Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Richard Tobin on 5 Mar 2010 12:59 In article <1jew1w2.q21ldiingng5N%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >That's simply the English spelling of its name. I think one could argue that one should not respell proper names in different versions of English, any more than one would translate "Schwarz" to "Black" when referring to a German person. Once a word has become a proper name, it is no longer subject to the rules applying to the original. Of course, it's possible for something to have a different proper name in two languages - Londres and London for example. But that's not the case here. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Mar 2010 13:47 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > >That's simply the English spelling of its name. > > I think one could argue that one should not respell proper names in > different versions of English, any more than one would translate > "Schwarz" to "Black" when referring to a German person. It's a portmanteau name-word, created from parts, is `Wikipaedia'. I'm arguing in this case that it's correct to spell it that way if you're a Brit. And also that it's correct to spell it the American way if you're a Brit. > Once a word > has become a proper name, it is no longer subject to the rules > applying to the original. All rules that apply to English are non-binding. > Of course, it's possible for something to have a different proper > name in two languages - Londres and London for example. But that's > not the case here. Londres and London are the same name as far as I'm concerned - it's just that one's the Spanish way of saying it. Wikipaedia and Wikipedia are so close to identical that no-one with a working brain could possibly fail to understand either usage. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 5 Mar 2010 14:03 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Did you see that thing about the original JPL scans of the moon to > > prepare for the moon landings? All the data was held on tapes for a > > really expensive machine, and nasa through it all out after apollo was > > scrapped. One woman hung onto the data and one of the machines in her > > garage, then 20 years later when they realised they needed the data she > > had it all, and the only machine to read it > > "She also had the forethought to request three Ampex 900 reel-to-reel > tape machines that could read the Orbiter's data. This half-ton machine > was already obsolete - most had been dumped at sea." > > This kind of thing is just appalling. Incomprehensible. They're not that > big, why not dump them with a tarp over them at one of these airplane > graveyards in the desert? They'd be barely a dot next to a bunch of B52s > and Starlifters. YOu can't blow things up with an Ampex 900 reel to reel tape machine, therefore they are of lesser importance. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Mar 2010 14:22 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Did you see that thing about the original JPL scans of the moon to > > > prepare for the moon landings? All the data was held on tapes for a > > > really expensive machine, and nasa through it all out after apollo was > > > scrapped. One woman hung onto the data and one of the machines in her > > > garage, then 20 years later when they realised they needed the data she > > > had it all, and the only machine to read it > > > > "She also had the forethought to request three Ampex 900 reel-to-reel > > tape machines that could read the Orbiter's data. This half-ton machine > > was already obsolete - most had been dumped at sea." > > > > This kind of thing is just appalling. Incomprehensible. They're not that > > big, why not dump them with a tarp over them at one of these airplane > > graveyards in the desert? They'd be barely a dot next to a bunch of B52s > > and Starlifters. > > YOu can't blow things up with an Ampex 900 reel to reel tape machine, Eh? Don't be daft. > therefore they are of lesser importance. It's *EASY* to blow things up with a reel-to-reel recorder of the studio sort - you just pack it the empty volume of the case with plastic explosive, fit a trigger of some sort, job done. Straight out of the "Boys' own book of covert bombing techniques", that one - which tome I read some time in the 1970s (either that, or I picked up the idea from the 1970s news, oh what a joyous decade that was). Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Pd on 5 Mar 2010 14:24
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Wikipaedia and Wikipedia are so close to identical that no-one with a > working brain could possibly fail to understand either usage. Like Rowland and Roland? -- Pd |