Favourite computer history books?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Scanning to a multipage pdf?
Next: Apple co-branding
From: jmfbahciv on 6 May 2010 09:04 Michelle Steiner wrote: > In article <10.125.61921.wTzChGc.250.501(a)amhuinnsuidhe.net>, > Nollaig MacKenzie <nollaig(a)amhuinnDELETEsuidheCAPS.net> wrote: > >> > We know how gravity warps space-time? When did this happen? >> >> Better to say: gravity is warped space-time. > > Gravity sucks. > then we invented the VAX, which sucked better. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 May 2010 09:04 Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Tue, 04 May 2010 23:26:34 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer > <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > >>Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> writes: >>> >>> Pessimist: Looks at the glass as half empty. >>> >>> Optimist: Looks at the glass as half full. >>> >>> Optometrist: Says "Does the glass look better this way, or this >>> way... this way, or this way..." >> >>Engineer: you know, that glass is twice as big as it needs to be.... > > Real Engineer: "That glass is 1.9 times bigger than it needs to > be." (allowing for a tolerance) > Software engineer: Look at all that unused space! /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 May 2010 09:04 Michelle Steiner wrote: > In article <PM000485D73ECA51D4(a)ac816aaa.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <username(a)isp.net.invalid> wrote: > >> >> None of the three is remotely plausible. >> > >> > That's what "they" said about almost every innovation. >> > >> >> You cannot innovate physical laws of nature. Human innovation is merely >> taking advantage of those laws. > > And discovering them, which sometimes invalidates what had previously been > thought to have been a law. > I don't like to use the word invalidate. Makes the kiddies think the phenomenon doesn't exist anymore. "Discovery" has to do with being able to write them down on paper in such a way so that other people can understand, I think. I've been thinking a lot about this. It's always facinating to backtrace what we consider knowledge. How it developed and what kinds of products were manufactured as a result. /BAH
From: Wes Groleau on 6 May 2010 09:11 On 05-05-2010 20:08, Michelle Steiner wrote: > Wes Groleau<Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: >> Answer, "No--yes--I don't KNOW!!!" > > No, the answer is sodium. I thought it was 42 -- Wes Groleau The Inca: Yesterday and Today http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1487
From: Wes Groleau on 6 May 2010 09:22
On 05-06-2010 05:24, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > matter too. I'm not inclined to write it all off as impossible yet - not > while serious minded people who can actually produce exact solutions to the > general relativity equations are still exploring the edge cases. Writing it off as _impossible_ is equivalent to saying that relativity is religiously revealed reality (as opposed to a useful model describing reality, a model subject to replacement if and when a more useful one comes along). -- Wes Groleau Are Americans unique in their condemnatory attitudes? http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1557 |