That's an absurd response. I didn't say Rob MUST be wrong now. I said he COULD be wrong because his understanding is based on currently available knowledge and technology. Change is constant. I cited an example of someone drawing firm conclusions about future advances based only on the technology as it was understood at the time.
On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Toralf Lund wrote: > >> I know you have said that. And of course the qualifier is "given the >> technology as Rob understands it." It reminds me of the Cal Tech >> mathematics PhD who said in the early fifties that a car couldn't >> possibly exceed 150 mph from a standing start in a quarter mile. >> What's the record now? 335 or so. >> > That's absurd logic. What you're saying is essentially that Rob must be > wrong now because someone else was wrong in the past, about something > else entirely. > > > - Toralf > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
