Talk:Peter Norton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
I read somewhere that Peter got divorced sometime near 2000... --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I found a link to the artical; Peter Norton Filed for Divorce, 2000. [1] --Flibbertigibbet 17:37, 19 October 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Note to 67.184.219.166 user
Please do not change articles to make paragraphs start with a proper first name: e.g.,
Peter started the company in...
We are not on a first name basis with Peter Norton and writing in that style is unprofessional. Much better, after Peter Norton has been introduced, is to say something like this:
Norton started the company in...
or, more formally,
Mr. Norton started the company in...
Best regards, Dan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmccarty (talk • contribs) 11:40, December 20, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Were Salinger's letters returned?
The final paragraph reads:
- Years ago, Norton resolved a major literary controversy by purchasing letters by reclusive author J.D. Salinger, which were being auctioned by his one-time lover, Joyce Maynard. Norton announced his intention to return the letters to Salinger.
Nearly identical language appears on the J.D. Salinger and Joyce Maynard pages.
The problem is obvious: Were these letters actually returned?
If they were, these articles should say so instead of referring to Norton's "announcement" of his "intention".
If they were not, then the article should say "Norton stated his intent to return them and then did not." After all, his purchase and presumably his promise took place "years ago"... whatever that means. Lawrence King 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is a third possibility here: that Norton announced his intention and then what happened next was not a matter of public record. In fact, one 1999 report states, "...Norton bought the letters with the intention of doing whatever Salinger wanted with them. In keeping with his customary isolation, Salinger has not yet made contact with Norton." [2] Furthermore, "software developer buys Salinger letters with intent to return them" is newsworthy; "software developer who stated intent to return letters returns letters" is not. I wouldn't expect to see any reporting on the final outcome.
- Therefore, if we simply don't have the facts, then the article should say just what it does say. --Darksasami 11:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point -- the question of whether the letters were returned should not be answered if we don't have the answer.
But "Years ago" does not belong in a Wikipedia article, since it is (a) vague and (b) relative to the day the article was written. Do you have an actual date for this? And do you have a date for when Norton made the promise (which might have been at the same time, but isn't specified)? Lawrence King 23:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Psst...watch the edits to the document more closely. :D --Darksasami 08:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my bad! You already added this info to the Norton and Maynard pages. To make up for my inattention, I have added this info to the Salinger page. *grin* Lawrence King 08:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Mole in IBM?
It is interesting that a Liberal Arts Major discovers undocumented features in DOS. Things like how the FAT is put together and how files are erased? It is rumored that Norton had a 'friend' at IBM or some such thing which pointed him in the right direction. Anyone have any reference as to how Norton was able to figure this all out without any assistance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GGP (talk • contribs) 17:08, January 29, 2006 (UTC)
- Reed College is not what most would consider a typical liberal arts college. The math and science programs (well, all programs, really) are exceptionally rigorous. Norton either had a dual major of math and physics or an interdisciplinary degree of both (the alumni directory isn't clear). From the point that the curricula of both departments are rumored not to have changed focus or methods greatly except to incorporate innovations within the fields, combined with knowledge of more recent curricula, I would have to claim Norton's technical achievements were well within the abilities of a Reed graduate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.113.44.193 (talk • contribs) 06:11, February 2, 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Loosened Tie
Somebody once told me that in the photo taken of Peter Norton for each front cover of Norton Utilities, the knot of his tie was slighly higher up than in the previous version, i.e. in the photo on NU v1, he's virtually tie-less and in NU v8 the tie is on properly. Is there any truth in this?? --Jamesedmo 09:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Some time ago the article said that Peter Norton stole ideas from his students. Why is not that in the discussion page?
