* [9fans] g++
@ 2003-09-14 22:13 Andrew Simmons
2003-09-15 14:54 ` splite
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Simmons @ 2003-09-14 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> Because we weren't anywhere near smart enough to build a working
> kernel in C++.
But surely, if you'd built a Use Case Driven Object Model of the kernel
using UML, and used the Generic Iteration Workflow concept of the Rational
Unified Process for the Implementation Phase, you would have had no trouble
at all.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] g++
2003-09-14 22:13 [9fans] g++ Andrew Simmons
@ 2003-09-15 14:54 ` splite
2003-09-15 16:20 ` Positrons (was Re: [9fans] g++) Derek Fawcus
2003-09-15 22:33 ` [9fans] g++ Charles Forsyth
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: splite @ 2003-09-15 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 10:13:05AM +1200, Andrew Simmons wrote:
> > Because we weren't anywhere near smart enough to build a working
> > kernel in C++.
>
> But surely, if you'd built a Use Case Driven Object Model of the kernel
> using UML, and used the Generic Iteration Workflow concept of the Rational
> Unified Process for the Implementation Phase, you would have had no trouble
> at all.
You'd still need to slap it with a phased verteron pulse, which would
depolarize the resonance frequency generators and generate a subspace
field implosion, inducing a reload of the positronic subprocessors from
the protected memory archive. Duh.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Positrons (was Re: [9fans] g++)
2003-09-15 14:54 ` splite
@ 2003-09-15 16:20 ` Derek Fawcus
2003-09-15 22:33 ` [9fans] g++ Charles Forsyth
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Derek Fawcus @ 2003-09-15 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 09:54:43AM -0500, splite@purdue.edu wrote:
> You'd still need to slap it with a phased verteron pulse, which would
> depolarize the resonance frequency generators and generate a subspace
> field implosion, inducing a reload of the positronic subprocessors from
> the protected memory archive. Duh.
One thing I always found amusing about the use of 'positronics' vs electronics
in SF was what heppens if the back up battery is turned off?
*poof* Daneel's head vanished in a flash of blinding light and gamma rays.
DF
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] g++
2003-09-15 14:54 ` splite
2003-09-15 16:20 ` Positrons (was Re: [9fans] g++) Derek Fawcus
@ 2003-09-15 22:33 ` Charles Forsyth
2003-09-15 23:14 ` boyd, rounin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Charles Forsyth @ 2003-09-15 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 106 bytes --]
i believe it is much quicker and indeed far more effective
to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2850 bytes --]
From: splite@purdue.edu
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] g++
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:54:43 -0500
Message-ID: <20030915145443.GA8164@sigint.cs.purdue.edu>
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 10:13:05AM +1200, Andrew Simmons wrote:
> > Because we weren't anywhere near smart enough to build a working
> > kernel in C++.
>
> But surely, if you'd built a Use Case Driven Object Model of the kernel
> using UML, and used the Generic Iteration Workflow concept of the Rational
> Unified Process for the Implementation Phase, you would have had no trouble
> at all.
You'd still need to slap it with a phased verteron pulse, which would
depolarize the resonance frequency generators and generate a subspace
field implosion, inducing a reload of the positronic subprocessors from
the protected memory archive. Duh.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] g++
2003-09-15 22:33 ` [9fans] g++ Charles Forsyth
@ 2003-09-15 23:14 ` boyd, rounin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: boyd, rounin @ 2003-09-15 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> i believe it is much quicker and indeed far more effective
> to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
i think the the 9x19mm, 124 grain, FMJ round [about 30] from
an MP5-A5 would be a lot simpler; deadly accurate, highly
reliable and not much recoil [roller locked, closed bolt].
might make a bit of noise but you could get the MP5SD
version which has a silencer:
http://www.hkpro.com/video/MP5SD.mov
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Positrons (was Re: [9fans] g++)
[not found] <6A0A0B7110C3894CB8D5CF8FA591C09A01F0424D@nycoms01.hq.bn-corp.com>
@ 2003-09-15 18:05 ` Joel Salomon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joel Salomon @ 2003-09-15 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 09:54:43AM -0500, splite@purdue.edu wrote:
> You'd still need to slap it with a phased verteron pulse, which would
> depolarize the resonance frequency generators and generate a subspace
> field implosion, inducing a reload of the positronic subprocessors from
> the protected memory archive. Duh.
A phased verteron pulse! Of course, I should have tried it. I tried the
exact same procedure but I used a verteron stream! I now realize that
althought the verteron stream is defined by a function that is everywhere
discontinuous (so it should just have been very fast pulse) I errred on
that one..
--Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-15 23:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-14 22:13 [9fans] g++ Andrew Simmons
2003-09-15 14:54 ` splite
2003-09-15 16:20 ` Positrons (was Re: [9fans] g++) Derek Fawcus
2003-09-15 22:33 ` [9fans] g++ Charles Forsyth
2003-09-15 23:14 ` boyd, rounin
[not found] <6A0A0B7110C3894CB8D5CF8FA591C09A01F0424D@nycoms01.hq.bn-corp.com>
2003-09-15 18:05 ` Positrons (was Re: [9fans] g++) Joel Salomon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).