Next time, read the contract before alleging someone misread it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 29, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Roger Hicks
wrote:
If you're not convinced I'm handling this right take a look at your
latest harvestings of proposals for po
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 09:29, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Care to explain?
>>
>> BobTHJ
>>
>
> I explained with my last CoE but I just realized I only CoEd my
> holdings, not everyone. You recorded events as if the mere act of
> harvesting or buying
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 08:29 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > Care to explain?
> >
> > BobTHJ
> >
>
> I explained with my last CoE but I just realized I only CoEd my
> holdings, not everyone. You recorded events as if the mere act of
> harvesting or
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 21:49, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>> Reflects actions up to and including Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:50
>>
>> Agoran Agricultural Association
>
> CoE: This whole report is inaccurate as it purports actions that were never
> performed.
>
Care to explain?
BobTHJ
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 15:13, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14
CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic.
-coppro
I mill 9 - 7 = 2, 9 - 7
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 15:13, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14
>>
>> CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic.
>>
>> -coppro
>>
>
> I mill 9 - 7 = 2, 9 - 7 =
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 14:02, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt wrote:
coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14
>>>
>>> CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, p
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14
>>
>> CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic.
>>
> I'm not understanding the nature of your
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14
>
> CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic.
>
I'm not understanding the nature of your CoE, can you clarify?
BobTHJ
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 09:01 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 16:49 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > CROP & WRV HOLDINGS
> > Farmer 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
> > -
> > ais523 11 18
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 00:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comex wrote:
>> Proto-Denied. It seemed reasonably clear to me since the IBA is the
>> only active bank. Other opinions?
>>
> Bank transactions are difficult in this regard
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 00:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> IBA 3 2 0 0 1 1 9 1 1 8 9 1
>>
>> CoE: The IBA has no WRV. coppro did not specify which bank e intended
>
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> IBA � � � � � � � � 3 � 2 � 0 � 0 � 1 � 1 � 9 � 1 � 1 � 8 � 9 � 1
>>
>> CoE: The IBA has no WRV. �coppro did not specify which bank e intended
>> to deposit eir WRV into.
>>
>
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> IBA 3 2 0 0 1 1 9 1 1 8 9 1
>> CoE: The IBA has no WRV. coppro did not specify which bank e intended
>> to deposit eir WRV into.
>>
> Pr
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> IBA 3 2 0 0 1 1 9 1 1 8 9 1
>
> CoE: The IBA has no WRV. coppro did not specify which bank e intended
> to deposit eir WRV into.
>
Proto-Denied. It seemed reas
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I harvest 2259 and 1 to turn a 2 ranch into a 1 ranch.
O.o
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 15:09, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Agoran Agricultural Association
>
> In the future, could you please post the report after the actions? Makes
> it easier on us.
>
Yes sorry. I forgot I had actions to process until after I had sent
the report. The current state
Roger Hicks wrote:
> Agoran Agricultural Association
In the future, could you please post the report after the actions? Makes
it easier on us.
Also, you are the Scorekeepor. How come you can't ensure your
revocations of points succeed? This is an equitable contract; taking
reparative action if ne
coppro wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> coppro 6 5 8 5 1 4 3 9 5 17 3 1
>
> I mill 0 - 7 = 4.
> I mill 9 - 3 = 6.
> I mill 7 * 4 = 6.
>
> I harvest 2643 for 2 WRVs.
> I harvest 2637 for 2 WRVs.
> I harvest 2639 for 2 WRVs.
> I harvest 2638 for 2 WRVs.
>
> I harve
Roger Hicks wrote:
> coppro 6 5 8 5 1 4 3 9 5 17 3 1
I mill 0 - 7 = 4.
I mill 9 - 3 = 6.
I mill 7 * 4 = 6.
I harvest 2643 for 2 WRVs.
I harvest 2637 for 2 WRVs.
I harvest 2639 for 2 WRVs.
I harvest 2638 for 2 WRVs.
I harvest 955 for 8 random crops.
I harvest 683
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 15:03 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> CROP & WRV HOLDINGS
> Farmer 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
> -
> AFO53 35 1 0 3 0 3 40 11 26 1 0
> ais523
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 22:18, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Warrigal8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
>
> I have too many crops. I PBA-deposit a 0 crop.
>
>> Warrigal0 0 0 1
On Oct 29, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 22:13, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I mill 0 - 9 = 2 using Land #48.
I mill 8 / 4 = 2 using Land #68.
And in case I need it: I mill 4 / 8 = 6 using Land #68.
This last milling fails (you already used y
On 29 Oct 2008, at 18:08, Alex Smith wrote:
I PBA-deposit a 9 crop [gaining ^19].
I PBA-withdraw a 0 crop [paying ^9].
I PBA-deposit two 6 crops [gaining ^28+^27=^55].
I PBA-withdraw four 7 crops [paying ^11+^12+^13+^14=^50].
I PBA-withdraw two 4 crops [paying ^6+^7=^13].
works
--
ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 22:13, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mill 0 - 9 = 2 using Land #48.
> I mill 8 / 4 = 2 using Land #68.
>
> I harvest 2235, a newly created CFJ number.
> I harvest 2237, a newly created CFJ number.
> I harvest 2238, a newly created CFJ number.
>
> That shoul
On Monday 13 October 2008 01:44:46 pm ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:36 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > I intend, without 3 Objections, to set each of the following
> > exchange rates:
> > 8 crops55
>
> Note that it's mostly me who's responsible for the bank's glut of 8
> Crops; havi
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:36 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote:
> I intend, without 3 Objections, to set each of the following exchange
> rates:
> 8 crops55
Note that it's mostly me who's responsible for the bank's glut of 8
Crops; having two 8 Ranches, I've been generating them fast enough that
they
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 22:02, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 05 October 2008 09:56:31 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>> FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
>> Pavitra10 9 816 9 13 2
>
> Since then, I've harvested using 2 of these 1 crops.
> I
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It also raises the withdrawal rates, which makes it less attractive to
> deposit the currencies that didn't get raised. I've actually been
> thinking about lowering rates overall, which would benefit existing
> chit-holders by
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, without 3 Objections, to set each of the following exchange
> rates:
>
> 6 crops 85
> X crops 200
> (each pitch of Credits) 70
> Point Vchrs 50
>
> [It's generally A Goo
On Friday 03 October 2008 02:24:08 pm Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:17, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Well... flaming bobba smurf.
> >>
> >> All right.
> >>
> >> Let's see what I've got here.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:17, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well... flaming bobba smurf.
>>
>> All right.
>>
>> Let's see what I've got here.
>>
>> FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
>> Pavitra
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well... flaming bobba smurf.
>
> All right.
>
> Let's see what I've got here.
>
> FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
> Pavitra 8 5 612 7 11 2
> (transactions) +7 -7-4 +1
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 00:02, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have 54 chits.
>
> If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
> then I take none of them.
> {
> I deposit 7 1 crops, 4 3 crops, 5 7 crops, 7 8 crops, and 11 9 crops
> for 311 chits. This brings me to a
ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 16:29 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote:
>> On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> 1. I do 1.
>>> 2. I do 2.
>>> 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1.
>>>
>>> It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The
>>> "simultaneous but sequential"
ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 18:05 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> ais523 wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, this might be where it breaks down in Agora. The point is that as I
>>> haven't reached my CFJ limit yet, there's no way that the attempt to
>>> call a CFJ can fail, except for some other part of the tr
On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 18:05 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > Ah, this might be where it breaks down in Agora. The point is that as I
> > haven't reached my CFJ limit yet, there's no way that the attempt to
> > call a CFJ can fail, except for some other part of the transaction
> > fail
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On another note, I really don't have time to keep up with the AAA
> right now. Isn't there someone (anyone?) who would be willing to take
> it over for now?
FRC is less work. Want to trade contests?
-root
ais523 wrote:
> Ah, this might be where it breaks down in Agora. The point is that as I
> haven't reached my CFJ limit yet, there's no way that the attempt to
> call a CFJ can fail, except for some other part of the transaction
> failing.
