Momentarily verbal (was Re: Talking of old jokes)
Keith F. Lynch
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>> Which reminds me of the UK/US differences in the word "momentarily".
>> In the UK, it means for a short time, in the US, in a short time.
>> So when the pilot announced that "We will be taking off momentarily."
>> all the British on board the aircraft started to panic.
> Actually, it has the "British" meaning in the US, it just gets used
> incorrectly a lot.
On the DC Metro system, it is inadvertently used correctly. Whenever
they say "the train will move momentarily" when it's in a tunnel
between two stations, sure enough, it only moves for a short time
before it stops again, usually still between the same two stations.
(My commute this past week has been a nightmare. Flood damage to a
control room has led to trains in one short section shared between
two lines moving at walking pace. This of course causes nearly all
trains on both line to move at the same average pace, since there
are no passing lanes.)
In my job as a proofreader of depositions and hearings, I'm
supposed to correct the grammar of the lawyers and judges (but
not the witnesses). Do you think I should correct this misuse
of "momentarily"? An even more common misuse is "verbal" when
"oral" is meant. Do you think I should correct that? Thanks.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
In the Third Edition of Fowler, by Burchfield, he makes it clear
that the British and American meanings differ and finds nothing
wrong with this; it is simply another difference between the two
versions of English.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Fred
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:e86m50$809$1...@panix1.panix.com...
is extremely important. There is no room for ambiguity.
Joe Ellis
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> On the DC Metro system, it is inadvertently used correctly. Whenever
> they say "the train will move momentarily" when it's in a tunnel
> between two stations, sure enough, it only moves for a short time
> before it stops again, usually still between the same two stations.
> (My commute this past week has been a nightmare. Flood damage to a
> control room has led to trains in one short section shared between
> two lines moving at walking pace. This of course causes nearly all
> trains on both line to move at the same average pace, since there
> are no passing lanes.)
Remember this the next time you start harping on the innate superiority
of mass transit...
My sister's family got off easy... they "only" ended up with 3 inches of
water in the basement when the storm sewers backed up...
--
Evaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars
by the example of Yugos.
mb
Fred wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch"
...
> > In my job as a proofreader of depositions and hearings, I'm
> > supposed to correct the grammar of the lawyers and judges (but
> > not the witnesses). Do you think I should correct this misuse
> > of "momentarily"? An even more common misuse is "verbal" when
> > "oral" is meant. Do you think I should correct that? Thanks.
> Of course you should. That is why you are there. In legal matters grammar
> is extremely important. There is no room for ambiguity.
I suppose he is there also to stay alive. How smart is it to make
enemies out of judges, or to argue with them?
Peter Moylan
> Evaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all
> cars by the example of Yugos.
Is "Yugo" the right name here? I was always under the impression that
the Lada was the Windows of the automotive world.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.
The optusnet address still has about 2 months of life left.
Mike Lyle
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Joe Ellis wrote:
>
> > Evaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all
> > cars by the example of Yugos.
>
> Is "Yugo" the right name here? I was always under the impression that
> the Lada was the Windows of the automotive world.
Weren't they the same, but badge engineered? Based, of course, on that
'60s FIAT.
--
Mike.
Paul Wolff
Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
The Yugo business went pear-shaped with the introduction of Serbian
sanctions. The UK distribution arm (Zastava (UK) Ltd, from memory) was
based in Reading, and probably owed me money at the time.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
John Kane
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Joe Ellis wrote:
>
> > Evaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all
> > cars by the example of Yugos.
>
> Is "Yugo" the right name here? I was always under the impression that
> the Lada was the Windows of the automotive world.
The Lada, apparently, was not all that bad once you got the bugs out.
I think the Windows equivalent was the Trabant.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
mike weber
Mike Lyle wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
> > Joe Ellis wrote:
> >
> > > Evaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all
> > > cars by the example of Yugos.
> >
> > Is "Yugo" the right name here? I was always under the impression that
> > the Lada was the Windows of the automotive world.
Trabant.
>
> Weren't they the same, but badge engineered? Based, of course, on that
> '60s FIAT.
>
Actually, i think that particular FIAT (128, right?) was (just barely)
a 70's model -- released in 1970; i know there were not a lot on the
road yet in Sicily when i arrived there in September 1970...
I once literally ripped the door off a Yugo; it had been hit by a van
on Buford Highway and the steering wheel was shoved out of position (i
don't know how the driver escaped injury from that) in a way that
blocked egress on that side, and the passenger door was sprung and they
couldn't get it open from the inside. I grabbed the edge of the door
where it was sprung outward, braced myself, pulled -- and the damned
thing actually come off in me 'and.
