f



Is Apple abandoning Boot Camp?

Take a look at.....

<http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html>

......where Apple is praising Parallels Desktop and not Boot Camp!


-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
6/21/2006 3:00:32 AM
comp.sys.mac.apps 21416 articles. 3 followers. xxx613 (1334) is leader. Post Follow

375 Replies
2536 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 19

In article <0001HW.C0BE2080004AC54DF0284500@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> Take a look at.....
> 
> <http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html>
> 
> .....where Apple is praising Parallels Desktop and not Boot Camp!

"but still enjoy the convenience of starting up your Mac in Windows XP 
and running a Windows-only game or productivity application when needed."

Convenience isn't a word you'd necessarily apply to a solution that 
requires a reboot. But I think it's a bit much to infer from making 
people aware of Parallels that they'll now abandon Boot Camp. After all, 
Parallels costs. The existence of a free solution, even if it's not as 
seamless/convenient is appealing. In short, they serve different markets.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
Gregory
6/21/2006 3:18:15 AM
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:18:15 -0500, Gregory Weston wrote (in article 
<uce-645D95.23181420062006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>): 

> In article <0001HW.C0BE2080004AC54DF0284500@news.supernews.com>, 
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote: 
> 
>> Take a look at..... 
>> 
>> <http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html> 
>> 
>> .....where Apple is praising Parallels Desktop and not Boot Camp! 
> 
> "but still enjoy the convenience of starting up your Mac in Windows XP and 
> running a Windows-only game or productivity application when needed." 
> 
> Convenience isn't a word you'd necessarily apply to a solution that 
> requires a reboot. But I think it's a bit much to infer from making people 
> aware of Parallels that they'll now abandon Boot Camp. After all, 
> Parallels costs. The existence of a free solution, even if it's not as 
> seamless/convenient is appealing. In short, they serve different markets. 

The main expense, whether one chooses Parallels Desktop or Boot Camp is the 
$300 for Windows XP itself.

I'm wondering if Apple is considering buying out Parallels. Time will tell.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
TaliesinSoft
6/21/2006 3:50:18 AM
In article <0001HW.C0BE2C2A004D8126F0284500@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> I'm wondering if Apple is considering buying out Parallels. Time will tell.

Maybe Microsoft will do it.  It would probably be easier than rewriting 
Virtual PC.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
0
Barry
6/21/2006 4:11:48 AM
No.

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
0
Barry
6/21/2006 4:29:52 AM
In article <0001HW.C0BE2080004AC54DF0284500@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> Take a look at.....
> 
> <http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html>
> 
> .....where Apple is praising Parallels Desktop and not Boot Camp!

Yes.  MacOS 10.5 is rumored to have hardware virtualization similar to 
Parallels.
0
Kevin
6/21/2006 5:02:27 AM
In article
<mcmurtri-B12944.22022720062006@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C0BE2080004AC54DF0284500@news.supernews.com>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > Take a look at.....
> > 
> > <http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html>
> > 
> > .....where Apple is praising Parallels Desktop and not Boot Camp!
> 
> Yes.  MacOS 10.5 is rumored to have hardware virtualization similar to 
> Parallels.

That's just that, a rumour. It's probably based on people misunderstand
what Boot Camp was in the early days.

The FACT is that Boot Camp is currently still a beta test version and
the final version will be released as part of Mac OS X 10.5. It's
doubtful Apple would be putting both in there - nobody would bother to
use Boot Camp, unless the virtualisation is hopelessly incompatible
with large numbers of applications.

Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)
0
Helpful
6/21/2006 6:45:27 AM
In article <0001HW.C0BE2080004AC54DF0284500@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> Take a look at.....
> 
> <http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html>
> 
> .....where Apple is praising Parallels Desktop and not Boot Camp!

Boot Camp is in beta.

 - geoff
0
Geoffrey
6/21/2006 11:30:02 AM
In article <210620061845273657%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
 Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> nobody would bother to
> use Boot Camp, unless the virtualisation is hopelessly incompatible
> with large numbers of applications

Gamers would. As good as virtualization might be, the mere fact of 
having another operating system (with all its system services and 
applications) would make the machine slower. How much slower, I have no 
idea, but it would certainly have some impact. Moreover, unless the 
virtualization system is completely transparent, I don't think that 
cpu/gpu-intensive applications where speed is fundamental (ie. games) 
would be able to get away with what is, in effect, an additional layer 
to go through, although not as thick as the VPC-like emulation.

That said, I am just speculating here, as I am not a gamer and I don't 
even have an Intel-based Mac... yet.
-- 
Jollino
0
Jollino
6/21/2006 11:35:59 AM
In article
<jollinofrenoamano-EA2815.13355921062006@reader3.news.tin.it>, Jollino
<jollinofrenoamano@sogno.net> wrote:

> In article <210620061845273657%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
>  Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> 
> > nobody would bother to
> > use Boot Camp, unless the virtualisation is hopelessly incompatible
> > with large numbers of applications
> 
> Gamers would. As good as virtualization might be, the mere fact of 
> having another operating system (with all its system services and 
> applications) would make the machine slower. How much slower, I have no 
> idea, but it would certainly have some impact. Moreover, unless the 
> virtualization system is completely transparent, I don't think that 
> cpu/gpu-intensive applications where speed is fundamental (ie. games) 
> would be able to get away with what is, in effect, an additional layer 
> to go through, although not as thick as the VPC-like emulation.
> 
> That said, I am just speculating here, as I am not a gamer and I don't 
> even have an Intel-based Mac... yet.

True. Virtualisation will always be "slower" since it has to compete
for resources with the host operating system (ie. Mac OS X) ... but
exactly how much slower is likely to be negligible to most users and
most applications with good quality virtualisation software. The
problem of course is gamers, as you point out, or at least "serious
gamers" who wnat ever ounce of frame speed out of their computer they
can get, but even under Boot Camp Apple's driver software might not be
as good as a real Windows PC for these people.

Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)
0
Helpful
6/21/2006 9:17:22 PM
In article <barmar-EE9129.00114821062006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > I'm wondering if Apple is considering buying out Parallels. Time 
> > will tell.
> 
> Maybe Microsoft will do it.  It would probably be easier than 
> rewriting Virtual PC.

I'd rather see Apple do it, and make it part of the OS.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
6/22/2006 1:39:41 AM
In article <michelle-8985F4.18394121062006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> I'd rather see Apple do it, and make it part of the OS.

<http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html>
0
Dave
6/22/2006 2:04:51 AM
In article <210620062004515451%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> > I'd rather see Apple do it, and make it part of the OS.
> 
> <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html>

That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
6/22/2006 2:45:15 AM
In article <michelle-FC9938.19451521062006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <210620062004515451%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > > I'd rather see Apple do it, and make it part of the OS.
> > 
> > <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html>
> 
> That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.

I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!

Especially since Vista's slipped again.
0
Dave
6/22/2006 4:28:45 AM
In article <michelle-FC9938.19451521062006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <210620062004515451%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > > I'd rather see Apple do it, and make it part of the OS.
> > 
> > <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html>
> 
> That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.

Good God NO!!   :oO

If any Windows application can run under Mac OS X like that, then so
could most of the viruses and other nasties we're trying to avoid.

Common sense should tell you to keep it contained, either via it's own
computer (eg. Boot Camp) or as a sub-program of Mac OS X (eg. Parallels
or VirtualPC). Giving Windows applications free-range over your Mac is
just asking for problems.

Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)
0
Helpful
6/22/2006 4:30:43 AM
In article <220620061630439012%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> If any Windows application can run under Mac OS X like that, then so
> could most of the viruses and other nasties we're trying to avoid.

Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
0
Dave
6/22/2006 4:36:52 AM
In article <210620062228453496%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> > > > I'd rather see Apple do it, and make it part of the OS.
> > > 
> > > <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html>
> > 
> > That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running 
> > Windows.
> 
> I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!

For myself, I really couldn't care; I can't think of a single Windows 
application that I would want to run.  But I do understand that there 
are Windows apps that other Mac users want to run, and that there would 
be a lot of Wintel owners and never-owned-oners would would buy a Mac if 
it could run Windows software, so I think it's a good idea for Apple and 
for the Mac community as a whole.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
6/22/2006 5:58:11 AM
In article <210620062236522715%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <220620061630439012%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
> Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> 
> > If any Windows application can run under Mac OS X like that, then so
> > could most of the viruses and other nasties we're trying to avoid.
> 
> Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.

If the Mac OS can run any Windows application, then it CAN also run
many viruses and other nasties because they ARE just Windows
applications too. If it was so easy to stop that happening then
Microsoft could have secured Windows years ago.

Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)
0
Helpful
6/22/2006 6:25:36 AM
In article <220620060917221796%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
 Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> The
> problem of course is gamers, as you point out, or at least "serious
> gamers" who wnat ever ounce of frame speed out of their computer they
> can get, but even under Boot Camp Apple's driver software might not be
> as good as a real Windows PC for these people.

Once you have Windows installed and you know that hardware your Mac 
contains, can't you download "original" updated drivers?
-- 
Jollino
0
Jollino
6/22/2006 6:58:08 AM
In article <220620061825366302%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
 Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> In article <210620062236522715%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
> Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <220620061630439012%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
> > Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > If any Windows application can run under Mac OS X like that, then so
> > > could most of the viruses and other nasties we're trying to avoid.
> > 
> > Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> If the Mac OS can run any Windows application, then it CAN also run
> many viruses and other nasties because they ARE just Windows
> applications too. If it was so easy to stop that happening then
> Microsoft could have secured Windows years ago.
> 

Suppose you are right and they can somehow "get in" past the Mac 
firewalls and ports, you need to go on to show that the viruses 
will then create havoc with the Mac stuff... this is not obvious 
at all...

-- 
dorayme
0
dorayme
6/22/2006 8:25:24 AM
In article
<doraymeRidThis-33655D.18252422062006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <220620061825366302%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
>  Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> > In article <210620062236522715%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
> > Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <220620061630439012%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
> > > Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If any Windows application can run under Mac OS X like that, then so
> > > > could most of the viruses and other nasties we're trying to avoid.
> > > 
> > > Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
> > 
> > If the Mac OS can run any Windows application, then it CAN also run
> > many viruses and other nasties because they ARE just Windows
> > applications too. If it was so easy to stop that happening then
> > Microsoft could have secured Windows years ago.
> 
> Suppose you are right and they can somehow "get in" past the Mac 
> firewalls and ports, you need to go on to show that the viruses 
> will then create havoc with the Mac stuff... this is not obvious 
> at all...

I never said they would "create havoc with the Mac stuff" and I never
said just "viruses".

I said MANY (I didn't say all) would run - they ARE just Windows
applications, so it patently obvious that if the Mac OS can easily run
any Windows application it can therefore run these as well. Some could
not do anything, some could affect only other Windows applications and
some could affect the Mac side too by simply deleting random things
(not necessaily important OS file) off the hard disk ... and no doubt
some sod would purposely write one that does affect the Mac if it's
running on one.

Yes there are various ways to TRY and stop them, none of which are 100%
effective or else again the Windows world would be totally secure
already. Not all nasties come via the Internet either. You could just
as easily get one via a CD from a PC owner, etc.


Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)
0
Helpful
6/22/2006 8:41:41 AM
Helpful Harry wrote:
> In article
> <doraymeRidThis-33655D.18252422062006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> In article <220620061825366302%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
>>  Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
>>> In article <210620062236522715%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
>>> Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <220620061630439012%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
>>>> Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If any Windows application can run under Mac OS X like that, then so
>>>>> could most of the viruses and other nasties we're trying to avoid.
>>>> Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
>>> If the Mac OS can run any Windows application, then it CAN also run
>>> many viruses and other nasties because they ARE just Windows
>>> applications too. If it was so easy to stop that happening then
>>> Microsoft could have secured Windows years ago.
>> Suppose you are right and they can somehow "get in" past the Mac 
>> firewalls and ports, you need to go on to show that the viruses 
>> will then create havoc with the Mac stuff... this is not obvious 
>> at all...
> 
> I never said they would "create havoc with the Mac stuff" and I never
> said just "viruses".
> 
> I said MANY (I didn't say all) would run - they ARE just Windows
> applications, so it patently obvious that if the Mac OS can easily run
> any Windows application it can therefore run these as well. Some could
> not do anything, some could affect only other Windows applications and
> some could affect the Mac side too by simply deleting random things
> (not necessaily important OS file) off the hard disk ... and no doubt
> some sod would purposely write one that does affect the Mac if it's
> running on one.
> 
> Yes there are various ways to TRY and stop them, none of which are 100%
> effective or else again the Windows world would be totally secure
> already. Not all nasties come via the Internet either. You could just
> as easily get one via a CD from a PC owner, etc.
> 
> 
> Helpful Harry                   
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)

No. Just no. Viruses take advantage of the nuances of how applications 
interact with the OS, or vulnerabilities with the OS itself. These would 
be completely different on MacOS than on Windows.

-- 
http://pcguyelevated.ytmnd.com/
0
NRen2k5
6/22/2006 9:57:52 AM
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <210620062228453496%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
>>>>> I'd rather see Apple do it, and make it part of the OS.
>>>> <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html>
>>> That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running 
>>> Windows.
>> I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
> 
> For myself, I really couldn't care; I can't think of a single Windows 
> application that I would want to run.

Yeah, God forbid a good-for-nothing like you would actually want to do 
something useful with his computer.

-- 
http://pcguyelevated.ytmnd.com/
0
NRen2k5
6/22/2006 9:59:06 AM
In article <JRtmg.1219$XT2.2396@wagner.videotron.net>, NRen2k5 wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> I'd rather see Apple do it, and make it part of the OS.
>>>>> <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html>
>>>> That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running 
>>>> Windows.
>>> I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
>> 
>> For myself, I really couldn't care; I can't think of a single Windows 
>> application that I would want to run.
> 
> Yeah, God forbid a good-for-nothing like you would actually want to do 
> something useful with his computer.

Are you implying that in order to do something useful with a computer
it has to be running Windows?

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks  http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
 How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"
0
Jim
6/22/2006 10:09:50 AM
Jim <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:

> Are you implying that in order to do something useful with a computer
> it has to be running Windows?

"NRen2k5" generally implies or says outright anything that will provoke
someone into an angry response. Ignore him/her.
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature
6/22/2006 10:31:32 AM
In article <JRtmg.1219$XT2.2396@wagner.videotron.net>,
 NRen2k5 <nomore@email.com> wrote:

> > For myself, I really couldn't care; I can't think of a single 
> > Windows application that I would want to run.
> 
> Yeah, God forbid a good-for-nothing like you would actually want to 
> do something useful with his computer.

I do want to do something useful with my computer, but there's no need 
to have Windows in order to do that.

But Winbots like you don't give a fuck about being objective, do you, 
asshole?

Take your shit to the advocacy groups, or better still, shove it back up 
your ass.  Oh, you can't; there's no room for it until you get your head 
out of your ass.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
6/22/2006 2:16:20 PM
In article <slrne9kr3e.tha.jim@odin.magrathea.local>,
 Jim <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:

> > Yeah, God forbid a good-for-nothing like you would actually want to 
> > do something useful with his computer.
> 
> Are you implying that in order to do something useful with a computer 
> it has to be running Windows?

He's not implying it; he's saying it.  The fact that it isn't true 
doesn't mean a thing to him.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
6/22/2006 2:17:04 PM
In article <1hhc5in.tst5zc1x8i3p1N%see_signature@mac.com.invalid>,
 see_signature@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:

> "NRen2k5" generally implies or says outright anything that will 
> provoke someone into an angry response. Ignore him/her.

What's the fun in ignoring that jerk?  Ya gotta cheer the good guys and 
boo the villains; that's the American Way.

PS  Got any Apple Pie? <g>

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
6/22/2006 2:18:26 PM
Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> > > If the Mac OS can run any Windows application, then it CAN also run
> > > many viruses and other nasties because they ARE just Windows
> > > applications too.

I'll agree with Helpful in this thread. :-)

In fact, I could swear I recall hearing of exactly this kind of problem
in Wine on Linux, which is very related (Wine is even mentioned in the
referenced article). It isn't worth tracking down, but I think I recall
reading a caveat that Wine had implemented the Windows API faithfully
enough to be vulnerable to some kinds of Windows-targeting malware.

And yes, that is in spite of running on Linux boxes with similar
security to OS X. APIs like that tend to need hooks into the underlying
OS at a low enough level to allow them to do "nasty" things.

-- 
Richard Maine                     | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov            |       -- Mark Twain
0
nospam
6/22/2006 4:17:07 PM
In article <slrne9kr3e.tha.jim@odin.magrathea.local>,
 Jim <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:

> In article <JRtmg.1219$XT2.2396@wagner.videotron.net>, NRen2k5 wrote:
> >> 
> >>>>>> I'd rather see Apple do it, and make it part of the OS.
> >>>>> <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html>
> >>>> That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running 
> >>>> Windows.
> >>> I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
> >> 
> >> For myself, I really couldn't care; I can't think of a single Windows 
> >> application that I would want to run.
> > 
> > Yeah, God forbid a good-for-nothing like you would actually want to do 
> > something useful with his computer.
> 
> Are you implying that in order to do something useful with a computer
> it has to be running Windows?

Yep.

And she's pretty snotty about it in the bargain.
0
Steve
6/22/2006 5:33:50 PM
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> What's the fun in ignoring that jerk?  Ya gotta cheer the good guys and
> boo the villains; that's the American Way.

As long as the goader knows what he/she is doing when goading the goadee
onwards, it's perfectly fine with me! :-)
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature
6/22/2006 6:15:10 PM
On 6/22/06 11:15 AM, Jon posted the following:
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> What's the fun in ignoring that jerk?  Ya gotta cheer the good guys and
>> boo the villains; that's the American Way.
> 
> As long as the goader knows what he/she is doing when goading the goadee
> onwards, it's perfectly fine with me! :-)

Well, that's certainly charitable, and all, but sometimes, enough is 
enough, already.

-- 
john mcwilliams

Remember: Opinions are like buttocks; only those which are well-formed 
should be shown in public.
0
John
6/22/2006 6:40:13 PM
I'm using Microsoft Virtual PC 7.0 in my Mac OS X 10.3.9 with dual G4 and
the Windows XP inside de V-PC goes quite good. OK, I'm using that only for
web browsing whenever Safari goes nuts and to sinchronize my PDA... But is
OK.


En 220620060917221796%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com del 21/6/06 23:17,
"Helpful Harry" <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> escribi�:

> In article
> <jollinofrenoamano-EA2815.13355921062006@reader3.news.tin.it>, Jollino
> <jollinofrenoamano@sogno.net> wrote:
> 
>> In article <210620061845273657%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
>>  Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> nobody would bother to
>>> use Boot Camp, unless the virtualisation is hopelessly incompatible
>>> with large numbers of applications
>> 
>> Gamers would. As good as virtualization might be, the mere fact of
>> having another operating system (with all its system services and
>> applications) would make the machine slower. How much slower, I have no
>> idea, but it would certainly have some impact. Moreover, unless the
>> virtualization system is completely transparent, I don't think that
>> cpu/gpu-intensive applications where speed is fundamental (ie. games)
>> would be able to get away with what is, in effect, an additional layer
>> to go through, although not as thick as the VPC-like emulation.
>> 
>> That said, I am just speculating here, as I am not a gamer and I don't
>> even have an Intel-based Mac... yet.
> 
> True. Virtualisation will always be "slower" since it has to compete
> for resources with the host operating system (ie. Mac OS X) ... but
> exactly how much slower is likely to be negligible to most users and
> most applications with good quality virtualisation software. The
> problem of course is gamers, as you point out, or at least "serious
> gamers" who wnat ever ounce of frame speed out of their computer they
> can get, but even under Boot Camp Apple's driver software might not be
> as good as a real Windows PC for these people.
> 
> Helpful Harry    
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)

0
Fidelio
6/22/2006 6:40:38 PM
In article <C0C0B22F.1713%Fidelio@correo.dummy.es>, Fidelio
<Fidelio@correo.dummy.es> wrote:
> En 220620060917221796%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com del 21/6/06 23:17,
> "Helpful Harry" <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> escribi�:
> > In article
> > <jollinofrenoamano-EA2815.13355921062006@reader3.news.tin.it>, Jollino
> > <jollinofrenoamano@sogno.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <210620061845273657%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
> >>  Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> nobody would bother to
> >>> use Boot Camp, unless the virtualisation is hopelessly incompatible
> >>> with large numbers of applications
> >> 
> >> Gamers would. As good as virtualization might be, the mere fact of
> >> having another operating system (with all its system services and
> >> applications) would make the machine slower. How much slower, I have no
> >> idea, but it would certainly have some impact. Moreover, unless the
> >> virtualization system is completely transparent, I don't think that
> >> cpu/gpu-intensive applications where speed is fundamental (ie. games)
> >> would be able to get away with what is, in effect, an additional layer
> >> to go through, although not as thick as the VPC-like emulation.
> >> 
> >> That said, I am just speculating here, as I am not a gamer and I don't
> >> even have an Intel-based Mac... yet.
> > 
> > True. Virtualisation will always be "slower" since it has to compete
> > for resources with the host operating system (ie. Mac OS X) ... but
> > exactly how much slower is likely to be negligible to most users and
> > most applications with good quality virtualisation software. The
> > problem of course is gamers, as you point out, or at least "serious
> > gamers" who wnat ever ounce of frame speed out of their computer they
> > can get, but even under Boot Camp Apple's driver software might not be
> > as good as a real Windows PC for these people.
> 
> I'm using Microsoft Virtual PC 7.0 in my Mac OS X 10.3.9 with dual G4 and
> the Windows XP inside de V-PC goes quite good. OK, I'm using that only for
> web browsing whenever Safari goes nuts and to sinchronize my PDA... But is
> OK.

VirtualPC is an emulator (at least the current Mac version is) - it has
to basically translate every instruction from Intel code to PowerPC
code, which is why it is slow.

Parallels Desktop is virtualisation and only runs on the new Intel Mac.
Because they already use Intel chips there is no need to translate the
code, and so this process performs at almost full speed. The only slow
down is due to having to share resources with the Mac OS. The next
version of VirtualPC is very probably going to be a similar
virtulisation.

Boot Camp installs Windows as a single OS and should run at full speed.


Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)
0
Helpful
6/22/2006 8:54:51 PM
In article <zQtmg.1218$XT2.2472@wagner.videotron.net>, NRen2k5
<nomore@email.com> wrote:

> Helpful Harry wrote:
> > In article
> > <doraymeRidThis-33655D.18252422062006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> > dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <220620061825366302%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
> >>  Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <210620062236522715%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
> >>> Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <220620061630439012%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
> >>>> Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If any Windows application can run under Mac OS X like that, then so
> >>>>> could most of the viruses and other nasties we're trying to avoid.
> >>>> Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
> >>> If the Mac OS can run any Windows application, then it CAN also run
> >>> many viruses and other nasties because they ARE just Windows
> >>> applications too. If it was so easy to stop that happening then
> >>> Microsoft could have secured Windows years ago.
> >> Suppose you are right and they can somehow "get in" past the Mac 
> >> firewalls and ports, you need to go on to show that the viruses 
> >> will then create havoc with the Mac stuff... this is not obvious 
> >> at all...
> > 
> > I never said they would "create havoc with the Mac stuff" and I never
> > said just "viruses".
> > 
> > I said MANY (I didn't say all) would run - they ARE just Windows
> > applications, so it patently obvious that if the Mac OS can easily run
> > any Windows application it can therefore run these as well. Some could
> > not do anything, some could affect only other Windows applications and
> > some could affect the Mac side too by simply deleting random things
> > (not necessaily important OS file) off the hard disk ... and no doubt
> > some sod would purposely write one that does affect the Mac if it's
> > running on one.
> > 
> > Yes there are various ways to TRY and stop them, none of which are 100%
> > effective or else again the Windows world would be totally secure
> > already. Not all nasties come via the Internet either. You could just
> > as easily get one via a CD from a PC owner, etc.
> 
> No. Just no. Viruses take advantage of the nuances of how applications 
> interact with the OS, or vulnerabilities with the OS itself. These would 
> be completely different on MacOS than on Windows.

Yet again: I never said JUST virsues and I never said they would ALL
"cause havoc".    :o\

Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)
0
Helpful
6/22/2006 8:58:41 PM
In article <1hhbtbg.1ugobzp1chz67jN%nospam@see.signature>,
nospam@see.signature (Richard E Maine) wrote:

> Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > If the Mac OS can run any Windows application, then it CAN also run
> > > > many viruses and other nasties because they ARE just Windows
> > > > applications too.
> 
> I'll agree with Helpful in this thread. :-)
> 
> In fact, I could swear I recall hearing of exactly this kind of problem
> in Wine on Linux, which is very related (Wine is even mentioned in the
> referenced article). It isn't worth tracking down, but I think I recall
> reading a caveat that Wine had implemented the Windows API faithfully
> enough to be vulnerable to some kinds of Windows-targeting malware.
> 
> And yes, that is in spite of running on Linux boxes with similar
> security to OS X. APIs like that tend to need hooks into the underlying
> OS at a low enough level to allow them to do "nasty" things.

Thank goodness. Intelligence DOES exist in these cross-posted
newsgroups.

If such a system is capable of even semi-decent compatibility, then it
must have all the same "hooks" etc. that virsues AND other nasties use,
otherwise many normal Windows applications wouldn't work either and it
would be a complete waste of time bothering with it.

Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)
0
Helpful
6/22/2006 9:01:00 PM
In article <230620060901008555%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> If such a system is capable of even semi-decent compatibility, then it
> must have all the same "hooks" etc. that virsues AND other nasties use,

No, Harry, you're wrong. It doesn't follow that if Windows proggies
will run then all the same "hooks" that nasties use must exist.

Think, lad, think.
0
Dave
6/22/2006 9:08:47 PM
In article <IqWdnRgaKoGTeQfZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> What's the fun in ignoring that jerk?  Ya gotta cheer the good 
> >> guys and boo the villains; that's the American Way.
> > 
> > As long as the goader knows what he/she is doing when goading the 
> > goadee onwards, it's perfectly fine with me! :-)
> 
> Well, that's certainly charitable, and all, but sometimes, enough is 
> enough, already.

Hey, I was gone for more than a week.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
6/22/2006 9:36:28 PM
In article <230620060858410194%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
 Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> In article <zQtmg.1218$XT2.2472@wagner.videotron.net>, NRen2k5
> <nomore@email.com> wrote:
> 
> > Helpful Harry wrote:
> > No. Just no. Viruses take advantage of the nuances of how applications 
> > interact with the OS, or vulnerabilities with the OS itself. These would 
> > be completely different on MacOS than on Windows.
> 
> Yet again: I never said JUST virsues and I never said they would ALL
> "cause havoc".    :o\

But you said "that we want to keep out".  The reason we want to keep 
them out is because of the problems that they cause.

You're correct that they would probably run, but they probably wouldn't 
do what they're intended to do because they generally take advantage of 
vulnerabilities in particular applications or the OS.  So while Apple 
might reimplement the Windows API, it won't be the same implementation 
and won't have the same security holes.

Also, it will still be harder for these viruses to get onto your machine 
in the first place.  They usually take advantage of system design 
problems as the entrance vector, e.g. Outlook Express automatically 
opening attachments.  But most Mac users probably wouldn't run Outlook 
Express, although they could if they really wanted to (but they'd 
presumably have to buy a copy of Windows to install it).

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
0
Barry
6/22/2006 11:32:13 PM
In article <220620061508470756%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <230620060901008555%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
> Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> 
> > If such a system is capable of even semi-decent compatibility, then it
> > must have all the same "hooks" etc. that virsues AND other nasties use,
> 
> No, Harry, you're wrong. It doesn't follow that if Windows proggies
> will run then all the same "hooks" that nasties use must exist.
> 
> Think, lad, think.

Whatever. I can't be bothered trying to argue the point any more.  :o\

Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)
0
Helpful
6/23/2006 12:31:24 AM
In article <barmar-D70260.19321322062006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <230620060858410194%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
>  Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <zQtmg.1218$XT2.2472@wagner.videotron.net>, NRen2k5
> > <nomore@email.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Helpful Harry wrote:
> > > No. Just no. Viruses take advantage of the nuances of how applications 
> > > interact with the OS, or vulnerabilities with the OS itself. These would 
> > > be completely different on MacOS than on Windows.
> > 
> > Yet again: I never said JUST virsues and I never said they would ALL
> > "cause havoc".    :o\
> 
> But you said "that we want to keep out".  The reason we want to keep 
> them out is because of the problems that they cause.

There are other "nasty" things that fall into the "malware" category
that aren't viruses - key loggers for example.


> You're correct that they would probably run, but they probably wouldn't 
> do what they're intended to do because they generally take advantage of 
> vulnerabilities in particular applications or the OS.  So while Apple 
> might reimplement the Windows API, it won't be the same implementation 
> and won't have the same security holes.
> 
> Also, it will still be harder for these viruses to get onto your machine 
> in the first place.  They usually take advantage of system design 
> problems as the entrance vector, e.g. Outlook Express automatically 
> opening attachments.  But most Mac users probably wouldn't run Outlook 
> Express, although they could if they really wanted to (but they'd 
> presumably have to buy a copy of Windows to install it).

As I said, some wouldn't run, some would run but do nothing / not be
able to do what they're designed to, some would run to some degree,
some would run 100% perfectly, etc. There's a MASSIVE range of these
things that do all sorts of things.

Plus, again as I said, if the Mac OS can run Windows applications so
easily, it wouldn't take long for some moron to make a "nasty" that
recognises it is running on a Mac and runs a different part of it's
code.

Helpful Harry                   
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)
0
Helpful
6/23/2006 12:37:17 AM
In article <230620061237171361%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
 Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> In article <barmar-D70260.19321322062006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > In article <230620060858410194%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>,
> >  Helpful Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <zQtmg.1218$XT2.2472@wagner.videotron.net>, NRen2k5
> > > <nomore@email.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Helpful Harry wrote:
> > > > No. Just no. Viruses take advantage of the nuances of how applications 
> > > > interact with the OS, or vulnerabilities with the OS itself. These 
> > > > would 
> > > > be completely different on MacOS than on Windows.
> > > 
> > > Yet again: I never said JUST virsues and I never said they would ALL
> > > "cause havoc".    :o\
> > 
> > But you said "that we want to keep out".  The reason we want to keep 
> > them out is because of the problems that they cause.
> 
> There are other "nasty" things that fall into the "malware" category
> that aren't viruses - key loggers for example.

Which I doubt would work on OS X.  It requires hooking into the Windows 
OS, not just using a standard Windows API.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
0
Barry
6/23/2006 12:55:23 AM
In article <230620061231240112%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> In article <220620061508470756%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
> Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <230620060901008555%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
> > Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > If such a system is capable of even semi-decent compatibility, then it
> > > must have all the same "hooks" etc. that virsues AND other nasties use,
> > 
> > No, Harry, you're wrong. It doesn't follow that if Windows proggies
> > will run then all the same "hooks" that nasties use must exist.
> > 
> > Think, lad, think.
> 
> Whatever. I can't be bothered trying to argue the point any more.  :o\

I acknowledge your admission that you're wrong.
0
Dave
6/23/2006 12:58:11 AM
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <230620060901008555%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com>, Helpful
> Harry <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> 
>> If such a system is capable of even semi-decent compatibility, then it
>> must have all the same "hooks" etc. that virsues AND other nasties use,
> 
> No, Harry, you're wrong. It doesn't follow that if Windows proggies
> will run then all the same "hooks" that nasties use must exist.
> 
> Think, lad, think.

I don't know about Harry's 'must have', but I would bet that some of
the Windows APIs are inherently stupid security-wise.  Isn't one of
Windows greatest sins having the guts of IE in the OS?  That would
be in the API, right?

Security issues aside, running Windows programs implies presenting
those applications with a Windows file structure.  Drive letters,
Program Files, My Documents, etc.  Wonder how that would be mapped?
You'd have to have the registry too...

-- 
Clem
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
              - Fudd's first law of opposition
0
Mr
6/23/2006 2:45:45 AM
In article <449b5580$0$6523$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Mr. Uh Clem
<uhclem@DutchElmSt.invalid> wrote:

> I don't know about Harry's 'must have', but I would bet that some of
> the Windows APIs are inherently stupid security-wise.  Isn't one of
> Windows greatest sins having the guts of IE in the OS?  That would
> be in the API, right?

Harry's 'must have all' argument leads to the assertion that every time
a security hole in a Win XP API is patched, Windows apps break.

-- 
"It goes in, it must come out." - Testlicles Deviant to Fudd's Law
0
Dave
6/23/2006 3:01:13 AM
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> Harry's 'must have all' argument leads to the assertion that every time
> a security hole in a Win XP API is patched, Windows apps break.

If he said "must have all" that would technically be inaccurate.

However, the less complete it is, the more apps won't work.

And the more complete it is, the more apps will work--including malware.

HOWEVER, some of that malware (not all) depends on security holes
in the API.  An Apple version of the API _IF_ it is more secure,
will foil such malware.

Whereas a "legitimate" app most likely does NOT depend on the
security holes, and therefore will be unaffected by patching
those holes.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
    all the way home in the back seat of the car.  His father asked him
    three times what was wrong.  Finally, the boy replied, "That preacher
    said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
    stay with you guys."
0
Wes
6/23/2006 4:09:16 AM
Barry Margolin wrote:
> opening attachments.  But most Mac users probably wouldn't run Outlook 
> Express, although they could if they really wanted to (but they'd 
> presumably have to buy a copy of Windows to install it).

Or OS 9.   :-)

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Ostracism: A practice of sticking your head in the sand.
0
Wes
6/23/2006 4:10:44 AM
Helpful Harry wrote:
> In article <michelle-FC9938.19451521062006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article <210620062004515451%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'd rather see Apple do it, and make it part of the OS.
>>> <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html>
>> That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.
> 
> Good God NO!!   :oO
> 
> If any Windows application can run under Mac OS X like that, then so
> could most of the viruses and other nasties we're trying to avoid.
> 
> Common sense should tell you to keep it contained, either via it's own
> computer (eg. Boot Camp) or as a sub-program of Mac OS X (eg. Parallels
> or VirtualPC). Giving Windows applications free-range over your Mac is
> just asking for problems.
> 
> Helpful Harry                   
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships  ;o)

FUD, FUD, and more FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Opinions over what "would be better", might be "a good idea", expressing 
"hope", "doubt", and "common sense" are not worth the time it takes to 
post them.

Without a proof of concept, or some demonstration that a vulnerability 
exists and is exploitable, or at least some any convincing argument, 
based on experience or from finding some weakness in the code itself (if 
that were available), there is no basis for talking about imagined 
weakness in any implementation. Nor is there any reason for unsupported 
faith in the security of the operating system.

Either the implementation--any implementation, on any system--is 
vulnerable or it is isn't. There is no room or hope or doubt. I wish 
someone here would get factual.

