Favourite computer history books?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Scanning to a multipage pdf?
Next: Apple co-branding
From: Ahem A Rivet's Shot on 4 May 2010 12:26 On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:15:20 -0600 Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > > > In message <1bocgwjn4l.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net> Joe > > Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > >> Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > > > >>> There is nothing that forbids traveling faster than light. The > >>> prohibition is on traveling AT the speed of light. > > > >> And on accelerating to the speed of light -- you've used up all the > >> energy in the universe before you hit the division by 0. > > No, I'm pointing out that "at" isn't the only impossibility. "Anywhere > near" is forbidden too, for roughly the same reason. You can get as close as you like to the speed of light - provided you have enough energy to hand. Getting nice little things like electrons and protons very close to the speed of light is common practice, getting big things like spaceships up there is rather harder. > > As I said, the trick is getting beyond the speed of light without ever > > moving AT the speed of light. It is only the speed c that is > > forbidden. > > > >>> The trick is in figuring out how to jump from slower than light to > >>> faster than light without ever moving AT the speed of light. > > > >> And since we don't have any way to change velocity instantaneously.... > > > > Whihc is why we don't have FLT. But there are plausible possibilities > > which seem to fall into three main groups. > > > > 1) Warping space > > 2) Wormholes > > 3) Inertialess drives > > None of the three is remotely plausible. At least two of them are the subjects of papers in very respectably physics journals. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 4 May 2010 13:08 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo(a)eircom.net> writes: > On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:15:20 -0600 > Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >> > >> > 1) Warping space >> > 2) Wormholes >> > 3) Inertialess drives >> >> None of the three is remotely plausible. > > At least two of them are the subjects of papers in very respectably > physics journals. Not in any context that is relevant to FTL travel. Applying space warping or wormholes to FTL is borrowing a word and leaving virtually everything related to the actual theory behind. -- 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: Warren Oates on 4 May 2010 13:43 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> -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 4 May 2010 14:00 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. -- 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: Steve Hix on 4 May 2010 14:58
In article <u3evt5ttp9f1teguedtdpglses09f9e7jo(a)4ax.com>, William Hamblen <william.hamblen(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On 04 May 2010 05:37:23 GMT, Lewis > <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > > >I think you have that wrong. It was serialized as Tiger Tiger, is still > >known as Tiger Tiger in most of the world, but the official title of the > >book is _The Stars My Destination_ > > It was first serialized as The Stars My Destination. Here is a scan > of a magazine cover: > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/TheStarsMyDestination.jpg > > Back in the day I wasn't allowed to spend my 35 cents on science > fiction magazines. At one point in the '60s, Analog switched from paperback size to standard magazine size. At which point my grandmother, assuming from the first cover she saw, a painting of Jupiter, that it was a science magazine, picked up issues from the news stand for me. I didn't complain. |