Gegroet,
Dave Bernstein schreef:
What's amazing is how much of what we were tought in the 60's was flat-out wrong: - plate tectonics is a crack-pot hypothesis - the fundamental particles are protons, neutrons, and electrons - our solar system has 9 planets
The problem with this one is not really the number of "planets" around the sun, but "what is the definition of 'planet'".
If you really want a laugh, look at some issues of Popular Mechanics from that era...
BTW.My first computer here was a tandy coco. A 8/16 bit process running at some 700-and-odd Khz and 16 KB of RAM. Later, I added 48 KB of extra ram and two floppies of 5.25 inch (holding no less then 720 KB each).
When running OS/9, it did multi-user, multitasking and real-time in what was sold as a game-computer; at the times when MSDOS/PCDOS took its first steps into the world. I still remember the surprise when the teacher told me their brandnew computer where not even able to format a floppy in the background while you where doing something else. When you did "format a:", you had to wait three minutes when the floppy was being formatted and could not do anything else. That on a machine that was two to three years newer then my "games-computer" at home, had 8 times as much memory and was called "the future of computing" at that era.
That's one of the problems of *popular* science (be it computer-science or mechanics). It can also be "funny" for people who are not "limited" to what the "popular" science says. To take the example you brought up. The very strange orbit of pluto already was known in the 60s, and some people where already then asking the question "is pluto really a planet or not?"
Concerning the original question:It doesn't hurt if people indicate what computers they use, but me personaly, I am more interested in what software they use; especially if it software for linux (or -to a lesser degree-) for mac.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
