"djc" wrote in message
...
On 14/07/12 13:43, Tim Streater wrote:


No, I'm saying that it's Apple who innovates. MS is unable to because
they don't control the hardware.

Worse, MS is a break on innovation: for too many people they do control
the software, hence if the hardware innovation is not supported by Windows
adoption is difficult.



Not half as difficult as getting new hardware innovations supported by
apple. Getting it copied by apple is easier.
--
djc

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

No, but you can run OSX on PCs like my TX2 with a bit of hacking,

If we are talking about hacking around at stuff then it's pointless IMO.
I run macs at home because they work reliably yet have a real system
under the surface (decent shell etc etc).

Zero interest in a hackintosh as it'll be far to close to the day job (also,
the licence doesn't allow that if you should care about that sort of thing).

Again, if you are talking iOS devices, then backward support for older
iOS devices is better than pretty much every platform. At least two
years support for the iPhone for example - more than most smartphone
platforms.

That's why you have to hack them to put siri on then,

In a similar way to having to "hack" windows to get aero working on older
machines?

not much use having two years support if you can't get anything new on
them.

I disagree. We want longterm (ie, at least the length of most peoples
contracts - 24 months) support and security updates along with new features
and updates to activsync protocol support.

Apple give this. Android doesn't. In fact in terms of Activesync, Android
is a pretty poor experience even in month 1.

i guess there aren't any technical reasons why apple haven't put it on
older hardware.

No idea. The only time I tried a version on a jailbroken iphone 4 it didn't
all that well at all. May well have been software issues though I agree.

thats OK as long as the apple and linux users stop bleating about windows as
it used to be when it ran on Jacquard looms.


I regularly use RHEL, Solaris, Windows and MacOS. Pros and cons with them
all, but I tend to run MacOS and Solaris at home. Whatever floats your
boat...

Darren

Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Apple refused to licence their designs, so
people couldn't make copies legally or easily.

They did in fact license one of them,
and then changed their mind on that.

No, they livensed a number of designs, not "one of them".

You're wrong, there weren't 'a number of designs' around at that time.

No I'm not I'm 100% correct.

Nope.

There was a 'a number of designs'

Not designs they chose to licence there weren't.

Apple didn't license any "designs" as such

Wrong, as always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macinto..._clone_program

Apple's clone program entailed the licensing of the Macintosh ROMs and
system software to other manufacturers, each of which agreed to pay a
flat
fee for a license, and a royalty (initially $50) for each clone computer
they sold.

There was no clone by any maker that was a copy of the Apple
case/monitor or keyboard.

No one ever said there was. There clearly was
of the ROMs and the system software tho.

Given that at the time Macs were all anonymous beige
boxes that looked like PCs there was no "design" to copy.

There clearly was with the ROMs and the system software.

The iMacs didn't appear until Steve Jobs returned
to the company and listened to Jonathan Ive.

Irrelevant to what Apple did licence.

What Apple did specifically was to licensed other companies to use the
ROMs.
This enably companies to make copies of those ROMs legally and easily.

And that was ALL they licensed to others.

It permitted the makers to make a number of different designs, not one
design.

But those weren't LICENSED BY APPLE, so your claim has
blown up in your face and covered you with black stuff, again.

You stated that there weren't a number of designs around.

Not OF APPLE'S THAT THEY LICENSED TO OTHERS there wasn’t.

There were, as previously listed lots of designs.

NOT ONE OF THOSE WAS LICENSED BY APPLE TO OTHERS.

reams of your desperate attempt to bull**** your way
out of your predicament flushed where it belongs

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a quantum leap over
what
it replaced.

So, a tiny change then.

Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

Because a quantum of energy is the *smallest* possible amount that can
exist

No it isnt.

(I've prolly got my terms wrong but its nearly 50 years since I did my
physics degree).

You have in fact mangled the story completely.

The quantum of energy is in fact whats seen when
there is a jump from one orbit to another and is in
fact much more than the amount of energy seen
with other situations like thermal activity instead.

The term "quantum leap" - to mean something big - has made its way into
popular parlance courtesy of the ever-ignorant journos.

