Re: What makes a mac better?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ray, Aug 26, 2012.

  1. ray

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:12:30 AM UTC, David Taylor wrote:
    > "What makes a mac better?"
    >
    >
    >
    > - having the ability to run Windows, of course!
    >


    And choosing not to for sanity reasons ;-)

    > --
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > David
    >
    > Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 5, 2012
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. ray

    David Taylor Guest

    On 05/11/2012 14:04, Whisky-dave wrote:
    > On Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:12:30 AM UTC, David Taylor wrote:
    >> "What makes a mac better?"
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> - having the ability to run Windows, of course!
    >>

    >
    > And choosing not to for sanity reasons ;-)


    To be honest, I think I've had more furstrations with the quirks of the
    iPad than I have had with Windows, but I would consider myself more
    familiar with Windows. I find it amusing that, to delete directories of
    photos on my iPad (what they call "albums"), I have to connect it to a
    PC (Windows or Mac). Otherwise I have to tap each photo individually to
    select it before deletion. There's no multi-file selection.

    Yes, Apple's forced way of working does drive you insane!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Nov 5, 2012
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. ray

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:20:48 PM UTC, David Taylor wrote:
    > On 05/11/2012 14:04, Whisky-dave wrote:
    >
    > > On Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:12:30 AM UTC, David Taylor wrote:

    >
    > >> "What makes a mac better?"

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> - having the ability to run Windows, of course!

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > And choosing not to for sanity reasons ;-)

    >
    >
    >
    > To be honest, I think I've had more furstrations with the quirks of the
    >
    > iPad than I have had with Windows,


    I've found a few frustrations with the ipad but far more with windows and it';s always the silly things.

    Can anyone tell me why, when clicking on my document folder (W7) with the option to view arranged by date modified does it still list the files in alphbetical order :-0.
    When I click on by name the top 20+ files a are all titles _primary.dat areall 1kB in size and all from 2007.
    But I'll ignore it.






    > but I would consider myself more
    >
    > familiar with Windows.


    the ideal person to answer the above then :)

    > I find it amusing that, to delete directories of
    >
    > photos on my iPad (what they call "albums"),


    Well most people keep their pictures/photos in albums, have done since the beginngin of photography I'm not sure it's any advantage to refer to them as directories or folders even.

    > I have to connect it to a
    >
    > PC (Windows or Mac). Otherwise I have to tap each photo individually to
    >
    > select it before deletion. There's no multi-file selection.


    That is somewhat an ommision I guess but I haven't found a use for such an option and can;t think why I might need one.
    Why would I copy 1000s of pictures to a ipad only to delete them without viewing them, I'd have to tap to view so tapping to delete isn;t much more effort, in fact it's a littel eaisr than on a computer. I can view the picture and if I don;t want it I tap on the trash can at the top, that's easier than dragging or right clicking.

    maybe I'm missing the point, or deleted it ;-) but why would anyone want tomanually delete 1000s pictures from their ipad, why not just NOT load themon to it in the first place ?
    I took about 15 photos last night using the ipad then reviewed them by tapping and taping again to delete the 12 or so I didn't want.

    >
    >
    > Yes, Apple's forced way of working does drive you insane!


    That's true , but if you try the Apple way most things seem to work better and more logically.

    >
    > --
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > David
    >
    > Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 5, 2012
    #83
  4. ray

    David Taylor Guest

    On 05/11/2012 16:11, Whisky-dave wrote:
    []
    > That is somewhat an ommision I guess but I haven't found a use for such an option and can;t think why I might need one.
    > Why would I copy 1000s of pictures to a ipad only to delete them without viewing them, I'd have to tap to view so tapping to delete isn;t much more effort, in fact it's a littel eaisr than on a computer. I can view the picture and if I don;t want it I tap on the trash can at the top, that's easier than dragging or right clicking.
    >
    > maybe I'm missing the point, or deleted it ;-) but why would anyone want to manually delete 1000s pictures from their ipad, why not just NOT load them on to it in the first place ?
    > I took about 15 photos last night using the ipad then reviewed them by tapping and taping again to delete the 12 or so I didn't want.

    []

    Why? Because you have used your iPad during a trip away from a computer
    to view the pictures from your own camera, and provide a backup. It's
    not just for photos taken on the iPad. You might even want to look at
    pictures from someone else or perhaps to demonstrate how good the iPad
    display is using their images. Many reasons.

    We are agreed that the inability to delete all images in an album at
    once is an omission on Apple's part. I'm disappointed that it hasn't
    been rectified in iOS updates.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Nov 5, 2012
    #84
  5. ray

    Mayayana Guest

    >
    When I click on by name the top 20+ files a are all titles _primary.dat are
    all 1kB in size and all from 2007.
    But I'll ignore it.
    >


    No need to ignore it. You're on Windows, not iPad.
    You can manage and organize your files. Just "lasso"
    all those _ files, then right-click -> Delete. :)

    Another nice thing about Windows is that since it's
    used by almost everyone, you can usually go online
    and find solutions:

    http://www.windowsbbs.com/windows-x...ysteriously-appeared-my-documents-folder.html

    It turns out that the problem you're having is probably
    related to poor quality software that you installed. To
    avoid the risks associated with being able to choose what
    software you install, you might want to switch to an iPad. :)
     
    Mayayana, Nov 5, 2012
    #85
  6. David Taylor <> wrote:

    >On 05/11/2012 16:11, Whisky-dave wrote:
    >[]
    >> That is somewhat an ommision I guess but I haven't found a use for such an option and can;t think why I might need one.
    >> Why would I copy 1000s of pictures to a ipad only to delete them without viewing them, I'd have to tap to view so tapping to delete isn;t much more effort, in fact it's a littel eaisr than on a computer. I can view the picture and if I don;t want it I tap on the trash can at the top, that's easier than dragging or right clicking.
    >>
    >> maybe I'm missing the point, or deleted it ;-) but why would anyone want to manually delete 1000s pictures from their ipad, why not just NOT load them on to it in the first place ?
    >> I took about 15 photos last night using the ipad then reviewed them by tapping and taping again to delete the 12 or so I didn't want.

    >[]
    >
    >Why? Because you have used your iPad during a trip away from a computer
    >to view the pictures from your own camera, and provide a backup. It's
    >not just for photos taken on the iPad. You might even want to look at
    >pictures from someone else or perhaps to demonstrate how good the iPad
    >display is using their images. Many reasons.
    >
    >We are agreed that the inability to delete all images in an album at
    >once is an omission on Apple's part. I'm disappointed that it hasn't
    >been rectified in iOS updates.



    But it looks cool, David. For some people that is all that matters.
     
    Anthony Polson, Nov 5, 2012
    #86
  7. -hh <> wrote:
    > On Nov 2, 1:23 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> -hh <> wrote:
    >> > On Oct 31, 1:03 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
    >> > wrote:
    >> >> -hh <> wrote:
    >> >> > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> >> >> -hh <> wrote:
    >> >> >> > [...big snip...]
    >> >> >> You wouldn't need to 'direct people to right-click & save' if
    >> >> >> you used the correct type: it would either open in the right
    >> >> >> application or be offered to be saved.


    >> >> > Incorrect, because what you're overlooking is that the ".PPT" suffix
    >> >> > didn't exist as part of the naming convention under this particular
    >> >> > application at the time of its file creation, so there is no one
    >> >> > single "correct" way to configure a contemporary webserver for this
    >> >> > class of files.


    >> >> Obviously you've been misinformed.  Suffixes are informatory only
    >> >> (except on DOS and Windows, where they stupidly replace file
    >> >> attributes like "executable").  That's why e.g. web servers do
    >> >> transmit the file type instead of just relying on the suffix of
    >> >> the ending.  (And that's why getting a .php-file doesn't mean
    >> >> your local PHP is supposed to start up and execute the file.)


    >> > Keep on trying to convince yourself of that.  What you've not realize
    >> > is that the period in this filename is not a delimiter for a file type
    >> > identification suffix.


    >> *I* realized that.


    > Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.


    1) look up "begging the question"!
    2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
    Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
    3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
    one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
    to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
    average or usual case.

    >> > When you saw that the original name wasn't an '8.3' but was a '4.13',
    >> > you should have gotten a clue.


    >> When I saw "text/plain" I got the right clue.  I didn't look at
    >> the filename for info.


    > Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.


    1) look up "begging the question"!
    2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
    Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
    3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
    one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
    to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
    average or usual case.


    > Gee, see a pattern here yet? I do.


    Yep. I see one. You're being as obstinate as a mule just
    for the love of being contrary *and* you're wrong.


    >> >> > The alternative was to rename the file to add .PPT - - - but to do so
    >> >> > represents a post-creation alteration of the original contents of the
    >> >> > original file:  if that had been done, you would now be bitching about
    >> >> > the file's providance having being "corrupted" by that post-creation
    >> >> > renaming.
    >> >> What's in a name? that which we call a rose
    >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> >> By any other name would smell as sweet;
    >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> >> So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
    >> >> Retain that dear perfection which he owes
    >> >> Without that title.
    >> > Romeo is dead.  So are some file formats.


    >> So are some brain cells!


    > Yet another ad hominem personal insult.


    Your command of the English language is really fourth-rate, you
    cannot distinguish between a non-personal "some" and a personal
    "yours".

    But if the cap fits, wear it.


    > Clearly, poster "Wolfgang" has decided that he can't win the disagreement based on its actual *merits*, so he tries to attack the messenger instead.


    Merits? What merits?
    3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
    one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
    to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
    average or usual case.


    >> Neither Romeo nor file formats have anything to do with renaming
    >> files to add '.PPT'


    > Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question as to why you brought up Romeo in the first place.


    1) look up "begging the question"!
    2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
    Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
    3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
    one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
    to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
    average or usual case.


    >> > This is an example thereof,
    >> > and why this "successfully archived" file still is not recoverable.


    >> This is mostly an example of how someone who doesn't have a real
    >> name also doesn't have basic skill of telling a webserver what
    >> type of files it is supposed to serve.


    > A particularly ironic remark from a poster at "The Original Disposable Email Address Company", sneakemail.com


    Ah! An ad hominem to misdirect us from the fact that Haw-Haw
    cannot even handle not even running, but simply correctly
    using a webserver.

    My email address is replyable and gets read. I've been using it
    since 2003-01-25 (that's "just shy of 10 years" to you). Which is
    perfectly easy to find out. What more do you want, Lord Haw-Haw?
    (And yes, that *is* a personal insult. You deseve it.)

    So, do you sort "irony" next to "coppery" and "silvery"?


    >> And an example of how someone who doesn't have a real name also
    >> doesn't have the skill of reading what is written or keeping
    >> the context.


    > And the hypocrisy is that I'm posting from my own domain, whose registration info isn't hidden at all...as if reading it off of the domain's homepage is not a "...handle basic computing tasks..." easy enough task.


    Yep, you're posting from google.com. That makes you ...
    Larry Page or
    Sergey Brin or
    one of the 53,564 Google employees or
    one of the many, many, many people who own Google stock.

    But is "DNS Admin" really your name?

    And can't you use a proper usenet reader on your own computer?
    You'd at least not produce overly long lines ...

    As to your name "-hh" --- if that is your real name, you really
    need to sue your parents. But you're not even inventive enough
    to find a believable false name. Nor do you have the cojones to
    use your real name. And the domain in the "From"? That one is
    likely from someone else.


    >> [...snip...]


    > I read on and simply see more ad hominem personal insult attempts.


    I read on and simply see you not having answers, except
    for insults to my intelligence.

    >> [...snip...]


    > I read on and see flat out lies: sorry, but I've not removed even a single URL or file from my website.


    So you admit you lied (i.e. provided deliberately false
    facts) when you posted that broken URL of yours.

    Thank you! Liar!

    So you are still unable to handle a simple web server ...


    >> There's *no* suffix in
    >>    http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer


    > Sorry, but you mistyped:


    Nope. I copy&pasted from
    Message-ID: <>
    (Look it up, google can do that for you.)

    The mistype (you called it a lie) is yours.


    > the filename in question (which is still online) is:


    > http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA.snipertrainer


    Still no suffix.
    OK, OK, there *are* suffixes. Like "iner", "pertrainer" and
    "PA.snipertrainer".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix_(computer_science)#Suffix
    I assume you didn't mean those.


    > The irony of "...handle basic computing tasks..." bites a second time.


    The irony is that *I* copy&pasted ... from *your* post.


    >> Point is: while YOU might though it unlikely for floppy disks
    >> to "vaporize", everyone with a functioning brain was well
    >> aware it was on it's way out.


    > Oops, and yet another innocent "accident" on his part -- golly, what an amazing coincidence! I'm sorry, but the archives clearly show that what I said was that all media standards are temporary (transient), and I cited floppies as a recent real world example of said transient nature.


    The record states:
    Me:
    | >> It's extremely unlikely that all JPEG decoders along with the
    | >> information how JPEG works will be lost in this century barring
    | >> a global catastrophy.  It's unlikely that that knowledge will
    | >> be lost in a span of time when chemical film and prints will
    | >> already have lost their usefulness.  A recoding to whatever is the
    | >> then-common format can be done fully automatic by the computer ---
    | >> quite unlike translating hieroglyphs.

    Haw-Haw:
    | > And fifteen years ago, we would have made similar claims about how
    | > unlikely it would be for floppy disk technology to vaporize.

    Even *if* you are typing through Google Translate, you should
    get that.

    Simple question: Who changed the topic from JPEG to floppies?

    Simple question: Who got handed his head because he didn't bother
    to look up what was 15 years ago, but was all blustery and
    holier-than-thou?


    > Sure, digital data can be archived successfully, but for ease of subsequent use, it is not a "zero maintenance" activity, particularly in comparison to prior technologies which can more readily tolerate years/decades of benign neglect and still be adequately recovered.


    Film under "benign neglect" survives on the average as long as
    photos on a not backupped computer. Before you answer, look up
    the word "average" and remember the user copies his files to his
    new computer every couple years.

    > Similarly, it is pedantically possible to invoke heroic (and expensive) measures to recover something, but pragmatically, this won't be done for the vast majority of "somethings", because invariably, the potential (or perceived) value of said 'something' isn't known to justify the expense, usually because of the Catch-22 that said 'something' hasn't been adequately identified so as to make a value assessment.


    On the other hand, heroic and expensive measures are needed
    to save film. For one example how much heroic work is needed
    to create a incomplete result --- and that from a work that
    was distributed and more or less archived worldwide (quite the
    opposite of benign neglegt) --- see Metropolis.

    As to "value": See Metropolis. See very many of the early
    film works. Studios were *burning* the prints, believing them
    *worthless* once they'd phased out of the cinema. Had they only
    been copyable and storeable as easy as hard drives today ...


    > Finally, the process of data recovery isn't merely the format of the bits, but also the medium of how those bits are being stored - - it is both software and hardware, and the failure of either one makes the data permanently irretrievable.


    Ah ... no.
    Physical media can be duplicated and parts from one copy spliced
    with parts from another copy. Works with digital just as well as
    with analog --- in fact, it works better with digital if there's
    any overlap.

    As to "formats", they can be just as problematic with analog.
    "phonautograph".


    > Unfortunately, the tragedy is that this actual issue of how to subsequently decide how to manage digitally based data archives has been ignored, because it is more important to "Wolfgang's" ego to try to attack this Messenger, rather than to potentially acknowledge the validity of any part of the message.


    Your message is as valid as the claims of those who say that
    an asteroid strike will wipe us all out in the next 10 years.
    We cannot prove this will not happen, but simple statistics
    shows that the event as painted is rather unlikely.



    >> > If it really was as trivial as you claimed, you would have been
    >> > successful two months ago and RPD would have been spared the past two
    >> > months (yes, since August!) of your impotent whining.


    >> I'm simply not interested in your stupid "decode this secret
    >> proprietary unused format" games.  Thus, I have not even tried.


    > Not only is this lame,


    Maybe it is lame not to fall for your idiotic 'examples'.

    > but "Wolfgang's" public criticism of how my domain served up the files as "text/plain" says that he did try. Yet another untruth is thus revealed.


    I did try to *download* them. I did a "strings" on them. I used
    "wget -S" to see the headers. That's all.
    If that's "trying" ... well, then blindly hammering
    with both feet on a keyboard is "writing a work of world
    literature".


    >> [...snip...]


    I see. You agree that I was completely right. Your reported "NASA"
    story is complete bullshit, thus you reneged on it. Your
    hieroglyphs were shot down in flames, so you gave them up.

    You didn't manage to deliver the specifications for your
    ADPA.snipertrainer-file, thus proving you knew it wasn't an
    archivable format like, say JPEG, as I specified: widely used,
    open, documented. Shot down in flames, again.

    > "Wolfgang" has surrendered all semblance of being capable of carrying on a reasonable conversation and not perpetuating even more outright lies between his Ad Hominem personal attack attempts and other quotation/citation "accidents".


    Ah, the ad hominem to misdirect again.




    > Clearly, we are done here.


    > Any interested parties who wish to continue this conversation offline are free to contact me ... this email address forwards to a general account that will require a "yes I'm human" reply to self-whitelist prior to retransmission to counter spam. Otherwise, I'll never see it.


    > -hh


    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 5, 2012
    #87
  8. ray

    nospam Guest

    In article <k78quu$2lj$>, David Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > We are agreed that the inability to delete all images in an album at
    > once is an omission on Apple's part. I'm disappointed that it hasn't
    > been rectified in iOS updates.


    it's not something that a lot of people miss not being there.
     
    nospam, Nov 6, 2012
    #88
  9. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Nov 5, 7:23 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-11-05 15:03:01 -0800, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> said:
    >
    > > -hh <> wrote:
    > >> Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question
    > >> as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.

    >
    > > 1) look up "begging the question"!
    > > 2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
    > >    Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
    > > 3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
    > >    one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
    > >    to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
    > >    average or usual case.

    >
    > "Begs the question" or "Begging the question" is not what it might seem
    > to be to those unfamiliar to the term when used in logic.
    >
    > "Begs the question" is the conclusion, or result of a circular argument
    > and is an indication that further debate is pointless. To "Beg the
    > question" presupposes the conclusion of an argument to complete the
    > circularity.
    > ...and most importantly, it is usually not stated.
    >
    > "Begs the question" should not be used when what is meant and intended
    > is to say, "Raises the following question", or "leads us to ask and
    > consider the following question".
    >
    > So, for simplicity's sake, "Begs the question" is not the same as
    > "Raises the question".


