Glass for a wood rdisplay

messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

Rob: Here, I have a 12" oak stick. Doug: Your stick should be 11.5" Rob, Don't change the argument. Doug: Cite where you say your stick is oak. It is pine. Rob: (after a couple of tries of trying to bring Doug back to reality, that this stick, in fact MY stick, *I* made it, *IS* both 12" and made from oak.) realizes Doug is a troll. Doug: (Realizing he doesn't have a leg to stand on) ": It is not a stick, it is a baton, cite where your stick isn't a baton.) Rob: Wants to toss the stick one more time, but Doug has decided to chase an 11.5" pine stick instead, so Rob won't play any more.

Another parallel:

Rob: I have a qt of stain and it is enough for this table. Doug: When painting ocean liners, a qt won't be enough and stain won't work.

The man is a troll.

r
Reply to
Robatoy
Loading thread data ...

LOL.. I know, Larry. 12 wickets, 11 spaces in between.

That would have been a different sequence than I presented. The sequence I presented (which could have ended in 10.9999999999999999999, I suppose) does illustrate, and magnifies greatly the errors made in rounding. That's all it is supposed to do. It cracks me up that a simple illustration which says that there are many ways to deal with rounding errors, which the attendant at the gas-bar (I think in Mr. Magan's post) may have applied (humourous in its unlikelyness) has evolved, thanks to Mr. Miller, into a flap about very little. I guess I'm guilty of 'working' Mr. Miller a little, but he needs to stop drinking coffee.

Okay, let me re-phrase. When shoving a lot of really big calculations through a really big computer, rounding errors count for something, and not all rounding methods end up with the same results. Would an AS400 as an example of a big computer been as recognizable as a Cray? All Miller did, was to jump all over one word, out of a whole topic, in the faint hopes that he could demonstrate his vast intellect so that people would not become hip to his small penis.

I never joke.

okay... maybe almost ( 96.334 % oops, make that 96.4 %) of the time.

I often joke around, but Miller just isn't funny. There are a couple of people in here who have no sense of humour. Now they're both in the bin.

I like that line. Both black and white chess pieces also end up in the same box.

r
Reply to
Robatoy

Robatoy is the one ignoring facts here, Leon. Did you have anything of value to contribute, or do you just like to criticize?

Reply to
Doug Miller

You're the one changing the argument here, Rob.

Reply to
Doug Miller

What you're missing here is that it's only at arbitrary, small scales such as the one you presented that the errors become apparent. On a larger scale, they effectively disappear.

Again, you're missing the point. The more calculations you do, and the larger the data set on which you do them, the *less* the errors amount to.

Wow -- you lost the argument on substance, so you resort to personal abuse. How very mature.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Been there, heard that.

Reply to
Leon

I wasn't talking to you.

You are the only one who thinks I 'lost' anything.

That was very immature of me to 'out' you like that, but it felt great anyway.

It also pointed out that I hadn't plonked you off my laptop yet, even though I did plonk you off my Cray.

Sooo.. are you going to go away now?

r
Reply to
Robatoy

Guess you missed Larry Wasserman's post, then, in which he pointed out exactly the same flaws in your "reasoning" that I did. For some reason, though, you didn't find it necessary to heap abuse on him.

I outgrew deriving enjoyment from insulting other people somewhere around fifth grade. Too bad you're still stuck in junior high school.

Reply to
Doug Miller

I disagreed with you because you were WRONG -- and you obviously have a real problem with that.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Perhaps you should re-read the entire thread -- and see which one of us became disrespectful first:

You.

You went through a similar episode a month or so, when you were very profane and abusive to several people who in no way invited the abuse you dumped on them. I can only conclude that there are some unresolved issues in your personal life bleeding over into this ng, and I hope things get better for you. Soon. You used to be a valuable contributor to this group.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Hehehehehe... I can't believe I'm actually doing this but I HAD stop in to take a look, you know, slow down to look at the accident? I KNEW you'd be back, because you HAVE to have the last word. I told you I wasn't paying any more attention to you, yet you ramble on anyway. Were you shouting into the forest, Doug? And now you're doing an Oprah/Swiftboat thing on me? Shame on you! How low have you sunk?

BTW, Karl Rove is looking for some volunteers to help assisinate a few characters. You'd be a shoe-in.

Now cite where I didn't say that.

Maybe I will stick around for a few rounds even though you're not much of a challenge.

*still laughing* r
Reply to
Robatoy

[snippage restored]

That's pretty funny. Why are YOU back?

I figured you were lying. Looks like I was right, too.

Obviously not.

Have you figured out yet that I disagreed with you because you were wrong, not because I "disagree for sport" or because I have some sort of personal animus for you? Why do you think Wasserman disagreed with you? He gave exactly the same reasons I did. Was he disagreeing "for sport", or because he thought you were wrong? (Since you didn't respond to him at all, I'm guessing you *have* figured out that you were wrong. Time to admit it.)

At some point, Rob, you need to back off and do some introspection. Why does it upset you so much to be disagreed with? Why do you have so much trouble accepting the idea that you made a mistake? Or admitting it? Why are you so insecure?

Reply to
Doug Miller

To play wiff you!

Shall I try one more time?

1 2 3 4 5 6.1 7 8 9 10

Do YOU see anything peculiar? Or is there something wrong with MY row of numbers? Yes, that row of numbers *I* created. You don't get it do you? I suppose you don't 'get' that there is something wrong in Iraq either, eh?

Doesn't it make you feel stupid that you climbed all over me because I mentioned a Cray as an example of a great big computer. When somebody comments that a particular car is a deusy, are you one of those people who would say; "No it isn't. You are wrong. It is a Bentley."

Did you run out of nits to pick when you felt that the Cray issue was important, Doug? (And stop trying to draw parallels between you and Mr. Wasserman, you don't measure up.)

You psycho analysis sucks. Cite the evidence which makes you more secure than I. Cite one post in which you have admitted that you have been wrong. I know I have a few posts where I admitted making an error. I admit, right here, that I made an error in judgement about you, for instance. The evidence is plentyful to prove what you are.

On a political level, you're toast, btw.

Fun, eh?

r
Reply to
Robatoy

Robatoy wrote:

It's events like this that remind me of advice given me by my mother a long time ago:

"If you are going to play with fecal matter, you are bound to get some on you".

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

Oh, I see. Couldn't have anything at all with wanting to get the last word, could it.

Apparently you haven't figured it out yet.

Nothing at all wrong with it.

Oh, I get it just fine -- you're every bit as argumentative as you accuse me of being.

Apparently you see a connection between Iraq, and methods of rounding decimals. I don't.

No, it doesn't, not at all -- because I didn't do that. I disagreed with you because you made uninformed and incorrect claims about how they work and what they're used for.

If it was in fact a Bentley, and not a Deusy, I would say that, yes. But apparently you think I should agree with a mistake.

You're the one attaching all the importance to that, not me. As far as I'm concerned, that's really a minor issue. But by all means keep trying to tell me how computers work -- apparently you enjoy demonstrating your own cluelessness.

He and I raised exactly the same objections to your original post regarding number rounding. And Cray computers.

I didn't say I was. Maybe I'm not. Maybe I am. But you sure don't seem to be very secure, given the way you go off when someone disagrees with you.

formatting link
?dmode=source&hl=en
formatting link
?dmode=source&hl=en
formatting link
?dmode=source&hl=en
formatting link
?dmode=source&hl=en
formatting link
?dmode=source&hl=en>I know I have a few posts where I admitted making an error.

My turn: cite one, please.

Yes, you certainly have -- but you have no idea what error you've made.

And likewise yourself.

What on earth are you talking about?

Reply to
Doug Miller

Somebody stop me... how am I supposed to leave a line like that alone? My 'own' cluelessness? As opposed to whose? Relax already, if you tell me that a Cray never does any rounding, banker's or otherwise, because it makes no difference, fine. I have learned something. No Cray, ever, has made a financial calculation. See? Feel better already?

Holy cow, Doug! (Didn't read any of them, maybe later.)

This thread right here. I thought everybody in here had a sense of humour. I was wrong. Cite one post where you make a funny.

(Sorry, but I can't invest too much time in this newsgroup, there's money to be made and my self-imposed coffee break is over.)

r
Reply to
Robatoy

No, Rob, I'm not going to tell you that. I will tell you, though, that they typically are used for scientific applications where high-speed, high-volume parallel floating-point calculations are needed. Weather forecasting is one example.

It would be rare to use a Cray, or any supercomputer, for any sort of business or financial application of any significance, because machines much better suited to those tasks can be had at a small fraction of the price.

For your edification, here's a description of how rounding works in the Cobol programming language (historically the most widely used language for financial apps):

"If the ROUNDED phrase is specified in an arithmetic operation, the absolute value of the resultant identifier is increased by one whenever the most significant digit of the excess portion of the result is greater than or equal to 5. The excess portion is then truncated."

formatting link
(page 275)

I suspect strongly that if any other method of rounding were more accurate, the banking and insurance industries would have had a strong financial interest in seeing that method adopted instead.

Reply to
Doug Miller

News: There was a gas station attendant (IIRC) who rounded 10.2 to 11. Not news: That was wrong. Rob's version: He may have been applying another rounding technique.

Only ONE person decided to take issue with the set-up of the joke.

Guess who? Guess why?

I'll go visit my buddies at Fark.com now... get my head readjusted to normalcy. Today's topic: Former CEO of Xerox dies Former CEO of Xerox dies Former CEO of Xerox dies Former CEO of Xerox dies Former CEO of Xerox dies

Reply to
Robatoy

Ohhhhhhhhh, I get it now -- it was a joke all along, and you're Trent Sauder pretending to be Robatoy.

Boy, you really got me there, Trent.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Ohhhkay....

*rolls eyes*
Reply to
Robatoy

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.