Nope, because there is in fact some similaritys
with the situation being discussed with DTP.

djc wrote
Tim Streater wrote

No, I'm saying that it's Apple who innovates. MS is unable to because
they don't control the hardware.

Worse, MS is a break on innovation:

Thats a lie with some stuff like the automatic recognition of USB sticks
etc.

for too many people they do control the software, hence if the hardware
innovation is not supported by Windows adoption is difficult.

Another lie with USB devices.

dennis@home wrote
Tim Streater wrote

so you are basing everything you say on your experience with windows 20
years ago, now I understand.

No, I'm saying that it's Apple who innovates. MS is unable to because
they don't control the hardware.

Apple doesn't do half the innovations, they are outsourced.

Thats just plain wrong with most of Apple's innovation.

Intel design the hardware,

Not the user interface hardware they dont.

the Chinese company that makes them

Yes.

designs the cases, etc.

Nope, Apple does the design.

The software is mainly a collection of good ideas from elsewhere.

Thats just plain wrong with quite a bit of it, particularly
the touch screen UI in the ipad and iphone.

I had memeo backup for ages before timemachine came out, guess what memeo
backup does on the PC?

Sure, but there was also plenty of stuff that showed up on the mac
before the PC, particularly in the user interface area with the OS.

En el artículo ,
Tim Streater escribió:

No, I'm saying that it's Apple who innovates. MS is unable to because
they don't control the hardware.

M$ has just introduced the Surface table, which is built to their
design. I don't think it is anywhere near ready for launch yet (may
even be vapourware) - they announced it early to try and spoil the
launch of the new iPad.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a quantum leap over what
it replaced.

So, a tiny change then.

Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

What does "quantum" mean, bozo?

It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example

In this instance it's the emission of small discrete amounts
of energy - quanta - which cause electrons to change orbits.

For an electron changing orbits is a big thing.

Small quantum of energy emitted - big change in orbit !!!!

Geddit ?


michael adams

....











--
Today is Setting Orange, the 49th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3178
"If there is anyone here who I have not insulted, I beg their
pardon." Johannes Brahms (1833-97).

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:

At the time users were quite happy using DOS as nobody had ever
seen or used a GUI.

You're really going to have to learn not to be so absolutist about things
if you want people to do anything other than point and laugh at you. GUIs
were invented a long time before you think. I was using one for years
before Windows or the Mac existed. So it wasn't "nobody".

Well the standard history claims that GUIs were based on the work
of Doug Englebart at Menlo Park and later at Xerox PARC all in
California.

So either you worked for Xerox or Rank Xerox in the UK and used either an
Alto or a Star in-house, along with WYSiWYG InterPress printer interface
maybe. Or maybe all the histories are wrong.

So who's fault is that ?



michael adams

....





--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 50th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3178
Celebrate Confuflux
"If there is anyone here who I have not insulted, I beg their
pardon." Johannes Brahms (1833-97).

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:

In 1985 no other system at any price offered WYSIWYG Postscript output

Wrong.

As Postscript® ?

I thought the story was that John Warnock being no mug took pains to
repackage any technogy he'd developed when on the PARC payroll.

As indeed he did.


michael adams

....


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 50th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3178
Celebrate Confuflux
"If there is anyone here who I have not insulted, I beg their
pardon." Johannes Brahms (1833-97).

michael adams wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a quantum
leap over what it replaced.

So, a tiny change then.

Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

What does "quantum" mean, bozo?

It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example

Just checked and "disrete" is not in my dictionary.

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
, "michael
adams" wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a
quantum leap over what it replaced.

So, a tiny change then.

Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

What does "quantum" mean, bozo?

It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example

Just checked and "disrete" is not in my dictionary.


and neither is "discrete".
--
Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a quantum
leap over what it replaced.

So, a tiny change then.

Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

What does "quantum" mean, bozo?

It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example

Just checked and "disrete" is not in my dictionary.

I'm not surprised.


michael adams

....






--
Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
, "michael
adams" wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a
quantum leap over what it replaced.

So, a tiny change then.

Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

What does "quantum" mean, bozo?

It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example

Just checked and "disrete" is not in my dictionary.


and neither is "discrete".
--
Adam

So much for Poundshop dictionaries then


michael adams

discrete /dskrit/ a. & n. LME. [L discretus: see DISCREET.] A adj.

1 Separate, detached from others; individually distinct; not

continuous or coalescent. LME.

2 Consisting of or pertaining to distinct or individual parts;

(of a magnitude or quantity) not continuously variable, taking

only certain values. L16. 3 Gram. & Logic. Of a conjunction:

adversative. Of a proposition: disjunctive. E-M17.

4 Not concrete or material, abstract. M19. B n.

A separate part or item. L19. discretely adv. E18. discreteness n. M19.

Oxford English Dictionary

On 15/07/2012 12:01, ARWadsworth wrote:

Just checked and "disrete" is not in my dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrete
-

"consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts;
discontinuous."

Also in the Oxford English Dictionary.

I'd suggest either buying a new wordbook or looking online.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-15, michael adams wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:

At the time users were quite happy using DOS as nobody had ever
seen or used a GUI.

You're really going to have to learn not to be so absolutist about things
if you want people to do anything other than point and laugh at you. GUIs
were invented a long time before you think. I was using one for years
before Windows or the Mac existed. So it wasn't "nobody".

Well the standard history claims that GUIs were based on the work
of Doug Englebart at Menlo Park and later at Xerox PARC all in
California.

So either you worked for Xerox or Rank Xerox in the UK and used either an
Alto or a Star in-house, along with WYSiWYG InterPress printer interface
maybe. Or maybe all the histories are wrong.

IOW, it wasn't "nobody". Thanks for proving my point and confirming that
you're an idiot.

The Xerox Star was designed for simple minded users who were afraid
of command lines and using computers generally.

People just like yourself then it would seem.

So nothing has changed there then.

So that apart from the likes of yourself who used one in-house
this, along with the price was one reason that it never caught
on.

Just like the Mac early on it was simply regarded as a very
expensive toy for the technologically challenged.


michael adams

....


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 50th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3178
Celebrate Confuflux
"If there is anyone here who I have not insulted, I beg their
pardon." Johannes Brahms (1833-97).

michael adams wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
, "michael
adams" wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a
quantum leap over what it replaced.
So, a tiny change then.
Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.
So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.
Why not?
What does "quantum" mean, bozo?
It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example
Just checked and "disrete" is not in my dictionary.

and neither is "discrete".
--
Adam

So much for Poundshop dictionaries then


michael adams

discrete /dskrit/ a. & n. LME. [L discretus: see DISCREET.] A adj.

1 Separate, detached from others; individually distinct; not

continuous or coalescent. LME.

2 Consisting of or pertaining to distinct or individual parts;

(of a magnitude or quantity) not continuously variable, taking

only certain values. L16. 3 Gram. & Logic. Of a conjunction:

adversative. Of a proposition: disjunctive. E-M17.

4 Not concrete or material, abstract. M19. B n.

A separate part or item. L19. discretely adv. E18. discreteness n. M19.

Oxford English Dictionary



shame they missed out 'capable of keeping secrets' as well.

discreet Look up discreet at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "morally discerning, prudent, circumspect," from O.Fr.
discret "discreet, sensible, intelligent, wise," from L. discretus
"separated, distinct," in M.L. "discerning, careful," pp. of discernere
"distinguish" (see discern). Meaning "separate, distinct" in English is
late 14c. Spellings discrete and nativized discreet co-existed until
after c.1600, when discreet became the common word for "careful,
prudent," and discrete was maintained in philosophy, medicine, music and
other disciplines that remembered Latin and made effort to obey it.
Related: Discreetly.








--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
, "michael
adams" wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a
quantum leap over what it replaced.
So, a tiny change then.
Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.
So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.
Why not?
What does "quantum" mean, bozo?
It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example
Just checked and "disrete" is not in my dictionary.

and neither is "discrete".
--
Adam

So much for Poundshop dictionaries then


michael adams

discrete /dskrit/ a. & n. LME. [L discretus: see DISCREET.] A adj.

1 Separate, detached from others; individually distinct; not

continuous or coalescent. LME.

2 Consisting of or pertaining to distinct or individual parts;

(of a magnitude or quantity) not continuously variable, taking

only certain values. L16. 3 Gram. & Logic. Of a conjunction:

adversative. Of a proposition: disjunctive. E-M17.

