!OpenVector

[Richard Torrens (News)]

!OpenVector was a originally a commercial program by Jonathan Marten, an
enhancement of his !DrawPlus, which itself was an enhancement of !Draw.

!OpenVector suffers from having no instructions. However before it was
made open, the commercial version came with a full instruction book.

Unfortunately I lost the copy I had. Does anyone have a copy they could
let me have in order to scan it, OCR it and make it available, with
additions, for OpenVector is still being maintained, by Christopher Martin.

There is a mailing list for OpenVector (and other programs maintained by
CM)

http://www.Torrens.org/Lists/OpenVector/index.html

Vector+***@Torrens.org

Latest !OpenVector
http://www.users.on.net/~belles/software/openvector/

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
You must use the full News+***@Torrens.org as in the From address.
http://www.Torrens.org for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

[Dave Symes]

In article <5673a8e173news*@Torrens.org>,
Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:
> !OpenVector was a originally a commercial program by Jonathan Marten, an
> enhancement of his !DrawPlus, which itself was an enhancement of !Draw.

> !OpenVector suffers from having no instructions. However before it was
> made open, the commercial version came with a full instruction book.

> Unfortunately I lost the copy I had. Does anyone have a copy they could
> let me have in order to scan it, OCR it and make it available, with
> additions, for OpenVector is still being maintained, by Christopher
> Martin.

> There is a mailing list for OpenVector (and other programs maintained by
> CM)

> http://www.Torrens.org/Lists/OpenVector/index.html

> Vector+***@Torrens.org

> Latest !OpenVector
> http://www.users.on.net/~belles/software/openvector/

It's good to see old RISC OS apps still being maintained and supported.

I'm sure, on one of my RISC OS installs there's a Directory with !Vector
(Not Open Vector) called "Tutorial" it contains a number of subdirs of
VrcFile files with descriptions and illos of how to do this that and the
other in Vector.

If anyone needs some tutorials...

Dave

--

Dave Triffid

[Stuart]

In article <5673a8e173news*@Torrens.org>,
Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:
> !OpenVector was a originally a commercial program by Jonathan Marten, an
> enhancement of his !DrawPlus, which itself was an enhancement of !Draw.

> !OpenVector suffers from having no instructions. However before it was
> made open, the commercial version came with a full instruction book.

I produced a new manual for the current version. A first draft was sent to
the mailing list you mentioned, for comment. I received little response so
persued it no further.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Chris Evans (CJE/4D)]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart
<URL:mailto:***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5673a8e173news*@Torrens.org>,
> Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:
> > !OpenVector was a originally a commercial program by Jonathan Marten, an
> > enhancement of his !DrawPlus, which itself was an enhancement of !Draw.
>
> > !OpenVector suffers from having no instructions. However before it was
> > made open, the commercial version came with a full instruction book.
>
> I produced a new manual for the current version. A first draft was sent to
> the mailing list you mentioned, for comment. I received little response so
> persued it no further.

I'd expect most if not all subscribers would already be users so have little
need for a tutorial. New users would be the main beneficiaries!

I keep meaning to try one of the enhanced draw programs. A tutorial would
encourage me!

Chris Evans

--

**** IGEPv5: The fastest RISC OS computer so far! ****
--------- http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/igepv5 ----------
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
***@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN

Don't let the urgent things in life, crowd out the important things!

[Richard Torrens (News)]

In article <***@client.cjemicros.co.uk>,
Chris Evans (CJE/4D) <***@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> I'd expect most if not all subscribers would already be users so have
> little need for a tutorial. New users would be the main beneficiaries!

That is part of the problem: how to encourage new users! I have Stuarts
posting to the Vector mailing list (still awaiting his original files!)
and I am told a manual for !Vector is in post to me.

But the progression from !Draw to !DrawPlus was (if I recall) relatively
easy. As was the progression from !DrawPlus to !Vector.

!Draw itself has of course moved on a little.

I used !Vector (then !OpenVector) for electronics - originally doing all
4QD PCBs and other drawings on it. That only broke when it became
impossible to use pdfs to generate artwork - the PCB houses all required
Gerber format.

David Snell came to the rescue - doing a lot of work on ProCAD so it would
import !OpenVector files and export modern Gerber files.

Then I sold 4QD!


> I keep meaning to try one of the enhanced draw programs. A tutorial would
> encourage me!

What sort of drawings would you want to do?

There are several examples on my www site
http://diy.torrens.org/RO/Vector/index.html

More can be added.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
You must use the full News+***@Torrens.org as in the From address.
http://www.Torrens.org for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

[Richard Torrens (News)]

I now have a copy of the original manual for !Vector. Next job is to scan,
OCR and reassemble it with corrections and amendments - there were several
Additiuonal Instruction leaflets - which are available on Jonathan
Marten's www site:
http://www.keelhaul.me.uk/acorn/

The original versions of !Vector and !Drawplus are also on JM's site:
http://www.keelhaul.me.uk/acorn/oss/

But the latest versions of both are on
http://www.users.on.net/~belles/software/openvector/

There is also a copy of the imnstructions for DrawPlus - in Impression
format. I have done a quick conversion to OvatioPro format
http://diy.Torrens.org/RO/DrawPlus/

Does anyone want a pdf of that?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
You must use the full News+***@Torrens.org as in the From address.
http://www.Torrens.org for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

[Richard Torrens (News)]

In article <5677508900news*@Torrens.org>,
Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> I now have a copy of the original manual for !Vector.

Which I have scanned. If anyone wants the scans they are at
http://photos.torrens.org/rots/
which will give a directory viewer. If you want a preview use
http://photos.torrens.org/rots/preview.cgi
which gives thumbnails. click a thumbnail to get a readable page.


Although I've been using Vector for years, there are features I had
forgotten about.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
You must use the full News+***@Torrens.org as in the From address.
http://www.Torrens.org for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

[Stuart]

In article <5677621de0news*@Torrens.org>,
Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> Which I have scanned. If anyone wants the scans they are at
> http://photos.torrens.org/rots/
> which will give a directory viewer. If you want a preview use
> http://photos.torrens.org/rots/preview.cgi
> which gives thumbnails. click a thumbnail to get a readable page.

Beware copyright infringement,

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Richard Torrens (News)]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>,
Stuart <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5677621de0news*@Torrens.org>,
> Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> > Which I have scanned. If anyone wants the scans they are at
> > http://photos.torrens.org/rots/
> > which will give a directory viewer. If you want a preview use
> > http://photos.torrens.org/rots/preview.cgi
> > which gives thumbnails. click a thumbnail to get a readable page.

> Beware copyright infringement,

Who is going to take any action? Yes - it's technically a crime. But in
practise I cannot see any reason there should be any problem.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
You must use the full News+***@Torrens.org as in the From address.
http://www.Torrens.org for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

[druck]

On 08/09/2017 13:36, Richard Torrens (News) wrote:
> In article <***@argonet.co.uk>,
> Stuart <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <5677621de0news*@Torrens.org>,
>> Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
>>> Which I have scanned. If anyone wants the scans they are at
>>> http://photos.torrens.org/rots/
>>> which will give a directory viewer. If you want a preview use
>>> http://photos.torrens.org/rots/preview.cgi
>>> which gives thumbnails. click a thumbnail to get a readable page.
>
>> Beware copyright infringement,
>
> Who is going to take any action? Yes - it's technically a crime. But in
> practise I cannot see any reason there should be any problem.
>
It shouldn't be a problem in this case, but the rights to things like
old Spectrum games have been bought up by companies which just watch out
for anyone making them available on the internet, so they can threaten
to sue unless you pay up.

---druck

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Stuart]

In article <5678593d80news*@Torrens.org>,
Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> In article <***@argonet.co.uk>,
> Stuart <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <5677621de0news*@Torrens.org>,
> > Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> > > Which I have scanned. If anyone wants the scans they are at
> > > http://photos.torrens.org/rots/
> > > which will give a directory viewer. If you want a preview use
> > > http://photos.torrens.org/rots/preview.cgi
> > > which gives thumbnails. click a thumbnail to get a readable page.

> > Beware copyright infringement,

> Who is going to take any action? Yes - it's technically a crime. But in
> practise I cannot see any reason there should be any problem.

About two years ago lots of people on the mailing-list seemed to be
getting very uptight about it, with no-one, including Jim LeSurf, willing
to lend me a manual so that I could get to grips with it. Someone did
eventually lend me a manual, which gave me a guide and allowed me to start
work on mine, which was written from the ground up, with non of the
original included in it.

Every menu and sub-menu was fully explored and comprehensively explained
in my new version, (including the generation of new diagrams and
screenshots) which requires only checking and contents and index
generating which, unfortunately, I do not currently have time to do. I was
also disappointed by the reaction on the list when I posted the first
draft which cause me to lose interest somewhat.

There is no need, Richard, to re-invent the wheel as you seem to be
suggesting on the news group and, unless you are providing a resource for
those still using an original commercial version of Vector, little need
for the original manual as !OpenVector has come a long way from then in
it's improvements and the way things work. There is nothing in the original
version which I have not covered in the new one.


A copy was re-sent to the list recently.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart
<***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5678593d80news*@Torrens.org>, Richard Torrens (News)
> <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:

> > > Beware copyright infringement,

> > Who is going to take any action? Yes - it's technically a crime. But
> > in practise I cannot see any reason there should be any problem.

> About two years ago lots of people on the mailing-list seemed to be
> getting very uptight about it, with no-one, including Jim LeSurf,
> willing to lend me a manual so that I could get to grips with it.

I'd be interested to see a reference I could check for that and see the
context, etc. [Ignoring your mis-spelling my name. :-) ]

I would be concerned about copyright, but I think I said earlier in
*this* thread that I could provide scans of the manual for someone to do
a new version if they wished. I want to keep the *original* though because
I continue to use it a lot and often forget features, etc.

Given that it is now *OpenVector* I'd tend to assume copyright wouldn't be
a problem in practice. But maybe someone can say otherwise?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Steve Fryatt]

On 9 Sep, Jim Lesurf wrote in message
<***@audiomisc.co.uk>:

> Given that it is now *OpenVector* I'd tend to assume copyright wouldn't be
> a problem in practice. But maybe someone can say otherwise?

The issue seems to be that rights to the source code -- which is now open --
were retained by the programmer, whilst the manual was written by someone
(Mike Matson?) at 4Mation and therefore wasn't in the programmer's gift to
release as open source.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt
<***@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 9 Sep, Jim Lesurf wrote in message <***@audiomisc.co.uk>:

> > Given that it is now *OpenVector* I'd tend to assume copyright
> > wouldn't be a problem in practice. But maybe someone can say otherwise?

> The issue seems to be that rights to the source code -- which is now
> open -- were retained by the programmer, whilst the manual was written
> by someone (Mike Matson?) at 4Mation and therefore wasn't in the
> programmer's gift to release as open source.

However if he was employed by them to write it, the copyright may well have
been owned by 4Mation rather than by the writer. Depends on the conditions
of employment for the work.


In addition, copyright is largely a matter of *civil* law. That means it may
be possible to proceed on the basis of making reasonable efforts and assessing
if an activity causes much 'damage' to the copyright holder. In a dispute the
person bringing a prosecution would have to show that 'damage' was done to them.
e.g. assess the loss of income or affect on status or whatever. Against that,
a defendant could show they were diligent in trying to find the copyright
holder and get permission, etc.

All that said, I can understand why people might not want to step up and
risk running into problems. I'm wary of such things and would not to want
to upset anyone. But it is crazy that we keep finding cases like this and
get paralised by the idiocy of copyright being applied to 'orphan' material
when no-one can find an 'parent'. As it is, we'd have to fall back on
diligence, etc.


Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Brian]

In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve
> Fryatt <***@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 9 Sep, Jim Lesurf wrote in message
> > <***@audiomisc.co.uk>:

> > > Given that it is now *OpenVector* I'd tend to assume copyright
> > > wouldn't be a problem in practice. But maybe someone can say
> > > otherwise?

> > The issue seems to be that rights to the source code -- which is now
> > open -- were retained by the programmer, whilst the manual was written
> > by someone (Mike Matson?) at 4Mation and therefore wasn't in the
> > programmer's gift to release as open source.

> However if he was employed by them to write it, the copyright may well
> have been owned by 4Mation rather than by the writer. Depends on the
> conditions of employment for the work.

Clarification, Jim. 4Mation were asked about the release of the copyright.
They made it clear that the copyright was held by Mike Matson, not them.

If my memory serves me correctly, Mike Matson's phone number was obtained
but he chose not to return calls, for whatever unknown reason. His
prerogative, I think.

No other address information was available.

End of.

> In addition, copyright is largely a matter of *civil* law. That means it
> may be possible to proceed on the basis of making reasonable efforts and
> assessing if an activity causes much 'damage' to the copyright holder.
> In a dispute the person bringing a prosecution would have to show that
> 'damage' was done to them. e.g. assess the loss of income or affect on
> status or whatever. Against that, a defendant could show they were
> diligent in trying to find the copyright holder and get permission, etc.

I would suggest that might be a confusion regarding 'quoting' from
copyright material where due diligence may apply if the copyright holder
cannot be contacted where one might be 'quoting' from a source. perhaps
both English and American sources, in say a book, it gets a bit messy
because the two, English and American copyright laws, are different and
are changing with time as well. But the permitted extent of quotations and
their size is determined by law. However, some authors are quite
categorical, 'thou shalt not infringe my copyright'. They don't have to
say why.

Using a completed copyrighted document is a different matter.

> All that said, I can understand why people might not want to step up and
> risk running into problems. I'm wary of such things and would not to
> want to upset anyone. But it is crazy that we keep finding cases like
> this and get paralised by the idiocy of copyright being applied to
> 'orphan' material when no-one can find an 'parent'. As it is, we'd have
> to fall back on diligence, etc.

So it would seem, except one may never know, under the circumstances, what
the motivation of the copyright holder may be for withholding the release
thereof.

Equally, common courtesy is no bad thing.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>, Brian
<***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> I would suggest that might be a confusion regarding 'quoting' from
> copyright material where due diligence may apply if the copyright holder
> cannot be contacted where one might be 'quoting' from a source. perhaps
> both English and American sources, in say a book, it gets a bit messy
> because the two, English and American copyright laws, are different and
> are changing with time as well. But the permitted extent of quotations
> and their size is determined by law. However, some authors are quite
> categorical, 'thou shalt not infringe my copyright'. They don't have to
> say why.

The main point I was making was a different one.

This is that for any infringement the copyright owner may decide to bring a
case to court as this is civil law. *However* even if the person prosecuted
is found guilty, the court can then decide what shall be done in the
circumstances of the case. This then hinges on details like the level of
any 'damage' done to the copyright holder and the behaviour of the
infringer.

So the following would be likely to be taken into account:

1) That the infringer did apply some diligence to trying to find the
copyright owner and seek their permission in advance. That in turn would
bring into consideration how the copyright owner reacted - or may have
refused to even say 'no'.

2) The *actual* 'damage' - financial or to reputation caused by the
infringment.

Given a case like this it seems plasuible that the court would be unlikely
to decide that damages of millions of pounds, etc, would be required.
Despite ruling that there was an infringement.

So in the end the case might well end up making the copyright owner look
bad and any decision not even cover their costs. Particularly if they knew
someone was trying to contact them beforehand and ignored it. I suspect a
court would be unimpressed by that.

Civil case tend to assess on the basis of if people acted 'reasonably' in
the circumstances.

