Favourite computer history books?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Scanning to a multipage pdf?
Next: Apple co-branding
From: DMcCunney on 24 May 2010 17:15 * Walter Bushell: > In article > <michelle-F0B9BA.12014205052010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> 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. > > No, no, no. "There is no gravity; the Earth sucks." A while back on a message area devoted the Babylon 5 TV show, a Trek fan popped up to say "Babylon 5 sucks!" A B5 fan explained the manner in which the Babylon 5 station used centrifugal force to pride a gravity substitute, and countered that "No, Babylon 5 doesn't suck. It *blows!* " ______ Dennis
From: DMcCunney on 24 May 2010 18:29 * Wes Groleau: > On 05-22-2010 01:39, DMcCunney wrote: >> Look at his early work, for example, and you discover >> that Picasso could *draw*. > > I once watched a TV biography of Picasso, which included lots of views > of his work. I remember noticing that the realistic works mostly were > done when he had a girlfriend, and the cubist when he did not. Doesn't matter *why* he did it. The point was that he *could* do realistic works. Many folks could not. ______ Dennis
From: Gene Wirchenko on 24 May 2010 18:50 On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:54 -0400, Walter Bushell <proto(a)panix.com> wrote: >In article <ht716c$sjn$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Walter Bushell wrote: [snip] >> > 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? That one was a beaut. I have blindsided myself in the past. I try to avoid it. I watch for it. I still get caught. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko
From: Thomas R. Kettler on 25 May 2010 03:04 In article <hteuks$2iv$2(a)speranza.aioe.org>, DMcCunney <plugh(a)xyzzy.com> wrote: > * Wes Groleau: > > On 05-22-2010 01:39, DMcCunney wrote: > > >> Look at his early work, for example, and you discover > >> that Picasso could *draw*. > > > > I once watched a TV biography of Picasso, which included lots of views > > of his work. I remember noticing that the realistic works mostly were > > done when he had a girlfriend, and the cubist when he did not. > > Doesn't matter *why* he did it. The point was that he *could* do > realistic works. Many folks could not. Of course, "Guernica" demonstrated the horrors of the bombing much better since it was a cubist painting than if the people or animals were painting normally. -- Remove blown from email address to reply.
From: DMcCunney on 25 May 2010 10:50
* Thomas R. Kettler: > In article <hteuks$2iv$2(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > DMcCunney <plugh(a)xyzzy.com> wrote: > >> * Wes Groleau: >>> On 05-22-2010 01:39, DMcCunney wrote: >> >>>> Look at his early work, for example, and you discover >>>> that Picasso could *draw*. >>> >>> I once watched a TV biography of Picasso, which included lots of views >>> of his work. I remember noticing that the realistic works mostly were >>> done when he had a girlfriend, and the cubist when he did not. >> >> Doesn't matter *why* he did it. The point was that he *could* do >> realistic works. Many folks could not. > > Of course, "Guernica" demonstrated the horrors of the bombing much > better since it was a cubist painting than if the people or animals were > painting normally. No question. Picasso had several styles, and chose the one best suited for the subject. It's that *having multiple styles* that set him apart from many contemporaries. ______ Dennis |