I've just finished updating my blog, "What you need to know about home
equity loans - a consumer guide". It's an
An informational source for consumers contemplating a home equity
loan. A well-educated consumer is smart consumer, and I hope to arm
consumers in the market for a home equity loan with information that
will help you make a good choice. I'd appreciate some feedback and I
hope that it is of some benefit to those looking into home loan
options. You can find it on blogger at http://home-equity-loan-information.blogspot.com/
In article <5fvqbnF3dkvgsU1@mid.individual.net>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
>> In article <5fvmmdF3eggpaU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Corse there is.
>>>>>> Hyperventilating is fun.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to get out more.
>>>>
>>>> That is the beauty of it. One can hyperventilate everywhere.
>>>> If you really want to, one can become apoplectic. And have
>>>> huge veins bulge in the neck and forehead. Great fun. And
>>>> cheaper than going to a movie.
>>>
>>> You need to get out more.
>>
>> Sure, when I don't want to be aggravated I go out.
>> But on line, irritation is the typical result.
>
>You need to get out more.
>
>> Or are you one of those people who think the internet is for porn?
>
>Nope.
In article <4hBmi.323291$p47.100396@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers@att.net says...
>
> "Daniel Packman" <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote in message
> news:f7eaau$a7h$1@shell.dim.com...
> > In article <5fvmmdF3eggpaU1@mid.individual.net>,
> (snip)
> > Sure, when I don't want to be aggravated I go out.
> > But on line, irritation is the typical result.
> > Or are you one of those people who think the internet
> > is for porn?
> >
> Well, porn has done a lot for the internet. Would the 2/3 market penetration
> within roughly ten years, in the non- .edu/.mil/.gov market, have occurred
> without it? ARPA may have paid the freight for the R&D, but porn created a
> lot of the cashflow that financed the consumer rollout. Remember, most of
> north america didn't even have commercial dialup ISPs till the mid 90's. You
> had to be a student or have access through work, and you had to be a bit of
> a geek, to have even character-based access at home. BBS's and Fidonet were
> what passed for home access for most people, and it was considered a geek
> thing back then, not a neccesity. I've been online at home (Usenet) since
> around '86, but didn't have a private outside account till '97? or so.
Sorta the same thing that happened with video. Porn and VCRs were
made for each other.
> Not being a smartass here- others with access to the actual numbers have
> said it before. Consider the early adopters of home online access- largely
> young and male. What is porn's main demographic?
Yep. The Internet is killing dead-tree publishers (porn and
otherwise).
> (and yes, I am long past the age where online porn, or even Playboy magazine
> for that matter, seems worth spending money for.)
Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
> In article <5fvqbnF3dkvgsU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
>>> In article <5fvmmdF3eggpaU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Corse there is.
>>>>>>> Hyperventilating is fun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to get out more.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the beauty of it. One can hyperventilate everywhere.
>>>>> If you really want to, one can become apoplectic. And have
>>>>> huge veins bulge in the neck and forehead. Great fun. And
>>>>> cheaper than going to a movie.
>>>>
>>>> You need to get out more.
>>>
>>> Sure, when I don't want to be aggravated I go out.
>>> But on line, irritation is the typical result.
>>
>> You need to get out more.
>>
>>> Or are you one of those people who think the internet is for porn?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Ah, then *you* should get out more.
In article <5g08snF3ebgclU1@mid.individual.net>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
>> In article <5fvqbnF3dkvgsU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <5fvmmdF3eggpaU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Corse there is.
>>>>>>>> Hyperventilating is fun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to get out more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the beauty of it. One can hyperventilate everywhere.
>>>>>> If you really want to, one can become apoplectic. And have
>>>>>> huge veins bulge in the neck and forehead. Great fun. And
>>>>>> cheaper than going to a movie.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to get out more.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, when I don't want to be aggravated I go out.
>>>> But on line, irritation is the typical result.
>>>
>>> You need to get out more.
>>>
>>>> Or are you one of those people who think the internet is for porn?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Ah, then *you* should get out more.
>
>Can't even manage its own lines.
I thought the rule was that if you get to use a line
three times, I get to use it once. Anyway, we should
all go out and see Avenue Q.
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:53:42 +0200, Per Rønne wrote:
>
> > Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1i1a95w.whm11cpaaabpN%per@RQNNE.invalid>, Per Rønne
> >> <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I can't believe anyone thinks a calculator is working on principles
> >> > > of basic math. It isn't.
> >> >
> >> > Proper calculators /do/ use the ordinary operator hierarchy used in
> >> > mathematics for centuries.
> >> Unless you're talking about a different kind of 'proper' calculator,
> >> that just isn't right. A common calculator simply calculates as it gets
> >> figures and operations. It doesn't wait for the entire expression and
> >> then apply standard math.
> >
> > Per definition, a calculator without the standard operator hierarchy is
> > /not/ 'a proper calculator'.
>
> A proper calculator is one that does RPN.
As stated below:
> > But of course you could argue about Reverse Polish calculators - good
> > for performing calculations inside a computer but bad when coming to the
> > human interface.
>
> RPN is far superior to algebraic because whenever someone borrows your
> calculator, you can sit there smugly awaiting the inevitable, "Hey!
> Where's the equals key?" and then make fun of their ignorance.
:-).
> > The mathematics teachers in primary and middle schools just tell the
> > parents that their children should have calculators with /parentheses/ -
> > which in reality is the same as saying that they should have the
> > traditional operator hierarchy.
>
> RPN calculators also don't have parentheses.
I happen to be a computer science major from the University fo
Copenhagen [founded 1479]. I know.
> Therefore, the teachers are wrong.
No. RPN calculators are inappropriate for primary and middle school use.
And for Sixth Form College use too. University students may want to use
them, though ...
School children should learn to have the ordinary operator hierarchy at
their fingertips ...
--
Per Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk
> What, the iPhone doesn't have an RPN calculator either? What
> garbage. ;-)
powerOne on my Palm Treo has four kinds of user interface built-in.
'Algebraic', 'Order', 'Chain' and 'RPN' - to be set in the Preferences.
'Chain' gives 2 + 2*2 -> 8.
'Order' and 'Algebraic' gives 2 + 2*2 -> 6, but 'Order' does not allow
for more advanced input like the Solve function - as does 'Algebraic'.
'RPN' of course: 2, 2, 2, *, + -> 6 :-).
powerOne can be purchased for all smartphone and PDA OSes. When Apple
allows it they will make one for the iPhone too - but a web 2.0
application won't be enough ;-(.
--
Per Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk
> First of all, I misspoke, FEMA did not end up storing the mobile
> homes there after all.
> This is an ABANDONED Amtrak maintenance yard for repairing
> pullman cars and also some locomotive work. Most of the stuff is
related
> to normal security for these yards to prevent theft, pilfering,
> vandalism (sorta negates the idea of sprucing up a rail car just to get
> it tagged).
> You are looking at things that were built and perfectly in
context
> for a railyard and putting this rather bizarre spin on it.
>
So, why do we need high-capacity, one way human gates by the tracks for a
few railroad employees? Why not put DOORS on the obvious rollup door
openings in the buildings....instead of sealing them ALL SHUT WITH
CONCRETE so only a human will fit through the little doors left?
Wouldn't a railroad shop have to have rollup doors to get RAILROAD ENGINE
AND CAR PARTS in and out? Are they going to roll undercarriages through
cattle gates?
A railyard has MASSIVE doors big enough to roll whole railroad cars
into....ON TRACKS THAT GO RIGHT INTO THE BUILDINGS! There are NO TRACKS
TO THOSE BUILDINGS! How do we get railroad equipment INTO a building
through a personnel gate with NO TRACKS?
Answer - The same way we get a fully loaded 737 through a 16' hole in the
Pentagon.....wishful thinking.
Larry
--
While in Mexico, I didn't have to press 1 for Spanish.
While in Iran, I didn't have to press 1 for Farsi, either.
It just isn't fair.
Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
> In article <5g08snF3ebgclU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
>>> In article <5fvqbnF3dkvgsU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <5fvmmdF3eggpaU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Daniel Packman <pack@shell.dim.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Corse there is.
>>>>>>>>> Hyperventilating is fun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to get out more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the beauty of it. One can hyperventilate everywhere.
>>>>>>> If you really want to, one can become apoplectic. And have
>>>>>>> huge veins bulge in the neck and forehead. Great fun. And
>>>>>>> cheaper than going to a movie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to get out more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, when I don't want to be aggravated I go out.
>>>>> But on line, irritation is the typical result.
>>>>
>>>> You need to get out more.
>>>>
>>>>> Or are you one of those people who think the internet is for porn?
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Ah, then *you* should get out more.
>>
>> Can't even manage its own lines.
> I thought the rule was that if you get to use a line three times, I get to use it once.
Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
Or anything else at all, either.
> Anyway, we should all go out and see Avenue Q.
Keep your depraved drug crazed fantasys to yourself.
In article <5g0bn3F15f22cU1@mid.individual.net>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
.....
>Keep your depraved drug crazed fantasys to yourself.
In article
<4hBmi.323291$p47.100396@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aemeijers
<aemeijers@att.net> wrote:
> Well, porn has done a lot for the internet. Would the 2/3 market penetration
> within roughly ten years, in the non- .edu/.mil/.gov market, have occurred
> without it? ARPA may have paid the freight for the R&D, but porn created a
> lot of the cashflow that financed the consumer rollout. Remember, most of
> north america didn't even have commercial dialup ISPs till the mid 90's. You
> had to be a student or have access through work, and you had to be a bit of
> a geek, to have even character-based access at home. BBS's and Fidonet were
> what passed for home access for most people, and it was considered a geek
> thing back then, not a neccesity. I've been online at home (Usenet) since
> around '86, but didn't have a private outside account till '97? or so.
>
> Not being a smartass here- others with access to the actual numbers have
> said it before. Consider the early adopters of home online access- largely
> young and male. What is porn's main demographic?
>
> (and yes, I am long past the age where online porn, or even Playboy magazine
> for that matter, seems worth spending money for.)
>
> aem sends....
>
I'd take the opposite approach, suggesting:
Porn has done nothing for the internet; it has slowed usefulness,
scared off real new ideas, and gotten in the way of meaningful
transactions and researches.
Porn has been a stain on the function and value of the internet to
society. It has taken massive traffic and foiled many investigations
that could otherwise have been put to some value. It seems to have
prospered mainly on the fetishes that had little circulation before,
without actually contributing commerce.
It doesn't seem that very much money at all has gone to porn; only that
it was a cheaper distribution channel than what they had before, and
they jumped on it hard.
You may have noticed, so did other people who had no good channel for
their junk; nutcases and freaks, people selling unusual collectibles,
people with narrow hobbies or narrow ideas and religions, etc.
Those are also very visible on the internet; but they shouldn't be
credited with making it important or economically strong. They are
still a small number of people; they are merely more visible than they
were.
> In article <1i1bxru.1lpw4mw1muv4ycN%per@RQNNE.invalid>, Per Rønne
> <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
>
> > School children should learn to have the ordinary operator hierarchy at
> > their fingertips ...
>
> Really?
> Then you are discounting any system that just doesn't use calculators?
>
> Calculators, in your view, are necessary and must be of that type?
It is the standard in mathematics and has been so for centuries. It is
simply unacceptable for scholchildren at their math exams to think that
the expression:
ax + by
means:
(ax + b)y
And it doesn't matter whether they are at the O-levels at sixteen or at
their A-levels three years later.
--
Per Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk
In article <1i1c6nr.11ahq491n9l7tfN%per@RQNNE.invalid>, Per Rønne
<per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> > > School children should learn to have the ordinary operator hierarchy at
> > > their fingertips ...
> >
> > Really?
> > Then you are discounting any system that just doesn't use calculators?
> >
> > Calculators, in your view, are necessary and must be of that type?
>
> It is the standard in mathematics and has been so for centuries. It is
> simply unacceptable for scholchildren at their math exams to think that
> the expression:
>
> ax + by
>
> means:
>
> (ax + b)y
>
> And it doesn't matter whether they are at the O-levels at sixteen or at
> their A-levels three years later.
I think you misunderstood my question.
I am asking if an electronic calculator device is a necessary part of
education. That is what you seemed to be advocating.
No, it isn't obviously necessary. It isn't necessary, and may not be a
good idea.
I am not asking what operant paradigm you are thinking of -- we
understood. No need to go back over it. And I don't think ANYONE
brought up exams or state assessments.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> .....
> >The lack of capitals at the start of sentences is irrelevant to that.
>
> Captalizing the beginning of sentence helps to visually set it off
> from the next just as the period helps at the end.
>
> There is a spectrum of formality from the very strict to the very
> loose. I would argue that there is a corresponding spectrum of ease
> ease of understanding from the very easy to the very difficult. Just
> leaving off leading capitals affects ease of understanding only slightly.
correct dan, thanks for helping these people understand it's "okay" not
to cap every single sentence. i think they are simply mad at me since
they can never seem to win a debate within these forums against me.
that's the freudian reason a few have brought this up, they have become
frustrated, so are trying to flag an unimportant communication style
since they can't win upon their own arguments.
none <a...@b.com> wrote:
> p...@shell.dim.com (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
> > There is a spectrum of formality from the very strict to the very
> > loose. I would argue that there is a corresponding spectrum of ease
> > ease of understanding from the very easy to the very difficult. Just
> > leaving off leading capitals affects ease of understanding only slightly.
>
> correct dan, thanks for helping these people understand it's "okay" not
> to cap every single sentence.
Appropriateness depends on the context, and while it is tolerable
here, that observation does not also make it optimal.
The whole purpose of language ... including the written form ... is to
successfully convey concepts and information.
The process of communication is essentially as a four step process:
1. Encoding of Concept/Info into words by sender
2. Transmission of words across time/space by sender
3. Receipt of words by recipient
4. Decoding of words back into Concepts/Info by recipient
To be successful in conveying the desired information from sender to
receiver, all four of these steps must be successful (logical AND).
To be "sloppy" in Step 2 can result in reduced success of receipt and
decoding. As such, the recipient's probability of successfully
interpreting the Sender's desired message. However, because Step 2 is
performed by the Sender, it is not the fault of the Receiver, so only
the Sender is responsible for all of the miscommunications from this
source.
> that's the freudian reason a few have brought this up, they have become
> frustrated, so are trying to flag an unimportant communication style
> since they can't win upon their own arguments.
True, but that's also besides the point.
Overall, if the Sender can't be bothered to make the effort of making
his information easy to understand though even simple things, then the
Sender's own actions illustrate that he's not really worth the time of
listening to.
In article <a-FAAFA4.11262916072007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
none <a@b.com> wrote:
>pack@shell.dim.com (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> .....
>> >The lack of capitals at the start of sentences is irrelevant to that.
>>
>> Captalizing the beginning of sentence helps to visually set it off
>> from the next just as the period helps at the end.
>>
>> There is a spectrum of formality from the very strict to the very
>> loose. I would argue that there is a corresponding spectrum of ease
>> ease of understanding from the very easy to the very difficult. Just
>> leaving off leading capitals affects ease of understanding only slightly.
>
>correct dan, thanks for helping these people understand it's "okay" not
>to cap every single sentence. i think they are simply mad at me since
>they can never seem to win a debate within these forums against me.
I believe you meant; "Correct, Dan. Thanks for ...." :-)
In article <1184608869.625421.39410@n60g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
......
>Appropriateness depends on the context, and while it is tolerable
>here, that observation does not also make it optimal.
>
>The whole purpose of language ... including the written form ... is to
>successfully convey concepts and information.
......
Another purpose of language is to structure one's own thoughts.
As my mom has always told me, "It is important not to speak more
clearly than you think." You might give people the wrong idea.
This is one problem our current president doesn't have to worry about.
"Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
>> In article <1i1bxru.1lpw4mw1muv4ycN%per@RQNNE.invalid>, Per Rønne
>> <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> School children should learn to have the ordinary operator
>>> hierarchy at their fingertips ...
>>
>> Really?
>> Then you are discounting any system that just doesn't use
>> calculators?
>>
>> Calculators, in your view, are necessary and must be of that type?
>
> It is the standard in mathematics and has been so for centuries. It is
> simply unacceptable for scholchildren at their math exams to think
> that the expression:
>
> ax + by
>
> means:
>
> (ax + b)y
>
> And it doesn't matter whether they are at the O-levels at sixteen or
> at their A-levels three years later.
Then there's the real world and the calculators they will use once they leave school.
Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> In article <1i1c6nr.11ahq491n9l7tfN%per@RQNNE.invalid>, Per Rønne
> <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> School children should learn to have the ordinary operator
>>>> hierarchy at their fingertips ...
>>>
>>> Really?
>>> Then you are discounting any system that just doesn't use
>>> calculators?
>>>
>>> Calculators, in your view, are necessary and must be of that type?
>>
>> It is the standard in mathematics and has been so for centuries. It
>> is simply unacceptable for scholchildren at their math exams to
>> think that the expression:
>>
>> ax + by
>>
>> means:
>>
>> (ax + b)y
>>
>> And it doesn't matter whether they are at the O-levels at sixteen or
>> at their A-levels three years later.
> I think you misunderstood my question.
Yes, your question was very badly phrased, even if it did have an initial capital.
> I am asking if an electronic calculator device is a necessary part of education.
You asked more than that with the use of the phrase 'of that type'
> That is what you seemed to be advocating.
And he's right.
> No, it isn't obviously necessary.
Corse it is. Only a completely fucked education system wouldnt use them.
> It isn't necessary,
Only a completely fucked education system wouldnt use them.
> and may not be a good idea.
Corse its essential.
> I am not asking what operant paradigm you are thinking of
You clearly did with the use of the phrase 'of that type'
> -- we understood. No need to go back over it.
Then why did you use the phrase 'of that type' ?
> And I don't think ANYONE brought up exams or state assessments.
That was clearly just a comment on the level of the education.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote
> none <a...@b.com> wrote
>> p...@shell.dim.com (Daniel Packman) wrote
>>> There is a spectrum of formality from the very strict to the very
>>> loose. I would argue that there is a corresponding spectrum of ease
>>> ease of understanding from the very easy to the very difficult. Just
>>> leaving off leading capitals affects ease of understanding only slightly.
>> correct dan, thanks for helping these people understand it's "okay"
>> not to cap every single sentence.
> Appropriateness depends on the context, and while it is
> tolerable here, that observation does not also make it optimal.
There's no reason to even attempt optimal with such an informal means of communication.
> The whole purpose of language ... including the written form ...
> is to successfully convey concepts and information.
Its much more complicated than just that with this type of informal communication.
> The process of communication is essentially as a four step process:
> 1. Encoding of Concept/Info into words by sender
> 2. Transmission of words across time/space by sender
> 3. Receipt of words by recipient
> 4. Decoding of words back into Concepts/Info by recipient
Mindlessly anal.
> To be successful in conveying the desired information from sender
> to receiver, all four of these steps must be successful (logical AND).
Pity that what is being discussed is the different approaches to 1.
> To be "sloppy" in Step 2 can result in reduced success of receipt and decoding.
We're actually discussing Step 1, not 2. And not having an initial capital
on each sentence doesnt in fact make any difference to the success
except with the pathetically anal who concentrate on such trivia.
> As such, the recipient's probability of successfully interpreting the
> Sender's desired message. However, because Step 2 is performed
> by the Sender, it is not the fault of the Receiver, so only the Sender
> is responsible for all of the miscommunications from this source.
Thats wrong too with Step 2.
>> that's the freudian reason a few have brought this up, they
>> have become frustrated, so are trying to flag an unimportant
>> communication style since they can't win upon their own arguments.
> True, but that's also besides the point.
> Overall, if the Sender can't be bothered to make the effort of making his
> information easy to understand though even simple things, then the Sender's
> own actions illustrate that he's not really worth the time of listening to.
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >> none <a@b.com> wrote
> >>> in other words, nobody uses the Xerox GUI, everyone uses the Apple GUI.
>
> >> No they dont, they mostly use the Win GUI which is as different as the
> >> Apple GUI is to the Xerox GUI and its hilarious that its the Win GUI
> >> thats taking over linux, not the Apple GUI too.
>
> > Actually, no.
>
> Actually, yes.
>
> > Double-clicking, direct manipulation of objects, etc.
> > -- the *basic* parts of the GUI: they came from Apple.
>
> Nope, from Xerox.
Do you have anything to back that up - apart from the "I stole the TV
first" quote from Bill Gates?
--
Lars T.
> Lars Träger <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >> none <a@b.com> wrote
>
> >>> yes, there is some of that, i'll agree. but ALL
> >>> phones will now work like the iPhone in 10 years,
>
> >> Nope, just like all computers dont work like the Mac
> >> and all music players dont work like ipods either.
>
> > And yet almost all try to work like the Mac.
>
> No they dont, Win has been off on a completely
> different route for a hell of a long time now.
You mean by cramming everything in the Start menu?
> > Have you heard about that thing called Windows yet?
>
> That didnt end up like the Mac at the time it started.
>
> > DOS lost.
>
> Different matter entirely.
Suuure.
> > Even most Linux boxen run a GUI (imitating the imitation).
>
> Its been hilarious that they imitate Win, not the Mac.
Yeah, when they first complained how much Windows sucked.
> And phones certainly arent going to all end up working like the iphone either.
> There will be plenty with physical buttons in 10 years, you watch.
Sure. But how many of those will have all those stupid features you
don't actually need in a phone?
> There will be some high end PDAs with real keyboards too, you watch.
There aren't any high end PDAs today with a real keyboard - not without
an add-on.
> And laptops wont be doing without physical keyboards either, you watch.
Yeah, and you will also still make up stuff as you go along.
--
Lars T.
> Then there's the real world and the calculators they will use once they
> leave school.
>
Yes, but after all they still have their calculators from school.
BTW, I teach in the three-year Sixth Form College.
--
Per Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk
Lars Träger <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> none <a@b.com> wrote
>>>>> in other words, nobody uses the Xerox GUI, everyone uses the Apple GUI.
>>>> No they dont, they mostly use the Win GUI which is as different
>>>> as the Apple GUI is to the Xerox GUI and its hilarious that its
>>>> the Win GUI thats taking over linux, not the Apple GUI too.
>>> Actually, no.
>> Actually, yes.
>>> Double-clicking, direct manipulation of objects, etc.
>>> -- the *basic* parts of the GUI: they came from Apple.
>> Nope, from Xerox.
> Do you have anything to back that up
Yep, the detail of the specific WIMPs.
> - apart from the "I stole the TV first" quote from Bill Gates?
It wasnt stolen and Apple lost their legal suit they attempted againsts Gates, and lost the appeal
too.
Lars Träger <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Lars Träger <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> none <a@b.com> wrote
>>>>> yes, there is some of that, i'll agree. but ALL
>>>>> phones will now work like the iPhone in 10 years,
>>>> Nope, just like all computers dont work like the Mac
>>>> and all music players dont work like ipods either.
>>> And yet almost all try to work like the Mac.
>> No they dont, Win has been off on a completely
>> different route for a hell of a long time now.
> You mean by cramming everything in the Start menu?
Nope, there were significant differences before that, and since that too.
>>> Have you heard about that thing called Windows yet?
>> That didnt end up like the Mac at the time it started.
>>> DOS lost.
>> Different matter entirely.
> Suuure.
Fraid so.
>>> Even most Linux boxen run a GUI (imitating the imitation).
>> Its been hilarious that they imitate Win, not the Mac.
> Yeah, when they first complained how much Windows sucked.
Yep. Hilarious.
>> And phones certainly arent going to all end up working like the iphone
>> either. There will be plenty with physical buttons in 10 years, you watch.
> Sure. But how many of those will have all those
> stupid features you don't actually need in a phone?
Almost all of them, essentially because they cost peanuts to add.
>> There will be some high end PDAs with real keyboards too, you watch.
> There aren't any high end PDAs today with a real keyboard - not without an add-on.
I meant real in the sense of not a virtual keyboard, a physical keyboard. Plenty of those.
>> And laptops wont be doing without physical keyboards either, you watch.
> Yeah, and you will also still make up stuff as you go along.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote
>>> Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>>>> Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> School children should learn to have the ordinary operator
>>>>> hierarchy at their fingertips ...
>>>> Really?
>>>> Then you are discounting any system that just doesn't use calculators?
>>>> Calculators, in your view, are necessary and must be of that type?
>>> It is the standard in mathematics and has been so for centuries.
>>> It is simply unacceptable for scholchildren at their math exams
>>> to think that the expression:
>>> ax + by
>>> means:
>>> (ax + b)y
>>> And it doesn't matter whether they are at the O-levels
>>> at sixteen or at their A-levels three years later.
>> Then there's the real world and the calculators
>> they will use once they leave school.
> Yes, but after all they still have their calculators from school.
Not in their workplaces they dont.
> BTW, I teach in the three-year Sixth Form College.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of whats
wrong with the worst of the education systems today.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:31:32 +0200, Lars Träger wrote:
>> > Even most Linux boxen run a GUI (imitating the imitation).
>>
>> Its been hilarious that they imitate Win, not the Mac.
Since the Mac's OS is built on another open-source UNIX lookalike
and the Mac runs open-source software written for Linux, you might say the
Mac is already imitating Linux.
> Yeah, when they first complained how much Windows sucked.
Fortunately, Gnome and KDE represent only a small fraction of available
window managers. I'm partial to icewm myself, but switch to Enlightenment
when I want to impress the girls.
In article <pan.2007.07.16.23.53.01.501313@invalid.com.invali d>,
booker <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:31:32 +0200, Lars Träger wrote:
>
> >> > Even most Linux boxen run a GUI (imitating the imitation).
> >>
> >> Its been hilarious that they imitate Win, not the Mac.
>
> Since the Mac's OS is built on another open-source UNIX lookalike
> and the Mac runs open-source software written for Linux, you might say the
> Mac is already imitating Linux.
One might say that...
....but then, one might say many foolish things.
:-)
>
> > Yeah, when they first complained how much Windows sucked.
>
> Fortunately, Gnome and KDE represent only a small fraction of available
> window managers. I'm partial to icewm myself, but switch to Enlightenment
> when I want to impress the girls.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
booker <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote
> Lars Träger wrote
>>>> Even most Linux boxen run a GUI (imitating the imitation).
>>> Its been hilarious that they imitate Win, not the Mac.
> Since the Mac's OS is built on another open-source UNIX
> lookalike and the Mac runs open-source software written
> for Linux, you might say the Mac is already imitating Linux.
Pity about the Mac before they started doing that.
>> Yeah, when they first complained how much Windows sucked.
> Fortunately, Gnome and KDE represent only a small fraction
> of available window managers. I'm partial to icewm myself,
> but switch to Enlightenment when I want to impress the girls.
Re: Apple plans cheaper, Nano-based phone 
