Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #156357 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 388 — 41 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-11 17:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:44 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 13:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 14:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 15:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:41 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-15 20:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 15:47 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-15 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 06:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-16 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-17 03:21 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:46 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-18 22:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-11 01:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-29 09:25 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Simmy Jacks" <sk98@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 04:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:24 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-29 22:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 09:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:18 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:10 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 18:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:03 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:05 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-01 13:27 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 19:47 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:09 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:28 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 18:44 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 18:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 04:34 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 04:54 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:38 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 01:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:29 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 07:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 19:56 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 21:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 00:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 13:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 19:30 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 09:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 12:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 16:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 18:35 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:22 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 20:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 11:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 05:36 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 19:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-02 12:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 16:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 01:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:25 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 08:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:51 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-31 14:09 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:46 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-31 20:16 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:19 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 14:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 15:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 12:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 17:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 20:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-01 10:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 10:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-01 12:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-01 16:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-02 17:05 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-02-02 00:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:58 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:26 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-01 00:06 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:02 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:55 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:40 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:13 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 17:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-31 16:33 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0500
Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 18:35 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:51 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 09:10 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 19:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:09 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 08:59 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 18:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 06:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:01 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:18 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 22:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 17:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:18 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-02 07:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 19:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-02 14:14 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 23:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 11:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:31 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 12:40 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 18:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 06:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 15:58 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 14:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 12:43 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 15:27 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:08 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 18:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:07 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:13 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:03 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-31 02:58 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:32 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-30 07:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-30 11:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-30 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 00:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-29 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-01-11 09:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 09:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:58 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 10:29 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:45 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 18:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 19:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 12:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 09:35 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-11 18:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-12 01:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:33 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:18 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:12 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 04:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 20:05 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-12 18:36 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-13 21:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-01-13 02:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:16 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:41 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-16 23:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-12 02:56 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:30 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 08:40 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:37 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:38 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 11:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:57 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:29 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 20:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-11 02:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:44 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:39 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-12 13:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 17:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:38 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 08:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:07 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 23:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 11:57 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-13 04:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 15:47 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 19:57 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-13 15:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 06:20 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:10 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-14 11:40 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 18:55 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:11 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-15 12:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:50 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-18 16:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-18 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:04 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-14 14:16 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:36 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:09 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:41 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:24 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 16:04 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:49 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:50 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:11 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:16 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:21 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:42 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 15:43 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 09:55 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:07 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:22 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:58 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 11:53 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 15:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 00:15 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 08:29 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:42 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:54 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:41 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 13:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:55 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:03 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 20:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 13:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:15 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 18:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:53 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 00:06 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:01 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 07:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-12 13:16 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 19:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-18 23:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:14 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:59 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-14 05:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-12 17:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:44 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 11:31 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 14:00 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 07:03 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 10:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000
Page 2 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 20 Next page →
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n70psg02pl9@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156359 |
On 2016-01-11, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > I'm not sure but I think there were less than 20 colors in a set of crayons. It varied. Occasionally someone would come to school with one of those huge sets - maybe 64 crayons, complete with things like gold, silver, and copper (metal flakes included?), and fleshtone. I had the good old set of 8. > If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she > probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first > principles, how much money to give you as change. There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the things whose demise I lament. (Not too long ago I encountered a kid who after three tries still couldn't count out my change, even with the cash register tellling him what it should be.) > The sound level in movie theaters was at a pleasant level, not set so > high that one got a headache after a few minutes. And cameras stayed still so you could actually see what was going on. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn97vna.16g.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156395 |
On 2016-01-11, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-11, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > >> I'm not sure but I think there were less than 20 colors in a set of crayons. > > It varied. Occasionally someone would come to school with one of those > huge sets - maybe 64 crayons, complete with things like gold, silver, > and copper (metal flakes included?), and fleshtone. I had the good old > set of 8. > >> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she >> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first >> principles, how much money to give you as change. > > There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was > taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the > things whose demise I lament. (Not too long ago I encountered a kid > who after three tries still couldn't count out my change, even with > the cash register tellling him what it should be.) > >> The sound level in movie theaters was at a pleasant level, not set so >> high that one got a headache after a few minutes. > > And cameras stayed still so you could actually see what was going on. > Once, years ago, I got a book out of the library about how the old merchants (Bruges, Leipzig, Lyon, the Italian citys) counted, calculated, and traded, such as doing business by handshake (different combinations of fingers) Any ideas? -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <56AB34BF.9030305@koerber.org> |
| In reply to | #156395 |
On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she
>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first
>> principles, how much money to give you as change.
>
> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was
> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the
There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught).
Example:
The item costs 43.28
Customer gives 50.00
so you give him
2 cents and say (and 2 makes) 43.30
20 cents and say (43.) 50
50 cents and say 44.00 (two quarters, or a 1/2 dollar
or whatever in your currency)
1 dollar and say 45.00
5 dollars and say 50.00
easy peasy, not much thinking/calculating involved
and fully transparent..
Adjust for available coins of course..
I had a colleague learn this only at almost 40 years of age
mindboggling really..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1629047837.475763526.414958.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158118 |
Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> wrote: > On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she >>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first >>> principles, how much money to give you as change. >> >> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was >> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the > > There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught). > > Example: > > The item costs 43.28 > > Customer gives 50.00 > > so you give him > 2 cents and say (and 2 makes) 43.30 > 20 cents and say (43.) 50 > 50 cents and say 44.00 (two quarters, or a 1/2 dollar > or whatever in your currency) > 1 dollar and say 45.00 > 5 dollars and say 50.00 > > easy peasy, not much thinking/calculating involved > and fully transparent.. > > Adjust for available coins of course.. > > > I had a colleague learn this only at almost 40 years of age > mindboggling really.. > From what I've seen, this is sort of how "common core" does math. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 09:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87r3h0l85u.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #158135 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > From what I've seen, this is sort of how "common core" does math. Then you must not have read a single word of the curriculum... That is *ONE OF THE MANY* techniques that Common Core teaches. The single overarching point of CC is that there is no "one right way", but that solving different problems requires different approaches, depending on the context of the problem. It teaches that any of the approaches must arrive at the same [correct] solution, but that there are complexity tradeoffs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Simmy Jacks" <sk98@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 04:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dh1nk2Fpl0fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158118 |
"Mathias Koerber" <mathias@koerber.org> wrote in message news:56AB34BF.9030305@koerber.org... > On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she >>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first >>> principles, how much money to give you as change. >> >> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was >> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the > > There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught). > > Example: > > The item costs 43.28 > > Customer gives 50.00 > > so you give him > 2 cents and say (and 2 makes) 43.30 > 20 cents and say (43.) 50 > 50 cents and say 44.00 (two quarters, or a 1/2 dollar > or whatever in your currency) > 1 dollar and say 45.00 > 5 dollars and say 50.00 > > easy peasy, not much thinking/calculating involved > and fully transparent.. > > Adjust for available coins of course.. > > > I had a colleague learn this only at almost 40 years of age > mindboggling really.. I've just learnt it at over 70. Nothing mind boggling about it. And I used to make change in a shop before I was even a teenager and never did it like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8gh3002r9m@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #158118 |
On 2016-01-29, Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> wrote: > On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she >>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first >>> principles, how much money to give you as change. >> >> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was >> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the > > There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught). I don't think it is. I haven't seen anyone use it for a long time. > Example: > > The item costs 43.28 > > Customer gives 50.00 > > so you give him > 2 cents and say (and 2 makes) 43.30 > 20 cents and say (43.) 50 > 50 cents and say 44.00 (two quarters, or a 1/2 dollar > or whatever in your currency) > 1 dollar and say 45.00 > 5 dollars and say 50.00 > > easy peasy, not much thinking/calculating involved > and fully transparent.. > > Adjust for available coins of course.. The standard procedure nowadays is to enter the amount tendered, read the calculated change off the cash register, then say "$6.72 is your change" while handing it to you. And it still takes as long to pull the change out of the drawer as it would take while counting it up the old-fashioned way. (Meanwhile, while I'm bristling at that, I'm also cross-checking by mentally counting back my change in the method described above, which I can do in the time it takes the clerk to hand it to me.) Sadly, even with the cash register calculating the change, some clerks still can't count it out. In one case I had him try again twice; after three tries I finally had to tell him how many of each coin made up the amount. As an extra bonus, some sadist seems to have decreed that clerks shall give you your change by first placing the bills on the palm of your hand, then setting the coins on top in an unsteady ziggurat that's almost guaranteed to slide off onto the floor before you can get it to your pocket. Who makes up this stuff? > I had a colleague learn this only at almost 40 years of age > mindboggling really.. I wish it was taught again. But for there to be enough common sense for that to happen is what would be truly mindboggling. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 09:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dh275eFtku3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158156 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:n8gh3002r9m@news3.newsguy.com... > On 2016-01-29, Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> wrote: > >> On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she >>>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first >>>> principles, how much money to give you as change. >>> >>> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was >>> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the >> >> There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught). > > I don't think it is. I haven't seen anyone use it for a long time. > >> Example: >> >> The item costs 43.28 >> >> Customer gives 50.00 >> >> so you give him >> 2 cents and say (and 2 makes) 43.30 >> 20 cents and say (43.) 50 >> 50 cents and say 44.00 (two quarters, or a 1/2 dollar >> or whatever in your currency) >> 1 dollar and say 45.00 >> 5 dollars and say 50.00 >> >> easy peasy, not much thinking/calculating involved >> and fully transparent.. >> >> Adjust for available coins of course.. > > The standard procedure nowadays is to enter the amount tendered, > read the calculated change off the cash register, then say > "$6.72 is your change" while handing it to you. And it still > takes as long to pull the change out of the drawer as it would > take while counting it up the old-fashioned way. (Meanwhile, > while I'm bristling at that, I'm also cross-checking by mentally > counting back my change in the method described above, which I > can do in the time it takes the clerk to hand it to me.) > > Sadly, even with the cash register calculating the change, some > clerks still can't count it out. In one case I had him try again > twice; after three tries I finally had to tell him how many of > each coin made up the amount. > > As an extra bonus, some sadist seems to have decreed that clerks > shall give you your change by first placing the bills on the > palm of your hand, then setting the coins on top in an unsteady > ziggurat that's almost guaranteed to slide off onto the floor > before you can get it to your pocket. Who makes up this stuff? > >> I had a colleague learn this only at almost 40 years of age >> mindboggling really.. > > I wish it was taught again. But for there to be enough common > sense for that to happen is what would be truly mindboggling. Makes a lot more sense to just wave your card or phone at the terminal and carry on regardless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 22:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dh27gvFgpnfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158156 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 20:12:16 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > The standard procedure nowadays is to enter the amount tendered, > read the calculated change off the cash register, then say "$6.72 is > your change" while handing it to you. And it still takes as long to > pull the change out of the drawer as it would take while counting it up > the old-fashioned way. (Meanwhile, while I'm bristling at that, I'm > also cross-checking by mentally counting back my change in the method > described above, which I can do in the time it takes the clerk to hand > it to me.) I've been buying some stuff in Iceland, and I usually round the amount I tender up, putting the surplus into their 'savings club'. I get a bonus when I spend that money, and it's reasonably worthwhile as I do it quite often. I see the shopping total come up on the till, and by the time the checkout operator turns to me I'm ready to say something like "£2.71 on the bonus card please". They do that, and are usually amazed to find it comes to (say) exactly £10, and I'm holding out a £10 note! -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 19:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8h33g$ovm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158178 |
"Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message news:dh27gvFgpnfU1@mid.individual.net... > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 20:12:16 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> The standard procedure nowadays is to enter the amount tendered, >> read the calculated change off the cash register, then say "$6.72 is >> your change" while handing it to you. And it still takes as long to >> pull the change out of the drawer as it would take while counting it up >> the old-fashioned way. (Meanwhile, while I'm bristling at that, I'm >> also cross-checking by mentally counting back my change in the method >> described above, which I can do in the time it takes the clerk to hand >> it to me.) > > I've been buying some stuff in Iceland, and I usually round the amount I > tender up, putting the surplus into their 'savings club'. I get a bonus > when I spend that money, and it's reasonably worthwhile as I do it quite > often. > > I see the shopping total come up on the till, and by the time the > checkout operator turns to me I'm ready to say something like "£2.71 on > the bonus card please". They do that, and are usually amazed to find it > comes to (say) exactly £10, and I'm holding out a £10 note! > That's another thing!!! Younger folk today seem *amazed* that a person can do even the simplest math... in their heads!!! While the youngster is trying to figure it out on paper or with a calculator... you get the answer by doing mental arithmetic and tell them. The youngster continues with his/her calculations and then is mystified that you could get the correct answer!!! -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 09:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mpvoab1ji52sl1v61rs793r3net5c3ii8h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #158206 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:22:32 -0600, "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: >That's another thing!!! Younger folk today seem *amazed* that a person can >do even the simplest math... in their heads!!! While the youngster is >trying to figure it out on paper or with a calculator... you get the answer >by doing mental arithmetic and tell them. The youngster continues with >his/her calculations and then is mystified that you could get the correct >answer!!! It's not just younger folk today, it's been like that for years. My mother could solve a differential equation in her head while I was trying to find the calculator! Steve -- Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 09:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3116969e63f29100989ee8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158243 |
In article <mpvoab1ji52sl1v61rs793r3net5c3ii8h@4ax.com>, steve@easynn.com says... > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:22:32 -0600, "Charles Richmond" > <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > > >That's another thing!!! Younger folk today seem *amazed* that a person can > >do even the simplest math... in their heads!!! While the youngster is > >trying to figure it out on paper or with a calculator... you get the answer > >by doing mental arithmetic and tell them. The youngster continues with > >his/her calculations and then is mystified that you could get the correct > >answer!!! > > It's not just younger folk today, it's been like that for years. My > mother could solve a differential equation in her head while I was > trying to find the calculator! Since few calculators help you solve differential equations that is quite reasonable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0nkpabpet5kcfmsj3uj0mb2l75knsd048n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #158250 |
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:45:39 -0500, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <mpvoab1ji52sl1v61rs793r3net5c3ii8h@4ax.com>, >steve@easynn.com says... >> >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:22:32 -0600, "Charles Richmond" >> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: >> >> >That's another thing!!! Younger folk today seem *amazed* that a person can >> >do even the simplest math... in their heads!!! While the youngster is >> >trying to figure it out on paper or with a calculator... you get the answer >> >by doing mental arithmetic and tell them. The youngster continues with >> >his/her calculations and then is mystified that you could get the correct >> >answer!!! >> >> It's not just younger folk today, it's been like that for years. My >> mother could solve a differential equation in her head while I was >> trying to find the calculator! > >Since few calculators help you solve differential equations that is >quite reasonable. I would need a calculator just to do the associated arithmetic. The HP programmable calculator that I bought in about 1970 could be used to solve first order differential equations. I've still got it somewhere gathering dust but with PCs it's never needed. Perhaps it will have some antique value one day! Steve -- Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 11:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3116ac67cdb6c8ea989ef9@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158259 |
In article <0nkpabpet5kcfmsj3uj0mb2l75knsd048n@4ax.com>, steve@easynn.com says... > > On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:45:39 -0500, "J. Clarke" > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > >In article <mpvoab1ji52sl1v61rs793r3net5c3ii8h@4ax.com>, > >steve@easynn.com says... > >> > >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:22:32 -0600, "Charles Richmond" > >> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > >> > >> >That's another thing!!! Younger folk today seem *amazed* that a person can > >> >do even the simplest math... in their heads!!! While the youngster is > >> >trying to figure it out on paper or with a calculator... you get the answer > >> >by doing mental arithmetic and tell them. The youngster continues with > >> >his/her calculations and then is mystified that you could get the correct > >> >answer!!! > >> > >> It's not just younger folk today, it's been like that for years. My > >> mother could solve a differential equation in her head while I was > >> trying to find the calculator! > > > >Since few calculators help you solve differential equations that is > >quite reasonable. > > I would need a calculator just to do the associated arithmetic. > > The HP programmable calculator that I bought in about 1970 could be > used to solve first order differential equations. I've still got it > somewhere gathering dust but with PCs it's never needed. Perhaps it > will have some antique value one day! Your HP still works? I had really bad luck with them and finally went to TI.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 14:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7fefb5a-67e0-404c-a97b-d4f023bb1f29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158250 |
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 7:40:02 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <mpvoab1ji52sl1v61rs793r3net5c3ii8h@4ax.com>, > steve@easynn.com says... > > It's not just younger folk today, it's been like that for years. My > > mother could solve a differential equation in her head while I was > > trying to find the calculator! > Since few calculators help you solve differential equations that is > quite reasonable. One definitely would need one of the more expensive calculators, but I've heard that TI makes one that does symbolic integral calculus... John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 17:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8jfno$bbr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158316 |
On 30-Jan-16 16:30, Quadibloc wrote: > J. Clarke wrote: >> steve@easynn.com says... >>> It's not just younger folk today, it's been like that for years. >>> My mother could solve a differential equation in her head while I >>> was trying to find the calculator! >> >> Since few calculators help you solve differential equations that is >> quite reasonable. > > One definitely would need one of the more expensive calculators, but > I've heard that TI makes one that does symbolic integral calculus... We had those in high school. At first, they were banned during tests because it was unfair to students whose families couldn't afford them. When a new model came out, enough older models were donated that the school was able to start issuing them like textbooks, and after that, they were allowed during tests. Aside from one statistics problem that I needed a PhD friend to solve, any math I've needed since then could be done in my head faster than finding a calculator. Despite what they told us in school, the real world rarely needs anything more than basic algebra. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 18:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311716607bb69164989f10@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158316 |
In article <b7fefb5a-67e0-404c-a97b-d4f023bb1f29@googlegroups.com>, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... > > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 7:40:02 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <mpvoab1ji52sl1v61rs793r3net5c3ii8h@4ax.com>, > > steve@easynn.com says... > > > > It's not just younger folk today, it's been like that for years. My > > > mother could solve a differential equation in her head while I was > > > trying to find the calculator! > > > Since few calculators help you solve differential equations that is > > quite reasonable. > > One definitely would need one of the more expensive calculators, but I've heard > that TI makes one that does symbolic integral calculus... > > John Savard Actually they make two, the Ti-89 Titanium and the NSpire CAS. HP has 4, the HP Prime, HP40, HP49, and HP50. I'm not sure how much it depends on the Web, but Wolfram Alpha is available for Android for about 3 bucks--that's got Mathematica behind it somewhere. Note that this is a matter of current interest to me--I really need a calculator with a better display--I've gotten to the point that seeing the TI screen is difficult. I can actually see the screen better running an emulated TI on my phone, but the buttons are _so_ tiny . . .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 11:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iceunc-c56.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #158206 |
In article <n8h33g$ovm$1@dont-email.me>, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: >"Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message >news:dh27gvFgpnfU1@mid.individual.net... >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 20:12:16 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> The standard procedure nowadays is to enter the amount tendered, >>> read the calculated change off the cash register, then say "$6.72 is >>> your change" while handing it to you. And it still takes as long to >>> pull the change out of the drawer as it would take while counting it up >>> the old-fashioned way. (Meanwhile, while I'm bristling at that, I'm >>> also cross-checking by mentally counting back my change in the method >>> described above, which I can do in the time it takes the clerk to hand >>> it to me.) >> >> I've been buying some stuff in Iceland, and I usually round the amount I >> tender up, putting the surplus into their 'savings club'. I get a bonus >> when I spend that money, and it's reasonably worthwhile as I do it quite >> often. >> >> I see the shopping total come up on the till, and by the time the >> checkout operator turns to me I'm ready to say something like "£2.71 on >> the bonus card please". They do that, and are usually amazed to find it >> comes to (say) exactly £10, and I'm holding out a £10 note! >> > >That's another thing!!! Younger folk today seem *amazed* that a person can >do even the simplest math... in their heads!!! While the youngster is >trying to figure it out on paper or with a calculator... you get the answer >by doing mental arithmetic and tell them. The youngster continues with >his/her calculations and then is mystified that you could get the correct >answer!!! My dad used to play games with these people. He was a banker back when computer was a job title, and had an amazing way with numbers. All in his head. So, this 85 year old man comes into the store, and goes around shopping, obviously observing the price tags; but that is not out of the ordinary, Then he comes to the cashier, and starts by putting exact change on the conveyor, and THEN the goods. They had better match, or there would be a detour out into the store to check that he had, indeed, used the correct price for his sums. They were constantly taken aback at this. Especially when he corrected their systems, all in his head. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 11:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601311118110.20782@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #158290 |
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <n8h33g$ovm$1@dont-email.me>, > Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: >> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message >> news:dh27gvFgpnfU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 20:12:16 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> The standard procedure nowadays is to enter the amount tendered, >>>> read the calculated change off the cash register, then say "$6.72 is >>>> your change" while handing it to you. And it still takes as long to >>>> pull the change out of the drawer as it would take while counting it up >>>> the old-fashioned way. (Meanwhile, while I'm bristling at that, I'm >>>> also cross-checking by mentally counting back my change in the method >>>> described above, which I can do in the time it takes the clerk to hand >>>> it to me.) >>> >>> I've been buying some stuff in Iceland, and I usually round the amount I >>> tender up, putting the surplus into their 'savings club'. I get a bonus >>> when I spend that money, and it's reasonably worthwhile as I do it quite >>> often. >>> >>> I see the shopping total come up on the till, and by the time the >>> checkout operator turns to me I'm ready to say something like "??2.71 on >>> the bonus card please". They do that, and are usually amazed to find it >>> comes to (say) exactly ??10, and I'm holding out a ??10 note! >>> >> >> That's another thing!!! Younger folk today seem *amazed* that a person can >> do even the simplest math... in their heads!!! While the youngster is >> trying to figure it out on paper or with a calculator... you get the answer >> by doing mental arithmetic and tell them. The youngster continues with >> his/her calculations and then is mystified that you could get the correct >> answer!!! > > My dad used to play games with these people. He was a banker back when > computer was a job title, and had an amazing way with numbers. All in > his head. > > So, this 85 year old man comes into the store, and goes around shopping, > obviously observing the price tags; but that is not out of the ordinary, > > Then he comes to the cashier, and starts by putting exact change on > the conveyor, and THEN the goods. They had better match, or there would > be a detour out into the store to check that he had, indeed, used the > correct price for his sums. > > They were constantly taken aback at this. Especially when he corrected > their systems, all in his head. > I do that with a few items, before I get in line I have the exact cash (or just above it) in hand. What messes it up is if the price is wrong at the cash, or something I thought wasn't taxed is taxed (and that sometimes is not consistent). But that latter can work the other way, I hand over the exact amount that I'd had in my hand since I got in line, and the cashier hands some of it back, no tax on the item even though I was expecting it. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <200860964.475806502.097788.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158156 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-29, Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> wrote: > >> On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she >>>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first >>>> principles, how much money to give you as change. >>> >>> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was >>> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the >> >> There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught). > > I don't think it is. I haven't seen anyone use it for a long time. > >> Example: >> >> The item costs 43.28 >> >> Customer gives 50.00 >> >> so you give him >> 2 cents and say (and 2 makes) 43.30 >> 20 cents and say (43.) 50 >> 50 cents and say 44.00 (two quarters, or a 1/2 dollar >> or whatever in your currency) >> 1 dollar and say 45.00 >> 5 dollars and say 50.00 >> >> easy peasy, not much thinking/calculating involved >> and fully transparent.. >> >> Adjust for available coins of course.. > > The standard procedure nowadays is to enter the amount tendered, > read the calculated change off the cash register, then say > "$6.72 is your change" while handing it to you. And it still > takes as long to pull the change out of the drawer as it would > take while counting it up the old-fashioned way. (Meanwhile, > while I'm bristling at that, I'm also cross-checking by mentally > counting back my change in the method described above, which I > can do in the time it takes the clerk to hand it to me.) > > Sadly, even with the cash register calculating the change, some > clerks still can't count it out. In one case I had him try again > twice; after three tries I finally had to tell him how many of > each coin made up the amount. > > As an extra bonus, some sadist seems to have decreed that clerks > shall give you your change by first placing the bills on the > palm of your hand, then setting the coins on top in an unsteady > ziggurat that's almost guaranteed to slide off onto the floor > before you can get it to your pocket. Who makes up this stuff? Then they put the receipt, and the stack if coupons the register prints, on top. > >> I had a colleague learn this only at almost 40 years of age >> mindboggling really.. > > I wish it was taught again. But for there to be enough common > sense for that to happen is what would be truly mindboggling. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web