's dead.
From: Lewis on 2 Mar 2010 05:24 On 28-Feb-10 16:38, Hatunen wrote: > When mentioning temperatures I always try to remember to use "C" > or "F". I use F on the rare occasions I talk about F. Otherwise, I assume C is understood. Yes, I am being petulant, what of it? -- Hi, I'm Gary Cooper, but not the Gary Cooper that's dead.
From: sjdevnull on 2 Mar 2010 06:04
On Mar 2, 3:25 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Adam Funk wrote: > > On 2010-03-01, Hatunen wrote: > > >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:16:10 +1300, "PaulJK" > >> <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > >>> Hatunen wrote: > > >>>> When mentioning temperatures I always try to remember to use "C" > >>>> or "F". > > >>> Don't forget "R" and "K" ! > > >> I, for one, make very few posts requiring either. > > > I don't think I've every seen an R or K thermometer (except in > > books). > > Still, that shouldn't stop you from mentioning temperatures in > Kelvins or Réaumurs. :-) > > BTW, when I was growing up in my old family's home we had > a room thermometer with a C scale on one side and R scale > on the other. When I asked my mum what was the R scale > for, she said: "Oh, they are some Reomírs, don't worry > about them." Reaumurs, really? Did she make cheese? The Rankine scale is by far the most common R-scale I've ever seen in actual use. |