    Thanks, but unfortunately, nothing's capable of satisfying Wolfgang's
    bruised pride. Even giving him the last word would not suffice...he
    will just simply find some other alternative outlet.

    ....after that distraction, its then back to the grind of a batch of
    19th century tin photo originals.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 6, 2012
    #89
  10. ray

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:23:23 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-11-05 15:03:01 -0800, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    ><> said:
    >
    >> -hh <> wrote:

    >
    >>> Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question
    >>> as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.

    >>
    >> 1) look up "begging the question"!
    >> 2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
    >> Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
    >> 3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
    >> one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
    >> to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
    >> average or usual case.

    >
    >"Begs the question" or "Begging the question" is not what it might seem
    >to be to those unfamiliar to the term when used in logic.
    >
    >"Begs the question" is the conclusion, or result of a circular argument
    >and is an indication that further debate is pointless. To "Beg the
    >question" presupposes the conclusion of an argument to complete the
    >circularity.
    >...and most importantly, it is usually not stated.
    >
    >"Begs the question" should not be used when what is meant and intended
    >is to say, "Raises the following question", or "leads us to ask and
    >consider the following question".
    >
    >So, for simplicity's sake, "Begs the question" is not the same as
    >"Raises the question".


    It's a phrase often discussed in English usage groups. You are right.
    The phrase is misused more than it is correctly used.

    I don't ever use the phrase because most people think it means
    something it doesn't mean, and therefore would misinterpret my
    meaning.

    In defense of those who misuse the phrase, a logical parsing would
    lead one to think it means "It begs (me to ask) the question". Those
    of us who are interested in usage points know, though, that English is
    not always logical.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 6, 2012
    #90
  11. ray

    DanP Guest

    On Monday, November 5, 2012 11:03:01 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > -hh <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Nov 2, 1:23 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

    >
    > >> -hh <> wrote:

    >
    > >> > On Oct 31, 1:03 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>

    >
    > >> > wrote:

    >
    > >> >> -hh <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >> > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >> >> -hh <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >> >> > [...big snip...]

    >
    > >> >> >> You wouldn't need to 'direct people to right-click & save' if

    >
    > >> >> >> you used the correct type: it would either open in the right

    >
    > >> >> >> application or be offered to be saved.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> >> > Incorrect, because what you're overlooking is that the ".PPT" suffix

    >
    > >> >> > didn't exist as part of the naming convention under this particular

    >
    > >> >> > application at the time of its file creation, so there is no one

    >
    > >> >> > single "correct" way to configure a contemporary webserver for this

    >
    > >> >> > class of files.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> >> Obviously you've been misinformed.  Suffixes are informatory only

    >
    > >> >> (except on DOS and Windows, where they stupidly replace file

    >
    > >> >> attributes like "executable").  That's why e.g. web servers do

    >
    > >> >> transmit the file type instead of just relying on the suffix of

    >
    > >> >> the ending.  (And that's why getting a .php-file doesn't mean

    >
    > >> >> your local PHP is supposed to start up and execute the file.)

    >
    >
    >
    > >> > Keep on trying to convince yourself of that.  What you've not realize

    >
    > >> > is that the period in this filename is not a delimiter for a file type

    >
    > >> > identification suffix.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> *I* realized that.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.

    >
    >
    >
    > 1) look up "begging the question"!
    >
    > 2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
    >
    > Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
    >
    > 3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
    >
    > one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
    >
    > to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
    >
    > average or usual case.
    >
    >
    >
    > >> > When you saw that the original name wasn't an '8.3' but was a '4.13',

    >
    > >> > you should have gotten a clue.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> When I saw "text/plain" I got the right clue.  I didn't look at

    >
    > >> the filename for info.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.

    >
    >
    >
    > 1) look up "begging the question"!
    >
    > 2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
    >
    > Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
    >
    > 3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
    >
    > one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
    >
    > to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
    >
    > average or usual case.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Gee, see a pattern here yet? I do.

    >
    >
    >
    > Yep. I see one. You're being as obstinate as a mule just
    >
    > for the love of being contrary *and* you're wrong.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> >> > The alternative was to rename the file to add .PPT - - - but to do so

    >
    > >> >> > represents a post-creation alteration of the original contents ofthe

    >
    > >> >> > original file:  if that had been done, you would now be bitching about

    >
    > >> >> > the file's providance having being "corrupted" by that post-creation

    >
    > >> >> > renaming.

    >
    > >> >> What's in a name? that which we call a rose

    >
    > >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    >
    > >> >> By any other name would smell as sweet;

    >
    > >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    >
    > >> >> So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

    >
    > >> >> Retain that dear perfection which he owes

    >
    > >> >> Without that title.

    >
    > >> > Romeo is dead.  So are some file formats.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> So are some brain cells!

    >
    >
    >
    > > Yet another ad hominem personal insult.

    >
    >
    >
    > Your command of the English language is really fourth-rate, you
    >
    > cannot distinguish between a non-personal "some" and a personal
    >
    > "yours".
    >
    >
    >
    > But if the cap fits, wear it.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Clearly, poster "Wolfgang" has decided that he can't win the disagreement based on its actual *merits*, so he tries to attack the messenger instead.

    >
    >
    >
    > Merits? What merits?
    >
    > 3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
    >
    > one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
    >
    > to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
    >
    > average or usual case.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> Neither Romeo nor file formats have anything to do with renaming

    >
    > >> files to add '.PPT'

    >
    >
    >
    > > Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question as to why you brought up Romeo in the first place.

    >
    >
    >
    > 1) look up "begging the question"!
    >
    > 2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
    >
    > Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
    >
    > 3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
    >
    > one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
    >
    > to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
    >
    > average or usual case.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> > This is an example thereof,

    >
    > >> > and why this "successfully archived" file still is not recoverable.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> This is mostly an example of how someone who doesn't have a real

    >
    > >> name also doesn't have basic skill of telling a webserver what

    >
    > >> type of files it is supposed to serve.

    >
    >
    >
    > > A particularly ironic remark from a poster at "The Original Disposable Email Address Company", sneakemail.com

    >
    >
    >
    > Ah! An ad hominem to misdirect us from the fact that Haw-Haw
    >
    > cannot even handle not even running, but simply correctly
    >
    > using a webserver.
    >
    >
    >
    > My email address is replyable and gets read. I've been using it
    >
    > since 2003-01-25 (that's "just shy of 10 years" to you). Which is
    >
    > perfectly easy to find out. What more do you want, Lord Haw-Haw?
    >
    > (And yes, that *is* a personal insult. You deseve it.)
    >
    >
    >
    > So, do you sort "irony" next to "coppery" and "silvery"?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> And an example of how someone who doesn't have a real name also

    >
    > >> doesn't have the skill of reading what is written or keeping

    >
    > >> the context.

    >
    >
    >
    > > And the hypocrisy is that I'm posting from my own domain, whose registration info isn't hidden at all...as if reading it off of the domain's homepage is not a "...handle basic computing tasks..." easy enough task.

    >
    >
    >
    > Yep, you're posting from google.com. That makes you ...
    >
    > Larry Page or
    >
    > Sergey Brin or
    >
    > one of the 53,564 Google employees or
    >
    > one of the many, many, many people who own Google stock.
    >
    >
    >
    > But is "DNS Admin" really your name?
    >
    >
    >
    > And can't you use a proper usenet reader on your own computer?
    >
    > You'd at least not produce overly long lines ...
    >
    >
    >
    > As to your name "-hh" --- if that is your real name, you really
    >
    > need to sue your parents. But you're not even inventive enough
    >
    > to find a believable false name. Nor do you have the cojones to
    >
    > use your real name. And the domain in the "From"? That one is
    >
    > likely from someone else.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> [...snip...]

    >
    >
    >
    > > I read on and simply see more ad hominem personal insult attempts.

    >
    >
    >
    > I read on and simply see you not having answers, except
    >
    > for insults to my intelligence.
    >
    >
    >
    > >> [...snip...]

    >
    >
    >
    > > I read on and see flat out lies: sorry, but I've not removed even a single URL or file from my website.

    >
    >
    >
    > So you admit you lied (i.e. provided deliberately false
    >
    > facts) when you posted that broken URL of yours.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thank you! Liar!
    >
    >
    >
    > So you are still unable to handle a simple web server ...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> There's *no* suffix in

    >
    > >>    http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer

    >
    >
    >
    > > Sorry, but you mistyped:

    >
    >
    >
    > Nope. I copy&pasted from
    >
    > Message-ID: <>
    >
    > (Look it up, google can do that for you.)
    >
    >
    >
    > The mistype (you called it a lie) is yours.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > the filename in question (which is still online) is:

    >
    >
    >
    > > http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA.snipertrainer

    >
    >
    >
    > Still no suffix.
    >
    > OK, OK, there *are* suffixes. Like "iner", "pertrainer" and
    >
    > "PA.snipertrainer".
    >
    > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix_(computer_science)#Suffix
    >
    > I assume you didn't mean those.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > The irony of "...handle basic computing tasks..." bites a second time.

    >
    >
    >
    > The irony is that *I* copy&pasted ... from *your* post.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> Point is: while YOU might though it unlikely for floppy disks

    >
    > >> to "vaporize", everyone with a functioning brain was well

    >
    > >> aware it was on it's way out.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Oops, and yet another innocent "accident" on his part -- golly, what anamazing coincidence! I'm sorry, but the archives clearly show that what Isaid was that all media standards are temporary (transient), and I cited floppies as a recent real world example of said transient nature.

    >
    >
    >
    > The record states:
    >
    > Me:
    >
    > | >> It's extremely unlikely that all JPEG decoders along with the
    >
    > | >> information how JPEG works will be lost in this century barring
    >
    > | >> a global catastrophy.  It's unlikely that that knowledge will
    >
    > | >> be lost in a span of time when chemical film and prints will
    >
    > | >> already have lost their usefulness.  A recoding to whatever is the
    >
    > | >> then-common format can be done fully automatic by the computer ---
    >
    > | >> quite unlike translating hieroglyphs.
    >
    >
    >
    > Haw-Haw:
    >
    > | > And fifteen years ago, we would have made similar claims about how
    >
    > | > unlikely it would be for floppy disk technology to vaporize.
    >
    >
    >
    > Even *if* you are typing through Google Translate, you should
    >
    > get that.
    >
    >
    >
    > Simple question: Who changed the topic from JPEG to floppies?
    >
    >
    >
    > Simple question: Who got handed his head because he didn't bother
    >
    > to look up what was 15 years ago, but was all blustery and
    >
    > holier-than-thou?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Sure, digital data can be archived successfully, but for ease of subsequent use, it is not a "zero maintenance" activity, particularly in comparison to prior technologies which can more readily tolerate years/decades of benign neglect and still be adequately recovered.

    >
    >
    >
    > Film under "benign neglect" survives on the average as long as
    >
    > photos on a not backupped computer. Before you answer, look up
    >
    > the word "average" and remember the user copies his files to his
    >
    > new computer every couple years.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Similarly, it is pedantically possible to invoke heroic (and expensive)measures to recover something, but pragmatically, this won't be done for the vast majority of "somethings", because invariably, the potential (or perceived) value of said 'something' isn't known to justify the expense, usually because of the Catch-22 that said 'something' hasn't been adequately identified so as to make a value assessment.

    >
    >
    >
    > On the other hand, heroic and expensive measures are needed
    >
    > to save film. For one example how much heroic work is needed
    >
    > to create a incomplete result --- and that from a work that
    >
    > was distributed and more or less archived worldwide (quite the
    >
    > opposite of benign neglegt) --- see Metropolis.
    >
    >
    >
    > As to "value": See Metropolis. See very many of the early
    >
    > film works. Studios were *burning* the prints, believing them
    >
    > *worthless* once they'd phased out of the cinema. Had they only
    >
    > been copyable and storeable as easy as hard drives today ...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Finally, the process of data recovery isn't merely the format of the bits, but also the medium of how those bits are being stored - - it is both software and hardware, and the failure of either one makes the data permanently irretrievable.

    >
    >
    >
    > Ah ... no.
    >
    > Physical media can be duplicated and parts from one copy spliced
    >
    > with parts from another copy. Works with digital just as well as
    >
    > with analog --- in fact, it works better with digital if there's
    >
    > any overlap.
    >
    >
    >
    > As to "formats", they can be just as problematic with analog.
    >
    > "phonautograph".
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Unfortunately, the tragedy is that this actual issue of how to subsequently decide how to manage digitally based data archives has been ignored, because it is more important to "Wolfgang's" ego to try to attack this Messenger, rather than to potentially acknowledge the validity of any part of the message.

    >
    >
    >
    > Your message is as valid as the claims of those who say that
    >
    > an asteroid strike will wipe us all out in the next 10 years.
    >
    > We cannot prove this will not happen, but simple statistics
    >
    > shows that the event as painted is rather unlikely.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> > If it really was as trivial as you claimed, you would have been

    >
    > >> > successful two months ago and RPD would have been spared the past two

    >
    > >> > months (yes, since August!) of your impotent whining.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> I'm simply not interested in your stupid "decode this secret

    >
    > >> proprietary unused format" games.  Thus, I have not even tried.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Not only is this lame,

    >
    >
    >
    > Maybe it is lame not to fall for your idiotic 'examples'.
    >
    >
    >
    > > but "Wolfgang's" public criticism of how my domain served up the files as "text/plain" says that he did try. Yet another untruth is thus revealed..

    >
    >
    >
    > I did try to *download* them. I did a "strings" on them. I used
    >
    > "wget -S" to see the headers. That's all.
    >
    > If that's "trying" ... well, then blindly hammering
    >
    > with both feet on a keyboard is "writing a work of world
    >
    > literature".
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> [...snip...]

    >
    >
    >
    > I see. You agree that I was completely right. Your reported "NASA"
    >
    > story is complete bullshit, thus you reneged on it. Your
    >
    > hieroglyphs were shot down in flames, so you gave them up.
    >
    >
    >
    > You didn't manage to deliver the specifications for your
    >
    > ADPA.snipertrainer-file, thus proving you knew it wasn't an
    >
    > archivable format like, say JPEG, as I specified: widely used,
    >
    > open, documented. Shot down in flames, again.
    >
    >
    >
    > > "Wolfgang" has surrendered all semblance of being capable of carrying on a reasonable conversation and not perpetuating even more outright lies between his Ad Hominem personal attack attempts and other quotation/citation "accidents".

    >
    >
    >
    > Ah, the ad hominem to misdirect again.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Clearly, we are done here.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Any interested parties who wish to continue this conversation offline are free to contact me ... this email address forwards to a general account that will require a "yes I'm human" reply to self-whitelist prior to retransmission to counter spam. Otherwise, I'll never see it.

    >
    >
    >
    > > -hh

    >
    >
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    That was epic. Didn't have the patience to read it all, but still, wow.

    DanP
     
    DanP, Nov 6, 2012
    #91
  12. ray

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:53:50 PM UTC, David Taylor wrote:
    > On 05/11/2012 16:11, Whisky-dave wrote:
    >
    > []
    >
    > > That is somewhat an ommision I guess but I haven't found a use for suchan option and can;t think why I might need one.

    >
    > > Why would I copy 1000s of pictures to a ipad only to delete them without viewing them, I'd have to tap to view so tapping to delete isn;t much more effort, in fact it's a littel eaisr than on a computer. I can view the picture and if I don;t want it I tap on the trash can at the top, that's easier than dragging or right clicking.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > maybe I'm missing the point, or deleted it ;-) but why would anyone want to manually delete 1000s pictures from their ipad, why not just NOT load them on to it in the first place ?

    >
    > > I took about 15 photos last night using the ipad then reviewed them by tapping and taping again to delete the 12 or so I didn't want.

    >
    > []
    >
    >
    >
    > Why? Because you have used your iPad during a trip away from a computer
    >
    > to view the pictures from your own camera, and provide a backup.


    No I was taking pictures with the ipad a bit like some peole take pictures with their camera, I've heard peole do that sport of thing.

    > It's
    >
    > not just for photos taken on the iPad. You might even want to look at
    >
    > pictures from someone else or perhaps to demonstrate how good the iPad
    >
    > display is using their images. Many reasons.


    Yep, and if I do that it's unlikely I'll be copying a 1000s of photos and even if I do I can sych or unsyn them via the computer which is how they went on their in the first place.

    >
    >
    >
    > We are agreed that the inability to delete all images in an album at
    >
    > once is an omission on Apple's part.


    Perhaps, but then again I tend to delete the album.

    Think of it this way 100 years ago if I had an album full of photos I didn;t need (due to the cost of albums) I might well remove all teh photos from the album (saving the album cover perhaps it had gold edging or be made of silk)

    But on the ipad this isn;t relevent, if I have an album that contains 1000sphotos I don;t want I delete teh album, but of teh album has 2000 photos adn I want to delete 1/2 of them then that would be a problem but that's a problem I've yet to encounter as I don;t tend to put 1000s of photos in a album that I don't want to view.

    The reason I was taking photos last night is that my cat had decided to usemy keyboard as a pillow and the noise of the repeating keys annoyed her.
    She doesn;t understand that the primary use of a keyboard is to type, she thinks it can be used as a pillow, now I'm trying to get her to understand it's not a backup devivce but if she wants to use it as such she could have 'issue's , but as long as she doesn;t try using it as a littler tray ... that's where I draw the line.


    > I'm disappointed that it hasn't
    >
    > been rectified in iOS updates.


    Maybe it will if enough people or Apple thimk it's 'Apple like' or someone writes an app to do it

    in the meantime it seems there are solutions to problems I've yet to experience.

    http://thehowto.wikidot.com/delete-photos-on-ipad


    >
    > --
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > David
    >
    > Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 6, 2012
    #92
  13. ray

    David Taylor Guest

    On 06/11/2012 10:54, Whisky-dave wrote:
    > On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:53:50 PM UTC, David Taylor wrote:
    >> On 05/11/2012 16:11, Whisky-dave wrote:
    >>
    >> []
    >>
    >>> That is somewhat an ommision I guess but I haven't found a use for such an option and can;t think why I might need one.

    >>
    >>> Why would I copy 1000s of pictures to a ipad only to delete them without viewing them, I'd have to tap to view so tapping to delete isn;t much more effort, in fact it's a littel eaisr than on a computer. I can view the picture and if I don;t want it I tap on the trash can at the top, that's easier than dragging or right clicking.

    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >>> maybe I'm missing the point, or deleted it ;-) but why would anyone want to manually delete 1000s pictures from their ipad, why not just NOT load them on to it in the first place ?

    >>
    >>> I took about 15 photos last night using the ipad then reviewed them by tapping and taping again to delete the 12 or so I didn't want.

    >>
    >> []
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Why? Because you have used your iPad during a trip away from a computer
    >>
    >> to view the pictures from your own camera, and provide a backup.

    >
    > No I was taking pictures with the ipad a bit like some peole take pictures with their camera, I've heard peole do that sport of thing.
    >
    >> It's
    >>
    >> not just for photos taken on the iPad. You might even want to look at
    >>
    >> pictures from someone else or perhaps to demonstrate how good the iPad
    >>
    >> display is using their images. Many reasons.

    >
    > Yep, and if I do that it's unlikely I'll be copying a 1000s of photos and even if I do I can sych or unsyn them via the computer which is how they went on their in the first place.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> We are agreed that the inability to delete all images in an album at
    >>
    >> once is an omission on Apple's part.

    >
    > Perhaps, but then again I tend to delete the album.
    >
    > Think of it this way 100 years ago if I had an album full of photos I didn;t need (due to the cost of albums) I might well remove all teh photos from the album (saving the album cover perhaps it had gold edging or be made of silk)
    >
    > But on the ipad this isn;t relevent, if I have an album that contains 1000s photos I don;t want I delete teh album, but of teh album has 2000 photos adn I want to delete 1/2 of them then that would be a problem but that's a problem I've yet to encounter as I don;t tend to put 1000s of photos in a album that I don't want to view.
    >
    > The reason I was taking photos last night is that my cat had decided to use my keyboard as a pillow and the noise of the repeating keys annoyed her.
    > She doesn;t understand that the primary use of a keyboard is to type, she thinks it can be used as a pillow, now I'm trying to get her to understand it's not a backup devivce but if she wants to use it as such she could have 'issue's , but as long as she doesn;t try using it as a littler tray ... that's where I draw the line.
    >
    >
    >> I'm disappointed that it hasn't
    >>
    >> been rectified in iOS updates.

    >
    > Maybe it will if enough people or Apple thimk it's 'Apple like' or someone writes an app to do it
    >
    > in the meantime it seems there are solutions to problems I've yet to experience.
    >
    > http://thehowto.wikidot.com/delete-photos-on-ipad



    Deleting the albums does /not/ remove the image files from the iPad.

    The solution you suggest requires an external computer.

    There are a number of us who have seen the problem.

    It's obvious that the people who've designed the software (or those who
    created the specification) haven't used an iPad out in the field with
    the camera connector, stand-alone. Looks like the same team may have
    been given the job of designing the iOS 6 Mapping application as well! <G>
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Nov 6, 2012
    #93
  14. ray

    Mayayana Guest

    | > Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question
    as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.
    |
    | 1) look up "begging the question"!

    It depends on where you look it up:

    http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/beg the question

    I grew up speaking American English and the only
    definition I've ever known for "begs the question"
    is as -hh used it. (Second example at link above.)
    Ex.: "That leaking pipe begs the question of who is
    in charge of plumbing inspections here."

    But isn't the whole point to communicate? Which
    "begs for" some other fun English expression:

    "splitting hairs"

    "counting the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin"

    "missing the forest for the trees"

    The mystic Gurdjieff had an interesting theory that excessive
    argumentativeness is a form of sexual perversion, caused by
    diverting sexual energy through the intellect due to a sort of titillation
    addiction. He said that such misuse of energy can be recognized
    by two features: 1) An inappropriate vehemence
    and 2) the irrelevance of the argument.

    A good example would be the fire-and-brimstone preacher
    who *seems* to be speaking coherent ideas but whose
    words are actually just the manifestation of sexual frustration.
    He blathers because he's hooked on dwelling on the delicious
    sense of purpose that his distorted arousal provides....
    Which begs the question....
     
    Mayayana, Nov 6, 2012
    #94
  15. ray

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:16:15 -0500, "Mayayana"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >| > Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question
    >as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.
    >|
    >| 1) look up "begging the question"!
    >
    >It depends on where you look it up:
    >
    >http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/beg the question
    >
    >I grew up speaking American English and the only
    >definition I've ever known for "begs the question"
    >is as -hh used it. (Second example at link above.)
    >Ex.: "That leaking pipe begs the question of who is
    >in charge of plumbing inspections here."
    >


    Casey Stengel grew up speaking American English.

    One of the definitions in the site you linked to says:
    "This reinterpretation of beg the question is incorrect but is
    currently in widespread use.)"

    In other words, it's incorrect but people still use it.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 6, 2012
    #95
  16. ray

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:37:11 PM UTC, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:16:15 -0500, "Mayayana"
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >

    >
    > >| > Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question

    >
    > >as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.

    >
    > >|

    >
    > >| 1) look up "begging the question"!

    >
    > >

    >
    > >It depends on where you look it up:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/beg the question

    >
    > >

    >
    > >I grew up speaking American English and the only

    >
    > >definition I've ever known for "begs the question"

    >
    > >is as -hh used it. (Second example at link above.)

    >
    > >Ex.: "That leaking pipe begs the question of who is

    >
    > >in charge of plumbing inspections here."

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > Casey Stengel grew up speaking American English.
    >
    >
    >
    > One of the definitions in the site you linked to says:
    >
    > "This reinterpretation of beg the question is incorrect but is
    >
    > currently in widespread use.)"
    >
    >
    >
    > In other words, it's incorrect but people still use it.


    A bit like kirk saying "beam me up scotty" or Moores law was written by Moore.

    Or we can "boldley go where no man has gone before", or more correctly we can go Go boldley...................



    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 6, 2012
    #96
  17. ray

    Mayayana Guest

    | One of the definitions in the site you linked to says:
    | "This reinterpretation of beg the question is incorrect but is
    | currently in widespread use.)"
    |
    | In other words, it's incorrect but people still use it.
    |

    That seems to be a third definition, though the difference
    seems rather subtle, at best, to me between the "wrong"
    usage and next one listed.

    In any case, at some point a widespread usage is no
    longer wrong. Language is alive. Forte as a strength used
    to be pronounced fort. But so many people mispronounced
    it as "fortAY" that that became an official pronunciation.
    Likewise, I loathe the mechanistic terms for qualitative
    human experience, like "impact" instead of "affect". And
    many foreign words are used in a completely wrong way
    due to cultural chauvinism. (Ex. mantra, guru, powwow)
    While others are routinely pronounced wrongly for the same
    reason.

    But words change and if most people use a common form
    it becomes officially correct eventually. The only form of
    "begs the question" I've ever known is this one:

    "if a statement or situation begs the question, it causes
    you to ask a particular question
    (It's all very well talking about extra staff but it rather
    begs the question of how we're going to pay for them.)"

    Everyone I've ever known uses it that way. And it's on
    thefreedictionary as a valid usage. That's good enough
    for me. Maybe there are regional differences. I don't
    know.

    I imagine these problems will only get worse with
    so many functionally illiterate people online. I'm amazed
    to see the indications that many people only know
    language in a childish version, as heard spoken. A good
    example is people who write "for all intensive purposes".
    That indicates that the writer is using language mainly
    as an oral tool, a string of familiar cliches and expressions,
    necessarily attaching their own shade of meaning to each,
    and substantially ignorant of the actual meaning of the
    specific words themselves.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 6, 2012
    #97
  18. ray

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:11:41 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-11-06 07:37:08 -0800, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:16:15 -0500, "Mayayana"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> | > Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question
    >>> as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.
    >>> |
    >>> | 1) look up "begging the question"!
    >>>
    >>> It depends on where you look it up:
    >>>
    >>> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/beg the question
    >>>
    >>> I grew up speaking American English and the only
    >>> definition I've ever known for "begs the question"
    >>> is as -hh used it. (Second example at link above.)
    >>> Ex.: "That leaking pipe begs the question of who is
    >>> in charge of plumbing inspections here."
    >>>

    >>
    >> Casey Stengel grew up speaking American English.
    >>
    >> One of the definitions in the site you linked to says:
    >> "This reinterpretation of beg the question is incorrect but is
    >> currently in widespread use.)"
    >>
    >> In other words, it's incorrect but people still use it.

    >
    >As is the irritatingly common use of the non-word "normalcy", first
    >coined by Warren Harding, and which is not an equivalent of the
    >correct, real word "normality".


    That word can grate even if you disregard the fact that it is a
    non-word. I hear some pronounce it "nor-mal-a-see" and some pronounce
    it "normal-cee".


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 6, 2012
    #98
  19. ray

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:47:22 -0500, "Mayayana"
    <> wrote:

    >| One of the definitions in the site you linked to says:
    >| "This reinterpretation of beg the question is incorrect but is
    >| currently in widespread use.)"
    >|
    >| In other words, it's incorrect but people still use it.
    >|
    >
    > That seems to be a third definition, though the difference
    >seems rather subtle, at best, to me between the "wrong"
    >usage and next one listed.
    >
    > In any case, at some point a widespread usage is no
    >longer wrong. Language is alive.



    I'm all for it. If it wasn't for the changes that we see in English
    usage, those of us who participate in English usage forums wouldn't
    have much to talk about.

    The sticking point, though, is determining when an incorrect usage or
    pronunciation becomes acceptable enough by popular usage to be
    considered as correct. Has the time come to accept "begs the
    question" with the "causes you to ask the question" meaning as the new
    correct?

    I don't try to make that decision, but I do avoid using words or
    phrases that are ambiguous in meaning because they are in transition.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 6, 2012
    #99
  20. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Nov 6, 12:35 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-11-06 09:24:58 -0800, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:47:22 -0500, "Mayayana"
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >> | One of the definitions in the site you linked to says:
    > >> | "This reinterpretation of beg the question is incorrect but is
    > >> | currently in widespread use.)"
    > >> |
    > >> | In other words, it's incorrect but people still use it.
    > >> |

    >
    > >> That seems to be a third definition, though the difference
    > >> seems rather subtle, at best, to me between the "wrong"
    > >> usage and next one listed.

    >
    > >> In any case, at some point a widespread usage is no
    > >> longer wrong. Language is alive.

    >
    > > I'm all for it.  If it wasn't for the changes that we see in English
    > > usage, those of us who participate in English usage forums wouldn't
    > > have much to talk about.

    >
    > > The sticking point, though, is determining when an incorrect usage or
    > > pronunciation becomes acceptable enough by popular usage to be
    > > considered as correct.  Has the time come to accept "begs the
    > > question" with the "causes you to ask the question" meaning as the new
    > > correct?

    >
    > > I don't try to make that decision, but I do avoid using words or
    > > phrases that are ambiguous in meaning because they are in transition.

    >
    > The problem is, by using "begs" instead of "raises" the question the
    > individual using the phrase "begs the question" believes he/she has
    > implied an urgency to a question he/she wants answered based on the
    > prior statement. However in misusing the phrase which in correct use,
    > identifies a fallacious circular argument, and this is the usage
    > anybody who has studied classical logic understands "begs the question"
    > as a rhetorical term.
    >
    > The misuse of the phrase lies in simplifying definitions and
    > interpretations of both "question" and "begs" down to a lowest common
    > denominator.
    >
    > Most people understand a "question" to be a sentence phrased in a way
    > to elicit information or a response. However there is more to the word
    > than that.
    > Consider terms such as: "A question of honor" or "A question of Law",
    > or "A question of guilt or innocence", where "question" is meant as an
    > issue of doubt, or an argument or subject for debate.


    Any languages' idioms and similarly subtle complexities are going to
    be an interpretive challenge for non-native speakers due to
    differences in language forms & syntax; I recall becoming more aware
    of this some years ago while with the Rothenburg odT ECC (English
    Conversation Club).

    Had there been a polite request for clarification, I would have gladly
    revealed that my general intent was more rhetorical in nature, since I
    was using it to point out instances of self-contradiction which likely
    would not have been graciously received.



    -hh
    "NED short .sig assassin"
     
    -hh, Nov 7, 2012
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    302
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  2. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    310
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  3. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    324
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  4. tony cooper

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    109
    Views:
    1,254
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 31, 2012
  5. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 27, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    284
    nospam
    Aug 27, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page