xkcd today- lovely.
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Unsupported Firefox...
Next: It's here (at last)
From: D.M. Procida on 31 May 2010 11:25 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > Is this the official manufacturer's guide, or just some incomplete and > > only partially-successful outcome of various attempts at > > reverse-engineering it by a succession of different investigators who > > always found that they'd never quite uncovered its secrets? > > Oh, official manufacturer's guide, to be sure. And I omitted all the > other end-user guides included, for the metallurgy of the case (or > failing that nuts and bolts), chemistry (plastic case, circuit board, > rubber feet), ... The official manufacturer's guide to quantum physics will explain all that anyway. Daniele
From: jim on 31 May 2010 12:03 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article > <1jjd6wx.1yi0w6n1tpbdixN%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, > real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > >> Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: >> >>>> Is this the official manufacturer's guide, or just some incomplete > > > > and >>>> only partially-successful outcome of various attempts at >>>> reverse-engineering it by a succession of different investigators > > > > who >>>> always found that they'd never quite uncovered its secrets? >>> >>> Oh, official manufacturer's guide, to be sure. And I omitted all the > > > >>> other end-user guides included, for the metallurgy of the case (or >>> failing that nuts and bolts), chemistry (plastic case, circuit > > > board, >>> rubber feet), ... >> >> The official manufacturer's guide to quantum physics will explain all >> that anyway. > > Ha! Yes you're right. But would you stretch a point and allow for > different categories of end-user? Charmed and Strange? Jim -- Sent from my iPad
From: D.M. Procida on 31 May 2010 12:42 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article > <1jjd6wx.1yi0w6n1tpbdixN%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, > real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > > > Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > > > > Is this the official manufacturer's guide, or just some incomplete and > > > > only partially-successful outcome of various attempts at > > > > reverse-engineering it by a succession of different investigators who > > > > always found that they'd never quite uncovered its secrets? > > > > > > Oh, official manufacturer's guide, to be sure. And I omitted all the > > > other end-user guides included, for the metallurgy of the case (or > > > failing that nuts and bolts), chemistry (plastic case, circuit board, > > > rubber feet), ... > > > > The official manufacturer's guide to quantum physics will explain all > > that anyway. > > Ha! Yes you're right. But would you stretch a point and allow for > different categories of end-user? I think all the best manufacturers would. Daniele
From: Peter Ceresole on 31 May 2010 13:40 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > Ha! Yes you're right. But would you stretch a point and allow for > > > different categories of end-user? > > > > I think all the best manufacturers would. > > Hmmm, we could call it the Quantum Physics Bible. That has a ring to it. > I suppose some might consider it the Dummy's Guide to QP, but there's no > pleasing everyone. Surely, being Quantum Physics, the end user would determine what the contents of the RFC were, at any moment in time, but not the meaning. One or other would emerge *only when you opened the cover*. Schrodinger's RFC. -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 1 Jun 2010 02:35
jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > >> Out of interest, what makes you think you're the target for RFCs? > > > Heck, > >> I'm a coder and work in IT and I don't consider -myself- to be the > >> target, generally, of RFCs. > > > > Rather a lot of the technical information I need is only available in > > the form of RFCs, and I get pointed at them as the source for the > > information I need as a matter of routine. > > > > Example? Purely out of interest. Can't think of any off the top of my head. It's been a some years since I looked at anything like that. So many times, I've been pointed at the source code and/or the RFCs as the documentation that I am *expected* to use... Of course, if one should point out that such sources of information are not really a lot of use, being almost impossible to understand for anyone except a fully immersed geek, one gets informed that he is a lamer and shouldn't be trying to use the software. Either that, or you get told to write the manual yourself - which seems like an odd response to someone pointing out that they can't figure out what's what. How is a person in that sort of position supposed to write the bloody manual? <shrug> 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 |