What this would mean here I can't say as I'm not a judge and don't know all
the details. But I have noted how in recent years a lot of copyright
material is being reproduced without the people doing so being dragged to a
court.

Basically, the Laws here are a disgrace, but vested interests wrt large
companies, etc, want them like this for their own reasons. The rest of us
just get stuck with it.

FWIW I'm in the process of opening access to as many of the books, etc, I
wrote in the past as I can. At some point I'll put PDF copies on the web
for people to read as they want. I can't see the point of having such
material unavailable. No author really gains much from books you can't buy
anyway.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Tim Hill]

In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> Civil case tend to assess on the basis of if people acted 'reasonably'
> in the circumstances.

It's all a question of what that hypothetical bloke on the Clapham
omnibus thinks.

And he voted for Brexit... ;-D

--
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Ethical? Energy: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg Telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/
* RISC OS downloads http://timil.com/riscos

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@invalid.org.uk>,
Tim Hill <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > Civil case tend to assess on the basis of if people acted 'reasonably'
> > in the circumstances.

> It's all a question of what that hypothetical bloke on the Clapham
> omnibus thinks.

> And he voted for Brexit... ;-D

Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted remain.

--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Tim Hill]

In article <***@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> > <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Civil case tend to assess on the basis of if people acted
> > > 'reasonably' in the circumstances.

> > It's all a question of what that hypothetical bloke on the Clapham
> > omnibus thinks.

> > And he voted for Brexit... ;-D

> Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted remain.

A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal definition of
'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will of the people' not
the 'will of Clapham'.

--
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Ethical? Energy: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg Telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/
* RISC OS downloads http://timil.com/riscos

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <***@invalid.org.uk>
wrote:
> > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted
> > remain.

> A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal definition of
> 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will of the people' not
> the 'will of Clapham'.

Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.

And there need be no identity between 'reasonable' and 'typical'.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Tim Hill]

In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted
> > > remain.

> > A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal definition
> > of 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will of the
> > people' not the 'will of Clapham'.

> Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.

Did you miss 'apparent'?

--
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Ethical? Energy: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg Telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/
* RISC OS downloads http://timil.com/riscos

[Dave Symes]

In article <***@invalid.org.uk>,
Tim Hill <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> > <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted
> > > > remain.

> > > A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal definition
> > > of 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will of the
> > > people' not the 'will of Clapham'.

> > Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.

> Did you miss 'apparent'?

A lot of folks have a strange view of how the system works.

I have friends who still think Remain won the vote.

D.

--

Dave Triffid

[Brian]

In article <***@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes <***@triffid.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <***@invalid.org.uk>
> wrote:
> > In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> > <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> > > <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted
> > > > > remain.

> > > > A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal
> > > > definition of 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will
> > > > of the people' not the 'will of Clapham'.

> > > Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for
> > > Brexit.

> > Did you miss 'apparent'?

> A lot of folks have a strange view of how the system works.

It's got to be a strange view if they imagine the system actually 'works'.

> I have friends who still think Remain won the vote.

> D.

[John Rickman]

In message <***@argonet.co.uk>
Brian <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

>> I have friends who still think Remain won the vote.

I have friends (a few) who voted out and don't believe it will happen.


--
John Rickman

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <***@invalid.org.uk>
wrote:
> In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> > <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted
> > > > remain.

> > > A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal definition
> > > of 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will of the
> > > people' not the 'will of Clapham'.

> > Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.

> Did you miss 'apparent'?

Yes. :-)

But I don't share your assumption. I'd certainly hope a judge would know
enough about our legal and political systems to realise that is a very
dubious phrase in the context of the Brexit vote. (Which you have now
snipped.) I'd also hope they don't confuse 'reasonable' with 'typical',
either. It would seem to me very woolly thinking for a judge!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Dave Symes]

In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <***@invalid.org.uk>
> wrote:
> > > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted
> > > remain.

> > A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal definition of
> > 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will of the people' not
> > the 'will of Clapham'.

> Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.

[Snip]

I'm going off at a tangent because it's one the few things I have serious
feelings about.

If you are one of those not prepared to go on the day and exercise your
right to vote, then you don't count.

Though on the day I voted Remain (A hard thought about decision), I'm
prepared to accept that on the day, of those who *were* prepared to vote,
a majority voted for Exit.

The rest of the population who couldn't be bothered to vote, are on that
day irrelevant...

That's how the system works, like it or not!

Dave

My view is, if you live in a democratic state, regardless of personal
political views, it is the duty of Everyone to vote, Yes, No or spoil
your paper.

D.

--

Dave Triffid

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes <***@triffid.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> > <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted
> > > > remain.

> > > A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal definition
> > > of 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will of the
> > > people' not the 'will of Clapham'.

> > Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.

> [Snip]

> I'm going off at a tangent because it's one the few things I have
> serious feelings about.

> If you are one of those not prepared to go on the day and exercise your
> right to vote, then you don't count.


That is formally correct, but avoids significant aspects of reality.

Back in the real world, people have been conditioned to assume that not
bothering to vote means you don't feel any need to change something. This
is why many referenda set a minimum 'threshold' for the percentage of the
*electorate* who must vote for a *change of status*. But Cameron didn't
bother because he assumed he could smarm his way to the result he wanted.


> Though on the day I voted Remain (A hard thought about decision), I'm
> prepared to accept that on the day, of those who *were* prepared to
> vote, a majority voted for Exit.

So am I. But that doesn't make it the "will of the people". Nor, many other
things I've repeatedly heard said or written about "most people voted
leave".

> The rest of the population who couldn't be bothered to vote, are on that
> day irrelevant...

Others in the *population* were unable to vote despite wishing to. Again
the contrast here is with the Scot Nat vote where the voting age was
lowered for the specific reason that the change would affect the young for
longer, statistically, than the older. But again, for the EU vote that
section of the population were denied a chance to vote. And the number
involved was quite significant given the margin of the outcome. Again,
Cameron made this decision, not the people affected.

> That's how the system works, like it or not!

Not quite, because - as I've exampled - the "system" for a referendum was
changed from one referendum to another. All in a context where people are
habituated to 'normal' (i.e. Parliament, Council, etc) votes *which will be
re-run a few years later so you can change your mind*. So it does depend
which *system* we may have got lumbered with against our preference.

> Dave

> My view is, if you live in a democratic state, regardless of personal
> political views, it is the duty of Everyone to vote, Yes, No or spoil
> your paper.

I agree. But that means you have to be *allowed* to vote and then able to
actually do so. And if we want a democracy, also presumes people will be
well informed, etc.

So my view isn't quite a simplistic as to accept what happened was the
"will of the people" or any similar daft rhetorical phrase.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Tim Hill]

In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes
> <***@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> > <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> > > <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham
> > > > > voted remain.

> > > > A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal
> > > > definition of 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent
> > > > 'will of the people' not the 'will of Clapham'.

> > > Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for
> > > Brexit.

> > [Snip]

> > I'm going off at a tangent because it's one the few things I have
> > serious feelings about.

> > If you are one of those not prepared to go on the day and exercise
> > your right to vote, then you don't count.

> That is formally correct, but avoids significant aspects of reality.

Referendums.

1. It takes a 66/33 majority for there to be changes to the PHP language.

2. Some of our politicians should be locked up.

--
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Ethical? Energy: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg Telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/
* RISC OS downloads http://timil.com/riscos

[Brian Howlett]

On 14 Sep, Tim Hill <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> Some of our politicians should be locked up.

s/Some/All/
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Windows has detected that the mouse has been moved.
You must restart Windows for the new setting to take effect...

[Bernard]

In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk>
Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.

The results don't sound like a minority to me.

Brexit Results
--------------
Brexit wins by 1,269,501 votes

51.9% Leave EU 17,410,742 votes
48.1% Remain in EU 16,141,241 votes

Turnout was 72.2% of 46,499,537 people entitled to vote.
This is a record number for a UK poll.

Bernard

[charles]

In article <***@bapfish.plus.com>,
Bernard <***@nospam.bapfish.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk>
> Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.

> The results don't sound like a minority to me.

> Brexit Results
> --------------
> Brexit wins by 1,269,501 votes

> 51.9% Leave EU 17,410,742 votes
> 48.1% Remain in EU 16,141,241 votes

> Turnout was 72.2% of 46,499,537 people entitled to vote.
> This is a record number for a UK poll.

> Bernard

from your figures 17.4M out of 46.4M voted to leave. That's certianly not
a majority.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@bapfish.plus.com>,
Bernard <***@nospam.bapfish.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk>
> Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.

> The results don't sound like a minority to me.

> Brexit Results
> --------------
> Brexit wins by 1,269,501 votes

> 51.9% Leave EU 17,410,742 votes
> 48.1% Remain in EU 16,141,241 votes

> Turnout was 72.2% of 46,499,537 people entitled to vote.
> This is a record number for a UK poll.

Interesting that as regards certain types of union industrial action, the
law requires a better 'turnout' than 72%.

Which would suggest 'the law' regards a strike as being far more important
than the future of the country.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@bapfish.plus.com>, Bernard
<***@nospam.bapfish.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
> <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.

> The results don't sound like a minority to me.

> Brexit Results --------------

> Brexit wins by 1,269,501 votes

> 51.9% Leave EU 17,410,742 votes
> 48.1% Remain in EU 16,141,241 votes

> Turnout was 72.2% of 46,499,537 people entitled to vote. This is a
> record number for a UK poll.

1) The population of the UK is rather higher than 46 million.

2) 17.4/46.5 = 37% of the electorate. Or about 30% of the population.

Looks like a minority of the *people* to me.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[druck]

On 14/09/2017 16:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <***@bapfish.plus.com>, Bernard
> <***@nospam.bapfish.org.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

Right, pack it in, this is nothing to do with RISC OS.

---druck


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Vince M Hudd]

On 14/09/17 19:13, druck wrote:

[...]

> Right, pack it in, this is nothing to do with RISC OS.

Can we take a vote on it?

* Heads quickly for cover

--
Vince M Hudd - Soft Rock Software - www.softrock.co.uk
RISCOSitory - www.riscository.com

[glavallin]

In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk>
Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <***@invalid.org.uk>
> wrote:
> > > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted
> > > remain.
>
> > A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal definition of
> > 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will of the people' not
> > the 'will of Clapham'.
>
> Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.
>
> And there need be no identity between 'reasonable' and 'typical'.
>
> Jim
>
The whole population of the UK could have not voted in the referendum.
there are those who were below the legal age to vote.
though it was feasable for the Remainer Activists to have toured hospitals,
Old Peoples Homes etc saying 'Here deary , i'll help you to hold this pensil
and guide your hand to make your mark in the right place'and what about
' babes in arms' and every child up to the normal legal age voting I suppose
that could be assisted into voting 'the Right Way' even if they were
incapable of forming an individual opinion. Its just a pity that the EU
Mandrins 'could'nt see the 'worried and fearful ' wood amounst all the
trees in the U.K. forest' to offer Cameron a bit of meat rather than
distain and gristle.

--

Geoff

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@gjlavallin.plus.com>, glavallin
<***@gjlavallin.plus.com> wrote:
> In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
> <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> > <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted
> > > > remain.
> >
> > > A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal definition
> > > of 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will of the
> > > people' not the 'will of Clapham'.
> >
> > Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.
> >
> > And there need be no identity between 'reasonable' and 'typical'.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> The whole population of the UK could have not voted in the referendum.
> there are those who were below the legal age to vote.

...and has been pointed out already: that 'legal age' has been varied from
one referendum to another in recent times. So this is another arbirary
goalpost which - if changed - might have altered the outcome. And doesn't
change the reality that calling the result the "will of the people" is at
best unjustfied by the bare facts, or at worst willfully misleading.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[glavallin]

In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk>
Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <***@gjlavallin.plus.com>, glavallin
> <***@gjlavallin.plus.com> wrote:
> > In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
> > <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In article <***@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> > > <***@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Err, no. ;-) Pretty well all of S London including Clapham voted
> > > > > remain.
> > >
> > > > A pity perhaps but my assumption would be that any legal definition
> > > > of 'reasonable person' would reflect the apparent 'will of the
> > > > people' not the 'will of Clapham'.
> > >
> > > Actually, only a minority of the population of the UK voted for Brexit.
> > >
> > > And there need be no identity between 'reasonable' and 'typical'.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > The whole population of the UK could have not voted in the referendum.
> > there are those who were below the legal age to vote.
>
> ...and has been pointed out already: that 'legal age' has been varied from
> one referendum to another in recent times. So this is another arbirary
> goalpost which - if changed - might have altered the outcome. And doesn't
> change the reality that calling the result the "will of the people" is at
> best unjustfied by the bare facts, or at worst willfully misleading.
>
Oh you must mean like Scotland where the largest party manipulated who could
and could'nt vote in its indepandance referendum but they still lost.

>


--

Geoff

Wey Hey were like monkeys...I can use tools too!

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@gjlavallin.plus.com>, glavallin
<***@gjlavallin.plus.com> wrote:
> > ...and has been pointed out already: that 'legal age' has been varied
> > from one referendum to another in recent times. So this is another
> > arbirary goalpost which - if changed - might have altered the outcome.
> > And doesn't change the reality that calling the result the "will of
> > the people" is at best unjustfied by the bare facts, or at worst
> > willfully misleading.
> >
> Oh you must mean like Scotland where the largest party manipulated who
> could and could'nt vote in its indepandance referendum but they still
> lost.

Yes. :-)

BTW I like "indepandance". Salmond does look a bit like a panda... 8-]

But that's just another exemplar of the reality that such a close result
which gives neither a large majority nor includes almost all the adult
population can't reliably be called "will of the people", etc, without a
lot of qualifications.

For conventional elections this matters less because any decision can be
changed 5 years (or so) later and have a reversable symmetry. But decisions
like the Scots IndyRef or EU vote have a one-way trapdoor on one side and a
risk of 'neverendums' on the other. Hence really do need some high bar and
the widest possible electorate, participation, etc to be passed before
anyone could regard them as the settled "will of the people".

That's why, personally, I favour the idea of a vote when we know the terms
and conditions of what 'brexit' *actually* will mean. If the previous vote
*is* the settled "will of the people" they will say so. If not, we could
find that this is *not* what the "people" wanted. Given the stakes, this
seems a reasonable way to check. But I know that those who "won" will want
to shout that anything they don't want is "undemocratic". Leaving the rest
of us to wonder why a vote worries them so much if they are so certain what
the settled "will of the people" actually is. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[John Rickman]

In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk>
Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> That's why, personally, I favour the idea of a vote when we know the terms
> and conditions of what 'brexit' *actually* will mean. If the previous vote
> *is* the settled "will of the people" they will say so. If not, we could
> find that this is *not* what the "people" wanted. Given the stakes, this
> seems a reasonable way to check. But I know that those who "won" will want
> to shout that anything they don't want is "undemocratic". Leaving the rest
> of us to wonder why a vote worries them so much if they are so certain what
> the settled "will of the people" actually is. :-)

Jim - don't feed the trolls

druck's request to "pack it in" is not unreasonable
- unless you really believe that Brexit will have a significant impact
on RISC OS.

John


--
John Rickman

[Peter Young]

On 18 Sep 2017 John Rickman <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk>
> Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>> That's why, personally, I favour the idea of a vote when we know the terms
>> and conditions of what 'brexit' *actually* will mean. If the previous vote
>> *is* the settled "will of the people" they will say so. If not, we could
>> find that this is *not* what the "people" wanted. Given the stakes, this
>> seems a reasonable way to check. But I know that those who "won" will want
>> to shout that anything they don't want is "undemocratic". Leaving the rest
>> of us to wonder why a vote worries them so much if they are so certain what
>> the settled "will of the people" actually is. :-)

> Jim - don't feed the trolls

> druck's request to "pack it in" is not unreasonable
> - unless you really believe that Brexit will have a significant impact
> on RISC OS.

Why not continue this on ZFC chat, where anything computer-related is
forbidden, even as political stuff is here? :-)

Best wishes,

Peter.

--
Peter Young and family
Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52, England
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
***@ormail.co.uk

[Stuart]

In article <***@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
Peter Young <***@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

> Why not continue this on ZFC chat, where anything computer-related is
> forbidden, even as political stuff is here? :-)

In case people don't know:

Argonet.zfc

or the more populous mailing list:

To subscribe send a mail to zfc+***@Torrens.org.uk
List help: send email to zfc+***@Torrens.org.uk

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Richard Torrens (News)]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>,
Stuart <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
> Peter Young <***@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

> > Why not continue this on ZFC chat, where anything computer-related is
> > forbidden, even as political stuff is here? :-)

> In case people don't know:

> Argonet.zfc

> or the more populous mailing list:

> To subscribe send a mail to zfc+***@Torrens.org.uk
> List help: send email to zfc+***@Torrens.org.uk

While those do still work the list is now
zfc+***@Torrens.org
zfc+***@Torrens.org
i.e. without the .uk om the end.

In time the ,uk version will stop working!

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
You must use the full News+***@Torrens.org as in the From address.
http://www.Torrens.org for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

[M Harding]

In article <***@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
Peter Young <***@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2017 John Rickman <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

> > In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk>
> > Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> >> That's why, personally, I favour the idea of a vote when we know
> >> the terms and conditions of what 'brexit' *actually* will mean.
> >> [ . . . ]

> > Jim - don't feed the trolls

> > druck's request to "pack it in" is not unreasonable - unless you
> > really believe that Brexit will have a significant impact on RISC
> > OS.

> Why not continue this on ZFC chat, where anything computer-related
> is forbidden, even as political stuff is here? :-)

I haven't seen any ZFC postings for a long time. Perhaps this thread,
imitating a Comp.sys.networking title, ought to headed "Bloody
enough! - was !OpenVector".

I too have strong views about Brexit/Remain but remain silent here.

Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding ***@mdharding.org.uk

[Stuart]

In article <***@mdharding.org.uk>,
M Harding <***@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
> I too have strong views about Brexit/Remain but remain silent here.

I too have refrained from comment.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[glavallin]

In message <***@audiomisc.co.uk>
Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <***@gjlavallin.plus.com>, glavallin
> <***@gjlavallin.plus.com> wrote:
> > > ...and has been pointed out already: that 'legal age' has been varied
> > > from one referendum to another in recent times. So this is another
> > > arbirary goalpost which - if changed - might have altered the outcome.
> > > And doesn't change the reality that calling the result the "will of
> > > the people" is at best unjustfied by the bare facts, or at worst
> > > willfully misleading.
> > >
> > Oh you must mean like Scotland where the largest party manipulated who
> > could and could'nt vote in its indepandance referendum but they still
> > lost.
>
> Yes. :-)
>
> BTW I like "indepandance". Salmond does look a bit like a panda... 8-]
>
> But that's just another exemplar of the reality that such a close result
> which gives neither a large majority nor includes almost all the adult
> population can't reliably be called "will of the people", etc, without a
> lot of qualifications.
>
> For conventional elections this matters less because any decision can be
> changed 5 years (or so) later and have a reversable symmetry. But decisions
> like the Scots IndyRef or EU vote have a one-way trapdoor on one side and a
> risk of 'neverendums' on the other. Hence really do need some high bar and
> the widest possible electorate, participation, etc to be passed before
> anyone could regard them as the settled "will of the people".
>
> That's why, personally, I favour the idea of a vote when we know the terms
> and conditions of what 'brexit' *actually* will mean. If the previous vote
> *is* the settled "will of the people" they will say so. If not, we could
> find that this is *not* what the "people" wanted. Given the stakes, this
> seems a reasonable way to check. But I know that those who "won" will want
> to shout that anything they don't want is "undemocratic". Leaving the rest
> of us to wonder why a vote worries them so much if they are so certain what
> the settled "will of the people" actually is. :-)
>
> Jim
>

I'm certain that Sturgen will want another referendum but the EU terms and
conditions have moved on - the EU is now insisting on Hard Borders but as
with Northern Ireland and the South of Ireland there are many back lanes
(commonly known as Green Lanes) connecting the two countries.Border control
could be difficult unless extreme measures are taken. This does suggest a
Trump styled Wall ( possibly less extreme than a Berlin styled wall)
which I would expect the EU to fully fund both in Ireland and the
potential England- EU Scotland border.


--

Geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@gjlavallin.plus.com>,
glavallin <***@gjlavallin.plus.com> wrote:
> I'm certain that Sturgen will want another referendum but the EU terms
> and conditions have moved on - the EU is now insisting on Hard Borders
> but as with Northern Ireland and the South of Ireland there are many
> back lanes (commonly known as Green Lanes) connecting the two
> countries.Border control could be difficult unless extreme measures are
> taken. This does suggest a Trump styled Wall ( possibly less extreme
> than a Berlin styled wall) which I would expect the EU to fully fund
> both in Ireland and the potential England- EU Scotland border.

You'd expect the EU to fund walls when it was part of the Brexit campaign
to 'bring back control of our borders'?

Perhaps you want the EU to compensate us for any monies lost through
leaving too.

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[glavallin]

In message <***@davenoise.co.uk>
"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <***@gjlavallin.plus.com>,
> glavallin <***@gjlavallin.plus.com> wrote:
> > I'm certain that Sturgen will want another referendum but the EU terms
> > and conditions have moved on - the EU is now insisting on Hard Borders
> > but as with Northern Ireland and the South of Ireland there are many
> > back lanes (commonly known as Green Lanes) connecting the two
> > countries.Border control could be difficult unless extreme measures are
> > taken. This does suggest a Trump styled Wall ( possibly less extreme
> > than a Berlin styled wall) which I would expect the EU to fully fund
> > both in Ireland and the potential England- EU Scotland border.
>
> You'd expect the EU to fund walls when it was part of the Brexit campaign
> to 'bring back control of our borders'?
>
> Perhaps you want the EU to compensate us for any monies lost through
> leaving too.
>
On the Ireland question I would expect the EU to support The Good Friday
Agreement but as their is no known potential terrorism at the
Scotland-England border then at least the EU shouldn't muddy the waters.
There is always the potential that a second referendum could occur in the
future where the U.K. could rejoin the EU but that would be minimised if
the EU still prefers to play Silly Buggers.
The EU should take note not to try to play daft games with Trade Agreement
Partners by trying to impose its laws and dogma on other countries. The EU
could find itself on a Sticky Wicket.

--

Geoff

[druck]

On 20/09/2017 09:07, glavallin wrote:
> In message <***@davenoise.co.uk>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

This has nothing to do with Open Vector. There are plenty of political
newsgroups if you want to vent your spleen.

---druck

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Alan Griffin]

In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> And doesn't change the reality that calling the result the "will of
> the people" is at best unjustfied by the bare facts, or at worst
> willfully misleading.

Since there was a majority in the referendum, the result was obviously
"the will of the people"

If the remoaners had won, would you still have said that it was not the
"will of the people"?

Alan

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>,
Alan Griffin <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > And doesn't change the reality that calling the result the "will of
> > the people" is at best unjustfied by the bare facts, or at worst
> > willfully misleading.

> Since there was a majority in the referendum, the result was obviously
> "the will of the people"

Not so. Speaking for others is a very bad thing to do. It attempts to give
any subsequent actions justification.

The will of the majority who voted is just fine without being contentious.

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@argonet.co.uk>, Alan Griffin
> <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> > <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > > And doesn't change the reality that calling the result the "will of
> > > the people" is at best unjustfied by the bare facts, or at worst
> > > willfully misleading.

> > Since there was a majority in the referendum, the result was obviously
> > "the will of the people"

> Not so. Speaking for others is a very bad thing to do. It attempts to
> give any subsequent actions justification.

> The will of the majority who voted is just fine without being
> contentious.

Agreed. That's about the limit of what can reliably be claimed. More than
this is asserting a wish as if it were a fact - or a sign of a delusional
misunderstanding.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>, Alan Griffin <***@argonet.co.uk>
wrote:

> Since there was a majority in the referendum, the result was obviously
> "the will of the people"

This is self-evidently nonsense given the details we have discussed.

> If the remoaners had won, would you still have said that it was not the
> "will of the people"?

Yes - if all by that you mean by that is just swapping over the number of
votes cast for or against leaving.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Brian]

In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@argonet.co.uk>, Brian
> <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > I would suggest that might be a confusion regarding 'quoting' from
> > copyright material where due diligence may apply if the copyright
> > holder cannot be contacted where one might be 'quoting' from a source.
> > perhaps both English and American sources, in say a book, it gets a
> > bit messy because the two, English and American copyright laws, are
> > different and are changing with time as well. But the permitted extent
> > of quotations and their size is determined by law. However, some
> > authors are quite categorical, 'thou shalt not infringe my copyright'.
> > They don't have to say why.

> The main point I was making was a different one.

Right, Jim. I hadn't realised that was where you were heading and had
reached.

I hadn't reached a court case yet but was more concerned with the basic,
overriding, principles before a page had even been written.

big [snip] Jim

I don't think that there is anything to disagree with at all there.

> Basically, the Laws here are a disgrace, but vested interests wrt large
> companies, etc, want them like this for their own reasons. The rest of
> us just get stuck with it.

O_K, but the author, the copyright holder, still needs protecting.

> FWIW I'm in the process of opening access to as many of the books, etc,
> I wrote in the past as I can. At some point I'll put PDF copies on the
> web for people to read as they want. I can't see the point of having
> such material unavailable. No author really gains much from books you
> can't buy anyway.

That is an interesting thought to ponder on. I've been writing a book for
some, I don't know, 30 years. Whether it's any good or not is very much a
moot point but I don't ultimately know what to do with the blooming thing
and, maybe, you've hit the nail on the head.

Brian

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>, Brian
<***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

> O_K, but the author, the copyright holder, still needs protecting.

Agreed. As and author I do, indeed, feel that the creator of 'work' has an
entitlement of some kind in terms of getting a return from their work,
being recognised as the creator of it, etc.

The problem from my POV is that this has been expandedfar too much. In
terms of timescale and what can be 'assigned'.

It is one thing for an author to be paid and have some say for a period of
time.

It is something else for, say, a company many decades later to be able
'keep in their vault' works which they now 'own' having done nothing to
create it in the first place. Even when the *author* might wish to see it
made available... and may not even now know who 'owns' the rights.

Personally, I'd cut the term of copyright down to, say, 20 years. If you
can't make an income by then all that will happen is that the work will
become inaccessible. If you have made an income by then, its about time to
let go and write something else to live off. :-)


> > FWIW I'm in the process of opening access to as many of the books,
> > etc, I wrote in the past as I can. At some point I'll put PDF copies
> > on the web for people to read as they want. I can't see the point of
> > having such material unavailable. No author really gains much from
> > books you can't buy anyway.

> That is an interesting thought to ponder on. I've been writing a book
> for some, I don't know, 30 years. Whether it's any good or not is very
> much a moot point but I don't ultimately know what to do with the
> blooming thing and, maybe, you've hit the nail on the head.

I can add one point.

Whenever I could, I 'sold' what I can describe as 'first publication but
non-exclusive rights' or had some term in the agreement that meant the
buyer could not assign or sell on *without* my explicit permission. Some
publishers accepted this. Others didn't.

My reaction in the end was not to sell work to those who refused.

From the above, when the IoP (who published my textbooks) wanted to sell
their publishing on to a US firm, I took back the rights.

If you can't find a satisfactory publisher, decide if you want the money or
want to see your work available. Then act accordingly. These days
self-publication is very easy.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[druck]

On 12/09/2017 09:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> This is that for any infringement the copyright owner may decide to bring a
> case to court as this is civil law. *However* even if the person prosecuted
> is found guilty, the court can then decide what shall be done in the
> circumstances of the case. This then hinges on details like the level of
> any 'damage' done to the copyright holder and the behaviour of the
> infringer.

Copyright cases aren't anything to do with the decision on the court,
it's all about the bigger fish threatening the smaller fish with the
costs of defending itself, then reaching an out of court settlement.

---druck


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <op978n$vt3$***@dont-email.me>, druck <***@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> On 12/09/2017 09:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > This is that for any infringement the copyright owner may decide to
> > bring a case to court as this is civil law. *However* even if the
> > person prosecuted is found guilty, the court can then decide what
> > shall be done in the circumstances of the case. This then hinges on
> > details like the level of any 'damage' done to the copyright holder
> > and the behaviour of the infringer.

> Copyright cases aren't anything to do with the decision on the court,
> it's all about the bigger fish threatening the smaller fish with the
> costs of defending itself, then reaching an out of court settlement.

I'd agree, and say this is another reason the law on this *really* needs to
be changed.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[glavallin]

In message <op978n$vt3$***@dont-email.me>
druck <***@druck.org.uk> wrote:

> On 12/09/2017 09:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > This is that for any infringement the copyright owner may decide to bring a
> > case to court as this is civil law. *However* even if the person prosecuted
> > is found guilty, the court can then decide what shall be done in the
> > circumstances of the case. This then hinges on details like the level of
> > any 'damage' done to the copyright holder and the behaviour of the
> > infringer.
>
> Copyright cases aren't anything to do with the decision on the court,
> it's all about the bigger fish threatening the smaller fish with the
> costs of defending itself, then reaching an out of court settlement.
>
>

Not in every case.
There were the battles between Apple and Samsung where Apple chose a US court
on its door step to gain an injunction against Samsung over 'rounded corners'
of a mobile phone or TNKBP where TNK chose a 'backwoods court' to litigate
against BP for a bigger slice of company control.
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>


--

Geoff

[Brian]

In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve
> Fryatt <***@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 9 Sep, Jim Lesurf wrote in message
> > <***@audiomisc.co.uk>:

> > > Given that it is now *OpenVector* I'd tend to assume copyright
> > > wouldn't be a problem in practice. But maybe someone can say
> > > otherwise?

> > The issue seems to be that rights to the source code -- which is now
> > open -- were retained by the programmer, whilst the manual was written
> > by someone (Mike Matson?) at 4Mation and therefore wasn't in the
> > programmer's gift to release as open source.

> However if he was employed by them to write it, the copyright may well
> have been owned by 4Mation rather than by the writer. Depends on the
> conditions of employment for the work.

Clarification, Jim. 4Mation were asked about the release of the copyright.
They made it clear that the copyright was held by Mike Matson, not them.

If my memory serves me correctly, Mike Matson's phone number was obtained
but he chose not to return calls, for whatever unknown reason. His
prerogative, I think.

No other address information was available.

End of.

> In addition, copyright is largely a matter of *civil* law. That means it
> may be possible to proceed on the basis of making reasonable efforts and
> assessing if an activity causes much 'damage' to the copyright holder.
> In a dispute the person bringing a prosecution would have to show that
> 'damage' was done to them. e.g. assess the loss of income or affect on
> status or whatever. Against that, a defendant could show they were
> diligent in trying to find the copyright holder and get permission, etc.

