Adobe's Low hanging .... ?

On 26 Jul 2014 07:38:22 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Yes, the Apple USB power adapter isn't a battery charger. Glad we
sorted that out.

Pardon me; I though there was only one of youcontributing to this
thread. The other Sandman has just written

"You don't "apply" the USB *charger* from Apple to the battery, you
connect it to a Lightning port."

The emphasis on 'charger' is mine.

I think you forgot to attach a point to your post, Eric.

You call that thinking?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:52:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Wait a minute! You've said in another post that people call
them different things, and that's OK. So if that's OK, then
calling the power adapter a "battery charger" is perfectly
legitimate by your rules. If it's used to charge the battery,
calling it a "battery charger" is logical.

nospam:
no, because it's not a battery charger. where do you put the
batteries into it? you don't.

You're struggling. Where do you put the batteries into this one?

http://www.elec-intro.com/EX/05-15-0...ry_Charger.jpg

You apply the red and black clamps to the battery. You don't "apply" the
USB charger from Apple to the battery, you connect it to a Lightning
port.

You're welcome.

Apply? The word most of us would use would be "connect". You
"connect" the red and black clamps to the automobile battery posts,
and you connect the Apple cable to the iPhone's charging port. Same
thing. Others would use "attach" in both cases.

"Apply", though? Who uses that for connecting or attaching a battery
cable? Only someone trying to weasel out of being caught out making
another blunder.

nothing but word games.

This is a text format in which words are used. You scream like a baby
with a loaded diaper when someone uses what you consider to be the
wrong word for a device. Yet, when someone uses the wrong word to
describe that act of attaching something to a device, you claim it's
word games.

you're describing yourself. you nitpick every word, even citing
dictionary definitions.

attach, apply, connect, plug in or whatever else makes no difference
and you know it. you're just arguing just to argue, as usual.

it's obvious what is meant when he said apply the red and black clamps
to the battery.

the problem is that entirely misses the point. you *still* don't
understand the difference between a charger and a power supply, and
there is definitely a difference. all you can do is argue over word
usage.

But isn't this exactly what you are doing? Arguing about the
difference between a charger and a power supply?

You wailed out, above, it's not a battery charger because you don't
put batteries in it. It's an incorrect statement, but it is an
example of you doing exactly what you object to others doing.

nope.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 26 Jul 2014 07:39:41 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

If you want to dispute these things with me I suggest argue with
my comments and not something you have just made up.

Sandman:
Keep running, Eric. It's what you do best.

If you want to dispute these things with me I suggest you argue with
my comments and not something you have just made up.

No need to post again and again that you're running away, Eric.

Anyone who has had the patience to follow this will know that you have
edited and twisted what I said for your own purposes. I am happy to
engage in honest debate but there seems to be no hope of that from
you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 26 Jul 2014 07:38:52 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Here we have Eric again and again posting
about nospam having denied something even though
nospam has said over and over again that he forgot
about this.

Eric Stevens:
Listen Dumb-brain

Sandman:
The height of Eric's argumentation skills, ad
hominem's.

Eric Stevens:
Can't you deal with the Hall-effect switch?

Sandman:
Sorry, Eric, I didn't read any of your post past the
above quoted material. You lost the "argument" flat out
without evebvn trying when you started out with that. There
was nothing you had to say that had anything to do with what I
posted when it starts like that. You're a fourteen year old
boy trapped in an 80 year old body.

Eric Stevens:
Right. You can't deal with the Hall effect switch.

Sandman:
Keep telling yourself that, Eric.

Well, you haven't dealt with it yet. You haven't even tried.

Stop trolling like a teenager, and perhaps you will be treated like you
were something resembling an adult.

Give up the personal insults and deal with the presence of a Hall
effect switch in the iPhone.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:14:26 -0700, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 24 July 2014 16:20:17 UTC+1, nospam wrote:




OK...you're on record for saying that Google "knows" things and
redirects to "whatever people actually use in the real world".

they do.



if you search for blueberry pie, you won't get apple's page, because
blueberry pie is not interchangeable with power adapter.

What do you get if you search for raspberry pie ?

The wife to make some custard.



--
Neil
Reverse ‘i’ and ‘e’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You apply the red and black clamps to the battery. You don't "apply"
the USB charger from Apple to the battery, you connect it to a Lightning
port.

You're welcome.

Apply? The word most of us would use would be "connect". You
"connect" the red and black clamps to the automobile battery posts,
and you connect the Apple cable to the iPhone's charging port. Same
thing. Others would use "attach" in both cases.

"Apply", though? Who uses that for connecting or attaching a battery
cable? Only someone trying to weasel out of being caught out making
another blunder.

nothing but word games.

This is a text format in which words are used. You scream like a baby
with a loaded diaper when someone uses what you consider to be the
wrong word for a device. Yet, when someone uses the wrong word to
describe that act of attaching something to a device, you claim it's
word games.

you're describing yourself. you nitpick every word, even citing
dictionary definitions.

attach, apply, connect, plug in or whatever else makes no difference
and you know it. you're just arguing just to argue, as usual.

it's obvious what is meant when he said apply the red and black clamps
to the battery.

the problem is that entirely misses the point. you *still* don't
understand the difference between a charger and a power supply, and
there is definitely a difference. all you can do is argue over word
usage.

But isn't this exactly what you are doing? Arguing about the
difference between a charger and a power supply?

because there *is* a difference between a charger and power supply and
choosing the wrong one can potentially damage a device or worse, cause
a fire or explosion.

there is no real difference between 'apply' versus 'connect'. choosing
one word over the other doesn't matter and the meaning is easy to
determine based on context anyway. all he's doing is arguing over
meaningless things.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

attach, apply, connect, plug in or whatever else makes no difference
and you know it. you're just arguing just to argue, as usual.

it's obvious what is meant when he said apply the red and black clamps
to the battery.

the problem is that entirely misses the point. you *still* don't
understand the difference between a charger and a power supply, and
there is definitely a difference. all you can do is argue over word
usage.

But isn't this exactly what you are doing? Arguing about the
difference between a charger and a power supply?

because there *is* a difference between a charger and power supply and
choosing the wrong one can potentially damage a device or worse, cause
a fire or explosion.

there is no real difference between 'apply' versus 'connect'. choosing
one word over the other doesn't matter and the meaning is easy to
determine based on context anyway. all he's doing is arguing over
meaningless things.

Of course there is a difference. If someone tells another person to
"apply the charger cable" to a car battery, it would not be at all
understandable. If, instead, the instructions were to "attach the
charger cable" or "connect the charger cable", it would be perfectly
clear. The instructions, of course, should include which clamp goes
to which post.

there is no tangible difference between those words. obviously the
charger has to be connected to the battery in some manner, which should
be obvious without even being told to 'apply' or 'connect'. where did
you think the wires would go, if not to the battery to be charged?

In the case of an iPhone, instructions to "connect the charger cable
to the iPhone" or "connect the power supply cable to the iPhone" would
both be understandable. The iPhone comes with an external device and
a cable. The person getting the instructions doesn't care what you
call that device, but does want to know how to charge the phone's
battery and that that device and cable accomplish this. There's only
one device that comes with an iPhone that could be meant. No one is
going to mistake the ear bud for what is called for.

what you're missing is that the thing that comes with an iphone is
basically generic. apple's units are higher quality than most, but in
the end, they're all just +5v usb power supplies.

they are not chargers, although that's what they're usually used for
when connected to a phone, which is what contains the charging
circuitry.

Of course, with Apple, the term is going to be "adapter" anyway.

it's called by many things. that doesn't mean they're all correct.

it's a power supply or a power adapter. it is *not* a charger, although
it is called that because it's used to charge phones.

Your contention that there is a difference between a charger and a
power supply is true, but not a pertinent observation. When the
discussion is about an iPhone - which it has been - anyone who doesn't
know the difference isn't going to have both around. Anyone who has
both around would know the difference.

anyone who has been around car chargers would know what to do and
wouldn't even need to be told to 'apply' anything.

In most cases, connectable devices have connections that only fit
certain products. I've got a power supply for an external drive, but
there's no way in hell that I could connect it to an iPhone. I've got
a charger for my Nikon batteries, but that is not connectable to my
iPhone.

there are lots of proprietary connectors.

however, the iphone uses standard usb, available anywhere.

To jerry-rig a cable that would connect either to my iPhone would
require parts and skills that I don't have and don't need.

no need to hack anything, since usb ports are easily found on *many*
devices. even cars have built-in usb ports now.

You argue with everything, but some of your arguments - like this one
- are so far-fetched that they don't rise to the level of being taken
seriously.

actually it's you who argues with everything.

there's nothing far fetched at all about what i said. you don't
understand power supplies and chargers and i do, which is why you can
only argue word usage or other irrelevant details rather than specifics
about the electrical design.

You claim I nit-pick over words, but you nit-pick by bringing
scenarios that don't exist like creating a fire or explosion by
connecting the wrong device to an iPhone.

i didn't specifically call out iphones. i said using the power supply
instead of a charger can be dangerous, and it is.

it's also dangerous if someone uses crappy adapters, which don't
properly isolate the mains power and can cause a phone to catch fire
and/or electrocute the owner.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/world/...-electrocution
/

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

I doubt the cloud is entirley made up of SSDs, there's a reason for that.

ssd would be a waste for the cloud, as any speed advantage would be
wasted.

But you've calimed they are more relible, there's as yet not enough evidence
to claim that.

oh yes there is. no moving parts for one.

I'm really not sure which would be the most *relible* a SSD of around
512Gb
or spending that amount of cash on 512Gb HDDs and keeping clones as
backups.

