Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!p.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies
From: gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Cray Quotations
Message-ID: <76700060@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 26 Dec 88 03:48:00 GMT
References: <8841@sequent.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:sequent.UUCP:8841:p.cs.uiuc.edu:76700060:000:1196
Nf-From: p.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies    Dec 25 21:48:00 1988


>> He believed that Seymour meant that parity is just the first line
>> of defence and that the whole system should be made super reliable.
>> Those who rely soley on parity are "farmers".
>
>Sorry.  "Parity" is a term used in the U.S. regarding government
>price supports for farm goods.  Thus, this is actually a pretty good
>pun.

More on parity: When Jimmy Carter was president, the farmers lobbied
for price supports to achieve "parity", that is, "We should be allowed
to make the same kinds of profits we made in the early 1970's (or
whenever)".  I was under the impression that in the early 70's, the
farmers made more percentage profits than at any other time in the
history of the U.S., and that the argument was selfish/bogus.

That's why I don't understand Seymour's joke.  I thought that "asking
for parity" was an unreasonably selfish request.  It turns out that
"asking for parity" is asking for too little, or at least, asking for
the wrong thing.

If this is all true, then it's not *THAT* great of a pun.

Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801      
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu   UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies