greenber@acf4.UUCP (12/14/84)
<> Actually, since the models that I've been seeing here are all two dimensional, there doesn't seem to be a problem. I have found that I can support this 100,000 ton battleship easily --- I just lift my terminal up and hold it at arms length. When I float my terminal in my bathtub, there is very little water needed to keep it from sinking. Even more interesting is that when I let the water out of the bathtub carefully enough my terminal does NOT go down the drain!!! (surprised me, too!) Careful thought (Further reading in Physics Today, 1978, Vol XXVII, Support of Two Dimensional Armaments and Hydrostatic Quantum Interaction of the Weak Force, Messrs. Schmidt, Standoff, and Kalowowsky) show that ANY battleship, regardless of weight, can be supported with virtually no water at all, given a large enough screen. Since most common screens are a 24 x 80 matrix, the following equation shows the maximal PRACTICAL weight for support of a battleship: i=23,j=79 ------ \ \ / W/M - I / ----- i=0,j=0 As can be seen, given that W is the number of phosphors per pixel times the Mass of each phosphor, and that M is the density of the pixels THAT ARE USED by the battleship, and I is the intensity of the screen, this problem is invariant of water and it can be stated that NO WATER is needed to holdup the battleship! Now, dependent upon the acceleration of the screen with regard to 'c', the density of the battleship pixels (hereinafter known as battlepixels) and the mass of the sum of all phosphors are invariant also. This implies that all battleships have the same mass, and that the seemingly different mass is due only to the type of phosphor in the screen and how the contrast control is turned up. Casper Weinberger, et. al, has discussed this phenomenon in cautious words, when indicating that with proper CAD/CAM equipment, and a large enough screen, procurement of future weapon systems is simply a matter of "twiddling some bits and taking a large byte out of the GNP (Gravitational Normalization Polarity)". The president could not be reached for comment. Opponents to the plan indicate that the cost per MIP will rise due to the new weapon procurement policy introduced by this administration, which they claim "as usual, will affect those having the least the most". Jesse Jackson indicated that "some G=dfearin' people will put the pixahl prah-bahlum to some prah-tikal procur-amunt pah-locies", and refused to translate. Representatives of NOW and Women Against Rape indicated that they felt the discovery of the above formula was just another indication that men "will continue to reserve the best pixels for themselves, leaving women, as usual, left with the dregs". Jerry Fahwell, presently living with his mother and daughters, could not be reached for comment. Various technical groups around the country have indicated that for a slight fee they would gladly demonstrate to the user community at the Pentagon the correct usage of the contrast control. All indications available at this time show that the cost per unit of pixel brightness would not exceed $375.54 per turn of the contrast knob, and those terminals having firmware control of the contrast would cost about three times as much. Senator Proxmire has the matter under study, with Jimmy Carter aiding him, since there is, according to Senator Proxmire, "a potential boondangle in the cost of this". Jimmy Carter claims "the nuke-ular proliferation, according to Amy, of these CAD/CAM devices must be understood and controlled." Senator Mondale, still recovering from his stunning defeat, was too intoxicated to care. His running mate, regardless of the question asked, reponded by stating that she had never been a member of the communist party and that her taxes were not a topic she wished to discuss at this time. Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
gino@voder.UUCP (12/18/84)
[battle line] ^V^V^V^V^V^V^ <---(water, of course!) > When I float my terminal > in my bathtub, there is very little water needed to keep it from sinking. > Even more interesting is that when I let the water out of the bathtub > carefully enough my terminal does NOT go down the drain!!! > (surprised me, too!) Please note that terminal MUST be disconnected from the electricity before floating it! -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) Try to understand.
greenber@acf4.UUCP (12/20/84)
<> >> When I float my terminal >> in my bathtub, there is very little water needed to keep it from sinking. >> Even more interesting is that when I let the water out of the bathtub >> carefully enough my terminal does NOT go down the drain!!! >> (surprised me, too!) > Please note that terminal MUST be disconnected from the electricity before > floating it! According to reports recently printed in the Armament News, a Murdoch publication, you should not disconnect the terminal at all. Since this reduces the intensity of the phosphers to zero (except for ELFP, Extremely Long Fade Phosphers) this reduces your battleship to the state of nothingness. Applying the formula stated in the base article and remebering that "God does not play dice with battleships" indicates that you'd have a quantum battleship. Now, since we know the energy of the battleship (you turned off the terminal, right?) you can't really know its position. It is reasonable to assume that if a russian scientist turns on his terminal, he'll get the battleship!!!! It is for this reason, and this reason only, that the State Department does not allow Vaxen into the Soviet Union. It is their theory that the more tubes that are allowed in the USSR, the more battleships will be lost. Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----