On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:15:43 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

>
>"Giusi" > wrote
>
>> The question is not why one would have a passport but why one would not.
>> Sick relatives? Lame excuse. I am not aware of knowing anyone American
>> over 16 who doesn't have a passport . My friends would consider it like a
>> voter's registration card, just part of a life. Some have passports but
>> no driving license.
>
>
>Given the physical size of the US, it is quite possible to travel thousands
>of miles in one's life and never leave the country. I know many people that
>do not and never will have passports. For that matter, I know a lot of
>people that will go through life and never travel more than 100 miles from
>home.
>
>With new regulations, I'm sure you'll find more people near the borders with
>passports, but in the past you could travel the continent without one.
>
>And then there is Steve, a fellow I work with. In the past he has travelled
>to Canada every couple of years, has travelled the entire US often. This
>past summer he went to Texas and was right at the border to Mexico. He
>would not pay the $65 or so for a passport so he has still not been there.
>He saw it, but could not cross.

He should consider himself very fortunate, the border towns are crap
and extremely dangerous, all of Mexico is dangerous... the world is
more dangerous then ever... that's why I no longer have a need for a
passport. And you are right, no one can live long enough to visit all
the points of interest in the US... and again you are are right, the
vast majority don't travel more than 100 miles from their front door,
never have, never will. I used to love traveling, I no longer find
travel pleasurable... I don't even like the 7 mile round trip into
town... I'd have no problem wearing one of those ankle thingies that
won't permit me to set foot off this property.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 12:18:10 -0400, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> So you readily admit that Euros are uncivilized... I already knew
> that.

I was referring to China. Euro's have little extras like a fire hose
hitting you on the butt.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

"Ophelia" > ha scritto nel messaggio

> We have a bidet You are welcome to use it any time you like)

Thank you, O.

George Shirley wrote:

>On 9/26/2010 8:09 AM, Aussie wrote:
>> "Ed > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> For that matter,
>>> I know a lot of people that will go through life and never travel more
>>> than 100 miles from home.
>>
>> Man..... *that* is frikken sad.
>>
>Yeah, but it happens. I've one neighbor who, literally, has never been
>out of the Parish (read Louisiana county) in his life. He's in his
>sixties, never got drafted when the draft was around, worked in a local
>plant for forty years, married his high school girl friend, his kids
>went to the same schools he did, the same church, lived on the same
>block, etc. He tells me he never had the urge to leave here because
>everything he loved was here. I told him he missed a lot of life doing
>that but he seems content with it.

There's something to be said for contentment... the lucky fellow is
happy, not many can say that... it's like a man finding a good women
whom he loves and loves him back equally, they trust each other
completely, and their sex life is superb... for what good reason to
search elsewhere.

At this point in my life I've found contentment, I'm very happy here,
I've no desire to look elsewhere. I've traveled enough to know with
absolute certainty that for me this is it. My only regret is that I
didn't reach this point a lot sooner... what a wasted life contstantly
searching for elusive contentment when more often than not it's right
under ones nose. And I've done it all... how many people can say with
sincereity that if they died within the hour they've missed nothing.
Um, don't get all excited, I expect to be here a good while yet
busting balls. LOL

"J. Clarke" > wrote in news:1emv1wczifwad
:

> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:09:38 GMT, Aussie wrote:
>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> For that matter,
>>> I know a lot of people that will go through life and never travel more
>>> than 100 miles from home.
>>
>>
>>
>> Man..... *that* is frikken sad.
>
> I remember many years ago asking a young lady if she would let me take her
> to dinner. Her response was "All the way to _HARTFORD_" like I had asked
> her to go to the Moon. We were 11 miles from downtown Hartford at the
> time.
>


She probably thought you were going to 'transport her over the Border' ;-)


--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania

The act of feeding someone is an act of beauty,
whether it's a full Sunday roast or a jam sandwich,
but only when done with love.

In article >,
"Giusi" > wrote:

> "ChattyCathy" ha scritto nel messaggio

> > Well, USA citizens even need a passport/ID card if they want to travel> to
> > Canada and Mexico these days, so I guess you're not overly impressed>
> > about that either.
>
> I wish no one felt like saying snarky things about this. Canada was always
> easier with one, but of course people on the borders who worked, visited,
> shopped on both sides will be the ones most inconvenienced now.

Yes.

> The question is not why one would have a passport but why one would not.
> Sick relatives? Lame excuse. I am not aware of knowing anyone American
> over 16 who doesn't have a passport . My friends would consider it like a
> voter's registration card, just part of a life. Some have passports but no
> driving license.

Interesting. In my almost 40 years of voting, I don't remember ever
having a voter's registration card. When I go to the polling place, my
name is on the list.

In the US, I believe that there were historical reasons for not having a
passport, and for not using it as id if you had one. The government did
not take passport photos. You went to any of a million places (travel
agencies were favorites) and they took your picture, which was then
affixed to the passport. I don't think it was difficult to forge
passports. In addition, since no one carried them for id in the US,
clerks at stores didn't know what they looked like. They often rejected
passports as id because they couldn't tell if they were valid. On the
other hand, *everybody* in the last ten years has a driver's license/id
card. They are secure, and there is a hefty fine for forging them. You
cannot board an airplane without id.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> "Giusi" > wrote:
>
>> "ChattyCathy" ha scritto nel messaggio
>
>> > Well, USA citizens even need a passport/ID card if they want to
>> > travel> to Canada and Mexico these days, so I guess you're not overly
>> > impressed> about that either.
>>
>> I wish no one felt like saying snarky things about this. Canada was
>> always easier with one, but of course people on the borders who worked,
>> visited, shopped on both sides will be the ones most inconvenienced
>> now.
>
> Yes.
>
>> The question is not why one would have a passport but why one would
>> not. Sick relatives? Lame excuse. I am not aware of knowing anyone
>> American over 16 who doesn't have a passport . My friends would
>> consider it like a voter's registration card, just part of a life.
>> Some have passports but no driving license.
>
> Interesting. In my almost 40 years of voting, I don't remember ever
> having a voter's registration card. When I go to the polling place, my
> name is on the list.
>
> In the US, I believe that there were historical reasons for not having a
> passport, and for not using it as id if you had one. The government did
> not take passport photos. You went to any of a million places (travel
> agencies were favorites) and they took your picture, which was then
> affixed to the passport. I don't think it was difficult to forge
> passports. In addition, since no one carried them for id in the US,
> clerks at stores didn't know what they looked like. They often rejected
> passports as id because they couldn't tell if they were valid. On the
> other hand, *everybody* in the last ten years has a driver's license/id
> card. They are secure, and there is a hefty fine for forging them. You
> cannot board an airplane without id.
>


We're changing over to new passports here. When you go to get your pic
done, there are strict guidelines as to what you have to do. No smiling,.
no dark framed glasses, hair out of the face etc, etc. Even for infants.

https://www.passports.gov.au/web/req...ts/photos.aspx

It all about facial recognition software. Your photo is scanned at the
same time a camera is scanning your face.

These all go with our new biometric or ePassports (N series) that has an
RFID microchip embedded in the center page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...etric_passport



--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania

The act of feeding someone is an act of beauty,
whether it's a full Sunday roast or a jam sandwich,
but only when done with love.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:51:49 -0400, "Paco" > wrote:
>
>>And so ends today's geography lesson. Bonus trivia? Translate "Green
>>Mountains" into French. That's right! Les Monts Vert! Get it?
>
> OK, thanks... not that I cared. If I did, it would have been right
> the first time.
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.



Okay, you're welcome. Too bad you didn't appreciate the educational
opportunity that was presented to you. But, I suppose that many of your
former students took that same "not that I cared" attitude that you bestowed
upon them. Wonder if that attitude could be part of the reason that
California is in the condition that it is.

"Dan Abel" > ha scritto nel messaggio news:dabel-

> "Giusi" > wrote:

Some have passports but no >> driving license.
>
> In the US, I believe that there were historical reasons for not having a >
> passport, and for not using it as id if you had one. I don't think it
> was difficult to forge > passports. In addition, since no one carried
> them for id in the US,
> clerks at stores didn't know what they looked like. They often rejected
> passports as id because they couldn't tell if they were valid.

I think they rejected them because they were stupid, frankly.

On the > other hand, *everybody* in the last ten years has a driver's
license/id > card. They are secure, and there is a hefty fine for forging
them. You > cannot board an airplane without id.

Nowadays photos are digital and it's been years since there have been
holographic seals on passports. Passports are available through post
offices or embassies/legations. Licenses and state IDs are available at DMV
that are almost always convenient to no one except one who can drive there.
People who live in big city centers often don't have them, partly for that
reason plus they don't drive.

On Sep 25, 10:34*am, sf > wrote:

> When I go abroad, I spend a month. *

I'd go batshit crazy if I were away from home for a month. I'm glad
to get home after a long weekend somewhere.

Cindy Hamilton

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

> On Sep 25, 10:34*am, sf > wrote:
>
> > When I go abroad, I spend a month. *
>
> I'd go batshit crazy if I were away from home for a month. I'm glad
> to get home after a long weekend somewhere.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

You're just a home-body, girl. <G> I used to "staycation" close to
home when my kids were younger too. My cash went to feeding and
clothing them, paying for their educations (they graduated from
college debt free) and my house; not on fancy vacations. It's time to
see and do more while I'm physically able and mentally "in the zone".
I don't have the responsibilities that kept me close to home (in terms
of kids, pets and plants) - so it's easier for me to get away fast and
to stay away for longer periods of time now.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...

> Not all people in the world can vote about every little detail - that is
> why democratic countries have elected governments (as do both USA and
> Canada), and why there are international organizations like the UN and
> IUPAC (which is currently US-based BTW) to take care of the day-to-day
> details. The citizens of various nations delegate authority to a
> government or international standards organization, and abide by its
> decisions. Some nations may be a bit slower than others in adopting
> global standards, but we've come from many different measuring systems
> (varying by country, monarch, etc). down to essentially two. It can
> only be a matter of time until that is reduced to one; any bets which
> one that will be?
>

I still don't see. If the organization had decided the other way, would you
be in favor of the nations changing to "aluminum"? I suspect not. The
organization you mention is for certain international usage conventions. It
has nothing to do with the words used in common language in various nations.

As I said, you have odd ideas. The concept of a nation of 300 million
changing a word in everyday use, one that has been in use for 100 years,
because a minor international body decided a certain version was standard is
beyond silly. Not to mention, that same body accepts the US version as a
recognized variant.




Brian
--
Day 600 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.

On 2010-09-27, Default User > wrote:

> As I said, you have odd ideas. The concept of a nation of 300 million
> changing a word in everyday use, one that has been in use for 100 years,
> because a minor international body decided a certain version was standard is
> beyond silly. Not to mention, that same body accepts the US version as a
> recognized variant.

You haven't been keeping up, have you? Howzabout if one single
company in the US changing global standards? As in Microsoft
completely dominatinig and changing the ISO stds for a certain type of
globally accepted document type?

Look it up.

nb

uhh - the Green Mountains are wonderful but they are in Vermont. New
York State has the Adirondacks, Catskills and Alleghenies, all
wonderful, too. jan

notbob wrote:

> On 2010-09-27, Default User > wrote:
>
>> As I said, you have odd ideas. The concept of a nation of 300 million
>> changing a word in everyday use, one that has been in use for 100
>> years, because a minor international body decided a certain version
>> was standard is beyond silly. Not to mention, that same body accepts
>> the US version as a recognized variant.
>
> You haven't been keeping up, have you? Howzabout if one single
> company in the US changing global standards? As in Microsoft
> completely dominatinig and changing the ISO stds for a certain type of
> globally accepted document type?
>
> Look it up.

I wouldn't hold your breath, nb. Expecting Default User/Brian to do some
in-depth research, or even arrive at a logical conclusion about matters
that are also relevant to the other 6.2 billion people living on this
planet, seems to be a waste of time.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:41:04 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> You haven't been keeping up, have you? Howzabout if one single
> company in the US changing global standards? As in Microsoft
> completely dominatinig and changing the ISO stds for a certain type of
> globally accepted document type?

Why blame Microsoft? It's a product. Apparently people didn't like
Microsoft, they LOVED it. If no one had bought it, nothing would have
changed and you'd still have your .txt or whatever it is that you're
mourning the loss of as your document standard.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On 2010-09-28, sf > wrote:

> Why blame Microsoft? It's a product. Apparently people didn't like
> Microsoft, they LOVED it. If no one had bought it....

Actually, Microsoft used corporate extortion to force computer mfr's to put
Windows on every computer, whether ppl wanted it or not. Hardly a
matter of choice.

The same corporate malfeasance and dirty tricks M$ has always used has
loaded ISO voting committees with M$ apologists like yourself to get
OOMXL passed as a std despite widespread outrage. Kinda like
Monsanto's seemingly successful attempts in trying to own the World's
food supply. But, I guess that's ok cuz naive people bought into it.
Nevermind the end target has been co-opted and corrupted, probably
beyond repair.

nb

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:14:46 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-09-28, sf > wrote:
>
> > Why blame Microsoft? It's a product. Apparently people didn't like
> > Microsoft, they LOVED it. If no one had bought it....
>
> Actually, Microsoft used corporate extortion to force computer mfr's to put
> Windows on every computer, whether ppl wanted it or not. Hardly a
> matter of choice.

How can a small company of no consequence accomplish that? It's
impossible. Microsoft had to grow somehow and the way it grew was by
people liking their products and using them.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On 2010-09-28, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> sf wrote:

>> I have no idea what he's talking about.

> Clearly.

But, the mere formality of having nary a clue will never stop sf from
arguing it to the death.

>> I only know he's permanently mad at Microsoft - basically for being
>> a success...

Yeah, that's it, sf. I'm jealous.

>> just like all the Apple/Mac (now turned Linux) users were trained
>> to be.

Trained? Now we were trained? Must be those secret stealth
instructors that slip into our dreams while we sleep.

> <snork>

We need the comedy relief.

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-09-27, Default User > wrote:
>
>> As I said, you have odd ideas. The concept of a nation of 300 million
>> changing a word in everyday use, one that has been in use for 100 years,
>> because a minor international body decided a certain version was standard
>> is
>> beyond silly. Not to mention, that same body accepts the US version as a
>> recognized variant.
>
> You haven't been keeping up, have you? Howzabout if one single
> company in the US changing global standards? As in Microsoft
> completely dominatinig and changing the ISO stds for a certain type of
> globally accepted document type?

Have they forced a nation to change its common word for something? I must
have missed it.



Brian
--
Day 601 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-09-28, sf > wrote:
>
>> Why blame Microsoft? It's a product. Apparently people didn't like
>> Microsoft, they LOVED it. If no one had bought it....
>
> Actually, Microsoft used corporate extortion to force computer mfr's to
> put
> Windows on every computer, whether ppl wanted it or not. Hardly a
> matter of choice.

I'm still not certain why you think the situations are analogous. You
understand that CC wants the US to mandate a change in the everyday word
that's been used for 100 years.



Brian
--
Day 601 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...

> I wouldn't hold your breath, nb. Expecting Default User/Brian to do some
> in-depth research, or even arrive at a logical conclusion about matters
> that are also relevant to the other 6.2 billion people living on this
> planet, seems to be a waste of time.

I did more than you. You have not yet even acknowledged that the
organization you refer to ACCEPTS the US word as a standard variant. Why do
you refuse? Because it negates your point. Even if they didn't, the idea of
a nation of 300 million switching an everyday word because of it is patently
silly.

You are of the sort who believes that if the US does it different than you,
it's WRONG WRONG WRONG, and we should be MADE to conform.




Brian
--
Day 601 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.

Default User wrote:

> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I wouldn't hold your breath, nb. Expecting Default User/Brian to do
>> some in-depth research, or even arrive at a logical conclusion about
>> matters that are also relevant to the other 6.2 billion people living
>> on this planet, seems to be a waste of time.
>
> I did more than you. You have not yet even acknowledged that the
> organization you refer to ACCEPTS the US word as a standard variant.
> Why do you refuse? Because it negates your point.

Well, I don't recall denying that IUPAC accepts the US word "aluminum"
as a *variant* to the standard. However, you might want to do a tad
more research:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/variant

var·i·ant
adj \?ver-?-?nt\
Definition of VARIANT

1 /obsolete/ : variable
2: manifesting variety, deviation, or disagreement
3: varying usually slightly from the standard form <variant readings>
<variant spellings>

> Even if they didn't, the idea of a nation of 300 million switching an
> everyday word because of it is patently silly.

So all the other nations of 6.2 billion people should switch the
aforementioned word from the globally accepted standard to one that one
single nation prefers? Riiiight.

>You are of the sort who believes that if the US does it different than
>you, it's WRONG WRONG WRONG, and we should be MADE to conform.

Heh. It would appear that *you* are of the sort who believes that if the
rest of the world does it different than you/your village/your nation,
it's WRONG WRONG WRONG, and the rest of the world should be MADE to
conform.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:27:50 -0500, Default User wrote:

> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2010-09-27, Default User > wrote:
>>
>>> As I said, you have odd ideas. The concept of a nation of 300 million
>>> changing a word in everyday use, one that has been in use for 100 years,
>>> because a minor international body decided a certain version was standard
>>> is
>>> beyond silly. Not to mention, that same body accepts the US version as a
>>> recognized variant.
>>
>> You haven't been keeping up, have you? Howzabout if one single
>> company in the US changing global standards? As in Microsoft
>> completely dominatinig and changing the ISO stds for a certain type of
>> globally accepted document type?
>
> Have they forced a nation to change its common word for something? I must
> have missed it.
>
Apparently you have. Once upon a time disks were organized in
directories. That was before M$ decided that 'directory' was too
difficult a concept for their poor users, and changed it into 'folder'.

Maybe it was a good thing though; anybody who starts talking about
'folders' gets automatically classified as a 'Default User, no clue about
computers'.

-j

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> Default User wrote:
>
>> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I wouldn't hold your breath, nb. Expecting Default User/Brian to do
>>> some in-depth research, or even arrive at a logical conclusion about
>>> matters that are also relevant to the other 6.2 billion people living
>>> on this planet, seems to be a waste of time.
>>
>> I did more than you. You have not yet even acknowledged that the
>> organization you refer to ACCEPTS the US word as a standard variant.
> > Why do you refuse? Because it negates your point.
>
> Well, I don't recall denying that IUPAC accepts the US word "aluminum"
> as a *variant* to the standard.

Then why do you think it's a problem that US citizens have that word in
their language?

>> Even if they didn't, the idea of a nation of 300 million switching an
>> everyday word because of it is patently silly.
>
> So all the other nations of 6.2 billion people should switch the
> aforementioned word from the globally accepted standard to one that one
> single nation prefers? Riiiight.

At what point did I suggest that? I don't have a problem with other nations
having different words. Even other English-speaking ones. I ask that others
afford the same courtesy. We could go over hood/bonnet, trunk/boot,
suspenders/braces, vest/waistcoat, undershirt/vest, any number of other
divergences too. I'm a faithful reader of the newsgroup alt.usage.english.
I'm sure there are a few between South Africa and England as well.

>>You are of the sort who believes that if the US does it different than
>>you, it's WRONG WRONG WRONG, and we should be MADE to conform.
>
> Heh. It would appear that *you* are of the sort who believes that if the
> rest of the world does it different than you/your village/your nation,
> it's WRONG WRONG WRONG, and the rest of the world should be MADE to
> conform.

I don't think they should. I think the US should call it "aluminum", because
we have, and you should call it "aluminium", because you have. Perhaps I
failed to make that point clear in the beginning. If so, my apologies.



Brian

On Sep 28, 3:30*pm, jack > wrote:

> Apparently you have. Once upon a time disks were organized in
> directories. That was before M$ decided that 'directory' was too
> difficult a concept for their poor users, and changed it into 'folder'.
>
> Maybe it was a good thing though; anybody who starts talking about
> 'folders' gets automatically classified as a 'Default User, no clue about
> computers'.

I don't give a crap whether they're called directories or folders. I
do
care passionately that they assume that you want to organize yourself
into "My Documents", "My Pictures", "My Music", etc., like some sort
of child. "My Toys". "My Room".

Cindy Hamilton

On 2010-09-28, jack > wrote:

> Apparently you have. Once upon a time disks were organized in
> directories. That was before M$ decided that 'directory' was too
> difficult a concept for their poor users, and changed it into 'folder'.

Probably cuz M$ couldn't come with an icon for word "directory",
horizontal lines branching off a vert line and ending as a mere name
being too difficult a visual concept. OTOH, M$ stole it from Apple
and Apple stole it from Xerox, who stole it from Stanford Research.
So, it's not that Microsoft perfected the concept of windows, they
perfected the art of stealing.


nb

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:45:19 -0700, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> On Sep 28, 3:30*pm, jack > wrote:
>
>> Apparently you have. Once upon a time disks were organized in
>> directories. That was before M$ decided that 'directory' was too
>> difficult a concept for their poor users, and changed it into 'folder'.
>>
>> Maybe it was a good thing though; anybody who starts talking about
>> 'folders' gets automatically classified as a 'Default User, no clue
>> about computers'.
>
> I don't give a crap whether they're called directories or folders. I do
> care passionately that they assume that you want to organize yourself
> into "My Documents", "My Pictures", "My Music", etc., like some sort of
> child. "My Toys". "My Room".
>
>
That's another annoying M$-ism that's virtually impossible to get rid of.
It can be fixed on a fresh install though. My previous laptop had c:/usr
instead of c:/Program Files and c:/home instead of c:/Documents and
Settings. Cost me a few hours after the initial install, but it proved
that it could be done. Not really worth the effort though.

Similarly annoying was when 'My Accounts' tabs appeared with the n-th
revamp of some local bank's internet banking offering. If those aren't my
accounts they better shouldn't have let me access them. Maybe I wasn't the
only one writing sarcastic emails to support@, two revamps later it became
'Accounts' again.

-j

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:27:50 -0500, Default User wrote:
>
> > "notbob" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 2010-09-27, Default User > wrote:
> >>
> >>> As I said, you have odd ideas. The concept of a nation of 300 million
> >>> changing a word in everyday use, one that has been in use for 100 years,
> >>> because a minor international body decided a certain version was standard
> >>> is
> >>> beyond silly. Not to mention, that same body accepts the US version as a
> >>> recognized variant.
> >>
> >> You haven't been keeping up, have you? Howzabout if one single
> >> company in the US changing global standards? As in Microsoft
> >> completely dominatinig and changing the ISO stds for a certain type of
> >> globally accepted document type?
> >
> > Have they forced a nation to change its common word for something? I must
> > have missed it.
> >
> Apparently you have. Once upon a time disks were organized in
> directories. That was before M$ decided that 'directory' was too
> difficult a concept for their poor users, and changed it into 'folder'.

Actually Apple decided that.

> Maybe it was a good thing though; anybody who starts talking about
> 'folders' gets automatically classified as a 'Default User, no clue about
> computers'.

Probably a dangerous assumption.

"jack" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:27:50 -0500, Default User wrote:

>> Have they forced a nation to change its common word for something? I must
>> have missed it.
>>
> Apparently you have. Once upon a time disks were organized in
> directories. That was before M$ decided that 'directory' was too
> difficult a concept for their poor users, and changed it into 'folder'.

I don't see how anyone was forced to change their word in common use for
something, just because a particular OS company used a different one. What
will Microsoft do if you say the word "directory" to refer to what they call
"folder"?

> Maybe it was a good thing though; anybody who starts talking about
> 'folders' gets automatically classified as a 'Default User, no clue about
> computers'.

I'm a software engingeer working in research and development for an
aerospace company. Why would you think that I have no clue?




Brian
--
Day 601 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.

Default User wrote:

>I think the US should call it "aluminum", because we have, and you
>should call it "aluminium", because you have. Perhaps I failed to make
>that point clear in the beginning. If so, my apologies.

We could... unless of course, you show up at my front door trying to
sell me some "aluminum siding" one of these fine years - then all bets
will be off.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy - Day 1 of the "no grouchy Usenet posts" project.

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> Default User wrote:
>
>>I think the US should call it "aluminum", because we have, and you
>>should call it "aluminium", because you have. Perhaps I failed to make
>>that point clear in the beginning. If so, my apologies.
>
> We could... unless of course, you show up at my front door trying to
> sell me some "aluminum siding" one of these fine years - then all bets
> will be off.

I vow never to do that.



Brian
--
Day 601 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.

On 2010-09-28, Default User > wrote:

> will Microsoft do if you say the word "directory" to refer to what they call
> "folder"?

Steal it and release it as a new feature in their next upgrade.

nb

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:25:06 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-09-28, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> > sf wrote:
>
> >> I have no idea what he's talking about.
>
> > Clearly.
>
> But, the mere formality of having nary a clue will never stop sf from
> arguing it to the death.

Especially with you, nb... why? Because you're so special.
>
> >> I only know he's permanently mad at Microsoft - basically for being
> >> a success...
>
> Yeah, that's it, sf. I'm jealous.

I didn't say jealous. I said mad.
>
> >> just like all the Apple/Mac (now turned Linux) users were trained
> >> to be.
>
> Trained? Now we were trained? Must be those secret stealth
> instructors that slip into our dreams while we sleep.
>
> > <snork>
>
> We need the comedy relief.
>
Apple was and still is very good at getting their computers into
schools. I could have said "indoctrinated", but I refrained.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:45:19 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

> I don't give a crap whether they're called directories or folders. I
> do
> care passionately that they assume that you want to organize yourself
> into "My Documents", "My Pictures", "My Music", etc., like some sort
> of child. "My Toys". "My Room".

That part is easy enough to ignore and make go away visually too.
<shrugs>

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

In article <ad0a8209-f89c-443c-aea5-7866bbf85640
@w4g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> On Sep 28, 3:30*pm, jack > wrote:
>
> > Apparently you have. Once upon a time disks were organized in
> > directories. That was before M$ decided that 'directory' was too
> > difficult a concept for their poor users, and changed it into 'folder'.
> >
> > Maybe it was a good thing though; anybody who starts talking about
> > 'folders' gets automatically classified as a 'Default User, no clue about
> > computers'.
>
> I don't give a crap whether they're called directories or folders. I
> do
> care passionately that they assume that you want to organize yourself
> into "My Documents", "My Pictures", "My Music", etc., like some sort
> of child. "My Toys". "My Room".

So what default nomenclature would you have used?

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:54:20 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:27:50 -0500, Default User wrote:

>> > Have they forced a nation to change its common word for something? I
>> > must have missed it.
>> >
>> Apparently you have. Once upon a time disks were organized in
>> directories. That was before M$ decided that 'directory' was too
>> difficult a concept for their poor users, and changed it into 'folder'.
>
> Actually Apple decided that.
>
Actually it was Stanford or Xerox, as nb pointed out. But M$ was the one
that got it accepted as 'common computerese', by their sheer size. When
Apple called it folders and DOS called it directories, the generic term
was 'directory'. When windows started calling it 'folders', the generic
term changed.

>> Maybe it was a good thing though; anybody who starts talking about
>> 'folders' gets automatically classified as a 'Default User, no clue
>> about computers'.
>
> Probably a dangerous assumption.

Possibly. But it has served me well, and I still have to find a single
counter-example.

-j

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:08:52 -0500, Default User wrote:

> "jack" > wrote in message
>> Maybe it was a good thing though; anybody who starts talking about
>> 'folders' gets automatically classified as a 'Default User, no clue about
>> computers'.
>
> I'm a software engingeer working in research and development for an
> aerospace company. Why would you think that I have no clue?
>
You don't have to take it personally, a 'Default User' refers to just any
user that sees the computer as a tool or gadget, and nothing more. That
you choose to use that for a nick is entirely your choice.

-j

On Sep 28, 6:44*pm, "J. Clarke" > wrote:
> In article <ad0a8209-f89c-443c-aea5-7866bbf85640
> @w4g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 3:30*pm, jack > wrote:
>
> > > Apparently you have. Once upon a time disks were organized in
> > > directories. That was before M$ decided that 'directory' was too
> > > difficult a concept for their poor users, and changed it into 'folder'.
>
> > > Maybe it was a good thing though; anybody who starts talking about
> > > 'folders' gets automatically classified as a 'Default User, no clue about
> > > computers'.
>
> > I don't give a crap whether they're called directories or folders. *I
> > do
> > care passionately that they assume that you want to organize yourself
> > into "My Documents", "My Pictures", "My Music", etc., like some sort
> > of child. *"My Toys". *"My Room".
>
> So what default nomenclature would you have used?

None. Let each user figure out for him/herself how they prefer to
organize things. Make it easier to configure applications to follow
that organization.

Cindy Hamilton

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:54:20 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:27:50 -0500, Default User wrote:
>
> >> > Have they forced a nation to change its common word for something? I
> >> > must have missed it.
> >> >
> >> Apparently you have. Once upon a time disks were organized in
> >> directories. That was before M$ decided that 'directory' was too
> >> difficult a concept for their poor users, and changed it into 'folder'.
> >
> > Actually Apple decided that.
> >
> Actually it was Stanford or Xerox, as nb pointed out. But M$ was the one
> that got it accepted as 'common computerese', by their sheer size. When
> Apple called it folders and DOS called it directories, the generic term
> was 'directory'. When windows started calling it 'folders', the generic
> term changed.
>
> >> Maybe it was a good thing though; anybody who starts talking about
> >> 'folders' gets automatically classified as a 'Default User, no clue
> >> about computers'.
> >
> > Probably a dangerous assumption.
>
> Possibly. But it has served me well, and I still have to find a single
> counter-example.

So Steve Jobs doesn't know anything about computers?