Gallery of old junk for Jim
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: discount cheap and fashion coach handbags,purses,wallets
Next: Second-hand Mac Pro buying advice
From: Rowland McDonnell on 20 Apr 2010 01:49 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 16/04/2010 11:50, zoara wrote: > > > > Via daringfireball.net - loads of old computers. Jim, take a deep > > > > breath > > > > and don't get overexcited... > > > > > > > > http://j.mp/bxKP2P > > > > > > > > I really love the naivety of the "kitchen computer" (and the > > > > "yesterday's tomorrow" stylings > > > > > > They really did put a lot of effort not just into the creation of > > > those, but the image of them as well. I guess at the price they may as > > > well! > > > > Do you mean the way the devices looked, or the photos? > > The way the devices looked, they are a thing of beauty, more than they > needed to be. Not beautiful - styled, yes; the after-effects of the US industrial design period were still in evidence back in those days but you couldn't call that sort of thing beautiful, not in my book. Nicely done, no complaints - but it's not a thing of beauty in my book. > ALthough they were very expensive and made by many people > so I am sure there was a lot of pride in some of those systems. [snip] Well, yes, but there is very little American industrial design that could be called `beautiful'. They don't seem to understand how to do that sort of thing over there. Striking, imposing, remarkable, and so on - but I've never met any non-European industrial design that I consider `beautiful'. In a prabably totally futile attempt to forestall the personal abuse that's going to be directed at me by idiots who can't read and can't think: That's /industrial design/ I'm talking about. Architecture and art and fashion and so on are entirely different matters. So please do not insult me for dissing `the rest of the world'. I'm not - just pointing out that I dislike the aesthetics of industrial designs from outside Europe, insofar as I've met them. Apple gets input from Europe... But it's US-tainted, like The Steve. <shrug> Think of the difference between and F86 Sabre and a Hawker Hunter. Or a Lockheed Starfighter and a Dassault Mirage. That's what I'm talking about - the American stuff looks the part all right, looks good, yeah? But a Mirage can make my heart melt, and - well, if it's de Havilland or Hawker, it looks lovely, and that's that. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 20 Apr 2010 03:05 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > [snip] > > > No, having a conversation. why can't you cope with anything other than > > total agreement? > > [snip] > > Why do you have to object to my mode of expression? > > Why do you have to turn a personal sensible discussion into personal > bickering, Woody? I didn't. you did. I pointed out that it was very unlikely that a 7 segment LED as you claimed could be used was unlikely, you had the option of: a) arguing that it was possible as they had been made the previous year b) arguing that it was possible as they were prepared to pay the money c) accepting it wouldn't be LED but suggesting maybe a different type of illumination than you said d) accepting it was probably unlikely they would use that, especially when presented with the screenshots showing they didn't e) making a personal attack on my posting style. So which did you go for? Why can't you actually hold a normal technical discussion without turning it personal? Why do you always have to turn a perfectly sensible discussion into personal bickering, Rowland? -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: zoara on 19 Apr 2010 09:13 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 16/04/2010 11:50, zoara wrote: > > > > Via daringfireball.net - loads of old computers. Jim, take a > > > > deep > > > > breath > > > > and don't get overexcited... > > > > > > > > http://j.mp/bxKP2P > > > > > > > > I really love the naivety of the "kitchen computer" (and the > > > > "yesterday's tomorrow" stylings > > > > > > They really did put a lot of effort not just into the creation of > > > those, but the image of them as well. I guess at the price they > > > may as > > > well! > > > > Do you mean the way the devices looked, or the photos? > > The way the devices looked, they are a thing of beauty, more than they > needed to be. ALthough they were very expensive and made by many > people > so I am sure there was a lot of pride in some of those systems. They are beautiful, aren't they? In the same way that cars of a certain era were beautiful... You can see the pride and passion that went into them. > > The photos are > > from a coffee-table book which is linked from the gallery. I'm kinda > > tempted - it's available from Amazon UK - and I suspect Jim might be > > too. > > Well, the photos are nice too. I think they're great photos. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: zoara on 19 Apr 2010 09:13 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > I wonder how many warehouses you'd need in order to store Wikipedia > > on > > C90 cassette tapes. > > Give us an estimate for the size of Wikip, and I'll give you an > estimate > for the space required. According to http://j.mp/d3tnbP it's a mere 14GB. There's a nice little graphic at http://j.mp/9FEiW8 which shows the size if it were printed and bound. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: zoara on 19 Apr 2010 09:14
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > [snip] > > > It was naive to think that there were enough potential customers > > (both > > rich enough and idiotic enough to buy one) that the project would be > > profitable. Cynicism and naivety aren't mutually exclusive. > > It's very rude of you to insult me with the pejoration you use above - > calling me naive like that is grossly insulting and I'll thank you to > leave personal abuse like that out of it in future. Er. Not directed at you. > You don't know what they were thinking of, and nor do you. You're right. Neither of me knows. > It's therefore a very big mistake on your part to make your firm > assumptions about their thinking - and very naive of you to fail to > think that they might not have been thinking of this project as > anything > but a publicity stunt. It's just an opinion, no need to get your knickers in a twist. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm |