Favourite computer history books?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Scanning to a multipage pdf?
Next: Apple co-branding
From: Charlie Gibbs on 21 May 2010 16:30 In article <ht68vu$ca5$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, plugh(a)xyzzy.com (DMcCunney) writes: > * Charlie Gibbs: > >> In article <ht3tek$t1g$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, plugh(a)xyzzy.com >> (DMcCunney) writes: >> >>> Gold was a brilliant editor with a maddening habit. He could not >>> leave a story alone. God could submit the perfect SF story, and >>> Gold would feel compelled to change something. >> >> "Once he pees in it, he likes the flavor better, and he buys it." >> -- Heinlein >> >> (It's a line from "Stranger in a Strange Land". I don't know >> whether he was necessarily thinking about Gold in particular...) > > He was probably thinking about John W. Campbell. His relationship > with Campbell soured in later years, and there is correspondence > from him complaining about some of Campbell's wishes. His deal > with Campbell was "I submit it. If you like it, you buy it. > You don't change it." That would explain why I never saw much Heinlein in either magazine. > The only RAH piece I'm aware of that appeared in Galaxy was a > serialization of _I Will Fear No Evil_, because RAH had enough > of Campbell and would not submit to him, but that was during > the period in the 70's when UPD was publishing the magazine > and Eljer Jakobsson was editor. I distinctly remember reading "The Year of the Jackpot" in Galaxy. My hand-made indexes are probably still on an 8-inch floppy somewhere, but I just dug through my earliest issues of Galaxy and found it, along with a serialization of "The Puppet Masters". One of the ways Heinlein stood out in my mind is that I almost never saw him in the pulps. -- /~\ cgibbs(a)kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
From: Walter Bushell on 21 May 2010 16:13 In article <ht677h$8qp$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, DMcCunney <plugh(a)xyzzy.com> wrote: > * Joe Pfeiffer: > > > There's a "really hard SF" school that calls for nothing in the story > > to violate the laws of physics. Members of that school will regard FTL > > as fantasy. > > The only member of that school I knew was the late L. Sprague De Camp, > who decided midway through his career that FTL was in fact impossible, > and stopped using it. > > The usual rule of thumb for hard SF is that you are free to postulate > what you like about what we *don't* know, but you have to get what we > *do* know right. > > FTL isn't possible based on what we know *now*. Stories that use FTL > all assume we'll make discoveries that will make it possible. > > These days, FTL has become part of the wallpaper, and is largely > assumed. Back when, authors all felt the need to provide *some* > explanation, even if it was hand waving and talking fast. My favorite > was a Brian Aldiss story, where the narrator say "FTL? Oh, yes. Had it > for decades! I'd be happy to explain how it works, but the printer > refeuses to typeset the three pages of equations necessary to *give* the > explanation, so let's just take my word for it and carry on, shall we?" > ______ > Dennis Best way to explain it. It won't be rendered laughable by further science. -- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
From: DMcCunney on 21 May 2010 17:42 * Wes Groleau: > On 05-04-2010 23:19, Charles Richmond wrote: >> 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: "They made that glass too big." Drinker: "They made that keg too small!" ______ Dennis
From: Peter Flass on 21 May 2010 18:24 Walter Bushell wrote: > In article <ht677h$8qp$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > DMcCunney <plugh(a)xyzzy.com> wrote: > >> * Joe Pfeiffer: >> >>> There's a "really hard SF" school that calls for nothing in the story >>> to violate the laws of physics. Members of that school will regard FTL >>> as fantasy. >> The only member of that school I knew was the late L. Sprague De Camp, >> who decided midway through his career that FTL was in fact impossible, >> and stopped using it. >> >> The usual rule of thumb for hard SF is that you are free to postulate >> what you like about what we *don't* know, but you have to get what we >> *do* know right. >> >> FTL isn't possible based on what we know *now*. Stories that use FTL >> all assume we'll make discoveries that will make it possible. >> >> These days, FTL has become part of the wallpaper, and is largely >> assumed. Back when, authors all felt the need to provide *some* >> explanation, even if it was hand waving and talking fast. My favorite >> was a Brian Aldiss story, where the narrator say "FTL? Oh, yes. Had it >> for decades! I'd be happy to explain how it works, but the printer >> refeuses to typeset the three pages of equations necessary to *give* the >> explanation, so let's just take my word for it and carry on, shall we?" >> ______ >> Dennis > > Best way to explain it. It won't be rendered laughable by further > science. > Unless it turns out to be something really simple.
From: Walter Bushell on 21 May 2010 22:12
In article <ht716c$sjn$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: > Walter Bushell wrote: > > In article <ht677h$8qp$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > > DMcCunney <plugh(a)xyzzy.com> wrote: > > > >> * Joe Pfeiffer: > >> > >>> There's a "really hard SF" school that calls for nothing in the story > >>> to violate the laws of physics. Members of that school will regard FTL > >>> as fantasy. > >> The only member of that school I knew was the late L. Sprague De Camp, > >> who decided midway through his career that FTL was in fact impossible, > >> and stopped using it. > >> > >> The usual rule of thumb for hard SF is that you are free to postulate > >> what you like about what we *don't* know, but you have to get what we > >> *do* know right. > >> > >> FTL isn't possible based on what we know *now*. Stories that use FTL > >> all assume we'll make discoveries that will make it possible. > >> > >> These days, FTL has become part of the wallpaper, and is largely > >> assumed. Back when, authors all felt the need to provide *some* > >> explanation, even if it was hand waving and talking fast. My favorite > >> was a Brian Aldiss story, where the narrator say "FTL? Oh, yes. Had it > >> for decades! I'd be happy to explain how it works, but the printer > >> refeuses to typeset the three pages of equations necessary to *give* the > >> explanation, so let's just take my word for it and carry on, shall we?" > >> ______ > >> Dennis > > > > Best way to explain it. It won't be rendered laughable by further > > science. > > > > Unless it turns out to be something really simple. "The Path Not Taken", eh? -- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. |