From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Oct 11 12:08:30 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 80179 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2003 19:08:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Oct 2003 19:08:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Oct 2003 19:08:29 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.22) id 1A8P6K-0006Mp-FJ for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:08:28 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1A8P5s-0006M3-Ed; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:08:00 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.22) id 1A8P5K-0006Ln-In for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:07:26 -0700 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:07:26 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Gone 1 1/2 years, and some base number... Message-ID: <20031011190726.GR2086@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <3F874050.4050203@bilkent.edu.tr> <20031010232232.GN2086@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-archive-position: 6420 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20901 On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 10:01:01AM +0200, David KOCH wrote: > >Le Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:22:32 -0700, Robin Lee Powell > > a ?crit: On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at > >02:27:12AM +0300, robin wrote: > >>Hex is currently in vogue because we think binary computers are > >>cool, but there is nothing to make it inherently superior. As a > >>kid, I was a big fan of octal. > > > >Precisely. In fact, the utility of something whose only divisors > >are powers of two is extremely questionable. > > > >Contrast to duodecimal (base 12) which is divisable by 2, 4, 3 > >and 6, or base-60, which adds 5, 10, 20, 15, and 30. > > > >Which would *you* rather use in your daily life? > > > >Oh, and why are we having this discussion again? > > > >-Robin > > > > Right, base 6 is one of the most useful base number (does 360? > remind you something ?) ! I think you mean base *60*, and yes I was explaining the remnants of Babylonian base-60 in modern culture to a friend just yesterday. -Robin -- Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all from running out and eating all the cookies." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui