Favourite computer history books?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Scanning to a multipage pdf?
Next: Apple co-branding
From: Patrick Scheible on 4 May 2010 16:19 Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> writes: > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > >> In article <1b4oin4ow5.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, > >> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > >> > >>> That's a common response, but simply is not true. Nobody laughed at > >>> Copernicus and Galileo; Galileo wan't placed under house arrest because > >>> his ideas were regarded as crazy, it was because the Church was afraid > >>> of the theological implications of those ideas. Nobody laughed at > >>> Newton. Nobody laughed at Darwin (and, once again, the only real > >>> opposition to evolution is based on theology). Nobody laughed at the > >>> Wright Brothers or Edison. > >> But they _did_ laugh at Tesla. > >> > >> <http://recombu.com/news/nikola-tesla-predicted-mobile-phones-in-1909_M11683.html> > > > > Because Tesla was the single best example I've ever heard of of somebody > > who was both a genius and a certifiable loon. > > And even Lord Kelvin said that heavier-than-air machines can *not* > fly. Which is a bizarre belief to hold, as birds are demonstrably heavier than air. -- Patrick
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 4 May 2010 16:46 Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> writes: > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >>> In article <1b4oin4ow5.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, >>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> That's a common response, but simply is not true. Nobody laughed at >>>> Copernicus and Galileo; Galileo wan't placed under house arrest because >>>> his ideas were regarded as crazy, it was because the Church was afraid >>>> of the theological implications of those ideas. Nobody laughed at >>>> Newton. Nobody laughed at Darwin (and, once again, the only real >>>> opposition to evolution is based on theology). Nobody laughed at the >>>> Wright Brothers or Edison. >>> But they _did_ laugh at Tesla. >>> >>> <http://recombu.com/news/nikola-tesla-predicted-mobile-phones-in-1909_M11683.html> >> >> Because Tesla was the single best example I've ever heard of of somebody >> who was both a genius and a certifiable loon. > > And even Lord Kelvin said that heavier-than-air machines can *not* > fly. I wonder in what context he said it -- he must have been talking engineering practicalities, not violations of fundamental laws of physics. > Different groups of scientists often propose different theories of how > things work. Their support of their theories is often highly colored > by their opinions and egos. > > For a new theory to be fully accepted, often the "old guard" have to > die out. You don't appear to understand the extent that virtually everything we think we know about relativity would have to be completely wrong for those theories to work even remotely as presented in science fiction. -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 4 May 2010 16:49 Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> writes: > In article <w9zy6fze7xt.fsf(a)zipcon.net>, Patrick Scheible <kkt(a)zipcon.net> > wrote: > >> > And even Lord Kelvin said that heavier-than-air machines can *not* >> > fly. >> >> Which is a bizarre belief to hold, as birds are demonstrably heavier >> than air. > > But they're not machines. They demonstrate heavier-than-air flight is possible. When we can see that something can be done, arbitrarily decreeing that it's "impossible" for a machine to do it is, as Patrick points out, bizarre. -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 4 May 2010 16:57 Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > In message <1b4oin4ow5.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net> Joe > Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >> Just about the only real example of a theory that was dismissed >> out of hand when new but well-accepted later is plate tectonics. > > Quarks, Quasars, The Big Bang, curved space-time, almost everything in > astrophysics, elliptical orbits, atoms consisting of 99.9999% empty > space, light as a particle AND a wave form, the entire field of quantum > mechanics, global warming, warm-blooded dinosaurs, dinosaurs as bird > ancestors, chaos theory… > > …the list goes on and on and on. You've got a *really* romanticized view of the Struggle of New Ideas. Almost all of these were accepted off the bat when they were demonstrated; in many cases as soon as the math was verified (curved space-time comes to mind) or the experiment was replicated (atoms with a small nucleus). >> FTL travel through space warping is no more likely than the Great A'Tuin >> swimming through space with Discworld on his (her?) back. > > You base this on what? we know gravity can warp space. In fact, that's what gravity IS. And we also know *how* it warps space-time. And it doesn't warp it in any way useful to FTL travel. -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 4 May 2010 16:59
Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > In message <1biq734kdw.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net> Joe > Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >> Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> writes: > >>> In article <1b4oin4ow5.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, >>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> That's a common response, but simply is not true. Nobody laughed at >>>> Copernicus and Galileo; Galileo wan't placed under house arrest because >>>> his ideas were regarded as crazy, it was because the Church was afraid >>>> of the theological implications of those ideas. Nobody laughed at >>>> Newton. Nobody laughed at Darwin (and, once again, the only real >>>> opposition to evolution is based on theology). Nobody laughed at the >>>> Wright Brothers or Edison. >>> >>> But they _did_ laugh at Tesla. >>> >>> <http://recombu.com/news/nikola-tesla-predicted-mobile-phones-in-1909_M11683.html> > >> Because Tesla was the single best example I've ever heard of of somebody >> who was both a genius and a certifiable loon. > > Only certifiable because he was so far ahead of his time his theories > seemed crazy to his contemporaries. google 'tesla death ray' -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) |