The good SSDs have similar life spans to HDDs.

actually much better than hd.

In theory and as yet unproven.

it's proven.

they aren't quite as good with updating data in small files especailly as
the disk becomes full, SSDs can't overwrite existing data,

of course it can.

No it can;t it's the technology behind it.

copy new files to it and whatever was there before is overwritten.
it's that simple.

No it's not.

yes it is that simple.

what it does is when
needed it has to erase data before writng the changes, it has to copy the
file to another location first.

so what? that's done internally and transparent to the host.

to the host, whatever you mean by thay, but it takes extra time and resources.

the host is the computer, and it doesn't take any extra time. ssd is
*much* faster than a hard drive.

Although I wouldn;t say it a major problme
for most unless they fill thier SSD.
Hopefully the new FRAM SSDs will overcome is.

it's not a problem at all.

It is that's why they are developing new types of SSD and even currebntly
they are diffent types.
http://www.kingston.com/en/ssd

they're always developing new types of everything, including hard drives

Re-writables then to home burnt ones because they refelct less laser light

than commerial CD/DVDs as they have a refective coating added.

Could be iimportent if you back-up to such media.

it's a non-issue, since all optical drives made in the last 20 years or
so can read writeable discs.

you've not heard of DVD cleaners ?
Shows you how little you know about the subject.

cd/dvd cleaners are a complete waste of money.

however, dropping or improper handling can scratch it but that doesn't
usually matter much since the data is below the surface and any
scratches make very little difference unless they're fairly big. a
little scuffing is not going to cause data loss.

depends on the direction of the scuff also.

no

Yes it does, just like records or even words on paper.

nope. scratches are on the surface of the disc and not where the laser
is focused.

the scratches would need to be very serious to cause a problem. minor
scratches do not matter at all.

I've never lost my house keys, but I;ve needed to use my duplcate set.
My keys were inside the house, but I needed my backup.

irrelevant comparison.

then stop using the word LOST becaus eit has no meaning here.

it does.

I'm sure we've all lost something and had someone tells us no you left
you're

lens cap here or I picked up your lighter, it was on teh floor sort of
thing.

you don't leave your data on the couch.

and you don't loss data it becomes corrupted and that is what people say they
have lost data.

you just said lost has no meaning, now you say it's widely used.



if there's *any* problem with the original, you get a backup copy.

But you have to know there's a problem.

so?

if you have the data on the main drive you don't need a backup, do you?

the thing is you don't know when (not if) the main drive will fail, nor
can you prevent accidental deletion, which is why backups are vital.

With the word LOST in computer terms it measn it's not where it expects
the file to be.

lost means the data is gone.

No it does not.
I guess you've never come across the LOST+FOUND directory have you.

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questi...e-of-the-lostf
ound-folder-in-linux-and-unix

if the user accidentally deletes a file, it's not going to end up there.

Even when you delete a file all that happens is that data is changed
no data is lost useful information might derived from the file.

if you delete a file, it's gone.

No it's not, all that happens is the start and end locations amonst
others of the file are 'zeroed out' for the want of a better word ,
thats how some recovery programs work.

actually what happens is the directory entry is changed.

ONLY yes the file still exists.

no it doesn't still exist..

the blocks that had the data may still have the data but they are
marked as unused and may be overwritten at any time. there is no file
anymore.

the file data itself is still there, but none of that matters. as far
as the user is concerned, the file is gone and they need to get a
backup copy.

That's how recovery programs work, because the file has NOT gone.
You can auctually still see the data using disc editing tools.

see above.

a recovery app can get at the old data, assuming it hasn't been
overwritten by *another* file, which it often is by the time the user
realizes the file is gone,

that's what I mean in that you have to knbow the file is gone to know you have lost it.

duh.

but why bother with all that when you can
easily pull the file off a backup.

That's why you keep backups for when things do go wrong, which can happen
on any sort of media whether it be user error or a system failure or even theft.
But in all of these you jhave to know you are missing something before you
bother goinf to recover it.

duh.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

The original discussion was over from where the iPhone
obtained it's power. As can be seen above Whisky-dave said "A battery
can be said to be suplying power to the device."

no.

yes it can, battereis commomnly supply power to a device.

batteries are not called power supplies.

There's probbaly lots of other reasons to put a battery in a device you could
argue that it it.
To add wieght, to add cost, because it's fun,

that's not the issue.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:02:20 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

The original discussion was over from where the iPhone
obtained it's power. As can be seen above Whisky-dave said "A battery
can be said to be suplying power to the device."

no.

yes it can, battereis commomnly supply power to a device.

batteries are not called power supplies.

It doesn't matter how they are commony referred to. We are talking
about how you describe what they do. When you are out in the field,
they are power supplies.

There's probbaly lots of other reasons to put a battery in a device you could
argue that it it.
To add wieght, to add cost, because it's fun,

that's not the issue.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens