Favourite computer history books?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Scanning to a multipage pdf?
Next: Apple co-branding
From: Steve Hix on 5 May 2010 14:02 In article <slrnhu29n6.2eu.gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com>, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> wrote: > Thomas R. Kettler wrote: > > That explains why honeybees have been dying by the millions. People > > having been telling them they can't fly! > > > ><http://www.greenearthfriend.com/2009/01/colony-collapse-disorder-ccd-hon > > eybees-dying-by-the-millions/> > > They have been dying by the millions because of a disease they had > no immunity to. There is now a vaccine for it, How in the world do you administer the vaccine to the little honeys?
From: Mensanator on 5 May 2010 14:03 On May 5, 12:41 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > Patrick Scheible <k...(a)zipcon.net> writes: > > Mensanator <mensana...(a)aol.com> writes: > > >> On May 4, 9:06=A0pm, Patrick Scheible <k...(a)zipcon.net> wrote: > >> > Michelle Steiner <miche...(a)michelle.org> writes: > >> > > In article <w9zaasfiabj....(a)zipcon.net>, Patrick Scheible <k...(a)zipcon.= > >> net> > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > And even Lord Kelvin said that heavier-than-air machines can *n= > >> ot* > >> > > > > > > fly. > > >> > > > > > Which is a bizarre belief to hold, as birds are demonstrably heav= > >> ier > >> > > > > > than air. > > >> > > > > But they're not machines. > > >> > > > So why would Lord Kelvin think it was fundamentally impossible to mak= > >> e a > >> > > > machine to do what a bird does? > > >> > > Because a bird has less mass per volume than a machine? =A0Because a bi= > >> rd > >> > > essentially carries only itself, whereas a machine (of the type he was > >> > > talking about) would carry people and/or cargo that would add significa= > >> ntly > >> > > to its weight? =A0Because he lacked the vision to see future developmen= > >> ts? > > >> > I've spent a while chasing Kelvin's quote, and not found the context > >> > it was in. =A0I did, however, find this link: > > >> >http://www.chardmuseum.co.uk/Powered_Flight/ > > >> > which describes Stringfellow's demonstration of an unmanned, > > >> Stringfellow? Is he the guy mentioned in the film "Flight of the > >> Phoenix"? > > > I haven't seen "Flight of the Phoenix". John Stringfellow. His > > flying machines were exhibited at the Crystal Palace. He almost had > > it -- his patent included adjustable horizontal surface in the tail > > and a vertical rudder. He realized a lightweight engine was > > essential, and his demonstrated model had one that was good enough to > > fly (without a pilot) for a short distance. > > I don't remember his name turning up in the movie (an excellent movie, > BTW -- I mean the real one with James Stewart, not the recent remake), > but I bet I can even guess what scene he's mentioned in. The one in > which the aeronautical engineer turns out to have a slightly different > background from what the other characters assumed, right? Yep, the quote was: "Henson and Stringfellow built a rubber-powered model... that flew 600 meters before encountering an obstruction. Airfoil surfaces, lift and drag coefficients... weight/thrust equations and the whole pattern... of modern aviation originate from right there." The very last scene in the movie is: "How far did you say that... Henson and Stringfellow flew that rubber-powered model... in, Mr. Dorfmann?" "Six hundred meters, Mr. Towns." "Is that meters or yards?" "Meters, Mr. Towns. Meters." > -- > 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)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Tom Harrington on 5 May 2010 15:11 In article <sehix-5388C3.11023105052010(a)5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote: > In article <slrnhu29n6.2eu.gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com>, > "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> wrote: > > > Thomas R. Kettler wrote: > > > That explains why honeybees have been dying by the millions. People > > > having been telling them they can't fly! > > > > > ><http://www.greenearthfriend.com/2009/01/colony-collapse-disorder-ccd-hon > > > eybees-dying-by-the-millions/> > > > > They have been dying by the millions because of a disease they had > > no immunity to. There is now a vaccine for it, > > How in the world do you administer the vaccine to the little honeys? Tiny little syringes and a whole lot of patience. -- Tom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 5 May 2010 15:30 Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> writes: > In article <slrnhu29n6.2eu.gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com>, > "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> wrote: > >> Thomas R. Kettler wrote: >> > That explains why honeybees have been dying by the millions. People >> > having been telling them they can't fly! >> > >> ><http://www.greenearthfriend.com/2009/01/colony-collapse-disorder-ccd-hon >> > eybees-dying-by-the-millions/> >> >> They have been dying by the millions because of a disease they had >> no immunity to. There is now a vaccine for it, > > How in the world do you administer the vaccine to the little honeys? Little tiny syringes? -- 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: Jennifer Usher on 5 May 2010 15:56
"Mensanator" <mensanator(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:7b6d8ba5-ffab-4d20-b345-7085cf663b13(a)b18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On May 4, 8:41 pm, "Jennifer Usher" <jennisu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> "Peter Flass" <Peter_Fl...(a)Yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:hrovgt$ggh$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> > Someone of Newton's generation would have been quite happy with atomic >> > physics. Put your lead into a reactor instead of some retort and out >> > comes gold. Obvious. >> >> That reminds me of the story about the guy who travels back in time to >> take >> Newton a calculator, thinking it would advance science. He is in the >> process of demonstrating some things when the answer happens to be, >> "666." >> Newton does not take that one well at all. > > What was the problem? Summing the integers from 1 to 36? I don't recall exactly. The idea was, it was just accidental. I do remember that the story was written in the days of LED displays, and it described Newton's reaction as seeing "the number of the beast, glowing with the red fires of Hell..." -- Jennifer Usher |