Did I not explain it very well?

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:15:52 +0100, Bill Wright explained:

J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 at 22:26:44h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

Time often stops in hospital waiting rooms.

That is a relativistic effect.

Although you may have only been there for a few hours, time in the rest
of the world has advanced days, or even weeks ...
No it's the other way round. I am in there for days, suffering
dehydration and malnutrition, yet when I finally escape only three hours
have elapsed.

So surely that means that time has not stopped in the hospital waiting
room but speeded up relative to the rest of the world?

In article ,
Stephen Hughes wrote:

You didn't get the superscript minus-sign. Your newsreader understands
unicode UTF-8, but presumably remaps it to a character set like
ISO-8859-1 which has superscript numerals 1-3 but not superscript minus.

Or perhaps merely doesn't have a font that includes it.

-- Richard

On 06/04/2011 21:47, J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 at 20:08:18h +0000, Stephen Hughes asked:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:33:06 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 06/04/2011 17:52, J G Miller wrote:

At this point the cosmic background radiation will have cooled to
about 10-13 Kelvin, and most things will be at about that
temperature unless proton decay or some other such process keeps
them warmer.

I seem to have lost your exponent. 10 to the power -13? not somewhere
between 10 and 13?

Wonder how many people here have newsreaders that can handle
superscript? 10�¹³

The superscript looks fine in Pan with UTF-8 encoding.

My apologies for losing my exponents like that in the original article.

To lose one exponent is unfortunate, to lose two is just plain carelessness.


Hmm. I have Stephen's superscripts with no problem. Even with you
quoting them.

So in summary, should we be more worried about universal cooling than
global warming?

Depends on timescales!

Andy

In message on Wed, 6 Apr 2011 20:08:18 +0000
(UTC)
Stephen Hughes wrote:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:33:06 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 06/04/2011 17:52, J G Miller wrote:

At this point the cosmic background radiation will have cooled to
about 10-13 Kelvin, and most things will be at about that
temperature unless proton decay or some other such process keeps
them warmer.

I seem to have lost your exponent. 10 to the power -13? not somewhere
between 10 and 13?

Wonder how many people here have newsreaders that can handle superscript?
10?¹³

No problem with the superscript but why the question mark before it?

(10, question mark, superscript 13, in case it looks different when read)

--

Terry

In message on Thu, 7
Apr 2011 21:50:57 +0100
Terry Casey wrote:

In message on Wed, 6 Apr 2011 20:08:18 +0000
(UTC)
Stephen Hughes wrote:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:33:06 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 06/04/2011 17:52, J G Miller wrote:

At this point the cosmic background radiation will have cooled to
about 10-13 Kelvin, and most things will be at about that
temperature unless proton decay or some other such process keeps
them warmer.

I seem to have lost your exponent. 10 to the power -13? not somewhere
between 10 and 13?

Wonder how many people here have newsreaders that can handle superscript?
10?¹³

No problem with the superscript but why the question mark before it?

(10, question mark, superscript 13, in case it looks different when read)

I wrote that post this morning but it obviously got stuck in my outbox!

Stephen has answered this, in response to a similar query.

I'm using Gravity, set to UTF-8 but it still loses the superscript minus.

is there an ISO-8859 variant which soves the problem?

--

Terry

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:48:54 +0100, Terry Casey wrote:

I'm using Gravity, set to UTF-8 but it still loses the superscript
minus.

is there an ISO-8859 variant which soves the problem?

I don't think so. The superscript minus-sign was one of the 7000
characters defined in Unicode 1.0 back in 1991, so you'd think it'd be
somewhere in most computer's font sets, but maybe it isn't as Richard
Tobin pointed out.

So if you can see the line of Greek below, but not all of the line of ten
arrow-symbols that follow, (which are all defined in the original Unicode
1.0) then your newsreader understands unicode but has a limited range of
characters available.

αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει

� ↑ → ↓ ↔ ↕ ↖ ↗ ↘ ↙

On Friday, April 8th, 2011 at 09:58:05h +0100, Brightside S9 wrote:

In the 'end of the universe steady state scenario' I find the idea that
two or more atoms of helium could get together to form a liquid
intruiging. Please explain.

Well I was talking about the scenario where there were already helium
atoms in close proximity.

Obviously lone helium atoms which were sufficiently far distant would like
good decent middle class people, keep to themselves

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:38:03 +0000, Stephen Hughes wrote:
e.

αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει

� ↑ → ↓ ↔ ↕ ↖ ↗ ↘ ↙

Displayed here in Pan just fine.

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:38:03 +0000, Stephen Hughes wrote:
e.

########## ### ####, #### ### #######, ## #########

# # # # # # # # # #

Displayed here in Pan just fine.


My news server seems to make a hash of it. :-)

Oh well, at least this discussion isn't all greek to me. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

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

In message on Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:38:03 +0000
(UTC)
Stephen Hughes wrote:

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:48:54 +0100, Terry Casey wrote:

I'm using Gravity, set to UTF-8 but it still loses the superscript
minus.

is there an ISO-8859 variant which soves the problem?

I don't think so. The superscript minus-sign was one of the 7000
characters defined in Unicode 1.0 back in 1991, so you'd think it'd be
somewhere in most computer's font sets, but maybe it isn't as Richard
Tobin pointed out.

So if you can see the line of Greek below, but not all of the line of ten
arrow-symbols that follow, (which are all defined in the original Unicode
1.0) then your newsreader understands unicode but has a limited range of
characters available.

aµa?estate ?a? ?a?e, afe? t?? pa?a???, µ? µetap??e?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

No chance! Nothing appears except mu - and I've checked to make sure I hadn't
changed it from utf-8 by accident!

--

Terry