Home | Jovica | Anica | Vladimir | Nikola | Tree | Library | Photo

42

Google Hollywood Tribeca Times Square Hollywood Tribeca Times Square


Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams From: mjche...@socs.uts.EDU.AU (Mark J Cherkas) Date: 2 Nov 1993 11:50:35 +1100 Local: Mon, Nov 1 1993 5:50 pm Subject: Why 42 ? I am new to this group so bear with this beginners question: Why is the answer 42 ? Has Douglas Adams ever explained this ?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams From: fvkam...@cs.vu.nl (Kampen van F) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 11:50:41 GMT Local: Tues, Nov 2 1993 4:50 am Subject: Re: Why 42 ? mjche...@socs.uts.EDU.AU (Mark J Cherkas) writes: >I am new to this group so bear with this beginners question: >Why is the answer 42 ? >Has Douglas Adams ever explained this ? NO, HELP, NOT AGAIN THIS NEVER ENDING DISCUSSION!!! PLEASE NO! (Spare you precious bandwith...) In binary it appears to be 101010 (VERY CONSPICUOUS) Als there is some fooling arount with 2b OR (NOT 2b) (possibly with some additional parantheses, I did not bother to check this). (To be or not to be), Sigh, it's very very very complicated. YOU DON"T want to KNOW Greetings Florentijn van Kampen +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Florentijn van Kampen | "O dear", says God, "I hadn't | | fvkam...@cs.vu.nl | thought of that", and promptly | | (...) The World is Music (...)| vanishes in a puff of logic" | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams From: Rob...@c3consult.comm.se (Robert Svebeck) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 08:52:26 GMT Local: Tues, Nov 2 1993 1:52 am Subject: Re: Why 42 ? This is one-of-the-many explenations: Douglas Adams The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy ||||||| ||||| ||| ||||||||||| ||||| || ||| |||||| 7 +5 +3 +11 +5 +2 +3 +6 = 42 !
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams From: ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 07:51:46 GMT Local: Wed, Nov 3 1993 12:51 am Subject: Re: Why 42 ? In Article <2b4asr$...@syzygy.socs.uts.edu.au>, mjche...@socs.uts.EDU.AU (Mark J Cherkas) wrote: >I am new to this group so bear with this beginners question: >Why is the answer 42? >Has Douglas Adams ever explained this? The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story. Best, Douglas Adams London, UK Currently in Santa Fe, NM
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams From: jdsha...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jack Death) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 16:53:42 GMT Local: Tues, Nov 2 1993 9:53 am Subject: Re: Why 42 ? In article ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams) writes: >The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an >ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, >base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, >stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story. Hmmmm... I kinda figured it was something like that, but then again if the REAL answer to life the universe and everything WERE 42, it would be a common number to _guess_ or _pick_, wouldn't it? I think that whether you, Mr. Adams, picked it intentionaly or not, you hit the right answer anyways. (Besides isn't it Fun to see just how many poeple are looking for this number to show up everywhere they go? :) ) C U LAZER, Jeffrey D. Shaffer
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams From: m...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Mike Vermillion) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 18:01:11 GMT Local: Tues, Nov 2 1993 11:01 am Subject: Re: Why 42 ? In article ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams) writes: >The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an >ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, >base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, >stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story. Thank you very, very, very much Mr. Adams. I find it hard to believe that this answer wasn't obvious to everyone from the start. Will the rest of you please stop now? Mike
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams From: jmars...@unix2.tcd.ie (Ken) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 17:08:36 GMT Local: Wed, Nov 3 1993 10:08 am Subject: Do not kill off the "Why 42 ?" >The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an >ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, >base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, >stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story. But, perhaps your subconscious mind was giving you (and then all of us) some wild insight to just what life is really all about ??? Ken. (Not wanting to see a funny thread die and lose all those wierd possible explanations !). ---------------------->e-mail to: jmars...@unix2.tcd.ie<-------------------- You're all clear and my psychometer indicates smooth sailing. - 7-Zark-7 (The Jupiter Moon Menace) ---------------------->e-mail to: jmars...@unix2.tcd.ie<--------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams From: schou...@sp51.csrd.uiuc.edu (Dale Schouten) Date: 03 Nov 1993 17:19:52 GMT Local: Wed, Nov 3 1993 10:19 am Subject: Re: Why 42 ? In article ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams) writes: >The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an >ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, >base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, >stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story. Right, think you know something about it, eh? Surely you're denying your subconscious interconnectedness with tibetan monks possessed of 13 fingers!? Or isn't it true that you originally wrote HHGG in a previous life in 1924? You can't fool us with simple facts! Dale Schouten schou...@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams From: urli...@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs) Date: 3 Nov 1993 15:06:24 +0100 Local: Wed, Nov 3 1993 7:06 am Subject: Re: Why 42 ? In alt.fan.douglas-adams, article , ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams) writes: > The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an > ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, > base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, > stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story. Bull. Or, to quote what a German philosopher once said to Isaac Asimov (it's in his autobiography somewhere), "Just because you wrote it doesn't mean that you know anything at all about it." :-) -- You should emulate your heroes, but don't carry it too far. Especially if they're dead. -- Matthias Urlichs Schleiermacherstra├če 12 90491 N├╝rnberg (Germany)