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 7 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 20 Next page →
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 16:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8m0oq$thf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158351 |
On 31-Jan-16 08:46, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Yes, I keep getting nickels and quarters confused. I thought it was >> just me. > > I find I have to look carefully at American coins to work out which > is which. There are three sizes of silver coins (in the pile I have > to hand). The biggest one says (in small indistinct letters around > the bottom "quarter dollar", the next one down says (in very small > indistinct letters, in a different position) "five cents" and the > smallest just says "one dime" around the bottom. In each case the > amount is about the hardest thing to find and read on the coin. Would > it have been so hard to have a large 5, 10 and 25 on the coins - and > make the sizes relate to the value ? I agree that the value (in numerals) should be more prominent, but the cost of changing the sizes (again) would be prohibitive. The original silver coins were sized to contain 10, 25, 50 and 100 cents worth of silver. That wouldn't work for smaller coins, though, so they were made of other metals. For whatever reason, they ended up larger than the 10-cent silver coin, but they were easily distinguished both by touch and (other than the nickel) sight, so few cared. Eventually, though, inflation meant the silver coins were worth more than their face value, so the govt replaced them with cupronickel coins that looked the same; they also shrank the dollar coin since there was no longer any reason for it to have exactly twice as much metal as the half-dollar (and four times the quarter-dollar), but they left all the others the same size. 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 | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 16:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8m04m$r1g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158329 |
On 30-Jan-16 17:44, Peter Flass wrote: > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >> Avoiding the cost of replacing paper dollar bills is an important >> practical measure that shouldn't be held up because people are >> reluctant to accept it. Much the same might be said of >> metrication. > > The big problem with the dollar coins is that the treasury seems to > be stuck in a rut of making them the same size as a quarter. I > remember the Eisenhower dollars, and when you had one of those you > knew you had a dollar. The Sac dollar has smooth edges and a different color so it's more readily distinguished from the quarter than the SBA dollar was, but it has the same size, weight and electrical properties as a SBA dollar, at the insistence of the vending machine industry, which didn't want to upgrade machines that already accepted SBA dollars. How/why the SBA dollar ended up so small is another matter, but it's moot at this point. > Changing the vending machines to accept dollar coins is another > problem, but soluble. The vast majority of vending machines already accept SBA/Sac dollars. 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 | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 17:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <473637139.475971154.706571.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158392 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 30-Jan-16 17:44, Peter Flass wrote: >> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>> Avoiding the cost of replacing paper dollar bills is an important >>> practical measure that shouldn't be held up because people are >>> reluctant to accept it. Much the same might be said of >>> metrication. >> >> The big problem with the dollar coins is that the treasury seems to >> be stuck in a rut of making them the same size as a quarter. I >> remember the Eisenhower dollars, and when you had one of those you >> knew you had a dollar. > > The Sac dollar has smooth edges and a different color so it's more > readily distinguished from the quarter than the SBA dollar was, but it > has the same size, weight and electrical properties as a SBA dollar, at > the insistence of the vending machine industry, which didn't want to > upgrade machines that already accepted SBA dollars. > > How/why the SBA dollar ended up so small is another matter, but it's > moot at this point. > Not really, because if the government ever expects anyone to use them they'll have to change. I _never_ see a dollar coin in circulation. >> Changing the vending machines to accept dollar coins is another >> problem, but soluble. > > The vast majority of vending machines already accept SBA/Sac dollars. > > S > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 16:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dh7ge5F9dbeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158396 |
"Peter Flass" wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 30-Jan-16 17:44, Peter Flass wrote: >>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>>> Avoiding the cost of replacing paper dollar bills is an important >>>> practical measure that shouldn't be held up because people are >>>> reluctant to accept it. Much the same might be said of >>>> metrication. >>> >>> The big problem with the dollar coins is that the treasury seems to >>> be stuck in a rut of making them the same size as a quarter. I >>> remember the Eisenhower dollars, and when you had one of those you >>> knew you had a dollar. >> >> The Sac dollar has smooth edges and a different color so it's more >> readily distinguished from the quarter than the SBA dollar was, but it >> has the same size, weight and electrical properties as a SBA dollar, at >> the insistence of the vending machine industry, which didn't want to >> upgrade machines that already accepted SBA dollars. >> >> How/why the SBA dollar ended up so small is another matter, but it's >> moot at this point. I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I still have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever saw.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 19:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n8m7n5$ogs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158398 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: > "Peter Flass" wrote: > > >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 30-Jan-16 17:44, Peter Flass wrote: >>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>>>> Avoiding the cost of replacing paper dollar bills is an important >>>>> practical measure that shouldn't be held up because people are >>>>> reluctant to accept it. Much the same might be said of >>>>> metrication. >>>> >>>> The big problem with the dollar coins is that the treasury seems to >>>> be stuck in a rut of making them the same size as a quarter. I >>>> remember the Eisenhower dollars, and when you had one of those you >>>> knew you had a dollar. >>> >>> The Sac dollar has smooth edges and a different color so it's more >>> readily distinguished from the quarter than the SBA dollar was, but it >>> has the same size, weight and electrical properties as a SBA dollar, at >>> the insistence of the vending machine industry, which didn't want to >>> upgrade machines that already accepted SBA dollars. >>> >>> How/why the SBA dollar ended up so small is another matter, but it's >>> moot at this point. > > I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I still > have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever saw. There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games for a Susan Anthony. Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available there. Never had a problem spending them either. The damn things are too close to the size of a quarter though. Pretty civilized of Canada to kill their penny. I'm pretty sure in the USA the issue would somehow turn into major party battle. I guess we could always have Obama come out in favor of keeping the penny. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 18:35 -0600 |
| Subject | Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US |
| Message-ID | <87io29l11x.fsf_-_@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #158404 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: > There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in > more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games > for a Susan Anthony. Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available > there. Never had a problem spending them either. I just had a conversation w/ a friend who has several hundred locations of both video games/pinball and vending machines (over 2000 machines total) around Northern California. Virtuall all of the vending machines take dollar coins, some will give dollar coins in change for a $5 note accepted by the bill acceptor. As to video-games and pinball machines, he writes: About 15 years ago, some of the game manufacturers started shipping games with 1 quarter mech and 1 dollar coin mech. There was so much outcry from game operators that it only lasted a few months. People were annoyed that they had to change out a dollar mech to have both slots take quarters. Others that changed to tokens quickly discovered that one slot was set to give 4x credit of the other one. And the ones that didn't change anything had 1 coin slot that wouldn't take quarters when the other jammed, and confused customers. The third class of equipment he has on-route are change/token machines -- none of which take dollar coins. ... and the ones that came with the capability to accept them have been converted to quarters only for increased reliability of the coin acceptor. So -- there's some data from the field. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 20:51 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US |
| Message-ID | <n8mh35$hm1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158407 |
On 31-Jan-16 18:35, Lawrence Statton wrote: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in >> more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games >> for a Susan Anthony. Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available >> there. Never had a problem spending them either. > > I just had a conversation w/ a friend who has several hundred > locations of both video games/pinball and vending machines (over > 2000 machines total) around Northern California. > > Virtuall all of the vending machines take dollar coins, some will > give dollar coins in change for a $5 note accepted by the bill > acceptor. Oddly, those are the ones with the big lobbyist group still fighting tooth and nail against withdrawal of the $1 note! > As to video-games and pinball machines, he writes: > > About 15 years ago, some of the game manufacturers started > shipping games with 1 quarter mech and 1 dollar coin mech. There > was so much outcry from game operators that it only lasted a few > months. Well, yes; that's a stupid design. Make both slots take both! > The third class of equipment he has on-route are change/token > machines -- none of which take dollar coins. That makes sense since it's rare to need a dollar coin changed; they probably only even take $1 notes because it's "free" once you have a bill acceptor for $5 notes and up. > ... and the ones that came with the capability to accept them > have been converted to quarters only for increased reliability > of the coin acceptor. Interesting, but presumably they could be converted back if needed. 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 | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 09:10 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US |
| Message-ID | <8760y8lb5b.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #158436 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > On 31-Jan-16 18:35, Lawrence Statton wrote: >> About 15 years ago, some of the game manufacturers started >> shipping games with 1 quarter mech and 1 dollar coin mech. There >> was so much outcry from game operators that it only lasted a few >> months. > > Well, yes; that's a stupid design. Make both slots take both! Well - there's an engineering problem waiting to be solved - the space required for a multi-coin mech is larger than the space available in the standard design. Most game coin mechs are soley mechanical. He went on later that evening to grouse about bill acceptors that *CAN* take $2 notes, but have that feature disabled by jupmper selection. On the gripping hand - all modern bill acceptors can take bills "any facing", but he configures all of his to require a single facing (portrait up, baseline right) so that he doesn't have to spend any personal time facing bills before taking them to the bank. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 13:08 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US |
| Message-ID | <n8oaaq$11g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158479 |
On 01-Feb-16 09:10, Lawrence Statton wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> On 31-Jan-16 18:35, Lawrence Statton wrote: >>> About 15 years ago, some of the game manufacturers started >>> shipping games with 1 quarter mech and 1 dollar coin mech. There >>> was so much outcry from game operators that it only lasted a few >>> months. >> >> Well, yes; that's a stupid design. Make both slots take both! > > Well - there's an engineering problem waiting to be solved - the > space required for a multi-coin mech is larger than the space > available in the standard design. Most game coin mechs are soley > mechanical. Really? All of the games at the arcade I went to as a kid took both quarters and tokens; both slots handled both just fine yet still rejected any other coins I tried to use. The tokens were as thin as a quarter but the diameter of a nickel, of a much lighter (and purple!) alloy and stamped with the arcade's logo. My sister worked there for a while, and after closing every night, her main job was emptying the coin bins and separating the quarters (sent to the bank) from the tokens (put back into the change machines). > He went on later that evening to grouse about bill acceptors that > *CAN* take $2 notes, but have that feature disabled by jupmper > selection. Grrr. > On the gripping hand - all modern bill acceptors can take bills "any > facing", but he configures all of his to require a single facing > (portrait up, baseline right) so that he doesn't have to spend any > personal time facing bills before taking them to the bank. Speaking as a customer, that's really annoying. It's not like the bank cares about how the bills are faced; they just put the entire stack into a counting machine, which doesn't care either. Also, the acceptors can be tuned to accept/reject different qualities of notes, which means a note that doesn't work in one machine will often work in the one next to it. I remember, as a kid, often having to buy two or three sodas from the machine that accepted rumpled bills so I could get enough quarters to buy a snack from the machine that only accepted crisp bills. 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 | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 19:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8mb70$2bf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158404 |
On 31-Jan-16 18:11, Dan Espen wrote: > "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: >> I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I >> still have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever >> saw. > > There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in > more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games for > a Susan Anthony. I hope that's a typo, or your friend wasn't very good at math. > Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available there. Never had a > problem spending them either. I've had problems with SBA dollars being confused for quarters, but not Sac dollars. I've never had a cashier refuse to accept either. > The damn things are too close to the size of a quarter though. That's why the Sac dollar has a different color and smooth edges; it's easy to distinguish by both sight and touch. > Pretty civilized of Canada to kill their penny. I'm pretty sure in > the USA the issue would somehow turn into major party battle. Both parties support eliminating the penny, except (of course) for specific politicians owned by the zinc blank vendor. Their lobbyists claim the Mint would lose more by eliminating the penny because of its allocation of fixed costs, which would shift to other coins, and higher demand for the nickel, which performs even worse than the penny. As usual, though, it would be more effective to treat the cause rather than the effects. The only reason we _need_ so many pennies is that sales taxes aren't included in our prices like they are in civilized countries. Fix _that_ and the penny would fall out of circulation on its own, and nobody would notice when we stopped minting more. 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 | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 19:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87egcxkxzq.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #158411 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in >> more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games for >> a Susan Anthony. > > I hope that's a typo, or your friend wasn't very good at math. I dunno $0.25 each of 5-for-a-buck sounds like a typical promotion to me. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 20:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8mej0$b74$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158416 |
On 31-Jan-16 19:42, Lawrence Statton wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >>> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull >>> in more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 >>> games for a Susan Anthony. >> >> I hope that's a typo, or your friend wasn't very good at math. > > I dunno $0.25 each of 5-for-a-buck sounds like a typical promotion > to me. You said he was trying to increase unit price, but he actually reduced it from 25¢/game to 20¢/game. Decreasing unit price is a standard technique for increasing volume, especially for products or services with high fixed and low variable costs, and a video arcade certainly qualifies. This is why most have moved to tokens/cards with progressive discounts; for instance, these are the prices from Dave & Buster's web site (per-unit by me): $5 = 24 CHIPS (20.8¢ each) $10 = 48 CHIPS (20.8¢ each) $20 = 100 CHIPS (20.0¢ each) $25 = 135 CHIPS (18.5¢ each) $35 = 200 CHIPS (17.5¢ each) $50 = 300 CHIPS (16.7¢ each) $75 = 550 CHIPS (13.6¢ each) $100 = 750 CHIPS (13.3¢ each) Of course, part of the scheme is that people are less likely to use up larger amounts, and unused tokens/chips/etc. are pure profit. 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 | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 08:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87a8nklbna.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #158428 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> >> I dunno $0.25 each of 5-for-a-buck sounds like a typical promotion >> to me. > > You said he was trying to increase unit price, but he actually reduced > it from 25¢/game to 20¢/game. Well, *I* never actually said that ... grandparent poster did. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 18:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8ab0de60-cd4f-447d-a560-070e729b90b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158411 |
On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:11:39 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > I hope that's a typo, or your friend wasn't very good at math. Human nature is funny. At a hobby club meeting, someone was trying to unload old calendars at 25c each. No takers. Then he stands up and offers them at three for a dollar. He got buyers. I think mass market food goods has management spend as much time figuring out the size, shape, and graphics on a package as they do on the product itself. But I guess you got to give them credit-- they have to make a laundry detergent that's been around for 65 years still appear to be "NEW AND IMPROVED". (It's funny how some products fall out of favor over the years. In old LIFE magazines, certain products were so popular they warranted a full page ad in the 1940s. Those very products are still available today, but now are a tiny niche item buried in a shelf, much less popular today.) > I've had problems with SBA dollars being confused for quarters, but not > Sac dollars. I've never had a cashier refuse to accept either. I've had cashiers confuse them often. I never had them refused, but I have gotten dirty looks from some cashiers, and they throw the coin with contempt into some spare space in the cash drawer. In a private business, where it means more work for the owner, they'll take it, but ask you if have anything else. > That's why the Sac dollar has a different color and smooth edges; it's > easy to distinguish by both sight and touch. But size is a factor and they're still too similar to a quarter, as you fish one out of your pocket. > As usual, though, it would be more effective to treat the cause rather > than the effects. The only reason we _need_ so many pennies is that > sales taxes aren't included in our prices like they are in civilized > countries. Fix _that_ and the penny would fall out of circulation on > its own, and nobody would notice when we stopped minting more. Many retailers like to charge .99 to make it seem cheaper (e.g $4.99 instead of $5.00). Gasoline is always sold at 9/10, ie $1.999 per gallon. I think even the old analog pumps could handle different fractions and presumably modern ones can, but it's always 9/10. Indeed, I think signage has the 9/10 portion as permanent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 21:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8mijb$lif$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158429 |
On 31-Jan-16 20:10, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> I've had problems with SBA dollars being confused for quarters, >> but not Sac dollars. I've never had a cashier refuse to accept >> either. > > I've had cashiers confuse them often. I never had them refused, but > I have gotten dirty looks from some cashiers, and they throw the coin > with contempt into some spare space in the cash drawer. Cash drawers usually have five bill slots ($100, $20, $10, $5, $1) and five coin bins ($1, 25¢, 10¢, 5¢, 1¢), but some cheap brands only have four. Oh well, that's what you get for being cheap. ($50 notes, $2 notes and 50¢ coins are rare enough to be ignored.) > In a private business, where it means more work for the owner, > they'll take it, but ask you if have anything else. $1 coins are not "more work" for anyone, just slightly confusing to cashiers who aren't (yet) used to handling them, and since turnover tends to be very high for such jobs, that problem solves itself. >> That's why the Sac dollar has a different color and smooth edges; >> it's easy to distinguish by both sight and touch. > > But size is a factor and they're still too similar to a quarter, as > you fish one out of your pocket. Ditto for dimes and pennies. Oh well. >> As usual, though, it would be more effective to treat the cause >> rather than the effects. The only reason we _need_ so many pennies >> is that sales taxes aren't included in our prices like they are in >> civilized countries. Fix _that_ and the penny would fall out of >> circulation on its own, and nobody would notice when we stopped >> minting more. > > Many retailers like to charge .99 to make it seem cheaper (e.g $4.99 > instead of $5.00). They could easily charge $4.95 instead, and most would do so if it meant never having to deal with pennies again; big chains in particular would save _millions_ by shaving a second or two off each cash transaction, and everyone else would blindly follow them. However, marking an item $4.95 today actually means $5.358375 (for example), which has no real advantage over marking it $4.99 that actually means $5.401675. Worse, even if you cleverly adjust your prices so that they round to a multiple of 5¢ (or whatever) after taxes, buying more than one item will introduce off-by-one errors. Some of those will cancel out, of course, but Murphy's Law says they'll usually compound instead. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 06:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74ead12e-b99c-481c-94b2-2d4033560d44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158429 |
On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 7:10:59 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > But size is a factor and they're still too similar to a quarter, as you > fish one out of your pocket. I know the Canadian loonie is much smaller than a silver 50 cent piece, but it's still sufficiently large, compared to a quarter, to be distinctive. 26.5 mm diameter, 1.95 mm thickness. The Susan B. Anthony dollar was 2 mm thick, even thicker, and its diameter was 26.5mm as well. However, it was round, whereas the loonie was 11-sided. However, the sides are curved so that it still has constant width, which helps going down the chutes of vending machines. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 12:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8o6d8$gcu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158473 |
On 01-Feb-16 08:34, Quadibloc wrote: > hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> But size is a factor and they're still too similar to a quarter, as >> you fish one out of your pocket. > > I know the Canadian loonie is much smaller than a silver 50 cent > piece, but it's still sufficiently large, compared to a quarter, to > be distinctive. > > 26.5 mm diameter, 1.95 mm thickness. > > The Susan B. Anthony dollar was 2 mm thick, even thicker, and its > diameter was 26.5mm as well. However, it was round, whereas the > loonie was 11-sided. However, the sides are curved so that it still > has constant width, which helps going down the chutes of vending > machines. An 11-sided curve of constant width is easily distinguished by touch from a circle--even at the exact same diameter. As you note, the SBA/Sac dollar has the same diameter and nearly the same thickness, but they are much more difficult to distinguish from a quarter by touch; the Sac dollar's smooth edges are an improvement over the SBA dollar's milled edges, but the Loonie is in another class. The Loonie is also a different color, like the Sac dollar, to make it more easily distinguished by sight.. (The SBA dollar is difficult to distinguish from a JFK half-dollar too, but the latter are even rarer than $2 notes, which are treated more as novelty items than currency. The only JFK half-dollars I've ever seen either came from the Tooth Fairy or in proof sets.) 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 | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1955027494.476048918.863588.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158500 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 01-Feb-16 08:34, Quadibloc wrote: >> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> But size is a factor and they're still too similar to a quarter, as >>> you fish one out of your pocket. >> >> I know the Canadian loonie is much smaller than a silver 50 cent >> piece, but it's still sufficiently large, compared to a quarter, to >> be distinctive. >> >> 26.5 mm diameter, 1.95 mm thickness. >> >> The Susan B. Anthony dollar was 2 mm thick, even thicker, and its >> diameter was 26.5mm as well. However, it was round, whereas the >> loonie was 11-sided. However, the sides are curved so that it still >> has constant width, which helps going down the chutes of vending >> machines. > > An 11-sided curve of constant width is easily distinguished by touch > from a circle--even at the exact same diameter. > > As you note, the SBA/Sac dollar has the same diameter and nearly the > same thickness, but they are much more difficult to distinguish from a > quarter by touch; the Sac dollar's smooth edges are an improvement over > the SBA dollar's milled edges, but the Loonie is in another class. The > Loonie is also a different color, like the Sac dollar, to make it more > easily distinguished by sight.. > > (The SBA dollar is difficult to distinguish from a JFK half-dollar too, > but the latter are even rarer than $2 notes, which are treated more as > novelty items than currency. The only JFK half-dollars I've ever seen > either came from the Tooth Fairy or in proof sets.) i think I have a roll of them someplace. > > S > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 13:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dh7tjnFca7vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158411 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:n8mb70$2bf$1@dont-email.me... > On 31-Jan-16 18:11, Dan Espen wrote: >> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: >>> I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I >>> still have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever >>> saw. >> >> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in >> more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games for >> a Susan Anthony. > > I hope that's a typo, or your friend wasn't very good at math. > >> Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available there. Never had a >> problem spending them either. > > I've had problems with SBA dollars being confused for quarters, but not > Sac dollars. I've never had a cashier refuse to accept either. > >> The damn things are too close to the size of a quarter though. > > That's why the Sac dollar has a different color and smooth edges; it's > easy to distinguish by both sight and touch. > >> Pretty civilized of Canada to kill their penny. I'm pretty sure in >> the USA the issue would somehow turn into major party battle. > > Both parties support eliminating the penny, except (of course) for > specific politicians owned by the zinc blank vendor. Their lobbyists > claim the Mint would lose more by eliminating the penny because of its > allocation of fixed costs, which would shift to other coins, and higher > demand for the nickel, which performs even worse than the penny. > > As usual, though, it would be more effective to treat the cause rather > than the effects. The only reason we _need_ so many pennies is that > sales taxes aren't included in our prices like they are in civilized > countries. Fix _that_ and the penny would fall out of circulation on > its own, How odd that it didn’t in any country that did that with their sales taxes. > and nobody would notice when we stopped minting more. Fantasy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 22:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601312222300.22012@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #158411 |
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 31-Jan-16 18:11, Dan Espen wrote: >> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: >>> I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I >>> still have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever >>> saw. >> >> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in >> more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games for >> a Susan Anthony. > > I hope that's a typo, or your friend wasn't very good at math. > >> Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available there. Never had a >> problem spending them either. > > I've had problems with SBA dollars being confused for quarters, but not > Sac dollars. I've never had a cashier refuse to accept either. > >> The damn things are too close to the size of a quarter though. > > That's why the Sac dollar has a different color and smooth edges; it's > easy to distinguish by both sight and touch. > >> Pretty civilized of Canada to kill their penny. I'm pretty sure in >> the USA the issue would somehow turn into major party battle. > > Both parties support eliminating the penny, except (of course) for > specific politicians owned by the zinc blank vendor. Their lobbyists > claim the Mint would lose more by eliminating the penny because of its > allocation of fixed costs, which would shift to other coins, and higher > demand for the nickel, which performs even worse than the penny. > > As usual, though, it would be more effective to treat the cause rather > than the effects. The only reason we _need_ so many pennies is that > sales taxes aren't included in our prices like they are in civilized > countries. Fix _that_ and the penny would fall out of circulation on > its own, and nobody would notice when we stopped minting more. > I don't know. Until 1990 or 1991, here in Canada there was a federal tax that was included in the price, then a provincial tax added on top. Then they changed it so the "manufacturing tax" (I think it was called) was removed, but a "Goods and Services tax" was added as things were tallied up at the cash. What I noticed was suddenly I was paying more tax on things, I didn't have much money so the important things, food and books and magazines, didn't generally get a tax added of any kind. There were exceptions, but I can't remember if things like chocolate bars were taxed or not. Clothes were exempt. So the real things I ended up paying an added tax on was electronic equipment (and probably parts, but I can't remember). WHen they shifted to the GST, they included a lot more items, though at least Quebec gave an instant rebate on books (so technically it's rung up at the cash, then removed). Magazines and clothes were no longer exempted, I had to pay GST on books (though no provincial tax), it seemed like more food items were on the taxable list. The result was I kept coming home with way more pennies than I had in the past. It was all because the GST and provincial tax got added, and that moved things to odd totals. When they "eliminated" the penny here (it's still valid, but if you pay for with pennies, they won't go back into circulation), they decided things would be rounded to the nearest nickel. That seems to work okay, better than I expected. But the odd thing is, there's been no switch in prices on the things that arne't taxed. So there are still the 1.99 cauliflowers and the 2.98 whatever, which previously made use of those pennies. I'm not sure if the prices were rounded up, so no more "1.99", if that would change things. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web