11 Oct
1998
11 Oct
'98
6:56 a.m.
< So, is Columbus less important because the Vikings reached the Americas
< before him? Or is it only important that most of the lasting effects
< descend from Columbus?
since I'm not a student of this general branch of history I can't comment
accuractly. It would seem to me the big differnece was the wave of
colonization that resulted.
Better put, the vikings were here. Columbus told the world two things,
it's not flat and there are great riches in the east. Somewhere in ther
is the difference in those explorations goals.
< Yes this is OT, but it mirrors one of the recent arguments on ClassicCmp
< and it could be argued either way because both arguments have validity.
< It comes down to what the individual thinks is 'important'.
True. The consideration is not the indiviual importance of any item but
it's impact on the collective picture. What is significant is the picture
was in some respects a collection of snapshots in time without continuity
or context. There were/are pieces missing from the puzzle and it would
be nice to fill them in. For example; Two of the oldest computing models
Harvard and Von Neuman date back to the first machines yet they influence
machines still. To make the picture complete we also need to know if
there are other models and what they are.
An aside to this is while Intel is currently the apparent successful
leader en masse we still don't know how it will play over time yet to
come. There have been near reversals in the past and it would only take
the next design leap to change the current course. Also the industry is
only 30 years old in a century where we are still developing fundemental
technologies.
My example for that is in the late 70s and early '80s everyone said that
16bit CPUs would wipe the 8bitters away. It sorta did, but not to the
projected extent. There would be a wave of 8bitters like the Kaypro,
ampro, SB180 to name a few in the 84-86 window and later. The 16 bit
machine really didn't reflect enough of an improvement as the next level
needed more. I'd say Apple knew (tripped on) this when they did the jump
from 6502 to 68000 (internally 32bit). It would be 32
bit cpus that would
have the real impact. I expect that while Merced and Alpha are
having an
impact we have yet to see the next significant impactor. While we are
going much faster, the way we compute is still logically similar to some
very old machines.
Allison
11 Oct
11 Oct
10:55 a.m.
New subject: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
< So, is Columbus less important because the
Vikings reached the Americas
< before him? Or is it only important that most of the lasting effects
< descend from Columbus?
Columbus is a superb analogy for this thread! Not that the results
necessarily match, but that MANY related issues are also present.
Columbus is the "canonical" discoverer, in spite of the Vikings, or even
the previously existing "colonists" who had been living there for a LONG
time ever since coming over the Bering straits?
Likewise, the Intel 4004 is the "canonical" first microprocessor, in
spite of other previous units that might or might not meet various
definitions.
since I'm not a student of this general branch of
history I can't comment
. . .
Better put, the vikings were here. Columbus told the world two things,
it's not flat and there are great riches in the east. Somewhere in ther
is the difference in those explorations goals.
Since FEW have ever heard anything about this other than TOTAL BS in school,
it bears looking at some of the distortions. What is taught in school is
even less accurate than would be a history of computers by MS, IBM,
Intel, or Apple. In line with the use of it as an analogy, it is useful
to look at how distorted it has become, and realize that the same thing
happens quite quickly in fields such as ours.
Commerce with the Indies (and the rest of the East) was well established,
but quite costly.
Columbus did NOT tell the world that it wasn't flat. By the time of
Columbus, that was well known and accepted by all educated people. The
only ones who still thought that it was flat are now paying dollars per
minute for telephone psychic readings. Although there were some fears of
dangers, sailing off the edge was NOT taken seriously as a possibility by
anybody with any education.
In fact, it was accepted that you COULD get to the Indies by going west;
it was just too far going that way. Even the diameter and circumference
of the earth had been reasonably accurately computed (showing that the
shortest route to the Indies was still to the east).
But Columbus had an inaccurate, wrong, crackpot theory that the earth was
about one third the size that had been calculated. Thus, he was convinced
that it WOULD be shorter going west. There are a lot of other issues
involved with his funding, etc.
He set off, and lo and behold, encountered land somewhere near to where
the Indies would have been if he had been right about his 1/3 size theory.
BTW, his very first recorded words about the existing inhabitants were:
"a good source for slaves".
An aside to this is while Intel is currently the
apparent successful
leader en masse we still don't know how it will play over time yet to
come. There have been near reversals in the past and it would only take
the next design leap to change the current course. Also the industry is
only 30 years old in a century where we are still developing fundemental
technologies.
Perhaps I'm cynical, ...
But I maintain that what determines the course of the industry is NOT the
quality of the technology, but the marketing. How else do you explain
the successes of IBM, MS, etc.? Surely not due to their superior
quality?!?
impact we have yet to see the next significant
impactor. While we are
going much faster, the way we compute is still logically similar to some
very old machines.
And massive improvements in hardware performance have been necessary just
to compensate for progressively less efficient software.
--
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
2210 Sixth St. (510) 644-9366
Berkeley, CA 94710-2219
11:16 a.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
Perhaps I'm cynical, ...
But I maintain that what determines the course of the industry is NOT the
quality of the technology, but the marketing. How else do you explain
the successes of IBM, MS, etc.? Surely not due to their superior
quality?!?
No, not the "M" word! We just had a "marketing" thread and the term
was
tossed around like it was this magical thing that was responsible for
everything that couldn't be explained by technical merit.
First of all, IBM can hardly be called successful. *In spite* of all the
"marketing" they did, Taiwanese with no marketing at all were able to
completely erode their PC market share.
Microsoft is certainly successful, but do you honestly believe it's due to
their inane marketing? Puuhlease! They own the API, and their platform
has huge momentum due to the number of software titles available for it.
You can't fight that momentum with mere technical superiority, and
certainly not with "marketing."
-- Doug
11:24 a.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
It doesn't explain everything, but you'd be a fool to think marketing is
not responsible for at least 50% of a product's success (and that's being
conservative).
Perhaps I'm cynical, ...
But I maintain that what determines the course of the industry is NOT the
quality of the technology, but the marketing. How else do you explain
the successes of IBM, MS, etc.? Surely not due to their superior
quality?!?
No, not the "M" word! We just had a "marketing" thread and the term
was
tossed around like it was this magical thing that was responsible for
everything that couldn't be explained by technical merit. First of all, IBM can hardly be called successful. *In
spite* of all the
"marketing" they did, Taiwanese with no marketing at all were able to
completely erode their PC market share.
Let me get this straight...you're saying IBM can hardly be called
successful? This must be a typo.
Microsoft is certainly successful, but do you honestly
believe it's due to
their inane marketing? Puuhlease! They own the API, and their platform
has huge momentum due to the number of software titles available for it.
You can't fight that momentum with mere technical superiority, and
certainly not with "marketing."
Sure, take the easy example of Microsoft, which was a fluke. They rode
the coattails of IBM and through sheer luck and determination ended up
where they did today.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
4:33 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
It doesn't explain everything, but you'd be a
fool to think marketing is
not responsible for at least 50% of a product's success (and that's being
conservative).
Then I'm a fool, but you're the one who assigned a quantitative value to
marketing. So, please derive that 50% figure for us, specifically for the
cases given: IBM and Microsoft.
Let me get this straight...you're saying IBM can
hardly be called
successful? This must be a typo.
No typo. IBM went from #1 to drop below the top 10 despite heavy
marketing, i.e. outspending their competitors on marketing. Is that how
this magic marketing works to guarantee success? That must explain why
you're running OS/2 on your MCA-based system today.
Sure, take the easy example of Microsoft, which was a
fluke. They rode
the coattails of IBM and through sheer luck and determination ended up
where they did today.
First, I didn't pick the example of Microsoft. Microsoft and IBM were
held up as examples of success through marketing when this thread started,
remember? Are you using a Microsoft product? I thought so. Now, think
real hard: was Microsoft lucky to get you to use their software? No? Did
you use their software because they were determined? No? Did they
convince you to use their software by playing "Start me up!" real loud?
No?
Marketing. Feh! Here, I'll give you marketing experts an easy one:
Remember when TI brought out the 99/4 and had huge Bill Cosby marketing
blitzes? Was the result:
A) TI dominated the market.
B) Some company named Commodore, famous for non-Marketing, dominated their
market.
C) Dunno, I was trying to decide between Coke and Pepsi.
-- Doug
4:53 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
First, I didn't pick the example of Microsoft.
Microsoft and IBM were
held up as examples of success through marketing when this thread started,
remember? Are you using a Microsoft product? I thought so. Now, think
real hard: was Microsoft lucky to get you to use their software? No? Did
you use their software because they were determined? No? Did they
convince you to use their software by playing "Start me up!" real loud?
No?
Your problem is that you're equating "marketing" to
"advertising".
Advertising is one aspect of marketing. There's more to marketing then
getting ads on TV and in magazines. It includes getting your products out
there, putting them into the hands of potentional customers, creating
incentives to purchase, creating purchasing plans, selling support and
warranties.... Basically everything it takes from enticing a customer
towards your product to keeping that customer on board with you. You can
let the consumers know that you're selling widgets, and people may buy a
widget from you, but if that's as far as your marketing campaign goes then
you will be doomed to failure.
To call IBM a failure is silly posturing, and should be left at that.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
5:28 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
Your problem is that you're equating
"marketing" to "advertising".
I have many problems, but that's not one of them. The kind of marketing
you're talking about matters a whole lot in certain markets, such as
commodities. Marketing is what makes you buy one brand of fruit rather
than another (the whole idea of branding a fruit is pure marketing).
Microsoft spends a lot of money on marketing, but that's not why you buy
their products. You buy their OS because all of the applications you want
run on their OS. They did very little in terms of marketing to make that
happen (they have co-op marketing plans for ISV's, but they're mostly
symbolic).
In fact, I'd bet that you actually find the idea of buying Microsoft
produts rather distasteful, but that you do it anyways. The fact that you
have a bad impression of them shows just how bad their marketing is. As
far as minor things like product placement, etc., Microsoft goes through
the same dull distribution channels as everybody else and does the same
inane promotions as everbody else, but they still have a huge advantage.
Marketing is not a science, and it helps when all else is equal, but it
certainly isn't the magic medicine you seem to think it is that can erase
the effects of second-rate technology, absurd pricing, or illconceived
products!
-- Doug
6:12 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
I have many problems, but that's not one of them.
The kind of marketing
you're talking about matters a whole lot in certain markets, such as
commodities. Marketing is what makes you buy one brand of fruit rather
than another (the whole idea of branding a fruit is pure marketing).
Please explain to me how IBM could have become such a power as they were
if they hadn't marketed their products in the sense that I've described?
They would have been just another also ran. The reason people waited for
the IBM PC to buy their first computer was because they knew IBM would
throw their support operation behind the product. IBM had achieved this
level of credibility through their marketing from the 50s, 60s and 70s.
In fact, the kind of marketing I'm talking about matters MOST in the
computer industry. Because if you can't or won't put an infrastructure of
sales support behind your products, and nobody else does either, then
you're doomed to fail. To survive, you have to promote your products to
other companies by pressing your standards; to users by holding seminars;
to the public by getting your name in circulation. You have to create
campaigns to get people to buy your product by offering discounts, or
evangelizing the benefits of using your products over competitors. Good
products rarely just sell themselves. I can build the greatest widget in
the world but if I don't start telling people about it then it'll sit in
my warehouse collecting dust while I go bankrupt. Obviously you have to
go out and market it for anyone to buy it.
Microsoft spends a lot of money on marketing, but
that's not why you buy
their products. You buy their OS because all of the applications you want
run on their OS. They did very little in terms of marketing to make that
happen (they have co-op marketing plans for ISV's, but they're mostly
symbolic).
In fact, I'd bet that you actually find the idea of buying Microsoft
produts rather distasteful, but that you do it anyways. The fact that you
have a bad impression of them shows just how bad their marketing is. As
No, I have a bad impression of Microsoft because invariably their products
cause me an immense amount of hassle rather than allowing me to be
productive.
far as minor things like product placement, etc.,
Microsoft goes through
the same dull distribution channels as everybody else and does the same
inane promotions as everbody else, but they still have a huge advantage.
Hardly. In the magazines I read (including Inc., Success, Newsweek,
Computer Telephony) Microsoft has all sorts of ads, in numerous places,
promoting their products in the spirit of the content of the magazine (ie.
home office productivity in Success, TAPI in Computer Telephony). I don't
see ANY ads from any of MS' competitors! Microsoft continually gets their
name out their and in your face. They continually remind you that they
are the dominant force and that you should buy their products.
Its quite simple. Name recognition counts for a lot. If you, the
uninformed consumer (which accounts for most of the population) walk into
a store and see on the rack Microsoft Word and Fooblitzky WordPro+, which
one are you going to choose? Naturally the one you've heard of before.
Even if you don't know much about either, you'll choose the one that
you've at least heard mention of before. If you read the print on the
package, you might be convinced to by Fooblitzky's software, but marketing
also extends to what's printed on the box, and you're damn straight MS
continues their marketing campaign onto the print on the box and will have
on the box what it takes to make you buy Word. Its the same tactic
politicians running for office use. Who takes the time to research the
candidates? Not many people. Yet they are hoping that if they get their
named played enough times, they are the one you will choose when you go to
the ballot box to fill in whatever circles are presented to you.
Here's a good example of marketing. BASF has a commercial running that
says "You don't buy any products that BASF makes, but you do buy products
from companies that use BASF products". What the
hell good is running a
commercial like that? Its to promote their name.
Search engines...which one is the best? Who cares. Everyone uses Yahoo!
because they advertise on every medium in existence: TV, radio and print
(for the record, I prefer AltaVista).
Marketing is not a science, and it helps when all else
is equal, but it
certainly isn't the magic medicine you seem to think it is that can erase
the effects of second-rate technology, absurd pricing, or illconceived
products!
If you exaggerate it to the extremes as you have done, no, of course not!
But I think you're still underestimating the value of marketing.
I'll leave it at that.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
6:27 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
Please explain to me how IBM could have become such a
power as they were
if they hadn't marketed their products in the sense that I've described?
They would have been just another also ran. The reason people waited for
the IBM PC to buy their first computer was because they knew IBM would
throw their support operation behind the product. IBM had achieved this
level of credibility through their marketing from the 50s, 60s and 70s.
I'm glad that this brings the thread slightly on-topic, but I'm amazed at
how much you attribute to marketing. If I were a simple marketing droid,
I would be very flattered that you attribute:
* 40 years of corporate stability to marketing
* extensive manufacturing capability to marketing
* cash reserves to sustain development to marketing
* vast R+D resources to marketing
* world-class documentation to marketing
* world-wide customer support to marketing
* a simply immense infrastructure ... to marketing!
Marketing: feh!
-- Doug
8:01 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
I'm glad that this brings the thread slightly
on-topic, but I'm amazed at
how much you attribute to marketing. If I were a simple marketing droid,
I would be very flattered that you attribute:
* 40 years of corporate stability to marketing
* extensive manufacturing capability to marketing
* cash reserves to sustain development to marketing
* vast R+D resources to marketing
* world-class documentation to marketing
* world-wide customer support to marketing
* a simply immense infrastructure ... to marketing!
Do you think they would have any of the above if nobody ever bought any of
their products?
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
8:08 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
Do you think they would have any of the above if
nobody ever bought any of
their products?
Do you think you could come up with a more circular argument? :-)
-- Doug
8:32 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
Sure, call it a "circular argument" because you've backed yourself into a
corner. ;)~
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
Do you think they would have any of the above if
nobody ever bought any of
their products?
Do you think you could come up with a more circular argument? :-) 
8:40 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
It seems to me that most of the disagreements here about marketing can't
be settled until we agree as to what constitutes marketing.
Sam's position seems to be that marketing is defined as anything that
induces customers to buy products.
By this definition, products that are well-marketed are successful, and
products that are poorly marketed fail. As a corollary, products that are
successful were well-marketed, and products that fail were poorly marketed.
This is not a particularly useful definition.
9:36 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On 12 Oct 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
It seems to me that most of the disagreements here
about marketing can't
be settled until we agree as to what constitutes marketing.
You're wrong. We won't be able to agree on anything until we agree upon
what a "microprocessor" is. In fact, the Arabs and the Israelis will
never have peace until the definition of a microprocessor is agreed upon
once and for all (oh yeah, and what "the first" means too).
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
12 Oct
12 Oct
10:23 a.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
Sam wrote:
You're wrong. We won't be able to agree on
anything until we agree upon
what a "microprocessor" is. In fact, the Arabs and the Israelis will
never have peace until the definition of a microprocessor is agreed upon
once and for all (oh yeah, and what "the first" means too).
And Clinton won't be satisfied until we've defined exactly what "is"
is.
But I don't think we need a precise definition of "marketing" for the
discussion of "microprocessors", or vice versa.
11 Oct
11 Oct
8:43 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
[Can't let him get the last word....]
OK, you're right. I concede your point. IBM was built into a
multi-billion dollar international company because of their bookkeepers,
without whom none of the checks would have been deposited into the bank,
none of the employees would have been paid, none of the materials would
have been acquired ... in short, bookkeepers are responsible for 50%
(conservative estimate) of any successful business.
-- Doug
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
Sure, call it a "circular argument" because you've backed yourself into a
corner. ;)~ Do you think they would have any of the above if
nobody ever bought any of
their products?
Do you think you could come up with a more circular argument? :-) 
2:49 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
Doug Yowza wrote:
First of all, IBM can hardly be called successful. *In
spite* of all the
"marketing" they did, Taiwanese with no marketing at all were able to
completely erode their PC market share.
If IBM can hardly be called successful, I would love to hear your definition
of "successful".
"NO MARKETING"???? Not a chance of that being even slightly true. While
the marketing was not done by the Taiwanese per se, it was done by every
dealer selling their systems ... and very successfully. Hmmm, to give you
the benefit of the doubt, maybe we need to hear what your definition of
"marketing" is.
Microsoft is certainly successful, but do you honestly
believe it's due to
their inane marketing?
IBM did "just a little bit" of marketing, and Microsoft was one just one of
the beneficiaries. And of course, luck always plays at least some part in
all of this.
6:36 p.m.
New subject: Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
OK, back to the front I go, to defend Big Blue...
If IBM can hardly be called successful, I would love
to hear your definition
of "successful".
Most people, including the folks at IBM, equate success of a product to
the bottom line. If the product makes money, it is a success. Almost
everything IBM has done with the PC line has made them money. Lots of it.
Sure they have had duds - PC jr., PS/1, OS/2 (kind of) - but every company
has had their share. In fact, if you can name an established computer
company that has not had a dud, I will send you a prize. Look at he
machines that have not been duds for IBM - specifically the PS/2 line. IBM
made a lot of them (I would like to know how many), and sold them to
businesses by the truckloads. With tradional IBM pricing involved, of
course they made money! And all of those machines had to come with MCA
cards (another thing I wish people would stop bashing)...
Do not confuse market share and product success. Just because any company
is not #1, does not mean they ought to close up shop.
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
2 p.m.
New subject: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
< So, is
Columbus less important because the Vikings reached the Americas
< before him? Or is it only important that most of the lasting effects
< descend from Columbus?
Columbus is a superb analogy for this thread! Not that the results
necessarily match, but that MANY related issues are also present.
Columbus is the "canonical" discoverer, in spite of the Vikings, or even
the previously existing "colonists" who had been living there for a LONG
time ever since coming over the Bering straits? Columbus did NOT tell the world that it wasn't
flat. By the time of
Columbus, that was well known and accepted by all educated people. The
only ones who still thought that it was flat are now paying dollars per
minute for telephone psychic readings. Although there were some fears of
dangers, sailing off the edge was NOT taken seriously as a possibility by
anybody with any education.
Looking at it another way, Columbus really did nothing to disprove the
flatness of the Earth. Ultimately, all he did was sail west until he hit
a piece of land that was not the easternmost land that he wanted to hit.
So, he did not prove the world was round (that would have to wait for
Magellan) nor did he fall off the edge. All he really did was find more
land to the west of Europe.
Definately overrated... :-)
<<<John>>>
12 Oct
12 Oct
5:55 p.m.
New subject: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia
John Ruschmeyer wrote:
It's a long way from on-topic for this list, but here's a bit of the
story.
Educated people had known the world was spherical since the Greek
"Golden Age". There were two estimates of the size, one being that
the circumference was about 18,000 miles and the other (more widely
accepted since ancient times and reasonably accurate) 25,000 miles.
Cristobal Colon argued for the earlier value. The arguments against
him were based on the real value, not that the world was flat but that
the added 7,000 miles would be impossible to cross. Colon accidentally
found land closer than he expected -- he and his crews would have
starved even if his distance was right and the Americas did not exist.
It is true that sailors in those days were leery of sailing too far
Columbus did
NOT tell the world that it wasn't flat. By the time of
Columbus, that was well known and accepted by all educated people. The
only ones who still thought that it was flat are now paying dollars per
minute for telephone psychic readings. Although there were some fears of
dangers, sailing off the edge was NOT taken seriously as a possibility by
anybody with any education.
Looking at it another way, Columbus really did nothing to disprove the
flatness of the Earth. Ultimately, all he did was sail west until he hit
a piece of land that was not the easternmost land that he wanted to hit.
So, he did not prove the world was round (that would have to wait for
Magellan) nor did he fall off the edge. All he really did was find more
land to the west of Europe.
Definately overrated... :-) from coast -- because there was no way to determine
longitude until
accurate clocks were developed many years later.
As it is, Colon is reported to have died convinced that what he had
found was Asia.
Then again, even today, people seem to think that Europe and Asia are
separate continents, even with vastly better maps and roads and rails
crossing the border between them in many places.
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked me if I had any
firearms with me. I said "Well, what do you need?" -- Steven Wright
9421
days inactive
9422
days old
19 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
allisonp＠world.std.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
gram＠cnct.com -
jruschme＠exit109.com -
marvin＠rain.org -
william＠ans.net -
yowza＠yowza.com