Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.

On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:08:50 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-02 16:36:49 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/2/2013 10:36 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 09:25:00 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 11/1/2013 10:53 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

The Wi-Fi only iPad only has a digital compass on board, no GPS
circuitry & and no cell assisted GPS. Adding a GPS app is not going to
help in anyway.

apps don't 'use the gps'. they request location at a certain accuracy.

wifi ipads and ipod touches can provide street level accuracy without a
gps if they're near a wifi network.

Are you saying that I can tether the iPad (none cell version,) to my
personal hotspot?

if your hotspot creates a wifi network, sure.

it's possible that it can get location data too, certainly at the city
level.


The tablet is for my wife, her amusement while I am off shooting. That
way I get more shooting time. The only time she uses the in-car nav is
when I put in a preset location for her.

It seems that your wife is amused less expensively than mine. I went
off shooting yesterday and came home to find a note that my wife had
hied off to Bloomingdale's for a sale on sheets.



Not always true. photo trips have been known to end at the shopping
mall. But, both of us are getting off cheap, compared to one of my club
members. His wife enourges spending on cameras, and has been known to
order new cameras and lenses for him. She gets equivalent value in
jewelry.

If you have any spare cash I still have that diamond broach.
I haven't found anything I can wear it with. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil.../broach-01.jpg

How about one like this?
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/84...ss_broach.html
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
But see: Condition: Used, fully tested Warranty: 6 month
warranty

It's not a new one.

Sandman:
I never claimed it was, Eric.

Eric Stevens:
Up till then we had been discussing new parts.

Sandman:
Who is "we", Eric? I wasn't discussing with you. I had discussed
new parts, but never made a promise not to mentioned used parts.

You're looking to start an argument again, Eric. Just step away
before this becomes as embarassing as all the other times for you.

Yeah. You knew that these were not new parts youwere discussing.

Exactly.

It's just that you hadn't mentioned it.

I also didn't mentioned their color, where they were stored or the name of
the boss of the company that sells them. I didn't mention that they were
used because it was irrelevant to the information I was supplying.

Stop arguing about everything all the time. You only came in to this thread
to try to antagonize me now. Trying to find me making some form of mistake,
and if it wasn't a mistake, then try to insist it was anyway.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But not a word about the GUI version until you mentioned it later.

mac and windows are gui.

it could *never* have been dos.

Go back and read again.

what for? the meaning isn't going to change.

however, *you* should read it again, and again, and again. because you
*still* don't understand it.

what i said is absolutely correct and there is only one possible
interpretation:
microsoft word on the mac came out before microsoft word on windows.

Do you think I denied that?

if you didn't deny it, what's the problem then?

I pointed out that Word started neither on Mac or Windows, which is
true.

but not relevant to what i said.

you chastise me for bringing up irrelevant things, yet you do it
yourself and want a free pass.

i could phrase it in reverse, saying the same thing:
microsoft windows came out after microsoft word on the mac.

before, after. learn them.

or using math symbols: word-mac word-windows.

In response to your "microsoft word and microsoft excel existed on the
mac *before* they did on windows ... " I replied "But it didn't start
on the Mac".

i never said it started on the mac. i didn't say anything about where
it started.

But I did, and now you are frothing.

i'm not frothing at all.

you're accusing me of making a mistake, when i did no such thing.

you read a different meaning than what was written and won't admit your
mistake.

i only said it was on the mac before it was on windows, and it was.

It was at that point you tried to narrow it down to the GUI version.

nope.

it was *always* about the gui versions.

i mentioned only mac and windows, and mac and windows are gui systems.

i did not mention any other system. since both are gui, therefore it's
about gui.

The problem is that I thought it was about Word. And it was too.

it is about word.

it's just that it's word on the mac and windows. not dos.

nobody (but you) is talking about dos.

you are imagining a meaning that was not there.

It was there OK. It was just that you never noticed it.

other way around. *you* read it wrong.

no wonder these threads go off endlessly.

If you had said from the beginning "the GUI versions of microsoft word
and microsoft excel existed on the mac *before* they did on windows
... " we wouldn't be arguing now.

if you understood english, we wouldn't.

there is no need to explicitly spell out gui because it can't be
anything *but* gui on a mac or windows system. it's redundant.

