From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:00:19 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <5d15edfc123b9a6826acaca0b783e576@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <A609567C-C561-45E8-9C9E-E273D437AF4B@gmail.com>
References: <8d4a75e55fc55419d48a3859337bc7da@plan9.bell-labs.com>
	<2c43c69be41aeb8e0365f250e71f53be@coraid.com>
	<hiq52d$3ho$2@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>
	<A609567C-C561-45E8-9C9E-E273D437AF4B@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] parallels
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c133eaba-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> > Not very mysterious to me. There's not very much science in computer
> > science. If we didn't forget it we wouldn't be able to re-invent it,
> > and
> > there would go most of the interesting work, not to mention a lot of
> > high salary jobs.
> But how much of this work is actually redundant?

80% is three-quarters redundant.

aplogizes to yogi berra.

- erik