On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:10:57 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

> I don't know whether I would hate Facebook or not, but I suspect that I
> might. I've never seen it. I have no interest in it.

Thank goodness we have curious younger people driving the human race
forward.

"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote

| BTW,
| app isn't actually an abbreviation, it's a word.
|

:) Such a short sense of history you have. Steve Jobs
started saying "app". ("There's an app for that.") I don't
doubt that it's been added to dictionaries recently, just
as twerk (to perform a standing lap dance) and triggered
(upset over imagined trauma) have probably been added...

After all, Amy Shumer was "triggered" by Will Smith's
slap, and everyone knew she didn't mean that she was
caused by it. So we all know it now as a word in her
usage. But it's a recent slang invention. Even such things
as CAD and HTML may be in modern dictionaries. Are they
not acronyms just because we're used to them?

App comes from a slang abbreviation. There was
no such word before iPhone. My Webster's dictionary has
only "app.", defined as short for appendix, appointed,
approval, or approximate. Why? Because it predates the
invention of the iPhone.

"mechanic" <mechanic@example.net> wrote
Ken Blake wrote:
| | > I don't know whether I would hate Facebook or not, but I suspect that I
| > might. I've never seen it. I have no interest in it.
| | Thank goodness we have curious younger people driving the human race
| forward.

Forward to superimposing dog faces on your friends'
photos while you suck on a vape pen? Or did you mean
driving the human race forward to making no distinction
between pre-digested, targetted, marketting propaganda
and news?

nospam,

>> Kid, you're concentrating on what *isn't* possible, instead of focussing
>> on what *is* - and how to do it.
>
> do not call me kid

Behave like one, get called one. Just be glad that I'm giving you the
benefit of the doubt in that you might grow up and out of it.

> and your statement is false. several people have told you
> what your options are.

Funny in how you exhibit childlike behaviour in trying to change the subject
from you to other people very obvious way - and still protest being called a
kid.

Kid, that what you quoted (and I re-quoted) is all about *you*. And for
that matter, you have not even tried to deny it.

So, take a hike. You have not brought anything to the table that :

1) has not already been said by others

2) brings me nearer to an solution

You however have, rather arrogantly I might add, started with telling me I'm
wrong without providing /any/ kind of reasoning for it, that my browser is
misconfigured and bluntly told me that my browser *has* to run JS.

Goodbye. May our paths never cross again.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:42:02, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 3/31/2022 12:11 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:38:17, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>>>I use YouTube fairly often, mostly because I play classical guitar,
>>>and use YouTube to study and learn from professional performances of
>>>pieces I'm working on.
>>>
>> Yes, but you can add comments to clips -
>
>
>
>Yes, you can, but I never look at them.
>
When I started using it, I never did either; but now, I often do -
partly because I do actually like seeing other people's reaction to a
clip, and partly because they often contain useful extra information
(including corrections to the information the uploader provided!): in
the case of musical performances, things like venue, date, composer,
even lyrics, which the original poster may have omitted (or got wrong);
in the case of news or technical clips, extra information (including
corrections). In both cases, also links to other clips - the same piece
by another performer, or in a different language, or other pieces by the
same performer, or related technical/news ones.

I have - not often, granted - sometimes had a "conversation" with
another reader that has gone to two or three exchanges. Much like usenet
(or, I guess, any other discussion facility).
[]
>Pleasure in my case, too. My guitar playing is for my pleasure, and if
>I get better at a piece, my pleasure increases.
>
Pleased to make your acquaintance; I just wish I had the perseverance to
get good at some instrument!
[]
>> Well, I'll repeat my example - XGODY, a SatNav (GPS) company, only
>> release the URLs for their update map data via a FaceBook group you have
>> to join.
>
>
>I must have missed your example. I've never heard of XGODY.
>
>
A (one of many, probably) Chinese manufacturer of SatNav (GPS) systems,
at well below the price of the ore well-known ones. Here's an example:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154858025945 - note that's aimed at UK, so
probably will have a hefty carriage charge to you and maybe not seem
competitive anyway, but I'm sure they're available in US too, as I've
seen people asking where to get the US map updates. It's certainly a
reasonable price for a 7" SatNav in UK, especially as it comes with more
than just UK/RoI map data (not that I've been abroad with it).
[]
>Yes, I understood the joke and knew you meant "mobile phone." All I
>meant was that I've never run into information I could only get there.
>
>
The example that comes to mind here isn't actually information (though
I'd be surprised if there _isn't_ some information you can only get
there); I'm thinking of rapid chargers for electric vehicles. I'm pretty
sure I've encountered some with nowhere to even swipe a credit card -
where the only way to activate them if with a fobile. I know - because
of the greater distances involved, and lower "gas" prices - that EVs
have caught on a lot less in the USA than here, but - although still
only a small fraction of the vehicles in use, they _are_ catching on
here. (And - totally unrealistically, IMO, in view of the rate of
charging infrastructure development - the government here have said
they'll ban sales of new fuel-only vehicles in 2030, and even hybrids in
2035.) FWIW, I _don't_ have an EV - I have a Diesel (also uncommon in
US). But I find the _concept_ of the assumption of smartphone - and
permanently-on data - irritating.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"You _are_ Zaphod Beeblebrox? _The_ Zaphod Beeblebrox?"
"No, just _a_ Zaphod Beeblebrox. I come in six-packs." (from the link episode)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:56:24, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 3/31/2022 12:15 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
>> you run on a fobile moan.
>
>
>I dislike most abbreviations, but I especially dislike "app," because
>it isn't always used to mean the same thing, and it's often unclear as
>to what is meant. Sometimes someone uses it just to mean a smart phone
>application program, sometimes an application program run on a desktop
>or laptop computer, sometimes even a utility program. Sometimes even a
>single person uses it inconsistently. I generally avoid using it all.

Agreed with all the above, which rationalises my dislike of the term.
>
>
>And speaking of commas, shouldn't it be omitted from your last sentence
>above?
>
Interesting! On first glance, yes. I use comas more than most people
(maybe German influence?) to indicate pauses, but it does make the above
ambiguous.
>
>> But I reserve the right to leave in the full
>> stop (period)
>
>
>"Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If
>I remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in
>"1066 and All That": "History came to a ."
>
Excellent book.
>
>> to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:
>
>Thank you for not writing "acronym," a term that is almost universally
>misused these days.
>
>
To me, an acronym is a _pronounceable_ abbreviation (sometimes with
extra letters of the contributing words left in to make it more so). But
as with many things, its initially-abuse above is probably now in
dictionaries, thus losing another distinction.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on
politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 20:18:13, Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>1: I wouldn't upload a blank piece of paper to Facebook.
>2: I have never used Facebook.
>3: I will never use Facebook or its ilk...
>
>Rene

"Know thine enemy". At least one of the allied generals - I think it
might have been Monty - had a picture of Rommel in his tent - not
because he liked him.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on
politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

On 3/31/2022 6:10 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> To change the subject somewhat, I've been trying to contact a second
>> cousin that I haven't heard from in years. He no longer lives where I
>> last knew where he lived, and none of the old e-mail addresses I have
>> for him work.
>>
>> I'm not even sure he's still alive, but if he is, any suggestions on
>> finding an e-mail address for him?
>
> Maybe a genealogy site might help. Some have free trials, but could be
> too crippled to be of value. Likely you'll have to pay a monthly
> subscription to get a far larger database to search, but you'll have to
> pay for a month if the free trial is fruitless. While such sites try to
> track your ancestry, I've never used one to see if they include contact
> information, like postal addresses, phone numbers, and so on. However,
> they might give info regarding family members either side of the cousin
> to do searches on their contact info.

Thanks, but...

Ten years or so ago I tried unsuccessfully to use genealogy software to
find the names of my paternal grandparents, who I never knew (my parents
were divorced when I was two). With the help of a friend who knows much
more about genealogy than I do, I manged to find out. So I now know a
little (still not much) about such software, and I have no expectation
that such software will help.

> Before wasting time doing all that, is the family around the cousin
> still alive? You didn't mention if 1st, 2nd, 3rd cousin, or other types
> of cousins.

Yes, I did. Second cousin. See the quote above.