-- 
- Jacques S.

You can't always get what you want.
			- Mick Jagger
0
Jacques
6/23/2006 1:19:42 PM
Jacques S. <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> Without a proof of concept, or some demonstration that a vulnerability
> exists and is exploitable, or at least some any convincing argument, 
> based on experience or from finding some weakness in the code itself (if
> that were available), there is no basis for talking about imagined 
> weakness in any implementation. Nor is there any reason for unsupported
> faith in the security of the operating system.
> 
> Either the implementation--any implementation, on any system--is 
> vulnerable or it is isn't. There is no room or hope or doubt. I wish 
> someone here would get factual.

I tried, but people seemed more interested in vague theorization than in
facts. I suppose it figures. This is usenet after all. :-(

Ok, I didn't finish the job. I did mention that I recalled that Wine
under Linux had similar issues and that this was directly relevant. I
left it to the reader to track it down from there if interested. Ok, it
isn't very hard. Googling on "wine windows virus" gets lots of hits, the
first one of which is

<http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1430222&from=rss>

To summarize, the writer's testing showed that he clearly is in
relatively good shape compared to actually running Windows. Some of the
malware was a total dud and none of the stuff he tested was 100%
operational. But his test sample was pretty small, and it did include at
least one case of noticable impact that would count as a denial of
service attack. There's enough data there to show proof of concept.
There is also enough to show that, as should be no great suprise,
neither extreme position can be justified. If someone thinks that API
implementations like Wine can't provide a vector for malware, then they
just have their head in the sand - probably intentionally. But it is
also wrong to conclude that it is so bad that one might as well be
running Windows.

-- 
Richard Maine                     | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov            |       -- Mark Twain
0
nospam
6/26/2006 4:18:41 PM
Richard E Maine wrote:
> Jacques S. <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
>> Without a proof of concept, or some demonstration that a vulnerability
>> exists and is exploitable, or at least some any convincing argument, 
>> based on experience or from finding some weakness in the code itself (if
>> that were available), there is no basis for talking about imagined 
>> weakness in any implementation. Nor is there any reason for unsupported
>> faith in the security of the operating system.
>>
> I tried, but people seemed more interested in vague theorization than in
> facts. I suppose it figures. This is usenet after all. :-(
> 
> Ok, I didn't finish the job. I did mention that I recalled that Wine
> under Linux had similar issues and that this was directly relevant. I
> left it to the reader to track it down from there if interested. Ok, it
> isn't very hard. Googling on "wine windows virus" gets lots of hits, the
> first one of which is
> 
> <http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1430222&from=rss>
> 
> To summarize, the writer's testing showed that he clearly is in
> relatively good shape compared to actually running Windows. Some of the
> malware was a total dud and none of the stuff he tested was 100%
> operational. But his test sample was pretty small, and it did include at
> least one case of noticable impact that would count as a denial of
> service attack. There's enough data there to show proof of concept.
> There is also enough to show that, as should be no great suprise,
> neither extreme position can be justified. If someone thinks that API
> implementations like Wine can't provide a vector for malware, then they
> just have their head in the sand - probably intentionally. But it is
> also wrong to conclude that it is so bad that one might as well be
> running Windows.
> 


Richard:

Thanks for the detail.

I think the comparison to Wine/Linux is legitimate, despite a lot of 
differences at the o.s. level. (I haven't read the article, but I will.)

And I agree with that generalization: the danger-level is most likely 
'somewhere in the middle', and that is about as much as anyone can say 
generally.

But I repeat (for the n.g.) that generalizing about it is not very 
useful. One needs specifics as to each possible vector of attack and 
every possible exploit of that vector, the kind of information that 
usually comes to light one actual or attempted attack at at time.

--
Jacques S.
0
offbyone (40)
6/26/2006 6:31:10 PM
For those of us who work for (or heavily interact with) much of the 
corporate world today, I can think of a number of Windows-only (or 
Windows-centric) applications that are required, at least for 
collaboration. Examples:
- NetMeeting (at least, I haven't found an acceptable Mac substitute)
- WebEx client (Mac client is sadly limited)
- Microsoft SharePoint (not at all Mac accessible as far as I can tell)
- PowerPoint (yes, graphics and fonts still don't work properly across 
platforms)

And then, of course, there are a number of Web sites that just don't 
render properly with anything other than Windows IE.

I wish I could totally eliminate Windows from my life, but the above 
(especially NetMeeting and SharePoint) prevent it.

      Abbott

In article <michelle-F611BC.22581021062006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> For myself, I really couldn't care; I can't think of a single Windows 
> application that I would want to run.  But I do understand that there 
> are Windows apps that other Mac users want to run, and that there would 
> be a lot of Wintel owners and never-owned-oners would would buy a Mac if 
> it could run Windows software, so I think it's a good idea for Apple and 
> for the Mac community as a whole.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
0
Abbott
7/6/2006 11:59:56 AM
> > That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.
>
> I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.

0
Laraine
7/7/2006 6:37:46 PM
In article <1152297466.203433.312850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
Laraine <lbarker@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> > That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.

>> I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
>It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
>haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.

This is no doubt true for many users. There are some rather
specialized applications that do only run on windows (eg, access).
If the Macintosh has the ability to run such applications,
it becomes much more attractive as a platform even if this
capability is never used in practice.


0
pack
7/7/2006 7:16:22 PM
Laraine <lbarker@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

> > > That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.
> >
> > I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
> It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
> haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.
There are unfortunately, I come across one or two a month. Mostly
proprietary sw, eg to synch the cellphone calendar with Outlook, to get
the max out of the digital camera, affordable versions of good stats
programs, sw no longer being made for the Mac, bigger choice of printers
and other peripherals, etc, etc. But Boot Camp should be fine for those
needs.
-- 
ray
0
rlaughton
7/7/2006 7:23:58 PM
"Laraine" <lbarker@orcon.net.nz> writes:


>> > That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.
>>
>> I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
>It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
>haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.

I agree, generally.  But there are a few things I need for work:

A properly working SecureClient (for 10.4) from CheckPoint would be the last one for me.
Actually, having a modern Linux client (as opposed to one for RH 8.x) would help as well.  :-(

Also, Safari isn't certified with Domino Web Access for Notes, either.  And though it
works (mostly) under FireFox, some stuff still isn't right.

For now, I use Linux on my (company supplied) IBM Thinkpad, and boot into Windows XP on it
to VPN connect to the office.  

If the above could be solved, I could convince work to let me have a Mac.

 -Stephen
-- 
  Space Age Cybernomad                                   Stephen Adams
             malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
0
Stephen
7/7/2006 7:26:28 PM
On 7/7/06 12:23 PM, Ray Laughton posted the following:
> Laraine <lbarker@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> 
>>>> That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.
>>> I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
>> It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
>> haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.
> There are unfortunately, I come across one or two a month. Mostly
> proprietary sw, eg to synch the cellphone calendar with Outlook, to get
> the max out of the digital camera, 

This one interests me greatly. Other than a RAW converter that's Windows 
only, what software equiv. isn't available for Mac that maximizes 
digital workflow or end result?
affordable versions of good stats
> programs, sw no longer being made for the Mac, bigger choice of printers
> and other peripherals, etc, etc. But Boot Camp should be fine for those
> needs.

What printers and periphs don't work on Macs?

-- 
John McWilliams
0
John
7/7/2006 7:55:09 PM
In article <e8mbu6$8ba$1@news.ucar.edu>,
 pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:

> >It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
> >haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.

Many of the responses to this post express agreement with it, noting 
(quite correctly, I think) that Mac software as good or better than 
Windows software is readily available for a large majority of the things 
you might want to do with or on a computer.

The problem is that there are also a lot of specialized or customized 
tasks -- and in fact even a lot of quite unspecialized and standardized 
tasks -- for which a business, a school system, a government agency, or 
whatever, will have settled on either some customized or purpose-built 
piece of Windows software, or on the Windows version of some standard 
piece of cross-platform software, as their standard toolkit.

Having done so, they then often require (not unreasonably) that all 
their employees (and, a very important point, all their consultants and 
many of their suppliers and dealers) use this same company-chosen 
software to do those same tasks.  If this means a specialized package 
obtainable only for Windows, there's no choice but to do so.  Even if 
the required software is standardsoftware available on several 
platforms, they may insist on the Windows version only to avoid any 
possible format or data problems (try transferring PowerPoint 
presentations between platforms some time).

But, once the unfortunate victims of these business decisions find it 
necessary to acquire, learn and use Windows for those tasks, then the 
opening assertion cuts exactly the opposite way:  If Mac has software 
for just about any standard function that one can do on Windows, then 
Windows has software for just about any standard function you can do on 
the Mac.  So, you might as well not fight it -- just go with Windows and 
learn to get the most out of it.
0
AES
7/7/2006 10:20:21 PM
In article <1152297466.203433.312850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
Laraine <lbarker@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

> > > That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.
> >
> > I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
> It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
> haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.
> 

Well, woop-dee-fucking-doo-for-you.

Do you believe that your experience defines the entire world?
0
Dave
7/7/2006 10:39:01 PM
On 2006-07-07 15:39:01 -0700, Dave Balderstone 
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:

>> It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
>> haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.
>> 
> 
> Well, woop-dee-fucking-doo-for-you.
> 
> Do you believe that your experience defines the entire world?

I read a lengthy piece on the psychology of Linux users some time ago. 
The premise was that they are all basically in denial when it comes to 
admitting the fact that they are giving up the ability to run 99% of 
available software by running Linux. Linux users typically blow that 
off with some claim that what Linux doesn't do, they don't need to do.

Mac users are assuredly in the same boat. Only the figure might be 98% 
instead of 99%.

Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving 
up 98% of the available computer software to run it?

Granted that Parallels changes this whole issue, but still. Could be my 
guess at numbers are off... but I'd bet not that far.

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/8/2006 2:26:13 AM
Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
> up 98% of the available computer software to run it?

No...... but Windows is that much inferior.  :-)

(Note that I have both WIndows and OS X booted on separate machines
sitting in front of me right now.... and my wife is running Linux about
5 feet away. So it isn't as though I'm a big "fan boy".)

More seriously, why would I care about 98% of the available software? It
isn't as though I'm going to use all of the 2%. I use Windows for
exactly 2 things.

1. Games.

2. Quicken. (And no, Quicken for the Mac isn't within an order of
magnitude of adequate. Nor is anything else. Yes, I've checked.)

Everything else at home goes on the Mac, including the stuff that I used
to run on Linux. At work, I do use (and even sysadmin) some Linux boxes,
mostly remotely from my Mac. Plus a few Sun boxes. Since I do neither
games nor Quicken at work, I have pretty much no use for Windows there.
There's a copy in Virtual PC on my Mac, but I think it has been over a
year since I even booted it up. The only times I ever used it were when
porting some of my software to Windows for other users.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain
0
nospam
7/8/2006 2:54:30 AM
Elden Fenison wrote:
> Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving 
> up 98% of the available computer software to run it?

The answer, of course, is NO.
But the question is the wrong question.

Question: What have you given up to run Mac OS instead of Windows?
Answer:   Microsoft Access.
Question: That's all?
Answer:   Yep.
Question: Was it worth the sacrifice?
Answer:   What sacrifice?  I only use Access at work for tasks
           too big for Excel.  I have no tasks at home that big.

So, is Mac OS really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
up Microsoft Access?  Answer: Most definitely.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent
    of a black velvet clown painting.  It's a rectangle of carets
    surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like
    Heinlein or Dr. Who.
                                 -- Chris Maeda

    Ha, ha, Dr. ..... Who's Chris Maeda?
                                 -- Wes Groleau
0
Wes
7/8/2006 3:08:44 AM
In article <2006070719261350073-usenet@moondogorg>, Elden Fenison
<usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> On 2006-07-07 15:39:01 -0700, Dave Balderstone 
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:
> 
> >> It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
> >> haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.
> >> 
> > 
> > Well, woop-dee-fucking-doo-for-you.
> > 
> > Do you believe that your experience defines the entire world?
> 
> I read a lengthy piece on the psychology of Linux users some time ago. 
> The premise was that they are all basically in denial when it comes to 
> admitting the fact that they are giving up the ability to run 99% of 
> available software by running Linux. Linux users typically blow that 
> off with some claim that what Linux doesn't do, they don't need to do.
> 
> Mac users are assuredly in the same boat. Only the figure might be 98% 
> instead of 99%.
> 
> Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving 
> up 98% of the available computer software to run it?
> 
> Granted that Parallels changes this whole issue, but still. Could be my 
> guess at numbers are off... but I'd bet not that far.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you're pulling numbers
out of your ass.
0
Dave
7/8/2006 3:18:26 AM
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> The main expense, whether one chooses Parallels Desktop or Boot Camp is the
> $300 for Windows XP itself.

Doesn't everybody have at least Windows XP Home already? On an original
CD-ROM.

After all, I have two Windows computers in this room [a Medion desktop
and a Thinkpad laptop], one Linux-based Synology DS-101g+ disk station
and this G4/867 Mac, at age five still my major computer. Simply put,
professional computer people need more than one system.

And in Western Europe and Northern America it will be difficult to find
a home with people under the age of retirement that doesn't own a
computer with Windows installed.
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
0
per
7/8/2006 4:59:07 AM
On 2006-07-07 20:18:26 -0700, Dave Balderstone 
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:

> You don't know what you're talking about, and you're pulling numbers
> out of your ass.

Well, two good responses and one turkey. I guess that's pretty good. 
The other two guys had quite good points. You don't seem to have one at 
all.

One could certainly make a case that there is no Windows software out 
there that is worth running Windows for. That would be the other side 
of the coin.

However I could run down a fairly long list of specialty software 
categories that have absolutely no equivalent on the Mac. If you don't 
need that stuff, that's cool. But to deny that there are many things 
one can only do with Windows software is like being an ostrich.

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/8/2006 5:31:25 AM
In article <2006070722312543658-usenet@moondogorg>, Elden Fenison
<usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> However I could run down a fairly long list of specialty software 
> categories that have absolutely no equivalent on the Mac. If you don't 
> need that stuff, that's cool. But to deny that there are many things 
> one can only do with Windows software is like being an ostrich.

I didn't deny any such thing. 

Go back and check the thread... you appeared to be agreeing with one of
my posts.

Then you started making up numbers.

98%? 99%?

Citations, please.

Otherwise, you're pulling numbers out of your ass.
0
Dave
7/8/2006 5:44:32 AM
On 2006-07-07 22:44:32 -0700, Dave Balderstone 
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:

> Go back and check the thread... you appeared to be agreeing with one of
> my posts.
> 
> Then you started making up numbers.
> 
> 98%? 99%?
> 
> Citations, please.
> 
> Otherwise, you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

Ok, you care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of currently 
available software only runs on Windows? In my original post I clearly 
admitted that I was guessing at the percentage. If you're going to 
challenge my guess you could at least offer one of your own.

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/8/2006 5:51:39 AM
On 2006-07-07 22:44:32 -0700, Dave Balderstone 
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:

> Otherwise, you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

More numbers from my ass:

Percentage of available software that is designed for Windows: 98%

Percentage of Windows software that has no Mac equivalent: 10%

Maybe that will sit a bit better with you. But until I hear your 
numbers I won't know.

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/8/2006 5:57:49 AM
On 2006-07-07 20:08:44 -0700, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> said:

> So, is Mac OS really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
> up Microsoft Access?  Answer: Most definitely.

Thanks for the feedback. I think you have the right way of looking at 
it. The only things a Mac user is giving up are things that don't have 
a Mac equivalent. That changes the numbers dramatically.

Most common computer tasks can be done with any OS. The tasks that can 
only be done in Windows would be only a small percentage that would not 
matter to most computer users. Yes, I am pulling this out of my ass... 
but I like this topic. And I like hearing other points of view.

Another point of view would be... 98% of available software is for 
Windows... but 90% of that is crap. :)

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/8/2006 6:47:42 AM
Elden Fenison wrote:
>> Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
>> up 98% of the available computer software to run it?

Wes Groleau replied: 
> The answer, of course, is NO.
> But the question is the wrong question.
> 
> Question: What have you given up to run Mac OS instead of Windows?
> Answer:   Microsoft Access.
> Question: That's all?
> Answer:   Yep.

Truthful answer:  Nope.  You're also giving up the freedom to choose from
dozens of different vendors, thousands of models of desktops and laptops,
and the ability to build a machine to your own spec, should you so desire.

0
Keith
7/8/2006 8:58:05 AM
Elden Fenison wrote:

> I read a lengthy piece on the psychology of Linux users some time ago. 
> The premise was that they are all basically in denial when it comes to 
> admitting the fact that they are giving up the ability to run 99% of 
> available software by running Linux. Linux users typically blow that 
> off with some claim that what Linux doesn't do, they don't need to do.

Exactly.  They only run Linux because they hate Microsoft.

> Mac users are assuredly in the same boat. Only the figure might be 98% 
> instead of 99%.

Not really.  For most users, the major apps from Apple, Adobe, Microsoft
et al are all they need.  Meanwhile, Linux users have to put up with lame,
half-baked copy cat apps.

0
Keith
7/8/2006 9:20:59 AM
Abbott Schindler <abbottNOSPAM@NOSPAMkbase.com> wrote:

> For those of us who work for (or heavily interact with) much of the 
> corporate world today, I can think of a number of Windows-only (or 
> Windows-centric) applications that are required, at least for 
> collaboration. Examples:
> - NetMeeting (at least, I haven't found an acceptable Mac substitute)
> - WebEx client (Mac client is sadly limited)
> - Microsoft SharePoint (not at all Mac accessible as far as I can tell)
> - PowerPoint (yes, graphics and fonts still don't work properly across
> platforms)

How does Entourage work when copared to Outlook, if the two programs
work with an Exchange Server? I know that there are quite a number of
extra funtionality there.
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
0
per
7/8/2006 10:56:29 AM
In article <1hi58mn.1au49pu1l03gm1N%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
 per@RQNNE.invalid (Per R�nne) wrote:

> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > The main expense, whether one chooses Parallels Desktop or Boot Camp is the
> > $300 for Windows XP itself.
> 
> Doesn't everybody have at least Windows XP Home already? On an original
> CD-ROM.

No Windows here. Or Bagginses.

I use Windows at work, and not XP. I've never felt either the need or 
desire for it at home, though.

G

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
Gregory
7/8/2006 12:02:36 PM
In article <xsKrg.92387$uP.29402@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
 Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

> Elden Fenison wrote:
> >> Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
> >> up 98% of the available computer software to run it?
> 
> Wes Groleau replied: 
> > The answer, of course, is NO.
> > But the question is the wrong question.
> > 
> > Question: What have you given up to run Mac OS instead of Windows?
> > Answer:   Microsoft Access.
> > Question: That's all?
> > Answer:   Yep.
> 
> Truthful answer:  Nope.  You're also giving up the freedom to choose from
> dozens of different vendors, thousands of models of desktops and laptops,
> and the ability to build a machine to your own spec, should you so desire.

The NBA draft happened recently (professional basketball for those who 
don't follow and/or aren't in the US). Two highly regarded players from 
a local college were chosen significantly lower than was projected. 
Every single article I've seen in the sports press commenting on that 
has talked about how much money these people "lost" by being chosen 
lower.

I think the assertion that those of us who exercise our ability to 
choose to use Macs have given up the "freedom to choose" is slightly 
less credible than claiming that these young men (whose starting salary 
is going to outpace the median _household_ income in the US by about 2 
orders of magnitude) lost money during the draft.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
Gregory
7/8/2006 12:15:48 PM
In article <%NKrg.11091$wR4.10891@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,
 Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

> Elden Fenison wrote:
> 
> > I read a lengthy piece on the psychology of Linux users some time ago. 
> > The premise was that they are all basically in denial when it comes to 
> > admitting the fact that they are giving up the ability to run 99% of 
> > available software by running Linux. Linux users typically blow that 
> > off with some claim that what Linux doesn't do, they don't need to do.
> 
> Exactly.  They only run Linux because they hate Microsoft.

Right. Nobody would ever run Linux because it meets their actual needs 
from a system better than Windows. It absolutely has to be about 
something irrational like hatred of the vendor.

G

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
Gregory
7/8/2006 12:18:49 PM
Elden Fenison wrote:
> On 2006-07-07 20:08:44 -0700, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> 
> said:
> 
>> So, is Mac OS really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
>> up Microsoft Access?  Answer: Most definitely.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. I think you have the right way of looking at 
> it. The only things a Mac user is giving up are things that don't have a 
> Mac equivalent. That changes the numbers dramatically.

And in fact, if I did have a task of "Access" magnitude,
there's the free mySQL (which, however does not have the
nice GUI of Access).

> Another point of view would be... 98% of available software is for 
> Windows... but 90% of that is crap. :)

Mac OS has its share of crap, but it's a smaller percentage--
because the vendors know we're not as accustomed to using crap.
:-)

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Ostracism: A practice of sticking your head in the sand.
0
Wes
7/8/2006 1:03:10 PM
Keith Wood wrote:
> Truthful answer:  Nope.  You're also giving up the freedom to choose from
> dozens of different vendors, thousands of models of desktops and laptops,
> and the ability to build a machine to your own spec, should you so desire.

Bull!  I did not give up the freedom to choose.
I had and still have that freedom.  I used it to
CHOOSE Mac, with full knowledge (being a user and
supporter of all versions of Windows for years) of
what I was CHOOSING to avoid.

If my "own spec" ever happens to become something
my current Mac doesn't do, then I will choose again.
Chances are it will be Mac, but as I've built and/or
repaired five to ten Intel boxes from different vendors,
with every version of Windows and four flavors of Unix
(Unix-like, for you pedants) it _could_ be something else.

I repeat: I have only given up nothing I need and only one
thing that strikes me as "nice to have."

(And if I ever decide I _need_ a database with a GUI like
Access, I could buy or build a GUI wrapper for mySQL in
Java, Ada, TCL/Tk, or ??)

-- 
Wes Groleau

   A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.
0
Wes
7/8/2006 1:13:15 PM

Gregory Weston wrote:
>  per@RQNNE.invalid (Per R�nne) wrote:
>> Doesn't everybody have at least Windows XP Home already? On an original
>> CD-ROM.
> 
> No Windows here. Or Bagginses.
> 
> I use Windows at work, and not XP. I've never felt either the need or 
> desire for it at home, though.

Ditto.  I can add that having (painfully) supported XP
for my parents and having used it on my college campus,
if Mac ceased to exist, I would get Win2K, _not_ XP

-- 
Wes Groleau

Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
whom are you going to speak it to?
                     -- Clarence Darrow
0
Wes
7/8/2006 1:27:18 PM
In article <WoOrg.1273$Th7.863@trnddc05>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
> whom are you going to speak it to?
>                      -- Clarence Darrow

Do you think he intentionally ended with a preposition?

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
Gregory
7/8/2006 1:47:25 PM
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 08:47:25 -0500, Gregory Weston wrote
(in article <uce-912CF2.09472508072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):

> In article <WoOrg.1273$Th7.863@trnddc05>,
>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
>> Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
>> whom are you going to speak it to?
>> -- Clarence Darrow
> 
> Do you think he intentionally ended with a preposition?

It seems to me that Clarence Darrow had a good sense of humor!


-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
TaliesinSoft
7/8/2006 2:59:31 PM
In article <2006070722513911272-usenet@moondogorg>, Elden Fenison
<usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> Ok, you care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of currently 
> available software only runs on Windows? In my original post I clearly 
> admitted that I was guessing at the percentage. If you're going to 
> challenge my guess you could at least offer one of your own.

Non-sequitur.
0
Dave
7/8/2006 3:56:31 PM
In article <2006070722574927544-usenet@moondogorg>, Elden Fenison
<usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> Percentage of available software that is designed for Windows: 98%
> 
> Percentage of Windows software that has no Mac equivalent: 10%

Cite a source, please.

> Maybe that will sit a bit better with you. But until I hear your 
> numbers I won't know.

I don't have any numbers. That doesn't mean I have to believe yours.

Cite a source, please.
0
Dave
7/8/2006 3:57:24 PM
On 2006-07-08 08:56:31 -0700, Dave Balderstone 
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:

> Non-sequitur.

Hmm, that word is not in my dictionary widget.

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/8/2006 4:14:43 PM
In article <2006070809144316807-usenet@moondogorg>, Elden Fenison
<usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> On 2006-07-08 08:56:31 -0700, Dave Balderstone 
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:
> 
> > Non-sequitur.
> 
> Hmm, that word is not in my dictionary widget.

Hmm. Try without the hyphen.
0
Dave
7/8/2006 4:25:45 PM
Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes:

> And in fact, if I did have a task of "Access" magnitude,
> there's the free mySQL (which, however does not have the
> nice GUI of Access).

Lately I've been using Sqlite for some local database tasks.

It's got a command line (man sqlite3) as well as drivers
for access from perl and ruby and other languages.

And it's already on your mac.  And doesn't require you
to run a server or do any real db-admin stuff at all.

(to be fair, I've been mostly using it on a linux box,
but that's besides the point - it is, as I said, already
on your mac).

-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
0
BreadWithSpam
7/8/2006 6:02:07 PM
Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> writes:

> One could certainly make a case that there is no Windows software out
> there that is worth running Windows for. That would be the other side
> of the coin.

I have to use Windows for three things - all of them only
because my office requires them:  Outlook (they refuse
to turn on IMAP access on the Exchange server and they
prohibit me from forwarding all my mail out to my outside
IMAP server), SQL Query Analyzer for our MS SQL Server DBs
(though I can get at them easily from the linux box using
unixODBC and all the utilities that work with that) and
IE (because some of the in-house web stuff uses IE-only
designs and ActiveX crapola).

For those things, I use rdesktop to get to a windows machine.
For everything else, at the office, I'm on a linux box and
at home I use my mac - including writing code to talk to
the SQL server DB.

> However I could run down a fairly long list of specialty software
> categories that have absolutely no equivalent on the Mac. If you don't
> need that stuff, that's cool. But to deny that there are many things
> one can only do with Windows software is like being an ostrich.

There aren't a lot of *general-purpose* (especially for
home users and typical day-to-day office use) that cannot
be done just as well (if not better!) on a Mac.  There are,
as you said, some special purpose things, but those are 
more the exceptions than the rule.

And for code-jockeys and numerical stuff, I'll work on
the mac (or any unix-ish box) over a windows machine every single
time.

-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
0
BreadWithSpam
7/8/2006 6:08:07 PM
Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> writes:

> On 2006-07-07 22:44:32 -0700, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:
> 
> > Go back and check the thread... you appeared to be agreeing with one of
> > my posts.
> > Then you started making up numbers.
> > 98%? 99%?
> > Citations, please.
> > Otherwise, you're pulling numbers out of your ass.
> 
> Ok, you care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of currently
> available software only runs on Windows? In my original post I clearly

Even if you had the number, it's a worthless number.

The one that matters is the number of applications that most
people actually *use*.  If we're going to pull numbers our
of our asses, I'll hazard that some 80-90% of computer usage
is web browsing and e-mail.  Run your percentages on the
remainder and see what you come up with.

-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
0
BreadWithSpam
7/8/2006 6:09:51 PM
Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> writes:

> On 2006-07-07 15:39:01 -0700, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:
> 
> >> It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
> >> haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.
> >>
> > Well, woop-dee-fucking-doo-for-you.
> > Do you believe that your experience defines the entire world?
> 
> I read a lengthy piece on the psychology of Linux users some time
> ago. The premise was that they are all basically in denial when it
> comes to admitting the fact that they are giving up the ability to run
> 99% of available software by running Linux. Linux users typically blow
> that off with some claim that what Linux doesn't do, they don't need
> to do.
> 
> Mac users are assuredly in the same boat. Only the figure might be 98%
> instead of 99%.
> 
> Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
> up 98% of the available computer software to run it?

Well, given that 97% of that 98% is viruses  -- yes, I think so.

-- 
    Bill Mitchell
    Dept of Mathematics,        The University of Florida
    PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
    mitchell@math.ufl.edu	(352) 392-0281 x284
0
William
7/8/2006 6:27:12 PM
In article <1hi58mn.1au49pu1l03gm1N%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
 per@RQNNE.invalid (Per R�nne) wrote:

> > The main expense, whether one chooses Parallels Desktop or Boot 
> > Camp is the $300 for Windows XP itself.
> 
> Doesn't everybody have at least Windows XP Home already? On an 
> original CD-ROM.

No.  I've never had any version of Windows.  I have never owned a 
Windows capable computer (until this iMac Core Duo, that is).  Every 
computer I have ever owned, starting with the one I bought in October 
1978, has been made by Apple.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/8/2006 8:21:46 PM
In article <2006070719261350073-usenet@moondogorg>,
 Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth 
> giving up 98% of the available computer software to run it?

What category of software is there that's available only for windows, 
that Mac users are giving up?

Or what software applications does Windows have that is so vastly 
superior to Mac software in the same category that would justify buying 
a Windows computer in addition to a Mac computer?

Aside from games, that is.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/8/2006 8:25:34 PM
In article <2006070722312543658-usenet@moondogorg>,
 Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> However I could run down a fairly long list of specialty software 
> categories that have absolutely no equivalent on the Mac. If you 
> don't need that stuff, that's cool. But to deny that there are many 
> things one can only do with Windows software is like being an 
> ostrich.

But that is far removed from the 98% figures thrown about earlier.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/8/2006 8:26:46 PM
In article <2006070722513911272-usenet@moondogorg>,
 Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> > Go back and check the thread... you appeared to be agreeing with 
> > one of my posts.
> > 
> > Then you started making up numbers.
> > 
> > 98%? 99%?
> > 
> > Citations, please.
> > 
> > Otherwise, you're pulling numbers out of your ass.
> 
> Ok, you care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of currently 
> available software only runs on Windows? 

He is asking you to support your figures.  Thus far, you have avoided 
doing that.

> In my original post I clearly admitted that I was guessing at the 
> percentage. If you're going to challenge my guess you could at least 
> offer one of your own.

He wasn't challenging your guess, he was asking you to justify it.

My guess is (100 - 3.14159265359 * 10)% of software is written for 
windows.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/8/2006 8:30:49 PM
In article <2006070809144316807-usenet@moondogorg>,
 Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> > Non sequitur.
> 
> Hmm, that word is not in my dictionary widget.

Remove the hyphen.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/8/2006 8:31:31 PM
In article <xsKrg.92387$uP.29402@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
 Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

> Truthful answer:  Nope.  You're also giving up the freedom to choose 
> from dozens of different vendors, thousands of models of desktops and 
> laptops, and the ability to build a machine to your own spec, should 
> you so desire.

Wrong.  When you chose the Mac, you made that choice.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/8/2006 8:33:00 PM
On 2006-07-08 13:25:34 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> said:
> What category of software is there that's available only for windows, 
> that Mac users are giving up?

Ham radio software, TopoUSA, CAD software, mapping software. I'm pretty 
certain that the actual list is longer than what I can come up with on 
the fly. In the ham radio category, there are Mac titles, but they are 
a joke compared to their windows counterparts.

> Or what software applications does Windows have that is so vastly 
> superior to Mac software in the same category that would justify buying 
> a Windows computer in addition to a Mac computer?

Well I think this list is a bit longer. Certainly there are a number of 
categories where there are Mac equivalents but they are inferior. 
Usenet news readers, IRC clients, Encyclopedia software, Quicken. The 
only problem with trying to make a list of these, tis a very subjective 
sort of thing. My idea of inferior may be different than yours. And 
while one may argue that Quicken for the Mac is "good enough" it really 
does not compare to Quicken for Windows.

The real question is, are the Mac versions of these programs good 
enough? Well very likely they are, one does settle for them, but my 
point was that it IS a matter of settling for second best in a number 
of categories.

Just to clarify, I'm not anti-Mac and don't mean to come across that 
way. My Core Duo iMac is my only computer. And I don't normally fire up 
Windows on it.

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/8/2006 8:39:27 PM
In article <2006070813392716807-usenet@moondogorg>,
 Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> > What category of software is there that's available only for 
> > windows, that Mac users are giving up?
> 
> Ham radio software, TopoUSA, CAD software, mapping software.

A friend of mine switched to the Mac from windows when her favorite 
mapping program came out for the Mac about two years ago.

There is CAD software for the Mac.  TurboCAD, VersaCAD, ArchiCAD, and I 
don't know what else.

> > Or what software applications does Windows have that is so vastly 
> > superior to Mac software in the same category that would justify 
> > buying a Windows computer in addition to a Mac computer?
> 
> Well I think this list is a bit longer.

If CAD software belongs on either list, it would be this one.

> Certainly there are a number of categories where there are Mac 
> equivalents but they are inferior. Usenet news readers, IRC clients, 
> Encyclopedia software, Quicken.

Of those, only Quicken would possibly be a reason to choose Windows over 
the Mac--none of the other three, even taken together, are sufficiently 
important enough for making that a major point of consideration for the 
vast majority of people.  I have Quicken 2006 for the Mac, but I use it 
for basic checkbook functionality, and it's more than adequate for that 
purpose.

> The real question is, are the Mac versions of these programs good 
> enough? Well very likely they are, one does settle for them, but my 
> point was that it IS a matter of settling for second best in a number 
> of categories.

I learned decades ago that second-best is usually the best buy on a 
price-usability basis.  The only times I buy best is when it's on sale 
for less than or equal to second best, or when I need some of the 
esoteric features that only the best has.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/8/2006 8:55:44 PM
On 2006-07-08 13:26:46 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> said:
> But that is far removed from the 98% figures thrown about earlier.

Right. When I said 98%, I meant 98% of the software titles available 
are for Windows. That didn't mean to say that there aren't Mac 
equivalents for any of them. In a followup post, I was mentioned that I 
thought roughly 10% didn't have reasonable Mac equivalents. And I'm 
kind of thinking that 10% may be a bit on the high side.

Keep in mind, the accuracy of the numbers are somewhat irrelevant to 
the point I was trying to make. They were only intended to be ballpark 
numbers.

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/8/2006 8:59:56 PM
On 2006-07-08 13:30:49 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> said:

> He is asking you to support your figures.  Thus far, you have avoided 
> doing that.

Do you people not understand the concept of a "ballpark guess"? I have 
no support for a guess... that's what makes it a guess.

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/8/2006 9:01:22 PM
In article <2006070814012250073-usenet@moondogorg>, Elden Fenison
<usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> Do you people not understand the concept of a "ballpark guess"? I have 
> no support for a guess... that's what makes it a guess.

Two points...

One, you didn't say it was a guess in your intitial post, or subsequent
replies. Now that you've said it's a guess I will not ask you to cite
sources.

Two, arguing with Michelle Steiner is a waste of time. She's incapable
of letting anyone have the last word, ever. My advice is to just drop
it.
0
Dave
7/8/2006 9:07:37 PM
In article <2006070813595675249-usenet@moondogorg>,
 Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> Keep in mind, the accuracy of the numbers are somewhat irrelevant to 
> the point I was trying to make. They were only intended to be 
> ballpark numbers.

Not even in the ballpark.  But if the numbers are not relevant, why 
invent them in the first place?

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/8/2006 9:11:03 PM
In article <080720061507373382%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> Two, arguing with Michelle Steiner is a waste of time. She's 
> incapable of letting anyone have the last word, ever. 

Balderstone, you are a fucking liar.  Get the fuck off my case, asshole!

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/8/2006 9:21:29 PM
Elden Fenison wrote:
> categories where there are Mac equivalents but they are inferior. Usenet 
> news readers,  

Thunderbird on Mac is inferior to Thunderbird on Windows?

 > ...., IRC clients, Encyclopedia software,

What difference does it make which platform is inferior when the 
application is useless?

> problem with trying to make a list of these, tis a very subjective sort 

That's for sure....

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html
0
Wes
7/9/2006 2:10:26 AM
On 2006-07-08 19:10:26 -0700, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> said:
> Thunderbird on Mac is inferior to Thunderbird on Windows?

No, I would not say so. But I would say that Thunderbird is inferior to 
several other Windows-only newsreaders. Again, strictly a matter of 
opinion.

>  > ...., IRC clients, Encyclopedia software,
> 
> What difference does it make which platform is inferior when the 
> application is useless?

Ok, what floats your boat may not float mine and visa versa. I will say 
that with Wikipedia, an Encyclopedia application becomes a bit less 
relevant.

>> problem with trying to make a list of these, tis a very subjective sort
> 
> That's for sure....

Ok, well thanks for the feedback. In the course of this sub-thread I've 
actually changed my thinking a bit. The main point seems to be... the 
number of programs available for an OS doesn't seem to be a terribly 
valid issue, but rather whether or not the applications that one 
requires are available for the OS of choice.

My conclusion would be, the things that fall into the category of 
"required applications" for most people are probably available for most 
current OSes.

I do still feel that there is a certain level of denial taking place. 
People just don't seem to want to admit that their choice of OS might 
cause them to have to settle for less in terms of application choice 
and quality. Obviously people who don't run Windows feel that it's a 
worthwhile tradeoff. But, it is still a tradeoff.

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/9/2006 3:26:16 AM
In article <2006070820261616807-usenet@moondogorg>, Elden Fenison
<usenet@moondog.org> wrote:
> 
> I do still feel that there is a certain level of denial taking place. 
> People just don't seem to want to admit that their choice of OS might 
> cause them to have to settle for less in terms of application choice 
> and quality. Obviously people who don't run Windows feel that it's a 
> worthwhile tradeoff. But, it is still a tradeoff.

That's not necessarily so. For example, I have two Windows machines and
three Macs here in my home office. The only times the Windows boxes get
used is when I need to check details about the Windows implementation
of a cross-platform app for one of the books I'm editing or when I need
to take a screenshot or the like for the Windows version of a
cross-platform app for a book I'm writing. Since I have both platforms
readily available and have not found a need (or even a desire to try)
any Windows-only app in the past few years would imply that, at least
for me, there's no "trade-off" involved. On the other hand, I have
found a few Mac-only apps that I use frequently -- DVD Studio Pro, for
example -- and would sorely miss if I were restricted to a "Windows
world."

-- 
Spenser
0
sbt
7/9/2006 3:45:39 AM
On 2006-07-08 20:45:39 -0700, sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> said:
> Since I have both platforms readily available and have not found a need 
> (or even a desire to try) any Windows-only app in the past few years 
> would imply that, at least for me, there's no "trade-off" involved. On 
> the other hand, I have found a few Mac-only apps that I use frequently 
> -- DVD Studio Pro, for
> example -- and would sorely miss if I were restricted to a "Windows world."

Interesting. Certainly part of my thinking regarding the "trade-off" 
thing does boil down to the sheer number of apps and developers that 
are for Windows. However it seems the general concensus is that the 
quantity of applications available for an OS is not really relevant.

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/9/2006 4:10:08 AM
In article <2006070820261616807-usenet@moondogorg>, Elden Fenison
<usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> Ok, well thanks for the feedback. In the course of this sub-thread I've 
> actually changed my thinking a bit. The main point seems to be... the 
> number of programs available for an OS doesn't seem to be a terribly 
> valid issue, but rather whether or not the applications that one 
> requires are available for the OS of choice.
> 
> My conclusion would be, the things that fall into the category of 
> "required applications" for most people are probably available for most 
> current OSes.
> 
> I do still feel that there is a certain level of denial taking place. 
> People just don't seem to want to admit that their choice of OS might 
> cause them to have to settle for less in terms of application choice 
> and quality. Obviously people who don't run Windows feel that it's a 
> worthwhile tradeoff. But, it is still a tradeoff.

I agree with your core points here. We're primarily a Mac house, but I
have a 'Doze box and just purchased Parallels for the Intel iMac.

Why? Because my kids are in a school division that has gone with
Windows, and in some classes (comp sci, in particular) it's necessary.

But I don't agree with your conclusion "People just don't seem to want
to admit that their choice of OS might cause them to have to settle for
less in terms of application choice and quality."

*YOU* are assuming the "settle for less". You have no way of knowing if
anyone else is. So making a blanket statement is not, in my opinion,
justified.
0
Dave
7/9/2006 4:31:36 AM
On 2006-07-08 21:31:36 -0700, Dave Balderstone 
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:

> *YOU* are assuming the "settle for less". You have no way of knowing if
> anyone else is. So making a blanket statement is not, in my opinion,
> justified.

Fair enough. Thanks. :)

-- 
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

0
Elden
7/9/2006 5:44:05 AM
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1hi58mn.1au49pu1l03gm1N%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
>  per@RQNNE.invalid (Per R�nne) wrote:
> 
> > > The main expense, whether one chooses Parallels Desktop or Boot 
> > > Camp is the $300 for Windows XP itself.
> > 
> > Doesn't everybody have at least Windows XP Home already? On an 
> > original CD-ROM.
> 
> No.  I've never had any version of Windows.  I have never owned a 
> Windows capable computer (until this iMac Core Duo, that is).  Every 
> computer I have ever owned, starting with the one I bought in October
> 1978, has been made by Apple.

The first computer I purchased back in the late 80s was an Amstrad
Z80-based one. With a cassette tape recorder in the keyboard and running
cp/m-80 from one of the two external disc drives I attached to it.

Since then I have only purchased Macs. With the exception of a Medion
computer running XP Pro, and with the exception of a now defect Apple
NuBus card on my old 6100/60/72. It happens to be necessary to run
Windows if you teach in the Danish 3-year Sixth Form College for the
16-19-year-olds.

And also I have borrowed an IBM R50 Thinkpad laptop from my union. Yes,
I'm a shop steward in our Association of Sixth Form College Teachers.
The Danish labour market is /very/ organized.
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
0
per
7/9/2006 5:55:20 AM
John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 7/7/06 12:23 PM, Ray Laughton posted the following:
> > Laraine <lbarker@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running Windows.
> >>> I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
> >> It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
> >> haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.
> > There are unfortunately, I come across one or two a month. Mostly
> > proprietary sw, eg to synch the cellphone calendar with Outlook, to get
> > the max out of the digital camera, 
> 
> This one interests me greatly. Other than a RAW converter that's Windows
> only, what software equiv. isn't available for Mac that maximizes 
> digital workflow or end result?
You havent bought a digital camera lately? They all come with CDs full
of software for processing/archiving/ the pics, almost all for Windows.

> > affordable versions of good stats
> > programs, sw no longer being made for the Mac, bigger choice of printers
> > and other peripherals, etc, etc. But Boot Camp should be fine for those
> > needs.
> 
> What printers and periphs don't work on Macs?
too tired at the mo to provide a list, maybe  the printer situation is
better now. But there are a _lot_ of other peripherals, believe me.


-- 
RL
0
rlaughton
7/9/2006 9:34:31 AM
Elden Fenison wrote:
> 
> Interesting. Certainly part of my thinking regarding the "trade-off" 
> thing does boil down to the sheer number of apps and developers that are 
> for Windows. However it seems the general concensus is that the quantity 
> of applications available for an OS is not really relevant.
> 

The thing that struck me when I moved from NT to OS X was the number of 
applications I _didn't_ need to buy to get the working environment I wanted.

o - antivirus package
o - firewall (well OK, I had a router by the time I moved to OS X)
o - a decent editor
o - a compiler or two and database packages
o - an offline newsreader / mail client
o - NT Server Resource Kit (not cheap, but recommended for the serious user)
o - Quicken and QuickBooks
o - the IBM speech recognition package (I can't remember its name now)
o - Diary / contact system


and then there was a host of freebies to make life easier, such as stuff 
from www.sysinterals.com, TweakUI, registry cleaners etc. It seemed that 
I was caught in a never ending loop of acquiring more and more software.

In contrast, apart from OS upgrades, for OS X I have bought

o - Keynote
o - Quicktime Pro
o - iLife (mainly to get the upgrade to iPhoto)

What do I miss from my Windows setup?

o - the offline newsreader / Mail client I had was superb, but alas fell 
victim to market forces and "died" when a lot of technical forums moved 
to the web instead of good 'ole CompuServe, and also with the advent of 
broadband.

o - WordPerfect office - I had that as well as MS Office and much 
preferred it. The word processor had a much more "solid feel" than MS 
Word and the Quattro Pro spreadsheet was IMHO also better than Excel.

o - non-C/C++ compilers. I really don't like C/C++, so have just 
downloaded GNAT (Ada 95) from http://www.macada.org (thanks to Wes 
Groleau for that link).

It is my belief that a lot of software available for Windows is to cater 
for shortfalls in what is supplied in Windows itself.
0
Paul
7/9/2006 12:21:18 PM
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <WoOrg.1273$Th7.863@trnddc05>,
>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
> > whom are you going to speak it to?
> >                      -- Clarence Darrow
> 
> Do you think he intentionally ended with a preposition?
Yes. The sentence as it stands is incomplete without it - well maybe not
in the US. After all you write people  without needing to write TO
them..  :-/
-- 
madiba
0
down (57)
7/9/2006 12:57:35 PM
In article <1hi7jqd.inzx57p2nhaeN%down@thekraal.com>,
 down@thekraal.com (madiba) wrote:

> > > Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
> > > whom are you going to speak it to?
> > >                      -- Clarence Darrow
> > 
> > Do you think he intentionally ended with a preposition?
> Yes. The sentence as it stands is incomplete without it - well maybe not
> in the US. After all you write people  without needing to write TO
> them..  :-/

Grammatically, though, it should have been "Even if you do learn to 
speak correct English, to whom are you going to speak it?"  But I would 
have used "with" instead of "to".

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/9/2006 1:37:59 PM
In article <5f36a$44b0f4bf$50db5015$32751@news.hispeed.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> The thing that struck me when I moved from NT to OS X was the number of 
> applications I _didn't_ need to buy to get the working environment I wanted.
> 
> o - Quicken and QuickBooks

What are you using instead of QuickBooks?

BTW, the IBM voice recognition package is "ViaVoice"

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/9/2006 1:42:52 PM
Ray Laughton <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:

> You havent bought a digital camera lately? They all come with CDs full
> of software for processing/archiving/ the pics, almost all for Windows.

The Nikon and Olympus cameras my clients have bought recently came with
what appeared to be full complements of Mac software.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg
<http://macconsult.com/cafepress/> Net Junkie and Mac-themed shirts etc.
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gifts
0
mike
7/9/2006 2:31:44 PM
In article <2006070722574927544-usenet@moondogorg>,
 Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> wrote:

> On 2006-07-07 22:44:32 -0700, Dave Balderstone 
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:
> 
> > Otherwise, you're pulling numbers out of your ass.
> 
> More numbers from my ass:
> 
> Percentage of available software that is designed for Windows: 98%
> 
> Percentage of Windows software that has no Mac equivalent: 10%

What does this mean?  Is mySQL the equivalent of Access by this 
definition?  Is Office 2004 for Mac the equivalent to Office 2003 for 
Windows?  To me your WAG is either too high or too low depending on how 
you define mac equivalent.

dick
0
Dick
7/9/2006 2:50:20 PM
In article <1hi7dl8.1ajimgh17d4hznN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>,
 mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Ray Laughton <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
> > You havent bought a digital camera lately? They all come with CDs full
> > of software for processing/archiving/ the pics, almost all for Windows.
> 
> The Nikon and Olympus cameras my clients have bought recently came with
> what appeared to be full complements of Mac software.

  As did the Canon 20D I bought

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
0
Ralph
7/9/2006 2:59:21 PM
In article <1hi7dl8.1ajimgh17d4hznN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>,
 mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > You havent bought a digital camera lately? They all come with CDs 
> > full of software for processing/archiving/ the pics, almost all for 
> > Windows.
> 
> The Nikon and Olympus cameras my clients have bought recently came 
> with what appeared to be full complements of Mac software.

Ditto for my Nikon D70s; however, I find that iPhoto does a better job.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/9/2006 3:04:51 PM
On 7/9/06 7:31 AM, Mike Rosenberg posted the following:
> Ray Laughton <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> You havent bought a digital camera lately? They all come with CDs full
>> of software for processing/archiving/ the pics, almost all for Windows.
> 
> The Nikon and Olympus cameras my clients have bought recently came with
> what appeared to be full complements of Mac software.
> 
As does Canon, or which I have three digital cameras. Many professional 
photographers don't use software provided by the equipment manufacturers.

However, my question of Ray is: What highly useful software isn't made 
for Mac? Adobe's Lightroom is currently only Mac, a beta, and it 
promises to be a hard hitter. It'll be released to Windows before long. 
Aperture is only Mac, but doubt there'll ever be a PC version.

-- 
John McWilliams
0
John
7/9/2006 3:19:24 PM
On 7/8/06 2:21 PM, Michelle Steiner posted the following:
> In article <080720061507373382%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Two, arguing with Michelle Steiner is a waste of time. She's 
>> incapable of letting anyone have the last word, ever. 
> 
> Balderstone, you are a fucking liar.  Get the fuck off my case, asshole!
> 

Not replying to this post would have had a better impact....

-- 

John McWilliams

Please BE SURE to capitalize IMPORTANT WORDS in case you think your 
audience is NOT very bright, or you have a limited vocabulary.
0
John
7/9/2006 3:25:39 PM
In article <qI6dne1QftdugizZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> Two, arguing with Michelle Steiner is a waste of time. She's 
> >> incapable of letting anyone have the last word, ever. 
> > 
> > Balderstone, you are a fucking liar.  Get the fuck off my case, 
> > asshole!
> > 
> 
> Not replying to this post would have had a better impact....

Nah, he would have simply continued his assaults on me.  When he finally 
realizes that I don't take shit from him (or anyone else), he'll stop.  
I tried to make peace and offered a truce, but he's not capable of 
something that civilized.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/9/2006 3:40:43 PM
In article <qI6dne1QftdugizZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, John
McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 7/8/06 2:21 PM, Michelle Steiner posted the following:
> > In article <080720061507373382%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> >  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > 
> >> Two, arguing with Michelle Steiner is a waste of time. She's 
> >> incapable of letting anyone have the last word, ever. 
> > 
> > Balderstone, you are a fucking liar.  Get the fuck off my case, asshole!
> > 
> 
> Not replying to this post would have had a better impact....

Told ya...
0
Dave
7/9/2006 3:49:47 PM
In article <090720060949473399%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> > >> Two, arguing with Michelle Steiner is a waste of time. She's 
> > >> incapable of letting anyone have the last word, ever. 
> > > 
> > > Balderstone, you are a fucking liar.  Get the fuck off my case, 
> > > asshole!
> > > 
> > 
> > Not replying to this post would have had a better impact....
> 
> Told ya...

Let's see... you attack me and lie about me, and then say that my 
responding to your attack proves your lies.

Why is it that you have to have the last word, especially when your word 
is false and/or an attack?

So lets see whether you have to have the last word, or whether you will 
shut the fuck up about me.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/9/2006 4:05:25 PM
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1hi7jqd.inzx57p2nhaeN%down@thekraal.com>,
>  down@thekraal.com (madiba) wrote:
> 
> > > > Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
> > > > whom are you going to speak it to?
> > > >                      -- Clarence Darrow
> > > 
> > > Do you think he intentionally ended with a preposition?
> > Yes. The sentence as it stands is incomplete without it - well maybe not
> > in the US. After all you write people  without needing to write TO
> > them..  :-/
> 
> Grammatically, though, it should have been "Even if you do learn to 
> speak correct English, to whom are you going to speak it?"  But I would
> have used "with" instead of "to".

So would I. The smiley was meant to show that the post was just an
ironic take on yank English.. 

-- 
madiba
0
down (57)
7/9/2006 4:53:27 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <5f36a$44b0f4bf$50db5015$32751@news.hispeed.ch>,
>  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
>> The thing that struck me when I moved from NT to OS X was the number of 
>> applications I _didn't_ need to buy to get the working environment I wanted.
>>
>> o - Quicken and QuickBooks
> 
> What are you using instead of QuickBooks?

To be honest, I haven't looked for a replacement, as I am no longer 
doing the volume of accounting I used to. The OpenOffice spreadsheet and 
a bit of MySQL suffice at the moment.

I'd be interested in any suggestions you have for OS X.

> 
> BTW, the IBM voice recognition package is "ViaVoice"
> 

Thanks.
0
Paul
7/9/2006 5:21:55 PM
Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:

> Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> wrote:
> 
> > Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
> > up 98% of the available computer software to run it?
> 
> No...... but Windows is that much inferior.  :-)
> 
> (Note that I have both WIndows and OS X booted on separate machines
> sitting in front of me right now.... and my wife is running Linux about
> 5 feet away. So it isn't as though I'm a big "fan boy".)
> 
> More seriously, why would I care about 98% of the available software? It
> isn't as though I'm going to use all of the 2%. I use Windows for
> exactly 2 things.
> 
> 1. Games.
> 
> 2. Quicken. (And no, Quicken for the Mac isn't within an order of
> magnitude of adequate. Nor is anything else. Yes, I've checked.)
> 
Quicken (and good speech to text software) are enough reasons to get a
Intel Mac now. I'm still using Quicken 7 via Classic emulation on
Tiger.. But there have been all kinds of things where we Mac users are
treated as 2nd class citizens and have had to adapt our software to take
deal with otherwise Windows-only software for peripherals. I'm glad
thats over, but at the same time I fear for the future of Mac software.
Developers: "why bother, they can use the Windows versions now". 
However, if this duality makes Macs as popular as I think it might, it
could also boost Mac sales and stimulate software production.
 
ray
0
rlaughton
7/9/2006 7:30:20 PM
John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 7/9/06 7:31 AM, Mike Rosenberg posted the following:
> > Ray Laughton <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> You havent bought a digital camera lately? They all come with CDs full
> >> of software for processing/archiving/ the pics, almost all for Windows.
> > 
> > The Nikon and Olympus cameras my clients have bought recently came with
> > what appeared to be full complements of Mac software.
> > 
> As does Canon, or which I have three digital cameras. Many professional
> photographers don't use software provided by the equipment manufacturers.
> 
> However, my question of Ray is: What highly useful software isn't made
> for Mac? Adobe's Lightroom is currently only Mac, a beta, and it 
> promises to be a hard hitter. It'll be released to Windows before long.
> Aperture is only Mac, but doubt there'll ever be a PC version.
Well as far as graphics go the Mac was always tops. I also use iPhoto
for most of my photographic needs. But iPhoto is a real CPU-grabber, esp
if you have 1000 or more pics stored. For example I've learnt not to
Skype and browse through my albums at the same time, you soon lose your
connection.  If a pic needs touching up there's always Photoshop. 
My original whinge was actually not about a 'digital camera' per se but
about the software that came with my Motorola RAZR V3i mobile. It does
have a camera (1.2megapixels) and a 1Gb of memory so its usable as a
camera, even a movie camera although the picture quality puts it in the
category 'backup for emergencies'..  I found a workaround (something you
learn as a Mac user) by sticking the flash card in a card reader, but
the other things like synching the phone's calendar with Outlook I can't
solve. Apparently there is a crack available that allows synching with
iCal via Bluetooth, but I'm not that desperate yet..
Other useful Windows-only software that I needed recently is on the CD
that came with my Philips digital dictation device. No dictation
transfers to my Mac possible. Speaking of which, good dictation software
(speech to text) has been available for PCs for ages. The only serious
(and thus overpriced) SW for Macs is iListen. Now thats something very
useful! 
We wont go into details on Quicken, which is a travesty on the Mac and
very good on PCs.  
Still, I avoided buying PCs and suffered silently with the Mac masses...
-until now!  I'm also dying to get rid of this noisy G4 tower which has
ruined my Mac Music Experience (iTunes) since 2002. Looks like its going
be one of the Intel iMacs as the MacBooks still have a few issues that
need sorting out (overheating, batteries).
-- 
ray
0
rlaughton
7/9/2006 7:30:21 PM
Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Elden Fenison wrote:
> > Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
> > up 98% of the available computer software to run it?
> 
> The answer, of course, is NO.
> But the question is the wrong question.
> 
> Question: What have you given up to run Mac OS instead of Windows?
> Answer:   Microsoft Access.
> Question: That's all?
> Answer:   Yep.
> Question: Was it worth the sacrifice?
> Answer:   What sacrifice?  I only use Access at work for tasks
>            too big for Excel.  I have no tasks at home that big.
> 
> So, is Mac OS really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
> up Microsoft Access?  Answer: Most definitely.
Filemaker Pro beats Access anyway, its just not 'industry standard'..
 
ray
0
rlaughton
7/9/2006 7:30:22 PM
Well, I actually read through the entire thread...  absolutely
amazing!!!  How a simple question can provoke the responses included in
this thread is incredible.  Arguing, badmouthing, and "nonsequiturring"
even.  People guessing and "inventing" numbers and cite your source
challenges.  The whole argument over Mac vs Windows is insane.  People,
like me, who have Macs prefer Mac; and likewise Windows people like
Windows.  Whatever you like is better for you.

Some of the contributors here have an incredible amount of knowledge
about OS X, a hell of a lot more than I have, or ever will have.  About
half of the threads here are beyond my scope.  But these people are the
reason I come here.  To get help when problems arise that I can't
handle by myself.  I must admit that I am also amused by some of the
rivalries that surface from time to time.

While I'm not nearly as computer saavy as most of the posters here, I
am way ahead of most of my friends.  I think I'm a pretty average
computer user, and as one poster pointed out, I mostly use mine for
word-processing, email and internet browsing.  As a teacher, I mostly
use Excel and Word.  I take pictures and share them with friends and
family.  I keep track of my budget on Conto, download music with
Limewire, play videos and music with Quicktime and iTunes.  I manage my
pics with iPhoto, watch downloaded PPS with Powerpoint, manage my email
on Thunderbird and play simple games.  I do all this comfortably on my
Mac and am very content.

I could also do all of these things (probably quite comfortably if I
was accustomed to using one) on a Windows computer.  I know there are
more programs available for Windows (no, I will not venture a guess on
how many) especially games.  I also know that there are specialty
education and business programs designed for windows only.  I don't
care because I'm not a specialist.  If a virtualization programs or
intel Macs solve problems for specialists... then I'm happy for them.
However, I'm even happier that I'm not affected.
Sean
Geoffrey F. Green ha escrito:

> In article <0001HW.C0BE2080004AC54DF0284500@news.supernews.com>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Take a look at.....
> >
> > <http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html>
> >
> > .....where Apple is praising Parallels Desktop and not Boot Camp!
> 
> Boot Camp is in beta.
> 
>  - geoff

0
lassaga106
7/9/2006 9:07:07 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> Grammatically, though, it should have been "Even if you do learn to 
> speak correct English, to whom are you going to speak it?"  But I would 
> have used "with" instead of "to".

People!  It's *_OK_* to end a sentence with.  A preposition.

My standard is that "grammatically correct" is what 50% of
educated people say and 75% of educated people accept.
Not what some Latin-fixated pompous pedant wrote in a book
two hundred years ago.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent
    of a black velvet clown painting.  It's a rectangle of carets
    surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like
    Heinlein or Dr. Who.
                                 -- Chris Maeda

    Ha, ha, Dr. ..... Who's Chris Maeda?
                                 -- Wes Groleau
0
news31 (6772)
7/9/2006 9:55:22 PM
In article <eXesg.10517$Wh7.6797@trnddc07>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > Grammatically, though, it should have been "Even if you do learn to 
> > speak correct English, to whom are you going to speak it?"  But I would 
> > have used "with" instead of "to".
> 
> People!  It's *_OK_* to end a sentence with.  A preposition.

And it's OK to occasionally split an infinitive.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
0
barmar (6125)
7/9/2006 10:12:23 PM

> People!  It's *_OK_* to end a sentence with.  A preposition.

Churchill said it all when, accused of ending a sentence with a
preposition, he is reputed to have replied: "It is an accusation up
with which I will not put."

And now I'm wondering how come we've got so much off-topic? :-)

0
lbarker (73)
7/9/2006 10:44:02 PM
On 7/9/06 9:05 AM, Michelle Steiner posted the following:
> 
> So lets see whether you have to have the last word, or whether you will 
> shut the fuck up about me.
> 

Why not declare this a stand off and both avoid the other?

Yeah, I know, always the wide=eyed optimist....

--
john mcwilliams

She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was 
room-temperature Canadian beef.
0
John
7/9/2006 10:46:53 PM
On 7/9/06 3:12 PM, Barry Margolin posted the following:
> In article <eXesg.10517$Wh7.6797@trnddc07>,
>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> Grammatically, though, it should have been "Even if you do learn to 
>>> speak correct English, to whom are you going to speak it?"  But I would 
>>> have used "with" instead of "to".
>> People!  It's *_OK_* to end a sentence with.  A preposition.
> 
> And it's OK to occasionally split an infinitive.
> 
Now that's the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put....

-- 
john mcwilliams
0
jpmcw (1977)
7/9/2006 10:48:00 PM
In article <ouidnSFkParAGizZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>, John
McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 7/9/06 9:05 AM, Michelle Steiner posted the following:
> > 
> > So lets see whether you have to have the last word, or whether you will 
> > shut the fuck up about me.
> > 
> 
> Why not declare this a stand off and both avoid the other?
> 
> Yeah, I know, always the wide=eyed optimist....

Michelle specifically asked to be kill-filed some time back, and I
complied.
0
Dave
7/9/2006 11:28:37 PM
In article <1hi83sm.nof8z41sy9ttqN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > Elden Fenison wrote:
> > > Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
> > > up 98% of the available computer software to run it?
> > 
> > The answer, of course, is NO.
> > But the question is the wrong question.
> > 
> > Question: What have you given up to run Mac OS instead of Windows?
> > Answer:   Microsoft Access.
> > Question: That's all?
> > Answer:   Yep.
> > Question: Was it worth the sacrifice?
> > Answer:   What sacrifice?  I only use Access at work for tasks
> >            too big for Excel.  I have no tasks at home that big.
> > 
> > So, is Mac OS really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving
> > up Microsoft Access?  Answer: Most definitely.
> Filemaker Pro beats Access anyway, its just not 'industry standard'..

I'm having trouble finding numbers right now, but I'm sure I've seen 
disinterested comment that FMP's installed base is at least competitive 
with Access if not larger.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
Gregory
7/9/2006 11:30:26 PM
In article <ouidnSFkParAGizZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> > So lets see whether you have to have the last word, or whether you 
> > will shut the fuck up about me.
> 
> Why not declare this a stand off and both avoid the other?

I offered him that option, but he chose not to accept it.

That offer still stands; if he refrains from personal comments about me, 
I'll not make any about him.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/10/2006 12:29:13 AM
In article <76ba$44b13b35$50db5015$15616@news.hispeed.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> >> The thing that struck me when I moved from NT to OS X was the 
> >> number of applications I _didn't_ need to buy to get the working 
> >> environment I wanted.
> >>
> >> o - Quicken and QuickBooks
> > 
> > What are you using instead of QuickBooks?
> 
> To be honest, I haven't looked for a replacement, as I am no longer 
> doing the volume of accounting I used to. The OpenOffice spreadsheet 
> and a bit of MySQL suffice at the moment.
> 
> I'd be interested in any suggestions you have for OS X.

Sorry, but I don't.  I don't use any accounting software other than 
Quicken, and that I use only as a checkbook.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
7/10/2006 12:35:18 AM
In article <michelle-E7CCEE.06375909072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1hi7jqd.inzx57p2nhaeN%down@thekraal.com>,
>  down@thekraal.com (madiba) wrote:
> 
> > > > Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
> > > > whom are you going to speak it to?
> > > >                      -- Clarence Darrow
> > > 
> > > Do you think he intentionally ended with a preposition?
> > Yes. The sentence as it stands is incomplete without it - well maybe not
> > in the US. After all you write people  without needing to write TO
> > them..  :-/
> 
> Grammatically, though, it should have been "Even if you do learn to 
> speak correct English, to whom are you going to speak it?"  But I would 
> have used "with" instead of "to".

Or "at." Us being Americans and all. (Geez; I almost apostrophe'd 
"Americans" ... I think I need a break from Usenet.)

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/10/2006 12:40:24 AM
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> writes:

> In article <michelle-E7CCEE.06375909072006@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
> > > > > whom are you going to speak it to?
> > > > >                      -- Clarence Darrow
> > > > 
> 
> Or "at." Us being Americans and all. (Geez; I almost apostrophe'd 
> "Americans" ... I think I need a break from Usenet.)
> 

Of course the idiomatic way to say it, at least in modern American
English, would be "who are you going to speak it to?"

Incidentally, I think "to" is right.   "At" sounds hostile, and "with"
makes the unlikely assumption that the other is going to speak it back.
-- 
    Bill Mitchell
    Dept of Mathematics,        The University of Florida
    PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
    mitchell@math.ufl.edu	(352) 392-0281 x284
0
mitchell (319)
7/10/2006 1:16:02 AM
In article <y9dwtam6yzx.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
 William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:

> Incidentally, I think "to" is right.

Disagree; see below

> "At" sounds hostile,

Agreed

> and "with" makes the unlikely assumption that the other is going to 
> speak it back.

One would hope that, unless one is making a speech, the other person 
does speak back; that's what makes conversations, after all.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/10/2006 1:35:25 AM
In article <1hi7tz7.1qzuwfb2dpku8N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

>  I'm glad
> thats over, but at the same time I fear for the future of Mac software.
> Developers: "why bother, they can use the Windows versions now". 
> However, if this duality makes Macs as popular as I think it might, it
> could also boost Mac sales and stimulate software production.

Don't quote me, but I gathered that if developers use the right software 
they can create their Opus Magnum and have it compiled for both MacOS 
and Windows concurrently. Although they might then have to do a lot of 
titivating for all the variations of Windows OS and hardware. 

Is that correct?

-- 
~IRO
(enzed = nz)
0
IRO
7/10/2006 2:05:40 AM
In article <y9dwtam6yzx.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
 William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:

> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> writes:
> 
> > In article <michelle-E7CCEE.06375909072006@news.west.cox.net>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
> > > > > > whom are you going to speak it to?
> > > > > >                      -- Clarence Darrow
> > > > > 
> > 
> > Or "at." Us being Americans and all. (Geez; I almost apostrophe'd 
> > "Americans" ... I think I need a break from Usenet.)
> > 
> 
> Of course the idiomatic way to say it, at least in modern American
> English, would be "who are you going to speak it to?"
> 
> Incidentally, I think "to" is right.   "At" sounds hostile, ...

It does. It also seems to be an unfortunately popular mode of 'dialog' 
lately, though. I can pretty much daily find examples of two people 
talking at each other, with neither really listening or expecting that 
the other is.

G

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/10/2006 4:35:57 AM
In article <eXesg.10517$Wh7.6797@trnddc07>, groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote:

> My standard is that "grammatically correct" is what 50% of
> educated people say and 75% of educated people accept.
> Not what some Latin-fixated pompous pedant wrote in a book
> two hundred years ago.

A Swedish linguist�pointed out, though with examples from Swedish, that
many grammatical constructs modern people find unacceptable, in fact were
the correct, older ones. The thing is that people have tried to
regularized the grammar in different epochs, and some of that is what
one�speaks today.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/10/2006 6:01:41 AM
In article <ouidnSBkPao9GizZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:

> > And it's OK to occasionally split an infinitive.

> Now that's the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put....

This sounds as a very nice English sentecne, though somewhat oldish. Is it
not correct?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/10/2006 6:04:03 AM
In article <1152485042.926537.260990@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Laraine" <lbarker@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

> > People!  It's *_OK_* to end a sentence with.  A preposition.
> 
> Churchill said it all when, accused of ending a sentence with a
> preposition, he is reputed to have replied: "It is an accusation up
> with which I will not put."
> 
> And now I'm wondering how come we've got so much off-topic? :-)

You know, Mac users are very picky, and language is apparently a part of
that! :-) Isn't there an Icelandic Mac localization (there is supposedly
one for another major PC software manufacturer)?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/10/2006 6:07:52 AM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <ouidnSBkPao9GizZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:
> 
> > > And it's OK to occasionally split an infinitive.
> 
> > Now that's the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put....
> 
> This sounds as a very nice English sentecne, though somewhat oldish. Is it
> not correct?

Sounds more German to me? :-)
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/10/2006 6:21:36 AM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <1152485042.926537.260990@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Laraine" <lbarker@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> 
> > > People!  It's *_OK_* to end a sentence with.  A preposition.
> > 
> > Churchill said it all when, accused of ending a sentence with a
> > preposition, he is reputed to have replied: "It is an accusation up
> > with which I will not put."
> > 
> > And now I'm wondering how come we've got so much off-topic? :-)
> 
> You know, Mac users are very picky, and language is apparently a part of
> that! :-) Isn't there an Icelandic Mac localization (there is supposedly
> one for another major PC software manufacturer)?

There is. And there is also a very enthusiastic dealer and Mac
community, as we can see from the following artcle from 2002 (and no, I
am not an  Icelander):
<http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/11/22.14.shtml>

Note this paragraph: 
"Many Observers would be excused for thinking that France, Germany or
the U.K would have been a better choice for a Switch campaign, but this
doesn't take into account Iceland's special position in the Mac
universe. It also doesn't take into account Iceland's culture, and the
dedication of an Apple reseller, because technically, these are not even
real Apple commercials. They are an initiative on the part of
Aco-Teknival, Apple's Icelandic reseller."
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/10/2006 6:21:37 AM
In article <1hi95x2.zm917gdbh5y7N%see_signature@mac.com.invalid>,
see_signature@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:

> > Isn't there an Icelandic Mac localization (there is supposedly
> > one for another major PC software manufacturer)?
> 
> There is. And there is also a very enthusiastic dealer and Mac
> community, as we can see from the following artcle from 2002 (and no, I
> am not an  Icelander):
> <http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/11/22.14.shtml>

I saw it; thanks! - Icelandic is an interesting variation of Nordic
languages, in that they try to find translated, rather than imported,
versions of international words. (And I was wrong about that other major
PC software manufacturer - it is evidently Apple that is forward,
providing an Icelanidc version.) A link mentioned in this article has
moved; it is now at
  http://www.macdirectory.com/newmd/mac/pages/macculture/Iceland/index.html

For Macs in other countries:
  http://www.macdirectory.com/newmd/mac/pages/macculture/entry.html

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/10/2006 9:02:50 AM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> And I was wrong about that other major
> PC software manufacturer - it is evidently Apple that is forward,
> providing an Icelanidc version.

AFAIK, initially it was the local distributor that did it on their own
initiative. Apple considered the market way too small. That may have
changed, though, now that there is an established community.

Another example: I have struggled (with a number of others) to make
Apple see the need for basic Sami support (not translation of the GUI,
just basic input support) for a long time, and it is not easy to make
Cupertino see the good of supporting a community of maybe 50,000 people.
What did help a little was when the Nordic countries made such support a
requirement in all public IT tenders. However, I think that has been
relaxed a bit recently. The same thing there; there was an active user
community under Mac OS/System 7-8-9, and utilities that supported Sami,
but they broke with OS X and have AFAIK never been replaced
satisfactorily, even though the basic technology should be better suited
now, with unicode and all.
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/10/2006 9:32:04 AM
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <76ba$44b13b35$50db5015$15616@news.hispeed.ch>,
>  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
>>>> The thing that struck me when I moved from NT to OS X was the 
>>>> number of applications I _didn't_ need to buy to get the working 
>>>> environment I wanted.
>>>>
>>>> o - Quicken and QuickBooks
>>> What are you using instead of QuickBooks?
>> To be honest, I haven't looked for a replacement, as I am no longer 
>> doing the volume of accounting I used to. The OpenOffice spreadsheet 
>> and a bit of MySQL suffice at the moment.
>>
>> I'd be interested in any suggestions you have for OS X.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't.  I don't use any accounting software other than 
> Quicken, and that I use only as a checkbook.
> 

I suppose I should add QuickBooks to my "software I miss on the Mac" 
list. If I'd still needed it, I wouldn't have given my old PC away.
0
Paul
7/10/2006 10:38:02 AM
Jon wrote:
> Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> 
>> In article <ouidnSBkPao9GizZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>> And it's OK to occasionally split an infinitive.
>>> Now that's the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put....

>> This sounds as a very nice English sentecne, though somewhat oldish. Is it
>> not correct?
> 
> Sounds more German to me? :-)

It was a quote often attributed to Winston Churchill, though as the 
following article describes, there's no authoritative source

"Churchill on Prepositions"

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html
0
7/10/2006 10:46:21 AM
In article <1hi9el8.1xiozk9jyhkbhN%see_signature@mac.com.invalid>,
see_signature@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:

> I have struggled (with a number of others) to make
> Apple see the need for basic Sami support (not translation of the GUI,
> just basic input support) for a long time, and it is not easy to make
> Cupertino see the good of supporting a community of maybe 50,000 people.
> What did help a little was when the Nordic countries made such support a
> requirement in all public IT tenders. However, I think that has been
> relaxed a bit recently. The same thing there; there was an active user
> community under Mac OS/System 7-8-9, and utilities that supported Sami,
> but they broke with OS X and have AFAIK never been replaced
> satisfactorily, even though the basic technology should be better suited
> now, with unicode and all.

Should it not be fairly easy to localize Mac OS X: just adding language
modules to the different applications. Perhaps it is difficult to expect
Apple doing the stuff, but should it not be possible to do it
independently, and have some kind of installer that merges it into an
existing Mac OS X. Mac OS X at the UNIX bottom seems to be all English (as
in a console like Terminal), and the localized stuff is something that the
Finder provides an illusion to the GUI user.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/10/2006 11:39:14 AM
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:

> In article <y9dwtam6yzx.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
>  William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Incidentally, I think "to" is right.
> 
> Disagree; see below
> 
> > "At" sounds hostile,
> 
> Agreed
> 
> > and "with" makes the unlikely assumption that the other is going to 
> > speak it back.
> 
> One would hope that, unless one is making a speech, the other person 
> does speak back; that's what makes conversations, after all.
> 

True, but probably not with "it", which refers to "correct" English,
but rather with English as it is spoken.


-- 
    Bill Mitchell
    Dept of Mathematics,        The University of Florida
    PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
    mitchell@math.ufl.edu	(352) 392-0281 x284
0
mitchell (319)
7/10/2006 12:40:18 PM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> Should it not be fairly easy to localize Mac OS X: 

Yes. There is more language in the GUI than you might think, maybe, but
I think the problem is more in the standardization than in the actual
implementation.
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/10/2006 1:06:43 PM
In article <y9dsll97hvx.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
 William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:

> > One would hope that, unless one is making a speech, the other 
> > person does speak back; that's what makes conversations, after all.
> 
> True, but probably not with "it", which refers to "correct" English, 
> but rather with English as it is spoken.

Shouldn't that be "English as she are spoken"?  <ducking and running>

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/10/2006 2:54:22 PM
In article <1hi7jqd.inzx57p2nhaeN%down@thekraal.com>,
 down@thekraal.com (madiba) wrote:

> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <WoOrg.1273$Th7.863@trnddc05>,
> >  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
> > > whom are you going to speak it to?
> > >                      -- Clarence Darrow
> > 
> > Do you think he intentionally ended with a preposition?
> Yes. The sentence as it stands is incomplete without it - well maybe not
> in the US. After all you write people  without needing to write TO
> them..  :-/

No, you write to them.

-- tim
0
tim.streater (535)
7/10/2006 3:07:36 PM
Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:

> No, you write to them.

"Write him a note" is fairly orthodox English, isn't it?
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/10/2006 3:23:09 PM
In article <1hi9v1k.zpimkr1psfgk3N%see_signature@mac.com.invalid>,
 see_signature@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:

> Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > No, you write to them.
> 
> "Write him a note" is fairly orthodox English, isn't it?

Yes but I don't think that was the example under discussion.

-- tim
0
tim.streater (535)
7/10/2006 3:36:24 PM
Elden Fenison wrote:
> On 2006-07-08 13:26:46 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 
> said:
> 
>> But that is far removed from the 98% figures thrown about earlier.
> 
> 
> Right. When I said 98%, I meant 98% of the software titles available are 
> for Windows. That didn't mean to say that there aren't Mac equivalents 
> for any of them. In a followup post, I was mentioned that I thought 
> roughly 10% didn't have reasonable Mac equivalents. And I'm kind of 
> thinking that 10% may be a bit on the high side.
> 
> Keep in mind, the accuracy of the numbers are somewhat irrelevant to the 
> point I was trying to make. They were only intended to be ballpark numbers.
> 

Baloney. The numbers are *very* relevant. Here were your words:

> I read a lengthy piece on the psychology of Linux users some time ago. The
> premise was that they are all basically in denial when it comes to admitting
 > the fact that they are giving up the ability to run 99% of available software
 > by running Linux. Linux users typically blow that off with some claim that
> what  Linux doesn't do, they don't need to do.
> 
> Mac users are assuredly in the same boat. Only the figure might be 98%
 > instead of 99%.
> 
> Question: Is OS X really so superior to Windows that it's worth giving up
> 98% of the available computer software to run it?

Your point was that, like Linux users, Mac users were "in denial" and somehow 
mentally deranged for choosing a platform with such a tiny slice of the
software market.

This sort of shallow, pointless argument belongs in comp.sys.mac.advocacy.

You'll find kindred spirits there...
0
James
7/10/2006 3:47:07 PM
Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <1hi9v1k.zpimkr1psfgk3N%see_signature@mac.com.invalid>,
>  see_signature@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:
> 
> > Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > No, you write to them.
> > 
> > "Write him a note" is fairly orthodox English, isn't it?
> 
> Yes but I don't think that was the example under discussion.

I should probably have quoted part of the posting before Tim's, where
"madiba" said:

> > After all you write people without needing to write TO them.
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/10/2006 4:14:07 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <eXesg.10517$Wh7.6797@trnddc07>, groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote:
> 
>> My standard is that "grammatically correct" is what 50% of
>> educated people say and 75% of educated people accept.
>> Not what some Latin-fixated pompous pedant wrote in a book
>> two hundred years ago.
> 
> A Swedish linguist pointed out, though with examples from Swedish, that
> many grammatical constructs modern people find unacceptable, in fact were
> the correct, older ones. The thing is that people have tried to
> regularized the grammar in different epochs, and some of that is what
> one speaks today.
> 
Apropos of this, wasn't there recently an article making the rounds 
concerning the English word "ask"?  I recall that researchers determined 
that the word was originally pronounced (and, perhaps spelt) similar to 
"aks".  The current form of the word was a more or less recent (in terms 
of the history of language) change based on a mistake.

I can't find the original link (I did find a related link here: 
<http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-1048.html> but this really talks 
about the spoken form of the /sk/ /ks/ sounds in different cultures) so 
this might simply be spurious, but it is not unknown for codifications 
of languages to introduce deliberate and accidental mistakes to the 
spelling and form.
0
7/10/2006 6:17:22 PM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <eXesg.10517$Wh7.6797@trnddc07>, groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote:
> 
> > My standard is that "grammatically correct" is what 50% of
> > educated people say and 75% of educated people accept.
> > Not what some Latin-fixated pompous pedant wrote in a book
> > two hundred years ago.
> 
> A Swedish linguist pointed out, though with examples from Swedish, that
> many grammatical constructs modern people find unacceptable, in fact were
> the correct, older ones. The thing is that people have tried to
> regularized the grammar in different epochs, and some of that is what
> one speaks today.

I've seen multiple references to such things. For one simple example,
double (or multiple) negatives used to be accepted as a form of
emphasizing the negative in English, as opposed to our current
mathematical notion that a double negative would be a positive.

I think the emphatic usage still stands in some other languages, but it
is considered "improper" English today.

Not to speak of the words whose meaning has changed, sometimes so much
as to mean something close to the opposite of what they once did.

-- 
Richard Maine                     | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov            |       -- Mark Twain
0
nospam47 (9747)
7/10/2006 6:32:24 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <y9dsll97hvx.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
>  William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> 
>>> One would hope that, unless one is making a speech, the other 
>>> person does speak back; that's what makes conversations, after all.
>> True, but probably not with "it", which refers to "correct" English, 
>> but rather with English as it is spoken.
> 
> Shouldn't that be "English as she are spoken"?  <ducking and running>
> 

"English as she is spoke"?

"God Shave the Queen!" - the caption on the front of a book I saw in a 
shop window a few years ago, containing common howlers by those learning 
English :-)
0
7/10/2006 6:48:06 PM
In article <1hi4t22.sfrlw81f59cpgN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 7/7/06 12:23 PM, Ray Laughton posted the following:
> > > Laraine <lbarker@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> > > 
> > >>>> That would be even better:  running Windows apps without running 
> > >>>> Windows.
> > >>> I really, REALLY, hope it comes to pass. What a coup!
> > >> It would be, Dave, if there was a single Windows app that I needed. I
> > >> haven't come across one in 20 years of using a Mac.
> > > There are unfortunately, I come across one or two a month. Mostly
> > > proprietary sw, eg to synch the cellphone calendar with Outlook, to get
> > > the max out of the digital camera, 
> > 
> > This one interests me greatly. Other than a RAW converter that's Windows
> > only, what software equiv. isn't available for Mac that maximizes 
> > digital workflow or end result?
> You havent bought a digital camera lately? They all come with CDs full
> of software for processing/archiving/ the pics, almost all for Windows.

With widely varying usability/functionality.

> > > affordable versions of good stats
> > > programs, sw no longer being made for the Mac, bigger choice of printers
> > > and other peripherals, etc, etc. But Boot Camp should be fine for those
> > > needs.
> > 
> > What printers and periphs don't work on Macs?
> too tired at the mo to provide a list, maybe  the printer situation is
> better now. But there are a _lot_ of other peripherals, believe me.

Such as...
0
Steve
7/10/2006 7:23:01 PM
In article <1hi7dl8.1ajimgh17d4hznN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>,
 mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Ray Laughton <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
> > You havent bought a digital camera lately? They all come with CDs full
> > of software for processing/archiving/ the pics, almost all for Windows.
> 
> The Nikon and Olympus cameras my clients have bought recently came with
> what appeared to be full complements of Mac software.

Same for current Pentax kit.
0
Steve
7/10/2006 7:23:36 PM
In article <qI6dne1QftdugizZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 7/8/06 2:21 PM, Michelle Steiner posted the following:
> > In article <080720061507373382%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> >  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > 
> >> Two, arguing with Michelle Steiner is a waste of time. She's 
> >> incapable of letting anyone have the last word, ever. 
> > 
> > Balderstone, you are a fucking liar.  Get the fuck off my case, asshole!
> > 
> 
> Not replying to this post would have had a better impact....

But slightly less amusing.
0
Steve
7/10/2006 7:24:30 PM
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:17:22 -0500, Clever Monkey wrote
(in article <UQwsg.29627$43.15172@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>):

[commenting on the sub-thread regarding grammar]

> Apropos of this, wasn't there recently an article making the rounds 
> concerning the English word "ask"?  I recall that researchers determined that 

> the word was originally pronounced (and, perhaps spelt) similar to "aks".  
> The current form of the word was a more or less recent (in terms of the 
> history of language) change based on a mistake.

Interesting in that "aks" is a common "black English" way of pronouncing 
"ask".

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
7/10/2006 8:07:22 PM
Ray Laughton wrote:
> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>  
> We wont go into details on Quicken, which is a travesty on the Mac and
> very good on PCs.  
> Still, I avoided buying PCs and suffered silently with the Mac masses...
> -until now!  I'm also dying to get rid of this noisy G4 tower which has
> ruined my Mac Music Experience (iTunes) since 2002. Looks like its going
> be one of the Intel iMacs as the MacBooks still have a few issues that
> need sorting out (overheating, batteries).

RE: Noisy G-4 and music. One word: Earphones!

I have an MBP, and while it sometimes gets warmer than comfortable along 
the hinges to rest on bare legs, it's great in all respects. Waiting for 
PS CS 3 or whatever they'll call the Intel compat. Mac version of 
Adobe's software.

-- 
JOhn McWilliams
0
John
7/10/2006 9:07:14 PM
In article <UQwsg.29627$43.15172@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
 Clever Monkey <clvrmnky.invalid@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Apropos of this, wasn't there recently an article making the rounds 
> concerning the English word "ask"?  I recall that researchers determined 
> that the word was originally pronounced (and, perhaps spelt) similar to 
> "aks".  The current form of the word was a more or less recent (in terms 
> of the history of language) change based on a mistake.

I looked up the word ask in the built-in dictionary and found that it's 
origin is Old English which includes axian. I then found this article:

<http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19991216>

So, on Futurama, when they make fun of that pronunciation by having Lela 
pronounce it aks, it might not be a surprise to hear it that way in 1000 
years.

-- 
Brian Hughes
usenet at hughesvideo dot com
0
7/10/2006 10:17:45 PM
TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:17:22 -0500, Clever Monkey wrote
> (in article <UQwsg.29627$43.15172@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>):
> 
> [commenting on the sub-thread regarding grammar]
> 
>> Apropos of this, wasn't there recently an article making the rounds 
>> concerning the English word "ask"?  I recall that researchers determined that 
> 
>> the word was originally pronounced (and, perhaps spelt) similar to "aks".  
>> The current form of the word was a more or less recent (in terms of the 
>> history of language) change based on a mistake.
> 
> Interesting in that "aks" is a common "black English" way of pronouncing 
> "ask".
> 
I've definitely heard it in the UK from someone with a very strong 
regional dialect.
0
7/10/2006 10:28:28 PM
Brian Hughes:
> I looked up the word ask in the built-in dictionary and found that it's 
> origin is Old English which includes axian. I then found this article:

> <http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19991216>

> So, on Futurama, when they make fun of that pronunciation by having Lela 
> pronounce it aks, it might not be a surprise to hear it that way in 1000 
> years.

The article you cited says, inter alia: "/aks/ is still found
frequently in the South, and is a characteristic of some speech
communities as far North as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and
Iowa. It is one of the shared characteristics between African-American
English and Southern dialects of American English. The wide
distribution of speakers from these two groups accounts for the
presence of the /aks/ pronunciation in Northern urban communities."

Indeed. Many people in my part of Pennsylvania -- a coal patch 35 miles
south of Pittsburgh -- are apt to say "Lemme ax you a question..."

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/10/2006 10:39:41 PM
In article <100720061839415213%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> The article you cited says, inter alia: "/aks/ is still found
> frequently in the South, and is a characteristic of some speech
> communities as far North as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and
> Iowa. It is one of the shared characteristics between African-American
> English and Southern dialects of American English. The wide
> distribution of speakers from these two groups accounts for the
> presence of the /aks/ pronunciation in Northern urban communities."
> 
> Indeed. Many people in my part of Pennsylvania -- a coal patch 35 miles
> south of Pittsburgh -- are apt to say "Lemme ax you a question..."

I know, I meant that it would be the proscribed pronunciation. Then ask 
would be a "funny" dialect and proper English would pronounce it aks. I 
think that was the joke on Futurama, aks will be the proper 
pronunciation by the 31st century.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama_(TV_series)#Linguistics>

I'll go and axe at the liberry :-)

-- 
Brian Hughes
usenet at hughesvideo dot com
0
7/11/2006 12:34:46 AM
James Glidewell wrote:
> This sort of shallow, pointless argument belongs in comp.sys.mac.advocacy.

Are you sure it doesn't belong in /dev/null ?

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Don't get even -- get odd!
0
Wes
7/11/2006 1:15:03 AM
Paul Sture wrote:
> "God Shave the Queen!" - the caption on the front of a book I saw in a 
> shop window a few years ago, containing common howlers by those learning 
> English :-)

"I wanna sheet on my bed...."

-- 
Wes Groleau
    "Lewis's case for the existence of God is fallacious."
"You mean like circular reasoning?"
    "He believes in God.  Therefore, he's fallacious."
0
news31 (6772)
7/11/2006 1:21:23 AM
Jon <see_signature@mac.com.invalid> wrote:

> Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1hi9v1k.zpimkr1psfgk3N%see_signature@mac.com.invalid>,
> >  see_signature@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:
> > 
> > > Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > No, you write to them.
> > > 
> > > "Write him a note" is fairly orthodox English, isn't it?
> > 
> > Yes but I don't think that was the example under discussion.
> 
> I should probably have quoted part of the posting before Tim's, where
> "madiba" said:
> 
> > > After all you write people without needing to write TO them.

You say ' write me when you have time' 
the Brits say ' write to me when you have time' 
                or 'write me (a letter/card) when you have time'
Enough grammar today, time for some sun..
-- 
madiba
0
down (57)
7/11/2006 1:22:20 PM
Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:

> I've seen multiple references to such things. For one simple example,
> double (or multiple) negatives used to be accepted as a form of
> emphasizing the negative in English, as opposed to our current
> mathematical notion that a double negative would be a positive.
> 
> I think the emphatic usage still stands in some other languages, but it
> is considered "improper" English today.
Still used in Afrikaans, which has only been around for about 300 years.


ray
0
rlaughton (180)
7/11/2006 1:22:21 PM
Ray Laughton <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > I think the emphatic usage still stands in some other languages, but it
> > is considered "improper" English today.
> Still used in Afrikaans, which has only been around for about 300 years.

But in the Scandinavian languages it is a no-no (or means a positive;
i.e., a negation of a negative). Although there it is also used
emphatically in "incorrect" street language.
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/11/2006 1:57:55 PM
madiba wrote:
> Jon <see_signature@mac.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1hi9v1k.zpimkr1psfgk3N%see_signature@mac.com.invalid>,
>>>  see_signature@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, you write to them.
>>>> "Write him a note" is fairly orthodox English, isn't it?
>>> Yes but I don't think that was the example under discussion.
>> I should probably have quoted part of the posting before Tim's, where
>> "madiba" said:
>>
>>>> After all you write people without needing to write TO them.
> 
> You say ' write me when you have time' 
> the Brits say ' write to me when you have time' 
>                 or 'write me (a letter/card) when you have time'

All Brits insert "to"in such a construction??

> Enough grammar today, time for some sun..

The comma should be an ; (!).

-- 
john mcwilliams
0
jpmcw (1977)
7/11/2006 6:31:42 PM
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <2006070813595675249-usenet@moondogorg>,
>  Elden Fenison <usenet@moondog.org> wrote:
> 
> > Keep in mind, the accuracy of the numbers are somewhat irrelevant to
> > the point I was trying to make. They were only intended to be 
> > ballpark numbers.
> 
> Not even in the ballpark.  But if the numbers are not relevant, why 
> invent them in the first place?
They are esp. irrelevant now that mac users can the best of both worlds!


ray 
0
rlaughton
7/11/2006 8:57:07 PM
John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> Ray Laughton wrote:
> > John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> >  
> > We wont go into details on Quicken, which is a travesty on the Mac and
> > very good on PCs.  
> > Still, I avoided buying PCs and suffered silently with the Mac masses...
> > -until now!  I'm also dying to get rid of this noisy G4 tower which has
> > ruined my Mac Music Experience (iTunes) since 2002. Looks like its going
> > be one of the Intel iMacs as the MacBooks still have a few issues that
> > need sorting out (overheating, batteries).
> 
> RE: Noisy G-4 and music. One word: Earphones!
Sure thats possible, but why should I? I like to hear the music /
internet radio when I'm in the next room too.. The whole block should
hear the insomnia in me!

> I have an MBP, and while it sometimes gets warmer than comfortable along
> the hinges to rest on bare legs, it's great in all respects. 
How about the battery, no problems?
> Waiting for PS CS 3 or whatever they'll call the Intel compat. Mac version
> of Adobe's software.

ray 
0
rlaughton
7/11/2006 8:57:09 PM
IRO <irotemp@ihug.co.enzed> wrote:

> In article <1hi7tz7.1qzuwfb2dpku8N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
>  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> >  I'm glad
> > thats over, but at the same time I fear for the future of Mac software.
> > Developers: "why bother, they can use the Windows versions now". 
> > However, if this duality makes Macs as popular as I think it might, it
> > could also boost Mac sales and stimulate software production.
> 
> Don't quote me, but I gathered that if developers use the right software
> they can create their Opus Magnum and have it compiled for both MacOS
> and Windows concurrently. Although they might then have to do a lot of
> titivating for all the variations of Windows OS and hardware. 
> 
> Is that correct?
I dont know, hope you're right!

ray
0
rlaughton
7/11/2006 8:57:10 PM
John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> madiba wrote:
> > Jon <see_signature@mac.com.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <1hi9v1k.zpimkr1psfgk3N%see_signature@mac.com.invalid>,
> >>>  see_signature@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No, you write to them.
> >>>> "Write him a note" is fairly orthodox English, isn't it?
> >>> Yes but I don't think that was the example under discussion.
> >> I should probably have quoted part of the posting before Tim's, where
> >> "madiba" said:
> >>
> >>>> After all you write people without needing to write TO them.
> > 
> > You say ' write me when you have time' 
> > the Brits say ' write to me when you have time' 
> >                 or 'write me (a letter/card) when you have time'
> 
> All Brits insert "to"in such a construction??
Yes, either "to" or the material (a card, etc).

> > Enough grammar today, time for some sun..
> 
> The comma should be an ; (!).
No way.  I was tired, no energy for shouting.  :-/

ray
0
rlaughton (180)
7/11/2006 8:57:11 PM
Ray Laughton wrote:
> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Ray Laughton wrote:
>>> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>  
>>> We wont go into details on Quicken, which is a travesty on the Mac and
>>> very good on PCs.  
>>> Still, I avoided buying PCs and suffered silently with the Mac masses...
>>> -until now!  I'm also dying to get rid of this noisy G4 tower which has
>>> ruined my Mac Music Experience (iTunes) since 2002. Looks like its going
>>> be one of the Intel iMacs as the MacBooks still have a few issues that
>>> need sorting out (overheating, batteries).
>> RE: Noisy G-4 and music. One word: Earphones!
> Sure thats possible, but why should I? I like to hear the music /
> internet radio when I'm in the next room too.. The whole block should
> hear the insomnia in me!
> 
>> I have an MBP, and while it sometimes gets warmer than comfortable along
>> the hinges to rest on bare legs, it's great in all respects. 
> How about the battery, no problems?

No, no problem, although they never seem to hold as long a charge as 
one'd like.

-- 
John McWilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm 
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
0
John
7/11/2006 10:28:08 PM
In article <1hi9bpz.1w7xgl2g17w8pN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard E Maine) wrote:

> I've seen multiple references to such things. For one simple example,
> double (or multiple) negatives used to be accepted as a form of
> emphasizing the negative in English, as opposed to our current
> mathematical notion that a double negative would be a positive.

Like the notion that one must never end a sentence with a preposition, 
the notion that a double negative is the same thing as a positive is 
nonsense, and serves no legitimate grammatical purpose.

Consider the sentence "I was not unimpressed." It does not mean the same 
thing as "I was impressed." It may mean "I was completely neutral, 
neither impressed nor unimpressed." 

Properly used, a double negative offers shades of meaning. There are 
more possibilities than just being either impressed or unimpressed; the 
same is true of many things. In some cases, a verb or adjective is 
commonly used only in its negative form, and it's perfectly reasonable 
to use a double negative in such cases--"I did not make it through Doom 
3 unscathed," for example.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
0
tacitr (1750)
7/12/2006 1:18:52 AM
In article <barmar-1B9D37.18122309072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > People!  It's *_OK_* to end a sentence with.  A preposition.
> 
> And it's OK to occasionally split an infinitive.

Interestingly, the rules prohibiting both forms of grammar were invented 
by the same person, for the same reason. His name was Bishop Robert 
Lowth, and he was a Medieval scholar fascinated with Latin. In Latin, it 
is impossible to split an infinitive or to end a sentence with a 
preposition, so the good bishop decided that it should not be done in 
English either, as he felt English should more closely resemble Latin.

So that's it. That's the reason schoolteachers think you should not do 
these things--because some yahoo liked Latin more than English and so 
invented rules to make English look more like Latin.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
0
tacitr (1750)
7/12/2006 1:24:07 AM
tacit wrote:

> Like the notion that one must never end a sentence with a preposition, 
> the notion that a double negative is the same thing as a positive is 
> nonsense, and serves no legitimate grammatical purpose.

Agree. The problem with that notion is the word "never." A reasonable
rule would be more likely to contain the word "usually."

> Consider the sentence "I was not unimpressed." It does not mean the same 
> thing as "I was impressed." It may mean "I was completely neutral, 
> neither impressed nor unimpressed." 

Disagree. "I was not unimpressed" is an ironic, and somewhat flowery,
way of saying "I was impressed." It is an attempt to emphasize by
understatement. "Your good work did not go unnoticed." ("Everyone could
see that it was good. You will be rewarded.") This usage is akin to
"Not bad" for "Very good!" and even "Bad" for "Good!" My favorite is
the simple "Not bad at all!" and I probably over-use it. It means
"very, very good."

> Properly used, a double negative offers shades of meaning. There are 
> more possibilities than just being either impressed or unimpressed; the 
> same is true of many things. In some cases, a verb or adjective is 
> commonly used only in its negative form, and it's perfectly reasonable 
> to use a double negative in such cases--"I did not make it through Doom 
> 3 unscathed," for example.

Is that what English teachers worry about!? I would be surprised. I
think they are concerned with "I don't have no money" and the like.
With prepositions I think they are concerned with the egregious
"Where's he at?" ("Where is he?") and "I got it off of the Internet."
("I got it from the Internet.")

The importance of time and place in grammar is important and
misunderstood by many. It's not always /how/ you say something, but
/where/ you say it. "I ain't got no money" is, in my estimation,
perfectly acceptable colloquial speech in the right place and at the
right time. It may not be used in writing (except in dialogue, of
course) and it is out of place in public civil discourse unless one
wants to announce to the world that one ain't got no learnin'.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/12/2006 1:51:52 AM
tacit <tacitr@aol.com> writes:

> 
> Consider the sentence "I was not unimpressed." It does not mean the same 
> thing as "I was impressed." It may mean "I was completely neutral, 
> neither impressed nor unimpressed." 
> 
This may be a bad example, since "completely neutral" would, at least
to most people, imply "unimpressed".

> Properly used, a double negative offers shades of meaning. There are 
> more possibilities than just being either impressed or unimpressed; the 
> same is true of many things. In some cases, a verb or adjective is 
> commonly used only in its negative form, and it's perfectly reasonable 
> to use a double negative in such cases--"I did not make it through Doom 
> 3 unscathed," for example.

However this is not the rule refers to.  I hesitate to say that no
English teacher anywhere would object to this, but the exceptions
would be rare and excentric.

The rule refers to constructions such at "We don't have no bananas".

-- 
    Bill Mitchell
    Dept of Mathematics,        The University of Florida
    PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
    mitchell@math.ufl.edu	(352) 392-0281 x284
0
mitchell (319)
7/12/2006 2:33:26 AM
In article <110720062151522071%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> The importance of time and place in grammar is important and
> misunderstood by many. It's not always /how/ you say something, but
> /where/ you say it. "I ain't got no money" is, in my estimation,
> perfectly acceptable colloquial speech in the right place and at the
> right time. It may not be used in writing (except in dialogue, of
> course) and it is out of place in public civil discourse unless one
> wants to announce to the world that one ain't got no learnin'.

That last part is particularly interesting to me.

I like the word "ain't". It serves quite nicely in place of "am not," 
which has no other contraction; "amn't" is not an English word at all. 
Every other negative conjugated form of "to be" has an accepted 
contraction...except "am not."

So why does "ain't" receive such hostility? I'm convinced it has more to 
do with prejudices and preconceptions about class and social status than 
it has to do with grammar. The word "ain't" is commonly associated with 
lower classes and with low socioeconomic or educational status, and for 
that reason it is frowned upon.

You said it yourself; use of the word "ain't" is a social cue that a 
person ain't got no learnin'. Prejudice, not reason, lies at the heart 
of the resistance to the word "ain't."

William Shakespeare used the word "ain't," and I am not unimpressed by 
that.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
0
tacitr (1750)
7/12/2006 2:35:13 AM
On 2006-07-12, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <110720062151522071%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> The importance of time and place in grammar is important and
>> misunderstood by many. It's not always /how/ you say something, but
>> /where/ you say it. "I ain't got no money" is, in my estimation,
>> perfectly acceptable colloquial speech in the right place and at the
>> right time. It may not be used in writing (except in dialogue, of
>> course) and it is out of place in public civil discourse unless one
>> wants to announce to the world that one ain't got no learnin'.
>
> That last part is particularly interesting to me.
>
> I like the word "ain't". It serves quite nicely in place of "am not," 
> which has no other contraction; "amn't" is not an English word at all. 
> Every other negative conjugated form of "to be" has an accepted 
> contraction...except "am not."

But both Davoud's examples used "ain't" as a contraction of "have not"
(for which the contraction "haven't" exists) rather than "am not".

I ain't not saying you is'nt right though:-)

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
0
foo33 (1454)
7/12/2006 3:30:31 AM
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:30:31 +1200, Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

> On 2006-07-12, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
>> In article <110720062151522071%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The importance of time and place in grammar is important and
>>> misunderstood by many. It's not always /how/ you say something, but
>>> /where/ you say it. "I ain't got no money" is, in my estimation,
>>> perfectly acceptable colloquial speech in the right place and at the
>>> right time. It may not be used in writing (except in dialogue, of
>>> course) and it is out of place in public civil discourse unless one
>>> wants to announce to the world that one ain't got no learnin'.
>>
>> That last part is particularly interesting to me.
>>
>> I like the word "ain't". It serves quite nicely in place of "am not,"
>> which has no other contraction; "amn't" is not an English word at all.
>> Every other negative conjugated form of "to be" has an accepted
>> contraction...except "am not."
>
> But both Davoud's examples used "ain't" as a contraction of "have not"
> (for which the contraction "haven't" exists) rather than "am not".
>
> I ain't not saying you is'nt right though:-)
>

isn't

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
7/12/2006 4:08:49 AM
Davoud wrote
> > "I ain't got no money" is, in my estimation,
> > perfectly acceptable colloquial speech in the right place and at the
> > right time. It may not be used in writing (except in dialogue, of
> > course) and it is out of place in public civil discourse unless one
> > wants to announce to the world that one ain't got no learnin'.

tacit replied: 
> That last part is particularly interesting to me.
> 
> I like the word "ain't". It serves quite nicely in place of "am not," 
> which has no other contraction; "amn't" is not an English word at all. 

And in place of "do/does not." In /very/ proper usage (depending,
again, on time and place) my phrase above translates to "...that one
/does/ /not/ got no learnin'."

I am also fond of the word "ain't." My wife (who has an MA in English
Literature) and I are both capable of speaking the Queen's English, but
that isn't our background. I'm from a coal patch in SW Pennsylvania and
she's from a poor farm three miles up the road from where we live now.
We are well traveled and we speak foreign languages (her: Arabic,
Cambodian, Lao, Thai, and Vietnamese; me: Arabic, Hebrew, and Thai,)
but we both enjoy speaking our native working-class,
flatlander-tinged-with-hillbilly,
mostly-northern-but-tinged-with-southern, collquial, native American
English.

If you like "ain't" you'll like this: in the coal patches of SW
Pennsylvania where I was raised "ain't" and "hain't" mean the same
thing. But "hain't" got taken a step further: "henna" (from "hain't
it:" "Isn't that so!") "He's a good kid, henna?" One heard this word
almost exclusively from Eastern and Southern Europeans; from Catholics,
in other words. I don't recall /ever/ hearing a Protestant say it.
That's not to say that Protestants used "better" English than
Catholics, just that their colloquialisms were often different.

Indeed, my own maternal grandmother and her siblings, all born into the
English Protestant working classes (Northumbria,) were quite capable of
using respectable speech when it was called for. But they were
/notorious/ for reverting to both bad English and foul language when
they felt like it! Grandma always said "knowed" for "knew," and her
favorite epithet was "son of a bitch." "I knowed that sonofabitch
was..." /or/ "I knowed them sons o' bitches was..." I'm not certain
that she knew that "sonofabitch" was not polite language. If you'll
forgive my immodesty, I am considered rather fluent in foul and obscene
language myself, and I owe it all to my Grandma and her daughter, my
Dear Mother. I usually pronounce it "sumbitch," however.

> Every other negative conjugated form of "to be" has an accepted 
> contraction...except "am not."

> So why does "ain't" receive such hostility? I'm convinced it has more to 
> do with prejudices and preconceptions about class and social status than 
> it has to do with grammar. The word "ain't" is commonly associated with 
> lower classes and with low socioeconomic or educational status, and for 
> that reason it is frowned upon.

> You said it yourself; use of the word "ain't" is a social cue that a 
> person ain't got no learnin'. Prejudice, not reason, lies at the heart 
> of the resistance to the word "ain't."
> 
> William Shakespeare used the word "ain't," and I am not unimpressed by 
> that.

Shakespeare's use of "ain't" has not gone unnoticed. During my 25 years
abroad in the Foreign Service (U.S. Diplomatic Corps) I paid close
attention to the manner of speech of some of the world's best educated
people. I have heard, among other notables, a U.S. President and a
member of the British Royal Family employ the word "ain't" in private
conversation. If there were a way to choose a winner, I would be
willing to bet, however, that 1,000 years from now "ain't" will not
have gained acceptance among educated English speakers. That's fine
with me, because connoisseurs like you and me wouldn't be able to savor
the word as we do if it were universally accepted.

Lest you go off the deep end and get /too/ liberal in American usage, I
suggest you hunt down a recording of a longish speech by the late
Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen. Now there was a truly fluent and
beautiful speaker of American English! A fiscal conservative and social
liberal, Dirksen is well known as the originator of "A billion here, a
billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."

Finally, I am a fan of what I call "elaborate colloquialisms:" "Let me
check and see but what that might not be the phone ringin'." ("The
phone is ringing.")

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com
0
see824 (64)
7/12/2006 4:40:56 AM
In article <tacitr-E4E113.21185311072006@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
 tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> Consider the sentence "I was not unimpressed." It does not mean the 
> same thing as "I was impressed." It may mean "I was completely 
> neutral, neither impressed nor unimpressed." 

And that's the sense I was using when I wrote that something was not 
unexpected.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/12/2006 5:43:14 AM
In article <tacitr-3D6DA7.22351211072006@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
 tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> William Shakespeare used the word "ain't," and I am not unimpressed 
> by that.

More recently, Dorothy Sayers had Lord Peter Whimsy say it.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/12/2006 5:44:52 AM
Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> I got it off of [...]

Yeah, what is that usage and where does it come from? It is used so
often that I have come to wonder if it is actually accepted as written
English. But I still think it is ungainly and hesitate to use it. Is it
just plain wrong? What is wrong with simply "off" or "from"?
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/12/2006 6:25:33 AM
William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:

> tacit <tacitr@aol.com> writes:
> 
> > 
> > Consider the sentence "I was not unimpressed." It does not mean the same
> > thing as "I was impressed." It may mean "I was completely neutral, 
> > neither impressed nor unimpressed." 
> > 
> This may be a bad example, since "completely neutral" would, at least
> to most people, imply "unimpressed".

"Unimpressed" in tacit's sense would, IMHO, mean "negatively impressed",
i.e., much like impertinent behaviour certainly can make an impression,
but, alas, not a good one. I agree with William there. 

"Unimpressed" in its original, non-ironic meaning means exactly what it
says: Something or somebody made "no impression", did not leave a mark,
was not worth remembering.
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/12/2006 6:25:33 AM
tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> William Shakespeare used the word "ain't," and I am not unimpressed by
> that.

sic! :-)
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/12/2006 6:25:33 AM
Davoud <see@below.net> wrote:

> Davoud wrote
> > > "I ain't got no money" is, in my estimation,
> > > perfectly acceptable colloquial speech in the right place and at the
> > > right time. It may not be used in writing (except in dialogue, of
> > > course) and it is out of place in public civil discourse unless one
> > > wants to announce to the world that one ain't got no learnin'.
> 
> tacit replied: 
> > That last part is particularly interesting to me.
> > 
> > I like the word "ain't". It serves quite nicely in place of "am not,"
> > which has no other contraction; "amn't" is not an English word at all.
> 
> And in place of "do/does not." In /very/ proper usage (depending,
> again, on time and place) my phrase above translates to "...that one
> /does/ /not/ got no learnin'."

Or /has/ /not/ got...?
"Ain't it" seems a bit of a catch-all, dunnit? ;-)
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/12/2006 6:25:34 AM
In article <tacitr-A576B4.21240711072006@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
 tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> In article <barmar-1B9D37.18122309072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > > People!  It's *_OK_* to end a sentence with.  A preposition.
> > 
> > And it's OK to occasionally split an infinitive.
> 
> Interestingly, the rules prohibiting both forms of grammar were invented 
> by the same person, for the same reason. His name was Bishop Robert 
> Lowth, and he was a Medieval scholar fascinated with Latin. In Latin, it 
> is impossible to split an infinitive or to end a sentence with a 
> preposition, so the good bishop decided that it should not be done in 
> English either, as he felt English should more closely resemble Latin.

The latter is actually a misattribution (one not unique to you). Lowth 
was the first person to claim that the English infinitive could not be 
split, but the claims regarding prepositions predate Lowth (though he 
did incorporate this into his grammar).

The existence of *un*stranded prepositions in English didn't arise until 
well into the Middle English period, and would have likely seemed an 
extreme affectation at that time, i.e. an attempt to emulate a 
grammatical form which was not present in English but would likely have 
been a common error among the Norman ruling class (at least among those 
who bothered to make use of English) due to interference from French.

Getting back to the double negatives which ejucated types don't never 
use, it's therefore somewhat odd that this rule came into existence in 
English since, until fairly recently, the single- and double-negative 
dialects of English were fairly even numerically, and the 
double-negative pattern would almost certainly be the one used by the 
Normans.

In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly 
colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of 
success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a 
single negative.

Andr�

-- 
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address
0
agisaak2 (57)
7/12/2006 7:31:09 AM
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Whimsy

Wimsey, I pray! ;-)
Wimsey, Lord Peter Death Bredon, no less.
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/12/2006 8:21:23 AM
Andr� G. Isaak <agisaak@gplatypusmail.com> wrote:

> In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly
> colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of
> success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a
> single negative.

Thanks. Very interesting for us non-French speakers!
-- 
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal: 
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
0
see_signature (1206)
7/12/2006 8:31:27 AM
In article <tacitr-3D6DA7.22351211072006@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
 tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> William Shakespeare used the word "ain't," and I am not unimpressed by 
> that.

Wiki don't (doesn't) agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't

On the other hand, if you can point me to the Shakespearean reference, 
I'll say "Oops, I weren't right!"
-- 
W. Oates
 Teal'c: He is concealing something.
 O'Neil: Like what?
 Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.
0
warren.oates (3828)
7/12/2006 10:56:16 AM
In article <110720062151522071%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> > Consider the sentence "I was not unimpressed." It does not mean the same 
> > thing as "I was impressed." It may mean "I was completely neutral, 
> > neither impressed nor unimpressed." 
> 
> Disagree. "I was not unimpressed" is an ironic, and somewhat flowery,
> way of saying "I was impressed." It is an attempt to emphasize by
> understatement. "Your good work did not go unnoticed." ("Everyone could
> see that it was good. You will be rewarded.") This usage is akin to
> "Not bad" for "Very good!" and even "Bad" for "Good!" My favorite is
> the simple "Not bad at all!" and I probably over-use it. It means
> "very, very good."

That's a large degree of colloquialism that's not particularly safe to 
assume is shared.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/12/2006 11:02:26 AM
In article <michelle-813E90.22445211072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> More recently, Dorothy Sayers had Lord Peter Whimsy say it.

That's the first thing I thought of ... er, I mean, 

That's the first thing of which I thought. Upper-class Lord Peter used 
it correctly, of course, to mean "am not" while it tends to get used by 
the vulgar to replace any contraction, as in "He ain't done nothin' 
wrong," which is probably why teachers and smelly uncles don't like us 
using it at all. I remember, as a small boy in England, being advised by 
a certain smelly uncle that the use of any contraction was the sign of 
lower-caste thinking, and something up with which he would not put.

Warren "these news are horrible" Oates.
0
warren.oates (3828)
7/12/2006 11:05:18 AM
Warren Oates wrote:
>  I remember, as a small boy in England, being advised by 
> a certain smelly uncle that the use of any contraction was the sign of 
> lower-caste thinking

Indeed! My aunt, an English teacher by the name of -- and how English
can a name be -- Worcester, (no relation to Bertie Wooster) taught me
the same thing Pennsylvania. 

> Warren "these news are horrible" Oates.

One of my favorites! 

Barclays Bank are announcing...

Ford Motor Co. make the Mondeo...

I was taught (in the USA by an English-born grandparent) to spell
colour, neighbour, favourite... and just as -- at age 62 -- I'm getting
out of that habit, which gives the appearance of being affected -- I
find myself doing the singular-as-plural thing. It has taken so long to
get away from the habit because I lived overseas from 1967-2003 and
British spellings had currency in the English that was a second
language in the places where I lived and visited. Now I've recently
agreed to do some work for a firm in West Yorkshire as a favo(u)r to a
Scottish friend who is a principal in the firm, and I'll probably get
infected all over again! I know that there are rare, specific cases in
which Americans employ this usage, but I can't think of any offhand.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/12/2006 2:33:20 PM
In article <120720061033207218%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> I was taught (in the USA by an English-born grandparent) to spell
> colour, neighbour, favourite... and just as -- at age 62 -- I'm getting
> out of that habit, which gives the appearance of being affected -- 

Here in Canada, those are the accepted and correct spellings -- 
affected, eh.

Hmm. Should we start spelling your name Davod?
-- 
W. Oates
 Teal'c: He is concealing something.
 O'Neil: Like what?
 Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.
0
warren.oates (3828)
7/12/2006 4:01:05 PM
Davoud wrote:
> 
> > I got it off of [...]

Jon wrote:
> Yeah, what is that usage

"Off of" is egregiously wrong and it cannot be made right, because we
have the words "from" and "off," though "off of" is not used in place
of "off."

> and where does it come from?

I recently heard a highly educated person -- a friend who has a PhD in
philology and whose English I hold in high regard use the term. I also
realize that I have used it on /rare/ occasion. But it is still wrong.

> It is used so often that I have come to wonder if it is actually
> accepted as written English.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, /considerable/ leeway is granted for
colloquial speech, even something as bad as "off of." But it is hard to
conceive that anyone who knows which end of the pencil goes on the
paper and which end sticks up in the air would ever accept the phrase
in writing.

> But I still think it is ungainly and hesitate to use it.

Don't hesitate. Stop yourself whenever you catch yourself.

> Is it just plain wrong? What is wrong with simply "off" or "from"?

Yep, plain wrong. "I bought it /from/ a dealership on Oak St." And "Get
off the furniture with those dirty clothes!" Not "off of."
Grammarbook.com has it right: "You may end a sentence with a
preposition. Just do not use extra prepositions when the meaning is
clear without them." 

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/12/2006 6:02:14 PM
In article <agisaak-53C52B.17283511072006@news.telus.net>,
 "Andr� G. Isaak" <agisaak@gplatypusmail.com> wrote:

> Getting back to the double negatives which ejucated types don't never 
> use, 

A professor teaching freshman English said, "Although two negatives make 
a positive, two positives never make a negative," to which a student 
replied, "Yeah.  Sure."

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/12/2006 6:11:47 PM
Davoud:
> > I was taught (in the USA by an English-born grandparent) to spell
> > colour, neighbour, favourite... and just as -- at age 62 -- I'm getting
> > out of that habit, which gives the appearance of being affected -- 

Warren Oates:
> Here in Canada, those are the accepted and correct spellings -- 
> affected, eh.

I understand that these are standard spellings in Canada and almost
everwhere else on Earth outside the US, and I didn't /mean/ that those
spelling give the appearance of being affected in /Canada/ .

It is in the US that they give the appearance of being affected. And
then only when written by a native speaker of US English.

> Hmm. Should we start spelling your name Davod?

Well, as you know, my real name is David. But Yiddish sprechers spell
it and pronounce it Dovid. Please see
<http://www.davidillig.com/daoud.shtml>.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/12/2006 6:34:27 PM
In article <120720061434275109%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Well, as you know, my real name is David. But Yiddish sprechers spell
> it and pronounce it Dovid. Please see
> <http://www.davidillig.com/daoud.shtml>.

Cool. Being half Welsh and all, I was going to mention Dafydd, but I see 
someone in Maryland has got the vanity plate ...

It's sometimes spelt Daffyth or Davidd, but always with 2 "d"s which you 
pronounce more-or-less "th" so you have "Davith" or "Daffyth."

These are interesting threads. I'm still muttering to myself about a 
"Beowulf cluster of Stargates" that someone mentioned in one of the 
Ernie threads.
-- 
P_J
<prestor_jack@yahoo.com>
0
7/12/2006 6:54:04 PM
In article <michelle-BA1D7A.11114712072006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> A professor teaching freshman English said, "Although two negatives make 
> a positive, two positives never make a negative," to which a student 
> replied, "Yeah.  Sure."

When I saw it, it was "Yeah, yeah."

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/12/2006 6:55:55 PM
In article <michelle-BA1D7A.11114712072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <agisaak-53C52B.17283511072006@news.telus.net>,
>  "Andr� G. Isaak" <agisaak@gplatypusmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Getting back to the double negatives which ejucated types don't never 
> > use, 
> 
> A professor teaching freshman English said, "Although two negatives make 
> a positive, two positives never make a negative," to which a student 
> replied, "Yeah.  Sure."

I always did like the Churchill response to ending sentence with a 
preposition.

My own little contribution:

I don't never not hardly no more make grammar mistakes, which I think as 
a quadruple negative comes out positive. 

Morenuf
-- 
morenuf@nobodyhome.com.invalid
0
morenuf (145)
7/12/2006 7:52:57 PM
Davoud wrote:
> > Well, as you know, my real name is David. But Yiddish sprechers spell
> > it and pronounce it Dovid. Please see
> > <http://www.davidillig.com/daoud.shtml>.

Prester Jacques
> Cool. Being half Welsh and all, I was going to mention Dafydd, but I see 
> someone in Maryland has got the vanity plate ...

Yeah. That would be me :--) davidillig.com is /my/ web site. In fact, I
gave up that license plate when I gave away my old pickup truck. The
new truck figured strongly in my amateur astronomy pursuit as a
telescope hauler, so I got an astro-themed plate "39N 76W," which
describes (approximately) where my observatory is.

One wouldn't expect to find many Welsh speakers in the USA, but every
once in a while I would leave the truck with DAFYDD parked someplace
and come back to find a note in Welsh on the windshield. It usually
translated to something like "Slay the English invaders."

> It's sometimes spelt Daffyth or Davidd, but always with 2 "d"s which you 
> pronounce more-or-less "th" so you have "Davith" or "Daffyth."

I was aware of the "th" pronunciation but I have never seen it written
with a "th."

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/12/2006 8:27:44 PM
In article <44b54521$0$9967$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Prester Jacques <prestor_jack@yahoo.com> wrote:

> t's sometimes spelt Daffyth or Davidd, but always with 2 "d"s which 
> you pronounce more-or-less "th" so you have "Davith" or "Daffyth."

And "ll" is pronounced "fl", so "LLoyd" is rightfully pronounced "Floyd."

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/12/2006 9:43:17 PM
Davoud wrote:

> I was aware of the "th" pronunciation but I have never seen it written
> with a "th."

You typically won't find that, because that suggests an unvoiced sound
while the "dd" is voiced.  Consider the difference in the English words
"either" and "ether".  The "dd" is like the sound in "either".

Icelandic still maintains distinct letters for these two sounds, the
"thorn" for the voiceless one (in "ether") and "edth" for the voiced
one.  If I were less lazy, I'd open up character pallet to find these
and hope that UTF8 works for everyone.

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
 My Reply-To address is valid.
0
nobody30 (1822)
7/12/2006 10:05:44 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> And "ll" is pronounced "fl", so "LLoyd" is rightfully pronounced "Floyd."

I make no claims to expertise in Welsh, but I believe that the "ll"
(also written in English as "fl") is a lateral fricative.  Make a normal
English "L", but have the air hiss off of  the sides of your tongue.

"fl" may be the closest English sound we might get to it, but that is
still far from the actual sound.

It's been more than 20 years since I took Intro to Phonetics, so don't
give a lot of credence to my comments.

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
 My Reply-To address is valid.
0
nobody30 (1822)
7/12/2006 10:10:25 PM
Davoud wrote:
> > I was aware of the "th" pronunciation but I have never seen it written
> > with a "th."

Jeffrey Goldberg:
> You typically won't find that, because that suggests an unvoiced sound
> while the "dd" is voiced.  Consider the difference in the English words
> "either" and "ether".  The "dd" is like the sound in "either".
> 
> Icelandic still maintains distinct letters for these two sounds, the
> "thorn" for the voiceless one (in "ether") and "edth" for the voiced
> one.  If I were less lazy, I'd open up character pallet to find these
> and hope that UTF8 works for everyone.

I am quite familiar with the "thorn." It's the reason "Ye Olde Antique
Shoppe" is pronounced " *The* Olde..." -- because the thorn became
archaic in English and the 'Y' looks /vaguely/ like a thorn. You and I
know better, of course. People are often disappointed to learn that the
pronunciation of "ye" is "the."

I am the Founder, and thus far the sole member, of the American Society
for the Restoration of the Thorn, by the way.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/12/2006 10:39:42 PM
In article <michelle-192121.14431712072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> And "ll" is pronounced "fl", so "LLoyd" is rightfully pronounced "Floyd."

The way my mother pronounced it, the two "l"s came out kind of like 
"chla" like in Llandudno, although, there's a a bit of "flcha" to it I 
guess. Any linguists in the group?
-- 
P_J
<prestor_jack@yahoo.com>
0
7/12/2006 11:06:46 PM
In article <12bashmcl1nrg6c@news.supernews.com>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> You typically won't find that, because that suggests an unvoiced sound
> while the "dd" is voiced.  Consider the difference in the English words
> "either" and "ether".  The "dd" is like the sound in "either".

I'm sorry, that was my mistake, I meant to write "dd" but I was still 
putting the "th" sound into it. END OF WARREN !
-- 
P_J
<prestor_jack@yahoo.com>
0
7/12/2006 11:08:31 PM
Prester Jacques wrote:

> Any linguists in the group?

Well, I dropped out of a PhD program in linguistics 19 years ago.  As I
said, I believe that the "ll" in Welsh is a voiced lateral fricative,
which is kind of hard to reproduce in English.

Ah, but a quick look at Wikipedia tells me I'm wrong.  It is a voiceLESS
lateral fricative.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_lateral_fricative

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
 My Reply-To address is valid.
0
nobody30 (1822)
7/12/2006 11:37:08 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > And "ll" is pronounced "fl", so "LLoyd" is rightfully pronounced "Floyd."

Prester Jacques:
> The way my mother pronounced it, the two "l"s came out kind of like 
> "chla" like in Llandudno, although, there's a a bit of "flcha" to it I 
> guess. Any linguists in the group?

<smile> You are assuming that we know how to pronounce "'chla' like in
Llandudno!" </smile>

I am reminded of the days -- years, actually -- when I was learning
Arabic. The standard reference grammar <http://tinyurl.com/jtoxh>,
which dates from 1859, presumes from the start that one already knows
Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac!

Daviyd

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/13/2006 12:22:04 AM
tacit wrote:
> William Shakespeare used the word "ain't," and I am not unimpressed by 
> that.

My father, the English teacher, used "ain't" and I am not
unimpressed by that.

-- 
Wes Groleau

You always have time for what you do first.
0
news31 (6772)
7/13/2006 3:29:02 AM
Warren Oates wrote:
> it correctly, of course, to mean "am not" while it tends to get used by 
> the vulgar to replace any contraction, as in "He ain't done nothin' 

How kin yer be sartin it ain't "am not" ?
I mean, if we ain't talkin' "standard" English,
then I reckon we might near spill it out as
"He am not done nuttin' ...."

-- 
Wes Groleau

He that is good for making excuses, is seldom good for anything else.
                                     -- Benjamin Franklin
0
news31 (6772)
7/13/2006 3:35:01 AM
In article <12bashmcl1nrg6c@news.supernews.com>, jeffrey+news@goldmark.org
wrote:

> > I was aware of the "th" pronunciation but I have never seen it written
> > with a "th."
> 
> You typically won't find that, because that suggests an unvoiced sound
> while the "dd" is voiced.  Consider the difference in the English words
> "either" and "ether".  The "dd" is like the sound in "either".
> 
> Icelandic still maintains distinct letters for these two sounds, the
> "thorn" for the voiceless one (in "ether") and "edth" for the voiced
> one.  If I were less lazy, I'd open up character pallet to find these
> and hope that UTF8 works for everyone.

In Sanskrit,�consonants are�classified according to position in the mouth,
but in addition�whether it is sounding or not, and�whether it is explosive
or not. So in the "d" position, one gets the consonants "t", "d", "th" and
thorn (sounding "th". Try to apply this to the "b" and "k" positions.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/13/2006 7:18:23 AM
Davoud wrote:
> 
> One of my favorites! 
> 
> Barclays Bank are announcing...
> 
> Ford Motor Co. make the Mondeo...
> 

In the UK, companies are seen as plural. Think of multiple employees.
0
7/14/2006 11:22:08 AM
Prester Jacques wrote:
> In article <michelle-192121.14431712072006@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> And "ll" is pronounced "fl", so "LLoyd" is rightfully pronounced "Floyd."
> 
> The way my mother pronounced it, the two "l"s came out kind of like 
> "chla" like in Llandudno, although, there's a a bit of "flcha" to it I 
> guess.

 From distant memories of being taught how to pronounce Llandudno 
correctly, "chla" matches very well.
0
7/14/2006 11:39:58 AM
In article <f73a$44b77e61$50db5015$23051@news.hispeed.ch>, Paul Sture
<paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> In the UK, companies are seen as plural. Think of multiple employees.

And "math" is considered a four-letter word, preferring "maths" instead.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/14/2006 11:44:43 AM
Paul Sture wrote:

> Davoud wrote:
> > 
> > One of my favorites! 
> > 
> > Barclays Bank are announcing...
> > 
> > Ford Motor Co. make the Mondeo...

> In the UK, companies are seen as plural. Think of multiple employees.

Thank you. Er, uh, I think I knew that, and that's why I remarked to
the effect that I find that amusing. I also conceded that I find myself
doing it once in a while.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/14/2006 11:45:13 AM
In article <haberg-1407061344430001@c83-250-195-81.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> And "math" is considered a four-letter word, preferring "maths" instead.
> 

.... and "homework" is "prep" and you park your motor by the kerb, 
without scraping the tyres or the because you might wind up in gaol 
drinking from an aluminium mug.
-- 
P_J
<prestor_jack@yahoo.com>
0
7/14/2006 11:49:36 AM
Davoud wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> And "ll" is pronounced "fl", so "LLoyd" is rightfully pronounced "Floyd."
> 
> Prester Jacques:
>> The way my mother pronounced it, the two "l"s came out kind of like 
>> "chla" like in Llandudno, although, there's a a bit of "flcha" to it I 
>> guess. Any linguists in the group?
> 
> <smile> You are assuming that we know how to pronounce "'chla' like in
> Llandudno!" </smile>
> 

The "ch" there is sort of like a "ch" in German (e.g. in kochen).

Very rough approximation, but the nearest I can think of.
0
7/14/2006 11:51:18 AM
In article <140720060745137222%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:

>..... I find that amusing......

But *we* are not amused.

0
pack13 (41)
7/14/2006 2:35:17 PM
In article <f73a$44b77e61$50db5015$23051@news.hispeed.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> > One of my favorites! 
> > 
> > Barclays Bank are announcing...
> > 
> > Ford Motor Co. make the Mondeo...
> > 
> 
> In the UK, companies are seen as plural. Think of multiple employees.

The best example I've seen is "Congress is in session, and parliament 
are in session."

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/14/2006 4:08:43 PM
In article <e98a35$eta$1@news.ucar.edu>,
 pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:

> In article <140720060745137222%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:
> 
> >..... I find that amusing......
> 
> But *we* are not amused.

Got a mouse in your pocket?

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/14/2006 4:09:06 PM
In article <44b784a9$0$13364$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Prester Jacques <prestor_jack@yahoo.com> wrote:

> ... and "homework" is "prep" and you park your motor by the kerb, 
> without scraping the tyres or the because you might wind up in gaol 
> drinking from an aluminium mug.

While someone breaks into the automobile, steals the engine from the 
bonnet and your luggage from the boot.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/14/2006 4:10:28 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <44b784a9$0$13364$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Prester Jacques <prestor_jack@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> ... and "homework" is "prep" and you park your motor by the kerb, 
>> without scraping the tyres or the because you might wind up in gaol 
>> drinking from an aluminium mug.
> 
> While someone breaks into the automobile,
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
                                   car

> steals the engine from the 

under the bonnet

> bonnet and your luggage from the boot.
> 

My brother once had a VW Beetle and the repair handbook I bought him had 
a full Brit-American dictionary for car parts and tools :-)
0
7/14/2006 6:01:03 PM
Paul Sture wrote:

> My brother once had a VW Beetle and the repair handbook I bought him had
> a full Brit-American dictionary for car parts and tools :-)

Without the dictionary it would be easy to throw a spanner into the works.

An American teaching in a UK college at the end of class couldn't find
his bum bag and when students asked him what he was looking for, he
answered, "I can't find my fanny pack".  It's no wonder they call us
'merkins.

Along similar lines, my first encounter with spotted dick was in
Cambridge.  At least it wasn't mostly consumed, because then (at a
stretch) I could have ended up the the fag end of a spotted dick.  The
eraser/rubber confusion is so widely known, that I don't think anyone
falls for that any more.

Anyway, as an American who lived in England for six years, I've heard
them all; I just can't remember them now.  And so many Brits are
familiar with American English that none of this causes any trouble.
The is only one word that is important to get right, and that's
"football".  Get that one wrong, and you're in for an extended anti
american-football tirade.

Anyway I use so many britishisms in my speech now that it comes across
as an affectation.  (Maybe it is, but I hope not)

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
 My Reply-To address is valid.
0
nobody30 (1822)
7/14/2006 7:10:13 PM
In article <12bfr0qicc7sefb@news.supernews.com>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Paul Sture wrote:
> 
> > My brother once had a VW Beetle and the repair handbook I bought him had
> > a full Brit-American dictionary for car parts and tools :-)
> 
> Without the dictionary it would be easy to throw a spanner into the works.
> 
> An American teaching in a UK college at the end of class couldn't find
> his bum bag and when students asked him what he was looking for, he
> answered, "I can't find my fanny pack".  It's no wonder they call us
> 'merkins.
> 
> Along similar lines, my first encounter with spotted dick was in
> Cambridge.  At least it wasn't mostly consumed, because then (at a
> stretch) I could have ended up the the fag end of a spotted dick.  The
> eraser/rubber confusion is so widely known, that I don't think anyone
> falls for that any more.
> 
> Anyway, as an American who lived in England for six years, I've heard
> them all; I just can't remember them now.  And so many Brits are
> familiar with American English that none of this causes any trouble.
> The is only one word that is important to get right, and that's
> "football".  Get that one wrong, and you're in for an extended anti
> american-football tirade.
> 
> Anyway I use so many britishisms in my speech now that it comes across
> as an affectation.  (Maybe it is, but I hope not)
> 
> -j

When will the British ever get the language down properly? ;)

Cheers,
Eric
0
ericp06 (396)
7/14/2006 8:36:05 PM
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> An American teaching in a UK college at the end of class couldn't find
> his bum bag and when students asked him what he was looking for, he
> answered, "I can't find my fanny pack".  It's no wonder they call us
> 'merkins.

Yeah, easy enough when you know about "fanny," but how would an
American learn that in the USA?

> The is only one word that is important to get right, and that's
> "football".  Get that one wrong, and you're in for an extended anti
> american-football tirade.

Easily fixed. Let's call it what it is -- "carryball."

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/14/2006 8:55:20 PM
In article <140720061655207547%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> > An American teaching in a UK college at the end of class couldn't 
> > find his bum bag and when students asked him what he was looking 
> > for, he answered, "I can't find my fanny pack".  It's no wonder 
> > they call us 'merkins.
> 
> Yeah, easy enough when you know about "fanny," but how would an 
> American learn that in the USA?

Is fanny in the UK the same as it is in Australia?

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/14/2006 8:58:35 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Is fanny in the UK the same as it is in Australia?

Don't know about Australia, but in Britain (or at least in parts) it
roughly means "pussy".

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
 My Reply-To address is valid.
0
nobody30 (1822)
7/14/2006 9:32:01 PM
Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
> 
> In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly 
> colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of 
> success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a 
> single negative.
> 

Can you give us an example please?

My French is a bit rusty, but I'm still interested in it.
0
7/14/2006 10:13:44 PM
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> 
> An American teaching in a UK college at the end of class couldn't find
> his bum bag and when students asked him what he was looking for, he
> answered, "I can't find my fanny pack".  It's no wonder they call us
> 'merkins.
> 

At college we had a few US folks there on an exchange scheme. Sitting in 
the bar one day near a very formal looking professor type, our American 
pal commented "My, hasn't that girl got a nice fanny?"

Spluttering all around, and the professor type walked out looking 
totally disgusted. Needless to say we quickly corrected our pal.
0
7/14/2006 10:22:59 PM
On 7/14/06 3:13 PM, Paul Sture wrote:
> Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
>> In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly 
>> colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of 
>> success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a 
>> single negative.
>>
> 
> Can you give us an example please?
> 
> My French is a bit rusty, but I'm still interested in it.

Il n'est la.

J'ai pas de patience.

Well, I tried.....

-- 
john mcwilliams
0
jpmcw (1977)
7/14/2006 11:35:13 PM
On 7/14/06 2:32 PM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> Is fanny in the UK the same as it is in Australia?
> 
> Don't know about Australia, but in Britain (or at least in parts) it
> roughly means "pussy".

Feline or female genetalia?

-- 
lsmft

0
jpmcw (1977)
7/14/2006 11:36:00 PM
In article <28460$44b81719$50db5015$19768@news.hispeed.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
> > 
> > In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly 
> > colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of 
> > success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a 
> > single negative.
> > 
> 
> Can you give us an example please?

The 'ne' in colloquial French is very frequently dropped.

Je ne sais pas ==> je sais pas.

Same thing with ne...rien, ne...jamais, etc.

Andr�

-- 
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address
0
agisaak2 (57)
7/15/2006 1:08:55 AM
John McWilliams wrote:

>> Don't know about Australia, but in Britain (or at least in parts) it
>> roughly means "pussy".
> 
> Feline or female genetalia?

Female genitalia. But it's not a clinical word.  It it's only mildly
taboo, without negative connotations, so I thought "pussy" was the best
translation.

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
 My Reply-To address is valid.
0
nobody30 (1822)
7/15/2006 4:05:58 AM
In article <vPednYztr5zCtyXZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com>, John
McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 7/14/06 2:32 PM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > 
> >> Is fanny in the UK the same as it is in Australia?
> > 
> > Don't know about Australia, but in Britain (or at least in parts) it
> > roughly means "pussy".
> 
> Feline or female genetalia?

Here in Canada "fanny" usually means "ass" or "buttocks".

But according to <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fanny> both
are correct.

"fanny
n 1: the fleshy part of the human body that you sit on; "he deserves a
good kick in the butt"; "are you going to sit on your fanny and do
nothing?" [syn: buttocks, nates, arse, butt, backside, bum, buns, can,
fundament, hindquarters, hind end, keister, posterior, prat, rear, rear
end, rump, stern, seat, tail, tail end, tooshie, tush, bottom, behind,
derriere, ass] 2: external female sex organs; "in England `fanny' is
vulgar slang for female genitals" [syn: female genitalia, female
genitals, female genital organ]"
0
dave16 (4224)
7/15/2006 5:55:13 AM
In article <12bg3ahras1msf7@news.supernews.com>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> > Is fanny in the UK the same as it is in Australia?
> 
> Don't know about Australia, but in Britain (or at least in parts) it 
> roughly means "pussy".

Yup; they're the same.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/15/2006 6:16:35 AM
In article <michelle-7AD627.23163514072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <12bg3ahras1msf7@news.supernews.com>,
>  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> > Don't know about Australia, but in Britain (or at least in parts) it 
> > roughly means "pussy".
> 
> Yup; they're the same.

Well damn! I missed the significance of the title "Fanny Hill" but got 
the point. Or she did. I'm confused. What about Fannie Farmer. I thought 
that was a cookbook! Naivety at sixty.

leo

-- 
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
0
leo106 (326)
7/15/2006 6:36:18 AM
In article <cc870$44b81944$50db5015$20206@news.hispeed.ch>, Paul Sture
<paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> At college we had a few US folks there on an exchange scheme. Sitting in 
> the bar one day near a very formal looking professor type, our American 
> pal commented "My, hasn't that girl got a nice fanny?"

There is also "homely", which in (I think) in the US means "ugly", but in
the UK�means "homey". So when the Americans come on visit, the wife tries
to help , it is not�appropriate saying "Oh my God, what your wife is
homely". :-)

Other words: In the US one drives on the pavement (i.e., the street), in
the UK one walks on it (i.e. the sidewalk). In the US one takes the
elevator, in the UK the lift. In the UK, or at least London, a "subway" is
a walking path under the street, not the�subterranean train, which called
the "underground". In the UK, "scheme" is pronounced "sheem", instead of
the US "skeem".

And to tie it Mac's: does not the Finder "Trash" have a different name in
the UK?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/15/2006 8:57:55 AM
In article <michelle-48E261.09084314072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <f73a$44b77e61$50db5015$23051@news.hispeed.ch>,
>  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
> > > One of my favorites! 
> > > 
> > > Barclays Bank are announcing...
> > > 
> > > Ford Motor Co. make the Mondeo...
> > > 
> > 
> > In the UK, companies are seen as plural. Think of multiple employees.
> 
> The best example I've seen is "Congress is in session, and parliament 
> are in session."

In occasional quiet moments I've wondered about the is/are question when 
you have a group acting as a singular entity but the group's name is 
explicitly plural _but_ the group's name is explicitly not descriptive 
of it's membership.

In short, while it's quite clear to me that "Donny and Marie are 
releasing a new album" I'm not sure whether "The Thompson Twins are 
releasing a new album" or if they is.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/15/2006 10:06:31 AM
Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <28460$44b81719$50db5015$19768@news.hispeed.ch>,
>  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
>>> In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly 
>>> colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of 
>>> success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a 
>>> single negative.
>>>
>> Can you give us an example please?
> 
> The 'ne' in colloquial French is very frequently dropped.
> 
> Je ne sais pas ==> je sais pas.
> 
> Same thing with ne...rien, ne...jamais, etc.
> 

Thanks. I had wondered if that was what you were addressing, but your 
reference to "only uneducated buffoons" had me thinking of something 
more complex.

I got the impression many years ago that using 'ne' was a sure way to 
announce yourself (accent apart) as foreign :-)
0
7/15/2006 10:53:12 AM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <cc870$44b81944$50db5015$20206@news.hispeed.ch>, Paul Sture
> <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
>> At college we had a few US folks there on an exchange scheme. Sitting in 
>> the bar one day near a very formal looking professor type, our American 
>> pal commented "My, hasn't that girl got a nice fanny?"
> 
> There is also "homely", which in (I think) in the US means "ugly", but in
> the UK means "homey". So when the Americans come on visit, the wife tries
> to help , it is not appropriate saying "Oh my God, what your wife is
> homely". :-)

Useful to know.

> 
> Other words: In the US one drives on the pavement (i.e., the street), in
> the UK one walks on it (i.e. the sidewalk). In the US one takes the
> elevator, in the UK the lift. In the UK, or at least London, a "subway" is
> a walking path under the street, not the subterranean train, which called
> the "underground". In the UK, "scheme" is pronounced "sheem", instead of
> the US "skeem".
> 

I wouldn't agree on "sheem" there. Were you thing of "schedule", which 
does follow that rule?

> And to tie it Mac's: does not the Finder "Trash" have a different name in
> the UK?
> 

I don't know. I chose the English language option when I upgraded my 
German version of 10.1 to 10.2, and since then it's always been called 
"Trash".

Incidentally that's another plus for Apple over MS - multiple languages 
on the same CD. In the MS world you have to buy language specific versions.
0
7/15/2006 11:10:27 AM
In article <40290$44b8cd26$50db5015$17523@news.hispeed.ch>, Paul Sture
<paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> > In the UK, "scheme" is pronounced "sheem", instead of
> > the US "skeem".

> I wouldn't agree on "sheem" there. Were you thing of "schedule", which 
> does follow that rule?

Both, I would think. Schemes are frequent in pure math:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grothendieck

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/15/2006 11:23:55 AM
In article <47f0c$44b8c919$50db5015$16986@news.hispeed.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
> > In article <28460$44b81719$50db5015$19768@news.hispeed.ch>,
> >  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> > 
> >> Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
> >>> In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly 
> >>> colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of 
> >>> success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a 
> >>> single negative.
> >>>
> >> Can you give us an example please?
> > 
> > The 'ne' in colloquial French is very frequently dropped.
> > 
> > Je ne sais pas ==> je sais pas.
> > 
> > Same thing with ne...rien, ne...jamais, etc.
> > 
> 
> Thanks. I had wondered if that was what you were addressing, but your 
> reference to "only uneducated buffoons" had me thinking of something 
> more complex.
> 
> I got the impression many years ago that using 'ne' was a sure way to 
> announce yourself (accent apart) as foreign :-)

This is just an auxiliary mechanism. They use gender as their main 
foreigner detection system.

Andr�

-- 
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address
0
agisaak2 (57)
7/15/2006 11:41:43 AM
Hans Aberg wrote:

> There is also "homely", which in (I think) in the US means "ugly", but in
> the UK means "homey".

I forgot about that one.  But yes, I'd encountered it (but without
embarrassment, just a double take.)


> In the UK, "scheme" is pronounced "sheem", instead of
> the US "skeem".

I'm pretty sure that at least in the parts of the UK I was in that
"scheme" is not pronounced that way.

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
 My Reply-To address is valid.
0
nobody30 (1822)
7/15/2006 1:18:42 PM
Gregory Weston wrote:

> In occasional quiet moments I've wondered about the is/are question when 
> you have a group acting as a singular entity but the group's name is 
> explicitly plural _but_ the group's name is explicitly not descriptive 
> of it's membership.
> 
> In short, while it's quite clear to me that "Donny and Marie are 
> releasing a new album" I'm not sure whether "The Thompson Twins are 
> releasing a new album" or if they is.

Good question. They isn't. They are. The answer in this context (for
/all/ English speakers, I'm pretty certain) comes from the word
"Twins." As always, test by dropping the non-essentials. Would you say
"Twins is releasing..."? No. You would say "Twins *are* releasing..."
thus you would say "The Thompson Twins are releasing a new album."
This, however, is a special case for Americans, because it contains a
signal word, one that is clearly plural: "Twins." "The rock quartet
known as 'The Thompson Twins' *is* releasing a new album." Essentials:
"The quartet is..." but even Americans are likely to say "The rock
quartet known as The Thompson Twins are releasing a new album" because
people get confused about what the subject of the sentence is. As far
as I know, /every/ speaker does this from time to time, regardless of
education level or discipline.

I wonder how the British would treat a company that consists of one
person if they knew it consisted of one person. That might seem like an
oxymoron -- "company" of one -- but that's common usage -- my own tiny
company, e.g., is Bluebell Internet Services, LLC. I suppose they would
say "BBIS are reporting record profits..." (They would be factually
wrong there!)

*And* you would say "'The Thompson Twins' *is* the name of a rock group
that consists of four people, none of whom is named 'Thompson.'" --
because that is a different usage in which one must treat TTT as a
singular entity. Ah, the sublimity and subtlety of English!

I have to stop, because I'm getting confused and each time I look at
the above I find a new mistake.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/15/2006 3:11:04 PM
In article <150720061111046730%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Gregory Weston wrote:
> 
> > In occasional quiet moments I've wondered about the is/are question when 
> > you have a group acting as a singular entity but the group's name is 
> > explicitly plural _but_ the group's name is explicitly not descriptive 
> > of it's membership.
> > 
> > In short, while it's quite clear to me that "Donny and Marie are 
> > releasing a new album" I'm not sure whether "The Thompson Twins are 
> > releasing a new album" or if they is.
> 
> Good question. They isn't. They are. The answer in this context (for
> /all/ English speakers, I'm pretty certain) comes from the word
> "Twins." ...
> 
> I have to stop, because I'm getting confused and each time I look at
> the above I find a new mistake.

'Sokay. I appreciate and understand the explanation.

Now how does Jethro Tull fit into this? A group known by the name of a 
single real person who's not a member?

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/15/2006 3:52:00 PM
In article <uce-3199A2.06063115072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In short, while it's quite clear to me that "Donny and Marie are 
> releasing a new album" I'm not sure whether "The Thompson Twins are 
> releasing a new album" or if they is.

You want the PC explanation or the non-PC explanation? <g>

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/15/2006 4:09:16 PM
In article <150720061111046730%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> *And* you would say "'The Thompson Twins' *is* the name of a rock 
> group that consists of four people, none of whom is named 
> 'Thompson.'" -- because that is a different usage in which one must 
> treat TTT as a singular entity. Ah, the sublimity and subtlety of 
> English!

How about Jethro Tull?  Is Jethro Tull worth listening to, or are Jethro 
Tull worth listening to?

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/15/2006 4:11:01 PM
In article <uce-A31749.11520015072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> Now how does Jethro Tull fit into this? A group known by the name of 
> a single real person who's not a member?

LOL.  I just posted the same question.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/15/2006 4:12:01 PM
In article <haberg-1507061057550001@c83-250-195-81.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In the UK, "scheme" is pronounced "sheem", instead of the US "skeem".

Then there's "school schedule"

> And to tie it Mac's: does not the Finder "Trash" have a different 
> name in the UK?

The dustbin?  I dunno.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/15/2006 4:14:03 PM
In article <12bhqpjs1a4r669@news.supernews.com>, jeffrey+news@goldmark.org
wrote:

> > In the UK, "scheme" is pronounced "sheem", instead of
> > the US "skeem".
> 
> I'm pretty sure that at least in the parts of the UK I was in that
> "scheme" is not pronounced that way.

Well, I do not know, I may have confused it with "schedule" - I spent
about a decade in the US, and I did not try UK speaking UK English then.
But UK accents do vary, see for example
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents
And I recall that the US students had more problems with the UK speakers
than with other foreigners. :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/15/2006 4:34:56 PM
In article <uce-3199A2.06063115072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:


> > > 
> > > In the UK, companies are seen as plural. Think of multiple employees.
> > 
> > The best example I've seen is "Congress is in session, and parliament 
> > are in session."
> 
> In occasional quiet moments I've wondered about the is/are question when 
> you have a group acting as a singular entity but the group's name is 
> explicitly plural _but_ the group's name is explicitly not descriptive 
> of it's membership.
> 
> In short, while it's quite clear to me that "Donny and Marie are 
> releasing a new album" I'm not sure whether "The Thompson Twins are 
> releasing a new album" or if they is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun


You made think too.
0
fremen24 (46)
7/15/2006 4:52:48 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:

> But UK accents do vary, see for example
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents
> And I recall that the US students had more problems with the UK speakers
> than with other foreigners. :-)

Yes.  After several years of living in the UK I could watch movies like
Trainspotting and Lock, Stock and Two Broken Barrels with subtitles or
redubbing.  But it takes time to get to that point.  I've heard rumors
that when those were shown in the US they were redubbed to make the
accents more accessible.

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
 My Reply-To address is valid.
0
nobody30 (1822)
7/15/2006 5:59:33 PM
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> Yes.  After several years of living in the UK I could watch movies like
> Trainspotting and Lock, Stock and Two Broken Barrels with subtitles or
> redubbing.  But it takes time to get to that point.  I've heard rumors
> that when those were shown in the US they were redubbed to make the
> accents more accessible.
> 

Did you read Trainspotting? Renton's narratives are in normal English, 
bu the rest represents Scottish.

I found myself reading almost aloud for the first chapter or so, so that 
I could understand it.
0
7/15/2006 6:27:45 PM
In article <michelle-EE4DB5.13583514072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <140720061655207547%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> > > An American teaching in a UK college at the end of class couldn't 
> > > find his bum bag and when students asked him what he was looking 
> > > for, he answered, "I can't find my fanny pack".  It's no wonder 
> > > they call us 'merkins.
> > 
> > Yeah, easy enough when you know about "fanny," but how would an 
> > American learn that in the USA?
> 
> Is fanny in the UK the same as it is in Australia?

I wouldn't be surprised. Much UK slang made its way
to Australia. I learned the word chuffed from an Aussie
gal long before I knew it as an expression used in England,
for example.

Cheers,
Eric
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 7:13:08 AM
In article <vPednY3tr5yttyXZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 7/14/06 3:13 PM, Paul Sture wrote:
> > Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
> >> In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly 
> >> colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of 
> >> success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a 
> >> single negative.
> >>
> > 
> > Can you give us an example please?
> > 
> > My French is a bit rusty, but I'm still interested in it.
> 
> Il n'est la.
> 
> J'ai pas de patience.
> 
> Well, I tried.....

That's grammatically incorrect, according to Parisian (read "proper")
French. You must have the "ne" and the "pas" surrounding the word
being made negative, n'est-ce pas? ;)

A bientot,
Eric
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 7:15:28 AM
In article <uce-3199A2.06063115072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-48E261.09084314072006@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <f73a$44b77e61$50db5015$23051@news.hispeed.ch>,
> >  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > > > One of my favorites! 
> > > > 
> > > > Barclays Bank are announcing...
> > > > 
> > > > Ford Motor Co. make the Mondeo...
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > In the UK, companies are seen as plural. Think of multiple employees.
> > 
> > The best example I've seen is "Congress is in session, and parliament 
> > are in session."
> 
> In occasional quiet moments I've wondered about the is/are question when 
> you have a group acting as a singular entity but the group's name is 
> explicitly plural _but_ the group's name is explicitly not descriptive 
> of it's membership.
> 
> In short, while it's quite clear to me that "Donny and Marie are 
> releasing a new album" I'm not sure whether "The Thompson Twins are 
> releasing a new album" or if they is.

They are ;)
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 7:18:58 AM
In article <150720061111046730%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Gregory Weston wrote:
> 
> > In occasional quiet moments I've wondered about the is/are question when 
> > you have a group acting as a singular entity but the group's name is 
> > explicitly plural _but_ the group's name is explicitly not descriptive 
> > of it's membership.
> > 
> > In short, while it's quite clear to me that "Donny and Marie are 
> > releasing a new album" I'm not sure whether "The Thompson Twins are 
> > releasing a new album" or if they is.
> 
> Good question. They isn't. They are. The answer in this context (for
> /all/ English speakers, I'm pretty certain) comes from the word
> "Twins." As always, test by dropping the non-essentials. Would you say
> "Twins is releasing..."? No. You would say "Twins *are* releasing..."
> thus you would say "The Thompson Twins are releasing a new album."
> This, however, is a special case for Americans, because it contains a
> signal word, one that is clearly plural: "Twins." "The rock quartet
> known as 'The Thompson Twins' *is* releasing a new album." Essentials:
> "The quartet is..." but even Americans are likely to say "The rock
> quartet known as The Thompson Twins are releasing a new album" because
> people get confused about what the subject of the sentence is. As far
> as I know, /every/ speaker does this from time to time, regardless of
> education level or discipline.

Only the careless and the ignorant do so, IMHO.

> I wonder how the British would treat a company that consists of one
> person if they knew it consisted of one person. That might seem like an
> oxymoron -- "company" of one -- but that's common usage -- my own tiny
> company, e.g., is Bluebell Internet Services, LLC. I suppose they would
> say "BBIS are reporting record profits..." (They would be factually
> wrong there!)

They may consider a company to be plural because, in a sense, a company
is a collection of people, hence plural is appropriate.

> *And* you would say "'The Thompson Twins' *is* the name of a rock group
> that consists of four people, none of whom is named 'Thompson.'" --
> because that is a different usage in which one must treat TTT as a
> singular entity. Ah, the sublimity and subtlety of English!

When did Thompson Twins add a fourth? For that matter, are they together
currently? I thought they'd disbanded years ago (wishful thinking on
my part, perhaps...).

> I have to stop, because I'm getting confused and each time I look at
> the above I find a new mistake.
> 
> Davoud

Second-guessing oneself is all too easy...I know from experience *L*
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 7:24:27 AM
In article <michelle-E4B4BC.09120115072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <uce-A31749.11520015072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > Now how does Jethro Tull fit into this? A group known by the name of 
> > a single real person who's not a member?
> 
> LOL.  I just posted the same question.

Jethro Tull are a band, in the way that Led Zeppelin were a band.
A band of musicians. If you can say it's a collection of something,
it's a plural entity (no, that's not a technical English term, American
English or otherwise...I just came up with it). At least that's how
my mind makes sense of it.

Linguistically,
Eric
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 7:28:05 AM
In article <ericp06-21D00C.00275116072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
"Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > > Now how does Jethro Tull fit into this? A group known by the name of 
> > > a single real person who's not a member?
> > 
> > LOL.  I just posted the same question.
> 
> Jethro Tull are a band, in the way that Led Zeppelin were a band.
> A band of musicians. If you can say it's a collection of something,
> it's a plural entity (no, that's not a technical English term, American
> English or otherwise...I just came up with it). At least that's how
> my mind makes sense of it.

It is the thinking that�determines whether it should be constructed as a
plural, or singular, and US/UK English�differ in some respects. So some
formal plural (resp.) singular can be constructed as a singular (resp.
plural).

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/16/2006 8:55:39 AM
Jon wrote:
> Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> 

> AFAIK, initially it was the local distributor that did it on their own
> initiative.

[re: the other half of this thread]
It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own initiative". 
"Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, "distributor" is singular.
What you wrote is common in modern American usage--so I guess it would 
be acceptable to Wes, according to his 50/75 rule. But it is wrong. 
Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
correct English (or French or German or Dutch).

Apple considered the market way too small. That may have
> changed, though, now that there is an established community.
> 
> Another example: I have struggled (with a number of others) to make
> Apple see the need for basic Sami support (not translation of the GUI,
> just basic input support) for a long time, and it is not easy to make
> Cupertino see the good of supporting a community of maybe 50,000 people.
> What did help a little was when the Nordic countries made such support a
> requirement in all public IT tenders. However, I think that has been
> relaxed a bit recently. The same thing there; there was an active user
> community under Mac OS/System 7-8-9, and utilities that supported Sami,
> but they broke with OS X and have AFAIK never been replaced
> satisfactorily, even though the basic technology should be better suited
> now, with unicode and all.
0
offbyone (40)
7/16/2006 11:41:23 AM
In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, offbyone@xs4all.nl wrote:

> Jon wrote:
> > Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> > 
> 
> > AFAIK, initially it was the local distributor that did it on their own
> > initiative.

You have quoted, it may look to some as though I wrote that, which I did
not. Please be more careful.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/16/2006 1:41:30 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> Other words: In the US one drives on the pavement (i.e., the street), in
> the UK one walks on it (i.e. the sidewalk). In the US one takes the
> elevator, in the UK the lift. In the UK, or at least London, a "subway" is
> a walking path under the street, not the subterranean train, which called
> the "underground". In the UK, "scheme" is pronounced "sheem", instead of
> the US "skeem".

Is it?  I've lived in the UK all my life and have *never* heard it 
pronounced "sheem".
0
andyk7 (15)
7/16/2006 1:47:39 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, offbyone@xs4all.nl wrote:
> 
>> Jon wrote:
>>> Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
>>>
>>> AFAIK, initially it was the local distributor that did it on their own
>>> initiative.
> 
> You have quoted, it may look to some as though I wrote that, which I did
> not. Please be more careful.
> 

Hans, you are absolutely correct. My editing and quoting gave the wrong 
impression.
I apologize for that and because it appears my critical tone was 
directed toward you in the first place, which was not true.
Sincerely sorry,
Jacques
0
offbyone (40)
7/16/2006 1:51:58 PM
In article <dlspo3-f37.ln1@dekay.dynu.com>, deKay
<andyk@spamnota.lofi-gaming.org.spammage.uk> wrote:

> > Other words: In the US one drives on the pavement (i.e., the street), in
> > the UK one walks on it (i.e. the sidewalk). In the US one takes the
> > elevator, in the UK the lift. In the UK, or at least London, a "subway" is
> > a walking path under the street, not the subterranean train, which called
> > the "underground". In the UK, "scheme" is pronounced "sheem", instead of
> > the US "skeem".
> 
> Is it?  I've lived in the UK all my life and have *never* heard it 
> pronounced "sheem".

Perhaps you live in the wrong UK region :-); cf.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents
Or you could read some of the followups, to update your knowledge with the
thread. :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/16/2006 2:28:52 PM
In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
 "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> correct English (or French or German or Dutch).

It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to 
reference a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it 
is reached the point of being standard usage yet, though.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/16/2006 3:26:48 PM
In article 
<ericp06-A9408D.00125416072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Is fanny in the UK the same as it is in Australia?
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised. Much UK slang made its way to Australia. I 
> learned the word chuffed from an Aussie gal long before I knew it as 
> an expression used in England, for example.

"Chuffed" is a new one to me.  What does it mean?

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/16/2006 3:29:06 PM
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:26:48 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article 
<michelle-080BF9.08264816072006@news.west.cox.net>): 

> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, "Jacques S." 
> <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote: 
> 
>> Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
>> correct English (or French or German or Dutch). 
> 
> It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to reference 
> a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it is reached 
> the point of being standard usage yet, though. 

From the Oxford American Dictionary which is included with OS X..... 

============================== 

The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a 
singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used since 
at least the sixteenth century. In the late twentieth century, as the 
traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came under scrutiny 
on the grounds of sexism, this use of they has become more common. It is now 
generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as 
anyone, no one, someone, or a person:: anyone can join if they are a 
resident; | each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular 
nouns, the use of they is now common, although less widely accepted, esp. in 
formal contexts. Sentences such as | ask a friend if they could help are 
still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the 
growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used 
in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly. 
============================== 

As an aside, things that bother me.......

Restroom signs that say "Men" and "Ladies". What's wrong with "Men" and 
"Women"? Or is it that too many men are not gentlemen?  :-)

The almost totally prevalent saying "spay and neuter" in regards to pets. Why 
not just "neuter"? If we're going to use sex specific procedures then why not 
"spay and castration"?

Some time back someone suggested, I hope not seriously, that what we need is 
a pronoun that refers to all genders, one that combines she, he, and it. 
Don't ask! 


-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
7/16/2006 3:46:36 PM
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:29:06 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-4831D7.08290616072006@news.west.cox.net>):

> "Chuffed" is a new one to me.  What does it mean?

From the built in to OS X American Oxford Dictionary....

adjective [ predic. ] Brit., informal
very pleased : I'm dead chuffed to have won.
ORIGIN 1950s: from dialect chuff [plump or pleased.]

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
7/16/2006 3:49:54 PM
On 7/16/06 12:15 AM, Eric P. wrote:
> In article <vPednY3tr5yttyXZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/14/06 3:13 PM, Paul Sture wrote:
>>> Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly 
>>>> colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of 
>>>> success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a 
>>>> single negative.
>>>>
>>> Can you give us an example please?
>>>
>>> My French is a bit rusty, but I'm still interested in it.
>> Il n'est la.
>>
>> J'ai pas de patience.
>>
>> Well, I tried.....
> 
> That's grammatically incorrect, according to Parisian (read "proper")
> French. You must have the "ne" and the "pas" surrounding the word
> being made negative, n'est-ce pas? ;)
> 
<Mais oui, Eric>

However, if you read the thread, you'd see what I was attempting.

<Mais!> Andre has posted the usual way the "ne" is dropped in colloquial
French, so I guess my second example might be all right.

-- 
john mcwilliams

Please BE SURE to capitalize IMPORTANT WORDS in case you think your
audience is NOT very bright, or you have a limited vocabulary.
0
jpmcw (1977)
7/16/2006 6:20:56 PM
On 7/16/06 6:51 AM, Jacques S. wrote:
> Hans Aberg wrote:
>> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, offbyone@xs4all.nl wrote:
>>
>>> Jon wrote:
>>>> Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK, initially it was the local distributor that did it on their own
>>>> initiative.
>> You have quoted, it may look to some as though I wrote that, which I did
>> not. Please be more careful.
>>
> 
> Hans, you are absolutely correct. My editing and quoting gave the wrong 
> impression.
> I apologize for that and because it appears my critical tone was 
> directed toward you in the first place, which was not true.
> Sincerely sorry,

Well, he is repairing to their drawing room to sulk.....

-- 
john mcwilliams
0
jpmcw (1977)
7/16/2006 6:23:15 PM
On 7/16/06 8:46 AM, TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:26:48 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article 
> <michelle-080BF9.08264816072006@news.west.cox.net>): 
> 
>> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, "Jacques S." 
>> <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote: 
>>
>>> Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
>>> correct English (or French or German or Dutch). 
>> It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to reference 
>> a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it is reached 
>> the point of being standard usage yet, though. 
> 
> From the Oxford American Dictionary which is included with OS X..... 
> 
> ============================== 
> 
> The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a 
> singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used since 
> at least the sixteenth century. In the late twentieth century, as the 
> traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came under scrutiny 
> on the grounds of sexism, this use of they has become more common. It is now 
> generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as 
> anyone, no one, someone, or a person:: anyone can join if they are a 
> resident; | each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular 
> nouns, the use of they is now common, although less widely accepted, esp. in 
> formal contexts. Sentences such as | ask a friend if they could help are 
> still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the 
> growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used 
> in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly. 
> ============================== 
> 
> As an aside, things that bother me.......
> 
> Restroom signs that say "Men" and "Ladies". What's wrong with "Men" and 
> "Women"? Or is it that too many men are not gentlemen?  :-)

I simply don't refer to women as Ladies at all unless that
characteristic is under discussion. But I think it's pretty regional.
ie, in some place it's the norm. In others some women are insulted by
the term, and yet others, slighted by not being referred to as same.

Then we have the oxymorons, starting with "Lady wrestler" or biker. It
goes on and on...

-- 
john mcwilliams

She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was
room-temperature Canadian beef.
0
jpmcw (1977)
7/16/2006 6:31:37 PM
John McWilliams wrote:
> On 7/16/06 12:15 AM, Eric P. wrote:
>> In article <vPednY3tr5yttyXZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/14/06 3:13 PM, Paul Sture wrote:
>>>> Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly 
>>>>> colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of 
>>>>> success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a 
>>>>> single negative.
>>>>>
>>>> Can you give us an example please?
>>>>
>>>> My French is a bit rusty, but I'm still interested in it.
>>> Il n'est la.
>>>
>>> J'ai pas de patience.
>>>
>>> Well, I tried.....
>> That's grammatically incorrect, according to Parisian (read "proper")
>> French. You must have the "ne" and the "pas" surrounding the word
>> being made negative, n'est-ce pas? ;)
>>
> <Mais oui, Eric>
> 
> However, if you read the thread, you'd see what I was attempting.
> 
> <Mais!> Andre has posted the usual way the "ne" is dropped in colloquial
> French, so I guess my second example might be all right.
> 

I'd agree. In my experience many French will always _write_ the "ne", 
but only use it in the spoken word for emphasis.

P.S. Parisian argot is not what I'd call "proper" French ;.)
0
7/16/2006 6:38:31 PM
In article <michelle-080BF9.08264816072006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
>  "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> > correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> 
> It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to 
> reference a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it 
> is reached the point of being standard usage yet, though.

It has been acceptable since the 1300s and has been used by notables
such as Shakespeare and Chaucer.

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
0
jerrykindall (1042)
7/16/2006 8:44:17 PM
In article <michelle-080BF9.08264816072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
>  "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> > correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> 
> It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to 
> reference a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it 
> is reached the point of being standard usage yet, though.

Hopefully it will never become standard usage. The dumbing down of
America is a sad thing indeed ;)

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 9:12:35 PM
Paul Sture wrote:
> I'd agree. In my experience many French will always _write_ the "ne", 
> but only use it in the spoken word for emphasis.
> 
> P.S. Parisian argot is not what I'd call "proper" French ;.)

You've been doing great up until now. Parisian argot is proper French.
So is the language of Marseille. Belgian French, Canadian French,
Jersey French, Lao French, Magrhreb French, and Swiss French -- among
others -- are also proper French. In other words, every dialect has
equal standing in every language. It is meaningless to say that one is
better or more proper than another, just as it is meaningless to say
that one language is better or more important than another. More widely
used, perhaps, but not more important. I know this because my neighbour
tells me that English (American English, that is) is the world's most
important language, because it so widely spoken and understood, while
my Mongolian shepherd friends tell me that Kalmyk-Oirat is the most
important language because everyone they have ever met speaks it.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/16/2006 9:12:47 PM
In article <0001HW.C0DFC98C0006FB66F0284500@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:26:48 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article 
> <michelle-080BF9.08264816072006@news.west.cox.net>): 
> 
> > In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, "Jacques S." 
> > <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote: 
> > 
> >> Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> >> correct English (or French or German or Dutch). 
> > 
> > It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to reference 
> > a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it is reached 
> > the point of being standard usage yet, though. 
> 
> From the Oxford American Dictionary which is included with OS X..... 
> 
> ============================== 
> 
> The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a 
> singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used since 
> at least the sixteenth century. In the late twentieth century, as the 
> traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came under scrutiny 
> on the grounds of sexism, this use of they has become more common. It is now 
> generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as 
> anyone, no one, someone, or a person:: anyone can join if they are a 
> resident; | each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular 
> nouns, the use of they is now common, although less widely accepted, esp. in 
> formal contexts. Sentences such as | ask a friend if they could help are 
> still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the 
> growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used 
> in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly. 
> ============================== 

It's still grammatically incorrect, and that's all that matters.

> As an aside, things that bother me.......
> 
> Restroom signs that say "Men" and "Ladies". What's wrong with "Men" and 
> "Women"? Or is it that too many men are not gentlemen?  :-)
> 
> The almost totally prevalent saying "spay and neuter" in regards to pets. Why 
> not just "neuter"? If we're going to use sex specific procedures then why not 
> "spay and castration"?
> 
> Some time back someone suggested, I hope not seriously, that what we need is 
> a pronoun that refers to all genders, one that combines she, he, and it. 
> Don't ask!

"Dude" is a universal pronoun ;)
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 9:14:14 PM
In article <michelle-4831D7.08290616072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <ericp06-A9408D.00125416072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > > Is fanny in the UK the same as it is in Australia?
> > 
> > I wouldn't be surprised. Much UK slang made its way to Australia. I 
> > learned the word chuffed from an Aussie gal long before I knew it as 
> > an expression used in England, for example.
> 
> "Chuffed" is a new one to me.  What does it mean?

Chuffed means well pleased with oneself, IIRC.
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 9:14:37 PM
Jacques S. wrote:
> It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own initiative". 
> "Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, "distributor" is singular.
> What you wrote is common in modern American usage--so I guess it would 
> be acceptable to Wes, according to his 50/75 rule. But it is wrong. 
> Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> correct English (or French or German or Dutch).

Who/what is the authority that declares the majority of
educated speakers "wrong" ?  What gives them the right
to make that declaration ?

(Yes, I said 'them' intentionally.  I usually say
"him or her."  But I never give anyone a hard time
over it.)

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Nobody believes a theoretical analysis -- except the guy who did it.
    Everybody believes an experimental analysis -- except the guy who 
did it.
                                  -- Unknown
0
news31 (6772)
7/16/2006 9:17:07 PM
In article <P-6dnXZNJ4AbHifZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 7/16/06 12:15 AM, Eric P. wrote:
> > In article <vPednY3tr5yttyXZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 7/14/06 3:13 PM, Paul Sture wrote:
> >>> Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>> In Modern French, of course, single negatives are becoming increasingly 
> >>>> colloquial, something which l'Academie is trying, with its usual lack of 
> >>>> success, to stamp out, since only uneducated buffoons would ever use a 
> >>>> single negative.
> >>>>
> >>> Can you give us an example please?
> >>>
> >>> My French is a bit rusty, but I'm still interested in it.
> >> Il n'est la.
> >>
> >> J'ai pas de patience.
> >>
> >> Well, I tried.....
> > 
> > That's grammatically incorrect, according to Parisian (read "proper")
> > French. You must have the "ne" and the "pas" surrounding the word
> > being made negative, n'est-ce pas? ;)
> > 
> <Mais oui, Eric>
> 
> However, if you read the thread, you'd see what I was attempting.
> 
> <Mais!> Andre has posted the usual way the "ne" is dropped in colloquial
> French, so I guess my second example might be all right.

D'accord. Merci bien :)

I am 100% opposed to incorrect grammar in any language, in any forum.
This is due to a few factors that contributed to the shaping of me. In my
advancing years (ha!), I'm reprogramming myself to greater tolerance in
some aspects of life, but not by much ;)

Vive la difference!
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 9:17:15 PM
In article <YLudnZStn7aaGyfZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 7/16/06 8:46 AM, TaliesinSoft wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:26:48 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article 
> > <michelle-080BF9.08264816072006@news.west.cox.net>): 
> > 
> >> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, "Jacques S." 
> >> <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote: 
> >>
> >>> Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> >>> correct English (or French or German or Dutch). 
> >> It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to reference 
> >> a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it is reached 
> >> the point of being standard usage yet, though. 
> > 
> > From the Oxford American Dictionary which is included with OS X..... 
> > 
> > ============================== 
> > 
> > The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a 
> > singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used 
> > since 
> > at least the sixteenth century. In the late twentieth century, as the 
> > traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came under 
> > scrutiny 
> > on the grounds of sexism, this use of they has become more common. It is 
> > now 
> > generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such 
> > as 
> > anyone, no one, someone, or a person:: anyone can join if they are a 
> > resident; | each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular 
> > nouns, the use of they is now common, although less widely accepted, esp. 
> > in 
> > formal contexts. Sentences such as | ask a friend if they could help are 
> > still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the 
> > growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is 
> > used 
> > in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly. 
> > ============================== 
> > 
> > As an aside, things that bother me.......
> > 
> > Restroom signs that say "Men" and "Ladies". What's wrong with "Men" and 
> > "Women"? Or is it that too many men are not gentlemen?  :-)
> 
> I simply don't refer to women as Ladies at all unless that
> characteristic is under discussion. But I think it's pretty regional.
> ie, in some place it's the norm. In others some women are insulted by
> the term, and yet others, slighted by not being referred to as same.
> 
> Then we have the oxymorons, starting with "Lady wrestler" or biker. It
> goes on and on...

After agonizing over how to refer to female human beings in a manner
that would offend the smallest number of them, I've settled on "gal"
and "gals." I have yet to find anyone to whom this expression is
offensive, so I go with it happily :)

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 9:19:01 PM
In article <160720061344177198%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>,
 Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <michelle-080BF9.08264816072006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
> >  "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > 
> > > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> > > correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> > 
> > It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to 
> > reference a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it 
> > is reached the point of being standard usage yet, though.
> 
> It has been acceptable since the 1300s and has been used by notables
> such as Shakespeare and Chaucer.
> 
> http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html

Still sends up the "Ignorant" flag in my mind...YMMV ;)
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 9:21:00 PM
In article <160720061712474560%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Paul Sture wrote:
> > I'd agree. In my experience many French will always _write_ the "ne", 
> > but only use it in the spoken word for emphasis.
> > 
> > P.S. Parisian argot is not what I'd call "proper" French ;.)
> 
> You've been doing great up until now. Parisian argot is proper French.
> So is the language of Marseille. Belgian French, Canadian French,
> Jersey French, Lao French, Magrhreb French, and Swiss French -- among
> others -- are also proper French. In other words, every dialect has
> equal standing in every language. It is meaningless to say that one is
> better or more proper than another, just as it is meaningless to say
> that one language is better or more important than another. More widely
> used, perhaps, but not more important. I know this because my neighbour
> tells me that English (American English, that is) is the world's most
> important language, because it so widely spoken and understood, while
> my Mongolian shepherd friends tell me that Kalmyk-Oirat is the most
> important language because everyone they have ever met speaks it.
> 
> Davoud

You are incorrect. All dialects of French language that are local to
areas outside France itself are considered to be corrupted (the
common expression is "bastardized French," but I know there's
another expression for it, just can't recall it right now). The
purest of pure and most correct of correct French language is
the form approved by L'Academie Fran�aise, that is to say,
Parisian French.

There can be no disputing this point with any hope of veracity.

When it comes to slang, any colloquialisms are considered
not proper within the context of a given language. Commonly
used, certainly. Widely accepted, perhaps. Just not proper.

As for importance of a language, that's not the issue here,
and I'd say that all languages are of equal importance, as
they're used by various peoples as a common form of
communication.

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 10:16:38 PM
Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes:

> 
> Who/what is the authority that declares the majority of
> educated speakers "wrong" ?  What gives them the right
> to make that declaration ?
> 
> (Yes, I said 'them' intentionally.  I usually say
> "him or her."  But I never give anyone a hard time
> over it.)
> 

But it is definitely bad in this case - because it confuses the reader
making it seem that "them" refers to "educated speakers" rather than
"the authority".

-- 
    Bill Mitchell
    Dept of Mathematics,        The University of Florida
    PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
    mitchell@math.ufl.edu	(352) 392-0281 x284
0
mitchell (319)
7/16/2006 10:18:31 PM
In article <n1yug.1806$us.1767@trnddc04>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Jacques S. wrote:
> > It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own initiative". 
> > "Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, "distributor" is singular.
> > What you wrote is common in modern American usage--so I guess it would 
> > be acceptable to Wes, according to his 50/75 rule. But it is wrong. 
> > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> > correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> 
> Who/what is the authority that declares the majority of
> educated speakers "wrong" ?  What gives them the right
> to make that declaration ?
> 
> (Yes, I said 'them' intentionally.  I usually say
> "him or her."  But I never give anyone a hard time
> over it.)

There is a governing body of the language. I don't know what
it is called, but I'm sure it's involved in updating dictionaries,
among other things.

Individuals don't have the right to determine policy where a
language is concerned, just as they don't have the right to
make up their own Netspeak with any hope of being taken
seriously...but then, it appears to me that few who communicate
via the Internet are interested in being taken seriously *L*

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/16/2006 10:19:12 PM
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:14:14 -0500, Eric P. wrote
(in article <ericp06-7B7C26.14140616072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>):

> "Dude" is a universal pronoun ;)

Not yet, at least to the Oxford American Dictionary.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
7/16/2006 11:20:46 PM
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:19:01 -0500, Eric P. wrote
(in article <ericp06-925EAD.14185216072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>):

> After agonizing over how to refer to female human beings in a manner that 
> would offend the smallest number of them, I've settled on "gal" and "gals." I 

> have yet to find anyone to whom this expression is offensive, so I go with it 

> happily :)

You haven't met my significant other!   ;-)

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
7/16/2006 11:23:35 PM
In article 
<ericp06-A8E608.14205116072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Still sends up the "Ignorant" flag in my mind...YMMV ;)

Like capitalizing words in quotes? Or perhaps using acronyms? How 'bout 
using the ellipse incorrectly or forgetting to end a sentence with a 
period?
0
7/17/2006 12:03:24 AM
In article 
<ericp06-30A579.15190316072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <n1yug.1806$us.1767@trnddc04>,
>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > Jacques S. wrote:
> > > It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own initiative". 
> > > "Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, "distributor" is 
> > > singular.
> > > What you wrote is common in modern American usage--so I guess it would 
> > > be acceptable to Wes, according to his 50/75 rule. But it is wrong. 
> > > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> > > correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> > 
> > Who/what is the authority that declares the majority of
> > educated speakers "wrong" ?  What gives them the right
> > to make that declaration ?
> > 
> > (Yes, I said 'them' intentionally.  I usually say
> > "him or her."  But I never give anyone a hard time
> > over it.)
> 
> There is a governing body of the language. I don't know what
> it is called, but I'm sure it's involved in updating dictionaries,
> among other things.

No such body exists for English.

There have been attempts on the parts of some countries (notably France) 
to establish such bodies, but their efforts have been duly ignored by 
the overwhelming majority of the populace.

Dictionaries are compiled according to whichever principles and 
editorial guidelines are established by their creators, but different 
dictionaries will set different guidelines, and none has any more claim 
to authority than another.

The first major dictionary of English was Nathan Bailey's Dictionarium 
Britannicum (1721-1730) (previous word lists had been compiled for the 
language but all lacked most of the salient properties which, by today's 
standards, most would expect a dictionary to have -- in particular, they 
tended to record more obscure words while omitting more commonplace 
ones).

As can be expected, what was set out in Johnson's dictionary was 
influenced by who Bailey was -- his dictionary included words peculiar 
to the London area while omitting many other regionalisms. Had he been 
from Yorkshire, the content, I'm sure would have been much different.

Is there some reason to believe that a lexicographer from London has 
special authority on the language which one from Yorkshire lacks?

No, but because his dictionary heavily influenced subsequent 
lexicographers (notably Johnson), English dictionaries have often 
included terms which were (originally) narrowly restricted 
geographically, while omitting other terms used over a much wider region 
by a greater number of speakers. This stems from a simple historical 
accident rather than from some imagined governing authority.

Andr�

-- 
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address
0
agisaak2 (57)
7/17/2006 12:35:34 AM
"Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> 
> There is a governing body of the language. I don't know what
> it is called, but I'm sure it's involved in updating dictionaries,
> among other things.

The last I heard, there is no governing body for the English
language. 

> Individuals don't have the right to determine policy where a
> language is concerned, just as they don't have the right to
> make up their own Netspeak with any hope of being taken
> seriously.

When I speak or write I'm interested in communication.  To the extent
that grammar rules contribute to that, they are important.   Of much
less importance, it can be worth it to avoid a violation of rules to
avoid distracting someone like you from what I'm trying to
communicate.


But I "don't have the right"?

I don't have either the power or the desire to "determine policy," but
I can and will speak as seems to me best.

-- 
    Bill Mitchell
    Dept of Mathematics,        The University of Florida
    PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
    mitchell@math.ufl.edu	(352) 392-0281 x284
0
mitchell (319)
7/17/2006 12:40:25 AM
Eric P. wrote:
> You are incorrect. All dialects of French language that are local to
> areas outside France itself are considered to be corrupted (the

"are considered"

By whom?  L'academie?  Ha!  How many members of l'Academie
got there by a majority vote of French speakers?  How about
a majority vote of French speakers with college degrees?

Or "considered" by a group of snobs who consider "corrupted"
to be "using a different dialect than I use" ?

By the way, this is a fine example of how the passive voice
in political and academic writing is a marvelous tool for
avoiding responsibility.  (By omitting the subject of the verb)

-- 
Wes Groleau

It seems a pity that psychology should have
destroyed all our knowledge of human nature.
                     -- G. K. Chesterton
0
news31 (6772)
7/17/2006 12:48:05 AM
Eric P. wrote:
> I am 100% opposed to incorrect grammar in any language, in any forum.
> This is due to a few factors that contributed to the shaping of me. In my
> advancing years (ha!), I'm reprogramming myself to greater tolerance in
> some aspects of life, but not by much ;)

I'm sorry to hear that.  I used to be a grammar curmudgeon, too.
But long ago I realized I have more important goals than futile
attempts to make people feel bad for doing things that harm no one.

(OK, I admit certain constructs still make me cringe inwardly,
but if putting it on a résumé won't hurt his chances of getting
hired, then I refrain from complaining.)

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html
0
news31 (6772)
7/17/2006 12:53:38 AM
William Mitchell wrote:
> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes:
> 
>> Who/what is the authority that declares the majority of
>> educated speakers "wrong" ?  What gives them the right
>> to make that declaration ?
>>
>> (Yes, I said 'them' intentionally.  I usually say
>> "him or her."  But I never give anyone a hard time
>> over it.)
> 
> But it is definitely bad in this case - because it confuses the reader
> making it seem that "them" refers to "educated speakers" rather than
> "the authority".

I concede I could have made it clearer.
Yet I consider it perfectly clear to anyone
thinking about the meaning of the sentence
in context.  ("declare" and "declaration"
tie them together in a fairly obvious way.)

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Ostracism: A practice of sticking your head in the sand.
0
news31 (6772)
7/17/2006 12:57:22 AM
William Mitchell wrote:
> less importance, it can be worth it to avoid a violation of rules to
> avoid distracting someone like you from what I'm trying to
> communicate.

In other words, use language that won't turn off your
audience--even if that audience consciously or unconsciously
thinks "SNOB" when they hear language that obeys the
"Academy" commandments.

Of course, we're on Usenet, so our audience is a combination
of snobs, anti-snobs, and folks in-between.  So ya mize well
write like ya wanna.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.
0
news31 (6772)
7/17/2006 1:04:55 AM
Eric P. wrote:
> All dialects of French language that are local to
> areas outside France itself are considered to be corrupted...
> The purest of pure and most correct of correct French language is
> the form approved by L'Academie Fran�aise, that is to say,
> Parisian French.

> When it comes to slang, any colloquialisms are considered
> not proper within the context of a given language. Commonly
> used, certainly. Widely accepted, perhaps. Just not proper

/Please/ tell me you forgot the winking smiley...

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
7/17/2006 2:22:37 AM
In article 
<ericp06-93FF2C.14122716072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is 
> > > not correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> > 
> > It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to 
> > reference a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether 
> > it is reached the point of being standard usage yet, though.
> 
> Hopefully it will never become standard usage. The dumbing down of 
> America is a sad thing indeed ;)

Actually, as others have pointed out, it started out as being both 
singular and plural, just as "you" is.  It's returning to its roots.

I objected to its use as a singular pronoun for a long time, but I 
accept it for informal use now.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/17/2006 5:23:14 AM
In article <160720061344177198%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>,
 Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to 
> > reference a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether 
> > it is reached the point of being standard usage yet, though.
> 
> It has been acceptable since the 1300s and has been used by notables 
> such as Shakespeare and Chaucer.

It was acceptable, then fell out of favor, and is now becoming 
acceptable again.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/17/2006 5:24:58 AM
In article <U.R.N.Idiot-07647D.17032416072006@news.verizon.net>,
 Ura Dippschit <U.R.N.Idiot@idiots.net> wrote:

> Like capitalizing words in quotes? Or perhaps using acronyms? How 
> 'bout using the ellipse incorrectly or forgetting to end a sentence 
> with a period?

Do you mean that a woman can get out of jail when it's "that time of 
month"?

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/17/2006 5:26:02 AM
In article <michelle-59BD12.22260116072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <U.R.N.Idiot-07647D.17032416072006@news.verizon.net>,
>  Ura Dippschit <U.R.N.Idiot@idiots.net> wrote:
> 
> > Like capitalizing words in quotes? Or perhaps using acronyms? How 
> > 'bout using the ellipse incorrectly or forgetting to end a sentence 
> > with a period?
> 
> Do you mean that a woman can get out of jail when it's "that time of 
> month"?

Wow. Comedy school is on summer break, huh? :)
0
7/17/2006 6:06:23 AM
TaliesinSoft wrote:

> Some time back someone suggested, I hope not seriously, that what we need is 
> a pronoun that refers to all genders, one that combines she, he, and it. 
> Don't ask! 
> 

Sounds like someone looking for a solution in search of a problem.
Two English pronouns in common use for centuries that refer adequately 
to both sexes (or generally to a person whose sex is not known) are "he" 
and "him".
Seems an awful lot of effort is wasted, trying to make English 
"inclusive". It already is inclusive. English-speaking people don't need 
new pronouns, just intelligent and reasonable use of the ones we have.

0
offbyone (40)
7/17/2006 8:58:01 AM
TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:26:48 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article 
> <michelle-080BF9.08264816072006@news.west.cox.net>): 
> 
>> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, "Jacques S." 
>> <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote: 
>>
>>> Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
>>> correct English (or French or German or Dutch). 
>> It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to reference 
>> a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it is reached 
>> the point of being standard usage yet, though. 
> 
> From the Oxford American Dictionary which is included with OS X..... 
> 
> ============================== 
> 
> The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a 
> singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used since 
> at least the sixteenth century. In the late twentieth century, as the 
> traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came under scrutiny 
> on the grounds of sexism, this use of they has become more common. It is now 
> generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as 
> anyone, no one, someone, or a person:: anyone can join if they are a 
> resident; | each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular 
> nouns, the use of they is now common, although less widely accepted, esp. in 
> formal contexts. Sentences such as | ask a friend if they could help are 
> still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the 
> growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used 
> in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly. 
> ============================== 
> 
Um, yeah. I said that, I think, with fewer words.
Bullet points:
- 'their' is in common use as a singular pronoun
- it's incorrect

-- 
Jacques
0
offbyone (40)
7/17/2006 9:58:17 AM
In article <U.R.N.Idiot-07647D.17032416072006@news.verizon.net>,
 Ura Dippschit <U.R.N.Idiot@idiots.net> wrote:

> In article 
> <ericp06-A8E608.14205116072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > Still sends up the "Ignorant" flag in my mind...YMMV ;)
> 
> Like capitalizing words in quotes? Or perhaps using acronyms? How 'bout 
> using the ellipse incorrectly or forgetting to end a sentence with a 
> period?

Ellipse? I learned that an ellipse is the locus of points the sum of 
whose distances from two fixed points is a constant.

Had no idea it was an alternative for "ellipsis points." (But I do see, 
checking now, that it is.)

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/17/2006 10:59:57 AM
In article 
<ericp06-30A579.15190316072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <n1yug.1806$us.1767@trnddc04>,
>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > Jacques S. wrote:
> > > It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own initiative". 
> > > "Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, "distributor" is 
> > > singular.
> > > What you wrote is common in modern American usage--so I guess it would 
> > > be acceptable to Wes, according to his 50/75 rule. But it is wrong. 
> > > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> > > correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> > 
> > Who/what is the authority that declares the majority of
> > educated speakers "wrong" ?  What gives them the right
> > to make that declaration ?
> > 
> > (Yes, I said 'them' intentionally.  I usually say
> > "him or her."  But I never give anyone a hard time
> > over it.)
> 
> There is a governing body of the language.

Not the one we're using now.


> I don't know what it is called, but I'm sure it's involved in
> updating dictionaries, among other things.

There's a difference between being sure and being correct, as it 
happens. This is one of those times. Most dictionaries tell you what 
words mean, rather than what a small council of people think they should 
mean. As such they get updated every so often to include new words and 
new usage as well as note obsolescence.


> Individuals don't have the right to determine policy where a
> language is concerned, ....

Actually, I would say that usage determines policy far more often than 
policy determines usage, so in that sense individuals - whether they 
"have the right" or not - _do_ define words and the appropriate ways to 
arrange them.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/17/2006 11:05:42 AM
In article <44bb5f3a$0$890$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
 "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> TaliesinSoft wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:26:48 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article 
> > <michelle-080BF9.08264816072006@news.west.cox.net>): 
> > 
> >> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, "Jacques S." 
> >> <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote: 
> >>
> >>> Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> >>> correct English (or French or German or Dutch). 
> >> It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to reference 
> >> a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it is reached 
> >> the point of being standard usage yet, though. 
> > 
> > From the Oxford American Dictionary which is included with OS X..... 
> > 
> > ============================== 
> > 
> > The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a 
> > singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used 
> > since 
> > at least the sixteenth century. In the late twentieth century, as the 
> > traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came under 
> > scrutiny 
> > on the grounds of sexism, this use of they has become more common. It is 
> > now 
> > generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such 
> > as 
> > anyone, no one, someone, or a person:: anyone can join if they are a 
> > resident; | each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular 
> > nouns, the use of they is now common, although less widely accepted, esp. 
> > in 
> > formal contexts. Sentences such as | ask a friend if they could help are 
> > still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the 
> > growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is 
> > used 
> > in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly. 
> > ============================== 
> > 
> Um, yeah. I said that, I think, with fewer words.
> Bullet points:
> - 'their' is in common use as a singular pronoun
> - it's incorrect

Exactly how is it sensible to claim that something which is in common 
use is 'incorrect' given that natural languages, unlike computer 
languages, are not governed by standards organisations?

With respect to this particular example, the use of 'they/them/their' as 
a generic pronoun has been common throughout the history of English (not 
just in cases where the gender is unspecified). The idea that it is 
'incorrect' was imposed upon the language during the 18th century by a 
single individual who felt that logical principles needed to be restored 
to English and that therefore, singulars should be singular not plural 
(along with a variety of other equally unfounded principles, e.g. that 
double negatives make a positive).

However, this argument isn't particularly compelling given that the 
grammatical concept of number does not map directly onto the semantic 
concept of the same name. Grammatically plural forms are very frequently 
used to denote singular entities, particularly in pronoun systems where 
plurality is used not only to signal semantically plural entities, but 
also to indicate social distance.

Andr�

-- 
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address
0
agisaak2 (57)
7/17/2006 1:24:45 PM
Jerry Kindall wrote:
> In article <michelle-080BF9.08264816072006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
>>  "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
>>> correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
 >>
>> It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to 
>> reference a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether it 
>> is reached the point of being standard usage yet, though.
> 
> It has been acceptable since the 1300s and has been used by notables
> such as Shakespeare and Chaucer.
> 
> http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html
> 

If you look at the examples there, he uses of "they" or "their" do in 
fact agree as to number.
0
7/17/2006 2:05:52 PM
In message <0001HW.C0DFCA52000729FBF0284500@news.supernews.com>
          TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:29:06 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote
> (in article <michelle-4831D7.08290616072006@news.west.cox.net>):
> 
>> "Chuffed" is a new one to me.  What does it mean?
> 
> From the built in to OS X American Oxford Dictionary....
> 
> adjective [ predic. ] Brit., informal
> very pleased : I'm dead chuffed to have won.
> ORIGIN 1950s: from dialect chuff [plump or pleased.]

I wouldn't rely on the supplied dictionary for translation. It gets 
British 'practise' and 'practice' wrong by describing them as 
equivalent, which is a fairly basic error.

-- 
Fred
0
Fred
7/17/2006 4:23:23 PM
In article 
<ericp06-30A579.15190316072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <n1yug.1806$us.1767@trnddc04>,
>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > Jacques S. wrote:
> > > It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own 
> > > initiative". "Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, 
> > > "distributor" is singular. What you wrote is common in modern 
> > > American usage--so I guess it would be acceptable to Wes, 
> > > according to his 50/75 rule. But it is wrong. Subject and verb of 
> > > a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not correct English 
> > > (or French or German or Dutch).
> > 
> > Who/what is the authority that declares the majority of educated 
> > speakers "wrong" ?  What gives them the right to make that 
> > declaration ?
> > 
> > (Yes, I said 'them' intentionally.  I usually say "him or her."  
> > But I never give anyone a hard time over it.)
> 
> There is a governing body of the language.

Of English? No, there's not.

> I don't know what it is called, but I'm sure it's involved in 
> updating dictionaries, among other things.

English dictionaries are descriptive, no prescriptive. They're changed 
to reflect the way language is actually used. The OED, which is probably 
the preeminent dictionary for the language, does extensive research -- 
looking at newspapers, television, the Internet, etc. to find new words 
and usage changes in the real world, which are then incorporated into 
the dictionary.

> Individuals don't have the right to determine policy where a language 
> is concerned,

Yes, they do. In fact, this is how language is created and how it 
evolves over time

> just as they don't have the right to make up their own 
> Netspeak with any hope of being taken seriously...but then, it 
> appears to me that few who communicate via the Internet are 
> interested in being taken seriously *L*

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
0
znu (10395)
7/17/2006 4:29:52 PM
In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
 "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> Jon wrote:
> > Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> > 
> 
> > AFAIK, initially it was the local distributor that did it on their own
> > initiative.
> 
> [re: the other half of this thread]
> It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own initiative". 
> "Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, "distributor" is singular.
> What you wrote is common in modern American usage--so I guess it would 
> be acceptable to Wes, according to his 50/75 rule. But it is wrong. 
> Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> correct English (or French or German or Dutch).

"Their" is not only widely used as a singular pronoun today, but has 
been so used for 700 years, including by some of the greatest writers in 
the language.

The "rule" that you're not allowed to do this is much like the "rule" 
that you're not allowed to split prepositions in English; relatively 
modern nonsense invented by people with too much time on their hands.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
0
znu (10395)
7/17/2006 4:34:03 PM
In article 
<ericp06-21D00C.00275116072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <michelle-E4B4BC.09120115072006@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-A31749.11520015072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Now how does Jethro Tull fit into this? A group known by the name of 
> > > a single real person who's not a member?
> > 
> > LOL.  I just posted the same question.
> 
> Jethro Tull are a band, in the way that Led Zeppelin were a band.
> A band of musicians. If you can say it's a collection of something,
> it's a plural entity (no, that's not a technical English term, American
> English or otherwise...I just came up with it). At least that's how
> my mind makes sense of it.

The term you're looking for is "collective noun". When the members of a 
group act together to perform a single action, it's a singular subject, 
and when they act separately, it's a plural subject.

Consider:

The team walks onto the field.
The team head for their homes.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
0
znu (10395)
7/17/2006 4:36:16 PM
In article <znu-349C79.12340317072006@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
>  "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> > Jon wrote:
> > > Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> > > AFAIK, initially it was the local distributor that did it on their own
> > > initiative.
> > 
> > [re: the other half of this thread]
> > It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own initiative". 
> > "Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, "distributor" is singular.
> > What you wrote is common in modern American usage--so I guess it would 
> > be acceptable to Wes, according to his 50/75 rule. But it is wrong. 
> > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> > correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> 
> "Their" is not only widely used as a singular pronoun today, but has 
> been so used for 700 years, including by some of the greatest writers in 
> the language.
> 
> The "rule" that you're not allowed to do this is much like the "rule" 
> that you're not allowed to split prepositions in English;

[Boggle] I think you've conflated two senseless rules.

G

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/17/2006 5:00:15 PM
In article <uce-481336.13001517072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <znu-349C79.12340317072006@individual.net>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
> >  "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > 
> > > Jon wrote:
> > > > Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > AFAIK, initially it was the local distributor that did it on their own
> > > > initiative.
> > > 
> > > [re: the other half of this thread]
> > > It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own initiative". 
> > > "Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, "distributor" is 
> > > singular.
> > > What you wrote is common in modern American usage--so I guess it would 
> > > be acceptable to Wes, according to his 50/75 rule. But it is wrong. 
> > > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> > > correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> > 
> > "Their" is not only widely used as a singular pronoun today, but has 
> > been so used for 700 years, including by some of the greatest writers in 
> > the language.
> > 
> > The "rule" that you're not allowed to do this is much like the "rule" 
> > that you're not allowed to split prepositions in English;
> 
> [Boggle] I think you've conflated two senseless rules.

Actually, the prohibition against splitting prepositions is a perfectly 
sensible one (unlike, for example, the prohibition against splitting 
infinitives or stranding prepositions).

Consider the following two sentences (and I use the term rather loosely 
in the second instance).

(1) John and Mary went to the store.
(2) John and Mary went t the o store.

Clearly the first one is more comprehensible. I'd go so far as to say 
the second violates the grammar of English.

Andr�

-- 
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address
0
agisaak2 (57)
7/17/2006 5:16:52 PM
In article <znu-458492.12295217072006@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> English dictionaries are descriptive, no prescriptive. They're changed 
> to reflect the way language is actually used. The OED, which is probably 
> the preeminent dictionary for the language...

Just a minor point here:

The OED has the distinction of being the heaviest dictionary of the 
English language and, in its compact form, the one most likely to cause 
permanent damage to your eyesight, but the commonly held view that it is 
the 'preeminent' dictionary of English is one that should really be 
questioned. The OED is rather dated in most respects, and despite the 
fact that OUP continues to add to the dictionary, many dictionaries do a 
much superior job at capturing current usage than the OED.

If you are interested in archaic usages (especially pre-Elizabethan 
ones) or in collecting examples of usage across time, the OED is 
probably the best dictionary to look at. However, for most other 
purposes, other dictionaries (AHD for example) do a considerably better 
job. As you say, though, the majority of good dictionaries of English 
adopt a descriptive approach (though to varying degrees).

Andr�

-- 
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address
0
agisaak2 (57)
7/17/2006 5:25:03 PM
Davoud wrote:
> Paul Sture wrote:
>> I'd agree. In my experience many French will always _write_ the "ne", 
>> but only use it in the spoken word for emphasis.
>>
>> P.S. Parisian argot is not what I'd call "proper" French ;.)
> 
> You've been doing great up until now. Parisian argot is proper French.

<Rant snipped>

Attention � la pression art�rielle!

Since you left out John's quote '"proper" French', and the previous 
reference to L'Acad�mie Fran�aise, plus my smiley, you have effectively 
misquoted me.


P.S. Paris is where I learnt that in spoken French the "ne" is dropped 
so often.
0
7/17/2006 6:26:31 PM
TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:14:14 -0500, Eric P. wrote
> (in article <ericp06-7B7C26.14140616072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>):
> 
>> "Dude" is a universal pronoun ;)
> 
> Not yet, at least to the Oxford American Dictionary.
> 

Not here either, and I still don't understand in which contexts it means 
what. I see the Chambers Online Reference

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main

has it as:

"dude noun colloq N Amer, especially US, originally slang 1 a man; a 
guy. 2 a city man, especially an Easterner holidaying in the West. 3 a 
man preoccupied with dressing smartly."
0
7/17/2006 6:36:50 PM
Andr� G. Isaak wrote:

> The OED has the distinction of being the heaviest dictionary of the 
> English language and, in its compact form, the one most likely to cause 
> permanent damage to your eyesight, but the commonly held view that it is 
> the 'preeminent' dictionary of English is one that should really be 
> questioned. The OED is rather dated in most respects, and despite the 
> fact that OUP continues to add to the dictionary, many dictionaries do a 
> much superior job at capturing current usage than the OED.
> 

In the online world, I also have a problem with the OED.

At GBP 195 + VAT or USD 295 per annum for *individuals*, it's too 
expensive by far.

It's also highly annoying that the "rest of the world" at today's mid 
exchange rate of 1.82 USD to 1 GBP has to pay significantly more than 
North and South America (~ $355, *plus* VAT at the prevailing rate).

As for the CD version, available at

http://www.oed.com/services/cd-rom/#cd-uk

that's USD 295 or an even more rip-off rate of GBP 250 + VAT in the 
UK/Europe, and *to add to insult to injury* only runs on Windows.
0
7/17/2006 8:48:13 PM
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:23:23 -0500, Fred wrote
(in article <news50deed474e.fred@ypical.demon.co.uk>):

> I wouldn't rely on the supplied dictionary for translation. It gets British 
> 'practise' and 'practice' wrong by describing them as equivalent, which is a 
> fairly basic error.

Out of curiosity, just what is the difference?

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
7/17/2006 9:24:02 PM
In message <0001HW.C0E16A2200132B9DF0284500@news.supernews.com>
          TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:23:23 -0500, Fred wrote
> (in article <news50deed474e.fred@ypical.demon.co.uk>):
> 
>> I wouldn't rely on the supplied dictionary for translation. It gets British
>> 'practise' and 'practice' wrong by describing them as equivalent, which is a
>> fairly basic error.
> 
> Out of curiosity, just what is the difference?

Practice is a place where you practise.

To be serious, practice is a noun and practise a verb. Practice is the 
work or place of work of a professional such as a doctor. Practise is 
to repeatedly act to maintain or improve skills, or to carry out 
professional work.

-- 
Fred
0
Fred
7/17/2006 9:54:17 PM
TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:23:23 -0500, Fred wrote
> (in article <news50deed474e.fred@ypical.demon.co.uk>):
> 
>> I wouldn't rely on the supplied dictionary for translation. It gets British 
>> 'practise' and 'practice' wrong by describing them as equivalent, which is a 
>> fairly basic error.
> 
> Out of curiosity, just what is the difference?
> 

In the UK, "practice" is the noun, "practise" is the verb.
0
7/17/2006 10:33:22 PM
Paul Sture wrote:
> TaliesinSoft wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:23:23 -0500, Fred wrote
>> (in article <news50deed474e.fred@ypical.demon.co.uk>):
>>
>>> I wouldn't rely on the supplied dictionary for translation. It gets 
>>> British 'practise' and 'practice' wrong by describing them as 
>>> equivalent, which is a fairly basic error.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, just what is the difference?
>>
> 
> In the UK, "practice" is the noun, "practise" is the verb.

Similarly, "licence" and "license"...
0
com.gmail2 (247)
7/17/2006 10:55:24 PM
In article <U.R.N.Idiot-07647D.17032416072006@news.verizon.net>,
 Ura Dippschit <U.R.N.Idiot@idiots.net> wrote:

> In article 
> <ericp06-A8E608.14205116072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > Still sends up the "Ignorant" flag in my mind...YMMV ;)
> 
> Like capitalizing words in quotes? Or perhaps using acronyms? How 'bout 
> using the ellipse incorrectly or forgetting to end a sentence with a 
> period?

Internet conventions don't count. Ha!
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/17/2006 11:00:27 PM
In article <y9dr70lvzba.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
 William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:

> "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> 
> > 
> > There is a governing body of the language. I don't know what
> > it is called, but I'm sure it's involved in updating dictionaries,
> > among other things.
> 
> The last I heard, there is no governing body for the English
> language. 

I have been the victim of propaganda here, then, and I concede
the point. There aught to be such a governing body, IMHO.

> > Individuals don't have the right to determine policy where a
> > language is concerned, just as they don't have the right to
> > make up their own Netspeak with any hope of being taken
> > seriously.
> 
> When I speak or write I'm interested in communication.  To the extent
> that grammar rules contribute to that, they are important.   Of much
> less importance, it can be worth it to avoid a violation of rules to
> avoid distracting someone like you from what I'm trying to
> communicate.

It certainly is helpful to follow established form in hopes of being
understood. There are probably times when I make errors in my
writing, but I catch and correct as many as I can. I've developed
a somewhat (?) annoying eye for that sort of thing *L*

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/17/2006 11:05:53 PM
In article <mcBug.5477$k31.2019@trnddc06>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Eric P. wrote:
> > I am 100% opposed to incorrect grammar in any language, in any forum.
> > This is due to a few factors that contributed to the shaping of me. In my
> > advancing years (ha!), I'm reprogramming myself to greater tolerance in
> > some aspects of life, but not by much ;)
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that.  I used to be a grammar curmudgeon, too.
> But long ago I realized I have more important goals than futile
> attempts to make people feel bad for doing things that harm no one.
> 
> (OK, I admit certain constructs still make me cringe inwardly,
> but if putting it on a r�sum� won't hurt his chances of getting
> hired, then I refrain from complaining.)

I don't do it to put anyone down or attempt to make a person feel
inferior (or myself superior). If I say a person is ignorant, that isn't
an insult, either, but rather it states lack of awareness. I prefer to
encourage people to think.

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/17/2006 11:09:32 PM
In article <XmBug.5481$k31.177@trnddc06>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> William Mitchell wrote:
> > less importance, it can be worth it to avoid a violation of rules to
> > avoid distracting someone like you from what I'm trying to
> > communicate.
> 
> In other words, use language that won't turn off your
> audience--even if that audience consciously or unconsciously
> thinks "SNOB" when they hear language that obeys the
> "Academy" commandments.
> 
> Of course, we're on Usenet, so our audience is a combination
> of snobs, anti-snobs, and folks in-between.  So ya mize well
> write like ya wanna.

Ouch! *LOL*
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/17/2006 11:11:28 PM
In article <michelle-62379F.22231416072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <ericp06-93FF2C.14122716072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > > > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is 
> > > > not correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> > > 
> > > It is getting more common to use "their" as singular pronoun to 
> > > reference a person whose gender is not known.  I don't know whether 
> > > it is reached the point of being standard usage yet, though.
> > 
> > Hopefully it will never become standard usage. The dumbing down of 
> > America is a sad thing indeed ;)
> 
> Actually, as others have pointed out, it started out as being both 
> singular and plural, just as "you" is.  It's returning to its roots.
> 
> I objected to its use as a singular pronoun for a long time, but I 
> accept it for informal use now.

It's much clearer in some other languages than it is in English. If
I had my druthers (yes, I know :) ), I'd speak nothing but French,
but only if everyone with whom I spoke understood the language.

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/17/2006 11:13:32 PM
In article <agisaak-3E493A.08240817072006@news.telus.net>,
 "Andr� G. Isaak" <agisaak@gplatypusmail.com> wrote:

> In article <znu-458492.12295217072006@individual.net>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > English dictionaries are descriptive, no prescriptive. They're changed 
> > to reflect the way language is actually used. The OED, which is probably 
> > the preeminent dictionary for the language...
> 
> Just a minor point here:
> 
> The OED has the distinction of being the heaviest dictionary of the 
> English language and, in its compact form, the one most likely to cause 
> permanent damage to your eyesight, but the commonly held view that it is 
> the 'preeminent' dictionary of English is one that should really be 
> questioned. The OED is rather dated in most respects, and despite the 
> fact that OUP continues to add to the dictionary, many dictionaries do a 
> much superior job at capturing current usage than the OED.
> 
> If you are interested in archaic usages (especially pre-Elizabethan 
> ones) or in collecting examples of usage across time, the OED is 
> probably the best dictionary to look at. However, for most other 
> purposes, other dictionaries (AHD for example) do a considerably better 
> job. As you say, though, the majority of good dictionaries of English 
> adopt a descriptive approach (though to varying degrees).
> 
> Andr�

I much prefer the American Heritage Dictionary. That dictionary is
recommended above all others at the college I attend, and I'm
content with the recommendation.

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/17/2006 11:19:29 PM
In article <c0972$44bbd8c2$50db5015$7163@news.hispeed.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> TaliesinSoft wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:14:14 -0500, Eric P. wrote
> > (in article <ericp06-7B7C26.14140616072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>):
> > 
> >> "Dude" is a universal pronoun ;)
> > 
> > Not yet, at least to the Oxford American Dictionary.
> > 
> 
> Not here either, and I still don't understand in which contexts it means 
> what. I see the Chambers Online Reference
> 
> http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main
> 
> has it as:
> 
> "dude noun colloq N Amer, especially US, originally slang 1 a man; a 
> guy. 2 a city man, especially an Easterner holidaying in the West. 3 a 
> man preoccupied with dressing smartly."

It is a slang term. In California, some people use it to address any
person directly. Not proper for many reasons, but in common use.

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/17/2006 11:21:50 PM
In article <e9h4gs$jr7$2@reader01.news.esat.net>,
 Calum <com.gmail@scottishwildcat.nospam> wrote:

> Paul Sture wrote:
> > TaliesinSoft wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:23:23 -0500, Fred wrote
> >> (in article <news50deed474e.fred@ypical.demon.co.uk>):
> >>
> >>> I wouldn't rely on the supplied dictionary for translation. It gets 
> >>> British 'practise' and 'practice' wrong by describing them as 
> >>> equivalent, which is a fairly basic error.
> >>
> >> Out of curiosity, just what is the difference?
> >>
> > 
> > In the UK, "practice" is the noun, "practise" is the verb.
> 
> Similarly, "licence" and "license"...

American English simplifies such things into one spelling, relying
on context for the hearer/reader to understand the meaning.

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/17/2006 11:24:02 PM
In article 
<ericp06-8ABD91.16054017072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <y9dr70lvzba.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
>  William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> 
> > The last I heard, there is no governing body for the English
> > language. 
> 
> I have been the victim of propaganda here, then, and I concede
> the point. There aught to be such a governing body, IMHO.

And then a squad of enforcers to point out things like the word "aught" 
showing up where "ought" should be used?

Why should there be such a body? For good or ill, language is organic. 
It changes not just from country to country and year to year, but from 
home to home and from day to day. Like any other communication, the goal 
is to be understood and all the rules in the world won't help if the 
listener doesn't know them exactly as well as the speaker.

G

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/18/2006 12:06:12 AM
In article 
<ericp06-8ABD91.16054017072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <y9dr70lvzba.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
>  William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> 
> > The last I heard, there is no governing body for the English
> > language. 
> 
> I have been the victim of propaganda here, then, and I concede
> the point. There aught to be such a governing body, IMHO.

Yes, it's worked out so well for the French.  :-)

There is evidence that languages aren't so much passed down from parent 
to child as invented anew in each generation (see Steven Pinker's _The 
Language Instinct_).  The only languages that don't change are dead ones.
-- 
Bright eyes/burning like fire, � � � � � | Kevin Michael Vail
Bright eyes/how can you close and fail?� | kevin@vaildc.net
How can the light that shone so brightly | . . . . . . . . . .
Suddenly shine so pale?/Bright eyes� � � |� . . . . . . . . .
0
kevin135 (224)
7/18/2006 12:22:47 AM
In article <y9dr70lvzba.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
 William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> The last I heard, there is no governing body for the English
> language. 

Well, there are, if you get over the illusion that there is a singular 
"English language" as spoken or written.  If you are writing for the New 
York Times or the New England Journal of Medicine there are certainly 
bodies that will have a strong influence on shaping that particular mode.

> When I speak or write I'm interested in communication.  To the extent
> that grammar rules contribute to that, they are important.   Of much
> less importance, it can be worth it to avoid a violation of rules to
> avoid distracting someone like you from what I'm trying to
> communicate.

I'm a bit spoiled by too much professional and recreational contact with 
linguists.  From this perspective, I have discovered that most language 
pedants appear to be woefully ignorant and naive about the language they 
attempt to promote.

Most of the real "grammar rules" of any language are mastered in early 
childhood.  What is taught in schools, (and argued about at length on 
the Internet) are not rules of grammar, but the stylistic conventions of 
a formalized mode of a privileged class.  Much of these arguments 
include a vast depth of silliness, like ignoring the fact that any 
language will have a wide number of modes in which the rules are 
adjusted to meet the context and demands of the channel.  

Spoken conversation, newspaper writing, and literary fiction are 
different modes.  The "rules" adapt to the demands of the media, 
feedback, context and audience.  A convention that is correct for JAMA 
is almost completely incomprehensible for news radio.  More formalized 
modes are shaped by editorial boards, who are powerful gatekeepers for 
determining the linguistic practices within a community.  

Some people will claim that a synopsis of these rules as described in 
textbooks created for the mass markets of Texas and California 
constitute "proper" or "ideal" English. This claim tends to draw 
skepticism from people who study language as something other than an 
exercise in pedantic one-upmanship (as well as people who study the 
messy and uncomfortable political processes behind school curricula).  
Some of the more "ignorant" modes of North American English are just as 
consistent as formal modes, and have verb tenses and emphatic 
constructions that are more difficult to convey in more formal modes.  

(I know that Mr. Mitchell is not guilty of the sins I describe.  This 
post just offered the ideal springboard for my own pedantic 
one-upmanship.)
0
kirk14 (92)
7/18/2006 1:06:03 AM
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:24:02 -0500, Eric P. wrote
(in article <ericp06-7003B3.16234917072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>):

> American English simplifies such things into one spelling, relying on context 

> for the hearer/reader to understand the meaning.

Like "capitol" for the building but "capital" for the city.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
7/18/2006 1:11:20 AM
Eric P. wrote:
> I have been the victim of propaganda here, then, and I concede
> the point. There aught to be such a governing body, IMHO.

I think it would be embarrassingly hypocritical for the
language that turned "karaoke" into "carry Okie" to have
an Academy telling people how to speak.

-- 
Wes Groleau
   ----
   The man who reads nothing at all is better educated
   than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
                             -- Thomas Jefferson
0
news31 (6772)
7/18/2006 2:29:21 AM
In article <kirk-DFE6DF.21061617072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 Kirk  Sluder <kirk@nospam.jobsluder.net> wrote:

> Spoken conversation, newspaper writing, and literary fiction are 
> different modes.  The "rules" adapt to the demands of the media, 
> feedback, context and audience.  A convention that is correct for JAMA 
> is almost completely incomprehensible for news radio.  More formalized 
> modes are shaped by editorial boards, who are powerful gatekeepers for 
> determining the linguistic practices within a community.  

Interesting stuff. 

Usenet would be another mode, I reckon, sort of a mix of spoken 
conversation, newspaper writing, literary fiction, rhetoric, and that 
old lady who used to stand out in the rain in Times Square raving about 
Jesus.
-- 
P_J
<prestor_jack@yahoo.com>
0
7/18/2006 11:13:28 AM
Paul Sture schrieb:

> I also have a problem with the OED.
....
> that's USD 295 or an even more rip-off

Do you have the slightest idea how expensive it is to keep such a 
thoroughly researched dictionary up to date?

> and *to add to insult to injury* only runs on Windows.

No comment to this.

Stefan (still running version 1 of OED under Classic)
0
Stefan
7/18/2006 12:00:15 PM
In article <2fd61$44bccd50$54497f14$25360@news.hispeed.ch>, Stefan
<stefan@mus._INVALID_.ch> wrote:

> > I also have a problem with the OED.
> ...
> > that's USD 295 or an even more rip-off
> 
> Do you have the slightest idea how expensive it is to keep such a 
> thoroughly researched dictionary up to date?

The corresponding dictionary over the Swedish language, SAOB, is free online:
  http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/18/2006 2:18:17 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <2fd61$44bccd50$54497f14$25360@news.hispeed.ch>, Stefan
> <stefan@mus._INVALID_.ch> wrote:
> 
>>> I also have a problem with the OED.
>> ...
>>> that's USD 295 or an even more rip-off
>> Do you have the slightest idea how expensive it is to keep such a 
>> thoroughly researched dictionary up to date?
> 
> The corresponding dictionary over the Swedish language, SAOB, is free online:
>   http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/
> 

And upgrading from Panther to Tiger gets me an app "based on The New 
Oxford American Dictionary", at less than half the cost of the OED, and 
I want to upgrade for the other features of Tiger anyway.

By way of comparison, Encyclopedia Britannica is available either online 
  (GBP 39.99)  or on DVD at much more reasonable prices. E.g. The 
"Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2006 DVD" at only GBP 32.99.

http://britannicashop.britannica.co.uk/epages/britannicashop.storefront/44bcf36800173252273fc0a84b02064f/Product/View/1299

(sorry if that wraps)
0
7/18/2006 3:00:08 PM
Paul Sture wrote:
> Hans Aberg wrote:
>> In article <2fd61$44bccd50$54497f14$25360@news.hispeed.ch>, Stefan
>> <stefan@mus._INVALID_.ch> wrote:
>>
>>>> I also have a problem with the OED.
>>> ...
>>>> that's USD 295 or an even more rip-off
>>> Do you have the slightest idea how expensive it is to keep such a 
>>> thoroughly researched dictionary up to date?
>>
>> The corresponding dictionary over the Swedish language, SAOB, is free 
>> online:
>>   http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/
>>
> 
> And upgrading from Panther to Tiger gets me an app "based on The New 
> Oxford American Dictionary", at less than half the cost of the OED, and 
> I want to upgrade for the other features of Tiger anyway.
> 
> By way of comparison, Encyclopedia Britannica is available either online 
>  (GBP 39.99)  or on DVD at much more reasonable prices. E.g. The 
> "Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2006 DVD" at only GBP 32.99.

Oops. I forgot too say that the Britannica products also support OS X :-)
0
7/18/2006 3:01:27 PM
In article <650f8$44bcf779$50db5015$11904@news.hispeed.ch>, Paul Sture
<paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> By way of comparison, Encyclopedia Britannica is available either online 
>   (GBP 39.99)  or on DVD at much more reasonable prices. E.g. The 
> "Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2006 DVD" at only GBP 32.99.
> 
>
http://britannicashop.britannica.co.uk/epages/britannicashop.storefront/44bcf36800173252273fc0a84b02064f/Product/View/1299

The Wikipedia <http://wikipedia.org/>� is available free
online.�Especially the English is good <http://en.wikipedia.org/>. It has
been�compared by an expert�committee with the one you mention above, and
the Wikipedia has something an average of four errors per article, and the
one above three; so in this crude measure of quality, they are quite
close. So don't trust any encyclopedia, but cross-verify.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
7/18/2006 4:58:01 PM
In article <uce-481336.13001517072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <znu-349C79.12340317072006@individual.net>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
> >  "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > 
> > > Jon wrote:
> > > > Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > AFAIK, initially it was the local distributor that did it on their own
> > > > initiative.
> > > 
> > > [re: the other half of this thread]
> > > It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own initiative". 
> > > "Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, "distributor" is 
> > > singular.
> > > What you wrote is common in modern American usage--so I guess it would 
> > > be acceptable to Wes, according to his 50/75 rule. But it is wrong. 
> > > Subject and verb of a sentence must agree as to number, or it is not 
> > > correct English (or French or German or Dutch).
> > 
> > "Their" is not only widely used as a singular pronoun today, but has 
> > been so used for 700 years, including by some of the greatest writers in 
> > the language.
> > 
> > The "rule" that you're not allowed to do this is much like the "rule" 
> > that you're not allowed to split prepositions in English;
> 
> [Boggle] I think you've conflated two senseless rules.

Heh, oops.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
0
znu (10395)
7/18/2006 5:52:48 PM
Eric P. <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> There is a governing body of the language. I don't know what
> it is called, but I'm sure it's involved in updating dictionaries,
> among other things.
I've never heard about one governing body overseeing English, but there
is one for German and a right bloody mess they've made of things lately!
With all their chopping and changing, the grammar publishers are the
only ones doing well out of the farce with new versions of the language
coming out every year..

RL 
0
rlaughton (180)
7/19/2006 1:11:51 AM
In article <uce-46731C.20061217072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <ericp06-8ABD91.16054017072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <y9dr70lvzba.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
> >  William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > > The last I heard, there is no governing body for the English
> > > language. 
> > 
> > I have been the victim of propaganda here, then, and I concede
> > the point. There aught to be such a governing body, IMHO.
> 
> And then a squad of enforcers to point out things like the word "aught" 
> showing up where "ought" should be used?

I'm not familiar with the word "ought." I'll look up both.

> Why should there be such a body? For good or ill, language is organic. 
> It changes not just from country to country and year to year, but from 
> home to home and from day to day. Like any other communication, the goal 
> is to be understood and all the rules in the world won't help if the 
> listener doesn't know them exactly as well as the speaker.
> 
> G

I'd like for there to be an official organization of some sort that
determines what's considered proper and improper usage of our
language, with a process in place for what becomes acceptable
to add to the official lexicon and grammar base. Just appeals to
my preference for order, I suppose.

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/19/2006 2:13:22 AM
In article <uce-46731C.20061217072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <ericp06-8ABD91.16054017072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <y9dr70lvzba.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
> >  William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > > The last I heard, there is no governing body for the English
> > > language. 
> > 
> > I have been the victim of propaganda here, then, and I concede
> > the point. There aught to be such a governing body, IMHO.
> 
> And then a squad of enforcers to point out things like the word "aught" 
> showing up where "ought" should be used?

Aught is a variant of ought. Both can be used interchangeably, though
it appears that aught is more commonly used to mean "nothing." I've
heard it used that way only when I lived in England.

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/19/2006 2:16:57 AM
In article <0001HW.C0E19F68001FA80AF0284500@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:24:02 -0500, Eric P. wrote
> (in article <ericp06-7003B3.16234917072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>):
> 
> > American English simplifies such things into one spelling, relying on 
> > context 
> 
> > for the hearer/reader to understand the meaning.
> 
> Like "capitol" for the building but "capital" for the city.

I've always wondered about this one...we were taught the
distinction in early school, but never was a reason offered
for it.

- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/19/2006 2:20:26 AM
In article 
<ericp06-F3E3A9.19131618072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I'd like for there to be an official organization of some sort that
> determines what's considered proper and improper usage of our
> language, with a process in place for what becomes acceptable
> to add to the official lexicon and grammar base. Just appeals to
> my preference for order, I suppose.

Or naivet�, I suppose.
0
7/19/2006 4:07:20 AM
In article <44ba25e4$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
 "Jacques S." <offbyone@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> Jon wrote:
> > Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> > 
> 
> > AFAIK, initially it was the local distributor that did it on their own
> > initiative.
> 
> [re: the other half of this thread]
> It was a "...local distributor that did it on *his* own initiative". 
> "Their" is plural; the subject of your sentence, "distributor" is singular.

Nonetheless, I say we should be using it to avoid the egregious 'his or 
her' construction many people have descended to in order to prove their 
non-MCP credentials.

-- tim
0
tim.streater (535)
7/19/2006 10:18:05 AM
In article 
<ericp06-F3E3A9.19131618072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <uce-46731C.20061217072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <ericp06-8ABD91.16054017072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <y9dr70lvzba.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
> > >  William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The last I heard, there is no governing body for the English
> > > > language. 
> > > 
> > > I have been the victim of propaganda here, then, and I concede
> > > the point. There aught to be such a governing body, IMHO.
> > 
> > And then a squad of enforcers to point out things like the word "aught" 
> > showing up where "ought" should be used?
> 
> I'm not familiar with the word "ought." I'll look up both.

"Aught" means "anything." "Ought" means "should"


> > Why should there be such a body? For good or ill, language is organic. 
> > It changes not just from country to country and year to year, but from 
> > home to home and from day to day. Like any other communication, the goal 
> > is to be understood and all the rules in the world won't help if the 
> > listener doesn't know them exactly as well as the speaker.
> 
> I'd like for there to be an official organization of some sort that
> determines what's considered proper and improper usage of our
> language, with a process in place for what becomes acceptable
> to add to the official lexicon and grammar base. Just appeals to
> my preference for order, I suppose.

I sort and align the packets of sweetener every time I sit down in a 
restaurant and I level the shelves in grocery stores. Keep that in mind 
as I say: Attempting to mandate the proper usage of language is a waste 
of time and resources. By the time you go through the approved process 
for a change, the change will at best be passe and may, depending on how 
reactive the body is, already be obsolete.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/19/2006 11:53:41 AM
Eric P. wrote:
> 
> Aught is a variant of ought. Both can be used interchangeably, though
> it appears that aught is more commonly used to mean "nothing." I've
> heard it used that way only when I lived in England.
> 

I have not heard "aught" used as "nothing" for many years, but I recall 
one accounts girl in my first IT job who used it all the time to denote 
zero as opposed to "O". This was in Yorkshire, UK, which has its own 
dialect (with regional variations of course).
0
7/19/2006 12:29:32 PM
Kevin Michael Vail wrote:

> The only languages that don't change are dead ones.

But languages change at very different rates. It is my understanding 
that Afrikaans has stayed pretty much the same as the Dutch spoken by 
the early South African settlers.
0
7/19/2006 12:48:35 PM
Gregory Weston wrote:

> I sort and align the packets of sweetener every time I sit down in a 
> restaurant and I level the shelves in grocery stores. 

So I'm not the only one! I'm off to tell my wife (who thinks my 
behaviour is very strange).

Dale

-- 
dstanbro@spam.o.matic.bigpond.net.au
0
MrNoSpam (150)
7/19/2006 12:59:20 PM
In article <49cdb$44be25ad$50db5015$10466@news.hispeed.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> I have not heard "aught" used as "nothing" for many years, but I recall 
> one accounts girl in my first IT job who used it all the time to denote 
> zero as opposed to "O". This was in Yorkshire, UK, which has its own 
> dialect (with regional variations of course).

My (first) stepmother used to to talk that way. She used aught to mean 
"anything" as in "I've not heard aught about that." She used to say 
"withal" a lot too.
-- 
W. Oates
 Teal'c: He is concealing something.
 O'Neil: Like what?
 Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.
0
warren.oates (3828)
7/19/2006 3:05:14 PM
On 7/19/06 8:05 AM, Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <49cdb$44be25ad$50db5015$10466@news.hispeed.ch>,
>  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
>> I have not heard "aught" used as "nothing" for many years, but I recall 
>> one accounts girl in my first IT job who used it all the time to denote 
>> zero as opposed to "O". This was in Yorkshire, UK, which has its own 
>> dialect (with regional variations of course).
> 
> My (first) stepmother used to to talk that way. She used aught to mean 
> "anything" as in "I've not heard aught about that." She used to say 
> "withal" a lot too.
A hundred years ago, the year was referred to as "aught-six" and
"aughtie-six" by some.

We could do the same, but don't.

-- 
John McWilliams
0
jpmcw (1977)
7/19/2006 3:27:18 PM
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:29:32 -0500, Paul Sture wrote
(in article <49cdb$44be25ad$50db5015$10466@news.hispeed.ch>):

> I have not heard "aught" used as "nothing" for many years, but I recall one 
> accounts girl in my first IT job who used it all the time to denote zero as 
> opposed to "O". This was in Yorkshire, UK, which has its own dialect (with 
> regional variations of course).

One ought not to use "aught" in the United States lest one be misunderstood.

And amongst my favorite English anomalies are "raze" and "raise", both 
antonyms and homonyms.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
7/19/2006 3:32:06 PM
In article <49cdb$44be25ad$50db5015$10466@news.hispeed.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> > Aught is a variant of ought. Both can be used interchangeably, 
> > though it appears that aught is more commonly used to mean 
> > "nothing." I've heard it used that way only when I lived in 
> > England.
> 
> I have not heard "aught" used as "nothing" for many years,

Of course, there's the game of Aughts and Crosses.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
michelle14 (19004)
7/19/2006 3:45:29 PM
Warren Oates wrote:

> My (first) stepmother used to to talk that way. She used aught to mean 
> "anything" as in "I've not heard aught about that."

"Aught" will only come out as "anything" within the scope of a negative
(or possibly question).  Generally "nothing" or "zero" is a better way
to think about it.

Consider

 (1) ?He's heard aught about her.
 (2) *He's heard anything about her.
 (3)  He's heard nothing about her.

 (4)  He hasn't heard aught about her.
 (5)  He hasn't heard anything about her.
 (6) *He hasn't heard nothing about her.

(*-ed sentences aren't grammatical.)

So "anything/nothing" are strange words.  It has other usages, but in
the sense illustrated above it is called a "negative polarity" item.
"Anything" requires negative scope, and "nothing" can't be in negative
scope (in standard American English).

I think that (1) is probably OK.  (I'd need to listen to people who
natively use "aught" to be sure), so that "aught" isn't like "anything"
this way.  So "aught" really means "nothing" but is acceptable in both
negative and positive scope.

Other things about the scope of "nothing" leads to the infamous Ham
Sandwich Theorem.

Premise 1:  Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
Premise 2:  A ham sandwhich is better than nothing.

By transitivity of "better than" (if A is better than B and B is better
than C, then A is better than C) we can conclude:

  A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
 My Reply-To address is valid.
0
nobody30 (1822)
7/19/2006 4:14:32 PM
In article <67idnf-F7f3P0iPZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 7/19/06 8:05 AM, Warren Oates wrote:
> > In article <49cdb$44be25ad$50db5015$10466@news.hispeed.ch>,
> >  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> > 
> >> I have not heard "aught" used as "nothing" for many years, but I recall 
> >> one accounts girl in my first IT job who used it all the time to denote 
> >> zero as opposed to "O". This was in Yorkshire, UK, which has its own 
> >> dialect (with regional variations of course).
> > 
> > My (first) stepmother used to to talk that way. She used aught to mean 
> > "anything" as in "I've not heard aught about that." She used to say 
> > "withal" a lot too.
> A hundred years ago, the year was referred to as "aught-six" and
> "aughtie-six" by some.
> 
> We could do the same, but don't.

Many people still say that today.
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/19/2006 11:54:09 PM
In article <michelle-5C2265.08452819072006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <49cdb$44be25ad$50db5015$10466@news.hispeed.ch>,
>  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
> > > Aught is a variant of ought. Both can be used interchangeably, 
> > > though it appears that aught is more commonly used to mean 
> > > "nothing." I've heard it used that way only when I lived in 
> > > England.
> > 
> > I have not heard "aught" used as "nothing" for many years,
> 
> Of course, there's the game of Aughts and Crosses.

That's noughts and crosses.
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/19/2006 11:54:42 PM
In article <1a916$44be2a25$50db5015$11173@news.hispeed.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> Kevin Michael Vail wrote:
> 
> > The only languages that don't change are dead ones.
> 
> But languages change at very different rates. It is my understanding 
> that Afrikaans has stayed pretty much the same as the Dutch spoken by 
> the early South African settlers.

And Icelandic is essentially ~12th century Old Norse.  But both 
languages have had to change somewhat, if nothing else than to develop 
words for late-20th-century concepts like the Internet.
-- 
Kevin Michael Vail | a billion stars go spinning through the night,
kevin@vaildc.net � | blazing high above your head.
�. . . . . . . . . | But _in_ you is the presence that
� . . . . . . . .� | will be, when all the stars are dead.
�. . . . . . . . . | � � (Rainer Maria Rilke)

0
kevin135 (224)
7/20/2006 12:12:20 AM
Warren Oates wrote:
  dialect (with regional variations of course).
> 
> My (first) stepmother used to to talk that way. She used aught to mean 
> "anything" as in "I've not heard aught about that."

Yes, I recognize that usage.
0
7/20/2006 3:30:41 AM
In article 
<ericp06-DE1770.16543319072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <michelle-5C2265.08452819072006@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <49cdb$44be25ad$50db5015$10466@news.hispeed.ch>,
> >  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Aught is a variant of ought. Both can be used interchangeably, 
> > > > though it appears that aught is more commonly used to mean 
> > > > "nothing." I've heard it used that way only when I lived in 
> > > > England.
> > > 
> > > I have not heard "aught" used as "nothing" for many years,
> > 
> > Of course, there's the game of Aughts and Crosses.
> 
> That's noughts and crosses.
> - E

Naughts. Not noughts.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/20/2006 9:49:06 AM
In article <67idnf-F7f3P0iPZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> A hundred years ago, the year was referred to as "aught-six" and
> "aughtie-six" by some.
> 
> We could do the same, but don't.

I forgot about that. Grandpa Simpson talks that way.
-- 
W. Oates
 Teal'c: He is concealing something.
 O'Neil: Like what?
 Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.
0
warren.oates (3828)
7/20/2006 10:58:50 AM
In article <uce-C894FB.05490620072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <ericp06-DE1770.16543319072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <michelle-5C2265.08452819072006@news.west.cox.net>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <49cdb$44be25ad$50db5015$10466@news.hispeed.ch>,
> > >  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Aught is a variant of ought. Both can be used interchangeably, 
> > > > > though it appears that aught is more commonly used to mean 
> > > > > "nothing." I've heard it used that way only when I lived in 
> > > > > England.
> > > > 
> > > > I have not heard "aught" used as "nothing" for many years,
> > > 
> > > Of course, there's the game of Aughts and Crosses.
> > 
> > That's noughts and crosses.
> > - E
> 
> Naughts. Not noughts.

I've seen it spelled both ways.
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/21/2006 1:46:19 AM
In article <uce-C894FB.05490620072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <ericp06-DE1770.16543319072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <michelle-5C2265.08452819072006@news.west.cox.net>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <49cdb$44be25ad$50db5015$10466@news.hispeed.ch>,
> > >  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Aught is a variant of ought. Both can be used interchangeably, 
> > > > > though it appears that aught is more commonly used to mean 
> > > > > "nothing." I've heard it used that way only when I lived in 
> > > > > England.
> > > > 
> > > > I have not heard "aught" used as "nothing" for many years,
> > > 
> > > Of course, there's the game of Aughts and Crosses.
> > 
> > That's noughts and crosses.
> > - E
> 
> Naughts. Not noughts.

Have you ever seen the spelling "doughnoughts"? Zeros (noughts)
made of dough, is how I figure it was put together.
- E
0
ericp06 (396)
7/21/2006 1:49:52 AM
In article 
<ericp06-FCBC1D.18494820072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Have you ever seen the spelling "doughnoughts"?

No. I have seen the first "ugh" omitted. I have never seen the second 
syllable presented as anything other than "nuts."

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.
0
uce3 (3721)
7/22/2006 12:29:20 AM

Gregory Weston wrote:
>  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> Have you ever seen the spelling "doughnoughts"?
> 
> No. I have seen the first "ugh" omitted. I have never seen the second 
> syllable presented as anything other than "nuts."

Nor have I.  But it is a credible explanation for something that
always puzzled me, i.e., "Why do they call them dough NUTS ?"

Note that "credible" and "true" are not the same thing.

-- 
Wes Groleau
   "Grant me the serenity to accept those I cannot change;
    the courage to change the one I can;
    and the wisdom to know it's me."
                                -- unknown
0
news31 (6772)
7/22/2006 1:53:08 AM
Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes:

> Gregory Weston wrote:
> >  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Have you ever seen the spelling "doughnoughts"?
> > No. I have seen the first "ugh" omitted. I have never seen the
> > second syllable presented as anything other than "nuts."
> 
> Nor have I.  But it is a credible explanation for something that
> always puzzled me, i.e., "Why do they call them dough NUTS ?"
> 

According to several etymology pages on the web, the word is first
known from Washington Irving.  He  defined it there, indicating that
the word was not then generally known.   He used the word for a ball
of dough, not a torus, so it looked like a nut.
-- 
    Bill Mitchell
    Dept of Mathematics,        The University of Florida
    PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
    mitchell@math.ufl.edu	(352) 392-0281 x284
0
mitchell (319)
7/22/2006 1:05:07 PM
In article <y9d1wsdeqnw.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
 William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:

> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes:
> 
> > Gregory Weston wrote:
> > >  "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Have you ever seen the spelling "doughnoughts"?
> > > No. I have seen the first "ugh" omitted. I have never seen the
> > > second syllable presented as anything other than "nuts."
> > 
> > Nor have I.  But it is a credible explanation for something that
> > always puzzled me, i.e., "Why do they call them dough NUTS ?"
> 
> According to several etymology pages on the web, the word is first
> known from Washington Irving.  He  defined it there, indicating that
> the word was not then generally known.   He used the word for a ball
> of dough, not a torus, so it looked like a nut.

And later someone realized that the dough would cook faster and more evenly 
if a hole were poked through it, increasing the surface area and reducing 
the distance the heat must travel to cook all the dough.
0
wayne.morris (951)
7/22/2006 4:47:21 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Apple Boot Camp turns Intel Macs into PCs-only
They install Windows XP, and boot into it, Boot Camp works fine. They then try to boot back into OSX afterwards, they can no longer get back. PCWorld.com - Users Find Flaw in Boot Camp http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,125393,tk,dn041306X,00.asp On 13 Apr 2006 14:04:41 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote: >They install Windows XP, and boot into it, Boot Camp works fine. They >then try to boot back into OSX afterwards, they can no longer get back. > > >PCWorld.com - Users Find Flaw in Boot Camp >http://www.pcworld.com/news/article...

Article: Apple Drops Boot Camp from Mac Ad, Adds Parallels
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/06/27.3.shtml ----- Apple Computer has replaced the reference to Boot Camp in its Touch� commercial with Parallels Desktop. ----- Aha! I know I was not the only one to have predicted this move by Apple to have a VPC like interface for running Windows apps, but it does seem that Apple is almost certainly moving in that direction. Wahooo! I can use my Mac and still run the Windows programs I need based on what I teach. Well done Apple! Well... most likely well done. :) -- � Things which are not the same are not "identical" ��Incest and s...

[News] Parallels, Boot Camp and Now... Fusion Bring Linux to Apple Macs
Ubuntu 6.10 - VMware Fusion - Mac Intel - First Screenshots ,----[ Quote ] | I managed to get my hands on a private beta of the brand spanking new | VMware for Intel Macs earlier today, the following is the first (so I | am aware) screenshot tour of the boot / install process for Ubuntu | 6.10, inside VMware Fusion on a MacBook Pro (Core Duo, 2GHz 1024MB | RAM). `---- http://www.kungfooo.com/2006/11/04/ubuntu-610-vmware-fusion-mac-intel/ Also today: Xubuntu 6.10 installation with screenshots ,----[ Quote ] | Xubuntu is a free Linux based operating system with an Ubuntu base. `---- http:/...

Mac Boot Camp
Is there a way to automatically load the boot loader screen without having to hold the "Option" key? I'm trying to set a mac up with Windows in a lab and it would simplify things for my users if the mac booted straight into the boot loader screen. cwatson81@gmail.com wrote: > Is there a way to automatically load the boot loader screen without > having to hold the "Option" key? I'm trying to set a mac up with > Windows in a lab and it would simplify things for my users if the mac > booted straight into the boot loader screen. this isn't the righ...

Dual Boot Win XP On Macintel: Boot Camp beta from Apple
<http://www.macintouch.com/> Apple today declared war on the Microsoft monopoly with Boot Camp Public Beta: <http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/> Available as a download beginning today, Boot Camp allows users with a Microsoft Windows XP installation disc to install Windows XP on an Intel-based Mac, and once installation is complete, users can restart their computer to run either Mac OS X or Windows XP. Boot Camp will be a feature in "Leopard," Apple's next major release of Mac OS X, that will be previewed at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in Au...

Apple Boot Camp
I have the new Intel MacBook Pro and I am trying to install XP Home using Boot Camp. I have, created the mac driver install disk, partitioned the hard drive with 70G for OSX and 5G for XP. When prompted I inserted the XP cd and clicked start installation. The computer then restarts, ejects the XP cd and displays a message stating there is no bootable device. I then insert my OSX install cd and use the start up disc option to boot into OSX. I have gone through the installation manual multiple times and cannot figure out what I am doing wrong. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. c...

"Running Boot Camp"- The Real Question is Apple fazing itself out
"Running Boot Camp"- The Real Question is Apple fazing itself out - or What is Apple? I have been an Apple guy since 1985 or so and The Apple IIe. Now my problem is this: Software: Mac Software is really not "Apple" (as Copland would have been), but Unix. Or is it? Hardware: Mac hardware is no longer an alternative development track from Intel. Or is it? Aside from the egomaniacal and annoying "i" product identification project (iPod, iMac, iThink therefore iAM) - and the stock surge (deservedly) due to Ipod schtick... ....what is Apple? I can't help ...

com.sys.mac.apps
www.freeservice6.blogspot.com ...

Boot Camp
System: 20" Core 2 Duo Boot Camp 1.1.1 All firmware and software is up to date. Boot Camp works just fine, including my bluetooth kybd and mouse. I'm new to the Apple world, so this might be a dumb question - Now that I have XP Home SP2 installed on my iMac, prior to loading any other software, can I use Norton Ghost, DriveImage Pro or Acronis True Image to create a restore cd(s) of my XP system? I don't completely understand the dual boot process so I'd like to get this info before messing up an otherwise clean XP installation. Thanks! ...

Apple mail App and mac mal
If I use Mac Mail with Entourage I can use an smtp server other than Mac's and this in turn allows me to use my own domain email address (me@my domain.com) rather than my somewhat complicated Mac Mail address. It seems however that I cannot do this with Mail App as this will only allow me to use a single sent address (me@mac.com) when using Mac Mail and that sent address must be my Mac log-in. This is irrespective of whether I use the Mac smtp server or another. Mail App is more flexible in this regard if I use an email service other than Mac. Am I correct in this conclusion? If I ...

Time to abandon Apple, really. Why? Because otherwise Apple soon or later will abandon YOU.
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62056865,00.htm Talkback 1 comments Adobe Creative Suite to abandon PowerPC Macs > This basically means you should go get yourself an Intel-based Mac if you > haven't done so already. No, no, NEVER. I'll never buy any x86(_64) > hardware. PowerPC box owners should now plan to switch to GNU/Linux and > FOSS products such as GIMP and Inkscape. 10 users paying, for example, > developers of GIMP $200 (totally $2000) and asking, for example, for super > CMYK support will result in that CMYK will be very soon in GIMP...

Mac
Hi, I have written a service to launch our wxWidgets Application when the user selects the menu item in the Services menu. The wxWidgets Application is configured to accept command line parameters when starting from the terminal window. I am launching the wxWidgets Application using Mac Launch Services call LSOpenFromURLSpec. I created an apple event descriptor (AEDesc) and added the parameters to pass into the AEDesc for the launch spec. This is not working, the application will launch but the parameters are ignored. Do I need to add an impementation in the wxMyApp::MacOpenFile to...

Broken mac mini after Boot Camp
I tried to install boot camp from leopard yesterday on my intel mac mini Partitioned fine, but I forgot to for format the partition before installing XP so now left with the Disc Error message. Here is the problem. I cannot get the Mini to boot in any other way - holding down C, Option or even the Open Firmware mode does nothing I connect with a Mac usb keyboard. So basically, I now have a nice white stylish paper weight Can any help - im desp Thanks Simon "The Plebism" <theplea@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:5r4vk2F12p3pcU1@mid.individual.net... > I tr...

apple mac app store more megalomania
links from the former apple downloads pages are being redirected to the mac app store where all downloads are controlled, registered, recorded and databased on the path to Lion (Mac looks like iOS) all apps available (maybe only) from the app store for mac, iphone, ipod etc. loss of freeware shareware - all paid apps from mac app store just speculation, other opinions and facts welcome In article <4d4eee52$0$23760$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, opinion <opinion@opine.net> wrote: > links from the former apple downloads pages are being redirected to the > mac a...

Web resources about - Is Apple abandoning Boot Camp? - comp.sys.mac.apps

Abandoning Pretense (@AbandonPretense) on Twitter
Sign in Sign up To bring you Twitter, we and our partners use cookies on our and other websites. Cookies help personalize Twitter content, tailor ...

Hitler learns HP is abandoning WebOS - YouTube
Hitler is upset to learn HP is abandoning WebOS and the TouchPad. But he can't bump his and his mom's together!? All content belongs to the original ...

Thousands of men abandoning controversial prostate cancer screening tests
Thousands of men are abandoning a controversial screening test for prostate cancer, causing diagnoses to plummet in Australia.&nbsp;

Ashley Madison is close to abandoning its London IPO
Extra-marital affairs dating website Ashley...

12 rescued in Torres Strait after abandoning burning boat
Water police rescued 12 people stranded on a remote Torres Strait island on Monday morning, after they were forced to abandon their burning boat ...

O'Farrell accused of abandoning first home buyers
The number of home loans taken out by first home buyers in NSW has plummeted following a state government decision in last year's budget to axe ...

African youths abandoning hope
African youths abandoning hope

High speed chase ends with driver abandoning car, passenger in bushland
... flee police in a high-speed chase that involved ramming two steel gates eventually got stuck in bushland near Stromlo and fled on foot, abandoning ...

Baby Gammy: WA parents of girl born to Thai surrogate deny abandoning twin brother
An Australian couple denies abandoning a boy born with Down syndrome to a surrogate in Thailand.


Resources last updated: 1/24/2016 5:06:34 AM