On 9/14/2022 6:17 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 02.34, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 9/14/2022 12:11 AM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-13 21:47, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> on Tue, 13 Sep 2022 21:29:29 -0700 typed in
>>>> rec.arts.sf.written  the following:
>
>>>>> So at best, a (roughly) 44 pound pile of dust.
>>>>
>>>>     and one gigantic flash fire as the oxidizers (Oxygen, chlorine,
>>>> fluorine, etc) combine with everything else (Carbon, Hydrogen,
>>>> calcium, etc).  "Foomp!"
>>>
>>> We're in handwavium territory.
>>>
>>> Assume that the "phaser" causes the elements to recombine and removes
>>> the energy.
>>
>> "Removes the energy"?   I'd ask "How?" but never mind.
>>
>> I think you are all losing the point.  This came from the discussion
>> on the size of the explosion from a ship hitting the planet at
>> effectively light speed.  The equation for the kinetic energy from an
>> impact is:
>> Energy = Mass X (Velocity)squared
> Would you be willing to explain why "the kinetic energy from an
> impact" is twice regular kinetic energy, which is (1/2)mv^2
>
Because I made a mistake.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Alan wrote:
> On 2022-09-13 21:47, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> > Alan <nuh...@nope.com> on Tue, 13 Sep 2022 21:29:29 -0700 typed in
> > rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Why would you assume that a phaser "disintegrating" someone (or
> >>>> something) causes it to undergo complete mass-energy conversion?
> >>>>
> >>>> If the method were simply the disruption of all chemical bonds, the
> >>>> energy would be much, MUCH less.
> >>>
> >>> And you would have a 200 pound pile of dust where the person was.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No. You wouldn't.
> >>
> >> I said ALL the chemical bonds.
> >>
> >> So you'd end up with (for a 200 pound human).
> >>
> >> 130 pounds of oxygen gas
> >>
> >> 36 pounds of carbon
> >>
> >> 20 pounds of hydrogen gas
> >>
> >> 6 pounds of nitrogen gas
> >>
> >> That's accounted for 192 of the 200 pounds.
> >>
> >> So everything else—all solids except for chlorine, fluorine and (maybe)
> >> bromine—is 8 pounds.
> >>
> >> So at best, a (roughly) 44 pound pile of dust.
> >
> > and one gigantic flash fire as the oxidizers (Oxygen, chlorine,
> > fluorine, etc) combine with everything else (Carbon, Hydrogen,
> > calcium, etc). "Foomp!"

> We're in handwavium territory.

In that case, it powers itself by running the local area into an energy deficit, which the later chemical energy of the "foomp!" replaces!

> Assume that the "phaser" causes the elements to recombine and removes
> the energy.

--
-Jack

In article <tfspsm$30fpd$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 9/14/2022 6:17 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 14/09/2022 02.34, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 9/14/2022 12:11 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-13 21:47, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> on Tue, 13 Sep 2022 21:29:29 -0700 typed in
>>>>> rec.arts.sf.written  the following:
>>
>>>>>> So at best, a (roughly) 44 pound pile of dust.
>>>>>
>>>>>     and one gigantic flash fire as the oxidizers
>(Oxygen, chlorine,
>>>>> fluorine, etc) combine with everything else (Carbon, Hydrogen,
>>>>> calcium, etc).  "Foomp!"
>>>>
>>>> We're in handwavium territory.
>>>>
>>>> Assume that the "phaser" causes the elements to recombine and
>removes
>>>> the energy.
>>>
>>> "Removes the energy"?   I'd ask "How?" but never mind.
>>>
>>> I think you are all losing the point.  This came from the discussion
>>> on the size of the explosion from a ship hitting the planet at
>>> effectively light speed.  The equation for the kinetic energy
>from an
>>> impact is:
>>> Energy = Mass X (Velocity)squared
>> Would you be willing to explain why "the kinetic energy from an
>> impact" is twice regular kinetic energy, which is (1/2)mv^2
>>
>Because I made a mistake.

Newtonian equations don't apply to relativistic speed impacts: the
Ek will be higher than Newtonian calculations indicate.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 14/09/2022 09.53, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 9/14/2022 6:17 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 14/09/2022 02.34, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 9/14/2022 12:11 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-13 21:47, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> on Tue, 13 Sep 2022 21:29:29 -0700 typed in
>>>>> rec.arts.sf.written  the following:
>>
>>>>>> So at best, a (roughly) 44 pound pile of dust.
>>>>>
>>>>>     and one gigantic flash fire as the oxidizers (Oxygen, chlorine,
>>>>> fluorine, etc) combine with everything else (Carbon, Hydrogen,
>>>>> calcium, etc).  "Foomp!"
>>>>
>>>> We're in handwavium territory.
>>>>
>>>> Assume that the "phaser" causes the elements to recombine and removes the energy.
>>>
>>> "Removes the energy"?   I'd ask "How?" but never mind.
>>>
>>> I think you are all losing the point.  This came from the discussion on the size of the explosion from a ship hitting the planet at effectively light speed.  The equation for the kinetic energy from an impact is:
>>> Energy = Mass X (Velocity)squared
>> Would you be willing to explain why "the kinetic energy from an
>> impact" is twice regular kinetic energy, which is (1/2)mv^2
>>
> Because I made a mistake.

That's a good reason.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

On 9/9/2022 11:30 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <tfgsun$190ah$2@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/9/2022 9:22 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 9/9/2022 7:12 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <tfgeqj$15568$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Lynn McGuire  <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/9/2022 4:54 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-09-08 6:41 a.m., Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <360a699e-724b-4e9a-a844-46835ce76146n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 9:51:01 PM UTC-4, pyotr filipivich
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> on Tue, 6 Sep 2022 02:01:22
>>>>>>>>> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>>>>>> Bulk freighters, like the huge M-Class Cargo ships Zuckabar made,
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> carry literally millions of tons of goods, but they were slow and
>>>>>>>>>> cumbersome. Their mass made it virtually impossible to
>>>>>>>>>> accelerate at
>>>>>>>>>> anything higher than a hundred gs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Haskell, Jeffery H.. Against All Odds: A Military Sci-Fi Series
>>>>>>>>>> (Grimm's
>>>>>>>>>> War Book 1) (p. 43). Aethon Books. Kindle Edition.
>>>>>>>>> Call me clue less, but what makes you want to groan over that
>>>>>>>>> quote?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Characterizing 100g as pokey is groan worthy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 100g is not trivial. After 1 day, you're  at more than 1/4 the speed
>>>>>>>> of light.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Sprint ABM could accelerate at that rate, but only briefly. It
>>>>>>>> reached
>>>>>>>> Mach 10 in 5 seconds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But's it's not a comparison to things we can do.  Clearly it's a
>>>>>>> comparison
>>>>>>> against other ships in that setting (which I am unfamiliar with),
>>>>>>> which outclass
>>>>>>> freighters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't care.  It's a freighter.  The amount of energy it takes to
>>>>>> accelerate millions of tons at 100 gs is absurd in economic terms and
>>>>>> would mean all the freighters can unstoppably obliterate planets.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Varley has a 0.99999 C starship obliterate several hundred square
>>>>> miles of Florida in "Red Lightning".
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> Unless that's an absurdly small--like less than 10
>>>> grams--starship, obliterating only that much would be a serious
>>>> understatement.  An object big enough to be reasonably called a
>>>> starship, at the speed, would probably obliterate the entire
>>>> planet.  Be interesting to see his math...
>>>
>>> Lets try several thousand square miles of Florida.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> Now that I think about it, Varley had the starship "land" in the
>> Atlantic. At 0.9999999999c. The resulting tsunami obliterated the
>> entire east coast of Florida all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
>>
>> He spends over half of the book dealing with the wreckage and with
>> people looking for people.
>>
>> It was a 10 or 12 person starship, supposed to be headed out at 1.0 g.
>> It came back several years later at 10+ g so no life on board. Varley
>> spends some time calculating the speed of the star ship and that it
>> crossed the Moon ??? to Earth distance in less than a second so the
>> computer malfunctioned its presumed target.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> If it covered the distance from Moon to Earth in less than 1
> Second, then it had to be going faster than c. c ~ 186,272
> mi/sec. Average Lunar distance ~ 240,000 mi.
>
> That's the kind of thing that puts a serious dent in my "willing
> suspension of disbelief."
>
> IIRC, the bomb used on Hiroshima used to be estimated at between
> 10 Kt and 15 Kt. I think the estimates are lower now. That
> older figure is right around converting 1 gram of matter into
> energy, which is also roughly the kinetic energy 1 gram traveling at
> 0.8c.
>
> So if one assumes a rather small spaceship, call it 10 tons and
> it's traveling at--functionally--c, even if you ignore the
> relativistic mass increase, there's rather more kinetic energy to
> disappate than he seems to appreciate. Without actually looking
> up the relevant data, I'd tend to guess that the impact is going
> to be worse than Chixulub.

