> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Rowledge [mailto:tim at sumeru.stanford.edu]
> "Withers, Robert" <rwithers at quallaby.com> is claimed by the 
> authorities to have written:
> 
> > Nice try, tim.  It is at least rotationally conservative, 
> but you completely
> > left out the relativistic SU(5) group component to ensure 
> that the Lorenz
> > transformation remains time conservative.  Thus, no Taylor expansion
> > allowed.  We gotta have that - how else would the duct tape 
> work?  I mean it
> > wouldn't be sticky then would it, since you just decided 
> that no covalent
> > bonds can form?  Ee << -Ew!  hell, we wouldn't even be able 
> to think about
> > it, with all our receptors being so non-receptive, as a 
> result.  Thank god
> > for covalent bonds - seeing as how Smalltalk relies on them 
> so heavily.
> Actually..... there's always Van der Walls forces. A non-covalent (I
> think; no doubt somebody can correct me if I'm wrong) 'sticky' force
> that is used to exquisite effect by Geckos for example.

Yes, good point.  :)  Covalent bonding is perhaps not as useful as VdW in
Morphic for example, although the VM does depend on a certain fixed
molecular form, which is reminescent of covalent bonding (object->class->
{superclass, methodDict, format} ).  It would be awefully nice to describe
that molecular form, to the VM, at the meta level.  For instance, a
delegative model may have a different class pointer/structure/lookup
mechanism.  
 
and so it goes. 

Rob