On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:47:13 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


I'll ask you again - prove it.

Hint 6: What is the average phone number nationally?

Get back to me when you can.

555-5555 Am I close?

Forgot the prefix!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:47:13 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


I'll ask you again - prove it.

Hint 6: What is the average phone number nationally?

Get back to me when you can.

555-5555 Am I close?

Shouldn't that be 444-4444?

wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:47:13 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


I'll ask you again - prove it.
Hint 6: What is the average phone number nationally?

Get back to me when you can.
555-5555 Am I close?

Shouldn't that be 444-4444?

NO, you forgot to take into consideration all the variables.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:04 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:47:13 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


I'll ask you again - prove it.
Hint 6: What is the average phone number nationally?

Get back to me when you can.
555-5555 Am I close?

Shouldn't that be 444-4444?

NO, you forgot to take into consideration all the variables.

Morons.

Took me five minutes.

867-5309.

~~ snerk ~~

On Jan 7, 4:34*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:04 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:47:13 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I'll ask you again - prove it.
Hint 6: What is the average phone number nationally?

Get back to me when you can.
555-5555 *Am I close? *

Shouldn't that be 444-4444?

NO, you forgot to take into consideration all the variables.

Morons.

Took me five minutes.

867-5309.

~~ snerk ~~

I was think more like Pennsylvania 6-5000

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:37:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Jan 7, 4:34*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:04 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:47:13 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I'll ask you again - prove it.
Hint 6: What is the average phone number nationally?

Get back to me when you can.
555-5555 *Am I close? *

Shouldn't that be 444-4444?

NO, you forgot to take into consideration all the variables.

Morons.

Took me five minutes.

867-5309.

~~ snerk ~~

I was think more like Pennsylvania 6-5000

Beechwood 4-5789

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:47:13 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I'll ask you again - prove it.
Hint 6: What is the average phone number nationally?

Get back to me when you can.
555-5555 Am I close?

Missed by a mile.

The analogy is that phone numbers for any given location, locally,
regionally and nationally, change regularly, can be unlisted, may not
even exist except in a queue waiting deployment, and cannot be
averaged because they are too dynamic over time.

A direct comparison to "global temperature average".

Wait, then how do you know I missed it by a mile? I could be right, in
fact, I am going to take the stand that I absolutely, positively am right.
By a quirk, considering all variables, the average is 555-5555.

Now if you want me to include area codes, I will have to redo my figures.




Bssssst! prefix will not start with a 1 in the first digit.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

The analogy is that phone numbers for any given location, locally,
regionally and nationally, change regularly, can be unlisted, may not
even exist except in a queue waiting deployment, and cannot be
averaged because they are too dynamic over time.

Oh come on... virtually everything changes over time.

Just how dynamic is too dynamic to allow averaging?

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Hint 3: You can only develop an accurate data set by averaging
discrete temperatures every square mile of the Earth. That would be
approximately 197,000,000 data reporting instruments.

Why not require every square meter or every thousand square
miles? Why not every cubic mile?... seriously.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:11:36 -0800, -rick- wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Hint 3: You can only develop an accurate data set by averaging
discrete temperatures every square mile of the Earth. That would be
approximately 197,000,000 data reporting instruments.

Why not require every square meter or every thousand square
miles? Why not every cubic mile?... seriously.

He was being gentle. Cubic miles wouldn't work too well, can't get very
deep. Square miles may be a good measure out in Kansas, but in New York the
placement within that square could sure skew data.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."