FW: Rounding figures?

Subject: FW: Rounding figures?
From: Kim Roper <kim -dot- roper -at- vitana -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:01:57 -0500

Yup. It can equal anything you want. Of course, the rest of the world is
free to shake its head in wonderment at your refusal to adhere to the
conventional definition of "2" and proceed to dismiss any further opinions
you might have on the subject :>

Reminds me of a favourite math prof's penchant for using "cow" and "bat" as
variable names. "Commutes like a bat ... a *wounded* bat ... a VERY wounded
bat ..." (I forget what he used to say about cows.) Anyway, you can assign
whatever meaning you want to things--the trick is to get the folks around
you to accept your definitions; otherwise, there ain't no effective
communication on the subject. (I don't think anyone expected the prof to
stuff real bovines or flying rodents into his equations, but my
seven-year-old might assume otherwise.)

I suspect that, like me, you've run into folks who redefine words and
phrases to convey something other than usual connotations or denotations,
then complain because nobody understands them (intellectual and artistic
baboons that we are). The Web is chock-a-block with these people.
Exploring the depths of a language is a wonderful and noble thing, but these
folks should remember to tie themselves to a guideline on the surface before
they start their verbal spelunking. Without it, the rest of us can't be
expected to know where they are or how they got there.

Bottom line: You can redefine terms as you see fit, but it's up to you to
communicate the new definition, and others are not obligated to accept it.
(Reasonableness and logical consistency are a whole 'nuther issue.) Ask
questions. Eat more fibre. Void where prohibited.

Cheers ... Kim
mailto:kim -dot- roper -at- vitana -dot- com

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a
personality, and an obnoxious one at that.-- me

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruhman, Rima [mailto:rruhman -at- encompserv -dot- com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 4:32 PM
> To: 'Kim Roper'; TECHWR-L
> Subject: RE: Rounding figures?
>
>
> With that reasoning, 2+2 can almost equal 6. (5.99999998)
>
> Rima Ruhman

[snip]


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Develop HTML-Based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver 4 ($100 STC Discount)
**New Dates!!** San Francisco (Apr 16-17), San Jose (Mar 29-30)
http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.

IPCC 01, the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference,
October 24-27, 2001 at historic La Fonda in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
CALL FOR PAPERS OPEN UNTIL MARCH 15. http://ieeepcs.org/2001/

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.


Previous by Author: RE: Saving Word to ASCII
Next by Author: RE: Figures in User Manuals
Previous by Thread: RE: Rounding figures?
Next by Thread: Advice on writing functional specs


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads