4 ms·
Great! Still a good read though and it certainly conveys sentiment I am sure is shared by many (and perhaps even more so in post-recession 2011) :P
by milestinsley 16y ago
Great! Still a good read though and it certainly conveys sentiment I am sure is shared by many (and perhaps even more so in post-recession 2011) :P
- veb 16y agoI'm confused on what kind of 90+ year old person would use nanoseconds in their vocab... Don't hate on me, I've just never heard anyone (of that age) talk like that.
- nadam 16y agoCan easily happen if the individual is a physiscist. :) Edward Teller wrote this book in his 90+s, and nanosecond is certainly not the most technical word in this book:) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0738207780/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=1278548962&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0674016696&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0SSCGHHJ4P25RH4KKXFR http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0738207780/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp...
- jonhendry 16y agoFreeman Dyson is 87. Nobel Prize winning neuroscientist David Hubel is 84 and still working; I see him around the building where I work. Ray Bradbury is 90, and while he may not be fond of the internet, I expect he's familiar with nanoseconds. Grace Hopper went on the David Letterman show at 79 and showed her example nanosecond - a length of telephone wire that would take a nanosecond for a signal to traverse. She died at 85 in 1992 and would probably still be talking about nanoseconds today if she were still alive and mentally sharp.