From: Dave Winer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Aug 19 2000 - 09:06:17 PDT
Two words: Right on.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: [HTTPfutures] Dan Connolly on HTTP goofs and musings / Two Way
> > Yes. The discussion usually goes something like this...
> > Your car makes for a lousy airplane.
> > That's because it isn't supposed to be an airplane.
> > Sure, sure, sure... but I want to fly to Hong Kong.
> > Then build an airplane.
> > But there are so many restrictions associated with airplanes...
> > you need special landing rights... they expect a competent pilot...
> > you can only land in a few places... and everything is so expensive.
> > That's because flying isn't as easy and safe as driving. Why do
> > you think they'll let flying cars get by with fewer
> > But we have so many cars just lying about unused, and everyone
> > has a highway in their backyard, so obviously a car is the right way
> > to travel.
> > That's a byproduct of it being easy and (relatively) safe
> > to drive,
> > not a statement about the universal applicability of cars.
> > But I'm pretty sure that if we add wings here, and a tail over there,
> > and call the driver a pilot, that this is the only way to go.
> > *sigh* ... Fine, then. When you get back from Hong Kong we'll
> > talk about making it part of the standard.
> Woof. How many times have I had that *same* conversation in the context of
> I call it the "xxx as a hammer syndrome": people assume that blinding
> success in one category automatically gurantess success in another.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 19 2000 - 09:15:00 PDT