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: whisky-dave on 20 Apr 2010 11:24 "Dr Geoff Hone" <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:4bcda85d.1375218(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:49:19 +0100, > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > >>Apple gets input from Europe... But it's US-tainted, like The Steve. >> Wasn't it Jonathan Ives a bathroom designer from North London that designed the original iMacs in 1998 ?
From: zoara on 22 Apr 2010 10:38 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > God I > hope my mum doesn't buy herself a death star, her parking is bad > enough > at the best of times. Quote of the week! -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Rowland McDonnell on 21 Apr 2010 02:36 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > 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. > > You could in my book - it is a think of beauty. So you allgege - shame I've looked and never seen that `beauty'. Where is this `beauty' you talk about? I've heard Americans talking about beautiful things in the USA, and they only ever talk about natural beauty (which I've never seen in the uSA - NO natural beauty from the USA has appeared in front of my eyees. Natural nice things, yes - but none of it has the beauty of lush life that you can't avoid in, say, North Wales). Never, ever, not once have i heard one mention a urban landscape as a thing of beauty, not once. Whereas I have a memory of one of the most stunningly beautiful sights I've ever seen - early one summer's morn, trundling for my train, South bank of the Thames, and there's Tower Bridge and there's the low sun, and there is heaven on Earth. Okay, so I can get transported to Nirvana with a bit of bright light and gothic going on - I consider that a strength. Read some Aldous Huxley before commenting - `Doors of perception' is a good start. You don't need drugs to have a trip - just read that essay. It worked for me... > > 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. > > They really do. The nation is constructed with ugly architecture - they don't know how to do it. >They do it in a very big way. I've looked and I disagree very strongly - which is normal for someone like me, with a aesthetic trained exclusively in Europe (but with esposure to the USA). You are condescending and wrong to assume that I've not made a bit of an amateur study of this industrial design lark. US industrial design is ugly and that's what I think. I've come across any number of people who agree with me on this - I hear 'em on the radio all the time. It seems that there is a fraction of the European population that never gets to like the USA because they never stop finding it ugly. Others do not get put off by this ugliness for some reason. You would be foolish to ignore this point - to many European eyes, the overall aesthetic effect of the USA is one of ugliness. I've only been there once, and it was both more and less ugly than I had been expecting. One of the first `natives' I saw outside the airport I arrived at was wearing a classic ZZ Top beard - digging a hole in the road, too. Odd. Anyway, I couldn't wait to get back home. Even the weeds are lusher in the UK - yeah, okay, I was comparing Texas with Kent, in August. But the same applies if you compare the lushest greenest parts of the USA with Kent. And I got *that* point from Alastair Cooke, who saw and learnt more of the USA than you'll ever manage. > > Striking, imposing, remarkable, and so on - but I've never met any > > non-European industrial design that I consider `beautiful'. > > I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I have never noticed > an atlantic divide in beauty. <shrug> Lots of people have done, though. The fact that you're aesthetically blind doesn't mean a thing. I've heard a lot of such folk on the radio - going back to the first half of the 20th century. Before then, you couldn't very well think that anyone was intending anything but utilitarian constructions over almost the entire USA - a few cities got decent bullding work done in the late 19th century in the USA, but not many of them benefitted from it very much if you ask me. [Just take a look at Washington DC and the clogged madness of NYC - both cites blighted by planning and neither has had the damage repaired (Washington DC needs to be bombed flat after evacuating the people to a more civilised spot - anywhere would do compared to where they put Washington DC in the first place).] Yeah, yeah, Central Park in NY and all that - you do know that they nicked it from just down the road from me? Based on Birkenhead Park, that one, put in with the same basic idea. Didn't catch on, providing public amenities like that, did it? ... Central Park in NY ain't unique in the USA, but it's not all that common to see a really nice park in the heart of a US city, is it? [snip] > > 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. > > Yes, as I say, it is personal. Both are rather ugly. You are a blinkered heathen with no sense of aethetics. 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: Rowland McDonnell on 21 Apr 2010 02:36 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > 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. [snip] You what? The last time I met that way of doing things, it was the primary school playground and I considered it infantile behaviour then. I was primary school age myself. Go away, Woody, go away until you've calmed down and want to behave like a reasonable person. 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: Rowland McDonnell on 21 Apr 2010 02:36
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > > The F86 Sabre was a 1947 design, and saw combat in Korea while we were > > still flying Meteors as "fighters". > > The Hunter was a 1951 design. You only have to stand in front of one > > for about five seconds to see that the design was poor, and all the > > people who have flown one say that the cockpit ergonomics were total > > rubbish.. Which last made-up claim is such as obvious lie I'm amazed this idiot bothered to post it. > Doesn't really matter in this context, this is about looks rather than > abilities (more 'britains got talent' than 'battle of the bands') The flying abilities of the Hawker Hunter outstripped those of all competing jet fighters of the same era. It was missing missiles. That was a big problem that made it pretty much useless as a fighter, sooner rather than later. 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 |