But it was Word.

yes it was, on a mac and windows system.

furthermore, there are no cli versions of microsoft word (or excel) on
the mac or windows.

So?

if there is no cli version alongside the gui version, then it is
unambiguous what i meant.

it could *only* have meant gui therefore explicitly saying gui is
redundant.

again, it's redundant to say 'gui version on the mac' because the
*only* version on the mac is a gui version. same for windows. the 'gui'
term is not needed.

one more time, microsoft word on the mac existed on the mac before it
did on windows. this is a true statement. it will always be true. it's
exactly correct and exactly what i wrote. there is only one possible
interpretation.

what i wrote does *not* say the first version of microsoft word was on
the mac.

all it says is that the mac version was before the windows version.

i said nothing about it being first on the mac. that is entirely your
fabrication.

you ask to write more clearly but i don't know how much clearer it can
get.

versions, you could transfer between platforms.

i never mentioned the dos version.

Nor did you distinguish it. It was all just 'Word' without any
limitations.

nonsense.

what part of 'existed on the mac' and 'finally came out on windows' is
not clear?

that is *specifically* referencing two platforms, neither of which are
dos and both are gui.

there is no possible alternative interpretation.

But Word did not start on the Mac, did it?

i never said it did.

i only referred to the mac version and the windows version.

You only *thought* about the Mac and Windows version.

mac and windows is all that's relevant in this discussion.

you're avoiding admitting you made a mistake.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

nospam:
microsoft word and microsoft excel existed on the mac
*before* they did on windows and when microsoft finally
came out with the windows

nospam:
that is 100% true. the windows version of word came out ~4 years
after the mac version did, exactly like i said it did.

nospam:
i never mentioned the dos version.

Nor did you distinguish it. It was all just 'Word' without any
limitations.

Eric, this is yet another instanse where YOU misinterpreted and are now
trying to blame nospam.

His claim, still quoted above, is 100% true and 100% clear. Word and Excel
existed for the *MAC* before it existed on *WINDOWS*. This is 100% true and
totally unambiguous.

Stop arguing about *everything*

Don't be so bloody silly!

I never denied Nospam's claim.

How come you are arguing with me even when I agree?

so why did you bring up something irrelevant?

and then you accuse others of sidetracking.

On 2 Nov 2013 09:23:58 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

"Outlasts" was the wrong word to use. It misled. It did
*not* provide clear meaning. No amount of twisting around
will convince anyone that the meaning intended was clear.
You cannot "interprete" [sic] it to be a clear declaration
of what the actual meaning was supposed to be.

outlast is a perfectly valid word to use. you're arguing for
the sake of arguing.

Yes, but it encompasses all kinds of possible reasons why it
should 'outlast'. You only meant one.

it's very obvious from context what is meant, but if you are
confused, ask for clarification.

The problem arose from the fact that at the time people didn't
realise they were confused - confused in the sense they took
something other than what you intended from your words. This only
become apparent later.

True - and any normal person would have posted this then:

"Oh, you meant they replace the computer, haha, I thought you meant
it broke down, my mistakes, sorry!"

But you guys aren't normal people, now are you? Nooo, you had to start
arguing about word definitions because that's the only thing you could do
because admitting to having made a mistake is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for you
guys to do. You have tons and tons of pride invested into your online
personas and having misunderstood what your greatest enemy - nospam - said
is not something you would ever admit, hence your natural reaction is
blaming him. Ok, he meant something else than what you had interpreted, but
it's HIS fault, not yours! He is the one that MADE you misunderstand, he
can't say that it was our mistake - he MADE, nay FORCED us to make the
mistake. NOT A SINGLE PERSON could have interpreted the sentence in the way
he actually meant it.

This is why you guys are trolls. You post to antagonize, to rile up. You
throw the line in and wait for people to take the bait.

Tony is working hard to ignore it - and snipped it away because he can't
deal with it - but I wrote about it to him as well:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=111824

The important part:

"In fact, in the followup troll you wrote, it was aimed squarely at this
discrepancy of his words, knowing full well that your supposed
interpretation of the words didn't really fit the already stated viewpoints
of nospam.

This, if anything, is the ultimate proof that what you did was meant 100%
as trolling. You willfully misinterpreted his words to antagonize and argue
with him because you dislike him. Not because you thought he had claimed
that Macs breaks down after five years, because you never ever thought he
meant that. It was just your lame attempt at trying to "stick it" to him,
finding the smallest loop holes you can find to inject your trolling into.
This is what you do, this is ONLY what you do."

That is trolling, one of the clearest examples of it. And you do it too.
You argue with nospam because it is nospam, not because he's wrong or
anything like that that would be worth arguing over. You're arguing because
you can't admit to being wrong.

It's not too late to change, though.


You are off the track entirely. You can see nospam's original remark
and Tony's response in Message-ID: on
Sun, 27 Oct 2013 20:26:20 -0400.

Nospam
nope. customers don't care. the battery lasts longer than the
computer does. it's a non-issue.

Tony
That's not saying much for the quality of the computer.

With hindsight both were set on their respective courses. But then the
thread dissolves into the normal shambles of confused argument

To Tony saying "nonsense. the battery is rated for 5 years." Nospam
asks "how often do you buy a new laptop?" Neither has yet realised
their differences in interpretation.

Then later Tony says:

"That aside, you have clearly stated that the customer should expect
to replace the laptop before that five year mark. You have stated
that the battery will last longer than the computer.

That doesn't say much about the quality of the computer. So, the
part that costs the most is not going to last as long as the part
that is significantly less in price. Does that make sense?"

Nospam is still fixated on his view that the computer will be replaced
on the grounds of obcolescence and has not yet realised that Tony
thinks he means the computer will fail simply because it has failed.

It's not until Message-ID:
of Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:08:12 -0400 that Nospam gives a hint that he
_might_ mean something other than what Tony has understood when he
writes:

"no, i said they typically replace the computer before they would
need to replace the battery.

the laptop does not suddenly stop working. it can work for many,
many years. just with a degraded battery."

.... and so it goes. All parties were well entrenched in argument
before the differences in interpretation were realised. By then it
became a blame game as to which was the natural interpretation.
Sweetness and light never had a chance.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2 Nov 2013 10:40:48 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:


Sandman:
Sandman: No, it was at that point Tony introduced the
topic of "Apple batteries" and I called him on it. You
then thought I was the one that had made the distinction
when it was your troll buddy. This blew up in your face as
most things have done lately.

Eric Stevens:
He said "*If* the topic was Apple batteries ... "

Sandman:
Yes, as I said - he brought up the topic of "Apple batteries"
as a diversion.

Eric Stevens:
He brought it up as an example. You made it a topic.

Sandman:
As I said, Tony is the one who brought up "Apple batteries", not
me.

But you didn't say that.

He is the one who brought up the topic of "Apple batteries", yes.

Squink.

Sandman:
Stop arguing in circles just to keep arguing. The first time
the phrase "Apple batteries" was used in this group *ever* (or
at least in the last two years) was when Tony wrote it in the
post I've quoted.

Eric Stevens:
Words on their own do not make a topic.

Sandman:
Never claimed they did. Just correctly saying that it was Tony who
brought up "Apple batteries", not me. You are confused, and trying
to make this in to a "example" vs "topic" is of no consequence to
your mistake.

You were the one who made it a topic

Incorrect, Tony was the one who brought up "Apple batteries"

Still doing your best to argue on and on and on about the smallest details
you can find? Good job, troll boy.

Small details can be important in writing.

*Apple Batteries* is not the same as "if the topic is *Apple
Batteries*" which is not the same as "the topic is *Apple Batteries*".
You can also make Apple Batteries the topic by writing about them,
which you did.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2 Nov 2013 22:47:40 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

This is not worth squabbling over.

So why do you do it?

Facts:

Sandman
Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.
10/27/2013

"Yeah, it's pretty freaking awesome. Why anyone would choose
a 4-5 hour PC laptop over a Mac laptop is beyond me."

