Comment On Scientific Phonation

"Drat!" Arttu notes, "the limits of displaying long numbers caught me again!" [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Scientific Phirstation

2010-01-22 09:04 • by Brian Manahan (unregistered)
Scientific Phirstation!

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:08 • by Gieron
People who store phone numbers as actual numbers deserves neither.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:09 • by jspenguin
LEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE


...ROY JEEENNNNKINS!

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:14 • by frits
Jenny, I got your number,
I need to make you mine.
Jenny, don't change your number,
8.675 to the 6th power of ten

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:19 • by Shriike (unregistered)
Ok clearly the pears is saying that for the first 10 pears you buy it's only $10 a pound, but after that the price will either go up, down, or stay the same.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:20 • by DayLate (unregistered)
Flower arranging sounds better than my job. I wonder if my employer would consider that job related training.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:28 • by Ian (unregistered)
Either way those pears sound very expensive (unless you live somewhere where everything has to be flown in).

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:28 • by dkf
Not funny:
I also did not understand the thing with the pears... per lb?
I think it means 10 pears for $10. (The “Per lb” is just a trick!) I think it also means that those pears are overpriced, especially after any temporary rollback is reversed. (Paying effectively a dollar for one pear? There's TRWTF right there...)

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:29 • by dkf
296716 in reply to 296714
Ian:
Either way those pears sound very expensive (unless you live somewhere where everything has to be flown in).
Google and Wikipedia say that it's a small chain of grocers in North Dakota and Minnesota.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:33 • by md5sum
296717 in reply to 296710
jspenguin:
LEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE EEEEEE


...ROY JEEENNNNKINS!


I knew somebody was going to do it... it never fails.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:36 • by Not funny (unregistered)
Why does Alex keep deleting the comments about imperial units? Does he realise how stupid they are and keeps removing them so others will not?

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:42 • by El_Heffe
296720 in reply to 296715
dkf:
I also did not understand the thing with the pears... per lb?
How many meters is that?

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:47 • by Jamiec (unregistered)
MAybe those pears were on an embedd....

nah. lame.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:53 • by Yogi (unregistered)
296722 in reply to 296715
Umm, no. 10 pounds for $10.

Definitely retarded.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 09:56 • by Anonymous (unregistered)
I've seen string corruption over RDP sessions before.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:03 • by RogerC
I suppose getting 80% of your facts right is sufficient to be a reporter for CNN.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:03 • by Northern Neighbor, eh? (unregistered)
296725 in reply to 296716
dkf:
Ian:
Either way those pears sound very expensive (unless you live somewhere where everything has to be flown in).
Google and Wikipedia say that it's a small chain of grocers in North Dakota and Minnesota.

In that case, not just flown in, but airdropped. Which is quite hazardous to the brave aircrews during [duck|goose|wabbit] hunting season.

I bet the local taxidermist has to think a bit about how to stuff and mount a C-17 Globemaster.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:14 • by amischiefr
Flower Arranging? Isn't that what football players major in? Must be because I have never seen one in any of my math, physics or CS classes.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:16 • by skawtie (unregistered)
296727 in reply to 296725
As a resident of Minnesota and a part time resident of North Dakota, I resent that.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:19 • by Gare.Chicago (unregistered)
Even better than the radio button goof on the Adobe printer WTF is the improper use of "affect".


The improper utilization of affect v. effect is akin to my peeve of people who don't understand there/their/they're. But maybe it's just me.

Gare

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:27 • by gus (unregistered)
I see the problem-- :) they should have declared the number as a DOUBLE so it would have enough digits of precision to represent a phone number. Silly rabbit.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:32 • by badcaseofspace
296732 in reply to 296723
Anonymous:
I've seen string corruption over RDP sessions before.

Absolutely, but I haven't seen them since pouring the latest set of hotfixes over our lab. But don't jump the gun, or you'll want to go back to the old days, when string corruption was the only issue.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:34 • by aristos_achaion (unregistered)
Obviously, 10 pears / 10 dollars / lb simplifies to 10 pears / 10 dollar*lb. They'll give you 10 pears for every 10 pounds of US paper currency.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:36 • by Kensey
296735 in reply to 296729
Gare.Chicago:
Even better than the radio button goof on the Adobe printer WTF is the improper use of "affect".


I would like to congratulate you in advance for this clever troll.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:43 • by sirlewk (unregistered)
296736 in reply to 296711
You win. You win everything forever.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 10:46 • by avflinsch
296737 in reply to 296715
dkf:
Not funny:
I also did not understand the thing with the pears... per lb?
I think it means 10 pears for $10. (The “Per lb” is just a trick!) I think it also means that those pears are overpriced, especially after any temporary rollback is reversed. (Paying effectively a dollar for one pear? There's TRWTF right there...)



the per lb is probably pre printed on the sign forms, and the 10 (whatever)/$10 is a common sale gimmick in many supermarkets around this area

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:00 • by Harry Carey (unregistered)
Of course, the real WTF is that there are higher level classes than Entry Level Flower Arranging. Sign me up for the grad level version! I'd like to do research on why a daylilly is often overlooked as the focus point of a centerpiece because the stamen's anthers are falsely preceived as overbearing.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:05 • by RogerC
296739 in reply to 296738
Harry Carey:
Of course, the real WTF is that there are higher level classes than Entry Level Flower Arranging. Sign me up for the grad level version! I'd like to do research on why a daylilly is often overlooked as the focus point of a centerpiece because the stamen's anthers are falsely preceived as overbearing.

Um... Sounds to me like you've already aced that class.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:07 • by SR (unregistered)
296740 in reply to 296739
RogerC:
Harry Carey:
Of course, the real WTF is that there are higher level classes than Entry Level Flower Arranging. Sign me up for the grad level version! I'd like to do research on why a daylilly is often overlooked as the focus point of a centerpiece because the stamen's anthers are falsely preceived as overbearing.

Um... Sounds to me like you've already aced that class.


It's plagiarised from my paper. I majored in flower-arranging and embedded systems

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:19 • by Andrew (unregistered)
296742 in reply to 296729
Gare.Chicago:
Even better than the radio button goof on the Adobe printer WTF is the improper use of "affect".


The improper utilization of affect v. effect is akin to my peeve of people who don't understand there/their/they're. But maybe it's just me.

Gare


Yeah, I'm like that with people who write "utilization" when they mean "use".

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:29 • by Tiggrrr42
I'd say flower arranging[1] was a much more technically advanced course than CLAIT[2] or ECDL[3]


[1] At any level
[2] Computer Literacy and Information Technology. Might involve typing a letter in Word.
[3] European Computer Driving Licence. Worse than it sounds.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:30 • by Steve the Cynic (unregistered)
Presumably CNN doesn't think anyone is WTFy enough to actually get less than 10 correct answers.

augue: what I said when I could not post...

[2]

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:31 • by Mr Gramuh (unregistered)
296745 in reply to 296742

There unproper using of affect v. effect is akiln to my perve of peoples who dont under-stand there/their/they're, But may be its just me.



Yeah what he said!

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:33 • by campkev
That's $1.00 for a pound of pears. It's not that f'ing hard, or are you all really that stupid?

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:37 • by Plz Send Me The Code (unregistered)
296747 in reply to 296729
Gare.Chicago:
Even better than the radio button goof on the Adobe printer WTF is the improper use of "affect".


The improper utilization of affect v. effect is akin to my peeve of people who don't understand there/their/they're. But maybe it's just me.

Gare


your right

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:47 • by frits
296748 in reply to 296743
Tiggrrr42:

...
Computer Literacy and Information Technology.
...