I would suggest that might be a confusion regarding 'quoting' from
copyright material where due diligence may apply if the copyright holder
cannot be contacted where one might be 'quoting' from a source. perhaps
both English and American sources, in say a book, it gets a bit messy
because the two, English and American copyright laws, are different and
are changing with time as well. But the permitted extent of quotations and
their size is determined by law. However, some authors are quite
categorical, 'thou shalt not infringe my copyright'. They don't have to
say why.

Using a completed copyrighted document is a different matter.

> All that said, I can understand why people might not want to step up and
> risk running into problems. I'm wary of such things and would not to
> want to upset anyone. But it is crazy that we keep finding cases like
> this and get paralised by the idiocy of copyright being applied to
> 'orphan' material when no-one can find an 'parent'. As it is, we'd have
> to fall back on diligence, etc.

So it would seem, except one may never know, under the circumstances, what
the motivation of the copyright holder may be for withholding the release
thereof.

Equally, common courtesy is no bad thing.

Brian

[Stuart]

In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In addition, copyright is largely a matter of *civil* law. That means it
> may be possible to proceed on the basis of making reasonable efforts and
> assessing if an activity causes much 'damage' to the copyright holder.
> In a dispute the person bringing a prosecution would have to show that
> 'damage' was done to them. e.g. assess the loss of income or affect on
> status or whatever. Against that, a defendant could show they were
> diligent in trying to find the copyright holder and get permission, etc.

> All that said, I can understand why people might not want to step up and
> risk running into problems. I'm wary of such things and would not to
> want to upset anyone. But it is crazy that we keep finding cases like
> this and get paralised by the idiocy of copyright being applied to
> 'orphan' material when no-one can find an 'parent'. As it is, we'd have
> to fall back on diligence, etc.

Agreed but in this case !OpenVector has moved on from the original !Vector
(even during !Vector's life changes were made requiring the publication of
various supplements) so a completely new manual, detailing !OpenVector in
it's current form would be an advantage.

All I ask is that people could work through my draft and let me know any
changes that may be required.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Stuart]

In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> I'd be interested to see a reference I could check for that and see the
> context, etc. [Ignoring your mis-spelling my name. :-) ]

Begging your pardon on that Jim. One becomes so used to "camel case" in RO
software, particularly things like "NetSurf" concentration sometimes
slips, especially when other things are going on around one.

The closest I can get is an email of mine from 02 April 2015 though, for
fome reason, I cannot find your reply, which is rather frustrating.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> I have the printed manual. But so far as I know, no-one has managed to
> generate an 'electronic' version as yet.

I don't suppose there is any chance you could scan it and send me a copy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart
<***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <***@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'd be interested to see a reference I could check for that and see
> > the context, etc. [Ignoring your mis-spelling my name. :-) ]

> Begging your pardon on that Jim. One becomes so used to "camel case" in
> RO software, particularly things like "NetSurf" concentration sometimes
> slips, especially when other things are going on around one.

> The closest I can get is an email of mine from 02 April 2015 though, for
> fome reason, I cannot find your reply, which is rather frustrating.

No worries. :-) I may well have said that copyright was a concern.
Personally I often find the law on this area to be insanely
over-restrictive. I want to be fair to the people who created 'works' in
the first place, but the loss of access to useful info like manuals, etc,
is an absurd PITA.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Steve Fryatt]

On 8 Sep, "Richard Torrens (News)" wrote in message
<5678593d80news*@Torrens.org>:

> In article <***@argonet.co.uk>,
> Stuart <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Beware copyright infringement,
>
> Who is going to take any action? Yes - it's technically a crime. But in
> practise I cannot see any reason there should be any problem.

My understanding is that whilst Jonathan Marten held the rights to the
software source code, which is now open source, 4Mation wrote the manual and
haven't approved it for release.

4Mation still exist, it seems.

There are several references on Chris and Jonathan's sites to it not being
possible to release the manual.

In these areas, goodwill counts for a lot. Whilst 4Mation probably can't do
much about the applications here (since the source code is out there and
open), upsetting them could jeopardise the release of any other stuff that
they hold. As ROOL have repeatedly proved, doing things "the right way" can
often pay dividends in the long term. If the company still exist, they can
be contacted...

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

[Chris Evans (CJE/4D)]

In article <***@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt
<URL:mailto:***@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 8 Sep, "Richard Torrens (News)" wrote in message
> <5678593d80news*@Torrens.org>:
>
> > In article <***@argonet.co.uk>,
> > Stuart <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Beware copyright infringement,
> >
> > Who is going to take any action? Yes - it's technically a crime. But in
> > practise I cannot see any reason there should be any problem.
>
> My understanding is that whilst Jonathan Marten held the rights to the
> software source code, which is now open source, 4Mation wrote the manual and
> haven't approved it for release.
>
> 4Mation still exist, it seems.
>
> There are several references on Chris and Jonathan's sites to it not being
> possible to release the manual.
>
> In these areas, goodwill counts for a lot. Whilst 4Mation probably can't do
> much about the applications here (since the source code is out there and
> open), upsetting them could jeopardise the release of any other stuff that
> they hold. As ROOL have repeatedly proved, doing things "the right way" can
> often pay dividends in the long term. If the company still exist, they can
> be contacted...

I seem to remember the company was sold. Who now has any of the old rights I
do not know.

Neil Souch & Mike Matson are the two contacts I had.

I have a personal postal address from 1998 for a M Matson in Uckfield Sussex

4mation were in Barnstable.
IIRC Mike was a programmer and wasn't local to Barnstable.

I hope the above helps.


Chris Evans

--

**** IGEPv5: The fastest RISC OS computer so far! ****
--------- http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/igepv5 ----------
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
***@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN

Don't let the urgent things in life, crowd out the important things!

[Stuart]

In article <***@client.cjemicros.co.uk>,
Chris Evans (CJE/4D) <***@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> I seem to remember the company was sold. Who now has any of the old
> rights I do not know.

> Neil Souch & Mike Matson are the two contacts I had.

> I have a personal postal address from 1998 for a M Matson in Uckfield
> Sussex

> 4mation were in Barnstable. IIRC Mike was a programmer and wasn't local
> to Barnstable.

My understanding is that the copyright for the manual lies in the hands of
Mike Matson and, although serious attempts have been made to contact him,
non have been successful. Therefore it would seem that the attitude of
Chris and Jonathan is the correct one to take.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Stuart]

In article <5677508900news*@Torrens.org>,
Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> I now have a copy of the original manual for !Vector. Next job is to
> scan, OCR and reassemble

.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <56773b5b1bnews*@Torrens.org>,
Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> David Snell came to the rescue - doing a lot of work on ProCAD so it
> would import !OpenVector files and export modern Gerber files.


Yes. For those who want a vector drawing prog under RISC OS, I'd recommend
they buy ProCad Plus. It's a prog which can communicate with the real
world too.

Think I've tried all the various enhanced Draw progs over the years, but
now use ProCad for everything. Basically, I still prefer my slower RPC for
this sort of thing than my CAD prog on the PC. But files can be swopped
between them anyway.

--
*I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Richard Torrens (News)]

In article <***@davenoise.co.uk>,
Dave Plowman (News) <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <56773b5b1bnews*@Torrens.org>,
> Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> > David Snell came to the rescue - doing a lot of work on ProCAD so it
> > would import !OpenVector files and export modern Gerber files.


> Yes. For those who want a vector drawing prog under RISC OS, I'd
> recommend they buy ProCad Plus. It's a prog which can communicate with
> the real world too.

Indeed. It also understands !Vector files and will import them - with some
caveats.

But after using Vector for many years, I did find ProCad Plus confusing
and quite difficult to use. I guess that's always a problem changing from
one package to another.

But ProCad did enable us to keep on producing PCBs from the Vector files.

> Think I've tried all the various enhanced Draw progs over the years, but
> now use ProCad for everything. Basically, I still prefer my slower RPC
> for this sort of thing than my CAD prog on the PC. But files can be
> swopped between them anyway.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
You must use the full News+***@Torrens.org as in the From address.
http://www.Torrens.org for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

[Stuart]

In article <56773b5b1bnews*@Torrens.org>,
Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> That is part of the problem: how to encourage new users! I have Stuarts
> posting to the Vector mailing list (still awaiting his original files!)
> and I am told a manual for !Vector is in post to me.

It's just down to availability of time. Files now on Cd and awaiting a
trip to the post office.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Richard Torrens (News)]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>,
Stuart <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <56773b5b1bnews*@Torrens.org>,
> Richard Torrens (News) <News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> > That is part of the problem: how to encourage new users! I have Stuarts
> > posting to the Vector mailing list (still awaiting his original files!)
> > and I am told a manual for !Vector is in post to me.

> It's just down to availability of time. Files now on Cd and awaiting a
> trip to the post office.

Excellent. Thanks.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
You must use the full News+***@Torrens.org as in the From address.
http://www.Torrens.org for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

[Chris Evans (CJE/4D)]

In article <56773b5b1bnews*@Torrens.org>, Richard Torrens (News)
<URL:mailto:News+***@Torrens.org> wrote:
> In article <***@client.cjemicros.co.uk>,
> Chris Evans (CJE/4D) <***@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'd expect most if not all subscribers would already be users so have
> > little need for a tutorial. New users would be the main beneficiaries!
>
> That is part of the problem: how to encourage new users! I have Stuarts
> posting to the Vector mailing list (still awaiting his original files!)
> and I am told a manual for !Vector is in post to me.
>
> But the progression from !Draw to !DrawPlus was (if I recall) relatively
> easy. As was the progression from !DrawPlus to !Vector.
>
> !Draw itself has of course moved on a little.
>
> I used !Vector (then !OpenVector) for electronics - originally doing all
> 4QD PCBs and other drawings on it. That only broke when it became
> impossible to use pdfs to generate artwork - the PCB houses all required
> Gerber format.
>
> David Snell came to the rescue - doing a lot of work on ProCAD so it would
> import !OpenVector files and export modern Gerber files.

We tried doing a bit of CAD a couple of years ago but couldn't get our head
around ProCAD. Things that ArtWorks did very easily seemed extremely
difficult in ProCAD. David tried helping us but it just didn't click.

e.g. we wanted to draw a specific size rectange then make a rectangular
notch out of one side at X position of Y and Z dimensions.

> > I keep meaning to try one of the enhanced draw programs. A tutorial would
> > encourage me!
>
> What sort of drawings would you want to do?

See above

> There are several examples on my www site
> http://diy.torrens.org/RO/Vector/index.html
>
> More can be added.

Thanks for the pointer, I'll have a look when I can.


n.b. I now have a copy of Stuarts manual! Thanks Stuart.


Chris Evans

--

**** IGEPv5: The fastest RISC OS computer so far! ****
--------- http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/igepv5 ----------
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
***@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN

Don't let the urgent things in life, crowd out the important things!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@client.cjemicros.co.uk>,
Chris Evans (CJE/4D) <***@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> We tried doing a bit of CAD a couple of years ago but couldn't get our
> head around ProCAD. Things that ArtWorks did very easily seemed
> extremely difficult in ProCAD. David tried helping us but it just didn't
> click.

> e.g. we wanted to draw a specific size rectange then make a rectangular
> notch out of one side at X position of Y and Z dimensions.

In ProCAD plus,

Rectangle LL Wd.Ht. - locked to your grid point or whatever. (LL is the
bottom left of the rectangle)
Second 'parasitic' rectangle with the same width (or height) to give the
reference point for your notch on the original rectangle side - again
locked to the same point.
Then your notch rectangle sized but locked to intercept where the para
rectangle meets the side of the wanted one. Select and rotate.
Delete the 'parasitic' rectangle.
Select each rectangle in turn and Control B where they intercept. Delete
the unwanted bits.
Group if needed.
Couple of minutes at most.

But I'm sure there is a quicker way. As with all these things the way you
normally do it is the quickest for you.

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <5673a8e173news*@Torrens.org>, Richard Torrens (News)
<News+***@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:

> Unfortunately I lost the copy I had. Does anyone have a copy they could
> let me have in order to scan it, OCR it and make it available, with
> additions, for OpenVector is still being maintained, by Christopher
> Martin.

I should have a copy somewhere. Finding it will be the challenge. However
if I can find it, I'll scan it and let you have the scans.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[SG nws]

Stuart wrote:
> There is nothing in the original version [of the manual]
> which I have not covered in the new one.
> A copy was re-sent to the list recently.

It is a shame that it is not visible in the list archive.

--
Stewart Goldwater

[Stuart]

In article <***@ntlworld.com>,
SG nws <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Stuart wrote:
> > There is nothing in the original version [of the manual]
> > which I have not covered in the new one.
> > A copy was re-sent to the list recently.

> It is a shame that it is not visible in the list archive.

Well I've just sent it directly to the Email address I see here.

If anyone else wants a copy email me at the Spambin address.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Stuart]

In article <***@argonet.co.uk>,
Stuart <***@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@ntlworld.com>,
> SG nws <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> > > There is nothing in the original version [of the manual]
> > > which I have not covered in the new one.
> > > A copy was re-sent to the list recently.

> > It is a shame that it is not visible in the list archive.

> Well I've just sent it directly to the Email address I see here.

> If anyone else wants a copy email me at the Spambin address.

Following some favourable feedback from people who have received my draft
manual by direct email, I have decided to try and find time to bring this
project to conclusion myself. There is, therefore, no need for you,
Richard, to do anything to the draft at all.

All I ask is that people who have copies of my draft manual, should work
thorough it and advise me of any errors or corrections that need to be
made.

The availability of time is still an issue but I hope to be able to start
work again on it in November - so you have the best part of two months at
least!

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Martin]

Sorry Alex, I missed your first post.

In article <***@chiemgau-net.de>,
Alexander Ausserstorfer <***@chiemgau-net.de> wrote:
> In article <***@chiemgau-net.de>,
> Alexander Ausserstorfer <***@chiemgau-net.de> wrote:

> > The link
> > https://sourceforge.net/projects/plutoemail/files/pluto/pluto318.zip/download
> > seems to not work here with !NetSurf 3.10.

Strange - thet has just worked here for me, using Netsurf v3.10.
Did you see the information on the Pluto Web Site on
http://www.avisoft.f9.co.uk/Pluto ? That clarifies how to deal with
the oddities of SorceForge with Netsurf.

> > Also I cannot download the source code
> > https://sourceforge.net/projects/plutoemail/files/latest/download
> > here.

> I downloaded the file http://home.chiemgau-net.de/.../pluto318.zip
> (737 kB) from
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/plutoemail/files/latest/download
> but cannot find a source code in the archive. Is the above the right
> link?

No, that gives the latest *release* just like the first link.

I cannot seem to get to the source using Netsurf any more ... it seems
to have changed since I last used it. I will investigate that. But the
source is held in a CVS repository.

> !Pluto contains a file called !RunImage. I can open it with
> !StrongEd and switch to ASM. Is this the code? Where is the point
> of begin?

As for most RISC OS applications, the !RunImage is the main program
code which is loaded from the !Run file by a Run command. As it is
compiled C, StrongEd will show the compiled code ... which is
compressed.

> P. S. It is a shame that the website sourceforge doesn't work here
> with NetSurf whereas the link from my own hoster just works fine.
> It is something I don't understand.

That is a question for SourceForge. I did point out some time ago to
SourceForge their bug which causes the zip files to be downloaded as
Data, but never had any response.

Martin

--
Martin Avison
Note that unfortunately this email address will become invalid
without notice if (when) any spam is received.