 |
|
|
A woman is concerned about her appearance, particularly the smallness of her breasts.
She asks her husband if they can afford for her to have some cosmetic breast enhancement surgury.
"You don't need to do that" says the husband, "just rub toilet paper on them every day and they will grow"
"Really?" She say, "Does that work?"
"It must do, look at the size of your arse!"
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That joke pre-dates toilet paper, they had to invent the stuff just for the joke to make sense.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True, it might be really old, but I still got a good chuckle out of it.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repost!
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I shall have to Wipe your memories!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: I shall have to Wipe your memories!
Just be sure not to flush all of his memories!
There are some really weird people on this planet - MIM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follow the procedure
click '4'
click 'sqrt'
click '-'(Minus sign)
click '2'
Answer should be 0
But It comes back with '-8.1648465955514287168521180122928e-39' answer 
[Edit]
Tested with XP and Seven
_[/More Edit]
Windows Server 2008 R2 comes same with yet another answer '-1.068281969439142e-19'
_[/More Edit]
[/Edit]
Rating is Always appreciated. Regards,Hiren Solanki.Indian Forum | My Articles | My Profile
"You will always find me near 127.0.0.1"
modified on Monday, November 1, 2010 7:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup confirmed - happening on Windows 7.
The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realise it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it.
My latest tip/trick
Visit the Hindi forum here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ja ja, in W2K8 the same -8,1648465955514287168521180122928e-39 I think someone forgot clear the stack
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another fails the knowledge about floating point....
When will they ever learn?????
Edit: It seems to happen with any rounding around 0. If your result is not 0, the result is correctly rounded, but with values very near 0, it simply 'forgets'....
Edit 2: Press = again, the answer will be -2 as expected confirming the previous value is not rounded correctly, but still good enough due to its 'smallness' (e-39 is very small).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, Calc internals have been replaced (around XP) with a long numbers library, so it is somehow noteworthy that this isn't enough.
OTOH, the OP failed to notice tha 8e-39 is zero enough when playing around with square roots of 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: OTOH, the OP failed to notice tha 8e-39 is zero enough when playing around with square roots of 2.
And that is why I cleverly did not point out who the FAILER actually was
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: Actually, Calc internals have been replaced (around XP) with a long numbers library, so it is somehow noteworthy that this isn't enough.
I actually thought I heard it referred to as an "infinite precision" calculator. I've tested it before on values that would make the pre-XP calc choke, but apparently it's not infinite.
Ah, googled it... apparently "arbitrary" precision is what it's called. I think MS changed it in the wake of that idiotic, much publicized and ultimately harmless Pentium "floating point" bug. People kept thinking they were finding more bugs, but they were just running into typical floating point inaccuracies.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely,
But thank you for your concern,
Here's wishing you a Happy New Year."
I wished him one back in return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It needs to do it like HP calculators have always done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do everything in high precision normalised BCD instead of IEEE binary floating point types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leppie wrote: Another fails the knowledge about floating point....
When will they ever learn?????
... not until this[^] (What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic) is added to the standard curriculum. 
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's still kinda ironic that cheap calculators from 20 years back will still display what the end-user wants to see, while a sophisticated OS comes with a calculator app that thinks it's okay to let its internal workings leak onto the UI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still have my first calculator from around 30 years ago, still on its original battery.
Still works but takes a good few seconds to respond to each key press.
I also still have my alarm clock radio at the side of my bed that I got for my 8th birthday (28 years ago last month). Still keeps and displays perfect time although it is many years since I have tried the alarm or radio out.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly ...
The following works correctly in XP.
click '4'
click x^y
click .5
click =
click Int
click '-'(Minus sign)
click '2'
Without using the Int function the result is the same as for the original poster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol , too much time on your hands but cool 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sheesh, it's about right, whaddaya want, accuracy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it is accurate. Its problem is that it is *too* precise. If it was a little less precise, it would have decided that it was close enough to zero to just display zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this particular instance any answer other than -4 or 0 is inaccurate. Doesn't matter that most of us understand that anything ^-39 power is so small as to be considered zero by most, it's still not zero. Understandably the answer they factored was 1.9999...8164whatever but its funny that the calculator rounded up, then 'forgot' that it did so. Sounds like sloppy programming. What's really funny is change it to the scientific calculator, do 4^.5 power then -2 and it gives a different answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hiren Solanki wrote: Answer should be 0
Or -4!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin