This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - jnesselr
Pages: 1 ... 77 78 [79] 80 81 ... 165
1171
« on: January 13, 2011, 08:54:43 pm »
except not really 
I probably won't bother upgrading to 2.55...I recently went back to 2.43 and I like it... a lot
Yeah, so did I. I think I know a way to figure out if it's MP or not in basic. I'll have to experiment a little more, though.
1172
« on: January 13, 2011, 06:58:08 pm »
hi everyone, i officially turn 16 today and i finally have an opportunity to return to the computer to post a few posts! i am making good progress on at least 3 different programs for the ti-nspiore too bad i can't upload them to show you. but it's happy birthday for me!
Happy b-day. Welcome back!
1173
« on: January 13, 2011, 06:33:20 pm »
But the one that thepenguin got back was real, correct? I know they have a way to get a hold of the developers, they just don't want you talking to them.
1174
« on: January 13, 2011, 06:30:31 pm »
Originally, A:\ and B:\ were for floppy drives and C to Z for the rest, since most of the computers at the time had 2 of them. Windows now lets you map drives to B:\ (and maybe even A:\ if you have no floppy). Myself, I have a B:\ drive for a MS-DOS partition.
Fun fact: I managed to map non-alphabetical drives once ($:\ or 1:\)
You have a B:\ drive? How's that?
Technically, it does it in order, so you can have a B:\ drive. I have an A:\ drive fora 3 1/2 floppy, I don't remember what hardware piece B:\ would be. C:\ is obviously the first partition on my hard-drive. Also, it's \ not /. / is for linux/unix and usually will work in windows. But \ is more technically correct. Just some fun info there. ;-)
Thank you guys for the detailed explanation.
no problem. I'm wondering if I should hook any hardware up to that B:/ part. Maybe an SD card reader or something.
1175
« on: January 13, 2011, 06:28:52 pm »
My my, no one has given peanuts yet? How rude. However are we going to treat our new users. Here, have some peanuts: 
1176
« on: January 13, 2011, 07:09:13 am »
Hey, that's great that you got it to work, but please don't double post.  What is the key combo to get to the maintanence menu, btw?
1177
« on: January 12, 2011, 10:44:58 pm »
you guys want a really hard one? i came up with one but i don't even know where to begin to solve it.
Do it. I need something to sleep on while I sleep.
1178
« on: January 12, 2011, 10:40:35 pm »
I think Nemo should get it. He got the correct answer first
Oh, I understand. Ninja'd once, ninja'd twice. ;-)
1179
« on: January 12, 2011, 10:38:59 pm »
I didn't specify that the factors had to be prime (didn't intend to imply that, but I understand the confusion) so nemo got it.
Okay. From now on, I think we need to specify random stuff. For example: No, that balloon isn't traveling the speed of light, but e^9.25 under it.
1180
« on: January 12, 2011, 10:37:09 pm »
Why not use 2.43 instead of 2.22?
Also, Scout you can have both TiLP and TI-Connect installed at once, since TiLP can use the TI-Connect drivers instead of it's own, but I prefer not doing so.
Apparently, TI-Connect comes with OS 2.22. 
Yeah, I have a CD for a TI-84+SE that has 2.22.
1181
« on: January 12, 2011, 10:35:22 pm »
Well it turns out the answer had 6 factors anyways
So who wins? and 6 prime factors or what?
1182
« on: January 12, 2011, 10:32:27 pm »
What? I counted 1, 3, 7, 9, 21, and 63.
Okay, wait, then you have to define factors here. 3*3*7=63. So I thought you meant that kind of factor. And you just reduced it to 5, too. By my definition: 3=7 4=15 5=110 6=126 7=720 8=1215 9=8019 10=10206 So since I was confused, who gets it? I thought factors as in it's prime factorization.
1183
« on: January 12, 2011, 10:27:25 pm »
126 actually. 63 only has 5 factors including itself.
1184
« on: January 12, 2011, 10:12:47 pm »
Why'd you put 8 as the third decimal digit though? that was what I was asking
Because I did this on my calc, and it started doing weird results the smaller the number. So like 5.68e-22 or whatever. I could have continued, just chose not to. 8 is probably not accurate. It would get more accurate, the more accurate pi is. I could write a program on my computer to do this out to 1000 decimal places. But I only need 2.
1185
« on: January 12, 2011, 10:11:18 pm »
Did you ever finish this protocol? Is there a revised document up somewhere?
Pages: 1 ... 77 78 [79] 80 81 ... 165
|
Show Posts