I am in the process of finishing up a display case for my son. The case
will have glass on the front and sides and have a mirrored back. Because of
the design the glass is installed from the outside of the case. The rabbets
that receive the glass are to receive glass that is 3/32" thick and a 1/4"
radius quarter round.
Arriving at the glass store that I normally purchase from there is a new
girl working behind the counter. She apparently has been there long enough
to know the jargon but is clueless when it comes to the actual thickness of
glass.
When she asked what thickness of glass I wanted, I indicated 3/32". Her
response was, we only sell 1/16" and 1/8" thin glass for cabinet use. I
knew 1/8" was too thick and 1/16" breaks too easily. She pulls out two
samples of the glass and I look at their thicknesses and I tell her I want
the 3/32" piece. She says again that the samples are 1/16" and 1/8" thick.
I put the edges of the two pieces side by side and told her that one was
clearly not double the thickness of the other. Yes, the thinner one is much
closer to 3/32". Grabbing four of her 1/16" thick samples and putting into
a stack and three of her 1/8" samples and placing those in a stack beside
the other stack they are of equal height. I looked at her and said, four
1/16" thick pieces of glass stacked should not be the same thickness of
three 1/8" thick pieces of glass stacked together.
She looked at me like I was crazy.
When I got home the glass measured out with the dial caliper at 3/32" thick.
I do believe that she realized that the 1/8" thick piece was not double the
thickness of what she was calling 1/16". I suppose that she did not
understand that 1/16" is half of 1/8" thick. Geez.
Was this just me being like a noob to wood working and being confused with
why a 2 x 4 is not two inches thick? In the past the seasoned employees
behind the counter at the glass company knew what I wanted when I said
3/32" thick.
Leon wrote:
> When she asked what thickness of glass I wanted, I indicated 3/32". Her
> response was, we only sell 1/16" and 1/8" thin glass for cabinet use.
I'd go with the 1/8" My glass is 2mm, 3mm or 4mm. I only use 3mm these
days, because I was getting tired of the 2mm breaking. I don't even use
it for picture framing or shadow boxes any more. There's really not
much where you _must_ be under 3mm.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <5Megh.11135$Q36.9969@trnddc08>, "resrfglc" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> My question is, who sells 1/16" glass anyway? That seems awful darn thin.
>
> I thought "standard" was 1/10" -- maybe there was a [sloppily] handwritten tag
> over the tenth-inch glass, on which the zero looked like a six...
it's a common thickness for colored glass. it comes in 1/16, 1/8, 1/4,
and 3/4. that thickness of clear glass also often used in small box
lids or very small fish tanks, for example.
regards,
charlie
http://glassartists.org/chaniarts
Morris Dovey wrote:
> SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin side
> | from the air side of float glass. This is not well known, but
> | important to businesses and artists who paint or print on the
> | glass. A glass business should know this.
>
> I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
> important?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
glass enamels are really minerals. some react with tin, giving
different colors than are intended. for example, some blues are copper
based, and can react with the tin layer to make a fugly brown.
you can detect it with a germicidal uv light in a dark room. the tin
side glows. it also beads up water differently, or if you have metal
filings, some people can tell by licking the glass.
regards,
charlie
http://glassartists.org/chaniarts
Morris Dovey wrote:
> SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin side
> | from the air side of float glass. This is not well known, but
> | important to businesses and artists who paint or print on the
> | glass. A glass business should know this.
>
> I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
> important?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
glass enamels are really minerals. some react with tin, giving
different colors than are intended. for example, some blues are copper
based, and can react with the tin layer to make a fugly brown.
you can detect it with a germicidal uv light in a dark room. the tin
side glows. it also beads up water differently, or if you have metal
filings, some people can tell by licking the glass.
regards,
charlie
http://glassartists.org/chaniarts
Morris Dovey wrote:
> SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin side
> | from the air side of float glass. This is not well known, but
> | important to businesses and artists who paint or print on the
> | glass. A glass business should know this.
>
> I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
> important?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
glass enamels are really minerals. some react with tin, giving
different colors than are intended. for example, some blues are copper
based, and can react with the tin layer to make a fugly brown.
you can detect it with a germicidal uv light in a dark room. the tin
side glows. it also beads up water differently, or if you have metal
filings, some people can tell by licking the glass.
regards,
charlie
http://glassartists.org/chaniarts
Morris Dovey wrote:
> SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin side
> | from the air side of float glass. This is not well known, but
> | important to businesses and artists who paint or print on the
> | glass. A glass business should know this.
>
> I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
> important?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
glass enamels are really minerals. some react with tin, giving
different colors than are intended. for example, some blues are copper
based, and can react with the tin layer to make a fugly brown.
you can detect it with a germicidal uv light in a dark room. the tin
side glows. it also beads up water differently, or if you have metal
filings, some people can tell by licking the glass.
regards,
charlie
http://glassartists.org/chaniarts
On Dec 14, 10:38 am, "Ron Magen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'.
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11.0
Do you see anything odd here?
The first series round down to 10 and occurs 5 times in the sequence
from 10 to 11.
The second series round up to 11 and occurs 6 times in the sequence
from 10 to 11.
When the rounding up procedure happens 10% more often than the rounding
down procedure, what do you think the result will be if you have a Cray
XP transact 1 trillion times an interest calculation. We're talking
billions of dollars.
Which is why they don't use that rounding procedure. They round even
numbers down, and odd numbers up (or the other way around, I forgot),
That way the occurance is balanced over large numbers of transactions.
IOW 10.2 could be 11?
r
On Dec 14, 10:38 am, "Ron Magen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'.
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11.0
Do you see anything odd here?
The first series round down to 10 and occurs 5 times in the sequence
from 10 to 11.
The second series round up to 11 and occurs 6 times in the sequence
from 10 to 11.
When the rounding up procedure happens 10% more often than the rounding
down procedure, what do you think the result will be if you have a Cray
XP transact 1 trillion times an interest calculation. We're talking
billions of dollars.
Which is why they don't use that rounding procedure. They round even
numbers down, and odd numbers up (or the other way around, I forgot),
That way the occurance is balanced over large numbers of transactions.
IOW 10.2 could be 11?
r
Morris Dovey wrote:
> SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin side
> | from the air side of float glass. This is not well known, but
> | important to businesses and artists who paint or print on the
> | glass. A glass business should know this.
>
> I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
> important?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
glass enamels are really minerals. some react with tin, giving
different colors than are intended. for example, some blues are copper
based, and can react with the tin layer to make a fugly brown.
you can detect it with a germicidal uv light in a dark room. the tin
side glows. it also beads up water differently, or if you have metal
filings, some people can tell by licking the glass.
regards,
charlie
http://glassartists.org/chaniarts
On Dec 14, 10:38 am, "Ron Magen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'.
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11.0
Do you see anything odd here?
The first series round down to 10 and occurs 5 times in the sequence
from 10 to 11.
The second series round up to 11 and occurs 6 times in the sequence
from 10 to 11.
When the rounding up procedure happens 10% more often than the rounding
down procedure, what do you think the result will be if you have a Cray
XP transact 1 trillion times an interest calculation. We're talking
billions of dollars.
Which is why they don't use that rounding procedure. They round even
numbers down, and odd numbers up (or the other way around, I forgot),
That way the occurance is balanced over large numbers of transactions.
IOW 10.2 could be 11?
r
On Dec 14, 11:44 am, "Pop`" <[email protected]> wrote:
>That round-off makes sense in a lot of places. If you ask for 12.2' of
> something, most people aren't about to convert a decimal to a fractional
> inch,
On Dec 14, 10:38 am, "Ron Magen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'.
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11.0
Do you see anything odd here?
The first series round down to 10 and occurs 5 times in the sequence
from 10 to 11.
The second series round up to 11 and occurs 6 times in the sequence
from 10 to 11.
When the rounding up procedure happens 10% more often than the rounding
down procedure, what do you think the result will be if you have a Cray
XP transact 1 trillion times an interest calculation. We're talking
billions of dollars.
Which is why they don't use that rounding procedure. They round even
numbers down, and odd numbers up (or the other way around, I forgot),
That way the occurance is balanced over large numbers of transactions.
IOW 10.2 could be 11?
r
Morris Dovey wrote:
> SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin side
> | from the air side of float glass. This is not well known, but
> | important to businesses and artists who paint or print on the
> | glass. A glass business should know this.
>
> I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
> important?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
glass enamels are really minerals. some react with tin, giving
different colors than are intended. for example, some blues are copper
based, and can react with the tin layer to make a fugly brown.
you can detect it with a germicidal uv light in a dark room. the tin
side glows. it also beads up water differently, or if you have metal
filings, some people can tell by licking the glass.
regards,
charlie
http://glassartists.org/chaniarts
On Dec 15, 11:12 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >Do you see anything odd here?
