 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
