Favourite computer history books?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Scanning to a multipage pdf?
Next: Apple co-branding
From: Ian Gregory on 4 May 2010 17:54 On 2010-05-04, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > 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. According to folklore the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight but scientists never claimed that they had evolved an anti-gravity organ or anything like that. It was always clear that we simply didn't have an adequate grasp of aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, biomechanics etc to explain such a complex phenomenon. Ian -- Ian Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/
From: Patrick Scheible on 4 May 2010 18:14 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. So why would Lord Kelvin think it was fundamentally impossible to make a machine to do what a bird does? -- Patrick
From: Patrick Scheible on 4 May 2010 18:17 Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > In message <michelle-74D421.07120504052010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi> > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > In article <PM000485C336C38E0C(a)aca25eab.ipt.aol.com>, > > jmfbahciv <username(a)isp.net.invalid> wrote: > > >> Did you know that Mark Twain wrote science fiction? I don't have the > >> book unpacked so I can't give you the title. > > > A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. > > I wouldn't classify that as Science Fiction. I tend to agree. The time travel was magic, not engineering to the Boss. Time travel was not the focus of the book. -- Patrick
From: Scott Lurndal on 4 May 2010 18:34 Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >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. Carl Jung? scott
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 4 May 2010 18:48
Ian Gregory <ianji33(a)googlemail.com> writes: > On 2010-05-04, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > >> 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. > > According to folklore the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee > should be incapable of flight but scientists never claimed that they had > evolved an anti-gravity organ or anything like that. It was always clear > that we simply didn't have an adequate grasp of aerodynamics, fluid > dynamics, biomechanics etc to explain such a complex phenomenon. http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html -- 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) |