| written by Torisek on Feb 10, 2010 13:57 |
| written by E_net4 on Feb 11, 2010 19:21 |
 | |  | | ![]() Me liek. Too bad burning a CD to something as small in size as Noctis would be a waste. | |  | |  |
|
 | |  | | ![]() But no one uses floppies anymore. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Serpens on Feb 12, 2010 02:29 |
 | |  | | ![]()  | Albeyamakiir said: | | But no one uses floppies anymore. |
What do you mean "no one"? I've got a ton of them lying around, including a backup of my (very old) Starmap! They will get damaged and unusable sooner or later, but still... | |  | |  |
|
| written by Ferinex on Feb 13, 2010 17:37 |
| | | | ![]() Just a small error in your english: it should be 'Noctis Offers', not 'Noctis is offering'.
Otherwise I like it, nice job.
I'm also now curious if the number '90 billion' is in the sense of the short scale or long scale. I'd assume the long scale, as that is what is used in Italy, no? | | | | |
|
| i haz title: speed-y-???-1 |
|
  | written by Speeder on Feb 13, 2010 23:12 |
 | |  | | ![]() I have not only 1.44 floppies but those 5 inch floppies too.
Too bad that I only have the 5 inch floppies reader. And lots of 1.44 floppies with cool stuff. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Torisek on Feb 14, 2010 10:44 |
| | | | I'm not sure. I'm Pole and I'm not sure what scale could I use.
American and 'normal' counting WTF! | | | | |
|
| written by Torisek on Feb 14, 2010 10:45 |
| | | | 5 inch? I never had these, just 1.44. | | | | |
|
| written by E_net4 on Feb 14, 2010 11:38 |
| | | | ![]() 5 " floppy disks are extremely old, so it's likely you've never had one.
And not having a 1.44" floppy reader is a bit odd for someone who's got a 5" floppy reader. | | | | |
|
 | |  | | ![]() | Ferinex said: | | I'm also now curious if the number '90 billion' is in the sense of the short scale or long scale. I'd assume the long scale, as that is what is used in Italy, no? |
I'm fairly sure it's short scale, since that's what is used in English. Also, that would probably be an unrealistically large number of stars for a disk-shaped galaxy, otherwise. : ) | |  | |  |
|
| written by Neuzd on Feb 14, 2010 14:46 |
| | | | ![]() Short scale.
But most important, I'm curious to know where Torisek took this number from.
If the 100,000 LY radius is considered as limit, the stars are probably 79,043,803,010.
And by the way Ferinex, if there was another person who should have known that exact number, that was you, because of your Triceratops scan of the last year.
[EDIT]
Actually 79,043,803,010 systems are found in a 100,005 LY radius scan. | | | | |
|
└> last changed by Neuzd on February 14, 2010 at 16:49
|
| written by Torisek on Feb 14, 2010 20:23 |
| | | | | E_net4 said: | 5 " floppy disks are extremely old, so it's likely you've never had one.
And not having a 1.44" floppy reader is a bit odd for someone who's got a 5" floppy reader. |
I heard few times on the Informatics Classes but it was a lot time ago! Anyway, I don't have 1.44" in my newest pc, in the old one [which is off-line, because Graph. card just broken from old age] I have still 1.44"... And a few floppies, hehe | | | | |
|
| written by Torisek on Feb 14, 2010 20:24 |
| | | | | Cryoburner said: | | Ferinex said: | | I'm also now curious if the number '90 billion' is in the sense of the short scale or long scale. I'd assume the long scale, as that is what is used in Italy, no? |
I'm fairly sure it's short scale, since that's what is used in English. Also, that would probably be an unrealistically large number of stars for a disk-shaped galaxy, otherwise. : ) |
Agreed, I've still that cover on my PC so it won't be hard to rewrite it.  | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]()  | Cover said: | | - over 90 billion of stars |
Actually, there probably shouldn't be the word 'of' in there. : )
Otherwise, I think the number is fairly accurate though. My guess is that the original 90+ billion star systems estimate may includes those outside the 100,000 light year boundary. Even if we limit it to that range though, the number of actual stars is still likely around 90 billion. Neuzd's 79 billion count probably doesn't take into account systems containing multiple stars, and only represents the total number of systems in that range. | | | | |
|
| written by Torisek on Feb 15, 2010 19:42 |
| | | | So what should I write?
- Countless number of stars? | | | | |
|
| 