I guess that you are going to make me reread the book and find out the
exact details. So far I have been using my memory which is not the best
place anymore.

Lynn

On 9/10/2022 2:19 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:31:55 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 9/9/2022 9:22 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 9/9/2022 7:12 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <tfgeqj$15568$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/9/2022 4:54 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-09-08 6:41 a.m., Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <360a699e-724b-4e9a...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 9:51:01 PM UTC-4, pyotr filipivich
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> on Tue, 6 Sep 2022 02:01:22
>>>>>>>>> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>>>>>> Bulk freighters, like the huge M-Class Cargo ships Zuckabar made,
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> carry literally millions of tons of goods, but they were slow and
>>>>>>>>>> cumbersome. Their mass made it virtually impossible to
>>>>>>>>>> accelerate at
>>>>>>>>>> anything higher than a hundred gs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Haskell, Jeffery H.. Against All Odds: A Military Sci-Fi Series
>>>>>>>>>> (Grimm's
>>>>>>>>>> War Book 1) (p. 43). Aethon Books. Kindle Edition.
>>>>>>>>> Call me clue less, but what makes you want to groan over that
>>>>>>>>> quote?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Characterizing 100g as pokey is groan worthy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 100g is not trivial. After 1 day, you're at more than 1/4 the speed
>>>>>>>> of light.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Sprint ABM could accelerate at that rate, but only briefly. It
>>>>>>>> reached
>>>>>>>> Mach 10 in 5 seconds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But's it's not a comparison to things we can do. Clearly it's a
>>>>>>> comparison
>>>>>>> against other ships in that setting (which I am unfamiliar with),
>>>>>>> which outclass
>>>>>>> freighters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't care. It's a freighter. The amount of energy it takes to
>>>>>> accelerate millions of tons at 100 gs is absurd in economic terms and
>>>>>> would mean all the freighters can unstoppably obliterate planets.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Varley has a 0.99999 C starship obliterate several hundred square
>>>>> miles of Florida in "Red Lightning".
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> Unless that's an absurdly small--like less than 10
>>>> grams--starship, obliterating only that much would be a serious
>>>> understatement. An object big enough to be reasonably called a
>>>> starship, at the speed, would probably obliterate the entire
>>>> planet. Be interesting to see his math...
>>>
>>> Lets try several thousand square miles of Florida.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>> Now that I think about it, Varley had the starship "land" in the
>> Atlantic. At 0.9999999999c. The resulting tsunami obliterated the
>> entire east coast of Florida all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
>>
>> He spends over half of the book dealing with the wreckage and with
>> people looking for people.
>>
>> It was a 10 or 12 person starship, supposed to be headed out at 1.0 g.
>> It came back several years later at 10+ g so no life on board. Varley
>> spends some time calculating the speed of the star ship and that it
>> crossed the Moon ??? to Earth distance in less than a second so the
>> computer malfunctioned its presumed target.
>
> Not sure if its what you meant, but that would require travelling > 1c.
>
> pt

Like I just said to Hal, I am going to have to look this up in the book.
My memory is not the best any more. Carrying the data structures and
global variables for 850,000 lines of Fortran and 450,000 lines of C++
is doing me in.

Lynn

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 06:41:42
-0700 (PDT) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:47:40 AM UTC-4, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> on Tue, 13 Sep 2022 21:29:29 -0700 typed in
>> rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> Why would you assume that a phaser "disintegrating" someone (or
>> >>> something) causes it to undergo complete mass-energy conversion?
>> >>>
>> >>> If the method were simply the disruption of all chemical bonds, the
>> >>> energy would be much, MUCH less.
>> >>
>> >> And you would have a 200 pound pile of dust where the person was.
>> >>
>> >
>> >No. You wouldn't.
>> >
>> >I said ALL the chemical bonds.
>> >
>> >So you'd end up with (for a 200 pound human).
>> >
>> >130 pounds of oxygen gas
>> >
>> >36 pounds of carbon
>> >
>> >20 pounds of hydrogen gas
>> >
>> >6 pounds of nitrogen gas
>> >
>> >That's accounted for 192 of the 200 pounds.
>> >
>> >So everything else—all solids except for chlorine, fluorine and (maybe)
>> >bromine—is 8 pounds.
>> >
>> >So at best, a (roughly) 44 pound pile of dust.
>> and one gigantic flash fire as the oxidizers (Oxygen, chlorine,
>> fluorine, etc) combine with everything else (Carbon, Hydrogen,
>> calcium, etc). "Foomp!"
>
>It gets worse. If 'all' chemical bonds were removed, you'd have
>a cloud of free radicals, which would, indeed, recombine violently.
>What's more, gases at atmospheric pressure are about 1/800 the
>density of water (~~ density of a person), so it isn't 'foomp', so much
>as BOOM!

dual pulse: first the "steam" explosion as the compounds convert
to gas and expand, then as the gases ignite, eating them up and
expanding the cloud further.

>A ray that turned everything into neutrinos, or dark matter, would be
>much safer.

True.

Remember, "needs of the plot".

"The 'Perimeter Watch 9000', using the latest in particle beam
technology, can prevent just about any and all intruders. With the
"Clean up on Aisle 2" option, intruders can be 'vaporized' leaving no
unsightly mess requiring awkward questions by neighbors."
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 11:26:22 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <tfspsm$30fpd$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >On 9/14/2022 6:17 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> >> On 14/09/2022 02.34, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >>> On 9/14/2022 12:11 AM, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-09-13 21:47, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> >>>>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> on Tue, 13 Sep 2022 21:29:29 -0700 typed in
> >>>>> rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> >>
> >>>>>> So at best, a (roughly) 44 pound pile of dust.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and one gigantic flash fire as the oxidizers
> >(Oxygen, chlorine,
> >>>>> fluorine, etc) combine with everything else (Carbon, Hydrogen,
> >>>>> calcium, etc). "Foomp!"
> >>>>
> >>>> We're in handwavium territory.
> >>>>
> >>>> Assume that the "phaser" causes the elements to recombine and
> >removes
> >>>> the energy.
> >>>
> >>> "Removes the energy"? I'd ask "How?" but never mind.
> >>>
> >>> I think you are all losing the point. This came from the discussion
> >>> on the size of the explosion from a ship hitting the planet at
> >>> effectively light speed. The equation for the kinetic energy
> >from an
> >>> impact is:
> >>> Energy = Mass X (Velocity)squared
> >> Would you be willing to explain why "the kinetic energy from an
> >> impact" is twice regular kinetic energy, which is (1/2)mv^2
> >>
> >Because I made a mistake.
> Newtonian equations don't apply to relativistic speed impacts: the
> Ek will be higher than Newtonian calculations indicate.

Yes, (gamma-1)*m*c*2 where gamma is 1/sqrt(1-v**2/c**2). With v/c being the posited
..9999, gamma would be rather large.

William Hyde

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 00:11:55 -0700 typed in
rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>
>>> So at best, a (roughly) 44 pound pile of dust.
>>
>> and one gigantic flash fire as the oxidizers (Oxygen, chlorine,
>> fluorine, etc) combine with everything else (Carbon, Hydrogen,
>> calcium, etc). "Foomp!"
>
>We're in handwavium territory.
>
>Assume that the "phaser" causes the elements to recombine and removes
>the energy.