> If a 1st cousin, you could try calling your father, your
> monther, your uncle, your aunt, your grandparents,

All those are dead, unfortunately.

> or the cousin's
> children

He had none.

> to see if they have contact info on the cousin. You don't
> know, but maybe someone in your family does.

The only people in my family who are still alive and I have any
knowledge of are my one son, my one grandson, my one first cousin, and
this second cousin who I would like to contact (*if* he is still alive.
If he is still alive, he's around 72). I probably have a few other
living relatives. but I don't even know any of their names, or how we'd
be related.

By the way, it's by no means critical that I contact him. We were never
close, but I always liked him, and since I have so few living relatives...

--
Ken

On 4/1/2022 8:58 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 20:18:13, Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>>1: I wouldn't upload a blank piece of paper to Facebook.
>>2: I have never used Facebook.
>>3: I will never use Facebook or its ilk...
>>
>>Rene
>
> "Know thine enemy". At least one of the allied generals - I think it
> might have been Monty - had a picture of Rommel in his tent - not
> because he liked him.

I'm reminded that back when I used to teach chess in after-school
classes in a couple of local schools (one elementary and one
middle-school), one of the classrooms I taught in had pictures of
Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, and Stalin on the wall--presumably for the
same reason, even though WWII was long over.

--
Ken

On 4/1/2022 8:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:42:02, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 3/31/2022 12:11 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:38:17, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
>>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>>>>I use YouTube fairly often, mostly because I play classical guitar,
>>>>and use YouTube to study and learn from professional performances of
>>>>pieces I'm working on.
>>>>
>>> Yes, but you can add comments to clips -
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, you can, but I never look at them.
>>
> When I started using it, I never did either; but now, I often do -
> partly because I do actually like seeing other people's reaction to a
> clip, and partly because they often contain useful extra information
> (including corrections to the information the uploader provided!): in
> the case of musical performances, things like venue, date, composer,
> even lyrics, which the original poster may have omitted (or got wrong);

That's rarely, if ever, of interest to me. I mostly just want to listen
and watch how their fingers move.

> in the case of news or technical clips, extra information (including
> corrections). In both cases, also links to other clips - the same piece
> by another performer, or in a different language, or other pieces by the
> same performer, or related technical/news ones.
>
> I have - not often, granted - sometimes had a "conversation" with
> another reader that has gone to two or three exchanges. Much like usenet
> (or, I guess, any other discussion facility).
> []
>>Pleasure in my case, too. My guitar playing is for my pleasure, and if
>>I get better at a piece, my pleasure increases.
>>
> Pleased to make your acquaintance; I just wish I had the perseverance to
> get good at some instrument!

Understood. You have to decide whether the effort is worth it to you.
I've been playing the guitar for about 72 years, but I started on
classical guitar only about five years ago. I put a lot of time and
effort into it.

>>> Well, I'll repeat my example - XGODY, a SatNav (GPS) company, only
>>> release the URLs for their update map data via a FaceBook group you have
>>> to join.
>>
>>
>>I must have missed your example. I've never heard of XGODY.
>>
>>
> A (one of many, probably) Chinese manufacturer of SatNav (GPS) systems,
> at well below the price of the ore well-known ones. Here's an example:
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154858025945 - note that's aimed at UK, so
> probably will have a hefty carriage charge to you and maybe not seem
> competitive anyway, but I'm sure they're available in US too, as I've
> seen people asking where to get the US map updates. It's certainly a
> reasonable price for a 7" SatNav in UK, especially as it comes with more
> than just UK/RoI map data (not that I've been abroad with it).

OK.

>>Yes, I understood the joke and knew you meant "mobile phone." All I
>>meant was that I've never run into information I could only get there.
>>
>>
> The example that comes to mind here isn't actually information (though
> I'd be surprised if there _isn't_ some information you can only get
> there); I'm thinking of rapid chargers for electric vehicles. I'm pretty
> sure I've encountered some with nowhere to even swipe a credit card -
> where the only way to activate them if with a fobile. I know - because
> of the greater distances involved, and lower "gas" prices - that EVs
> have caught on a lot less in the USA than here,

They're getting more and more common. They're still pretty expensive
here, though. The last car I bought was a 2020 Toyota Camry, and I don't
expect to live long enough to ever buy another one, but I ever do, it
will probably an electric.

