12358db4f1e9
tech



Hello Mike - 

CA>> I'm not a demolitions expert but those on the TV
CA>> documentaries seem to be telling me it's not all that easy
CA>> to drop a building? 

MR> Perhaps it is in the interest of those who do demolition to
MR> publicize how really difficult their job is? 

That thought has occurred to me. Could be they are putting on a
'smoke-n-mirrors' show for the cameras. 

MR> Remember the axiom: it is much easier to destroy than to
MR> build. 

MR> If you recall, there have been a few rare incidents around
MR> the world of buildings that would collapse one or more
MR> floors in a perfect pancake style. In severe earthquakes
MR> this type of damage is more common. Don't you remember the
MR> California quake where the dual overhead highways collapsed
MR> on one another? 

No, not really. I don't gravitate to news of catastrophes. This
particular demolition is being rubbed in my face 24/7 or I
would probably know little about it. 

CA>> Maybe someone should explain this 'theory' of pancaking to
CA>> them? 

MR> Did you ask them? Maybe someone else should stick to
MR> computer topics instead of speculating on demolition and
MR> civil engineering, huh?!  

Why? Are there restrictions on what persons may speculate about
here? No one bothered to mention them to me. 

I read quite a few speculations about computers in this echo by
persons unqualified to even speculate. Should I point this out
when it happens or should I not assume authority I do not have?

>
>        ,                                        ,
>      o/      Charles_Angelich  - DOS Ghost       \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >  www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/  < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/