On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Charles Haynes <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Sriram Karra <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Charles Haynes < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> Now go read the rest of the rant, because it's great. > > > Well written and, er, very pedantic. What next? Is he going to nitpick > about > > 'bitrot' saying the phenomenon is quite different from bits actually > > rotting, because bits do not rot in the general sense that other things > > "rot"? Methinks he should develop his sense of humour. > > Sorry his writing wasn't to your taste. I find his dry wit quite > entertaining. Rob is one of the smartest people I know, but his sense > of humor is not to everyone's taste; it often depends on the reader > being (almost) as smart as he is, which means there's only a tiny > audience for it. Oh, well. Thanks for the closing out the discussion. -Karra P.S.: I am reading the following article. If one wants to be pedantic, why not go all the way. Ref: section 2.4 in particular. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#UncRelUncPri >