And in fact it does fail because of how it's disclaimered.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 25 September 2008 04:37:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Overall I think it's up to the officer (or contestmaster) recording
>> the transactions to decide if it's straightforward and if it is,
>> assume the conditional
On Thursday 25 September 2008 04:37:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Overall I think it's up to the officer (or contestmaster) recording
> the transactions to decide if it's straightforward and if it is,
> assume the conditional works as intended and if it's not
> straightforward, the officer should reje
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 16:47 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > I perform all the actions in the following block of text, if and only if
> > they would all be successful, and every non-action statement in that
> > block of text would be true at the time it was made:
> > {{{
> > I call fo
ais523 wrote:
> I perform all the actions in the following block of text, if and only if
> they would all be successful, and every non-action statement in that
> block of text would be true at the time it was made:
> {{{
> I call for judgement on the statement "Goethe is wearing a hat."
> The prev
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 1. I do 1.
>> 2. I do 2.
>> 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1.
>>
>> It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The
>> "simultaneous but sequential" is no longer in the rules but is also
On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 1. I do 1.
> 2. I do 2.
> 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1.
>
> It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The
> "simultaneous but sequential" is no longer in the rules but is also
> kept by (recent) CFJ and a controversial seri
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
>> then I take none of them.
>
> I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors would require an
> unusual effor
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:47, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
>> then I take none of them.
>
> I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors wou
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
> then I take none of them.
I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors would require an
unusual effort. What's the rule on conditionals like this?
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:26, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT
When a game is going well for so long, is there a case for integrating
into the rules; by that I mean allow profits here to be more officiall
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because you already had one before you gained those six?
*facepalm* I read that as "destroys". :)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:11 - SoA creates six WRV in Taral's possession
>
> How come I have 7 WRV then?
>
Because you already had one before you gained those si
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:11 - SoA creates six WRV in Taral's possession
How come I have 7 WRV then?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I mill 5/8=2 and 5*5=3.
>> I harvest the number of CFJ 2137 for 2 WRV.
>
> I create two WRV in Pavitra's possession.
Why? 2137 wasn't eligible.
--
Taral
It doesn't matter, really; if I get a Mill of any sort I won't get a Digit
Ranch but I will get a WRV, so I'll have enough WRV to cover all my Digit
Ranches.
--
ais523
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Benjamin Schultz
Sent: Fri 29/08/2008 00:54
To: Agora Bu
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I harvest the number of CFJ 2137 for 2 WRV.
This fails. CFJ 2137 was assigned its number ages ago.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Aug 28, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Pavitra wrote:
I mill 5/8=2 and 5*5=3.
I harvest the number of CFJ 2137 for 2 WRV.
I transfer all my mills to the PNP.
I request subsidy.
You might have to wait until next week, per para 16b of the AAA:
Once each week, a first-class farmer who at the beginning of
On Aug 19, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
I think the subsidy is now at 9. I request subsidization.
I create a Mill (land #123) with an Operator of * (Multiplication) and
a WRV in the possession
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is your RNG stuck on 4 or something? 4 4 ranches really aren't that
> useful these days.
>
> -woggle
>
At the rate CFJs are being called lately I think 4s will be in high
demand before too longjust wait for another 2k C
woggle wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT
Time of
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT
>>>
>>> Time of last report: Mon, 04
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Addition and subtraction mod 11 are moderately less obnoxious to figure out
> than division.
Well, ok, when you're dealing with single-digit operands addition is
incredibly simple and subtraction's not much worse once y
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I mill 5 * 8, does that produce 7?
Yes.
BTW, It would probably be nice to have addition, subtraction, and
multiplication tables in the AAA report too; it's not like they're
significantly less obnoxious to figure out
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 10:12 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Federal Subsidy: 7
> I request subsidisation.
Fails. You must own less than 7 lands at the beginning of the week to
request subsidy.
BobTHJ
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Quazie wrote:
>> Will the consecutive integers wrap around? May I harvest 89X0 to upgrade a
>> land?
> Goodness, never
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Quazie wrote:
>>
>> (upgrading and downgrading lands)
>
> Will the consecutive integers wrap around? May I harvest 89X0 to upgrade a
> land?
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
>
On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Quazie wrote:
(upgrading and downgrading lands)
Will the consecutive integers wrap around? May I harvest 89X0 to
upgrade a land?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
> Add the following to the end of section 8:
> "An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week"
> "A downgraded Digit Ranch produces 1 crop every 2 weeks"
These may stack, i.e., an upgraded Digit Ranch actually produces 3
crops per week (1 for being a Digit Ranch, and 2 for being upgraded),
an
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
I still think it's more complexity than is necessary.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- U
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
---
Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA contract:
" g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify
another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall
select a random,
I have many many mills, and i would like another digit ranch,
specifically a 2 digit ranch. I could also take a 0 ranch. If
someone wants to make a trade of one of my mills for one of the
ranches I want, let me know.
On Monday 7 July 2008 5:32:23 Quazie wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An upgraded Ranch should require 2 WRVs / month (possibly distributed as 1
> > WRV every half month). I think the upgraded Mill is too powerful, though.
>
> The thought was
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
>> Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
>> ---
>> Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA
>> contract:
>> " g. A fa
On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Quazie wrote:
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
---
Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA
contract:
" g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify
another farmer. As soon as possib
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
I proto-object. It's too powerful.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
---
Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA contract:
" g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify
another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall
select a random,
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 0/0, or infinity. -G.
Neither of which are defined. It's a bit like root's NaN. If you
extend the domain of - to values that don't behave, you can get "x - x
!= 0". But then you're talking about a different -.
--
Taral <[E
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> One might also imagine an esoteric programming language in which
>> accessing a variable inherently changes its value.
>
> Well if you want to go that route: (perl obviously) package F;use base
> "Tie::Scalar";sub TIESCALA
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That depends on the value of 4.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That depends on the value of 4.
>>
>> Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0?
>
> 0/0, or infinity.
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That depends on the value of 4.
>
> Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0?
0/0, or infinity. -G.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you get for four == four?
Oh, nevermind. That's a different - than the one we were talking about
before. You successfully sidetracked me.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I c
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> four = float('nan')
> four - four != 0
>> True
>
> What do you get for four == four?
False, of course.
-root
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
four = float('nan')
four - four != 0
> True
What do you get for four == four?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0?
>>
>> NaN.
>
> NaN is incomparable with zero. I didn't say not (4 - 4 = 0), I said 4 - 4 !=
> 0.
>>> four = fl
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0?
>
> NaN.
NaN is incomparable with zero. I didn't say not (4 - 4 = 0), I said 4 - 4 != 0.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can gi
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That depends on the value of 4.
>
> Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0?
NaN.
-root
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That depends on the value of 4.
Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
And this would yield an X crop (don't forgetbase 11 arithmetic).
No, 4 - 4 is 0, in
2008/7/3 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I mill 4 + 8 = 2.
>> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
> Isn't 4+8=1 mod 11?
>
Oh, someone already caught that. This is what I get for looking at
mistakes and not seeing if there's any DIS thread ab
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mill 4 + 8 = 2.
> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
Isn't 4+8=1 mod 11?
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 12:53 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Federal Subsidy: 8
I request subsidisation.
--
ais523
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic.
>>>
>> Oops...
>>
>> But not in binary :)
>
> If you're using a 4 in your binary, you're probably doing something
> horribly wrong.
Obviou
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic.
>>
> Oops...
>
> But not in binary :)
If you're using a 4 in your binary, you're probably doing something
horribly wrong.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
>>
>> And this would yield an X crop (don't forgetbase 11 arithmetic).
>
> No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic.
>
Oops...
But not i
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
>
> And this would yield an X crop (don't forgetbase 11 arithmetic).
No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mill 4 + 8 = 2.
Fails. This would yield a 1 crop.
> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
And this would yield an X crop (don't forgetbase 11 arithmetic).
>
> I harvest 2054, the number of a recently called CFJ, for 2 WRVs.
Fails d
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?
>
> It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to
> agora-official, and i
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?
It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to
agora-official, and it's not conventional to send reports that aren't
directly required by the rules to
I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Lx & Ntwthy dtplt #79 Digit Ranch (4)
>> I change the name of the above land to: 4 Crop
>>
>> land #80 Digit Ranch (6)
>> I change the na
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
