Path: [GIANT NON-WRAPPING HEADER LINE REDACTED, OUT OF MERCY] Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom From: Bill Higgins Subject: Rumination on Hearts and Minds Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Lines: 33 NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.108.40.206 X-Complaints-To: firstname.lastname@example.org X-Trace: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net 1143745374 ST000 220.127.116.11 (Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:02:54 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:02:54 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: [GIANT NON-WRAPPING HEADER LINE REDACTED, OUT OF MERCY] Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:02:54 GMT So the Scarecrow is looking for brains. The Tin Woodman is looking for a heart. But the Scarecrow is stuffed full of straw. Why isn't he *also* looking for a heart? He doesn't have a heart does he? Is he merely unconcerned about lacking one? And does the Tin Woodman have a brain? Shouldn't he want a brain as well as a heart? All his parts have been replaced with metal. If he has a brain, it's a metal brain. As I understand it, *The Wonderful Wizard of Oz* appeared in 1900, so I presume the story takes place in that year. A quick Moore's Law calculation shows that the Tin Woodman could not have had much more than thirty billionths of a transistor to his name. Seems to me he needs more brains almost as badly as the Scarecrow does. Perhaps he is not bright enough to realize this. Or his calculation concerning whether he needs brains or not has not yet halted, given the tiny amount of processing power available to him. (I have seen the movie version, but not the book, so maybe this is all explained by Baum.) -- Bill Higgins | "I continue to feel that Fermilab | if you're going to go on being this stupid, Internet: | you should try to be more polite; or alternately, higg...@fnal.gov | if you're going to go on being this rude, | you should try not to say such dumb things." | --T. Nielsen Hayden
Followups from other Usenet correspondents may be found here.
(Is the reference to "a quick Moore's Law calculation" too elliptical?)