4 Not concrete or material, abstract. M19. B n.

A separate part or item. L19. discretely adv. E18. discreteness n. M19.

Oxford English Dictionary



shame they missed out 'capable of keeping secrets' as well.

Nowadays, that's the other spelling - "discreet"

As in "I hope you'll be discreet " - " I hope you won't tell anyone."

Which mainly applies to people's behaviour.

If you said " I hope you''ll be discrete" - that could be interpreted as
meaning
" I hope you keep apart fron the crowd and don't mix" which is nearly the same
thing - but "discrete" is more usually applied to inanimate objects
values , quantities etc.


michael adams

...


discreet Look up discreet at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "morally discerning, prudent, circumspect," from O.Fr. discret
"discreet, sensible, intelligent, wise," from L. discretus "separated,
distinct," in M.L. "discerning, careful," pp. of discernere "distinguish" (see
discern). Meaning "separate, distinct" in English is late 14c. Spellings
discrete and nativized discreet co-existed until after c.1600, when discreet
became the common word for "careful, prudent," and discrete was maintained in
philosophy, medicine, music and other disciplines that remembered Latin and
made effort to obey it. Related: Discreetly.








--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
, "michael
adams" wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a
quantum leap over what it replaced.
So, a tiny change then.
Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.
So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.
Why not?
What does "quantum" mean, bozo?
It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example
Just checked and "disrete" is not in my dictionary.
and neither is "discrete".
--
Adam
So much for Poundshop dictionaries then


michael adams

discrete /dskrit/ a. & n. LME. [L discretus: see DISCREET.] A adj.

1 Separate, detached from others; individually distinct; not

continuous or coalescent. LME.

2 Consisting of or pertaining to distinct or individual parts;

(of a magnitude or quantity) not continuously variable, taking

only certain values. L16. 3 Gram. & Logic. Of a conjunction:

adversative. Of a proposition: disjunctive. E-M17.

4 Not concrete or material, abstract. M19. B n.

A separate part or item. L19. discretely adv. E18. discreteness n. M19.

Oxford English Dictionary



shame they missed out 'capable of keeping secrets' as well.

Nowadays, that's the other spelling - "discreet"


I am not so sure.

I think that in my reading in te last 60 years its been pretty much
biased in favour of being discrete and showing discretion.


As in "I hope you'll be discreet " - " I hope you won't tell anyone."


I cannot recall that spelling being used very often I have to say.

But the word itself is rarely used.

Which mainly applies to people's behaviour.

If you said " I hope you''ll be discrete" - that could be interpreted as
meaning
" I hope you keep apart fron the crowd and don't mix" which is nearly the same
thing - but "discrete" is more usually applied to inanimate objects
values , quantities etc.


Or that you have a bad case of apostropheosis :-)



michael adams

...

discreet Look up discreet at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "morally discerning, prudent, circumspect," from O.Fr. discret
"discreet, sensible, intelligent, wise," from L. discretus "separated,
distinct," in M.L. "discerning, careful," pp. of discernere "distinguish" (see
discern). Meaning "separate, distinct" in English is late 14c. Spellings
discrete and nativized discreet co-existed until after c.1600, when discreet
became the common word for "careful, prudent," and discrete was maintained in
philosophy, medicine, music and other disciplines that remembered Latin and
made effort to obey it. Related: Discreetly.




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
, "michael
adams" wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a
quantum leap over what it replaced.
So, a tiny change then.
Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.
So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.
Why not?
What does "quantum" mean, bozo?
It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example
Just checked and "disrete" is not in my dictionary.
and neither is "discrete".
--
Adam
So much for Poundshop dictionaries then


michael adams

discrete /dskrit/ a. & n. LME. [L discretus: see DISCREET.] A adj.

1 Separate, detached from others; individually distinct; not

continuous or coalescent. LME.

2 Consisting of or pertaining to distinct or individual parts;

(of a magnitude or quantity) not continuously variable, taking

only certain values. L16. 3 Gram. & Logic. Of a conjunction:

adversative. Of a proposition: disjunctive. E-M17.

4 Not concrete or material, abstract. M19. B n.

A separate part or item. L19. discretely adv. E18. discreteness n. M19.

Oxford English Dictionary



shame they missed out 'capable of keeping secrets' as well.

Nowadays, that's the other spelling - "discreet"


I am not so sure.

I think that in my reading in te last 60 years its been pretty much biased in favour of
being discrete and showing discretion.

Far be it from me to act the smartarse, (as if) so I'll allow somebody
else to take up the story -


http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...glish/discreet


michael adams

....




As in "I hope you'll be discreet " - " I hope you won't tell anyone."


I cannot recall that spelling being used very often I have to say.

But the word itself is rarely used.

Which mainly applies to people's behaviour.

If you said " I hope you''ll be discrete" - that could be interpreted as meaning
" I hope you keep apart fron the crowd and don't mix" which is nearly the same
thing - but "discrete" is more usually applied to inanimate objects
values , quantities etc.


Or that you have a bad case of apostropheosis :-)



michael adams

...

discreet Look up discreet at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "morally discerning, prudent, circumspect," from O.Fr. discret
"discreet, sensible, intelligent, wise," from L. discretus "separated, distinct," in
M.L. "discerning, careful," pp. of discernere "distinguish" (see discern). Meaning
"separate, distinct" in English is late 14c. Spellings discrete and nativized
discreet co-existed until after c.1600, when discreet became the common word for
"careful, prudent," and discrete was maintained in philosophy, medicine, music and
other disciplines that remembered Latin and made effort to obey it. Related:
Discreetly.




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message

What does "quantum" mean, bozo?

It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example

In this instance it's the emission of small discrete amounts
of energy - quanta - which cause electrons to change orbits.

For an electron changing orbits is a big thing.

Small quantum of energy emitted - big change in orbit !!!!

Geddit ?

I don't imagine the journos know or care anything about orbits. The
salient point about the quantum is that it's *tiny*.

[Snip]

unless of course, you are Clive Sinclair to whom a "quantum leap" was a
giant step forward.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Huge" wrote in message
...

*plonk*

Good move that. It saves you having to explain who was using
Postscript® prior to 1985



"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-07-14, michael adams wrote:

In 1985 no other system at any price offered WYSIWYG Postscript output

Wrong.


--

SOTW "Runaway" - Del Shannon



michael adams

....







Today is Sweetmorn, the 50th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3178
Celebrate Confuflux
"If there is anyone here who I have not insulted, I beg their
pardon." Johannes Brahms (1833-97).

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message

What does "quantum" mean, bozo?

It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example

In this instance it's the emission of small discrete amounts
of energy - quanta - which cause electrons to change orbits.

For an electron changing orbits is a big thing.

Small quantum of energy emitted - big change in orbit !!!!

Geddit ?

I don't imagine the journos know or care anything about orbits. The salient
point about the quantum is that it's *tiny*. You'd need to apply *trillions*
of them to electrons (which change state, not orbit, as they're not in orbit)

It appears that according to the Bhor model they are. In circular
orbits. Or the Bhor Sonmmerfield model - in elliptical orbits.,.
Just like planets orbiting the Sun in fact.

to effect a change big enough to be apparent to
you and me.

That's subatomic particles for you !


michael adams

....

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

michael adams wrote:

That's subatomic particles for you !


AKA den's testicles.

--
Adam

On 15/07/2012 15:54, michael adams wrote:
"Tim wrote in message
...
In articleeKWdnSAKMdvlAp_NnZ2dnUVZ7rednZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk,
"michael wrote:

wrote in message

What does "quantum" mean, bozo?

It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example

In this instance it's the emission of small discrete amounts
of energy - quanta - which cause electrons to change orbits.

For an electron changing orbits is a big thing.

Small quantum of energy emitted - big change in orbit !!!!

Geddit ?

I don't imagine the journos know or care anything about orbits. The salient
point about the quantum is that it's *tiny*. You'd need to apply *trillions*
of them to electrons (which change state, not orbit, as they're not in orbit)

It appears that according to the Bhor model they are. In circular
orbits. Or the Bhor Sonmmerfield model - in elliptical orbits.,.
Just like planets orbiting the Sun in fact.


Only in the Bohr models.

