At 10:29 AM -0500 on 4/14/01, James M. Ray wrote:
> JP's employees get paid in e-gold, I get paid in
> e-gold, others do too, etc. We all then use it at more and more places,
> and it just adds up eventually to stats!
The multiplier effect.
It's an economy, yes?
:-).
Cheers,
RAH
--
At 7:19 PM +1000 4/14/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I have to totally agree with Mike McNamara!
>
>Even though e-gold just gave us the greatest stats improvement ever,
>I suggest a FURTHER improvement!
>
>(Jay & Jim, are we greedy or what!)
...
I'm just wondering why _I_ deserve *any* credi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
regarding range endpoints:
currently the "Balance Distribution of Funded Accounts" uses the
ranges:
> 0and < 1
>= 1and < 10
>= 10 and < 100
>= 100 and < 1000
>= 1000 and < 1
>= 1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6
> Suggest where it says "0 - 1 oz." it should read "under one ounce",
> because "0 - 1 oz" suggests that includes accounts that are totally
> empty (which would be quite different)
>
Not really, because 0 oz. is under one ounce. The negative weight accounts
are also under one ounce. It also de
> "Jay" == Jay W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jay> - as we know the total number of accounts (136,259 at this
Jay> instant) and a bottom limit on funded accounts (60,780 at this
Jay> instant) leaving 75,479 maximum with no e-metal in them. (the
Jay> exact actual number of accounts with any typ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
yes you are correct jp - 60,766 in your example would be accounts
that have at least *some* (i.e. non-zero) gold in them. the stats
page also gives an idea of how many accounts have nothing in them -
as we
know the total number of accounts (136,259 at this ins
