Re: Senate action today
- From: "D.J. Osborn" <dj_osborn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:33:30 GMT
<joehoechst@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> A computer could have been "sick" only because the user *thought* it
>>> was sick. Maybe a program/application was not working correctly, but
>>> that is not the computer.
>
>
>>Wow! That's not the computer? It's an integral part of the computer, and
>>yet
>>you claim it isn't the computer? Wow!!
>
> Wrong. The computer is intregal to the application, not vice versa.
Pure nonsense.
>>The computer wasn't functioning properly until he worked on it. It's quite
>>clear that he repaired it.
>
> Not really. The computer may have been working just fine. The
> application may not have been functioning properly. Sometimes it may
> be hard to tell if it is a hardware or software problem and not "quite
> clear".
gbinnc@xxxxxxxxxxx stated that they were "very sick" computers. Why do you
keep arguing with him?
--
D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com
.
- References:
- Re: Senate action today
- From: GBinNC
- Re: Senate action today
- From: Don Lampson
- Re: Senate action today
- From: Lon VanOstran
- Re: Senate action today
- From: GBinNC
- Re: Senate action today
- From: D.J. Osborn
- Re: Senate action today
- From: joehoechst
- Re: Senate action today
- From: D.J. Osborn
- Re: Senate action today
- From: joehoechst
- Re: Senate action today
- Prev by Date: Re: Senate action today
- Next by Date: Re: San Jose California Sanitary Dump
- Previous by thread: Re: Senate action today
- Next by thread: Re: Senate action today
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|