This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
RE: Microsoft can't count!
- From: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]" <BBuchbinder at niaid dot nih dot gov>
- To: "The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List" <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:52:45 -0400
- Subject: RE: Microsoft can't count!
- Reply-to: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
Dave Korn wrote on Monday, September 17, 2007 3:05 PM:
> On 17 September 2007 19:51, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) wrote:
>
>> Dave Korn wrote on Monday, September 17, 2007 12:45 PM:
>>
>>> On 17 September 2007 17:34, One Angry User wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a chilly Monday morning, the 17th day of September, 2007, Dave
>>>> Korn's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
>>>>
>>>>> Another stunning display of skill, innovation, talent, and sheer
>>>>> unmitigated competence from Microsoft, as they attempt to count
>>>>> up to four. And fail!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;829019
>>>>>
>>>>> MORE INFORMATION
>>>>> There are currently three released versions of the .NET
>>>>> Framework: . The .NET Framework 3.0 . The .NET Framework 2.0
>>>>> . The .NET Framework 1.1
>>>>> Service Pack 1 (SP1) is the latest service pack.
>>>>> . The .NET Framework 1.0
>>>>> Service Pack 3 (SP3) is the latest service pack.
>>>>
>>>> They are used to much larger numbers...
>>>>
>>>> OAU
>>>
>>> Or perhaps just none too clear on the difference between a
>>> release version and a release series.
>>>
>>> Whatever the case, it's vulgar and unprofessional of them!
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> DaveK
>>
>> But it's vulgar and unprofessional by design. Remember that MS
>> designs its products to be easy to use by people who don't know what
>> they are doing. The side effect is that it makes if harder to use by
>> people who DO
>> know what they're doing. So MS counting professionally would be out
>> of
>> character.
>
> I have some bad news. Microsoft just rushed a standard through the
> ISO fast-track acceptance process, and now they've standardised the
> new value of three as being four.
>
> <sigh> Now I've go back over all my old geometrical software and
> figure out how to implement evaluatePIlikeIndiana97.[*]
>
> cheers,
> DaveK
>
> [*] - that's 1897, of course :)
But isn't that how computers work? In base 2, the only digits are 0 and 1 so both 3 and 4 are undefined, meaningless, and, therefore, effectively identical.