 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/2/2012 17:28, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The same identical, save in electronic form,
> technology is at the center of cell tower systems.
Well, no, not really.
That said, yeah, there's basically a modem in the phone that takes the
digital signal from your internet stack and sends it over analog radio
signals to the cell tower. All the stuff handling roaming and IP address
assignment and all that is handled at the layer below the IP layer, which
the internet doesn't even try to address, which is why you don't see things
like roaming wifi connections.
> Since the networks
> work almost exactly the same though, in terms of digital packets, its
> trivial to translate your "internet" address to a "cell" address, and pass
> the messages to the right locations.
I would phrase it more that IP is designed to be capable of being carried
over pretty much any network, and the various cell protocols are various
types of networks, so it's a straight forward mapping.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-9-2012 22:00, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 15:47, Tim Cook wrote:
>> On 2012-09-02 13:36, Darren New wrote:
>>> We have those. They're called Tablet PCs. They were a commercial
>>> failure, but I love mine. :-)
>>
>> Ditto. Only thing that'd be be better is if it were thinner, and had
>> higher
>> resolution.
>
> No. What would make it better is if the touch screen also served as a
> flat-bed scanner. ;-)
Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
paperless society.
Or do you want to copy data from one machine to the other by stacking
them with facing screens? And why do the words *touch* screen and
flat-*bed* suddenly suggest something else.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:15:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
> paperless society.
Paperless society is a myth, but being able to scan existing documents
could help get closer to paperless, no?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-9-2012 22:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:15:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
>> paperless society.
>
> Paperless society is a myth,
like flat screens won't happen. Oh sorry we do have them now. They were
a myth for a large number of years and then suddenly within a few years
they replaced all CRTs.
> but being able to scan existing documents
> could help get closer to paperless, no?
No. Almost everything I read, and I assume you as well, was digital
before it was painted on a dead tree. In stead of scanning and OCRing
just give me that file.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/3/2012 13:15, andrel wrote:
> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a paperless
> society.
Exactly! I used mine for record keeping while I was traveling. The ability
to slap someone else's piece of paper on it, scan it, and toss the actual
paper would be great.
> Or do you want to copy data from one machine to the other by stacking them
> with facing screens?
If the data is already digitized, I have no need to use baroque methods for
moving the data.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2012-09-03 18:33, Darren New wrote:
> Exactly! I used mine for record keeping while I was traveling. The
> ability to slap someone else's piece of paper on it, scan it, and toss
> the actual paper would be great.
Second only in popularity to the all-in-one printer/shredder, renowned
for removing the hassle of the middle step of needing to handle the
document.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:52:19 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 3-9-2012 22:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:15:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
>>> paperless society.
>>
>> Paperless society is a myth,
>
> like flat screens won't happen. Oh sorry we do have them now. They were
> a myth for a large number of years and then suddenly within a few years
> they replaced all CRTs.
I don't see a paperless society in place. Do you?
I tried to order a transcript of my college grades about a year ago. I
signed the paperwork using my Wacom tablet and e-mailed it back. The
signature was rejected - I had to print out the stupid form, sign it *in
pen*, scan it back into the computer, and e-mail it to them.
Until legal requirements are changed in society so that an electronic
signature is considered legal and binding - *uniformly* - we won't have a
paperless society, and we're no where close to that.
>> but being able to scan existing documents could help get closer to
>> paperless, no?
>
> No. Almost everything I read, and I assume you as well, was digital
> before it was painted on a dead tree. In stead of scanning and OCRing
> just give me that file.
Once upon a time, I had a set of books written by the author Honoré de
Balzac that were printed in the early 20th century. I can assure you
those were not digital before being printed on dead tree.
I also have in my possession copies of the Sherlock Holmes stories and
the works of H. G. Wells, printed before digital writing systems were in
common use. In fact, I've got a fair selection of books that were
printed well before digital systems were in common use in publishing -
and the vast majority (if not all of them) of those books are not
actually considered "rare".
Can you read files in Envoy format? I've got some materials in that
format as well - good luck finding a system that can read them. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-03 23:58, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> Until legal requirements are changed in society so that an electronic
> signature is considered legal and binding - *uniformly* - we won't have a
> paperless society, and we're no where close to that.
>
It's starting to happen. In my neck of the woods, lawyers, engineers
anbd architects have a digital certificate and we can digitally sign
PDFs. This makes sure that our plans or contracts have not been
tampered with after we were finished them.
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:52:19 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>> No. Almost everything I read, and I assume you as well, was digital
>> before it was painted on a dead tree. In stead of scanning and OCRing
>> just give me that file.
>
See above. Getting the original AutoCAD or Word file could allow you to
modify it. In many cases, it might be a Really Bad Idea(tm).
Also, until they make A-sized ipads, reading plans in .PDF format will
not be popular on a construction site or shop floor.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-02 10:09, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> Twitter, on the other hand, baffles me. It's, like, this huge Internet
> phenomenon. Your corporation is /nothing/ unless it's on Twitter. And
> yet... Well, let me put it this way. I once had this conversation with
> my dad:
>
> Dad: So what *is* Twitter then?
> Me: You know how on Facebook you can post your status?
> Dad: Yeah?
> Me: THAT'S ALL TWITTER DOES!!
> Dad: ...WTF?
>
> Not only that, but the few times I've actually been on Twitter, half the
> posts are replies to other people's posts, and there is LITERALLY NO WAY
> to find out what they're replies to. (!) Seriously, the most basic, most
> immediately obvious thing, the very first thing I tried to do, Twitter
> can't do. WTF?
>
I don't know if it's your eye-sight, or you are overlooking an obvious
feature just for the sake of a good rant, but you can "unroll the
conversation" to see exactly what they are replying to. If it's not
there, them the person you are following was not really replying to
anything someone said on Twitter. They might have "replied" to
something the person said on tv or in a newspaper.
Also, the strength of Twitter is not following certain individuals,
although that can be interesting in the case of public figures or
journalists, but following keywords (or hashtags), this way you can see
what everyone has to say about topic X. This come especially handy in
fast moving situations or live events, where no one has a complete
picture of what is going on.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-9-2012 5:58, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:52:19 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 3-9-2012 22:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:15:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
>>>> paperless society.
>>>
>>> Paperless society is a myth,
>>
>> like flat screens won't happen. Oh sorry we do have them now. They were
>> a myth for a large number of years and then suddenly within a few years
>> they replaced all CRTs.
>
> I don't see a paperless society in place. Do you?
partly, I am printing things about once a week or less. I used to print
3-4 documents a day. I do most of my revisions on screen.
> I tried to order a transcript of my college grades about a year ago. I
> signed the paperwork using my Wacom tablet and e-mailed it back. The
> signature was rejected - I had to print out the stupid form, sign it *in
> pen*, scan it back into the computer, and e-mail it to them.
>
> Until legal requirements are changed in society so that an electronic
> signature is considered legal and binding - *uniformly* - we won't have a
> paperless society, and we're no where close to that.
I do know these issues. As a matter of fact I often do receive faxes
with ECG's on the fax in my room. That it happens does not mean that
this scanning of paper versions is the common thing to do. By far most
of my communication is digitally. So I am not paperless, but paper is
only about 25% of my world now and that number is reducing fast.
>>> but being able to scan existing documents could help get closer to
>>> paperless, no?
>>
>> No. Almost everything I read, and I assume you as well, was digital
>> before it was painted on a dead tree. In stead of scanning and OCRing
>> just give me that file.
>
> Once upon a time, I had a set of books written by the author Honoré de
> Balzac that were printed in the early 20th century. I can assure you
> those were not digital before being printed on dead tree.
>
> I also have in my possession copies of the Sherlock Holmes stories and
> the works of H. G. Wells, printed before digital writing systems were in
> common use. In fact, I've got a fair selection of books that were
> printed well before digital systems were in common use in publishing -
> and the vast majority (if not all of them) of those books are not
> actually considered "rare".
I was not talking about what you have, but about what you normally read.
I also have many books printed before digital, just to show my age, but
I don't read them as often as I do read things printed later.
Also I don't see you wanting to scan any of those books. The point of
having these is having these, not the reading. In 5 years time you will
be reading them digitally if you want to read them again.
> Can you read files in Envoy format? I've got some materials in that
> format as well - good luck finding a system that can read them. ;)
But do you also have the dead tree version of those?
Do you want it as it was printed at the time or just the content?
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 18:47:46 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> I don't see a paperless society in place. Do you?
>
> partly, I am printing things about once a week or less. I used to print
> 3-4 documents a day. I do most of my revisions on screen.
Sure, we're getting closer, but I don't think we'll get 100% of the way
there. There's too much dependency on the "old" way of doing things
(financial records, for example, in the US have to be kept for 7 years,
and many of those are paper. Expense reports at my last employer
couldn't be handled without physical receipts being turned in, etc.)
> I do know these issues. As a matter of fact I often do receive faxes
> with ECG's on the fax in my room. That it happens does not mean that
> this scanning of paper versions is the common thing to do. By far most
> of my communication is digitally. So I am not paperless, but paper is
> only about 25% of my world now and that number is reducing fast.
Yes, but *the* world is where it's important. :)
> I was not talking about what you have, but about what you normally read.
> I also have many books printed before digital, just to show my age, but
> I don't read them as often as I do read things printed later.
> Also I don't see you wanting to scan any of those books. The point of
> having these is having these, not the reading. In 5 years time you will
> be reading them digitally if you want to read them again.
Many of them I do have in digital format, yes.
>> Can you read files in Envoy format? I've got some materials in that
>> format as well - good luck finding a system that can read them. ;)
>
> But do you also have the dead tree version of those?
One or two of them, yes.
> Do you want it as it was printed at the time or just the content?
The content is obviously the important thing. But my point wasn't that
we *could* be digital with stuff, but that we're not a paperless society,
and the chance of us getting fully paperless are not that good until
things that legislate hard copy or physical signatures on paper are
done. Given the speed with which the US legislature does anything, I
expect it'll be a couple hundred years before the US has a chance at
being paperless.
But then again, our legislature (at the national level) is somewhat
regressive, maybe if we get more progressives in, we'll get there sooner.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:52:19 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
> > On 3-9-2012 22:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:15:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
> >>> paperless society.
> >>
> >> Paperless society is a myth,
> >
> > like flat screens won't happen. Oh sorry we do have them now. They were
> > a myth for a large number of years and then suddenly within a few years
> > they replaced all CRTs.
>
> I don't see a paperless society in place. Do you?
I see a society hungry for greay meat junk food packed in paper carton.
Most people at workplace print like mad. Doesn't matter that most of them can't
read well let alone correctly interpret text.
As for myself, I've been reading books like I've never read before ever since I
bought a smartphone (soon enough on e-ink reader too). I get my news from the
web, not from newspaper. I don't print documents, I read them on screen (also
much better for the occasional copy-n-paste). I pay most of my bills either
with a credit card, online in the bank or with coins (bus).
Signing perhaps is the only thing that still requires me handling paper in any
significative way.
can't speak for others, but I don't think most of my generation feel otherwise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:20:12 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>> I don't see a paperless society in place. Do you?
>
> I see a society hungry for greay meat junk food packed in paper carton.
Indeed that's true.
> Most people at workplace print like mad. Doesn't matter that most of
> them can't read well let alone correctly interpret text.
LOL, I hear ya there.
> As for myself, I've been reading books like I've never read before ever
> since I bought a smartphone (soon enough on e-ink reader too). I get my
> news from the web, not from newspaper. I don't print documents, I read
> them on screen (also much better for the occasional copy-n-paste). I
> pay most of my bills either with a credit card, online in the bank or
> with coins (bus).
>
> Signing perhaps is the only thing that still requires me handling paper
> in any significative way.
I sometimes will print documents out if I want to look at them in a
format larger than my screen can display - for example, a project I'm
working on right now involves redesigning documentation for a product to
make it more maintainable. I'm using a mindmap to do the organization,
but to see the whole thing, I needed to print it out and assemble it in a
9x9 grid of 8.5x11" sheets.
Which of course is now outdated because I've made changes to the doc.
But I also find that even though I do a lot of authoring electronically,
it's still sometimes easier to mark up a hardcopy.
> can't speak for others, but I don't think most of my generation feel
> otherwise.
I know my stepson tends not to print stuff out - probably doesn't hurt
that he doesn't currently have a printer. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/4/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I sometimes will print documents out if I want to look at them in a
> format larger than my screen can display - for example, a project I'm
> working on right now involves redesigning documentation for a product to
> make it more maintainable. I'm using a mindmap to do the organization,
> but to see the whole thing, I needed to print it out and assemble it in a
> 9x9 grid of 8.5x11" sheets.
>
And, unless you have like two screens, and/or some way to port the thing
down to an eReader, or something, sometimes its just a major pain in the
ass to flip between a web page, or help file, or some other document,
and the application you are reading it, to try to understand. Few times
I really wish I had gotten a Kindle Fire, for that reason, except that I
would still have the problem of, "Some front ports on your machine will
shut down, if only charging a device." I mean, what idiot came up with
that idea for a USB hub?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/09/2012 05:47 PM, andrel wrote:
> I do know these issues. As a matter of fact I often do receive faxes
> with ECG's on the fax in my room.
Fun memory: Visiting the doctor, who pulled up the scanned copy of my
ECG, and then sat there looking at his computer screen with his head
sizeways. (Seriously? There isn't a button to rotate the scanned image?)
Whatever. He seemed to think there's nothing wrong with my heart. (He
also told me that "your blood prezzure is egzelent".)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/3/2012 1:07 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 17:28, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The same identical, save in electronic form,
>> technology is at the center of cell tower systems.
>
> Well, no, not really.
>
Odd then that, a few years back, she was recognized, finally, for having
invented the idea, and it was attributed as one of the key features that
make cell phone networks possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr
"Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea serves as a basis for
modern spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth,
COFDM used in Wi-Fi network connections, and CDMA used in some cordless
and wireless telephones."
So, OK, you may be generally correct, in that a lot of modern phones
don't use CDMA any more. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Not only that, but the few times I've actually been on Twitter, half the
>> posts are replies to other people's posts, and there is LITERALLY NO WAY
>> to find out what they're replies to. (!) Seriously, the most basic, most
>> immediately obvious thing, the very first thing I tried to do, Twitter
>> can't do. WTF?
>
> I don't know if it's your eye-sight, or you are overlooking an obvious
> feature just for the sake of a good rant, but you can "unroll the
> conversation" to see exactly what they are replying to. If it's not
> there, them the person you are following was not really replying to
> anything someone said on Twitter. They might have "replied" to something
> the person said on tv or in a newspaper.
