🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul23.140436.13451@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>
>As much as I hate to agree with Ron Dippold on anything, his
>speculation is dead-bang right on this one.  I went to college with
>Judith Berck, the author of the piece in the Times, and can vouch for
>her unfamiliarity with anything vaguely resembling hard science.  (For
>the record, she has a new book out on the daily lives of homeless
>children; title is something like _In Their Own Voices_.)
>
>In case anyone cares, David Sanger -- the idiot who keeps writing
>pieces in the Times about computers that have "512,000" bytes of RAM
>-- is also a classmate.  I have no idea what he majored in.
>

I remember firing off a letter to the _Times_ a few years back after they wrote
an article on dot-matrix printers. They said that a 5x7 dot matrix printer
has 35 wires in its printhead. In fact, they even had a diagram of such
a beast.

I told them that, on all the dot printers someone is likely to encounter,
there is just a single vertical row of pins. And I pointed out that the
printhead would move in spurts instead of smoothy across the page if it
had to print the entire character block at once.

The _Times_ replied that sometimes they simplify thing a bit so they
can explain them easier.