 | | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) I'm thinking very hard whether I wanna post this.... what kind of Billion? :) Jasper (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Sorry, that was $3 BULLION. Hasbro is lacking the BEEF for such a venture. The decided that it wasn't worth their SALT, and so they CHICKENed out. It's a shame -- I thought it would SPICE up their selection a bit, and introduce a new FALVOR (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
Sorry for the confusion - US $. Mike Jasper Janssen wrote in message <36d6c205.64922959@l...et.com>... (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) LOL! I'd assume it was a US billion, 1000 million. Steve (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) In the U.S. that would be 1000M. Still, those are some pretty big numbers. It makes me think of the current argument about if the new SW film will pass Titanic in box-office totals. Titanic did about what? 600M or so? Or was it around 700M? (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Ferret? I haven't tried that variety before. Could I weasel some outa you? -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) I believe it passed $2000M in domestics, without considering European box-office, merchandising, video sales/rental sales, and all that crud. But I could be wrong. Jasper (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Ouch! You shouldn't STEAK your reputions on TASTEless puns like these. ;) Jeff P.S. Don't be too gneiss, or people will take you for granite. (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Man, you guys are really dishing it out. (...) <blink blink> Can it be? Has someone else actually heard of Splendour Bog? Or is that just coincidence? (So it's not hard to see that I'm not what I used to be, I've been changed metamorphically. (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Just coincidence. I made that up when I was in elementary school. Great minds must think alike! Jeff P.S. I have an apatite now, and it is a golden oportunity to get some food. ;) P.P.S. Hey Todd! Interesting corundum for you! Should we make (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Either that, or it's the influence of the education system - the guy in Splendour Bog who wrote the song I was quoting is a teacher. :) James (URL) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Take it as an American billion, every does these days - even the British! The problem with the US numbering system is that for really big numbers you don't have a name for them. So in British terms it is 3000 million US dollars. (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
Carbon 60 wrote in message <36C89356.714D4E2A@b...ot.com>... (...) LIke what? Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! (URL) in Deja News! (URL) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
Maybe c60 doesn't but I can get well beyond the number of pieces I'm ever likely to amass Each adds 3 zeroes Thousand Million Billion Trillion Quadrillion Quintillion Sextillion Septillion Octillion That's where I forget what comes next. But (...) (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Nonillion, i think. Decillion .... Duodecillion etc... (...) an Octillion _should_ be, in any rational system (Yes, that precludes the US from competing :) ) 10 ^ (6*8), instead of that awful 10 ^ (3 * (8 + 1) ) the American Way makes of it. (...) (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <36d063e3.55832412@l...et.com>... (...) Billion is in everyday use here. Since it is not practical to say that "I bought a house (or a ford escort) last week for a price of 8x10^9" or "my annual income is more than (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:24:18 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) a vigintillian (sp?) is 1 with 63 zeroes....... (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Yick. Get the turkish pund devalued already - you can easily just scrap 5 or 6 zeroes off the end, sounds like. :) Billion and trillion you'ree using here are the normal ones, right, with billion being a million million, and trillion being a (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Whatever. (...) 100 (ten tens) (...) The American system agrees up to a million but then defers away from the logic for some reason - I expect it is easier to name a number by counting the zeros and commas with the US system. Well, you get the (...) (26 years ago, 21-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Hey! Don't blame the Americans! I don't remember the complete details (dive into lugnet.robotics for references and/or the complete story), but I think the French came up with the system currently used by Americans. The French used it for (...) (26 years ago, 22-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) No. (...) Unlikely, most dates that old get '19' prefixed. or "20", as the case may be. Jasper (26 years ago, 24-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) Yes, but is it: January 2, 2003 January 3, 2002 February 1, 2003 February 3, 2001 March 1, 2002 March 2, 2001 (ignoring the six dates from a century earlier) Not that I was asking for a clear answer. It was just my example of an ultimately (...) (26 years ago, 24-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) I'd go for 1st of feb '03. But then, my country is pretty strict in dd/mm/yy. Jasper (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Mentioned in Business Week
|
|
(...) My country is very settled on mm/dd/yy. The issue is international interpretation, of course. Steve (26 years ago, 1-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
