Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #630793 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 16:36 -0700 |
| Articles | 4 on this page of 84 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 18:29 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 00:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 18:35 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:51 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 22:41 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 08:14 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 09:28 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 10:14 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 20:57 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 00:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:35 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 11:44 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 18:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:21 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 15:34 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:56 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 17:02 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:47 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 22:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 23:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 18:27 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 23:26 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-09 20:11 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-10 02:20 -0600
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-10 12:59 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-28 19:20 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 18:37 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:37 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:44 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-09 17:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:49 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-07 23:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-04-28 13:15 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 12:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-07 23:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:05 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:36 -0700
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 23:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzv4l5qmjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631098 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:56:00 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/17, 10:15 AM, in article emhbloFs61oU1@mid.individual.net, "Charlie" > <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> wrote: > >> On 4/28/2017 1:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 4/28/17, 3:44 AM, in article op.yzeirppejs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:35:54 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/27/17, 5:13 PM, in article mOvMA.85736$ex6.17420@fx27.iad, "Wolf K" >>>>> <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> JWS, becoming ever more incapable of admitting a mistake, wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm still waiting for a page on the apple.com server which tells me what >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> their computers. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, here you are: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ >>>>>> >>>>>> And for comparison: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-book/overview#surf >>>>>> ac >>>>>> ec >>>>>> onfiguration >>>>> >>>>> How dare you actually point to evidence! :) >>>> >>>> Of a laptop. I'm interested in desktops. >>>> >>>> And it still doesn't say what processor is in it. All it admits is it's a >>>> "2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5" - which could be several of these with >>>> completely different performances: >>>> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html >>> >>> Let's see: looking at your options there I see ZERO 2.0 GHz i5s. ZERO. >>> >>> Yeah, great example. >>> >>> Look at the FULL specs, like I explained yesterday. If you actually LOOK at >>> the specs Apple gives you they give you all you need. I showed you three >>> examples yesterday (iMacs). Now you are asking about a MacBook Pro. Sigh. >>> You need a LOT of hand holding. >>> >>> Here are the MacBook Pros <https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/> >>> >>> It lists: >>> ----- >>> * 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, >>> with 4MB shared L3 cache >>> * Intel Iris Graphics 540 >>> ----- >>> >>> What more do you need to know? How many Intel options are there like that? >>> As far as I know that limits it to the Core i5-6360U. >>> >>> So what other one were you thinking it might be? Give me the complete list >>> that matches the specs Apple shows you. >> >> And another circus ring is born. >> >> > LOL! I not only gave him the answer but showed him how he can find it on his > own. Evil of me. The fact is Apple don't give their full specs. They're hiding something. Why do you trust such a lying company? ANY other manufacture of ANY product tells you what it's made of. What reason do Apple have not to simply tell you what processor they used? The answer is, they use cheap shit parts then don't tell their customers. But they rely on gullible prats like you to buy them. -- An elderly British gentleman of 83 arrived in Paris by plane. At the French customs desk he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry-on bag. 'You have been to France before, Monsieur?' the customs officer asked sarcastically. The elderly gentleman admitted he had been to France previously. 'Then you should know enough to 'ave your passport ready,' the customs officer said. The elderly gentleman replied, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it.' 'Impossible! The British always have to show their passports on arrival in France !' The Man gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained; 'Well, when I came ashore on the Beach on D-Day in 1944, I couldn't find any fucking Frenchmen to show it to...!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534F5B6.A3F33%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632297 |
On 5/7/17, 3:55 PM, in article op.yzv4l5qmjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>>> Here are the MacBook Pros <https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/> >>>> >>>> It lists: >>>> ----- >>>> * 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, >>>> with 4MB shared L3 cache >>>> * Intel Iris Graphics 540 >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> What more do you need to know? How many Intel options are there like that? >>>> As far as I know that limits it to the Core i5-6360U. >>>> >>>> So what other one were you thinking it might be? Give me the complete list >>>> that matches the specs Apple shows you. >>> >>> And another circus ring is born. >>> >>> >> LOL! I not only gave him the answer but showed him how he can find it on his >> own. Evil of me. > > The fact is Apple don't give their full specs. The only "spec" you have mentioned is an Intel part number... but they give all the actual specs. > They're hiding something. What? The Intel part number? If they are hiding it they do a LOUSY job! It is easy to find for anyone who would actually care to. But why would you care? > Why do you trust such a lying company? You have yet to say what lie. > ANY other manufacture of ANY product tells you what it's made of. As does Apple, as I have proved to you. > What reason do Apple have not to simply tell you what processor they used? As I have shown you, they do. > The answer is, they use cheap shit parts then don't tell their customers. But > they rely on gullible prats like you to buy them. Your argument relies on assumptions you make which are not true. GIGO. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 19:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <070520171905175082%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #632297 |
In article <op.yzv4l5qmjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> > > LOL! I not only gave him the answer but showed him how he can find it on his > > own. Evil of me. > > The fact is Apple don't give their full specs. they absolutely do. > They're hiding something. nope. > Why do you trust such a lying company? ANY other manufacture of ANY product > tells you what it's made of. What reason do Apple have not to simply tell > you what processor they used? they do. it also doesn't matter. > The answer is, they use cheap shit parts > then don't tell their customers. But they rely on gullible prats like you to buy them. nonsense
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 16:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5267CF4.A1F1E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630793 |
On 4/26/17, 3:24 PM, in article op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:59:06 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/17, 1:52 PM, in article op.yywr80kbjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs
>>>>> have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved
>>>>> macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because
>>>>> of Apple's over inflated prices.
>>>>
>>>> apple's prices are very competitive, often lower than other similar
>>>> products.
>>>>
>>>> for instance, an imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k *display*
>>>> alone, which still needs a computer.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. Apple has always been double the price of a PC.
>>
>> I do not have recent comparisons, but older ones do not support your
>> position. I included EVERY comparison shown to me that met the criteria
>> listed:
>>
>> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices>
>
> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines,
> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells.
I would love to see those comparisons!
> I just tried going to Apple's site and they don't even state what processor is
> in their machines. Show me where I can get actual specs of an Apple, then
> I'll continue the conversation.
Did you think to click on "Tech Specs"?
<https://youtu.be/K2DP-eAyvxQ>
For that matter it is also on the page when you select to purchase. If you
want more details you can get it from those pages or from Mac Tracker.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web