Which laptops are no-nos for installing Linux .. - Portable

This is a discussion on Which laptops are no-nos for installing Linux .. - Portable ; James Knott wrote: > s. keeling wrote: > >>Hey! He said FORTRAN, not Cobol! Fortran's just C with an odd >>ancient syntax. Cobol's a language written so PHBs can understand >>it. Hahahahahahahahaha! Chyaa, right. > > For some reason, business ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: Which laptops are no-nos for installing Linux ..

  1. Re: Which laptops are no-nos for installing Linux ..

    James Knott wrote:
    > s. keeling wrote:
    >
    >>Hey! He said FORTRAN, not Cobol! Fortran's just C with an odd
    >>ancient syntax. Cobol's a language written so PHBs can understand
    >>it. Hahahahahahahahaha! Chyaa, right.

    >
    > For some reason, business loves COBOL and it's still in very wide use.
    > Also, IIRC COBOL was developed by Grace Hopper (she retired from the US
    > Navy as an Admiral), who did a lot of early computer work. I seem to
    > recall, that she's also the one who coined the term "bug", when she found a
    > moth that had caused a computer to fail. She also liked to demonstrate how
    > long a nano second was, with short pieces of wire, that represented how far
    > light would travel in one nS.


    Strictly speaking, I believe that she held up an approximately 10" piece
    of wire, saying that that was how far a *signal* would go in one ns.
    It's somewhat less than the distance light would travel.

    This is at least fourth-hand, however, so I could well have the details
    wrong.

    John

    --
    John Price *** ** ** *** price@physics.ucla.edu
    Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
    -- John G. Price (my father), ca. 1975.


  2. Re: Which laptops are no-nos for installing Linux ..

    John W. Price wrote:

    > Strictly speaking, I believe that she held up an approximately 10" piece
    > of wire, saying that that was how far a signal would go in one ns.
    > It's somewhat less than the distance light would travel.
    >
    > This is at least fourth-hand, however, so I could well have the details
    > wrong.
    >


    I'd heard light. Also, the actually velocity in a wire or cable depends on
    the construction, particularly insulation. The amount it varies from the
    speed of light, is called "velocity factor" and generally runs 65 - 70%.
    In one nano second, light would travel 0.3 M or about 12".

    --

    Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

    To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
    james.knott.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2