On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:04:12, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 3/31/2022 11:41 AM, sidder wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:10:57, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com>
>>>wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>>On 3/31/2022 10:50 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>>>I really meant I don't hate people who _use_ FaceBook, which many
>>>other people who like me don't use it seem to.
>> Not just people who like you, right? Perhaps that sentence could
>>have
>> benefitted from a couple of apostrophes. ;-)
>
>
>Apostrophes? There are no missing apostrophes in it. Did you perhaps
>mean "quotation marks"?
>
>
I think commas would have made it better - or brackets (parentheses):

"... which many other people who, like me, don't use it ..." or "who
(like me) don't ..."

Neither apostrophes nor quotation marks though (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

On 3/31/2022 2:07 PM, s|b wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:11:08 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>
>> There's little cost in creating a simple Facebook profile
>
> Like selling your soul to the devil.
>

"Facebook is asking people to submit their I.D.s to prove their accounts are real

by Marie Edinger January 4th 2019

....

There are two groups for the types of id they ask for.

In Group 1, acceptable forms of id include your birth certificate,
driver's license, passport, green card, and several others.

If you don't have any of those, some of the things Group 2 suggests
you send include your social security card, a bank statement, or medical records.

If you do upload any of those forms of ID, Facebook says
it's encrypted and stored securely."

Well, alrighty then. I'll get right on that.

Paul

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):
>>On 3/31/2022 11:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> I have no interest in it either - not because I have a strong dislike of
>>> it, just I haven't the time to start yet another, on top of usenet,
>>
>>
>>Me too.
>>
>>
>>> email,
>>
>>
>>Me too.
>>
>>
>>> twitter,
>>
>>
>>I've never used that either.
>>
> I started using it in an attempt to drum up e-signatures for a petition
> I was running. (_That_ was spectacularly unsuccessful!) But I've built
> up friends there - some who were on usenet, some not.
>>
>>> and YouTube.
>>
>>
>>YouTube? That's very different. It's not for communication between people.
>>
>>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.

> and people post followups. So
> though it's not primarily designed as a social medium, social
> interaction does occur. Yes, I use it for more than that - I use it to
> listen to/watch clips, primarily, as you do (though only for
> pleasure/information in my case), but it does provide that function too.

Pleasure in my case, too. My guitar playing is for my pleasure, and if I
get better at a piece, my pleasure increases.

>>> Same applies to WhatsApp, TikTok, and all
>>> the others:
>>
>>
>>Me too. I probably haven't even heard of most of them.
>>
> I think as soon as we oldies even learn the name of one of these
> mechanisms, it's automatically old hat for the new generation (-:
>>
>>
>>>I don't hate people who use them, I just don't have time.
>>
>>
>>For me, no time *and* no interest.
>>
> Sometimes it's the only place to get the information. Yes, you can cut
> yourself off by not using, and we all do that in some walk of life or
> other (I avoid paying by direct debit where I can, for example), but far
> more to our own disadvantage than the organisation we dislike.
>>
>>
>>> But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>> there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it.
>>
>>
>>I've never run into that.
>>
> 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.

>>
>>
>>> Like
>>> fobile moan app.s.
>>
>>
>>I've never run into that either.
>>
>>
> Sorry, UK humour. UK for what US calls a "cellular 'phone" is a "mobile
> 'phone". Or, for fun, a "fobile moan".

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.

--
Ken

On 3/31/2022 12:15 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 13:41:17, sidder@?.?.invalid wrote (my responses
> usually FOLLOW):
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> []
>>>But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>>there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
>>>fobile moan app.s.
>>
>>"app.s"?
>
> I hate the 'word' "app";

I hate it too.

> it's short for application,

Yes.

> but actually means
> a program

No, it actually means an application program, as opposed to a utility
program.

> 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.

And speaking of commas, shouldn't it be omitted from your last sentence
above?

> 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 ."

> to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:

Thank you for not writing "acronym," a term that is almost universally
misused these days.

--
Ken

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

| I actually don't hate FaceBook*, I just don't
| have the time), but when _companies_ start putting information _only_
| there, it's (some way down!) the slippery slope.
|

I'm afraid we're already way down that slope. The
Internet was going to give everyone a front door
on the world. Now young people find their lives hijacked.
They think the Internet is commercial services.
If people make websites at all it's Wix or Wordpress.
Usually they just have a Facebook page for small
businesses.

I saw an interview on the news the other day about
Etsy. Apparently the craftspeople are mad because Etsy
is raising costs and catering to commercial sellers over
craftspeople. (Printed t-shirts over home-made clothes,
for example.) The woman interviewed said that 5,000
sellers had signed a petition but that there was no reason
to think Etsy would care. They're learning a hard lesson:
By letting a corporation middleman their storefront they
gave away control, and will have no way to forward
customers to a website if they quit Etsy.

It's similar with Facebook, Instagram, etc. They've
become the medium of socializing for young people.
Not just a new way to connect. The only way to connect.

On 2022-03-31 2:21 p.m., Paul wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 2:07 PM, s|b wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:11:08 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>
>>> There's little cost in creating a simple Facebook profile
>>
>> Like selling your soul to the devil.
>>
>
> "Facebook is asking people to submit their I.D.s to prove their accounts
> are real
>
> by Marie Edinger  January 4th 2019
>
> ...
>
> There are two groups for the types of id they ask for.
>
> In Group 1, acceptable forms of id include your birth certificate,
> driver's license, passport, green card, and several others.
>
> If you don't have any of those, some of the things Group 2 suggests
> you send include your social security card, a bank statement, or medical
> records.
>
> If you do upload any of those forms of ID, Facebook says
> it's encrypted and stored securely."
>
> Well, alrighty then. I'll get right on that.
>
>    Paul
>

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

"Ken Blake" <ken@invalidemail.com> 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?
|

That's a tough one. I found the phone number today for
a cousin. It was easy because his landline is listed.
whitepages.com. But I don't think I've ever seen an email
address listed, except for sites that want you to pay a
fee. Someone would probably have to be naive enough to post
their name and email on a webpage somewhere.

But if phone is good enough, you might be able to find that.
Most of these sites will show up in search. You seach for
John Q. Public and they list all matches in the US, with
age and location, as well as guesses at who they're related
to.

On 3/31/2022 4:24 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Ken Blake" <ken@invalidemail.com> 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?
> |
>
> That's a tough one. I found the phone number today for
> a cousin. It was easy because his landline is listed.
> whitepages.com. But I don't think I've ever seen an email
> address listed, except for sites that want you to pay a
> fee. Someone would probably have to be naive enough to post
> their name and email on a webpage somewhere.
>
> But if phone is good enough, you might be able to find that.
> Most of these sites will show up in search. You seach for
> John Q. Public and they list all matches in the US, with
> age and location, as well as guesses at who they're related
> to.

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.

--
Ken

In article <t24t00$1arb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> > > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
> >
> >> No, it isn't possible.
> >
> > yes it is.
>
> Seeing thay you have ignored my explanation to why I think it isn't as well
> as having provided zilch in regard to why you think otherwise I have little
> other choice than to ignore that. Funny how that works ...

i haven't ignored anything, and what matters are the facts, not what
you think.

it *is* possible to view some facebook content via a direct link
*without* logging in, however, most people don't provide such a link.

i don't know why you continue to argue that it's not possible when it
is.

> > if the content is not public, you should see a login page.
>
> Someone else mentioned that too. I already replied to him about it.

they mentioned it because that's how facebook works.

the only way to verify if someone is entitled to see non-public content
is by logging in. this is not a difficult concept.

> > your browser is either misconfigured or not supported.
>
> On what grounds did you determine that ?...

that you're seeing raw javascript.

if you did so deliberately expecting to find the post buried within it,
then you're even more lost than originally thought.

> > did you disable javascript?
>
> ... Oh wait, you didn't.
>
> And how is that relevant ? My browser doesn't do javascript. Thats all you
> need to know.

it's relevant because facebook relies on a modern browser with
javascript enabled.

if whatever unnamed browser that you're too embarrassed to say what it
is does not meet their requirement, then you are going to have numerous
problems. that's all you need to know.

> > what browser are you using?
>
> Again, how is that relevant ?

it's relevant because facebook does not support older browsers, nor do
a lot of other sites for that matter.

if whatever unnamed browser you're using is unsupported, which based on
your description, it's not, then you are going to have problems and not
just with facebook either.

> Kid, you are concentrating on solving problems I *do not* have, instead of
> trying to solve the one I *do* have.

do not call me kid and you were given solutions, at least for facebook.

In article <t24td6$1gm0$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

>
> > because some people who post content have restricted it to be
> > visible only by certain people and the only way to verify that
> > is by logging in.
>
> 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 and your statement is false. several people have
told you what your options are.

> As such you are not really helpfull (understatement).

as such you do not actually want help. you're simply trolling.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:15:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 13:41:17, sidder@?.?.invalid wrote (my responses
>usually FOLLOW):
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>[]
>>>But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>>there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
>>>fobile moan app.s.
>>
>>"app.s"?
>
>I hate the 'word' "app"; it's short for application, but actually means
>a program. But it seems to have become generally used, to mean something
>you run on a fobile moan.

So far, so good.

>But I reserve the right to leave in the full
>stop (period) to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:

That must be a British English thing. I don't think we use periods in
that way, (within a set of characters), on this side of the pond. BTW,
app isn't actually an abbreviation, it's a word.

Ken Blake wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 12:15 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 13:41:17, sidder@?.?.invalid wrote (my responses
>> usually FOLLOW):
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:16:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> []
>>>> But some people - and worse, some companies - _only_ put information
>>>> there, so even if you have no interest in it, you have to use it. Like
>>>> fobile moan app.s.
>>>
>>> "app.s"?
>>
>> I hate the 'word' "app";
>
>
> I hate it too.
>
>
>
>> it's short for application,
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> but actually means
>> a program
>
> No, it actually means an application program, as opposed to a utility
> program.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> And speaking of commas, shouldn't it be omitted from your last sentence
> above?
>
>
>> 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 ."
>
>
>> to indicate that it _is_ an abbreviation (-:
>
> Thank you for not writing "acronym," a term that is almost universally
> misused these days.
>
>
I look at it a bit differently - the term in many cases is used properly.
App - something that performs one or a very limited number of functions
Application - something that performs multiple functions.

While there can be cross-over but the majority or that cross-over by an
app is just grabbing content that already exist on the device the app
was installed on.

e.g
Outlook, T-Bird and other clients perform a variety of email and/or news
functions.
Outlook iOs or Android app or Gmail app perform only a limited amount of
functions never replacing full features 'application' software
email/news clients.

A printer app - might provide a variety of feature - ink status, order
ink, configure something...but all those are already available on the
printer control panel or accessing the printer propertie. Even if the
printer is on a the lan or wifi local network via the printer ip address
in a browser - also with just the basic printer driver
software(installed manually or via Windows Update or included in
Windows) instead of the full feature bloated printer manufacturer
software/driver with the extra packaged bloatware.

Apps thus are not application software just limited feature alternative
with a limited number of functions.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

In article <t263g2$mb2$1@dont-email.me>, ...w¡ñ§±?ñ
<winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apps thus are not application software just limited feature alternative
> with a limited number of functions.

that is incorrect. the term app is simply shorthand for application.
the number of features is not a factor.

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.

nospam wrote:
> In article <t263g2$mb2$1@dont-email.me>, ...w¡ñ§±?ñ
> <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Apps thus are not application software just limited feature alternative
>> with a limited number of functions.
>
> that is incorrect. the term app is simply shorthand for application.
> the number of features is not a factor.
>
Not entirely.

No matter how one defines it today, the overlap occurs.
JP introduced the term in this thread.
- 'it's short for an application but actually means a program"

Most folks opinions associate all programs as apps.
All apps and applications are programs
All programs are not apps.

I only stated how I look at apps vs applications.

Also providing clear examples where an app is less feature rich than its
corresponding application. Both programs but uniquely feature different.
Based on a good percentage of this group's prior input<g>, one might
never refer to Windows 10/11 included mail client as an application,
only a feature-less app. A program? Yes. An application like Outlook or
Tbird, Forte, etc. - not even close.

Another example - which pretty much started the whole app vs application
discussion and digression well before the rest of the industry jumped on
the same bandwagon
iTunes - desktop/laptop program for downloading media and mobile apps
iTunes Store - mobile app for downloading media
App Store - mobile app for downloading iOS apps and games
Mac App Store - Mac OS program for downloading apps and games for your
Mac OS device(s)

Plenty of diversion, but as stated earlier apps obtained from MSFT,
Apple, Google or 3rd party sources(banks, financial outfits, even garage
door openers, home security systems) consistently have less features on
their apps than available in there programs or web site accounts.

The question on the difference has been going on for years and began
with the advent of mobile devices.

While not everyone agrees Google, Bing, Duck, Yahoo provide a long
history of individuals, companies holding the view that apps and
applications are not always equivalent.

<https://askleo.com/whats-the-difference-between-app-and-application/>

<https://trackvia.com/blog/apps-mashup/apps-vs-applications-whats-difference-does-it-matter/>

<https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2016/aug/apps-vs-applications.html>

<https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/definition/application-apps>

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/adrianbridgwater/2022/03/01/whats-the-difference-between-an-application-and-a-web-application/?sh=1ed166d17abd>

<https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-program-and-application/>

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

"...w�񧱤�" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote

| > that is incorrect. the term app is simply shorthand for application.
| > the number of features is not a factor.
| >
| Not entirely.
|

That would be your own private definition. People say
app because it's cute and Steve Jobs said it. And because
cellphone users typically spend a lot of time with small,
commercial, services programs. App refers to phone software
(one of the many unfortunate legacies of Steve Jobs) and
is short for "application".

Software people say application as a fancy word for a
program. No one else says "application". For most people, a
browser is known as "the Internet" and a text processing
program is known as "Word". The general public might say
"program", or the thankfully outdated "proggy". I don't
know anyone who would understand me if I referred to
an "application".

Some people, who like to follow tech-speak fads, even
call a program a "solution", which combines label and
marketing. But that's an even more limited, self-selecting
group of tech people. Mostly people who take their marching
orders from Microsoft.

I've never heard anyone talk about Windows apps.
And the single vs multi theory really doesn't hold water.
I often use Notepad on Windows. I have Firefox on
my cellphone. I use Outlook Express on Windows
only for usenet. I use TBird on Windows only for email.
I use Libre Office almost exclusively for writing customer
receipts as PDF, even though it's a full office suite.

To a great extent you could say that phones are
mobile consumer services computers and desktops/
laptops are productivity computers. But even that's
not entirely true. I have a camera "app" on my cellphone
for editing images. Yet I don't have Google maps, Waze,
Uber, DoorDash, Facebook, or any of the other lifestyle
consumer apps that people typically use on phones. I
don't use consumer services. I mostly just make phone
calls.

"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 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 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