Would this be proof of Time Travel ?

[Matt]

Round nearest is not my understanding of usual procedure.
Here in Australia I was taught that for large numbers you round up to the next thousand - for such things as population and troop numbers.

Then someone either taught you wrong, or they taught both me and the Australian Bureau of Statistics wrong.

See here in the September 2009 population statistics, the population of Australia is listed as 22,155,400 in the table but in the summary this is rounded to the nearest thousand which happens to be 22,155,000. The same as rounding down. I've looked at a smattering of other reports on this site and they always round to the nearest thousand whether that happens to be up or down.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....8?opendocument

Pegg’s discoveries included both troop and population numbers in the thousands, and as noted earlier, the 1/10 rule operated with numbers over the 1,000 configuration.

Whether true or not this is irrelevant.

So it was natural that when a large number such as 143,442 was found, rounding it up to the next thousand was the usual procedure.

Nope, rounding nearest is natural. Rounding off (down) is easiest. Rounding always up is wrong and unusual by all counts. The only reasons suggested for you doing so are your claim to have been miss-educated and my suggestion that you used "bankers rounding" to give the result most advantageous to you claim. Even so it ignores that fact that there's 1024 bytes to a kB not 1000

I personally (and apparently Pegg did too) chose to use details view on my 386PC in file manager, as shown in the video (but not on the linked ‘revelations.html’ page).


You have picked up an editing error - at the minimum, a poor choice of words.

You're welcome.

The webpage says “As a default the 'files window' showed twelve lines of data when set to 'details' mode (not shown).”
Pegg made this claim.

When I came to check this, there, on my computer screen, as Pegg described, viewed in details mode on my 386PC, were only twelve files listed. This was the maximum that could appear on my screen. There were other files, but they were below the screen break.

You could see more with the default font size if you maximized the screen. This is assuming you had at least a VGA gfx card thus a 640 x 480 screen resolution. Since that was the common stanard for win 3.1 it should be a pretty safe assumption.

Anyway it seems that you're talking about a specific file manager window size rather than something attributable to that CD ROM?

This confirmed my understanding of Pegg’s claim.

This maximum number of 12 is to what Pegg referred as the ‘default’ number of lines.
I can now see what you mean, and that this needs to be reworded.

I will have that page reworded to read
“In ‘details’ mode (not shown) the maximum number of files that could be seen in the files window was twelve.”

Sorry but that's just not true. See the screenshot I linked to. It seems that you're saying that at a specific non maximzied window size that both Peg and I experienced, twelve lines of data were shown in details view. However this will be true for numbers other than twelve lines of data. So would have no bearing on how we'd expect the screen to be viewed by anybody else, as the window can be resized to give different numbers.

Elsewhere in Pegg's work this has been stated as “The default window size allows twelve files to be viewed at a time.”

Which doesn't appear to be true and even if it was, would not be specific to this CD ROM

[tolman]

Some fat bird stole my mobile in 1928. Bitch.

skb

Well, I took a television back to show to Queen Victoria.
She really wasn't amused - miserable old bag kept complaining that there was nothing to watch.

[ZERO]

Then someone either taught you wrong, or they taught both me and the Australian Bureau of Statistics wrong.

See here in the September 2009 population statistics, the population of Australia is listed as 22,155,400 in the table but in the summary this is rounded to the nearest thousand which happens to be 22,155,000. The same as rounding down. I've looked at a smattering of other reports on this site and they always round to the nearest thousand whether that happens to be up or down.

I'll back Matt up here. I'm Australian and I was taught to round to the nearest number.
Another example is Aussie coins. 1 and 2 cent coins were abolished a few years back and the system we have now rounds up or down to the nearest five.

[Dubious Dick]

I'm betting LSD

[skbuncks]

I'll back Matt up here. I'm Australian and I was taught to round to the nearest number.
Another example is Aussie coins. 1 and 2 cent coins were abolished a few years back and the system we have now rounds up or down to the nearest five.

So, thus far the 'proof' of time travel relies upon shoehorning a method of rounding numbers into the bible which no one uses, or has ever used...is there really any need to continue with this?

skb

[chaggle]

So, thus far the 'proof' of time travel relies upon shoehorning a method of rounding numbers into the bible which no one uses, or has ever used...is there really any need to continue with this?

skb

No.

[panama]

Is this discussion still on the regular forum? I've looked the fella up and he's done this trolling in other places at other times. All his assertations have been refuted and not just here. The guy is a half-wit. Let's just ignore the ****

[skbuncks]

Is this discussion still on the regular forum? I've looked the fella up and he's done this trolling in other places at other times. All his assertations have been refuted and not just here. The guy is a half-wit. Let's just ignore the ****

It's really quite sad the number of years of his life that he has devoted to this tripe. It must take a particular type of stupid to persevere for so long in spite of all the evidence against your pet theory.

skb