In truth, if you look closely enough and hard enough the "orbits" of an
atom's electrons turn out to be a sort of cloud where you might expect
to find them or a range of speeds at which you will see them travelling,
with a peak of probablility being more or less at a certain distance
from the nucleus or roughly a particular speed, more like asteroidal
orbits than a planetary one. If you look *really* closely, it turns out
that electrons are made up of more than one "wavicle". (An entity that
sometimes acts like a wave, and sometimes like a particle)

Even this is a simplified model... Uncertainty rules at this scale.

In slang terms, as used by journos and the general public, a "quantum
leap" more or less means either adding another zero or changing the rules.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 15/07/2012 15:54, michael adams wrote:
"Tim wrote in message
...
In articleeKWdnSAKMdvlAp_NnZ2dnUVZ7rednZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk,
"michael wrote:

wrote in message

What does "quantum" mean, bozo?

It means small "discrete" amounts of energy.

Do you know what "discrete" means and its particular
relevance to this particular example

In this instance it's the emission of small discrete amounts
of energy - quanta - which cause electrons to change orbits.

For an electron changing orbits is a big thing.

Small quantum of energy emitted - big change in orbit !!!!

Geddit ?

I don't imagine the journos know or care anything about orbits. The salient
point about the quantum is that it's *tiny*. You'd need to apply *trillions*
of them to electrons (which change state, not orbit, as they're not in
orbit)

It appears that according to the Bhor model they are. In circular
orbits. Or the Bhor Sonmmerfield model - in elliptical orbits.,.
Just like planets orbiting the Sun in fact.


Only in the Bohr models.

In truth, if you look closely enough and hard enough the "orbits" of an atom's
electrons turn out to be a sort of cloud where you might expect to find them
or a range of speeds at which you will see them travelling, with a peak of
probablility being more or less at a certain distance from the nucleus or
roughly a particular speed, more like asteroidal orbits than a planetary one.
If you look *really* closely, it turns out that electrons are made up of more
than one "wavicle". (An entity that sometimes acts like a wave, and sometimes
like a particle)

Even this is a simplified model... Uncertainty rules at this scale.

In slang terms, as used by journos and the general public, a "quantum leap"
more or less means either adding another zero or changing the rules.

As in launching a "business" computer with an unsprung
membrane keyboard.


michael adams

....



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

I am not so sure.

Michael is correct.


I think that in my reading in te last 60 years its been pretty much
biased in favour of being discrete and showing discretion.

No, discreet and showing discretion.


--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 15/07/2012 21:32, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

I am not so sure.

Michael is correct.


I think that in my reading in te last 60 years its been pretty much
biased in favour of being discrete and showing discretion.

No, discreet and showing discretion.


Showing discretion is being discreet.

Each unique item in a series or collection of items would be discrete.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
On 15/07/2012 21:32, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

I am not so sure.

Michael is correct.


I think that in my reading in te last 60 years its been pretty much
biased in favour of being discrete and showing discretion.

No, discreet and showing discretion.


Showing discretion is being discreet.

Each unique item in a series or collection of items would be discrete.


And Chambers agrees so that *must* be right. You can't argue with the BRB.
;-)

Tim

En el artículo , John Williamson
escribió:

Showing discretion is being discreet.

Each unique item in a series or collection of items would be discrete.

I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but that's what
I said.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


So Dhenbhoi which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take up?
Be
precise, give dates. List all the hardware that Apple "copied" again give
dates.

While you are at it, list all the PC manufacturers currently installing
288
dpi or better displays

What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they only
use a display emulation of 1440x900.

I bet they will innovate a portable magnifying glass to see the difference!

or Thunderbolt ports.

Well as apple don't do any chips they didn't do the thunderbolt ones either.
Others will fit them as soon as Intel designs them into the chipsets or
releases the design they have let apple have a six month lead on.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:00:43 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:


Well as apple don't do any chips they didn't do the thunderbolt ones
either.
Others will fit them as soon as Intel designs them into the chipsets or
releases the design they have let apple have a six month lead on.

Already here. Acer S5 ultrabook.

--
Rod

Steve Firth wrote:

list all the PC manufacturers currently installing 288 dpi
or better displays

That'll be none (not even Apple).

or Thunderbolt ports.

Acer Aspire S5
Lenovo Thinkpad Edge S430

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
..
.


So Dhenbhoi which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take
up? Be
precise, give dates. List all the hardware that Apple "copied" again
give
dates.

While you are at it, list all the PC manufacturers currently installing
288 dpi or better displays

What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they
only use a display emulation of 1440x900.

So that's none of them then.

As I said what's the point.
It may be needed on a small screen but they can't even use it on their iPad,
they have to scale everything by a factor of two.


or Thunderbolt ports.

Well as apple don't do any chips they didn't do the thunderbolt ones
either.
Others will fit them as soon as Intel designs them into the chipsets or
releases the design they have let apple have a six month lead on.

So you're agreeing that it's Apple pushing innovation, then - which is
what we said in the first place.

You said apple innovates more than anyone else, that is not what I said.
Apple may push innovation, but so do others.

Steve Firth wrote

which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take up?

USB, IDE, ATA, SATA, mice with more than one
button, keyboards with function keys, etc etc etc.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they
only use a display emulation of 1440x900.

So that's none of them then.

As I said what's the point.
It may be needed on a small screen but they can't even use it on their iPad,
they have to scale everything by a factor of two.

It looks nicer?

I have a 32" TV. I can watch telly in standard def, but it looks much nicer
in HD.

No real difference in the picture content, but it's much nicer to watch/use.

Darren

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:10:08 PM UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Steve Firth > wrote

> which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take up?

USB, IDE, ATA, SATA, mice with more than one
button, keyboards with function keys, etc etc etc.

Macs had SCSI which were faster than ATA or IDE.

As for USB well few new of it before the iMac came out.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...the-usb-market

"When Apple released their iMac there was a rush to release peripherals to support them. Before that nobody really cared about USB despite the fact that it was present on the majority of PCs. People were fine with serial and parallel ports - there was simply insufficient reasons to switch to USB"

"D.M.Chapman" dmc@puffin. wrote in message
...

As I said what's the point.
It may be needed on a small screen but they can't even use it on their
iPad,
they have to scale everything by a factor of two.

It looks nicer?

I have a 32" TV. I can watch telly in standard def, but it looks much
nicer
in HD.

Exactly my point.
The iPad screen is HD (2880x1800) but the content is SD (1440x900).

"dennis@home" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
..

While you are at it, list all the PC manufacturers currently
installing 288 dpi or better displays

What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they
only use a display emulation of 1440x900.

So that's none of them then.

As I said what's the point.

None for a halfwit like you.

It may be needed on a small screen but they can't even use it on their
iPad, they have to scale everything by a factor of two.

Another lie. They don't "have" to do such a thing at all. MacOS and iOS
check the capabilities of the App. If it can handle a Retina display it may
do so. If it was written for a standard display the rendering is
interpolated appropriately.

You've been caught out talking ******** again Dennis.


So you're agreeing that it's Apple pushing innovation, then - which is
what we said in the first place.

You said apple innovates more than anyone else, that is not what I said.

No you claimed that it's hard to get Apple to accept any "new hardware
innovation" (sic) which was bull****.

Apple may push innovation, but so do others.

And now you agree it was bull****.

"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


So Dhenbhoi which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take up? Be
precise, give dates. List all the hardware that Apple "copied" again give
dates.

While you are at it, list all the PC manufacturers currently installing 288
dpi or better displays

What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they
only use a display emulation of 1440x900.

I bet they will innovate a portable magnifying glass to see the difference!

They don't need to. The human eye us perfectly capable of resolving and
seeing pixelation at 144 dpi.

I note you run away from admitting that M$ have ****ed up again by hard
coding in another stupid limit.

or Thunderbolt ports.

Well as apple don't do any chips they didn't do the thunderbolt ones either.

Do PC manufacturers make all their own chips then Dennis?

Apple bought in Thunderbolt from Intel. They led the way, PC manufacturers
will follow once they can sort out their ****ed up graphics cards.

Others will fit them as soon as Intel designs them into the chipsets or
releases the design they have let apple have a six month lead on.

Oh boo hoo it's that big nasty Apple again.

But Dennis you claimed that they copy hardware and don't innovate. Yet here
they are innovating.

You told a pork pie, again, didn't you Dennis?