> but - although still
> only a small fraction of the vehicles in use, they _are_ catching on
> here. (And - totally unrealistically, IMO, in view of the rate of
> charging infrastructure development - the government here have said
> they'll ban sales of new fuel-only vehicles in 2030, and even hybrids in
> 2035.) FWIW, I _don't_ have an EV - I have a Diesel (also uncommon in
> US). But I find the _concept_ of the assumption of smartphone - and
> permanently-on data - irritating.

Me too.

--
Ken

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 15:21:04, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>To change the subject somewhat, I've been trying to contact a second
>cousin that I haven't heard from in years. He no longer lives where I
>last knew where he lived, and none of the old e-mail addresses I have
>for him work.
>
>I'm not even sure he's still alive, but if he is, any suggestions on
>finding an e-mail address for him?
>
>
VanguardLH's suggestion of asking other members of the family sounds a
good one.

I have no direct suggestions on how to find him, but as to whether he's
still alive: in the UK, FreeBMD have records of deaths up to a fairly
recent date, and the general record office -
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_search.asp#Result
s (you may have to register the first time, I can't remember - but it's
free) up to a more recent date (currently seems to be 2020) but is more
tedious to use than freeBMD (you can only search 5 years at a time for
example). They give age at death and the rough area (I think it's the
name of the registration district, but those cover a wide area; FreeBMD
will give you details of what towns and villages an area covers). Not
finding his death in there wont prove he's alive, but finding it will
probably prove he isn't.

I don't know what if any equivalent to the above the USA has. I think
most states may have something similar, but having to chase round
several states (and I bet they all use different UIs) doesn't sound like
much fun; I don't know if there's an overall one. As Mayayana says,
genealogy sites may help - they're not all fee-paying, "The church of
Jesus Christ and the Latter-Day Saints" (known to most genealogists as
LDS; used to be known as "The Mormons") are free ("familysearch"). But
most such are more oriented towards ancestors from way back, so their
coverage of recent deaths may be spotty.

You could also try FindAGrave (and others similar - ask me for
suggestions); that's by far the biggest one, especially in the USA.
Reliant on volunteers entering it, but they do have a lot of data (many
with photographs).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on
politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

On 4/1/2022 8:54 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:56:24, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 3/31/2022 12:15 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
>>> you run on a fobile moan.
>>
>>
>>I dislike most abbreviations, but I especially dislike "app," because
>>it isn't always used to mean the same thing, and it's often unclear as
>>to what is meant. Sometimes someone uses it just to mean a smart phone
>>application program, sometimes an application program run on a desktop
>>or laptop computer, sometimes even a utility program. Sometimes even a
>>single person uses it inconsistently. I generally avoid using it all.
>
> Agreed with all the above, which rationalises my dislike of the term.
>>
>>
>>And speaking of commas, shouldn't it be omitted from your last sentence
>>above?
>>
> Interesting! On first glance, yes. I use comas more than most people
> (maybe German influence?) to indicate pauses, but it does make the above
> ambiguous.
>>
>>> But I reserve the right to leave in the full
>>> stop (period)
>>
>>
>>"Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If
>>I remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in
>>"1066 and All That": "History came to a ."
>>
> Excellent book.

Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
common.

>> to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:
>>
>>Thank you for not writing "acronym," a term that is almost universally
>>misused these days.
>>
>>
> To me, an acronym is a _pronounceable_ abbreviation

Yes. Same to me. My point exactly.

Interestingly, the abbreviation for "Food and Agricultural Organization"
is "FAO. I don't know how it's pronounced in the UK, but here in the
USA, it's eff-eh-oh. However in Rome, where its headquarters are, it's
an acronym, FAH-oh.

One other, more minor, complaint about modern usage. Many people who
understand what "acronym" means, call abbreviations that are not
acronyms "initialisms." As far as I'm concerned, that's completely
unnecessary. Just calling them "abbreviations" should suffice.

>(sometimes with
> extra letters of the contributing words left in to make it more so). But
> as with many things, its initially-abuse above is probably now in
> dictionaries, thus losing another distinction.

Yes, probably, alas.

Before someone tells me that language isn't static and is always
changing, yes, I know that. A Shakespeare play doesn't sound like a
modern one, and Shakespeare isn't like Chaucer. But two points:

1. Languages now changes faster that it ever did, largely because of
television, and that's bad, not good, because not everyone can keep up
with such rapid change. There are many modern terms that leave me
baffled, largely because I watch almost no television.

2. Changes that merge separate meanings into a single word, such as
"acronym," are bad, not good. It's losing a valuable distinction, as you
point out.

--
Ken

[Apologies to others, but I can see Ken's email includes invalid. Ken,
feel free - mine works.]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 09:06:51, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>Thanks, but...
>
>Ten years or so ago I tried unsuccessfully to use genealogy software to
>find the names of my paternal grandparents, who I never knew (my
>parents were divorced when I was two). With the help of a friend who
>knows much more about genealogy than I do, I manged to find out. So I
>now know a little (still not much) about such software, and I have no
>expectation that such software will help.
>
The software itself won't help much: it's mostly designed to enter, and
rearrange into useful and accessible form, data you've acquired from
various sources. Although some of the genealogy companies make the
distinction between the software and their record-accessing services
rather hard to see (by using software which has direct links into their
services), much in the same way many mobile (cellular) 'phone providers
blur the hardware with their service (or they do here in UK, anyway).
[]
>Yes, I did. Second cousin. See the quote above.
>
So you share some great-grandparents.
[]
>All those are dead, unfortunately.
[]
>The only people in my family who are still alive and I have any
>knowledge of are my one son, my one grandson, my one first cousin, and
>this second cousin who I would like to contact (*if* he is still alive.
>If he is still alive, he's around 72). I probably have a few other
>living relatives. but I don't even know any of their names, or how we'd
>be related.

If you _want_ to do such research, there are plenty who will help -
including me, though my experience with US records is very limited (but
if you manage to trace back to Britain [even just an _arrival_ ship/s
manifest] not _too_ long ago, I can try there).

(Sometimes the birth of a new grandchild/great-grandchild, and/or the
marriage of same, triggers renewed interest; if nothing else, a bit of
tree chart provides an unusual christening/wedding present!)
>
>By the way, it's by no means critical that I contact him. We were never
>close, but I always liked him, and since I have so few living
>relatives...
>
IKWYM (-:. I have no first cousins and no descendants. (But since
starting the hobby, quite a few cousins, literally all over the world,
many of whom I'm in - sometimes very intermittent! - contact with.)
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on
politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

In article <t26sg8$1h38$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

>
> >> Kid, you're concentrating on what *isn't* possible, instead of focussing
> >> on what *is* - and how to do it.
> >
> > do not call me kid
>
> Behave like one, get called one.

given your behaviour below, it is you who should be called kid, among
other things.

> Just be glad that I'm giving you the
> benefit of the doubt in that you might grow up and out of it.

you've done no such thing.

what you're doing is your usual shtick of resorting to insults when you
realize just how over your head you actually are.

> You however have, rather arrogantly I might add, started with telling me I'm
> wrong without providing /any/ kind of reasoning for it, that my browser is
> misconfigured and bluntly told me that my browser *has* to run JS.

the reason is obvious: facebook requires javascript, as do many other
sites.

disabling javascript or using an outdated browser is going to cause
problems for many sites. this is not a difficult concept nor does it
need an explanation.

it should also be obvious that the only way to limit access for content
that is not public is to require authenticating to determine whether or
not someone is entitled to see it. for facebook, the way to do that is
by logging into a facebook account. you have stated you do not want to
create a facebook account, therefore such content will be inaccessible
to you. this is also not a difficult concept that requires no
explanation.

> Goodbye. May our paths never cross again.

ok, kid.

In article <t26rbl$kn9$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | BTW,
> | app isn't actually an abbreviation, it's a word.
> |
>
> :) Such a short sense of history you have. Steve Jobs
> started saying "app". ("There's an app for that.")

such an incorrect sense of history you have.

the term 'app' long predates jobs saying 'there's an app for that',
going back to at least the 1980s, if not earlier.

ashton-tate frameworks, circa 1985 with an 'apps' menu:
<https://www.osnews.com/img/24882/apps.PNG>

> App comes from a slang abbreviation.

it's not slang. it's simply shorthand.

> There was
> no such word before iPhone.

oh yes there was.

see above for an example from 1985, more than 20 years before the
iphone was released.

there are many other examples.

> My Webster's dictionary has
> only "app.", defined as short for appendix, appointed,
> approval, or approximate. Why? Because it predates the
> invention of the iPhone.

no, that's not why.

the oxford english dictionary lists 1987, although the term actually
predates that.
<https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/103376#eid40167813>
killer application  n. Computing an application which is
particularly significant or useful; a feature, function, or
application of a new technology or product which is presented
as virtually indispensable or much superior to rival products;
also in extended use.

1987 PC Week 8 Sept. 107/2   Everybody has only one killer
application. The secretary has a word processor. The manager
has a spreadsheet.
1991 UnixWorld Dec. 30/3   The killer applications cost twice
as much in unix versions for no reason other than greed.

On 4/1/2022 9:22 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 15:21:04, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>>To change the subject somewhat, I've been trying to contact a second
>>cousin that I haven't heard from in years. He no longer lives where I
>>last knew where he lived, and none of the old e-mail addresses I have
>>for him work.
>>
>>I'm not even sure he's still alive, but if he is, any suggestions on
>>finding an e-mail address for him?
>>
>>
> VanguardLH's suggestion of asking other members of the family sounds a
> good one.

Certainly. I would have already done that were there such other members
to ask.

> I have no direct suggestions on how to find him, but as to whether he's
> still alive: in the UK, FreeBMD have records of deaths up to a fairly
> recent date, and the general record office -
> https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_search.asp#Result
> s (you may have to register the first time, I can't remember - but it's
> free) up to a more recent date (currently seems to be 2020) but is more
> tedious to use than freeBMD (you can only search 5 years at a time for
> example). They give age at death and the rough area (I think it's the
> name of the registration district, but those cover a wide area; FreeBMD
> will give you details of what towns and villages an area covers). Not
> finding his death in there wont prove he's alive, but finding it will
> probably prove he isn't.
>
> I don't know what if any equivalent to the above the USA has. I think
> most states may have something similar, but having to chase round
> several states (and I bet they all use different UIs) doesn't sound like
> much fun; I don't know if there's an overall one. As Mayayana says,
> genealogy sites may help - they're not all fee-paying, "The church of
> Jesus Christ and the Latter-Day Saints" (known to most genealogists as
> LDS; used to be known as "The Mormons") are free ("familysearch"). But
> most such are more oriented towards ancestors from way back, so their
> coverage of recent deaths may be spotty.

I mentioned in my reply to VangaurdLH that a friend helped me find info
on my paternal grandparents. If I remember correctly that's where she
found the info.

> You could also try FindAGrave (and others similar - ask me for
> suggestions); that's by far the biggest one, especially in the USA.
> Reliant on volunteers entering it, but they do have a lot of data (many
> with photographs).

Findagrave didn't list his name, but it took me to ancestry.com which
found his marriage. No guarantees, but that reinforces the view that
he's probably still alive.

A while back I tried some sites that purport to find almost anyone for a
fee, but I was reluctant to pay for unguaranteed results.

--
Ken

On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 09:38:00, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 4/1/2022 8:54 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> Excellent book.
>
>
>Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
>common.
>
I think so! Do email me: we're probably trying the patience of the good
people of Windowsland with this thread. I am happy to talk about
language for hours though - it's in my blood, backwards and sideways
(though my carer was in electronics). But others here maybe not.
[]
>> To me, an acronym is a _pronounceable_ abbreviation
>
>
>Yes. Same to me. My point exactly.

Many of the examples of _long_ ones - when we used to take the Guinness
Book of Records, anyway - seem to come from the US military. I remember
one that contained something like NatComSubordPhibPac, though was much
longer than that.
>
>Interestingly, the abbreviation for "Food and Agricultural
>Organization" is "FAO. I don't know how it's pronounced in the UK, but

I was _going_ to say we have our own - MAFF (ministry of agriculture,
fisheries, and food), at least some of which I think is now part of
DEFRA (department of - I think - the environment, I forget the rest -
oh, might be rural affairs), but ...

>here in the USA, it's eff-eh-oh. However in Rome, where its
>headquarters are, it's an acronym, FAH-oh.

.... that suggests it is an international organisation, so we probably
_do_ have something to do with it. Yes, we'd spell it out, eff-ay-oh,
too: probably because -ao is not a common ending in (either British _or_
American) English, but maybe is in Italian, which I think would
pronounce it that way.
>
>One other, more minor, complaint about modern usage. Many people who
>understand what "acronym" means, call abbreviations that are not
>acronyms "initialisms." As far as I'm concerned, that's completely
>unnecessary. Just calling them "abbreviations" should suffice.
>
Indeed. They abolish - initially by misuse - a distinction, then find
they need the distinction, so they invent a new word )-:.
[]
>Before someone tells me that language isn't static and is always
>changing, yes, I know that. A Shakespeare play doesn't sound like a
>modern one, and Shakespeare isn't like Chaucer. But two points:

Yes, Shakespeare English does usually need a lot of explanation. Though
in the hands of _skilful_ actors/speakers, _can_ - with a few glitches -
be spoken in such a way that you can understand it. Chaucer is more
difficult, and mostly beyond me (my mother's degree was in Mediaeval
French - as she was fond of saying, a less marketable one would be hard
to find!).
>
>1. Languages now changes faster that it ever did, largely because of
>television, and that's bad, not good, because not everyone can keep up
>with such rapid change. There are many modern terms that leave me
>baffled, largely because I watch almost no television.

I think the internet - and, especially, social media (in the modern
sense of Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Tiktok, and so on; AFAIAC usenet
is a social medium, very much so) - has probably far outstripped
television as the cause of rapid change.
>
>2. Changes that merge separate meanings into a single word, such as
>"acronym," are bad, not good. It's losing a valuable distinction, as
>you point out.
>
(-:
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

> >One other, more minor, complaint about modern usage. Many people who
> >understand what "acronym" means, call abbreviations that are not
> >acronyms "initialisms." As far as I'm concerned, that's completely
> >unnecessary. Just calling them "abbreviations" should suffice.
> >
> Indeed. They abolish - initially by misuse - a distinction, then find
> they need the distinction, so they invent a new word )-:.

I 'disagree'. Acronyms and initialisms are both forms of
abbreviations, but they're both a special kind of abbreviation, that's
why both terms exist. We've already covered the regular form of an
abbreviation, which is cutting of part of the word, i.e. 'app', 'etc',
etc. :-) So why do we need a special term for the acronym-type
abbreviation, but not for the initialism-type?

FWIW :-), I don't care if someone calls a certain initialism 'an
abbreviation'. I *do* care if someone calls a non-pronouncable
initialism/abbreviation 'an acronym'. So 'FWIW' is *not* an acronym.

I *have* spoken!

[...]
> []
> >Before someone tells me that language isn't static and is always
> >changing, yes, I know that. A Shakespeare play doesn't sound like a
> >modern one, and Shakespeare isn't like Chaucer. But two points:
>
> Yes, Shakespeare English does usually need a lot of explanation. Though
> in the hands of _skilful_ actors/speakers, _can_ - with a few glitches -
> be spoken in such a way that you can understand it. Chaucer is more
> difficult, and mostly beyond me (my mother's degree was in Mediaeval
> French - as she was fond of saying, a less marketable one would be hard
> to find!).
> >
> >1. Languages now changes faster that it ever did, largely because of
> >television, and that's bad, not good, because not everyone can keep up
> >with such rapid change. There are many modern terms that leave me
> >baffled, largely because I watch almost no television.
>
> I think the internet - and, especially, social media (in the modern
> sense of Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Tiktok, and so on; AFAIAC usenet
> is a social medium, very much so) - has probably far outstripped
> television as the cause of rapid change.
> >
> >2. Changes that merge separate meanings into a single word, such as
> >"acronym," are bad, not good. It's losing a valuable distinction, as
> >you point out.
> >
> (-:
> >
> >
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

On 31/03/2022 20:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> "Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If I
> remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in "1066
> and All That": "History came to a ."

For a moment there, but a search suggests that in fact that's a
different book which I also remember, I thought you'd at last given me
the title of a book of historical cartoons I remember from the library
of a 'prep' school that I attended. From that very distant memory, the
page size was about an A4 sheet in landscape orientation, the title
almost certainly contained '1066', and included 'William The Conker'
among its cast of characters lampooned, and it was old and well-thumbed
by generations of schoolkids even then in the 1950s, so was probably
published around the same time as the above in the 1930s or 40s. Does
anybody else remember such a book?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 4/1/2022 10:59 AM, Java Jive wrote:
> On 31/03/2022 20:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>> "Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If I
>> remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in "1066
>> and All That": "History came to a ."
>
> For a moment there, but a search suggests that in fact that's a
> different book which I also remember, I thought you'd at last given me
> the title of a book of historical cartoons I remember from the library
> of a 'prep' school that I attended. From that very distant memory, the
> page size was about an A4 sheet in landscape orientation, the title
> almost certainly contained '1066', and included 'William The Conker'
> among its cast of characters lampooned, and it was old and well-thumbed
> by generations of schoolkids even then in the 1950s, so was probably
> published around the same time as the above in the 1930s or 40s. Does
> anybody else remember such a book?

"1066 And All That" is by W. C. Sellar and RJ Yeatman. It's well-knowm.
It's not a book of cartoons, although there's an occasional cartoon in it.

I also found "1066 and Before All That: The Battle of Hastings,
Anglo-Saxon and Norman England (A Very, Very Short History of England
Book 1)" on Amazon.com, but I've never read it and can't tell you
anything about it.

--
Ken

On 4/1/2022 10:05 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 09:38:00, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 4/1/2022 8:54 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> Excellent book.
>>
>>
>>Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
>>common.
>>
> I think so! Do email me: we're probably trying the patience of the good
> people of Windowsland with this thread. I am happy to talk about
> language for hours though - it's in my blood, backwards and sideways
> (though my carer was in electronics). But others here maybe not.

Yes. For everyone else here, I responded to John via e-mail and this
conversation is now over here.

--
Ken

On 4/1/2022 2:17 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> Yes. For everyone else here, I responded to John via e-mail and this
> conversation is now over here.

Why don't you stop trolling and have your conversations there then?

On 4/1/2022 12:38 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
> common.

When are you going to stop trolling?

On 3/31/2022 7:35 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> Ye, I'd settle for a phone number. But when I try, I get hits that are
> either for someone with a similar but wrong name, or old info.

Can't you troll somewhere else?

On 01/04/2022 19:15, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> On 4/1/2022 10:59 AM, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 31/03/2022 20:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>
>>> "Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term.
>>> If I remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in
>>> "1066 and All That": "History came to a ."
>>
>> For a moment there, but a search suggests that in fact that's a
>> different book which I also remember, I thought you'd at last given me
>> the title of a book of historical cartoons I remember from the library
>> of a 'prep' school that I attended.  From that very distant memory, the
>> page size was about an A4 sheet in landscape orientation, the title
>> almost certainly contained '1066', and included 'William The Conker'
>> among its cast of characters lampooned, and it was old and well-thumbed
>> by generations of schoolkids even then in the 1950s, so was probably
>> published around the same time as the above in the 1930s or 40s.  Does
>> anybody else remember such a book?
>
> "1066 And All That" is by W. C. Sellar and RJ Yeatman. It's well-knowm.
> It's not a book of cartoons, although there's an occasional cartoon in it.

Yes, that came up readily in a search, but I'm fairly sure that's a
different book.

> I also found "1066 and Before All That: The Battle of Hastings,
> Anglo-Saxon and Norman England (A Very, Very Short History of England
> Book 1)" on Amazon.com, but I've never read it and can't tell you
> anything about it.

Definitely not the one I remember, but thanks anyway.

Since writing the description above, I've remembered that other cartoons
included native Britains in coracles.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk