ho trovato su uno degli archivi newsgroup di google la risposta di douglas adams sul perchè del 42… ed eccola qua:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Douglas
>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.