Subject:
|
Re: Fw: Space Shuttle Costs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:18:30 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Peter Hesketh <{pbh@phesk.demon.}saynotospam{co.uk}>
|
Viewed:
|
1209 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <slrn77djsq.g1h.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu>, Matthew Miller
<lugnet.robotics@lugnet.com> writes
> rather than one thousand two billion
> three thousand four million five thousand six. (And just think of the
> confusion if I hadn't used all those 0s....).
Sorry chum, but you have only grasped half of the English way of saying
the numbers. You missed out the essential "and". We would say, "one
thousand and two billion, three thousand and four million, five thousand
six. (These upstart colonials, trying to define how we speak! I mean,
my house is older than their country!)
--
Regards - Peter Hesketh, Mynyddbach, Mon.
Forty reasons why a dog is better than a woman: number 13
"Anyone can get a good-looking dog."
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Fw: Space Shuttle Costs
|
| (...) Silly British people and their ilk ( <-- unveiled jab!) think that a billion is not a thousand million, but rather a million million. In my humble opinion, it makes much more sense to say: 10 ^3 = thosand 10 ^6 = million 10 ^9 = billion 10^12 (...) (26 years ago, 15-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