PeterN
Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.
10/28/2013

"Last time I checked Lenovo is a PC machine and 17 15
http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1712."



Peter was the one who introdcued Lenovo laptops into the discussion. Stop
arguing for once in your life!

Why should I stop when you won't?

In this case, you are correct. Peter was the first.

Lenovo laptops are sprinkled through the thread. I still think you
were the one who dragged Lenovo batteries out into the bublic arena.

Facts be damned, right? Stop just "thinking" stuff and start substantiating
- you know, like I do when I make a claim.

The first time the word "Lenovo" was ever mentioned in this thread:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=105489

Message-ID dated Fri, 25 Oct 2013
20:35:09 -0400

Author: PeterN

The first time it was mentioned in relation to its batteries:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=105904

Message-ID dated Sun, 27 Oct 2013
19:39:56 -0400

Author: PeterN
r
But on 20 Oct ,in Message-ID:
, you quoted from a URL
provided by PeterN on the subject of Lenovo battery life.

"check again, namely the footnote:

Battery life using internal 3 cell battery and external ThinkPad
68+ 6 cell battery

and reading further,
New Power Bridge technology allows users to swap external
batteries without powering down their PC.* This new ³hot swap²
feature, available with the ThinkPad 68(23.5Wh), 68+ (72Wh), and
48Wh batteries, provides flexibility and maximum battery life in
nearly any situation and extends productivity beyond all day.

According to my calendar 20 Oct precedes 27 Oct: you were the first.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 19:27:32 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But not a word about the GUI version until you mentioned it later.

mac and windows are gui.

it could *never* have been dos.

Go back and read again.

what for? the meaning isn't going to change.

however, *you* should read it again, and again, and again. because you
*still* don't understand it.

what i said is absolutely correct and there is only one possible
interpretation:
microsoft word on the mac came out before microsoft word on windows.

Do you think I denied that?

if you didn't deny it, what's the problem then?

I'm damned if I know. I haven't got one.

I pointed out that Word started neither on Mac or Windows, which is
true.

but not relevant to what i said.

It's just for the ebenfit of those who might have taken what you wrote
as meaning that Word started with Mac and then Windows. I was just
pointing out that it started well before either.

you chastise me for bringing up irrelevant things, yet you do it
yourself and want a free pass.

If I have chided you (and I don't know that I would use that word) it
is for using terms which can have multiple meanings while only
intending one of them.

i could phrase it in reverse, saying the same thing:
microsoft windows came out after microsoft word on the mac.

before, after. learn them.

or using math symbols: word-mac word-windows.

In response to your "microsoft word and microsoft excel existed on the
mac *before* they did on windows ... " I replied "But it didn't start
on the Mac".

i never said it started on the mac. i didn't say anything about where
it started.

But I did, and now you are frothing.

i'm not frothing at all.

you're accusing me of making a mistake, when i did no such thing.

I'm not accusing you of making a mistake!

you read a different meaning than what was written and won't admit your
mistake.

Here we go again.

If you go back and see what I wrote it is not possible to think I was
accusing you of making a mistake.

i only said it was on the mac before it was on windows, and it was.

It was at that point you tried to narrow it down to the GUI version.

nope.

it was *always* about the gui versions.

i mentioned only mac and windows, and mac and windows are gui systems.

i did not mention any other system. since both are gui, therefore it's
about gui.

The problem is that I thought it was about Word. And it was too.

it is about word.

it's just that it's word on the mac and windows. not dos.

So it's about Word on the Mac and Windows, which is a subset of Word.

nobody (but you) is talking about dos.

Not even I was.

you are imagining a meaning that was not there.

It was there OK. It was just that you never noticed it.

other way around. *you* read it wrong.

no wonder these threads go off endlessly.

If you had said from the beginning "the GUI versions of microsoft word
and microsoft excel existed on the mac *before* they did on windows
... " we wouldn't be arguing now.

if you understood english, we wouldn't.

there is no need to explicitly spell out gui because it can't be
anything *but* gui on a mac or windows system. it's redundant.

