 | | 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)
|
