http://www.eet.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173403017
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at ht
AIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: OT- IBM slows the speed of light
http://www.eet.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173403017
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the m
On 7 Nov 2005 12:26:32 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) wrote:
>http://www.eet.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173403017
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions
In a recent note, Ed Gould said:
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:26:15 -0600
>
> http://www.eet.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173403017
>
Which states, in part:
... sound waves travel more slowly under water, ...
So, now, why should I believe anything else it says? (As
On Nov 7, 2005, at 2:28 PM, Doc Farmer wrote:
Geez, you'd think they'd want to speed it up, to allow for faster
processing. And it shouldn't be too hard - they do that on Star Trek
all the time!
I think they will use it to figure out the bills faster:)
Ed
--
I guess this makes the term "light year" for distance meaningless,
doesn't it? Or if not meaningless, at least, relative...h
Ed Gould wrote:
http://www.eet.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173403017
--
For
It just means that the writing on the bottom of the rear-view mirror makes
more sense!
"Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear."
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:53:43 -0600, Steve Arnett wrote:
>I guess this makes the term "light year" for distance meaningless,
>doesn't it? Or if not meaningl
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:53:43 -0600, Steve Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I guess this makes the term "light year" for distance meaningless,
>doesn't it? Or if not meaningless, at least, relative...h
>...
Nope. Still meaningful. A light year has always been based on the spead
of lig
In a message dated 11/8/2005 2:57:46 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
of light in a vacuum. Everything with an index of refraction greater than
a vacuum's slows light. A piece of glass does that. IBM figured out how
to control and modify the effect, not just achieve
On 8 Nov 2005 14:16:33 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>of light in a vacuum. Everything with an index of refraction greater than
>a vacuum's slows light. A piece of glass does that. IBM figured out how
>to control and modify the effect, not just achieve it.
I'd like to find a way to use C
In a message dated 11/9/2005 8:00:46 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like to find a way to use Cherenkov radiation, for FTL computing!
>>
Will it help you when quoting(mis)???
'Bought the best we can do right now.
_http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2
Cool story, Ed! Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OT- IBM slows the speed of light
'Bought the best we can do right now.
12 matches
Mail list logo