>I certainly do -- you should have stopped at 10.9 .
If I'm rounding a number to become 11, then 11 is in the argument.
I am not rounding anything to become 10.9.
If I'm rounding down a number to become 10, it is also in the argument.
Do NOT modify my argument to suit your limited ability to understand
it.
My argument is valid as it stands. Adding decimals won't change
anything.
Now go play with your straw men and red herrings elsewhere.
r
Morris Dovey wrote:
> charlie (in [email protected])
> said:
>
> | Morris Dovey wrote:
> || SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
> ||
> ||| On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin
> ||| side from the air side of float glass. This is not well known, but
> ||| important to businesses and artists who paint or print on the
> ||| glass. A glass business should know this.
> ||
> || I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
> || important?
> |
> | glass enamels are really minerals. some react with tin, giving
> | different colors than are intended. for example, some blues are
> | copper based, and can react with the tin layer to make a fugly
> | brown.
>
> Interesting. Usually I'm trying to /not/ paint glass - but this is
> good information to have filed away. Next time I'm near my local glass
> shop I'll stop in and ask for a demo.
you're misunderstanding. these are glass paints that are fired onto
(and becoming one with) the glass in a range of 1000-1400F. think
church stained glass windows with faces fired onto them. latex/oil
paint has no affect with the tin layer.
typical window glass shops, i would expect, would not know of this. a
decorative glass store (stained, fused, structural, etc) would.
> | you can detect it with a germicidal uv light in a dark room. the tin
> | side glows. it also beads up water differently, or if you have metal
> | filings, some people can tell by licking the glass.
>
> Now this info opens up some really interesting possibilities. Does the
> tin show up brightly; and is it purely a surface deposit (IOW, will it
> rub/scrub off)?
float glass is made by floating molten glass onto a bed of molten tin
in an oxygen-free atmosphere. the tin layer has to be blasted off to
remove it. btw: there is tin layer in old fashioned plate glass, but
hardly anyone makes that anymore.
it's not that bright, but can be seen pretty clearly in the dark.
germicidal uv lights are not common, nor are they generally healthy to
have around and be looking into a lot. they typically come with a lot
of warnings and a purple glass shield which has to be removed to get
the correct uv light out of them to show the glowing.
> I think I'd rather go with the UV or water bead tests than lick
> something without knowing where it's been or who might have licked it
> before me... :-P
the beading is very subtly different. you can also wash it before
licking....
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
regards,
charlie
http://glassartists.org/chaniarts
charlie wrote:
<snip>
> float glass is made by floating molten glass onto a bed of molten tin
> in an oxygen-free atmosphere. the tin layer has to be blasted off to
> remove it. btw: there is tin layer in old fashioned plate glass, but
> hardly anyone makes that anymore.
that should read: there is NO tin layer...
> it's not that bright, but can be seen pretty clearly in the dark.
> germicidal uv lights are not common, nor are they generally healthy to
> have around and be looking into a lot. they typically come with a lot
> of warnings and a purple glass shield which has to be removed to get
> the correct uv light out of them to show the glowing.
> regards,
> charlie
> http://glassartists.org/chaniarts
On Dec 15, 8:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "MB" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Got a cite for that?
>
> >> I didn't think so.
>
> >What he described is knowns as "banker's" rounding. That is not proof
> >that bankers actually use it though. The naming might just be a
> >coincidence ;-)
> I know what it's called.
If you knew what it was called, why didn't you tell us, Doug?
> I'd like to see a cite showing that the Cray XP, or
> any other modern electronic digital computer, for that matter, actually
> performs rounding in the way he claims.
Are you trying to tell me that it wouldn't be able to?
No programmer could make a Cray round in any way?
No way? In financial or scientific models, there couldn't be any
rounding? Sir?
BTW, a bank if 1100 G5 Macintosh computers blew away a Cray a few years
ago. (THIS time, go look it up before shooting your mouth off again.)
I rest my case. Another strawman up in flames.
On Dec 15, 8:48 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>OK, then, examine this series:
I don't want to. It is not MY series, and that series of mine is the
basis of this discussion. Don't start dragging your stuff into my post.
Go away!
On Dec 15, 10:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
more nonsense.
Rounding. And I cite:
With all rounding schemes there are two possible outcomes: increasing
the rounding digit by one or leaving it alone. With traditional
rounding, if the number has a value less than the half-way mark between
the possible outcomes, it is rounded down; if the number has a value
exactly half-way or greater than half-way between the possible
outcomes, it is rounded up. The round-to-even method is the same except
that numbers exactly half-way between the possible outcomes are
sometimes rounded up-sometimes down.
Although it is customary to round the number 4.5 up to 5, in fact 4.5
is no nearer to 5 than it is to 4 (it is 0.5 away from either). When
dealing with large sets of scientific or statistical data, where trends
are important, traditional rounding on average biases the data upwards
slightly. Over a large set of data, or when many subsequent rounding
operations are performed as in digital signal processing, the
round-to-even rule tends to reduce the total rounding error, with (on
average) an equal portion of numbers rounding up as rounding down. This
generally reduces the upwards skewing of the result.
Round-to-even is used rather than round-to-odd as the latter rule would
prevent rounding to a result of zero.
Examples:
3.016 rounded to hundredths is 3.02 (because the next digit (6) is 6 or
more)
3.013 rounded to hundredths is 3.01 (because the next digit (3) is 4 or
less)
3.015 rounded to hundredths is 3.02 (because the next digit is 5, and
the hundredths digit (1) is odd)
3.045 rounded to hundredths is 3.04 (because the next digit is 5, and
the hundredths digit (4) is even)
3.04501 rounded to hundredths is 3.05 (because the next digit is 5, but
it is followed by non-zero digits)
On Dec 15, 10:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> I could just as easily pick a different, but equally arbitrary, series to
> "prove" that an *opposite* imbalance exists, but that "proof" would be no
> more, or less, valid than yours.
What your problem is, Doug, that you won't stop at anything to prove a
point. ANY point. Even if it has nothing to do with the discussion at
hand.
I can prove that the hammer in my hand has a wooden handle and you show
up with a screwdriver wanting me to admit that the handle is plastic.
It is a weak, bullshit tactic and I have seen you do it to others
dozens of times, and never quite as obvious as this time around. Cite
that my hammer doesn't have a handle? Run off on a tangent, will you?
>
> >Don't start dragging your stuff into my post.
> >Go away!ROTFLMAO -- in other words, don't bring in anything that would demonstrate
> your errors!
I made no errors in stating my original objective. The fact that you
can't get your head around it, doesn't make me wrong. But guess what,
bub, I spent enough time on you. Go find the truth about Cray.
I'm glad you find yourself so comical. Cite where you can absolutely
prove that your method of rounding is
a) the only one
b) used only in big computers.
c) none of the above
d) all of the above
In conclusion, if you want to find out how science deals with rounding
errors, do the research yourself. I, for one, won't try to talk any
sense into you as you'll just get stuck on bullshit fabrications of
points which you deem important.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to cite a source for your claims about the Cray XP.
Why don't you look it up? What am I? Your assistant? You created the
question, now go find the fucking answer!
Oh.. and I think I can do without you for a while....in the bin with
the other troll.
r
On Dec 15, 5:41 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'.
>
> > 10.0
> > 10.1
> > 10.2
> > 10.3
> > 10.4
>
> > 10.5
> > 10.6
> > 10.7
> > 10.8
> > 10.9
> > 11.0
>
> > Do you see anything odd here?
> > The first series round down to 10 and occurs 5 times in the sequence
> > from 10 to 11.
> > The second series round up to 11 and occurs 6 times in the sequence
> > from 10 to 11.
>
> > When the rounding up procedure happens 10% more often than the rounding
> > down procedure, what do you think the result will be if you have a Cray
> > XP transact 1 trillion times an interest calculation. We're talking
> > billions of dollars.
> That would be 20% more often than the rounding down procedure. ;~)
Indeed. Good one, Leon.
r
On Dec 16, 9:26 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> I keep seeing you reply to yourself and had to look. As I suspected, you
> may as being talking to a mirror. Doug is relentless and does not know how
> to loose gracefully. He is one of those type people that cannot pass up a
> good argument regardless on which side he is on. You are wasting your time
> trying to explain any thing to him if he has set his mind to ignore facts.
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
On Dec 16, 2:10 am, [email protected] () wrote:
>
> >rFirst off, your "sequence" should stop at 10.9, on 11.0 it begins a
> new sequence, just at your example started at 10.0
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.
>
> Second, Crays are not used for routine financial transactions like
> interest calculations, they would be done on run-of-the-mill
> mainframes or AS400 type systems.
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.
>
> Third, maybe you're just joking?
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.
> When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.
I like that line. Both black and white chess pieces also end up in the
same box.
r
On Dec 16, 12:34 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> 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 wasn't talking to you.
>Wow -- you lost the argument on substance, so you resort to personal abuse.
You are the only one who thinks I 'lost' anything.
> How very mature.
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
On Dec 16, 3:57 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>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 have been asked to comment on this, so here goes:
Mr. Wasserman is a gentleman and deserves to be treated as such. I
always treat those who treat me properly, with respect. There are many
who have said; "Hey, Rob, want to take another look at this?" and they
never felt the need to ram false superiority upon me. So why do you?
Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant to my reaction to
condenscending, self-righteous, argumentative people who disagree just
for sport. I have looked back at some of your escapades and have come
to the conclusion that anybody who engages you in any kind of
discussion is a fool. That included me. But I learned.
Now, about your thinking that I heaped abuse on you? You have never
been properly abused by me. If I decided to spew derogatory comments at
you, you'd know the difference... then again, maybe not. The 'small
penis' remark is a well-established parallel to someone
overcompensating for an inferiority complex.
But, with enough work, guys like you can actually get the likes of
Ghandi to swing a hammer at Albert Schweitzer. Guys like me, however,
have a tendency to catergorize the likes of you as assholes. Pure and
simple. No abuse. Fact.
I will no longer open any of your posts, as you are plonked. (You are
only the 3rd person to be ever plonked by me... in 15 years. Good job,
Doug.)
On Dec 17, 9:31 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant to my reaction to
> >condenscending, self-righteous, argumentative people who disagree just
> >for sport
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
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
On Dec 18, 9:52 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> Why are YOU back?
To play wiff you!
>
>
> Have you figured out yet that I disagreed with you because you were wrong,
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
On Dec 18, 1:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> But by all means keep trying to tell
> me how computers work -- apparently you enjoy demonstrating your own
> cluelessness.
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?
>
> >Cite one post in which you have admitted that you have
> >been wrong.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.
> repair/msg/1a2006f0eeddfc99?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.
> repair/msg/b2113b59dd0cb23f?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.
> repair/msg/25abff1800f83147?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
> woodworking/msg/913f3cb886ce38f4?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
> woodworking/msg/68efcb35121138c8?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
> woodworking/msg/616670d966dbda69?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.
> tandem/msg/0e60710aeaa1ced7?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
> woodworking/msg/93505a7426ceeeca?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
> woodworking/msg/4dd3d93c2a99363f?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
> woodworking/msg/4d19d63167efa729?dmode=source&hl=en
Holy cow, Doug! (Didn't read any of them, maybe later.)
>
>My turn: cite one, please.
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
On Dec 18, 4:01 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
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
"MB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
>> I'd go with the 1/8" My glass is 2mm, 3mm or 4mm.
>
> Score one for the metric system. Maybe the clerk was from Europe where
> they have too much sense to deal with fractions - not to mention inches
> and feet.
I'd say metric does make sense for those that are incapable of learning
fractions.
I love the way this thread is going . . . but I'm glad I didn't mention
'significant number' !!
However, to clarify . . . the 'round off' incident occurred when I was
getting gas to 're-fill' a rental car before returning it. I asked for 10
gallons. The pump stopped at 10.2. The 'jockey said . . . 'I'll round it off
for you.' Naively, I figured 10.5 gal - a few tenths. Next thing I know it's
11 gallons. At 28 cents a gallon it's one thing . . . at $2.40 it's a
*significant number* !! {$delta = $1.92}. That's 'nearly' $2.oo - and I'd
rather it remained in MY pocket.
The point that initiated this digression to the original thread was that the
clerk {and the 'pump jockey} had *no idea* of the concept involved. Further,
regarding the glass, if you are going to represent a business and take a
person's money for a product or service . . . it behooves you to know that
product or service. Or at least have the smarts & 'intestinal fortitude' to
say, 'I don't know, let me find out' - then go and ASK someone.
No, I'm not an 'old curmudgeon'. It's just that prices have reached a level
that I *want* what I'm paying for - and don't feel *I* should have to
compromise or accept incompetence.
Regards,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
{Or maybe it's being married to a Medical Research Chemist-Study
Coordinator, Physical Chemist/Thermodynamisist by training for 33+ years.
I've GOT to be aware at ALL times !!}
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> On Dec 15, 11:12 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> > >Do you see anything odd here?
>
> >I certainly do -- you should have stopped at 10.9 .
>
> If I'm rounding a number to become 11, then 11 is in the argument.
> I am not rounding anything to become 10.9.
> If I'm rounding down a number to become 10, it is also in the argument.
>
> Do NOT modify my argument to suit your limited ability to understand
> it.
>
> My argument is valid as it stands. Adding decimals won't change
> anything.
>
> Now go play with your straw men and red herrings elsewhere.
>
> r
>
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am in the process of finishing up a display case for my son. The case
>will have glass on the front and sides and have a mirrored back. Because
>of the design the glass is installed from the outside of the case. The
>rabbets that receive the glass are to receive glass that is 3/32" thick and
>a 1/4" radius quarter round.
> Arriving at the glass store that I normally purchase from there is a new
> girl working behind the counter. She apparently has been there long
> enough to know the jargon but is clueless when it comes to the actual
> thickness of glass.
> When she asked what thickness of glass I wanted, I indicated 3/32". Her
> response was, we only sell 1/16" and 1/8" thin glass for cabinet use. I
> knew 1/8" was too thick and 1/16" breaks too easily. She pulls out two
> samples of the glass and I look at their thicknesses and I tell her I want
> the 3/32" piece. She says again that the samples are 1/16" and 1/8"
> thick. I put the edges of the two pieces side by side and told her that
> one was clearly not double the thickness of the other. Yes, the thinner
> one is much closer to 3/32". Grabbing four of her 1/16" thick samples and
> putting into a stack and three of her 1/8" samples and placing those in a
> stack beside the other stack they are of equal height. I looked at her
> and said, four 1/16" thick pieces of glass stacked should not be the same
> thickness of three 1/8" thick pieces of glass stacked together.
> She looked at me like I was crazy.
>
> When I got home the glass measured out with the dial caliper at 3/32"
> thick.
>
> I do believe that she realized that the 1/8" thick piece was not double
> the thickness of what she was calling 1/16". I suppose that she did not
> understand that 1/16" is half of 1/8" thick. Geez.
>
> Was this just me being like a noob to wood working and being confused with
> why a 2 x 4 is not two inches thick? In the past the seasoned employees
> behind the counter at the glass company knew what I wanted when I said
> 3/32" thick.
>
Anyone working in such an industry should have some clue. I've been in the
exact situation. I don't bother arguing. I ask for a sheet of single
strength glass and get the right thickness.
On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin side from the
air side of float glass. This is not well known, but important to businesses
and artists who paint or print on the glass. A glass business should know
this.
Has anyone noticed over the last few years how single strength glass has
gotten thinner? Using my micrometer, I find new glass to be several
thousandths of an inch thinner. It doesn't sound like much but it is
noticeably thinner in handling and has a large effect on strength.
-S
SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
| On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin side
| from the air side of float glass. This is not well known, but
| important to businesses and artists who paint or print on the
| glass. A glass business should know this.
I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
important?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
"charlie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
>>
>> | On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin side
>> | from the air side of float glass. This is not well known, but
>> | important to businesses and artists who paint or print on the
>> | glass. A glass business should know this.
>>
>> I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
>> important?
>>
>> --
>> Morris Dovey
>> DeSoto Solar
>> DeSoto, Iowa USA
>> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
>
> glass enamels are really minerals. some react with tin, giving
> different colors than are intended. for example, some blues are copper
> based, and can react with the tin layer to make a fugly brown.
>
> you can detect it with a germicidal uv light in a dark room. the tin
> side glows. it also beads up water differently, or if you have metal
> filings, some people can tell by licking the glass.
>
> regards,
> charlie
> http://glassartists.org/chaniarts
>
Charlie described it well. I use a 4 watt gemicidal light in a battery
operated lamp and shine it on a clean sheet in a dark room. The tin side
glows with a very pale pink cast.
-S
charlie (in [email protected])
said:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
|| SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
||
||| On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin
||| side from the air side of float glass. This is not well known, but
||| important to businesses and artists who paint or print on the
||| glass. A glass business should know this.
||
|| I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
|| important?
|
| glass enamels are really minerals. some react with tin, giving
| different colors than are intended. for example, some blues are
| copper based, and can react with the tin layer to make a fugly
| brown.
Interesting. Usually I'm trying to /not/ paint glass - but this is
good information to have filed away. Next time I'm near my local glass
shop I'll stop in and ask for a demo.
| you can detect it with a germicidal uv light in a dark room. the tin
| side glows. it also beads up water differently, or if you have metal
| filings, some people can tell by licking the glass.
Now this info opens up some really interesting possibilities. Does the
tin show up brightly; and is it purely a surface deposit (IOW, will it
rub/scrub off)?
