Talk:96: Mail - Revision history

Solomon: cited USPS 526.5 Live Scorpions

2023-06-15T06:15:00Z

cited USPS 526.5 Live Scorpions

172.68.110.141: forgot signature

2022-05-12T12:12:38Z

forgot signature

172.68.110.141: flies fly.

2022-05-12T12:11:54Z

flies fly.

Nitpicking: 2 years in the waiting: answer question about pi

2021-08-16T03:22:45Z

2 years in the waiting: answer question about pi

Lupo at 15:00, 12 March 2019

2019-03-12T15:00:58Z

141.101.76.16 at 12:09, 17 January 2018

2018-01-17T12:09:13Z

141.101.76.16 at 16:35, 16 January 2018

2018-01-16T16:35:24Z

141.101.76.16 at 16:33, 16 January 2018

2018-01-16T16:33:38Z

141.101.76.16 at 16:33, 16 January 2018

2018-01-16T16:33:18Z

172.68.26.41 at 19:18, 5 September 2017

2017-09-05T19:18:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:15, 15 June 2023
Line 2:		Line 2:

	No, but live scorpions are: http://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c5_007.htm --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.205\|173.245.52.205]] 15:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)		No, but live scorpions are: http://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c5_007.htm --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.205\|173.245.52.205]] 15:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
		+	:526.5 explains when they're allowed and how to mail them: https://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c5_008.htm#ep184083 [[User:Solomon\|Solomon]] ([[User talk:Solomon\|talk]]) 06:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

	I think it's black hat guy on the other end of the phone line. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.45\|108.162.221.45]] 20:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)		I think it's black hat guy on the other end of the phone line. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.45\|108.162.221.45]] 20:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:12, 12 May 2022
Line 22:		Line 22:
	:You can define a rational number that is arbitrarily close to pi (example: off by no more than 1 in 10 to the tenth power). You can never write down (or digitally store) the '''exact''' value of pi. [[User:Nitpicking\|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking\|talk]]) 03:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)		:You can define a rational number that is arbitrarily close to pi (example: off by no more than 1 in 10 to the tenth power). You can never write down (or digitally store) the '''exact''' value of pi. [[User:Nitpicking\|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking\|talk]]) 03:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

−	It could also be a literal no fly list, as in the insect fly.	+	It could also be a literal no fly list, as in the insect fly. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.141\|172.68.110.141]] 12:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:11, 12 May 2022
Line 21:		Line 21:
	isn't pi either close to a number with a fixed number of decimals (as before the revision by M), or equal to a number with indefinite decimals (as indicated by the "...")? So that the combination of close to and the "..." makes it at least inaccurate? As I am not 100% familiar with English mathematical writing: Can someone please verify or contradict my statement? --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)		isn't pi either close to a number with a fixed number of decimals (as before the revision by M), or equal to a number with indefinite decimals (as indicated by the "...")? So that the combination of close to and the "..." makes it at least inaccurate? As I am not 100% familiar with English mathematical writing: Can someone please verify or contradict my statement? --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	:You can define a rational number that is arbitrarily close to pi (example: off by no more than 1 in 10 to the tenth power). You can never write down (or digitally store) the '''exact''' value of pi. [[User:Nitpicking\|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking\|talk]]) 03:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)		:You can define a rational number that is arbitrarily close to pi (example: off by no more than 1 in 10 to the tenth power). You can never write down (or digitally store) the '''exact''' value of pi. [[User:Nitpicking\|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking\|talk]]) 03:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	It could also be a literal no fly list, as in the insect fly.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:22, 16 August 2021
Line 20:		Line 20:

	isn't pi either close to a number with a fixed number of decimals (as before the revision by M), or equal to a number with indefinite decimals (as indicated by the "...")? So that the combination of close to and the "..." makes it at least inaccurate? As I am not 100% familiar with English mathematical writing: Can someone please verify or contradict my statement? --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)		isn't pi either close to a number with a fixed number of decimals (as before the revision by M), or equal to a number with indefinite decimals (as indicated by the "...")? So that the combination of close to and the "..." makes it at least inaccurate? As I am not 100% familiar with English mathematical writing: Can someone please verify or contradict my statement? --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
		+	:You can define a rational number that is arbitrarily close to pi (example: off by no more than 1 in 10 to the tenth power). You can never write down (or digitally store) the '''exact''' value of pi. [[User:Nitpicking\|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking\|talk]]) 03:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 12 March 2019
Line 18:		Line 18:
	* I don't know what the second part of the second sentence is getting at at all		* I don't know what the second part of the second sentence is getting at at all
	Can anyone else have a go at it?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16\|141.101.76.16]] 12:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)		Can anyone else have a go at it?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16\|141.101.76.16]] 12:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	isn't pi either close to a number with a fixed number of decimals (as before the revision by M), or equal to a number with indefinite decimals (as indicated by the "...")? So that the combination of close to and the "..." makes it at least inaccurate? As I am not 100% familiar with English mathematical writing: Can someone please verify or contradict my statement? --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:09, 17 January 2018
Line 12:		Line 12:

	A package of time, if it even made sense, would not require time not to be continuous. However I won't remove that paragraph from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41\|172.68.26.41]] 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)		A package of time, if it even made sense, would not require time not to be continuous. However I won't remove that paragraph from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41\|172.68.26.41]] 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	The second paragraph here is rather unclear and could use some rewriting. Unfortunately, I can't get a good enough grasp of what it's trying to say to do it.
		+	* The first sentence I think is trying to say something like "...time is not continuous - similar to particles in quantum mechanics", but I don't know enough about the subject to know if this makes sense.
		+	* The first part of the second sentence looks like it's trying to say "This is not a widely accepted theory..."
		+	* I don't know what the second part of the second sentence is getting at at all
		+	Can anyone else have a go at it?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16\|141.101.76.16]] 12:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 I think it's black hat guy on the other end of the phone line. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.45|108.162.221.45]] 20:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
-: If it were the black hat guy, he'd have something more snarky to say. This cue ball's character is more in line with beret guy.
+: If it were the black hat guy, he'd have something more snarky to say. This cueball's character is more in line with beret guy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.39|108.162.216.39]] 07:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)BK201
 :: Black hat does have an obsession about these things. see 325. This seems to be likely that it's him. But ill leave the desicion to someone else. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.139|162.158.2.139]] 05:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 5 September 2017
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Did anyone else read it as him not being allowed to mail himself via USPS? --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 17:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)		Did anyone else read it as him not being allowed to mail himself via USPS? --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 17:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	A package of time, if it even made sense, would not require time not to be continuous. However I won't remove that paragraph from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41\|172.68.26.41]] 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)