Hee Hee.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 11:58 • by Mcoder
296749 in reply to 296740
SR:
RogerC:
Harry Carey:
Of course, the real WTF is that there are higher level classes than Entry Level Flower Arranging. Sign me up for the grad level version! I'd like to do research on why a daylilly is often overlooked as the focus point of a centerpiece because the stamen's anthers are falsely preceived as overbearing.

Um... Sounds to me like you've already aced that class.


It's plagiarised from my paper. I majored in flower-arranging and embedded systems


Flower arranging must be quite hard when you don't have a filesystem to rely upon!

Ok, I know, lame... But anyway, if not storing telephones as numbers, what are your options? Really? Do you use:
- ;
- or
- ?

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:08 • by ROFL (unregistered)
I can empathize with the phone number glitch.

I once received a government-issued data tape which was supposed to contain phone numbers for certain types of facilities. The original DB stored them as long integers (WTF #1), but the export routine wrote them in true WTF format (BEST10 if I recall correctly, WTF #2), so we received about a hundred thousand phone numbers which were all useless. 7.03934E09

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:12 • by Spectre

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:15 • by Mithras (unregistered)
A little dimensional analysis reveals:


10 pears 1 1 pear 1
---------- * ----------------- = --------------------------- = -------------------
10 dollars 1 pound of pears 10 dollar-pounds of pears 10 dollar-pounds


So for every 10 dollar-pounds you give them, you get back one dimensionless unit. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:17 • by Mason Wheeler
I don't suppose Arttu's last name is Dittu?

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:22 • by Herohtar (unregistered)
296754 in reply to 296742
Andrew:
Gare.Chicago:
Even better than the radio button goof on the Adobe printer WTF is the improper use of "affect".


The improper utilization of affect v. effect is akin to my peeve of people who don't understand there/their/they're. But maybe it's just me.

Gare


Yeah, I'm like that with people who write "utilization" when they mean "use".


Especially since utilization and use mean the same thing and are both perfectly valid words to use there?

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:23 • by Neville Flynn (unregistered)
Flower arranging is just a fun way to learn sorting algorithms.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:25 • by HUH (unregistered)
296756 in reply to 296711
frits:
Jenny, I got your number,
I need to make you mine.
Jenny, don't change your number,
8.675 to the 6th power of ten


8.675 to the 6th power of te-i-e-en!

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:32 • by mcmcc
296757 in reply to 296735
Kensey:
Gare.Chicago:
Even better than the radio button goof on the Adobe printer WTF is the improper use of "affect".


I would like to congratulate you in advance for this clever troll.

I think you give him/her too much credit.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:38 • by jls (unregistered)
296758 in reply to 296740
Which was plagiarized from my paper about embedded flower-arranging systems.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:42 • by Someone You Know
296759 in reply to 296752
Mithras:
A little dimensional analysis reveals:


10 pears 1 1 pear 1
---------- * ----------------- = --------------------------- = -------------------
10 dollars 1 pound of pears 10 dollar-pounds of pears 10 dollar-pounds


So for every 10 dollar-pounds you give them, you get back one dimensionless unit. Sounds like a good deal to me.


Wasn't the dollar-pound a currency unit in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Or some other old sci-fi story?

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:49 • by Single Utilizationer Mode (unregistered)
296760 in reply to 296754
Herohtar:
utilization and use mean the same thing and are both perfectly valid words to use

Why utilizationize the long word if the short word means exactly the same thing? Just to impress people with your polysyllabic vocabulationaryism? "Utilize" and its variants are utilizationless words.

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:52 • by Mystery Shopper (unregistered)
Obviously the price is 10 pounds for 10 dollars a pound. Divide both sides by 10 and you get 1 pound for 1 dollar a pound. So I'd recommend buying one pound at a time, even if you have to go through checkout 10 times!

Re: Scientific Phonation

2010-01-22 12:59 • by Actuarials (unregistered)
I feel sorry for Andrew. His life must be pretty bad if even actuaries think he should have never been born.
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Add Comment