Barry Brown wrote at 06/24/2010 02:54 PM:
My question is: why were there IBM programmers at the match?
They might've been systems engineers. Or system operators.
I would guess that standard operating procedure was that they be there,
ostensibly to make sure the systems work for the big event
Here's a link to a NY Times blog entry about the match in question:
http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/logistics-are-put-to-the-test-at-wimbledon/
One commenter pointed out that 48 in binary is 11. More likely, those
boards may be pretty old and the score is encoded in BCD, so
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
A bit later the sites internet ticker also quit. Same reason. I have
no clue what the number 48 does to computer scientists. I would have
understood 64 perhaps, but the game went even beyond that.
for that kind of fun, i love/hate readin
Quote FAZ:
> Vier Matchbälle hatte Isner in der Partie vergeben, einen bei 10:9, zwei bei
> 33:32 und einen bei 59:58, Mahut wehrte alle ab. Bei 47:47 fiel die
> elektronische Anzeigetafel aus, weil so ein Spielstand nicht vorgesehen ist,
> im Internet war der Score auch nicht mehr zu
4 matches
Mail list logo