That must be the "phase" part of it.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:41:44 AM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:47:40 AM UTC-4, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> > Alan <nuh...@nope.com> on Tue, 13 Sep 2022 21:29:29 -0700 typed in
> > rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> Why would you assume that a phaser "disintegrating" someone (or
> > >>> something) causes it to undergo complete mass-energy conversion?
> > >>>
> > >>> If the method were simply the disruption of all chemical bonds, the
> > >>> energy would be much, MUCH less.
> > >>
> > >> And you would have a 200 pound pile of dust where the person was.
> > >>
> > >
> > >No. You wouldn't.
> > >
> > >I said ALL the chemical bonds.
> > >
> > >So you'd end up with (for a 200 pound human).
> > >
> > >130 pounds of oxygen gas
> > >
> > >36 pounds of carbon
> > >
> > >20 pounds of hydrogen gas
> > >
> > >6 pounds of nitrogen gas
> > >
> > >That's accounted for 192 of the 200 pounds.
> > >
> > >So everything else—all solids except for chlorine, fluorine and (maybe)
> > >bromine—is 8 pounds.
> > >
> > >So at best, a (roughly) 44 pound pile of dust.
> > and one gigantic flash fire as the oxidizers (Oxygen, chlorine,
> > fluorine, etc) combine with everything else (Carbon, Hydrogen,
> > calcium, etc). "Foomp!"
> It gets worse. If 'all' chemical bonds were removed, you'd have
> a cloud of free radicals, which would, indeed, recombine violently.
> What's more, gases at atmospheric pressure are about 1/800 the
> density of water (~~ density of a person), so it isn't 'foomp', so much
> as BOOM!
>
> A ray that turned everything into neutrinos, or dark matter, would be
> much safer.
>
In Phillip Francis Nowlan's 1928 novel _Armageddon 2419 A.D._,
which became the basis for the _Buck Rogers_ comic strip,
written long before the discovery of the neutrino or speculation
about dark matter, the disintegrator rays used by the Han had
this effect. The rays disrupted the structure of atoms into a chaos
of subatomic particles which dispersed leaving vacuum in their wake,
with a faint glow of visible light being the only energy release mentioned.
The Americans of the future had recently created a disintegration-proof
material called "inertron" and had a small number of rocket powered
fighter aircraft with inertron covered hulls. Inertron was also an
anti-gravity material which balanced out the aircraft's weight.
Inertron was also used in personal flying belts. When engaging one
of these aircraft Han disintegrator gunners would typically aim underneath
the target, attempting to create a zone of vacuum so as to drive the
aircraft into the ground. As you can see, Nowlan used good science fiction
technique in not only inventing technology but also seeing its ramifications.
As the saying goes, anyone can imagine an automobile, but it takes a
science fiction writer to predict the traffic jam.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 09:31:02 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 20:19:36 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 16:44:13 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>><phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I keep recalling the FedEx ad, where the first guy at the shipping
>>>office window is adamant "It positively has to be there by next year!"
>>>Now adays, we complain because our Amazon order won't be here for
>>>three whole days! "OMG We're all gonna die!"
>>
>>I remember serving a customer in the first week of January 2000 who
>>said before he came back next time he had to "retrieve some documents
>>from the past century" - turned out to be his previous week's receipt!
>
>Too bad Dec 99 and Jan 00 were in the same century.
>
>But "past decade" would have been correct.
>
>But it was a very confusing topic to a lot of people.

I know you're right but that was not how "the man in the street" saw
it .... and I certainly wasn't about to tell a paying customer that he
was an idiot. I may not be Einstein (though I was born almost exactly
9 months after he died which led to some jokes in my younger days) but
I've no question who paid my bills. (Am now recently retired but
certainly back in Jan 2000 I was very much a working stiff)

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:19:41 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 16:44:13 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > I keep recalling the FedEx ad, where the first guy at the shipping
> >office window is adamant "It positively has to be there by next year!"
> >Now adays, we complain because our Amazon order won't be here for
> >three whole days! "OMG We're all gonna die!"
>
> I remember serving a customer in the first week of January 2000 who
> said before he came back next time he had to "retrieve some documents
> from the past century" - turned out to be his previous week's receipt!

[pedant mode]

Shouldn't that have happened in Jan 2001?

[/pm]

--
Kevin R