>>2
I've seen that analogy in use, but the implementation of the "spring" was either limited or nonexistent. I think they just said "in real life, the top plate on the dispenser remains accessible because a spring supports the stack of plates from a suitable height" and then "The computer does not require a spring because, no matter how long its stack grows, the top-most layer is always easily accessible."
>>7
That's because computer stacks have been implemented much more efficiently than plate stacks. They never implemented anything better than O(n) plate stacking algorithms and most enterprise dining facilities tolerate O(n^2).
>>8
Your explanation makes no sense. A "stack" has only one side and that's the side that accepts things and from which things are popped off. It doesn't matter if it's the "top" or "bottom" as long as it is the same side.