> I'm really glad to have you along for the ride, L.
No, you're not.
Rohit's Rules of Order #5, remember?
> But it's mainly cool that he forwarded a note from Byte about how
> the C64 had instant-on fifteen years ago when PC98 might just barely
> to email@example.com
I wasn't aware of geeks, and I've no idea how my quote got from
0xdeadbeef to geeks. The observation is from:
and it was probably made by Tom R. Halfhill. If anyone out there still
pays for and reads the printed version, they may be able to provide a
more positive attribution. Once they get email.
> among a random scattering of other things, keeps a really spiffy
> chart of all the currently known details on satellite voice and data
> constellations (Iriduim, GlobalStar, Teledesic
It's just a metaindex to freely-available web information I'm aware of
on satellite constellations.
It's hardly complete and 'all', as a vast number of proposed (non-US
and therefore not on the web, e.g. WEST/small-scale messaging) paper
constellations are not touched on, a vast amount of actual technical
information I'm aware of is not present (since FCC frequency filings
[that I rarely see, since I'm not in the US], academic literature and
accurate system descriptions are rarely put on the web), and a lot of
related financial and operational information that seems to be of most
interest to surfers isn't easily accessible (Wall Street Journal,
Financial Times, etc.)
It helps bear out the maxim that if it's on the web, it probably
wasn't worth reading in the first place.
On the other hand, the index _was_ spiffy enough to win me a
scholarship this week. But not spiffy enough to convince my university
to cover the cost of the trip to DC and back for the award dinner and
via satellite conference.
> what do you expect from some one who's maintaining a mailing list
> archive for his biographers' future ease and enjoyment?
That's a single point of failure. Turning up on as many other people's
archived mailing lists as possible increases your chances of
although writing and publishing an actual book still has better odds.