I think I'd rather go with the UV or water bead tests than lick
something without knowing where it's been or who might have licked it
before me... :-P
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
charlie (in [email protected])
said:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
|| charlie (in [email protected])
|| said:
||
||| Morris Dovey wrote:
|||| SimonLW (in [email protected]) said:
||||
||||| On a similar note, most shops have no clue how to tell the tin
||||| side from the air side of float glass. This is not well known,
||||| but important to businesses and artists who paint or print on
||||| the glass. A glass business should know this.
||||
|||| I guess I'm among the clueless. How does one tell; and why is it
|||| important?
|||
||| glass enamels are really minerals. some react with tin, giving
||| different colors than are intended. for example, some blues are
||| copper based, and can react with the tin layer to make a fugly
||| brown.
||
|| Interesting. Usually I'm trying to /not/ paint glass - but this is
|| good information to have filed away. Next time I'm near my local
|| glass shop I'll stop in and ask for a demo.
|
| you're misunderstanding. these are glass paints that are fired onto
| (and becoming one with) the glass in a range of 1000-1400F. think
| church stained glass windows with faces fired onto them. latex/oil
| paint has no affect with the tin layer.
Aha! Ok - now I understand a bit better. Thanks.
| typical window glass shops, i would expect, would not know of this.
| a decorative glass store (stained, fused, structural, etc) would.
Gotcha. The shop I visit when I'm buying glass might - they do a fair
volume of special order business and seem fairly savvy. They're also
patient when I walk in and ask a lot of ignoramus-type questions. I
have the distinct impression that they /like/ glass. I like its
utility; but they seem to like the stuff itself.
||| you can detect it with a germicidal uv light in a dark room. the
||| tin side glows. it also beads up water differently, or if you
||| have metal filings, some people can tell by licking the glass.
||
|| Now this info opens up some really interesting possibilities. Does
|| the tin show up brightly; and is it purely a surface deposit (IOW,
|| will it rub/scrub off)?
|
| float glass is made by floating molten glass onto a bed of molten
| tin in an oxygen-free atmosphere. the tin layer has to be blasted
| off to remove it. btw: there is tin layer in old fashioned plate
| glass, but hardly anyone makes that anymore.
|
| it's not that bright, but can be seen pretty clearly in the dark.
| germicidal uv lights are not common, nor are they generally healthy
| to have around and be looking into a lot. they typically come with
| a lot of warnings and a purple glass shield which has to be removed
| to get the correct uv light out of them to show the glowing.
Understood. I've seen these things; and have some friends that use
them (or something very like) for special effect signage with shields
so that the tubes can't be seen directly.
|| I think I'd rather go with the UV or water bead tests than lick
|| something without knowing where it's been or who might have licked
|| it before me... :-P
|
| the beading is very subtly different. you can also wash it before
| licking....
Yup. Still...
Thank you, Charley (and Simon). Like a lot of other people, I've been
fascinated with what can be done with light and glass and color. It
has a way of catching and holding the eye much the same way as does
fireworks - except that it's much more lasting.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Doug Miller (in [email protected])
said:
| In article <[email protected]>,
| "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
| Could, yes. Would, no -- because it would be incorrect.
|| I rest my case. Another strawman up in flames.
Seems to me that both of you are missing the point. Rounding is
nothing more than a convenience for dealing with _errors_ - and it's
ocurred to me that an argument over the /correctness/ of an error is
almost guaranteed to produce a lot more heat than light.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
If you want to really challenge your MATH SKILLS, try reading the Grocery
Shopping Ads that (in our area) arrive in your mailbox (or local paper)
weekly!
I use them with the grandchildren tasking them to find the best price on
their favorite foodstuffs (and junk foodstuffs) giving them a sheet to
record the ad price (like Buy two, get one Free) and the net price per item
or unit.
I even devised a curriculum tool (in hopes the local schools might pick up
on it) called Grocery Shopping Equals Math.
I guess we could now add "Glass Shopping" too.
But, instead of embarrassing the clerk, why not try and share your insights
with her?
We all need to help train the next generation and its clear the "leave it to
the schools" approach isn't working.
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I am in the process of finishing up a display case for my son. The case
>>will have glass on the front and sides and have a mirrored back. Because
>>of the design the glass is installed from the outside of the case. The
>>rabbets that receive the glass are to receive glass that is 3/32" thick
>>and a 1/4" radius quarter round.
>> Arriving at the glass store that I normally purchase from there is a new
>> girl working behind the counter. She apparently has been there long
>> enough to know the jargon but is clueless when it comes to the actual
>> thickness of glass.
>> When she asked what thickness of glass I wanted, I indicated 3/32". Her
>> response was, we only sell 1/16" and 1/8" thin glass for cabinet use. I
>> knew 1/8" was too thick and 1/16" breaks too easily. She pulls out two
>> samples of the glass and I look at their thicknesses and I tell her I
>> want the 3/32" piece. She says again that the samples are 1/16" and 1/8"
>> thick. I put the edges of the two pieces side by side and told her that
>> one was clearly not double the thickness of the other. Yes, the thinner
>> one is much closer to 3/32". Grabbing four of her 1/16" thick samples
>> and putting into a stack and three of her 1/8" samples and placing those
>> in a stack beside the other stack they are of equal height. I looked at
>> her and said, four 1/16" thick pieces of glass stacked should not be the
>> same thickness of three 1/8" thick pieces of glass stacked together.
>> She looked at me like I was crazy.
>>
>> When I got home the glass measured out with the dial caliper at 3/32"
>> thick.
>>
>> I do believe that she realized that the 1/8" thick piece was not double
>> the thickness of what she was calling 1/16". I suppose that she did not
>> understand that 1/16" is half of 1/8" thick. Geez.
>>
>> Was this just me being like a noob to wood working and being confused
>> with why a 2 x 4 is not two inches thick? In the past the seasoned
>> employees behind the counter at the glass company knew what I wanted
>> when I said 3/32" thick.
>>
> The practical math skills of many folks these days are none. It is like
> counting change. Not that many people can do it. Remember back when you
> got somebody to actually count out change for you?
>
> It could very well be that this person did not know that a 3/32" even
> existed.
>
> And she probably greatly resented you upsetting her tidy little math world
> persective too.
>
> My wife used to teach remedial math to grade schoolers as a volunteer. She
> had a simple plan. She used money. Just dimes, pennies, quarters, etc.
> They would practice buying and selling candy bars. When they all got it
> right, they ate the candy bars and kept the money. Her students learned
> math quicker and better than anybody else!
>
>
>
>
>
>
"'No child left behind' test."
Given the implied age and experience of the clerk, it would be difficult to
blame NCLB for her failures.
Indeed, it is likely that NCLB is part of the reaction to similar situations
widely noted throughout retail transactions in America.
Of course, the clerk was like used to serving customers intent on replacing
panes in relatively "standard" applications and whom either quoted the
nominal measurements or simply advised of the application (window pane, six
by nine inches) and accepted what was offered.
I wonderhow many of their customers took out a micrometer before setting off
to replace the pane Jimmy's ball busted?
Maybe the arrived with a shard in hand, but carefully executed thickness
measurements to the ten thousandth??
"Ron Magen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Tdegh.5277$it5.3022@trndny06...
> Leon,
>
> Just another sample of 'our' tremendous educational system. 'Learn by
> rote',
> and just enough to pass that pesky 'No child left behind' test.
> Fractions?,
> Decimals? Metric? *CONVERSIONS* ????
>
> I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'. There just
> doesn't seem to be any mental connections between 'Cause' and 'Effect'. Or
> Sex and Conception, for that matter.
>
> I really shudder when 'they' proudly say, 'These children are our future'.
>
> Regards & Good Luck,
> Ron Magen
> Backyard Boatshop
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote ...
> SNIP
>> I do believe that she realized that the 1/8" thick piece was not double
> the
>> thickness of what she was calling 1/16". I suppose that she did not
>> understand that 1/16" is half of 1/8" thick. Geez.
>>
>
>
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.
Been there, heard that.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Leon wrote:
>
>> When she asked what thickness of glass I wanted, I indicated 3/32". Her
>> response was, we only sell 1/16" and 1/8" thin glass for cabinet use.
>
> I'd go with the 1/8" My glass is 2mm, 3mm or 4mm. I only use 3mm these
> days, because I was getting tired of the 2mm breaking. I don't even use
> it for picture framing or shadow boxes any more. There's really not
> much where you _must_ be under 3mm.
>
1/8" would have caused the moldings to stand proud of the surrounding
surface. These pieces are 5.5" wide and 35" long. 3/32" is plenty thick.
3/32" is what I have always bought in the past and what I had planed for.
Fortunately I got what I went for.
Ok to day I had to go back to the glass company. I found that my clear
piece of glass was too large, I cut it to fit thinking that I mismeasured.
Then the Mirror was too small. You guessed it. She got the clear mixed
with the mirror measurements.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am in the process of finishing up a display case for my son. The case
>will have glass on the front and sides and have a mirrored back. Because
>of the design the glass is installed from the outside of the case. The
>rabbets that receive the glass are to receive glass that is 3/32" thick and
>a 1/4" radius quarter round.
> Arriving at the glass store that I normally purchase from there is a new
> girl working behind the counter. She apparently has been there long
> enough to know the jargon but is clueless when it comes to the actual
> thickness of glass.
> When she asked what thickness of glass I wanted, I indicated 3/32". Her
> response was, we only sell 1/16" and 1/8" thin glass for cabinet use. I
> knew 1/8" was too thick and 1/16" breaks too easily. She pulls out two
> samples of the glass and I look at their thicknesses and I tell her I want
> the 3/32" piece. She says again that the samples are 1/16" and 1/8"
> thick. I put the edges of the two pieces side by side and told her that
> one was clearly not double the thickness of the other. Yes, the thinner
> one is much closer to 3/32". Grabbing four of her 1/16" thick samples and
> putting into a stack and three of her 1/8" samples and placing those in a
> stack beside the other stack they are of equal height. I looked at her
> and said, four 1/16" thick pieces of glass stacked should not be the same
> thickness of three 1/8" thick pieces of glass stacked together.
> She looked at me like I was crazy.
>
> When I got home the glass measured out with the dial caliper at 3/32"
> thick.
>
> I do believe that she realized that the 1/8" thick piece was not double
> the thickness of what she was calling 1/16". I suppose that she did not
> understand that 1/16" is half of 1/8" thick. Geez.
>
> Was this just me being like a noob to wood working and being confused with
> why a 2 x 4 is not two inches thick? In the past the seasoned employees
> behind the counter at the glass company knew what I wanted when I said
> 3/32" thick.
>
>
>
"resrfglc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4Megh.11134$Q36.7@trnddc08...
>
> But, instead of embarrassing the clerk, why not try and share your
> insights with her?
I thought that stacking piles of glass samples next to each other would have
been adequate. If she was embarrased, it saw not me that did it.
>
> We all need to help train the next generation and its clear the "leave it
> to the schools" approach isn't working.
Agreed. The store oner should have filled her in.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I keep seeing you reply to yourself and had to look. As I suspected, you
may as being talking to a mirror. Doug is relentless and does not know how
to loose gracefully. He is one of those type people that cannot pass up a
good argument regardless on which side he is on. You are wasting your time
trying to explain any thing to him if he has set his mind to ignore facts.
Back in the day I was a pizza del. guy and we didn't have a cash register to
tell us what change to make. We had to count it out the real way, in our
heads!!!!!
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I am in the process of finishing up a display case for my son. The case
>>will have glass on the front and sides and have a mirrored back. Because
>>of the design the glass is installed from the outside of the case. The
>>rabbets that receive the glass are to receive glass that is 3/32" thick
>>and a 1/4" radius quarter round.
>> Arriving at the glass store that I normally purchase from there is a new
>> girl working behind the counter. She apparently has been there long
>> enough to know the jargon but is clueless when it comes to the actual
>> thickness of glass.
>> When she asked what thickness of glass I wanted, I indicated 3/32". Her
>> response was, we only sell 1/16" and 1/8" thin glass for cabinet use. I
>> knew 1/8" was too thick and 1/16" breaks too easily. She pulls out two
>> samples of the glass and I look at their thicknesses and I tell her I
>> want the 3/32" piece. She says again that the samples are 1/16" and 1/8"
>> thick. I put the edges of the two pieces side by side and told her that
>> one was clearly not double the thickness of the other. Yes, the thinner
>> one is much closer to 3/32". Grabbing four of her 1/16" thick samples
>> and putting into a stack and three of her 1/8" samples and placing those
>> in a stack beside the other stack they are of equal height. I looked at
>> her and said, four 1/16" thick pieces of glass stacked should not be the
>> same thickness of three 1/8" thick pieces of glass stacked together.
>> She looked at me like I was crazy.
>>
>> When I got home the glass measured out with the dial caliper at 3/32"
>> thick.
>>
>> I do believe that she realized that the 1/8" thick piece was not double
>> the thickness of what she was calling 1/16". I suppose that she did not
>> understand that 1/16" is half of 1/8" thick. Geez.
>>
>> Was this just me being like a noob to wood working and being confused
>> with why a 2 x 4 is not two inches thick? In the past the seasoned
>> employees behind the counter at the glass company knew what I wanted
>> when I said 3/32" thick.
>>
> The practical math skills of many folks these days are none. It is like
> counting change. Not that many people can do it. Remember back when you
> got somebody to actually count out change for you?
>
> It could very well be that this person did not know that a 3/32" even
> existed.
>
> And she probably greatly resented you upsetting her tidy little math world
> persective too.
>
> My wife used to teach remedial math to grade schoolers as a volunteer. She
> had a simple plan. She used money. Just dimes, pennies, quarters, etc.
> They would practice buying and selling candy bars. When they all got it
> right, they ate the candy bars and kept the money. Her students learned
> math quicker and better than anybody else!
>
>
>
>
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 18, 4:01 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>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?
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.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "MB" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Got a cite for that?
>>
>> I didn't think so.
>>
>What he described is knowns as "banker's" rounding. That is not proof
>that bankers actually use it though. The naming might just be a
>coincidence ;-)
I know what it's called. I'd like to see a cite showing that the Cray XP, or
any other modern electronic digital computer, for that matter, actually
performs rounding in the way he claims.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am in the process of finishing up a display case for my son. The case
>will have glass on the front and sides and have a mirrored back. Because
>of the design the glass is installed from the outside of the case. The
>rabbets that receive the glass are to receive glass that is 3/32" thick and
>a 1/4" radius quarter round.
> Arriving at the glass store that I normally purchase from there is a new
> girl working behind the counter. She apparently has been there long
> enough to know the jargon but is clueless when it comes to the actual
> thickness of glass.
> When she asked what thickness of glass I wanted, I indicated 3/32". Her
> response was, we only sell 1/16" and 1/8" thin glass for cabinet use. I
> knew 1/8" was too thick and 1/16" breaks too easily. She pulls out two
> samples of the glass and I look at their thicknesses and I tell her I want
> the 3/32" piece. She says again that the samples are 1/16" and 1/8"
> thick. I put the edges of the two pieces side by side and told her that
> one was clearly not double the thickness of the other. Yes, the thinner
> one is much closer to 3/32". Grabbing four of her 1/16" thick samples and
> putting into a stack and three of her 1/8" samples and placing those in a
> stack beside the other stack they are of equal height. I looked at her
> and said, four 1/16" thick pieces of glass stacked should not be the same
> thickness of three 1/8" thick pieces of glass stacked together.
> She looked at me like I was crazy.
>
> When I got home the glass measured out with the dial caliper at 3/32"
> thick.
>
> I do believe that she realized that the 1/8" thick piece was not double
> the thickness of what she was calling 1/16". I suppose that she did not
> understand that 1/16" is half of 1/8" thick. Geez.
>
> Was this just me being like a noob to wood working and being confused with
> why a 2 x 4 is not two inches thick? In the past the seasoned employees
> behind the counter at the glass company knew what I wanted when I said
> 3/32" thick.
>
The practical math skills of many folks these days are none. It is like
counting change. Not that many people can do it. Remember back when you got
somebody to actually count out change for you?
It could very well be that this person did not know that a 3/32" even
existed.
And she probably greatly resented you upsetting her tidy little math world
persective too.
My wife used to teach remedial math to grade schoolers as a volunteer. She
had a simple plan. She used money. Just dimes, pennies, quarters, etc.
They would practice buying and selling candy bars. When they all got it
right, they ate the candy bars and kept the money. Her students learned
math quicker and better than anybody else!
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 15, 8:48 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>
>>OK, then, examine this series:
>
>I don't want to. It is not MY series, and that series of mine is the
>basis of this discussion.
Part of the point of the discussion is that your series is incorrect, in that
it arbitrarily includes a datapoint that shouldn't be there -- and without
that datapoint, your claim of a supposed imbalance in rounding methods falls
apart.
I could just as easily pick a different, but equally arbitrary, series to
"prove" that an *opposite* imbalance exists, but that "proof" would be no
more, or less, valid than yours.
>Don't start dragging your stuff into my post.
>Go away!
>
ROTFLMAO -- in other words, don't bring in anything that would demonstrate
your errors!
I'm still waiting for you to cite a source for your claims about the Cray XP.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Ron Magen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3UAgh.16$mT6.11@trnddc07...
> However, to clarify . . . the 'round off' incident occurred when I was
> getting gas to 're-fill' a rental car before returning it. I asked for 10
> gallons. The pump stopped at 10.2. The 'jockey said . . . 'I'll round it
> off
> for you.' Naively, I figured 10.5 gal - a few tenths. Next thing I know
> it's
> 11 gallons. At 28 cents a gallon it's one thing . . . at $2.40 it's a
> *significant number* !! {$delta = $1.92}. That's 'nearly' $2.oo - and I'd
> rather it remained in MY pocket.
But rental cars are supposed to be turned in full, not just so the gauge
shows high. So, you were upset that the pump jockey screwed you when you
were trying to screw the car rental company? (actually, the next renter
that gets a short tank)
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 16, 2:10 am, [email protected] () wrote:
>
>>
>> >rFirst off, your "sequence" should stop at 10.9, on 11.0 it begins a
>> new sequence, just at your example started at 10.0
>
>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.
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.
> 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.
>>
>> Second, Crays are not used for routine financial transactions like
>> interest calculations, they would be done on run-of-the-mill
>> mainframes or AS400 type systems.
>
>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.
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.
>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.
Wow -- you lost the argument on substance, so you resort to personal abuse.
How very mature.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Leon,
Just another sample of 'our' tremendous educational system. 'Learn by rote',
and just enough to pass that pesky 'No child left behind' test. Fractions?,
Decimals? Metric? *CONVERSIONS* ????
I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'. There just
doesn't seem to be any mental connections between 'Cause' and 'Effect'. Or
Sex and Conception, for that matter.
I really shudder when 'they' proudly say, 'These children are our future'.
Regards & Good Luck,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote ...
SNIP
> I do believe that she realized that the 1/8" thick piece was not double
the
> thickness of what she was calling 1/16". I suppose that she did not
> understand that 1/16" is half of 1/8" thick. Geez.
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>I keep seeing you reply to yourself and had to look. As I suspected, you
>may as being talking to a mirror. Doug is relentless and does not know how
>to loose gracefully. He is one of those type people that cannot pass up a
>good argument regardless on which side he is on. You are wasting your time
>trying to explain any thing to him if he has set his mind to ignore facts.
Robatoy is the one ignoring facts here, Leon. Did you have anything of value
to contribute, or do you just like to criticize?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 15, 11:12 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> >Do you see anything odd here?
>
>>I certainly do -- you should have stopped at 10.9 .
>
>If I'm rounding a number to become 11, then 11 is in the argument.
>I am not rounding anything to become 10.9.
>If I'm rounding down a number to become 10, it is also in the argument.
>
>Do NOT modify my argument to suit your limited ability to understand
>it.
MY ability to understand it is not at fault.
>
>My argument is valid as it stands.
No, it's not.
> Adding decimals won't change
>anything.
OK, then, examine this series:
1.0 -> 1
1.1 -> 1
..
1.4 -> 1
1.5 -> 2
..
1.9 -> 2
2.0 -> 2
..
99.9 -> 100
100.0 -> 100
51 round-ups, 50 round-downs.
There simply isn't the disparity you claim there is.
Nor does anyone use a Cray XP for financial processing.
Nor does any electronic digital computer round in the way you claim it does.
>
>Now go play with your straw men and red herrings elsewhere.
No red herrings and straw men on my part, just an invalid argument and
incorrect understanding of how computers function on your part.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Dec 15, 11:12 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>>> >Do you see anything odd here?
>>
>>>I certainly do -- you should have stopped at 10.9 .
>>
>>If I'm rounding a number to become 11, then 11 is in the argument.
>>I am not rounding anything to become 10.9.
>>If I'm rounding down a number to become 10, it is also in the argument.
>>
>>Do NOT modify my argument to suit your limited ability to understand
>>it.
>
>MY ability to understand it is not at fault.
>>
>>My argument is valid as it stands.
>
>No, it's not.
>
>> Adding decimals won't change
>>anything.
>
>OK, then, examine this series:
>
>1.0 -> 1
>1.1 -> 1
>...
>1.4 -> 1
>1.5 -> 2
>...
>1.9 -> 2
>2.0 -> 2
>...
>99.9 -> 100
>100.0 -> 100
>
>51 round-ups, 50 round-downs.
Excuse me. Should be 50 and 50.
>
>There simply isn't the disparity you claim there is.
>
>Nor does anyone use a Cray XP for financial processing.
>
>Nor does any electronic digital computer round in the way you claim it does.
>
>>
>>Now go play with your straw men and red herrings elsewhere.
>
>No red herrings and straw men on my part, just an invalid argument and
>incorrect understanding of how computers function on your part.
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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?
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."
http://docs.hp.com/en/426/31500-90013.pdf (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.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 17, 9:31 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant to my reaction to
>> >condenscending, self-righteous, argumentative people who disagree just
>> >for sport
[snippage restored]
>> I disagreed with you because you were WRONG -- and you obviously have a
>> real problem with that.
>>
>> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>>
>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.
That's pretty funny. Why are YOU back?
> I told you I
>wasn't paying any more attention to you, yet you ramble on anyway.
I figured you were lying. Looks like I was right, too.
>Were you shouting into the forest, Doug?
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?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Ron Magen wrote:
> Leon,
>
> Just another sample of 'our' tremendous educational system. 'Learn by
> rote', and just enough to pass that pesky 'No child left behind'
> test. Fractions?, Decimals? Metric? *CONVERSIONS* ????
Nah, it's the job requrements and nothing much else. Anything beyond
dollars and cents, as in 1/32" etc. is often beyond their comprehension
simply because they have never had to use it and thus are unconcerned with
it. And, I'm sure any OJT from a customer would be severely frowned upon.
Give 'er a break, I say and if you must impart knowledge to her, do so
clearly, concisely and quickly; she has other customers and things she may
be expected to do.
>
> I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'. There
> just doesn't seem to be any mental connections between 'Cause' and
> 'Effect'. Or Sex and Conception, for that matter.
That round-off makes sense in a lot of places. If you ask for 12.2' of
something, most people aren't about to convert a decimal to a fractional
inch, PLUS, it's normal for may places to round up regardless of the size
wanted. In this area I don't think I have EVER bought an exact 8' 2 x 4;
they're always about 8' 1/4" give or take (I assume for end-sanding?) but
never less than 8'. It's the way they set up the saws. And I've gottten
10' a time or two because they were out of 8'. It's no big deal; off the
shelf isn't expected to be useful.
>
> I really shudder when 'they' proudly say, 'These children are our
> future'.
That sentence and my sig are why I -really- responded to this! ;-)
Pop`
--
Children are the future;
unless we stop them now.
- Homer Simpson
>
> Regards & Good Luck,
> Ron Magen
> Backyard Boatshop
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote ...
> SNIP
>> I do believe that she realized that the 1/8" thick piece was not
>> double the thickness of what she was calling 1/16". I suppose that
>> she did not understand that 1/16" is half of 1/8" thick. Geez.
On Dec 18, 6:37 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> Boy, you really got me there, Trent.
Ohhhkay....
*rolls eyes*
If she walked into your lumber store and asked for some
1 1/2 by 3 1/2 boards, and you insisted that you only
stocked 2 x 4's, we'd be reading about that in her newsgroup.
Maybe she's not a professional glazier, but was aware
of what industry-standard glass she could sell.
Leon wrote:
> Arriving at the glass store that I normally purchase from there is a new
> girl working behind the counter. She apparently has been there long enough
> to know the jargon but is clueless when it comes to the actual thickness of
> glass.
> When she asked what thickness of glass I wanted, I indicated 3/32". Her
> response was, we only sell 1/16" and 1/8" thin glass for cabinet use. I
> knew 1/8" was too thick and 1/16" breaks too easily. She pulls out two
> samples of the glass and I look at their thicknesses and I tell her I want
> the 3/32" piece. She says again that the samples are 1/16" and 1/8" thick.
> I put the edges of the two pieces side by side and told her that one was
> clearly not double the thickness of the other. Yes, the thinner one is much
> closer to 3/32". Grabbing four of her 1/16" thick samples and putting into
> a stack and three of her 1/8" samples and placing those in a stack beside
> the other stack they are of equal height. I looked at her and said, four
> 1/16" thick pieces of glass stacked should not be the same thickness of
> three 1/8" thick pieces of glass stacked together.
> She looked at me like I was crazy.
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:10:16 -0600, lwasserm wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Dec 14, 11:44 am, "Pop`" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>That round-off makes sense in a lot of places. If you ask for 12.2' of
>>> something, most people aren't about to convert a decimal to a fractional
>>> inch,
>>
>>
>>On Dec 14, 10:38 am, "Ron Magen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'.
>>
>>10.0
>>10.1
>>10.2
>>10.3
>>10.4
>>
>>10.5
>>10.6
>>10.7
>>10.8
>>10.9
>>11.0
>>
>>Do you see anything odd here?
>>The first series round down to 10 and occurs 5 times in the sequence
>>from 10 to 11.
>>The second series round up to 11 and occurs 6 times in the sequence
>>from 10 to 11.
>>
>>When the rounding up procedure happens 10% more often than the rounding
>>down procedure, what do you think the result will be if you have a Cray
>>XP transact 1 trillion times an interest calculation. We're talking
>>billions of dollars.
>>Which is why they don't use that rounding procedure. They round even
>>numbers down, and odd numbers up (or the other way around, I forgot),
>>That way the occurance is balanced over large numbers of transactions.
>>
>>IOW 10.2 could be 11?
>>
>>r
>>
>
> First off, your "sequence" should stop at 10.9, on 11.0 it begins a
> new sequence, just at your example started at 10.0
>
> Second, Crays are not used for routine financial transactions like
> interest calculations, they would be done on run-of-the-mill
> mainframes or AS400 type systems.
>
> Third, maybe you're just joking?
Fourth, a Cray XP was a lot of machine 20 years ago. Now any laptop walks
all over it. I suspect that my Palm Pilot comes close.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
In article <[email protected]>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 14, 11:44 am, "Pop`" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>That round-off makes sense in a lot of places. If you ask for 12.2' of
>> something, most people aren't about to convert a decimal to a fractional
>> inch,
>
>
>On Dec 14, 10:38 am, "Ron Magen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'.
>
>10.0
>10.1
>10.2
>10.3
>10.4
>
>10.5
>10.6
>10.7
>10.8
>10.9
>11.0
>
>Do you see anything odd here?
>The first series round down to 10 and occurs 5 times in the sequence
>from 10 to 11.
>The second series round up to 11 and occurs 6 times in the sequence
>from 10 to 11.
>
>When the rounding up procedure happens 10% more often than the rounding
>down procedure, what do you think the result will be if you have a Cray
>XP transact 1 trillion times an interest calculation. We're talking
>billions of dollars.
>Which is why they don't use that rounding procedure. They round even
>numbers down, and odd numbers up (or the other way around, I forgot),
>That way the occurance is balanced over large numbers of transactions.
>
>IOW 10.2 could be 11?
>
>r
>
First off, your "sequence" should stop at 10.9, on 11.0 it begins a
new sequence, just at your example started at 10.0
Second, Crays are not used for routine financial transactions like
interest calculations, they would be done on run-of-the-mill
mainframes or AS400 type systems.
Third, maybe you're just joking?
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - [email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 15, 10:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>Rounding. And I cite:
What are you "citing"? I don't see a source for this.
>With all rounding schemes there are two possible outcomes: increasing
>the rounding digit by one or leaving it alone. With traditional
>rounding, if the number has a value less than the half-way mark between
>the possible outcomes, it is rounded down; if the number has a value
>exactly half-way or greater than half-way between the possible
>outcomes, it is rounded up. The round-to-even method is the same except
>that numbers exactly half-way between the possible outcomes are
>sometimes rounded up-sometimes down.
>Although it is customary to round the number 4.5 up to 5, in fact 4.5
>is no nearer to 5 than it is to 4 (it is 0.5 away from either). When
>dealing with large sets of scientific or statistical data, where trends
>are important, traditional rounding on average biases the data upwards
>slightly.
This is false -- so it appears that your source for this isn't credible.
>Over a large set of data, or when many subsequent rounding
>operations are performed as in digital signal processing, the
>round-to-even rule tends to reduce the total rounding error, with (on
>average) an equal portion of numbers rounding up as rounding down. This
>generally reduces the upwards skewing of the result.
>Round-to-even is used rather than round-to-odd as the latter rule would
>prevent rounding to a result of zero.
>Examples:
>3.016 rounded to hundredths is 3.02 (because the next digit (6) is 6 or
>more)
>3.013 rounded to hundredths is 3.01 (because the next digit (3) is 4 or
>less)
>3.015 rounded to hundredths is 3.02 (because the next digit is 5, and
>the hundredths digit (1) is odd)
>3.045 rounded to hundredths is 3.04 (because the next digit is 5, and
>the hundredths digit (4) is even)
>3.04501 rounded to hundredths is 3.05 (because the next digit is 5, but
>it is followed by non-zero digits)
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] () wrote:
>First off, your "sequence" should stop at 10.9, on 11.0 it begins a
>new sequence, just at your example started at 10.0
Hey, Robatoy, you gonna flame him, too, for pointing out *exactly* the same
flaw in your "reasoning" that I did?
>
>Second, Crays are not used for routine financial transactions like
>interest calculations, they would be done on run-of-the-mill
>mainframes or AS400 type systems.
Hey, Robatoy, you gonna flame him, too, for pointing out *exactly* the same
flaw in your "reasoning" that I did?
>Third, maybe you're just joking?
Sadly, he's quite serious.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 15, 10:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> I could just as easily pick a different, but equally arbitrary, series to
>> "prove" that an *opposite* imbalance exists, but that "proof" would be no
>> more, or less, valid than yours.
>
>What your problem is, Doug, that you won't stop at anything to prove a
>point. ANY point. Even if it has nothing to do with the discussion at
>hand.
Actually, the problem here is that you can't admit to being wrong.
>>
>> >Don't start dragging your stuff into my post.
>> >Go away!ROTFLMAO -- in other words, don't bring in anything that would
> demonstrate
>> your errors!
>
>I made no errors in stating my original objective.
Yes, you did.
>The fact that you
>can't get your head around it, doesn't make me wrong.
That's true enough -- what makes you wrong is the errors you made. The
supposed disparity which you claim to exist is an artifact of the narrow and
arbitrary range of datapoints which you chose to examine. The effect
disappears when a larger range is examined.
> But guess what,
>bub, I spent enough time on you. Go find the truth about Cray.
I already know the truth about Cray; it's clear that you don't, however.
>
>I'm glad you find yourself so comical. Cite where you can absolutely
>prove that your method of rounding is
>a) the only one
I never claimed that it was.
>b) used only in big computers.
I never claimed that it was.
>c) none of the above
>d) all of the above
>
>In conclusion, if you want to find out how science deals with rounding
>errors, do the research yourself.
I know perfectly well how science deals with rounding errors. *You* need to do
some research, though. Actually, even a tiny bit of thinking, with an open
mind, would suffice for you to see just where, and how, you went astray.
I, for one, won't try to talk any
>sense into you as you'll just get stuck on bullshit fabrications of
>points which you deem important.
That's pretty funny, since all the BS here is coming from you:
- nonsense claims of a supposed disparity that doesn't exist
- nonsence claims of supercomputers being used for financial processing
- even more nonsensical claims of how such supercomputers operate
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to cite a source for your claims about the Cray XP.
>
>Why don't you look it up? What am I? Your assistant? You created the
>question, now go find the fucking answer!
That's not the way it works -- you made a nonsense claim, you back it up.
>
>Oh.. and I think I can do without you for a while....in the bin with
>the other troll.
Wow, you really *are* touchy about being proven wrong, aren't you?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"M Berger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If she walked into your lumber store and asked for some
> 1 1/2 by 3 1/2 boards, and you insisted that you only
> stocked 2 x 4's, we'd be reading about that in her newsgroup.
The very next thing is to explain to the customer of how sizing worked. I
had basically tapped her for all she was worth. She simply refused to
accept that she was wrong or it was more like the case of She did not know
enough to know that she did not know.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 16, 3:57 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>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 have been asked to comment on this, so here goes:
>
>Mr. Wasserman is a gentleman and deserves to be treated as such. I
>always treat those who treat me properly, with respect.
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.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 18, 9:52 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> Why are YOU back?
>
>To play wiff you!
Oh, I see. Couldn't have anything at all with wanting to get the last word,
could it.
>>
>
>>
>> Have you figured out yet that I disagreed with you because you were wrong,
>
>Shall I try one more time?
Apparently you haven't figured it out yet.
>
>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.
Nothing at all wrong with it.
>You don't get it do you?
Oh, I get it just fine -- you're every bit as argumentative as you accuse me
of being.
>I suppose you don't 'get' that there is
>something wrong in Iraq either, eh?
Apparently you see a connection between Iraq, and methods of rounding
decimals. I don't.
>
>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.
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.
>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."
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.
>
>Did you run out of nits to pick when you felt that the Cray issue was
>important, Doug?
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.
> (And stop trying to draw parallels between you and Mr.
>Wasserman, you don't measure up.)
He and I raised exactly the same objections to your original post regarding
number rounding. And Cray computers.
>
>You psycho analysis sucks. Cite the evidence which makes you more
>secure than I.
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.
>Cite one post in which you have admitted that you have
>been wrong.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.
repair/msg/1a2006f0eeddfc99?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.
repair/msg/b2113b59dd0cb23f?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.
repair/msg/25abff1800f83147?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
woodworking/msg/913f3cb886ce38f4?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
woodworking/msg/68efcb35121138c8?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
woodworking/msg/616670d966dbda69?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.
tandem/msg/0e60710aeaa1ced7?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
woodworking/msg/93505a7426ceeeca?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
woodworking/msg/4dd3d93c2a99363f?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
woodworking/msg/4d19d63167efa729?dmode=source&hl=en
>I know I have a few posts where I admitted making an error.
My turn: cite one, please.
>I admit, right here, that I made an error in judgement about you, for
>instance.
Yes, you certainly have -- but you have no idea what error you've made.
>The evidence is plentyful to prove what you are.
And likewise yourself.
>
>On a political level, you're toast, btw.
What on earth are you talking about?
>
>
>Fun, eh?
>
>r
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"resrfglc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5Megh.11135$Q36.9969@trnddc08...
> "'No child left behind' test."
>
> Given the implied age and experience of the clerk, it would be difficult
> to blame NCLB for her failures.
I am not sure that saying yourng was implying the age but she looked 28 ish.
Young to me at 52 but then I was the manager of a tire store when I was 21.
At 28 I was the service sales manager of a large GM dealership in Houston.
>
> Indeed, it is likely that NCLB is part of the reaction to similar
> situations widely noted throughout retail transactions in America.
>
> Of course, the clerk was like used to serving customers intent on
> replacing panes in relatively "standard" applications and whom either
> quoted the nominal measurements or simply advised of the application
> (window pane, six by nine inches) and accepted what was offered.
In this case, she asked me what thickness.
> I wonderhow many of their customers took out a micrometer before setting
> off to replace the pane Jimmy's ball busted?
In my case I use the dial indicator to confirm my suspitions. Visually, it
was obvious the the thinner piece was 3/4 the thickness of the thicker
piece.
In article <5Megh.11135$Q36.9969@trnddc08>, "resrfglc" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"'No child left behind' test."
>
>Given the implied age and experience of the clerk, it would be difficult to
>blame NCLB for her failures.
>
>Indeed, it is likely that NCLB is part of the reaction to similar situations
>widely noted throughout retail transactions in America.
>
>Of course, the clerk was like used to serving customers intent on replacing
>panes in relatively "standard" applications and whom either quoted the
>nominal measurements or simply advised of the application (window pane, six
>by nine inches) and accepted what was offered.
My question is, who sells 1/16" glass anyway? That seems awful darn thin.
I thought "standard" was 1/10" -- maybe there was a [sloppily] handwritten tag
over the tenth-inch glass, on which the zero looked like a six...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 16, 9:26 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in
> messagenews:[email protected]...
>>
>> I keep seeing you reply to yourself and had to look. As I suspected, you
>> may as being talking to a mirror. Doug is relentless and does not know how
>> to loose gracefully. He is one of those type people that cannot pass up a
>> good argument regardless on which side he is on. You are wasting your time
>> trying to explain any thing to him if he has set his mind to ignore facts.
>
>Rob: Here, I have a 12" oak stick.
>Doug: Your stick should be 11.5"
>Rob, Don't change the argument.
You're the one changing the argument here, Rob.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 16, 12:34 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>Wow -- you lost the argument on substance, so you resort to personal abuse.
>
>You are the only one who thinks I 'lost' anything.
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.
>
>> How very mature.
>
>That was very immature of me to 'out' you like that, but it felt great
>anyway.
I outgrew deriving enjoyment from insulting other people somewhere around
fifth grade. Too bad you're still stuck in junior high school.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Pop`" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_bfgh.7244$HX4.2477@trnddc03...
>
> Nah, it's the job requrements and nothing much else. Anything beyond
> dollars and cents, as in 1/32" etc. is often beyond their comprehension
> simply because they have never had to use it and thus are unconcerned with
> it. And, I'm sure any OJT from a customer would be severely frowned upon.
> Give 'er a break, I say and if you must impart knowledge to her, do so
> clearly, concisely and quickly; she has other customers and things she may
> be expected to do.
During the 30 minutes that I was there, there was only one other customer.
She is the first person a customer sees. She does need to know actual
thickness of the product that they sell. None of the glass had sizes on the
pieces, only a part tag sticker indicating style and or thickness perhaps.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>10.0
>10.1
>10.2
>10.3
>10.4
>
>10.5
>10.6
>10.7
>10.8
>10.9
>11.0
>
>Do you see anything odd here?
I certainly do -- you should have stopped at 10.9 .
>The first series round down to 10 and occurs 5 times in the sequence
>from 10 to 11.
>The second series round up to 11 and occurs 6 times in the sequence
>from 10 to 11.
But if you had started with 9.9, then you'd have 6 round-ups and 6
round-downs in a series of twelve.
What? You say that's not valid?
It's every bit as valid as including 11.0 in a series that properly should run
from 10.0 to 10.9 .
Examined another way -- if you're going to include 11.0 in a series that
starts with 10.0, then the next set should run from 11.1 (not 11.0) through
11.9, and you see 4 round-downs and 5 round-ups.
>
>When the rounding up procedure happens 10% more often than the rounding
>down procedure,
It doesn't.
As an elementary demonstration of your fallacy, consider this series -- and
note that I'm even giving you the erroneous inclusion of 11 at the end:
10.00
10.01
..
10.49 (all rounded down to this point)
10.50 (all rounded up hereafter)
..
10.99
11.00
101 numbers. 50 round down, 51 round up.
Extend it one more decimal point, and the numbers become 1001, 500, 501
respectively. And so on.
>what do you think the result will be if you have a Cray
>XP transact 1 trillion times an interest calculation.
Oh, please. Who uses a Cray XP for financial applications?
>We're talking
>billions of dollars.
No effect -- because it rounds down fifty percent of the time, and up fifty
percent of the time.
>Which is why they don't use that rounding procedure. They round even
>numbers down, and odd numbers up (or the other way around, I forgot),
>That way the occurance is balanced over large numbers of transactions.
Got a cite for that?
I didn't think so.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 15, 8:50 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "MB"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Got a cite for that?
>>
>> >> I didn't think so.
>>
>> >What he described is knowns as "banker's" rounding. That is not proof
>> >that bankers actually use it though. The naming might just be a
>> >coincidence ;-)
>
>> I know what it's called.
>
>If you knew what it was called, why didn't you tell us, Doug?
Because what it's called is not relevant.
>
>> I'd like to see a cite showing that the Cray XP, or
>> any other modern electronic digital computer, for that matter, actually
>> performs rounding in the way he claims.
>
>Are you trying to tell me that it wouldn't be able to?
You asserted that id *did*, i.e. that it was constructed that way. Cite,
please?
>No programmer could make a Cray round in any way?
>No way? In financial or scientific models, there couldn't be any
>rounding? Sir?
Could, yes. Would, no -- because it would be incorrect. Standard rounding is
that anything between .00 and .499999.... gets rounded down, .50 to .99999...
gets rounded up. That's the way software rounding works -- and hardware
rounding, too, in the machines that have it.
>
>BTW, a bank if 1100 G5 Macintosh computers blew away a Cray a few years
>ago. (THIS time, go look it up before shooting your mouth off again.)
>
>
>I rest my case. Another strawman up in flames.
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> I've had people 'round off' a number like '10.2' . . to '11'.
>
> 10.0
> 10.1
> 10.2
> 10.3
> 10.4
>
> 10.5
> 10.6
> 10.7
> 10.8
> 10.9
> 11.0
>
> Do you see anything odd here?
> The first series round down to 10 and occurs 5 times in the sequence
> from 10 to 11.
> The second series round up to 11 and occurs 6 times in the sequence
> from 10 to 11.
>
> When the rounding up procedure happens 10% more often than the rounding
> down procedure, what do you think the result will be if you have a Cray
> XP transact 1 trillion times an interest calculation. We're talking
> billions of dollars.
That would be 20% more often than the rounding down procedure. ;~)
In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant to my reaction to
>condenscending, self-righteous, argumentative people who disagree just
>for sport.
I disagreed with you because you were WRONG -- and you obviously have a real
problem with that.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, "MB" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Got a cite for that?
>>>
>>> I didn't think so.
>>>
>>What he described is knowns as "banker's" rounding. That is not proof
>>that bankers actually use it though. The naming might just be a
>>coincidence ;-)
>
>I know what it's called. I'd like to see a cite showing that the Cray XP, or
>any other modern electronic digital computer, for that matter, actually
>performs rounding in the way he claims.
Dunno what he claimed, but all the gory details are here:
<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/>
Note that there are decimal floating point values that cannot
be represented in IEEE 754 floating point (which is implemented
by pretty much every processor in existence today).
Note that bankers generally do _NOT_ use binary floating
point for financial calculations, but rather use fixed-point
arithmetic (or even integer arithmetic denominated in pennies,
hundreths of a penny, or mils).
Many of the early mainframes used BCD arithmetic for this.
scott