Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[P Witte]

Phoebus R. Dokos  writes:

> >> and a couple of others running custom QDOS-based software,
> >> that unfortunately cannot work with SMSQ/e either.
> >
> > "custom" often meant pretty dirty; didn't it?
>
> Most likely, but where the user is concerned they really don't care as
> long as it works correct? :-D

I agree 100%: as long as, as you say, it works. And keeps working. And
doesnt stop other legally constituted stuff from working.

Unfortunately, a lot of "dirty" software only starts screwing your system
years later, eg when the OS gets ugraded..

We all make mistakes, but a deliberate high-handedness with the rules of the
game makes life hell for everyone else long after the author has moved on to
greener pastures.

Per

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[P Witte]

Dave P writes:

> a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
> b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
> c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Its the deliberate ones that are the worry.

Per

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[Timothy Swenson]

Yea, yea, Yea.

American have guns, Europeans don't.  No need to start a long thread about the
merits of either.  I can always start the thread that our "royality" are not
on the taxpayers' dollar. :-)

I read the bit about Quanta and shows with some disinterest.  Given that I have
to fly 2,000 miles for my nearest QL show, I find it ammusing about all the
discussion about where, what QL shows are and such.  Heck I even have to travel
500 miles to get to the nearest other country.  

So, be happy that you all are close to other QLers and pity the rest of us that
are not.j

Tim Swenson
___
Internet Access, Shared & Dedicated Web Hosting.
Colocation and Domain Name Registration at http://www.SharedPoint.com

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[Dave P]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:

> Lies, damn lies etc.
> How many HEALTHY persons die of
>  physician's error
>  gun accidents?

Well, actually those stats aren't lies. They were produced by the Houston
Health Science Center of the University of Texas. In fact, the stats were
the best spin possible because not all doctors are licensed so many
doctors are counted that do not practice. The other figure they released
was that for every 45 firings of a gun in the home resulting in injury to
a person, 44 of those firings result in an injury to a resident of the
home, and only one to an intruder.

My wife works there and directly knows the people who collected the
information and collated the statistics as part of a larger mortality
analysis.

Bottom line, you're 9000 times more likely to die in a confrontation with
a doctor than as the recipient of a piece of lead.

No figures are available on doctors who own guns, but I'd avoid them if I
were you ;)

Dave.

PS: anyone interested in a ground up write of a QDOS-like OS for the ARM
or PPC processors? (a bit of on-topic)

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[Bill Waugh]

- Original Message -
From: "Dave P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Quanta


>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Tony Firshman wrote:
snip
> a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
> b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
> c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health &
Human
> Services)
>
> Then think about this:
>
> a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
> b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is
1,500.
> c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
>
> Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
than
> gun owners.

now please compare the number of deaths leaving out the word
"accidental"

All the best - Bill ( ps to our American cousins, no offence meant )

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[Wolfgang Lenerz]

On 13 Feb 2004 at 9:17, Phoebus R. Dokos (è  á    .  ç   
) wrote:


>> 
> Why not? I do :-) (Especially with Powerball loterry jackpots running 
> usually at US$ 50.000.000 (or more!)


I'd rather spend my money on something else.
Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[Wolfgang Lenerz]

On 13 Feb 2004 at 9:15, Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντό wrote:


> Most likely, but where the user is concerned they really don't care as 
> long as it works correct? :-D


Yes - just as long as




> I do not think that it doesn't work. On the contrary.


Sorry, wans't that what you were saying - the progs only run under QDOS (hence don't 
work under SMSQE?)


> > for heaven's sake!
> >
> 
> Heaven has nothing to do with it :-P


I just don't see myself asking for hell's sake.


Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[Wolfgang Lenerz]

On 13 Feb 2004 at 10:57, Dave P wrote:
> Similarly, for our US QL users, think about this:
> 
> a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
(...)> 
> Then think about this:
> 
> a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
(..)
> Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous 
than
> gun owners.


Lies, damn lies etc.
How many HEALTHY persons die of 
 physician's error
 gun accidents?


Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[Marcel Kilgus]

"Phoebus R. Dokos (F??ß?? ?. ?t)" wrote:
> True. In any case I was talking about QDOS (Classic) and Minerva.

Well, good luck then. Especially with Minerva, considering that there
are only a few bytes free space left in the ROM.

> Unbelievable as it may seem, there are users that still require full 
> compatibility with QDOS and SMSQ/e is not an option for them.

Yeah, that's ok with me. But do those people want TCP/IP at all?

> As far as Peter's choice for compatibility and openess, without getting
> back in the same argument, let's say that it is his choice after all and 
> no one can actually say anything about it :-).

Nobody does. I'm just stating the obvious really.

Marcel

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[Dave P]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Tony Firshman wrote:

> ... then you do not think carefully about the maths.
>
> In the UK, anyone who buys a lotto ticket on Wednesday is more likely to
> die that win the Saturday jackpot - a sobering thought (8-)#

Not to mention that the pool of cash being redistributed typically loses
40% for running expenses, donations, etc, then the winnings typically
attract 40% taxes.

Since the net price fund received by the gamblers is now 30-40% of the
invested sum, that's the real math...

Similarly, for our US QL users, think about this:

a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health & Human
Services)

Then think about this:

a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.

Umm, views expressed are not necessarily mine, etc etc...

Dave

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[Marcel Kilgus]

Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
> Well I hope you don't - you'd probably off to laze in the sun in
> Barbados, and the QL world still needs you...
> 

Ah well, my current plans are to laze in the sun in Miami in April.
Because of the QL :-)

> (what you mean you actualyl play the lottery?)

Nah, I probably get more in return if I invest my money in beer. But my
mother does ;-)

Marcel

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[Tony Firshman]

On  Fri, 13 Feb 2004 at 09:17:14,
=?iso-8859-7?B?IlBob2VidXMgUi4gRG9rb3MgKNbv3+Lv8iDRLiDN9Pzq7/IpIg==?=
wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)

>
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:40:01 +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>lenerz.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2004 at 4:13, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
>>
>>> But then again, I could also win the lottery on Saturday.
>>
>> Well I hope you don't - you'd probably off to laze in the sun in
>> Barbados, and the QL world still needs you...
>> 
>>
>> (what you mean you actualyl play the lottery?)
>>
>
>Why not? I do :-) (Especially with Powerball loterry jackpots running
>usually at US$ 50.000.000 (or more!)
... then you do not think carefully about the maths.

In the UK, anyone who buys a lotto ticket on Wednesday is more likely to
die that win the Saturday jackpot - a sobering thought (8-)#

-- 
 QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
 tony@.co.uk  http://www.firshman.co.uk
   Voice: +44(0)1442-828254   Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

["Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντόκος)"]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:40:01 +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 13 Feb 2004 at 4:13, Marcel Kilgus wrote:

But then again, I could also win the lottery on Saturday.
Well I hope you don't - you'd probably off to laze in the sun in
Barbados, and the QL world still needs you...

(what you mean you actualyl play the lottery?)

Why not? I do :-) (Especially with Powerball loterry jackpots running 
usually at US$ 50.000.000 (or more!)

Phoebus

--
Visit the QL-FAQ at:  (Still uploading 
stuff!)
Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: 
Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

["Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντόκος)"]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:40:02 +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 13 Feb 2004 at 0:03, Phoebus R. Dokos (ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃâ ÃÂ. ÃïÃâÃÅ wrote:

Flashback was quite a progmming feat, (very fast), but severely limited
in other ways
IIRC. I think it interfered with the ALT/Hotkey system. I wonder, if it 
is
only that, whether
it wouldn't be possible to set up a simple hotkey to call it up?

No, it was something else which I cannot remember right now. I haven't 
used Flashback so I really don't know. And I take Rich's suggestion as 
true.


and a couple of others running custom QDOS-based software,
that unfortunately cannot work with SMSQ/e either.
"custom" often meant pretty dirty; didn't it?
Most likely, but where the user is concerned they really don't care as 
long as it works correct? :-D

Anyway I, for one, would be interested to know why his wouldn't work
under SMSQ/E (if
you have any info on that).
I do not think that it doesn't work. On the contrary.

(...)
As far as Peter's choice for compatibility and openess, without getting
back in the same argument,
for heaven's sake!

Heaven has nothing to do with it :-P

Phoebus

Re: [ql-users] Quanta

[RWAPSoftware]

In a message dated 13/02/2004 05:03:49 GMT Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True. In 
  any case I was talking about QDOS (Classic) and Minerva. Unbelievable as 
  it may seem, there are users that still require full compatibility with 
  QDOS and SMSQ/e is not an option for them. I have talked to a few (one 
  used Flashback that will not work properly under SMSQ/e AFAIK) and a 
  couple of others running custom QDOS-based software, that unfortunately 
  cannot work with SMSQ/e either.
Just add my two-penneth worth..
 
I maintain Flashback and happily use it under SMSQ/e !!  It is 
probable that the user you spoke with has not upgraded to the latest 
version.
 
TaskMaster is a different kettle of fish altogether - written by the same 
team as Flashback, it was aimed to make multi-tasking easier.  It does not 
work under the Pointer Environment, as the Pointer Environment made it 
redundant
 
--Rich 
Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West 
Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at 
URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up 
internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and 
broadband 
at:URL:http://members.aol.com/RWAPSoftware/reviews.html

RE: [ql-users] QLiberator

[Claude Mourier 00]

This was not an attack of Turbo, just my experience. With older versions you need to 
carefully look to all parameters passed to PROCs because behavior is not the same as 
SBasic. And I think Linker+ QD+Sbasic thing+Qlib is still a very good developpment 
tool thanks to good work of Wolgang and Jochen.
But I understand Turbo is up todate and is intended to be new standard for compiled 
Sbasic 

Claude

-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoye : jeudi 12 fevrier 2004 22:04
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [ql-users] QLiberator



On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:36:44 +0100, Claude Mourier 00 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Because it is far more easy to use then Turbo : you have can compile 
> your code directly when you need to adapt it with Turbo (at least 
> versions I know)

That is not true. You do not need to adapt any code apart from what you 
would normally do with any compiler. You cannot use SAVE and LOAD etc but 
you cannot do that in QLiberator anyway. As for Turbo directives like 
IMPLICIT etc. these are optional. There's nothing that says that you HAVE 
to use them.

> And Qlib is the only one implemented as Thing in QD (you can parse and 
> compile without line number) and used by tool like the Linker. (and I 
> don't know if all  features such as overlays etc is supported in Turbo).

That's not really an advantage, compared to the speed, superior math 
libraries and availability of Turbo.
> But it's true that Qlib as some limitation due to is status (no more 
> developpped) and (good) work made around Turbo is a good news (my 
> intention is not to critic this work).
>

Turbo updates come in days once a feature is requested or a bug spotted. 
When I first encountered the BLOCK high-colour bug (Turbo would not assign 
GD2 colour values to blocks) it took George about half a day to fix it. 
Since Q-Liberator is not being developed any more (based on what you said 
as I do not know anything about it, only used it once at a friend's QL; 
never liked it anyway :-) I think that the choice is obvious.

Phoebus
-- 
Visit the QL-FAQ at:  (Still uploading 
stuff!)
Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: 
Visit the uQLX-mac home page at: