Ronn Blankenship wrote:
>
> At 08:37 PM 2/2/02, you wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/30/2002 11:29:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > >Ronn, you should know your physics better than that. There is no upper
> >> > >limit to entropy.
> >> > >
> >> > >Dan M.
> >> >
> >> > No, but there is an upper limit to the amount of clutter that can be
> >> > present in a room and a person still be able to get into the room . . .
> >>
> >>Wait a minute; isn't this a variation of the black box radiation problem
> >>that lead to quantum mechanics? Maybe you can get infinite amount of junk
> >>in the room.
>
> Believe me, I've tried. Eventually, you have to get a new room.
>
> (Or a new house, like Forrest J Ackerman . . . )
Or us. :)
Seriously, between the books and the art (most of the art obtained at SF
conventions), we were seriously running out of wall space. Sammy just
became the last straw as to floor area/number of rooms.
The new house is going to have a room dedicated to just holding books,
so the rest of the rooms' wall space will NOT be taken up by bookcases
against them, leaving more area for hanging art.
BTW, someone who knew my father in graduate school and saw how his stuff
would just spread out, or if it wasn't spreading out fast enough new
stuff would be added, said of him, "He's the perfect gas -- he expands
to fill all available space." I take after him a bit, but I've managed
to restrict a fair bit of it to my desk area. (Then there's my closet,
which I don't want to think about right now, sigh....)
Even so, even if there are a finite number of things in the room to be
dealt with, it can be a very *large* finite number, leading to
frustration when after 3 hours, you've dealt with less than 10% of the
number of items. (And of course, that would have been the *easiest*
10%, leading to an extrapolation of the whole mess taking, oh, say, 100
hours to deal with properly. OK, so that was a little proctonumerology,
but hey....)
Julia
