Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:13:18 -0600 From: Kevin Kinsey <kdk@daleco.biz> To: Greg Barniskis <nalists@scls.lib.wi.us> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Off-Topic Message-ID: <43A0449E.4050405@daleco.biz> In-Reply-To: <43A0305C.9050405@scls.lib.wi.us> References: <439F3E96.5090101@ntlworld.com> <20051213215647.GA27582@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <20051213233143.GB27219@holestein.holy.cow> <e572718c0512131646q225e837ch9af79655f74f7c9d@mail.gmail.com> <43A0305C.9050405@scls.lib.wi.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[moving to chat@, as it really *is* getting pretty OT] Greg Barniskis wrote: > Pietro Cerutti wrote: > >> I'm for this one: >> >> The best way to accellerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s^2 >> >> by Roland >> >> It's wonderful! > > > I concur. Physics is fun (I know, I'm sick), so I'd add to that: > > For best results, continue until the PC's speed exceeds 11.2 km/s. > > 8D I'm not a physicist, but shouldn't we also specify a vector/direction in this case? Granted, something more than half of all possible vectors should work, apart from tall buildings, trees, etc., .... KDK -- We read to say that we have read.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43A0449E.4050405>