> That's an absurd response. I didn't say Rob MUST be wrong now. I said > he COULD be wrong because his understanding is based on currently > available knowledge and technology. Change is constant. I cited an > example of someone drawing firm conclusions about future advances based > only on the technology as it was understood at the time. > I think you implied more that just "could". Also, what you are referring to seems to be a very general remark about the development of technology, whereas Rob is talking about limitations imposed by the laws of physics. That's not the same thing at all. But of course he *could* be wrong. Even the whole concept of quantum mechanics is still just a theory when you get down to it (I mean, who here has ever observed a single photon?) The point is just that the incorrectness of conclusions drawn in a remotely related field in the past, has no influence whatsoever on the validity of conclusions drawn now - and asserting that people have been wrong before adds very little to the discussion. If you were to evaluate and compare the reasoning behind the conclusions, on the other hand, you might get somewhere.
- Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