But it was Word.

yes it was, on a mac and windows system.

furthermore, there are no cli versions of microsoft word (or excel) on
the mac or windows.

So?

if there is no cli version alongside the gui version, then it is
unambiguous what i meant.

it could *only* have meant gui therefore explicitly saying gui is
redundant.

But you have to know of the earlier history and that Xenix et al had
no GUI to know all that. For people who lacked this knowledge it would
be simpler to say Word with a GUI started on the Mac.

again, it's redundant to say 'gui version on the mac' because the
*only* version on the mac is a gui version. same for windows. the 'gui'
term is not needed.

one more time, microsoft word on the mac existed on the mac before it
did on windows. this is a true statement. it will always be true. it's
exactly correct and exactly what i wrote. there is only one possible
interpretation.

what i wrote does *not* say the first version of microsoft word was on
the mac.

all it says is that the mac version was before the windows version.

i said nothing about it being first on the mac. that is entirely your
fabrication.

you ask to write more clearly but i don't know how much clearer it can
get.

versions, you could transfer between platforms.

i never mentioned the dos version.

Nor did you distinguish it. It was all just 'Word' without any
limitations.

nonsense.

what part of 'existed on the mac' and 'finally came out on windows' is
not clear?

that is *specifically* referencing two platforms, neither of which are
dos and both are gui.

there is no possible alternative interpretation.

But Word did not start on the Mac, did it?

i never said it did.

i only referred to the mac version and the windows version.

You only *thought* about the Mac and Windows version.

mac and windows is all that's relevant in this discussion.

you're avoiding admitting you made a mistake.

What mistake?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 19:27:33 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

nospam:
microsoft word and microsoft excel existed on the mac
*before* they did on windows and when microsoft finally
came out with the windows

nospam:
that is 100% true. the windows version of word came out ~4 years
after the mac version did, exactly like i said it did.

nospam:
i never mentioned the dos version.

Nor did you distinguish it. It was all just 'Word' without any
limitations.

Eric, this is yet another instanse where YOU misinterpreted and are now
trying to blame nospam.

His claim, still quoted above, is 100% true and 100% clear. Word and Excel
existed for the *MAC* before it existed on *WINDOWS*. This is 100% true and
totally unambiguous.

Stop arguing about *everything*

Don't be so bloody silly!

I never denied Nospam's claim.

How come you are arguing with me even when I agree?

so why did you bring up something irrelevant?

Because I didn't think it was entirely irrelevant. It might be a side
issue but it's not entirely irrelevant.

and then you accuse others of sidetracking.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/2/2013 10:22 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 19:27:32 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But not a word about the GUI version until you mentioned it later.

mac and windows are gui.

it could *never* have been dos.

Go back and read again.

what for? the meaning isn't going to change.

however, *you* should read it again, and again, and again. because you
*still* don't understand it.

what i said is absolutely correct and there is only one possible
interpretation:
microsoft word on the mac came out before microsoft word on windows.

Do you think I denied that?

if you didn't deny it, what's the problem then?

I'm damned if I know. I haven't got one.

I pointed out that Word started neither on Mac or Windows, which is
true.

but not relevant to what i said.

It's just for the ebenfit of those who might have taken what you wrote
as meaning that Word started with Mac and then Windows. I was just
pointing out that it started well before either.

you chastise me for bringing up irrelevant things, yet you do it
yourself and want a free pass.

If I have chided you (and I don't know that I would use that word) it
is for using terms which can have multiple meanings while only
intending one of them.

i could phrase it in reverse, saying the same thing:
microsoft windows came out after microsoft word on the mac.

before, after. learn them.

or using math symbols: word-mac word-windows.

In response to your "microsoft word and microsoft excel existed on the
mac *before* they did on windows ... " I replied "But it didn't start
on the Mac".

i never said it started on the mac. i didn't say anything about where
it started.

But I did, and now you are frothing.

i'm not frothing at all.

you're accusing me of making a mistake, when i did no such thing.

I'm not accusing you of making a mistake!


You should know better than accusing nopam of: making either a mistake;
or writing an ambiguous statement.

That would be twisting or nitpicking his words.




--
PeterN