>
> Also, the strength of Twitter is not following certain individuals,
> although that can be interesting in the case of public figures or
> journalists, but following keywords (or hashtags), this way you can see
> what everyone has to say about topic X. This come especially handy in
> fast moving situations or live events, where no one has a complete
> picture of what is going on.
I looked at the Twitter pages for the cast of QC. Every single post was
a reply to something one of the other cast members had said. (Then
again, they're all fictional characters, so...) Literally, an entire
page of half-conversations. Mostly between multiple unpeople.
I just went back to look, and holy hell, they've added a button to
follow whole conversations. Not why the heck didn't it have that 2 years
ago?? It's the single most obvious thing you would want! It's the second
thing you'd implement, right after the ability to create an account and
post stuff.
Now, if the real reason for using Twitter is to follow stuff that's
happening in real life, then yes, I guess to me the system would be
completely useless. I can't think of anything that happens in real life
that I would actually give a damn about...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > I sometimes will print documents out if I want to look at them in a
> > format larger than my screen can display - for example, a project I'm
> > working on right now involves redesigning documentation for a product to
> > make it more maintainable. I'm using a mindmap to do the organization,
> > but to see the whole thing, I needed to print it out and assemble it in a
> > 9x9 grid of 8.5x11" sheets.
> >
> And, unless you have like two screens, and/or some way to port the thing
> down to an eReader, or something, sometimes its just a major pain in the
> ass to flip between a web page, or help file, or some other document,
> and the application you are reading it, to try to understand.
how is that different from having several printed documents scattered over each
other on your desk, hmm? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And, unless you have like two screens, and/or some way to port the thing
>> down to an eReader, or something, sometimes its just a major pain in the
>> ass to flip between a web page, or help file, or some other document,
>> and the application you are reading it, to try to understand.
>
> how is that different from having several printed documents scattered over each
> other on your desk, hmm? ;)
You don't have to file the stuff away afterwards. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-9-2012 20:41, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 05:47 PM, andrel wrote:
>> I do know these issues. As a matter of fact I often do receive faxes
>> with ECG's on the fax in my room.
>
> Fun memory: Visiting the doctor, who pulled up the scanned copy of my
> ECG, and then sat there looking at his computer screen with his head
> sizeways. (Seriously? There isn't a button to rotate the scanned image?)
I knew a doctor who would read ECG's upside down. If anyone dared say
something about that he would reply that he would not be distracted by
his expectations of what an ECG of a normal person should look like.
> Whatever. He seemed to think there's nothing wrong with my heart. (He
> also told me that "your blood prezzure is egzelent".)
If he can see that from you ECG he should be practising alternative
medicine.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 11:38:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And, unless you have like two screens, and/or some way to port the thing
> down to an eReader, or something, sometimes its just a major pain in the
> ass to flip between a web page, or help file, or some other document,
> and the application you are reading it, to try to understand.
Yup. I have 3 or 4 screens typically available to me at home (one laptop
in need of repair), and it still isn't enough real estate. And I have a
10" screen with a projector in the next room, and sometimes that's not
enough either - though that room isn't really set up to work in, so I
don't use it for that that often.
Maybe I should try that, though, with this mindmap. It's getting pretty
big.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 14:51:22 -0400, nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> > I sometimes will print documents out if I want to look at them in a
>> > format larger than my screen can display - for example, a project I'm
>> > working on right now involves redesigning documentation for a product
>> > to make it more maintainable. I'm using a mindmap to do the
>> > organization, but to see the whole thing, I needed to print it out
>> > and assemble it in a 9x9 grid of 8.5x11" sheets.
>> >
>> And, unless you have like two screens, and/or some way to port the
>> thing down to an eReader, or something, sometimes its just a major pain
>> in the ass to flip between a web page, or help file, or some other
>> document, and the application you are reading it, to try to understand.
>
> how is that different from having several printed documents scattered
> over each other on your desk, hmm? ;)
Paper is cheaper than an LCD display.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/4/2012 11:51 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I sometimes will print documents out if I want to look at them in a
>>> format larger than my screen can display - for example, a project I'm
>>> working on right now involves redesigning documentation for a product to
>>> make it more maintainable. I'm using a mindmap to do the organization,
>>> but to see the whole thing, I needed to print it out and assemble it in a
>>> 9x9 grid of 8.5x11" sheets.
>>>
>> And, unless you have like two screens, and/or some way to port the thing
>> down to an eReader, or something, sometimes its just a major pain in the
>> ass to flip between a web page, or help file, or some other document,
>> and the application you are reading it, to try to understand.
>
> how is that different from having several printed documents scattered over each
> other on your desk, hmm? ;)
>
Uh.. The fact that you can have them scattered, instead of all stacked
on top of each other? lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Whatever. He seemed to think there's nothing wrong with my heart. (He
>> also told me that "your blood prezzure is egzelent".)
>
> If he can see that from you ECG he should be practising alternative
> medicine.
Heh, no. He took my blood pressure (and had a listen to my heart) long
before he ordered the ECG.
It still troubles me that here in the 21st century, the only way to
actually measure a person's blood pressure is [still] to crush their arm
until no blood reaches it, and measure how much force it takes to do
that. o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My dad taught me to program in C64 BASIC. Or rather, he dictated a
> program to me, and I'm just the one who typed it in. Later I sat down
> and read the C64 manual from cover to cover. (No mean feat for a kid who
> was nearly illiterate.)
Hehe, I still remember the first program my dad showed me how to type
in. It was in BBC BASIC and changed the screen mode to a graphics mode
then drew two lines in the shape of a big "T" on the screen. The rest I
learned myself by looking at other programs. There was no "draw circle"
command so I copied a function from another program that did circles.
For years I only knew sin and cos as those funny functions you use to
draw a circle.
> We didn't have computers at school. (They /were/ a relatively new
> commercial product, after all.) When they eventually got some, it fell
> to the school's Religious Education teacher (no, seriously) to "teach us
> about computers".
We were a little ahead at my school, we had a specific IT teacher who
seemed to mostly know his stuff - he often taught people a lesson for
not logging out by moving all their files somewhere else when they
weren't looking, most famously to the head of english :-). I got in
trouble though when I figured out on the Acorn login window after you
clicked OK it simply wrote a null character to the first letter of your
password, the rest was still stored in memory, even after you logged
out! After the IT teacher had logged out I found the location and read
the bytes... "<NULL>OSSMAN". Nice... Apparently he used the same
password for lots of accounts so had to change them all :-)
> By this point, I had already moved on from BASIC to Pascal, using both
> Borland's TurboPascal 5.5 for MS-DOS, and on my Amiga Hi-Speed Pascal
> (who's libraries are nearly identical to TurboPascal, despite the rather
> different hardware). So say I knew more than the teacher did would be an
> understatement.
I moved on from BASIC to ARM assembler (which is infinitely easier than
x86 assembler), it was only once I got a PC that I got a free copy of
Borland C++ Builder on a coverdisc. Again I pretty much taught myself
C++ from reading the samples that came on the disc, and maybe I borrowed
a book or two once from the library.
> (I still recall an incident where I said you shouldn't unplug the
> printer from one machine and into another while both the printer and the
> computers were switched on because it might cause electrical damage. The
> teacher told me that the manual warned you not to unplug the printer
> while the PC is turned on because it might cause physical damage to the
> socket, which is why we always unpluged it from the printer end instead.
> WTF?)
Oh we had plenty of teachers who didn't even know there was an on/off
switch at the back of the machine. This was probably the first time in
history where teachers suddenly get a load of kids who know more than
them about something they are trying to teach!
> These days, I don't feel so smug. In fact, I'm almost beginning to feel
> that the next generation is overtaking *me*. o_O
> What, in the name of God, is an "app"?
>
> Once upon a time, you had the "operating system", which runs the
> machine, and then you had various "application programs" or just
> "applications", which address real-world problem domains.
You answered your own question, app is short for application, it's come
to be associated with small cheap applications that you download for
mobile devices though.
> Suppose, for example, that you are somehow so stupendously rich that you
> can not only afford to /buy/ an iPhone but also to pay the bills for it.
You don't need to be rich to afford £40 a month, and that will cover the
phone and pretty much all your calls and data. There are cheaper
alternatives from competitors like Samsung running Android from as low
as £10-£15 per month if you're happy with a lower allowance on calls and
data (eg for just checking email and occasional browsing).
> Through mechanisms which I do not really understand at all [Jesus Christ
> I feel old!], it is apparently somehow possible to access the Internet
> with such a device. (Presumably that's part of why it's so damned
> expensive - along with the obvious fact that it's extremely shiny.)
Ummm, haven't most phones allowed you to do that for some time now?
> Since we're here, I might as well ask: the iPad. Sure, I mean, I know
> what it /is/, but... why? What is it /for/? Can anyone articulate a
> coherent explanation?
If you use a phone a lot to read email and browse the internet then
you'd probably appreciate the larger screen. The people I know who have
them are either female or have a female to carry them around for them
(females generally tend to carry around a bag large enough to fit one
in). Or if you're used to using a laptop, an iPad is going to be smaller
and lighter (and boot up much quicker).
Also once you've got used to using multi-touch it's painful to go back
to a mouse (for things like scrolling and zooming). I still prefer a
keyboard for typing lots of text, but for web addresses and short emails
the iPad keyboard is fast enough.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2012 11:06 AM, scott wrote:
>> My dad taught me to program in C64 BASIC. Or rather, he dictated a
>> program to me, and I'm just the one who typed it in. Later I sat down
>> and read the C64 manual from cover to cover. (No mean feat for a kid who
>> was nearly illiterate.)
>
> Hehe, I still remember the first program my dad showed me how to type
> in. It was in BBC BASIC and changed the screen mode to a graphics mode
> then drew two lines in the shape of a big "T" on the screen. The rest I
> learned myself by looking at other programs. There was no "draw circle"
> command so I copied a function from another program that did circles.
> For years I only knew sin and cos as those funny functions you use to
> draw a circle.
I first learned to program with the Commodore Plus 4 (for whatever
reason, not nearly as famous as the Commodore 64), and also the Sinclair
ZX Spectrum. Both have graphics commands in BASIC.
The C64, on the other hand, has no such features. Turning on graphics
mode requires an elaborate series of POKE commands. And then doing any
actual graphics requires even more complicated maths. And that's just to
turn pixels on or off. I never got as far as drawing any lines.
Now, the Sam Coupe (which you will presumably never have heard of) was a
sensational machine. It had a special ZX Spectrum compatibility mode,
but it also had internal 3 1/4" floppy drives, built-in MIDI ports,
128-colour graphics (!!!), digital audio playback (!!), and a huge user
manual which was a nearly complete tutorial to writing programs in
BASIC, as well as a comprehensive reference for every command in the
language. And this BASIC dialect had commands for such exotic feats as
"draw a line from A to B, turning through C degrees". Really, really
comprehensive.
>> We didn't have computers at school. (They /were/ a relatively new
>> commercial product, after all.) When they eventually got some, it fell
>> to the school's Religious Education teacher (no, seriously) to "teach us
>> about computers".
>
> We were a little ahead at my school, we had a specific IT teacher who
> seemed to mostly know his stuff - he often taught people a lesson for
> not logging out by moving all their files somewhere else when they
> weren't looking, most famously to the head of english :-). I got in
> trouble though when I figured out on the Acorn login window after you
> clicked OK it simply wrote a null character to the first letter of your
> password, the rest was still stored in memory, even after you logged
> out! After the IT teacher had logged out I found the location and read
> the bytes... "<NULL>OSSMAN". Nice... Apparently he used the same
> password for lots of accounts so had to change them all :-)
...and yet, it was YOU that got in trouble, not him. ;-)
>> By this point, I had already moved on from BASIC to Pascal, using both
>> Borland's TurboPascal 5.5 for MS-DOS, and on my Amiga Hi-Speed Pascal
>> (who's libraries are nearly identical to TurboPascal, despite the rather
>> different hardware). So say I knew more than the teacher did would be an
>> understatement.
>
> I moved on from BASIC to ARM assembler (which is infinitely easier than
> x86 assembler),
I moved on from C64 BASIC to C64 assembler - or rather, machine code. I
couldn't afford an actual assembler program. So I used to do it old
skool - you know, with pencil and paper and a giant opcode table. To
this day, I still know, from memory, that RTS [return from subroutine]
is opcode 96 decimal. Decimal because, to run it, you had to write one
of those programs. You know the ones...
10 FOR X = 1 TO 8
20 READ D
30 POKE (43252+X), D
40 NEXT X
50 :
60 DATA 46, 234, 64, 123...
And of course, in BASIC, you can only write numbers in decimal. :-P
Now the Acorn (or was it the Archimedes?) let you write assembler
statements in-line, in the middle of your BASIC program. And it had a
machine code debugger. Damn, that was nice...
> it was only once I got a PC that I got a free copy of
> Borland C++ Builder on a coverdisc.
I knew a guy, and he got me an illegal copy of TurboPascal from work. I
think I may still have those illegal disks somewhere... all 12 of them.
> Again I pretty much taught myself
> C++ from reading the samples that came on the disc, and maybe I borrowed
> a book or two once from the library.
I had a book from the OU which describes "UCSD Pascal". Complete with
notes about p-code and so forth. (It also compares Pascal to FORTRAN and
COBOL, because those are the only other high-level languages, aren't they?)
All the time I was using BASIC, I kept reading scattered references to
these "more powerful" languages like COBOL, FORTRAN, Pascal and C. But I
couldn't imagine what "more powerful" would actually look like. Then I
read about Pascal, and it was instantly obvious what a massive, massive
increase in power if offered. I had to wait years to actually try it out
though. Heh.
> Oh we had plenty of teachers who didn't even know there was an on/off
> switch at the back of the machine. This was probably the first time in
> history where teachers suddenly get a load of kids who know more than
> them about something they are trying to teach!
Yeah... I still remember going to college and finding that our Pascal
tutor only found out two weeks ago that he was taking Pascal. So he's
teaching us what he's managed to learn from a book in two weeks. And I'm
like "WTF? Why am I paying for this when I could just read the book
myself?" I mean, college isn't exactly cheap... Where is the quality?
>> What, in the name of God, is an "app"?
>
> You answered your own question, app is short for application, it's come
> to be associated with small cheap applications that you download for
> mobile devices though.
Sure, I get where the name comes from. I don't get what the point is.
>> Suppose, for example, that you are somehow so stupendously rich that you
>> can not only afford to /buy/ an iPhone but also to pay the bills for it.
>
> You don't need to be rich to afford £40 a month, and that will cover the
> phone and pretty much all your calls and data. There are cheaper
> alternatives from competitors like Samsung running Android from as low
> as £10-£15 per month if you're happy with a lower allowance on calls and
> data (eg for just checking email and occasional browsing).
I spend about £20/year on my phone. Then again, I don't have any
friends, so I guess that answers that one.
>> Through mechanisms which I do not really understand at all [Jesus Christ
>> I feel old!], it is apparently somehow possible to access the Internet
>> with such a device. (Presumably that's part of why it's so damned
>> expensive - along with the obvious fact that it's extremely shiny.)
>
> Ummm, haven't most phones allowed you to do that for some time now?
How would I know?
(You will note, of course, that I am *always* sitting in front of a
real, live computer. Why would I need a *phone* to access the Internet?)
>> Since we're here, I might as well ask: the iPad. Sure, I mean, I know
>> what it /is/, but... why? What is it /for/? Can anyone articulate a
>> coherent explanation?
>
> If you use a phone a lot to read email and browse the internet then
> you'd probably appreciate the larger screen.
It's still news to me that you /can/ use a phone to read email or browse
the net, but OK. I can see how a bigger screen would be beneficial. (I
can't even imagine how the **** you would look at a web page on a screen
that's less than an inch across...)
> The people I know who have
> them are either female or have a female to carry them around for them
LOL! You make them sound like slaves or something... Oh, wait.
> Or if you're used to using a laptop, an iPad is going to be smaller
> and lighter (and boot up much quicker).
On the other hand, you can't run any software on it. You can just browse
the Internet.
> Also once you've got used to using multi-touch it's painful to go back
> to a mouse (for things like scrolling and zooming). I still prefer a
> keyboard for typing lots of text, but for web addresses and short emails
> the iPad keyboard is fast enough.
I certainly see how having a larger control surface would make
interaction much easier. Laptop glide-pads are usually tiny, which makes
it really awkward to navigate a huge screen...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I moved on from C64 BASIC to C64 assembler - or rather, machine code. I
> couldn't afford an actual assembler program. So I used to do it old
> skool - you know, with pencil and paper and a giant opcode table.
Ouch. Good job the instructions were only 8 bit then...
> Now the Acorn (or was it the Archimedes?) let you write assembler
> statements in-line, in the middle of your BASIC program. And it had a
> machine code debugger. Damn, that was nice...
Yes that's what I learnt on, but I don't remember using any debugger.
Best I had was an error handler I wrote that caught any exceptions and
then printed out the disassembly of the 10 or so instructions either
side of the exception.
> All the time I was using BASIC, I kept reading scattered references to
> these "more powerful" languages like COBOL, FORTRAN, Pascal and C.
Oh I never heard of anything like that until there was a short series of
articles in my Acorn magazine about programming in C. But then the C
compiler was useless on the Acorn, it required more RAM than 99.9% of
Acorns had at that time so you needed to use it with some buggy virtual
memory program that was very slow.
> But I
> couldn't imagine what "more powerful" would actually look like. Then I
> read about Pascal, and it was instantly obvious what a massive, massive
> increase in power if offered. I had to wait years to actually try it out
> though. Heh.
I spent several years hacking around with C++ and Glide (the API for
3Dfx cards), then DirectX. But I got really frustrated in that to do
anything useful (ie windows, graphics, sound, network/database stuff)
you needed to find libraries and because I'm not a professional
programmer I always had problems getting them to work, or the
documentation sucked.
I briefly used MS's managed C++ for a bit, but quickly moved onto C# and
have been using that now for the last few years. It suits my needs
perfectly, and even if I don't do any coding for several months I can
get back into it pretty much instantly.
> Sure, I get where the name comes from. I don't get what the point is.
Surely you get the point in general, you mean you don't get the point of
why installing an application on a phone or tablet might be useful? Most
of the apps I have installed on mine are games, a few are just
displaying data available on the web in a more convenient format (like
share prices, adsense earnings, weather). All of them are free apps.
> How would I know?
You must have seen other people with phones, or at least heard of what a
blackberry is? Or seen adverts from Samsapple about their products?
> (You will note, of course, that I am *always* sitting in front of a
> real, live computer. Why would I need a *phone* to access the Internet?)
Lots of people do other things though away from a computer, and having a
phone allows you to read email within 1 second or look up something on
google within 10 seconds without having to walk away and boot up a PC
(if there is even one nearby).
> It's still news to me that you /can/ use a phone to read email or browse
> the net, but OK.
Most devices have wifi too now, so as long as your friends/family are
happy to give you their key you can use that too, and there are plenty
of public places that offer free wifi.
> I can see how a bigger screen would be beneficial. (I
> can't even imagine how the **** you would look at a web page on a screen
> that's less than an inch across...)
My phone's 800x480 I think (and about 4 inches across), and I spent many
years staring at a 640x480 screen, so it does nicely :-) Also most web
pages recognise you're on a mobile device and give a different layout to
the desktop version. People have thought about this.
> On the other hand, you can't run any software on it. You can just browse
> the Internet.
Err no, you can install software, in fact I suspect that is where they
make a lot of money from. On my Android phone I even downloaded the
development stuff (for free) and made a simple program in Java, it took
an afternoon or something to get setup (and I don't even know Java!) and
works very easily - you have it hooked up via USB, and when you hit
"run" in the IDE within 2 seconds it's compiled and running on your phone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-04 14:51, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>
> Now, if the real reason for using Twitter is to follow stuff that's
> happening in real life, then yes, I guess to me the system would be
> completely useless. I can't think of anything that happens in real life
> that I would actually give a damn about...
Yeah, I fogrot that you live in a bubble completely isolated from the
outside world, but even then, one day maybe you'll be caught in an event
(massive car pile up on the highway after two picometers of snow, bus
blown up by Mozambican terrorists, or something like that)
For example, our province's new premier was almost assassinated last
night while giving her victory speech. There were lots of people in
that theater who wanted to know what the heck was going on. Following
the police's and tv stations' Twitter feed was all they had. Likewise,
the tv stations were following the twitter feeds of the people in the
theater to get as many details as they could.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-05 07:03, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 05/09/2012 11:06 AM, scott wrote:
>> You answered your own question, app is short for application, it's come
>> to be associated with small cheap applications that you download for
>> mobile devices though.
>
> Sure, I get where the name comes from. I don't get what the point is.
>
followed by:
>> Or if you're used to using a laptop, an iPad is going to be smaller
>> and lighter (and boot up much quicker).
>
> On the other hand, you can't run any software on it. You can just browse
> the Internet.
>
Reread those two snippets together a few times. It will eventually sink in.
"Apps" are the software that you run on iThings.
For example, the Wolfram Alpha app that you mentioned earlier. There
are also word processors, spreadsheets, presentation packages, etc...
with varying degrees of compatibility with Ms-Office. Picture
manipulation apps. Movie-making apps, inventory management tools,
games, etc...
Who said the only thing you could do on a tablet was surf the net?
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now, if the real reason for using Twitter is to follow stuff that's
>> happening in real life, then yes, I guess to me the system would be
>> completely useless. I can't think of anything that happens in real life
>> that I would actually give a damn about...
>
> Yeah, I fogrot that you live in a bubble completely isolated from the
> outside world
It's more that politics and commerce do not interest me.
> For example, our province's new premier was almost assassinated last
> night while giving her victory speech. There were lots of people in that
> theater who wanted to know what the heck was going on. Following the
> police's and tv stations' Twitter feed was all they had. Likewise, the
> tv stations were following the twitter feeds of the people in the
> theater to get as many details as they could.
Damn. And here I was thinking that's what people watch the news and read
newspapers for...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I moved on from C64 BASIC to C64 assembler - or rather, machine code. I
>> couldn't afford an actual assembler program. So I used to do it old
>> skool - you know, with pencil and paper and a giant opcode table.
>
> Ouch. Good job the instructions were only 8 bit then...
Oh, it's not /that/ bad. The 6502 only has a few dozen instructions,
each with a handful of addressing modes. Sure, that makes hundreds of
possible opcodes, but you hardly ever use most of them.
I did attempt to /write/ an assembler. Or at least, a BASIC program with
the entire opcode list contained in DATA statements. But long before I
finished the data entry part, the program was already taking /way/ too
long to do a linear search for the right opcode. If only I knew back
them about hash tables and binary search trees. ;-)
>> All the time I was using BASIC, I kept reading scattered references to
>> these "more powerful" languages like COBOL, FORTRAN, Pascal and C.
>
> Oh I never heard of anything like that until there was a short series of
> articles in my Acorn magazine about programming in C. But then the C
> compiler was useless on the Acorn, it required more RAM than 99.9% of
> Acorns had at that time so you needed to use it with some buggy virtual
> memory program that was very slow.
I'm guessing you're talking about a slightly different time frame.
Alternatively, maybe you just read different literature than I did.
(I still have a kids' science book which proudly proclaims that the most
powerful computer ever to exist is the Cray II. It broke the 1 gigaFLOPS
barrier. Aaaand then my current GPU produces about 480 gigaFLOPS, so....)
>> But I
>> couldn't imagine what "more powerful" would actually look like. Then I
>> read about Pascal, and it was instantly obvious what a massive, massive
>> increase in power if offered. I had to wait years to actually try it out
>> though. Heh.
>
> I spent several years hacking around with C++ and Glide (the API for
> 3Dfx cards), then DirectX. But I got really frustrated in that to do
> anything useful (ie windows, graphics, sound, network/database stuff)
> you needed to find libraries and because I'm not a professional
> programmer I always had problems getting them to work, or the
> documentation sucked.
>
> I briefly used MS's managed C++ for a bit, but quickly moved onto C# and
> have been using that now for the last few years. It suits my needs
> perfectly, and even if I don't do any coding for several months I can
> get back into it pretty much instantly.
I did Pascal for years. We "learned" Pascal at college. And C. (I still
remember reading an introductory C book and thinking "eew, yuck!")
Between college and uni I learned Java (and object-oriented
programming.) At uni we did Smalltalk [which I've never heard of before
or since], and then Java. At Graham's suggestion, I learned Eiffel. And
since then, I've learned PostScript, Tcl, I've at least looked at Lisp
and Prolog, and then of course I learned Haskell and never looked back.
[I wonder exactly when I learned Haskell... I honestly can't remember.
One day I found a TeX document I wrote about Haskell, and it was dated 5
years ago, and I was like OMG! Really?? I still thought I'd only been
using it a few weeks...]
>> Sure, I get where the name comes from. I don't get what the point is.
>
> Surely you get the point in general, you mean you don't get the point of
> why installing an application on a phone or tablet might be useful?
I don't get why you would install an app which just displays the
contents of a specific web page. I mean, isn't that what a web browser
already does??
Then again, mobile isn't the only platform with "apps". You get spades
of them on Facebook. I keep getting notifications that this app or that
app wants to access my stuff. (Obviously, I click the "go **** yourself"
button.)
>> How would I know?
>
> You must have seen other people with phones, or at least heard of what a
> blackberry is? Or seen adverts from Samsapple about their products?
I know that other people /have/ phones. I wouldn't know what their
actual capabilities are though. I don't often interact with other humans
in person.
Come to think of it, I did have to set up a Blackberry once. It had the
most horrid controls. A track ball that you click by pressing on it (in
other words, as soon as you try to click a button, the cursor moves
away). The keys were so tiny even my skinny fingers couldn't operate
them. And trying to type in a 20-letter string of gibberish when it
keeps trying to correct the spelling just isn't fun... It never did work
in the end.
>> (You will note, of course, that I am *always* sitting in front of a
>> real, live computer. Why would I need a *phone* to access the Internet?)
>
> Lots of people do other things though away from a computer, and having a
> phone allows you to read email within 1 second or look up something on
> google within 10 seconds without having to walk away and boot up a PC
> (if there is even one nearby).
Sure. I'm saying this would not be useful /to me/. Not everyone is like
me though.
>> I can see how a bigger screen would be beneficial. (I
>> can't even imagine how the **** you would look at a web page on a screen
>> that's less than an inch across...)
>
> My phone's 800x480 I think (and about 4 inches across), and I spent many
> years staring at a 640x480 screen, so it does nicely :-)
It's like you can get those portable DVD players, which invariably have
a 4-inch screen. Somehow, watching a picture that's so tiny you can
barely make out the actors' faces just doesn't seem as enjoyable as
watching it on a huge 40-inch display... But maybe that's just me. After
all, they sell these stupid things for many hundreds of pounds, so
*somebody* must be buying them...
> Also most web
> pages recognise you're on a mobile device and give a different layout to
> the desktop version.
That sounds /highly/ unlikely...
> People have thought about this.
OK, that sounds almost completely impossible! :-P
>> On the other hand, you can't run any software on it. You can just browse
>> the Internet.
>
> Err no, you can install software, in fact I suspect that is where they
> make a lot of money from. On my Android phone I even downloaded the
> development stuff (for free) and made a simple program in Java, it took
> an afternoon or something to get setup (and I don't even know Java!) and
> works very easily - you have it hooked up via USB, and when you hit
> "run" in the IDE within 2 seconds it's compiled and running on your phone.
It's not minimal CPU power, no input devices other than a touch screen,
and a fairly small display. What useful software could you possibly run?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2012 02:57 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> "Apps" are the software that you run on iThings.
>
> For example, the Wolfram Alpha app that you mentioned earlier.
...the Wolfram Alpha app I mentioned as an example of utter pointlessness?
> There are
> also word processors, spreadsheets, presentation packages, etc...
How can you operate a word processor or a spreadsheet without a keyboard?
> Who said the only thing you could do on a tablet was surf the net?
I didn't say tablet, I said iPad.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't get why you would install an app which just displays the
> contents of a specific web page. I mean, isn't that what a web browser
> already does??
Some apps are like that (essentially just shortcuts to web pages,
perhaps with auto login and remembering certain settings etc.) which
isn't a problem, so long as they are free. Other apps do more useful
stuff though that isn't possible through a web page.
> It's like you can get those portable DVD players, which invariably have
> a 4-inch screen. Somehow, watching a picture that's so tiny you can
> barely make out the actors' faces just doesn't seem as enjoyable as
> watching it on a huge 40-inch display...
Hold your phone closer to your eyes then, Nokia have a full-HD
(1920x1080) phone in the pipeline/announced, so quality should be fine
for making out actors faces :-)
>> Also most web
>> pages recognise you're on a mobile device and give a different layout to
>> the desktop version.
>
> That sounds /highly/ unlikely...
But true, and some even prompt you to ask if you want to download their
mobile app (eg if you visit facebook).
> It's not minimal CPU power, no input devices other than a touch screen,
> and a fairly small display. What useful software could you possibly run?
Depends what you're interested in. Browse the google play store for ideas.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-9-2012 9:10, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Whatever. He seemed to think there's nothing wrong with my heart. (He
>>> also told me that "your blood prezzure is egzelent".)
>>
>> If he can see that from you ECG he should be practising alternative
>> medicine.
>
> Heh, no. He took my blood pressure (and had a listen to my heart) long
> before he ordered the ECG.
>
> It still troubles me that here in the 21st century, the only way to
> actually measure a person's blood pressure is [still] to crush their arm
> until no blood reaches it, and measure how much force it takes to do
> that. o_O
nope. There are things like finger blood pressure meters (finapres and
similar). NOn invasive and continuous and therefore used e.g in the OR.
Other methods may use catheters to measure pressure at different points
in the cardiovascular system.
But the method you describe is the more easy and cheap one.
Now you are unemployed I suggest you do your research before making any
sweeping statement. ;)
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 11:06 AM, scott wrote:
> > If you use a phone a lot to read email and browse the internet then
> > you'd probably appreciate the larger screen.
>
> It's still news to me that you /can/ use a phone to read email or browse
> the net, but OK. I can see how a bigger screen would be beneficial. (I
> can't even imagine how the **** you would look at a web page on a screen
> that's less than an inch across...)
hello, caveman. Our minimum smartphone screen sizes are now 4"
> On the other hand, you can't run any software on it. You can just browse
> the Internet.
ooga-booga
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2012 4:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> I didn't say tablet, I said iPad.
What is an iPad if it is not a tablet?
And you use an on screen keyboard.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2012 05:05 PM, scott wrote:
>> I don't get why you would install an app which just displays the
>> contents of a specific web page. I mean, isn't that what a web browser
>> already does??
>
> Some apps are like that (essentially just shortcuts to web pages,
> perhaps with auto login and remembering certain settings etc.) which
> isn't a problem, so long as they are free.
Which is why the high price of the WA app is so anomalous.
> Other apps do more useful
> stuff though that isn't possible through a web page.
OK, but... like what?
>> It's like you can get those portable DVD players, which invariably have
>> a 4-inch screen. Somehow, watching a picture that's so tiny you can
>> barely make out the actors' faces just doesn't seem as enjoyable as
>> watching it on a huge 40-inch display...
>
> Hold your phone closer to your eyes then, Nokia have a full-HD
> (1920x1080) phone in the pipeline/announced, so quality should be fine
> for making out actors faces :-)
Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
(You realise that the human eye can only focus on objects a certain
distance away from your face, right? Never mind if you want to see it
with both eyes simultaneously.)
>>> Also most web
>>> pages recognise you're on a mobile device and give a different layout to
>>> the desktop version.
>>
>> That sounds /highly/ unlikely...
>
> But true, and some even prompt you to ask if you want to download their
> mobile app (eg if you visit facebook).
Oh, I know Facebook is /constantly/ trying to shove stuff like that in
my face...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2012 05:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
> hello, caveman. Our minimum smartphone screen sizes are now 4"
Wouldn't that make the phone too small to fit in your pocket?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It still troubles me that here in the 21st century, the only way to
>> actually measure a person's blood pressure is [still] to crush their arm
>> until no blood reaches it, and measure how much force it takes to do
>> that. o_O
>
> nope. There are things like finger blood pressure meters (finapres and
> similar). NOn invasive and continuous and therefore used e.g in the OR.
I know they can measure blood oxygen saturation with a finger clamp.
(After all, blood helpfully changes colour depending on its degree of
saturation, and human flesh is fairly transparent at optical
wavelengths.) But I'm not aware of any such system that can do this for
blood /pressure/ measurements.
> But the method you describe is the more easy and cheap one.
> Now you are unemployed I suggest you do your research before making any
> sweeping statement. ;)
In particular, I know a guy who has high blood pressure. The doctor has
given him this very expensive-looking piece of automated blood pressure
measurement equipment. Now why would anybody design such a complicated
and expensive apparatus if a simple finger clamp could do the same job
with a few light sensors?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-9-2012 22:00, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> It still troubles me that here in the 21st century, the only way to
>>> actually measure a person's blood pressure is [still] to crush their arm
>>> until no blood reaches it, and measure how much force it takes to do
>>> that. o_O
>>
>> nope. There are things like finger blood pressure meters (finapres and
>> similar). NOn invasive and continuous and therefore used e.g in the OR.
>
> I know they can measure blood oxygen saturation with a finger clamp.
> (After all, blood helpfully changes colour depending on its degree of
> saturation, and human flesh is fairly transparent at optical
> wavelengths.) But I'm not aware of any such system that can do this for
> blood /pressure/ measurements.
well, now you are, you should have used a past tense.
>
>> But the method you describe is the more easy and cheap one.
>> Now you are unemployed I suggest you do your research before making any
>> sweeping statement. ;)
>
> In particular, I know a guy who has high blood pressure. The doctor has
> given him this very expensive-looking piece of automated blood pressure
> measurement equipment. Now why would anybody design such a complicated
> and expensive apparatus if a simple finger clamp could do the same job
> with a few light sensors?
Because it is not simple? It is for a patient more easy to screw up the
finger measurement than the arm cuff. You need to measure at the level
of the heart. Easy for a sitting/standing/lying person with the cuff on
the upper arm. The only way to do it wrong would be to lay down on your
side, not a very likely error. For the finger measurement lying down is
almost the only option.
Even if it does look expensive, it may not be and the finger measurement
system it not cheap and I am not even sure you can buy it as a private
person giving that it needs calibration and some training to use.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> But the method you describe is the more easy and cheap one.
>>> Now you are unemployed I suggest you do your research before making any
>>> sweeping statement. ;)
>>
>> In particular, I know a guy who has high blood pressure. The doctor has
>> given him this very expensive-looking piece of automated blood pressure
>> measurement equipment. Now why would anybody design such a complicated
>> and expensive apparatus if a simple finger clamp could do the same job
>> with a few light sensors?
>
> Because it is not simple? It is for a patient more easy to screw up the
> finger measurement than the arm cuff. You need to measure at the level
> of the heart. Easy for a sitting/standing/lying person with the cuff on
> the upper arm. The only way to do it wrong would be to lay down on your
> side, not a very likely error. For the finger measurement lying down is
> almost the only option.
Hmm, interesting.
From what I've seen, as soon as the guy sits down to take a
measurement, he immediately becomes so totally apprehensive that his
blood pressure goes sky-high. I would imagine that has a way, way bigger
impact on the readings...
(But what do I know? I'm not a doctor.)
> Even if it does look expensive, it may not be and the finger measurement
> system it not cheap and I am not even sure you can buy it as a private
> person giving that it needs calibration and some training to use.
I did say "the doctor has given him" this gizmo. You would think they
would give him the cheapest possible device. It /is/ government money,
after all... And a brick-sized machine with sensitive specially
calibrated pressure sensors and complex mechanical parts cannot possibly
be cheaper than a device with no moving parts that literally consists of
just an LED and a photoresistor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-05 11:25, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>> Now, if the real reason for using Twitter is to follow stuff that's
>>> happening in real life, then yes, I guess to me the system would be
>>> completely useless. I can't think of anything that happens in real life
>>> that I would actually give a damn about...
>>
>> Yeah, I fogrot that you live in a bubble completely isolated from the
>> outside world
>
> It's more that politics and commerce do not interest me.
>
>> For example, our province's new premier was almost assassinated last
>> night while giving her victory speech. There were lots of people in that
>> theater who wanted to know what the heck was going on. Following the
>> police's and tv stations' Twitter feed was all they had. Likewise, the
>> tv stations were following the twitter feeds of the people in the
>> theater to get as many details as they could.
>
> Damn. And here I was thinking that's what people watch the news and read
> newspapers for...
Not WHILE they are being shot at!
Did you miss the part where I said that "There were lots of people _in
that theater_ who wanted to know what the heck was going on."
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-05 11:40, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 05/09/2012 02:57 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> "Apps" are the software that you run on iThings.
>>
>> For example, the Wolfram Alpha app that you mentioned earlier.
>
> ...the Wolfram Alpha app I mentioned as an example of utter pointlessness?
Having a front-end client that sanitizes the user's input before sending
transactions back to the back-end server is NOT pointless when you are
dealing with devices that have limited (and/or expensive) bandwidth
capabilities, or small screen resolutions.
for example, on my phone, I could fire up the browser and access the
phone book web site, wait while it downloads the logos, ads, etc... and
then have to either zoom in and scroll all over the place to put the
person's name and city and then scroll some more until I get to the
"search" button, or I can use the app that acts as a front-end client
for the web site and is more suited to the 640x480 resolution of the
phone's screen. I suspect the Wolfram app is similar. (Disclaimer: I
may be wrong, as I haven't tried it.)
This being said, I freely admit that most apps are totally useless, for
example, there are many apps from store chains that will grab your
coordinates from the phone's embedded GPS, or by the location of the
tower it's communicating with, and tell you where the closest store is.
Privacy concerns aside, I don't know of anyone who would want to have
their phone vibrate whenever they get in the vicinity of a particular
chain of clothing store. Then again, I'm not a teenage girl!
>
>> There are
>> also word processors, spreadsheets, presentation packages, etc...
>
> How can you operate a word processor or a spreadsheet without a keyboard?
Magic!
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWfurnBt-2DPkqVngr0dQE37Vj8xclsMZDmmuGo9_BR38Ne2-t
>
>> Who said the only thing you could do on a tablet was surf the net?
>
> I didn't say tablet, I said iPad.
And the iPad is what, in your opinion, if not a tablet?
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:53:37 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 05:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
>> hello, caveman. Our minimum smartphone screen sizes are now 4"
>
> Wouldn't that make the phone too small to fit in your pocket?
Is there /any/ physical circumstances where something could be /too
small/ to fit in a container?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-09-05 15:52, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 05/09/2012 05:05 PM, scott wrote:
>>
>> Hold your phone closer to your eyes then, Nokia have a full-HD
>> (1920x1080) phone in the pipeline/announced, so quality should be fine
>> for making out actors faces :-)
>
> Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
>
Where do you get this 1" figure that you keep repeating?
http://osxdaily.com/2012/05/16/iphone-5-will-have-larger-4-inch-screen/
This being said, i wouldn't want to watch a full movie on a phone, but
to view a two minute youtube video explaining how to prepare a certain
food item, while you have the thing in hand, on the kitchen counter has
come in handy once or twice.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-9-2012 22:49, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> But the method you describe is the more easy and cheap one.
>>>> Now you are unemployed I suggest you do your research before making any
>>>> sweeping statement. ;)
>>>
>>> In particular, I know a guy who has high blood pressure. The doctor has
>>> given him this very expensive-looking piece of automated blood pressure
>>> measurement equipment. Now why would anybody design such a complicated
>>> and expensive apparatus if a simple finger clamp could do the same job
>>> with a few light sensors?
>>
>> Because it is not simple? It is for a patient more easy to screw up the
>> finger measurement than the arm cuff. You need to measure at the level
>> of the heart. Easy for a sitting/standing/lying person with the cuff on
>> the upper arm. The only way to do it wrong would be to lay down on your
>> side, not a very likely error. For the finger measurement lying down is
>> almost the only option.
>
> Hmm, interesting.
typical pressures that you measure are about 1-2 meters of water (though
generally expressed as mmHg).
> From what I've seen, as soon as the guy sits down to take a
> measurement, he immediately becomes so totally apprehensive that his
> blood pressure goes sky-high. I would imagine that has a way, way bigger
> impact on the readings...
>
> (But what do I know? I'm not a doctor.)
No, well known effect. That is why it in general better to let someone
measure themselves and not someone in a white coat. If his blood
pressure still rises after a week of use, perhaps better consult a
psychiatrist.
>> Even if it does look expensive, it may not be and the finger measurement
>> system it not cheap and I am not even sure you can buy it as a private
>> person giving that it needs calibration and some training to use.
>
> I did say "the doctor has given him" this gizmo. You would think they
> would give him the cheapest possible device.
No I wouldn't. the cheapest device may be so unreliable that it is not
the best price/performance. And there are many other factors, some you
may not wish to know as a consumer in the medical market.
> It /is/ government money,
> after all... And a brick-sized machine with sensitive specially
> calibrated pressure sensors and complex mechanical parts cannot possibly
> be cheaper than a device with no moving parts that literally consists of
> just an LED and a photoresistor.
well, perhaps you should do some research before claiming that something
is not possible. Or claiming to know how something works.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/4/2012 11:43, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 1:07 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 9/2/2012 17:28, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> The same identical, save in electronic form,
>>> technology is at the center of cell tower systems.
>>
>> Well, no, not really.
>>
> Odd then that, a few years back, she was recognized, finally, for having
> invented the idea, and it was attributed as one of the key features that
> make cell phone networks possible.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr
>
> "Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea serves as a basis for modern
> spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth, COFDM used in
> Wi-Fi network connections, and CDMA used in some cordless and wireless
> telephones."
Spread spectrum and frequency hopping are two different things. Frequency
hopping is only one possible way of doing spread spectrum.
In CDMA, everyone is transmitting on the same frequencies, in both
directions, at different baud rates, all the time. There's no frequency
hopping involved: every phone and every tower uses the entire frequency band.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/5/2012 3:06, scott wrote:
> Oh we had plenty of teachers who didn't even know there was an on/off switch
> at the back of the machine.
I can one-up that. One of the teachers took home the TRS-80 over the weekend
to learn about it so he could teach about it. 6:15PM friday evening, the
phone rings.
"Is it supposed to smoke when I turn it on?"
"What? No, of course not!"
"Should I turn it off, then?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/5/2012 6:14, scott wrote:
>> I moved on from C64 BASIC to C64 assembler - or rather, machine code. I
>> couldn't afford an actual assembler program. So I used to do it old
>> skool - you know, with pencil and paper and a giant opcode table.
>
> Ouch. Good job the instructions were only 8 bit then...
Most machines back then had reasonable instruction sets. For one, they were
designed to be programmed in assembler. For two, they had actual humans
designing them, rather than humans giving specs to a CPU-compiler.
I still remember the instruction layout and register layout of the mainframe
I used in the late 70s, because it made such sense.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/5/2012 12:41, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 4:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> I didn't say tablet, I said iPad.
>
> What is an iPad if it is not a tablet?
>
> And you use an on screen keyboard.
http://blog.makezine.com/2012/08/30/mechanical-typewriter-keyboard-for-ipad/
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