Keith F. Lynch
There is constant tension between accurately rendering exactly what
someone says and rendering it with correct grammar. Different
proofreaders resolve this differently. (Except for sworn witnesses,
whose testimony is always reproduced exactly (except for stuttering
and quirks of pronunciation).)
It partly depends on the reaction to what they said. If it's obvious
that they were understood by others in the room to have meant one
thing, their words should not be altered such that they would mean
something else, even if the latter corresponds to the literal meaning
of what they actually said.
A similar issue is how to render incorrect spellouts, such as, "his
name was Smythe, S-m-i-t-h, Smythe."
Unfortunately, most of the emphasis at work is on speed, not accuracy.
We're expected to average a page every two minutes based on an
eight-hour day. Effectively even faster, considering the time spent
on setup, formatting, and teardown, doing checking the spelling of
names, places, and obscure words, dealing with phone calls, questions
from coworkers, meetings, rebooting the computer and waiting for it
to do a complete virus check, bathroom breaks, etc.
Several months ago the head nitpicker was fired. But the pressure
from him wasn't so much for accuracy per se as for correct formatting.
He would blow up at people for the slightest infraction, such as
spelling out a number when it should have been numerals, or vice
versa, based on our several pages of instructions that spell out in
excruciating detail when which is correct. He would blow up at them
as if they had peed on the carpet, creating a scene that would keep
anyone else from getting any work done. One time I had to bring in my
DSM-IV from home to show him that the official spelling of posttraumatic
was without a hyphen.
Now that he's gone, I've "gotten away" with such major infractions
as writing "12:00 noon" instead of "12:00 p.m." I maintain that
the latter is ambiguous, and the former is both correct and clear.
As for making enemies of judges, our clients (who are the lawyers, not
the judges) never interact with me directly. Most of them think the
court reporter produces the transcript. Actually, a copy of the audio
files and reporter's notes are sent to India, where they're hurriedly
and not very accurately typed up over (our) night by people not very
familiar with either written or spoken American English. Each 30-
to 60-minute chunk appears to be done by a different transcriber, in
parallel, and they don't compare notes. Then the transcript, the
audio files, the reporter's notes, and sometimes the exhibits, are
given to me (or another proofreader), and I have to quickly turn the
mess into something that's both professional looking and accurate.
Sometimes there's an "expedite" job, or work just gets backed up, and
there's no time for anything except formatting and hoping that the
clients don't notice that they're getting total junk. At other times,
there's no work to do, but that fact won't be taken into account when
looking at my monthly page totals.
I understand that all court reporting companies are pretty much the
same, or worse. Most don't even have a proofreading stage.
I'd definitely prefer to get back into IT, and not just because IT
pays better.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> On the DC Metro system, it is inadvertently used correctly.
>> Whenever they say "the train will move momentarily" when it's in a
>> tunnel between two stations, sure enough, it only moves for a short
>> time before it stops again, usually still between the same two
>> stations. (My commute this past week has been a nightmare. Flood
>> damage to a control room has led to trains in one short section
>> shared between two lines moving at walking pace. This of course
>> causes nearly all trains on both line to move at the same average
>> pace, since there are no passing lanes.)
> Remember this the next time you start harping on the innate
> superiority of mass transit...
I've never said it's so superior that it's absolutely immune to any
combination of forces of nature and incompetent employees.
You might as well say that since the same storm flooded and closed the
IRS headquarters that that proves than an income tax is a bad idea.
(It is, but not for that reason.)
I understand the recent weather was no picnic for motorists, either,
with mudslides closing highways, and overflowing creeks closing roads
and underpasses. Many motorists drove into too-deep water, and their
cars stalled there. Several of them drowned. No Metro riders drowned.
> My sister's family got off easy... they "only" ended up with 3
> inches of water in the basement when the storm sewers backed up...
No problem at all at my home or at my workplace. But there were
serious floods just a few blocks from both.
It's not mere chance that I chose to live in a basement apartment
that's 90 feet above the closest natural water -- a small intermittent
creek. (It's also 15 miles upwind of DC, behind a hill, with no
windows or woodwork facing that direction -- only brickwork and a
steel door.)
Graeme Thomas
<k...@KeithLynch.net> writes
>Now that he's gone, I've "gotten away" with such major infractions
>as writing "12:00 noon" instead of "12:00 p.m." I maintain that
>the latter is ambiguous, and the former is both correct and clear.
Last week a large fire[1] closed Kings Cross station. This caused much
disruption to local and inter-city trains. One of the radio reports
about this said[2]: "the station will remain closed overnight, but it
should reopen by 12 in the afternoon."
My first thought was that this was ambiguous; my second thought was that
the ambiguity could be intentional, designed to give them an additional
12 hours to reopen the place if needed.
As it happened, the station opened around 5am.
[1] The fire was in an adjacent building. Part of the problem was that
it had heated and damaged several large propane cylinders, and the Fire
Brigade were worried that they might explode. Accordingly the whole
area, which included the station, was evacuated until the cylinders
could be made safe.
[2] The quotation is from memory, but the "12 in the afternoon" bit is
accurate.
--
Graeme Thomas
Fred
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:e892rm$kh1$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Joe Ellis <synth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> On the DC Metro system, it is inadvertently used correctly.
>>> Whenever they say "the train will move momentarily" when it's in a
>>> tunnel between two stations, sure enough, it only moves for a short
>>> time before it stops again, usually still between the same two
>>> stations. (My commute this past week has been a nightmare. Flood
>>> damage to a control room has led to trains in one short section
>>> shared between two lines moving at walking pace. This of course
>>> causes nearly all trains on both line to move at the same average
>>> pace, since there are no passing lanes.)
>
>> Remember this the next time you start harping on the innate
>> superiority of mass transit...
>
> I've never said it's so superior that it's absolutely immune to any
> combination of forces of nature and incompetent employees.
>
> You might as well say that since the same storm flooded and closed the
> IRS headquarters that that proves than an income tax is a bad idea.
> (It is, but not for that reason.)
>
> I understand the recent weather was no picnic for motorists, either,
> with mudslides closing highways, and overflowing creeks closing roads
> and underpasses. Many motorists drove into too-deep water, and their
> cars stalled there. Several of them drowned. No Metro riders drowned.
>
>> My sister's family got off easy... they "only" ended up with 3
>> inches of water in the basement when the storm sewers backed up...
>
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
But then he should correct the witnesses, too.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Skitt
> "Fred" wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" wrote:
>>> In my job as a proofreader of depositions and hearings, I'm
>>> supposed to correct the grammar of the lawyers and judges (but
>>> not the witnesses). Do you think I should correct this misuse
>>> of "momentarily"? An even more common misuse is "verbal" when
>>> "oral" is meant. Do you think I should correct that? Thanks.
>>>
>> Of course you should. That is why you are there. In legal matters
>> grammar is extremely important. There is no room for ambiguity.
>>
> But then he should correct the witnesses, too.
I object to changing anything. It's just wrong. The record of depositions
has to show exactly what was said. If the judge or lawyer expresses the
questions or instructions poorly, let the record reflect it. Appeals might
hinge on that.
General descriptions of what took place were the sort of reports I, as
Court-Martial assistant for the 1st Ordnance Group, prepared to document
Summary Court-Martial proceedings, but that is a whole nother matter.
Altering only one side's offerings can create a slanted view of the matter.
Of course, one has to follow instructions and do what the boss expects,
right or wrong.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
Keith F. Lynch
> Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>> "Fred" wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" wrote:
>>>> In my job as a proofreader of depositions and hearings, I'm
>>>> supposed to correct the grammar of the lawyers and judges (but
>>>> not the witnesses). Do you think I should correct this misuse
>>>> of "momentarily"? An even more common misuse is "verbal" when
>>>> "oral" is meant. Do you think I should correct that? Thanks.
>>> Of course you should. That is why you are there. In legal matters
>>> grammar is extremely important. There is no room for ambiguity.
>> But then he should correct the witnesses, too.
> I object to changing anything. It's just wrong.
Nobody wants to read hours of:
Okay, and when you arrived at the -- at -- at -- strike that. Does
-- did anything unusual happens on the, you know, day -- err, night
of (sneezes) -- excuse me -- day of July 2nd of 19-- of 2006?
Rather than:
Did anything unusual happen on the night of July 2, 2006?
> The record of depositions has to show exactly what was said. If the
> judge or lawyer expresses the questions or instructions poorly, let
> the record reflect it.
I don't correct erroneous or contradictory statements of fact or of
law, only bad grammar.
More than once a lawyer has read what was supposedly the exact wording
of a law, and I looked up the law online so as to get the law's
grammar exactly right, only to find that the lawyer was misquoting the
law, apparently deliberately, for his own advantage. And the opposing
lawyer didn't catch it. I did nothing to correct it or to call
attention to the error.
> Altering only one side's offerings can create a slanted view of the
> matter.
I correct the grammar of both sides' lawyers, and of neither sides'
witnesses.
There are lots of judgment calls. For instance a hearing a coworker
recently had to proofread that had supposedly been done on July 5,
2003, but which contained mention of events later that year. He
considered changing it to July 5, 2004, but I pointed out to him
that was a holiday, so that was unlikely to be correct. He ended
up just leaving the date off.
It was unusual to get anything that old, anyhow. Usually we do stuff
not more than a week or two old. We've done same-day work, with
excellent audio (separate lapel mikes for each participant), and
really good, really fast, in-house transcription. Then I can actually
proofread it *faster* than realtime, gaining more time by playing it
at high speed than I lose by pausing it to make corrections or to look
up the spelling of some name. That's the way to do it. More often,
though, we get crappy sound, inadequate reporters' notes, and dreadful
transcriptions.
> Of course, one has to follow instructions and do what the boss
> expects, right or wrong.
Indeed. The only thing that's ever tempted me to quit was when I was
ordered to turn something in so quickly that it was impossible to
proofread. The Indian transcribers are truly wretched. For instance
they've written "I'm like" as "I lied," which are *not* words you want
to put into a witness's mouth.
Tim McDaniel
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Nobody wants to read hours of:
>
> Okay, and when you arrived at the -- at -- at -- strike that. Does
> -- did anything unusual happens on the, you know, day -- err, night
> of (sneezes) -- excuse me -- day of July 2nd of 19-- of 2006?
>
>Rather than:
>
> Did anything unusual happen on the night of July 2, 2006?
The first one appears preferable, as the second appears to be an
inaccurate rendition. It's the difference between day and night.
(That is, the first quotation had "day", in the end.)
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
John Savage
>Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Which reminds me of the UK/US differences in the word "momentarily".
>>> In the UK, it means for a short time, in the US, in a short time.
>>> So when the pilot announced that "We will be taking off momentarily."
Ah, he actually meant "directly".
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)
David G. Bell
tm...@panix.com "Tim McDaniel" wrote:
Depends a little what you're recording. "strike that" suggests that some
of the words shouldn't be recorded, and it could be argued that
"(sneezes) -- excuse me --" needn't be. But it's also arguable that you
need an unedited record because an appeal could depend on the difference
between the formal record and what the jury heard people say in court.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
Skitt
> Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>>> "Fred" wrote:
>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" wrote:
>>>>> In my job as a proofreader of depositions and hearings, I'm
>>>>> supposed to correct the grammar of the lawyers and judges (but
>>>>> not the witnesses). Do you think I should correct this misuse
>>>>> of "momentarily"? An even more common misuse is "verbal" when
>>>>> "oral" is meant. Do you think I should correct that? Thanks.
>
>>>> Of course you should. That is why you are there. In legal matters
>>>> grammar is extremely important. There is no room for ambiguity.
>
>>> But then he should correct the witnesses, too.
>
>> I object to changing anything. It's just wrong.
>
> Nobody wants to read hours of:
>
> Okay, and when you arrived at the -- at -- at -- strike that. Does
> -- did anything unusual happens on the, you know, day -- err, night
> of (sneezes) -- excuse me -- day of July 2nd of 19-- of 2006?
>
> Rather than:
>
> Did anything unusual happen on the night of July 2, 2006?
I stick by my previous statement, repeated here:
>> The record of depositions has to show exactly what was said. If the
>> judge or lawyer expresses the questions or instructions poorly, let
>> the record reflect it.
It is not a novel that should be enjoyed. It is a record of what was said.
As another poster noted, your sample transcription has a grave error in
substance (the "night" vs. "day" thing).
Keith F. Lynch
>> Okay, and when you arrived at the -- at -- at -- strike that. Does
>> -- did anything unusual happens on the, you know, day -- err, night
>> of (sneezes) -- excuse me -- day of July 2nd of 19-- of 2006?
>> Rather than:
>> Did anything unusual happen on the night of July 2, 2006?
> I stick by my previous statement, repeated here:
>>> The record of depositions has to show exactly what was said.
>>> If the judge or lawyer expresses the questions or instructions
>>> poorly, let the record reflect it.
> It is not a novel that should be enjoyed. It is a record of what
> was said. As another poster noted, your sample transcription has
> a grave error in substance (the "night" vs. "day" thing).
I apologize for that. I will say that that was an artifact of how I
composed the message here, and could never happen in real life. For
one thing, we use a special word processor that shows changes in a
different color than unchanged text.
Clarity isn't just for enjoyment. It's to make it practical for
someone to understand what's going on. Extraneous junk only serves to
distract. Anyhow, it's not my call. It's the way my employer says
they want it done. And they say it's the way the clients (lawyers)
want it done.
Are there any actual lawyers here, preferably ones that have done
depositions, who care to comment? Thanks.
Seth Breidbart
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Now that he's gone, I've "gotten away" with such major infractions
>as writing "12:00 noon" instead of "12:00 p.m." I maintain that
>the latter is ambiguous, and the former is both correct and clear.
The latter is wrong. Noon _is_ the meridian, it is neither ante nor
post. Therefore, it gets written as "12:00 m." which is misleading,
not ambiguous. I prefer "12 noon" as simple and clear.
Seth
John Kane
Graeme Thomas wrote:
> In article <e8927l$22$1...@panix2.panix.com>, "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes
> >Now that he's gone, I've "gotten away" with such major infractions
> >as writing "12:00 noon" instead of "12:00 p.m." I maintain that
> >the latter is ambiguous, and the former is both correct and clear.
>
> Last week a large fire[1] closed Kings Cross station. This caused much
> disruption to local and inter-city trains. One of the radio reports
> about this said[2]: "the station will remain closed overnight, but it
> should reopen by 12 in the afternoon."
>
> My first thought was that this was ambiguous; my second thought was that
> the ambiguity could be intentional, designed to give them an additional
> 12 hours to reopen the place if needed.
I don't find it ambiguous though I think it is incorrect. Since 12 in
the afternoon cannot be 12 midnight it seems acceptable. I find 12 pm
or 12 am to be very ambiguous I never know what weird rule is being
used to decide if pm=noon or pm=midnight.
R H Draney
>
>I don't find it ambiguous though I think it is incorrect. Since 12 in
>the afternoon cannot be 12 midnight it seems acceptable. I find 12 pm
>or 12 am to be very ambiguous I never know what weird rule is being
>used to decide if pm=noon or pm=midnight.
Suggested experiment: collect every digital timekeeping device in your
possession, including those embedded in other technology...alarm clocks, digital
watches, video recorders, cellular phones, the Microsoft Windows "Task
Scheduler", etc...arrange, in a manner appropriate to each device, to have it do
something important at 12:00 am tomorrow....
Expected outcome: every device will do whatever it's supposed to do at one
minute after 11:59 pm tonight....r
--
It's the crack on the wall and the stain on the cup that gets to you
in the very end...every cat has its fall when it runs out of luck,
so you can do with a touch of zen...cause when you're screwed,
you're screwed...and when it's blue, it's blue.
K. Edgcombe
It's always dangerous to post in a.u.e. that something is wrong.
A meridian is a great circle on the surface of a sphere, and it has several
other meanings as well (the south, a siesta, and a proper name for the
Devil, among others). But it hasn't meant "noon" for a long time (listed as
obsolete/archaic by OED). If you're thinking of the second half of "a.m.", the
word is "meridiem".
Katy
David G. Bell
<1152109844.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
jrkr...@gmail.com "John Kane" wrote:
One might use the 24-hour clock. Which a lot of people in the UK will
see being used on the info services associated with modern television.
That still leaves some room for ambiguity at 0:00 and 24:00, but I'd
reckon one to the be start of a particular day, and 24:00 to be the end
of the same day. Still, it's maybe better to set times at 0:01 and 23:59
and dodge the wjole thing.
Wilson Heydt
Which is why i tend to write "12m" for noon. 12am (antimeridian) is
clearly midnight.
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
Hatunen
wrote:
But the meridians were named that because they are "noon lines".
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Robert Bannister
What I think of as "afternoon" does not include any 12 o'clocks at all.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> John Kane filted:
>
>>I don't find it ambiguous though I think it is incorrect. Since 12 in
>>the afternoon cannot be 12 midnight it seems acceptable. I find 12 pm
>>or 12 am to be very ambiguous I never know what weird rule is being
>>used to decide if pm=noon or pm=midnight.
>
>
> Suggested experiment: collect every digital timekeeping device in your
> possession, including those embedded in other technology...alarm clocks, digital
> watches, video recorders, cellular phones, the Microsoft Windows "Task
> Scheduler", etc...arrange, in a manner appropriate to each device, to have it do
> something important at 12:00 am tomorrow....
>
> Expected outcome: every device will do whatever it's supposed to do at one
> minute after 11:59 pm tonight....r
>
>
I don't think so. It would one minute after 11:59 tomorrow for most of them.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Which is why i tend to write "12m" for noon.
That might work for you, but the average reader would look at that and
wonder whether the m stood for midday or midnight (or, of course, metres).
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> Suggested experiment: collect every digital timekeeping device in your
>>possession, including those embedded in other technology...alarm clocks, digital
>> watches, video recorders, cellular phones, the Microsoft Windows "Task
>>Scheduler", etc...arrange, in a manner appropriate to each device, to have it do
>> something important at 12:00 am tomorrow....
>>
>> Expected outcome: every device will do whatever it's supposed to do at one
>> minute after 11:59 pm tonight....r
>>
>I don't think so. It would one minute after 11:59 tomorrow for most of them.
I feel reasonably secure in saying that on the devices I own, 12:00 am Thursday
is one minute after 11:59 pm Wednesday....r
Keith F. Lynch
> Which is why i tend to write "12m" for noon. 12am (antimeridian) is
> clearly midnight.
That may be accurate, but it's likely not to be understood by the
intended audience.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> What I think of as "afternoon" does not include any 12 o'clocks at all.
How about a 12:00:00.000001?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring
|bankers.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> writes:
>
>
>>What I think of as "afternoon" does not include any 12 o'clocks at all.
>
>
> How about a 12:00:00.000001?
>
For me, the afternoon has nothing to do with noon, but the time when I
have lunch, which is usually about 1 pm. Others may be more literal.
--
Rob Bannister
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
"12:00 noon" is correct and unambiguous.
"12:00 m" is correct, and unambiguous to folks familiar with
the meaning of 'm' in "am" and "pm" or who already happen to
know what "m" stands for on its own in this context.
"12:00 pm" is _correct,_but_*idiomatic*_, and unambiguous to
folks familiar with the convention that uses "12:00 am" for
midnight, "12:00 pm" for noon, and considers midnight the
start of a calendar day. There is an apparent contradiction
in labelling the 'meridian' as being 'post-itself', but there
are plenty of other idioms that get funky if you take 'em too
literally. "It's idiomatic; deal." AFAICT it's been that
way longer than I've been alive.
I don't think I know anyone who'd be confused as to which 12:00
is midnight and which is noon using "am" and "pm" (though I do
know several who would scratch their heads at "12:00 m", alas).
"12:00 noon" has the advantage of being very rapidly interpreted
correctly whether the reader/listener is a calendar-weenie or
not. Whether they'd have to stop and think about "12:00 pm"
or not.
The 'gotcha' really is midnight: in every formal context[*] with
which I am personally familiar, "0:00", "12:00 am" or "12 midnight"
refers to the first moment of a calendar day ... but informally,
many people conceptualize midnight as being the _last_ moment of
the previous day, and that's only when they're specifically
thinking "wall time" or "calendar day", since a great many of
us consider 2:00 AM to be part of the day before if we haven't
been to sleep yet but possibly _either_ day if we're being woken
up. (When does your subjective day change dates during an all-nighter?
Dawn? Breakfast? The first time someone asks the date and you
have to think about it? When you crash even if that's at 15:00?)
So while "12:00 am" is 'obviously' (to many many people) midnight,
"12:00 midnight on the 10th" has a precise meaning to a lot of
astronomers and computer programmers but is alas ambiguous to
a) many other listeners, and b) to folks who know what it should
mean if they're not sure the _speaker_ knows what it should mean.
I'm guessing this is the reason that every time I've seen a news
story about a law that takes effect at midnight on a particular
day, they say it takes effect "at 12:01 am", not "at midnight".
Personally, if I'm casually speaking the time I'm about twice
as likely to use 24-hour phrasing as 12-hour, though for some
reason it bugs some folks to hear me say "a quarter to sixteen"
or "about half past twenty". (Though not as much as when I
describe "10:40" as "a third to eleven".) These all just make
sense to me -- having grown up saying and hearing "a quarter
past three", why _wouldn't_ I say, "a quarter past fifteen"?
But apparently there's some rule that those constructions are
no longer 'ordinary' if you give the hour in 24-hour nomenclature?
Mentally I'm constantly translating times between 12- and 24-hour
in _both_ directions, because I live in an environment that uses
both constantly. I see "16" and think "four in the afternoon";
I see "4:32" on a clock and write "1632" on a notepad without
thinking about it. I do wish I could program the VCRs in 24-hour
time though.
(And I do know people who have difficulty with 24-hour time.
When they ask/complain/glare/look dazed, I translate.)
The main reasons I like 24-hour time are that a) there's no
ambiguity from having a speaker leave off the "am" or "pm"
because sie thought the context would be obvious (yes, I do
run into situations where "we're starting at eleven" really
could mean 11:00 _or_ 23:00), b) I don't have to make a space
for recording "am" or "pm" and then parse it later when sticking
times into a computer program, c) timestamps in a text file sort
in pure numeric or alphameric order using any text sort tool.
Actually, my own idiolect records the time for logging an event or
for writing down a future appointment as YYYYMMDD.hhmm[ss], and
I've done it that way since ... ah, I think I started inserting
the '.' around 1980, having just used an unbroken string of
twelve digits before then. Leaving off digits after the point
(or using pairs of zeroes before it) signifies a lower-precision
value (i.e., "20060712.0000" means midnight, the start of 12 July,
but "20060712" means "sometime during 12 July" or possibly "all,
or a big chunk, of 12 July"). When writing the date for someone
not-me to read, I add hyphens: 2006-07-30, which lucky-for-me
turns out to be one of the international standard date formats
(*whew*). I decided to go in a strictly MSD-to-LSD order as a
child when I realized that I had to know which of my relatives
had written "7/6/70" to figure out whether it was a date in June
or July. (I have kin on/from both sides of the pond.) Discovering
the computer related benefits was a happy accident when I started
programming years later.
Again, with or without hyphens and colons, a straight alpha sort
produces a correct date-time sort. ==whoosh== *whee!* Done. :-)
Comes in handy when using a datestamp as part of an archive/log
filename, 'cause directory listings automagically come out in
date-time order.
It works for me, and I translate for other people. I like to
think that someone trying to read my notes without explanation
could figure it out and find it unambiguous, but I haven't
tested that. When ah'm feelin' all flowery, I write, "On this
day, Sunday, 30 July, two-thousand and six" (and speaking
specifically as-a-Christian-to-other-Christians I might stick
in an "AD"/"Anno Domini"/"in the year of our Lord"). But
that's an "in one of those moods" thing.
[*] Ah, that is, Julian or Gregorian. Obviously midnight is
neither the start nor the end of a day in the Jewish or Moslem
calendars, and I don't know[**] one way or t'other with regard to
the (modern) Druidic calendar, the Chinese calendar, the Ethiopian
calendar, etc.
[**] But since AKICIF, I'll probably know after the next time
I read this newsgroup...
--
D. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, dgl...@panix.com
Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups.
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
http://www.radix.net/~dglenn/ http://dglenn.livejournal.com
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
>Which is why i tend to write "12m" for noon. 12am (antimeridian) is
>clearly midnight.
ITYM 'ante-', not 'anti-', no?
Wilson Heydt
D. Glenn Arthur Jr. <dgl...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <J1y7p...@kithrup.com>, Wilson Heydt <whh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>Which is why i tend to write "12m" for noon. 12am (antimeridian) is
>>clearly midnight.
>
>ITYM 'ante-', not 'anti-', no?
Yes... I am not opposed to the meridian.
Robert Bannister
> The 'gotcha' really is midnight: in every formal context[*] with
> which I am personally familiar, "0:00", "12:00 am" or "12 midnight"
> refers to the first moment of a calendar day ... but informally,
> many people conceptualize midnight as being the _last_ moment of
> the previous day, and that's only when they're specifically
> thinking "wall time" or "calendar day", since a great many of
> us consider 2:00 AM to be part of the day before if we haven't
> been to sleep yet but possibly _either_ day if we're being woken
> up. (When does your subjective day change dates during an all-nighter?
> Dawn? Breakfast? The first time someone asks the date and you
> have to think about it? When you crash even if that's at 15:00?)
I think this can be a real problem (speaking as a person who was woken
by a policeman when he thought his niece was arriving from England at
12.02 the following morning). We are happy to say "I didn't get home
till 2 am last night" or "I got up at 3 am this morning" and apparently
don't find a contradiction in this. I do think of midnight as being the
end of the day, despite what airlines think, and for some reason, my
mind still attaches the midnight-is-last-night thing to 12.30 am. OK, so
I'm crazy, but when it comes to conceptions of "morning, afternoon,
evening", I suspect all of us have different ideas, which often have
more to do with mealtimes than clock times.
>
>
> Personally, if I'm casually speaking the time I'm about twice
> as likely to use 24-hour phrasing as 12-hour, though for some
> reason it bugs some folks to hear me say "a quarter to sixteen"
> or "about half past twenty". (Though not as much as when I
> describe "10:40" as "a third to eleven".) These all just make
> sense to me -- having grown up saying and hearing "a quarter
> past three", why _wouldn't_ I say, "a quarter past fifteen"?
> But apparently there's some rule that those constructions are
> no longer 'ordinary' if you give the hour in 24-hour nomenclature?
Strangely enough, in German, where the 24 hour clock is used a great
deal more in conversation than it is in English, it is unusual to hear
the quarters and halves used with it. For example, "halb drei" is normal
for half past two (half to three), but "halb fünfzehn" is mostly
replaced by "vierzehn Uhr dreissig". I can only assume that some
formality is still attached to the 24 hour system that prevents us using
the (apparently less formal) quarters and halves with it.
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote:
>>> Which is why i tend to write "12m" for noon. 12am (antimeridian) is
>>> clearly midnight.
>>
>> ITYM 'ante-', not 'anti-', no?
>
> Yes... I am not opposed to the meridian.
It's not even "meridian" -- it's "meridiem". "Ante meridiem" (meaning
"before noon") is the term. The one twelve hours later is 12pm ("post
meridiem", meaning "after noon"). Taking the terms literally, neither one
can mean noon, but both can mean midnight.
--
Skitt
A borderline case
(you draw the borderline)
Phonedude
Fred wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
> news:e86m50$809$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> > Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Which reminds me of the UK/US differences in the word "momentarily".
> >>> In the UK, it means for a short time, in the US, in a short time.
> >>> So when the pilot announced that "We will be taking off momentarily."
> >
> >> Actually, it has the "British" meaning in the US, it just gets used
> >> incorrectly a lot.
> >
> > On the DC Metro system, it is inadvertently used correctly. Whenever
> > they say "the train will move momentarily" when it's in a tunnel
> > between two stations, sure enough, it only moves for a short time
> > before it stops again, usually still between the same two stations.
> > (My commute this past week has been a nightmare. Flood damage to a
> > control room has led to trains in one short section shared between
> > two lines moving at walking pace. This of course causes nearly all
> > trains on both line to move at the same average pace, since there
> > are no passing lanes.)
> >
> > In my job as a proofreader of depositions and hearings, I'm
> > supposed to correct the grammar of the lawyers and judges (but
> > not the witnesses). Do you think I should correct this misuse
> > of "momentarily"? An even more common misuse is "verbal" when
> > "oral" is meant. Do you think I should correct that? Thanks.
> Of course you should. That is why you are there. In legal matters grammar
> is extremely important. There is no room for ambiguity.
Well, that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
PD
mike weber
wrote:
>In article <eaj5rs$6ja$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>D. Glenn Arthur Jr. <dgl...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <J1y7p...@kithrup.com>, Wilson Heydt <whh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>Which is why i tend to write "12m" for noon. 12am (antimeridian) is
>>>clearly midnight.
>>
>>ITYM 'ante-', not 'anti-', no?
>
>Yes... I am not opposed to the meridian.
No -- thast would be Australia...
--
mike weber (fairp...@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
Kevrob
Though I was never in the military, I'm among a significant % of
USAians who learned the 24-hour system as "military time." If one
of my college classmates who was in ROTC suggested that a bunch of
us "meet for chow at 18 hundred hours" I knew we'd be dining at 6 p.m.
Of course, if he asked me if I wanted to go running at "oh-dark-thirty"
I'd tell him to go to hell, I was a civilian. :)
The Germans say "hab drei" where the Irish would say "half two"?
Must be the puntuality/non-puntuality genes, with one culture looking
ahead to the next hour, the other trying to catch up.
Kevin
(has the n-p genes)
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
Yah, I got that part wrong in another post all on my own, and
only moticed when I saw it corrected in a different subthread.
Argh. Bleah. I should know better.
Robert Bannister
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:49:22 GMT, whh...@kithrup.com (Wilson Heydt)
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <eaj5rs$6ja$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>>D. Glenn Arthur Jr. <dgl...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <J1y7p...@kithrup.com>, Wilson Heydt <whh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Which is why i tend to write "12m" for noon. 12am (antimeridian) is
>>>>clearly midnight.
>>>
>>>ITYM 'ante-', not 'anti-', no?
>>
>>Yes... I am not opposed to the meridian.
>
>
> No -- thast would be Australia...
>
Australian would be "merino".
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Moylan
> I don't think I know anyone who'd be confused as to which 12:00 is
> midnight and which is noon using "am" and "pm" (though I do know
> several who would scratch their heads at "12:00 m", alas).
I agree, in the sense that most of us have a default convention in our
heads as to the meaning of 12 am and 12 pm. (I, like Skitt, interpret
both to mean "midnight".) On the other hand, I very much doubt that we
all use the same convention.
One confusing feature of the 12-hour notation is that the reset happens
not at 11:59 but at 12:59. Logically, then, 12:59 should still be part
of the morning cycle, with the afternoon not starting until the clock
restarts at 1:00.
> I do wish I could program the VCRs in 24-hour time though.
You really have a VCR that uses a 12-hour clock? I don't think I've ever
seen such a thing. If you program it to record something at 8:00, does
it record twice, once in the morning and once in the evening? I'd find
that mightily confusing.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.
The optusnet address still has about 2 months of life left.
Dorothy J Heydt
Peter Moylan <pe...@DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote:
>
>> I don't think I know anyone who'd be confused as to which 12:00 is
>> midnight and which is noon using "am" and "pm" (though I do know
>> several who would scratch their heads at "12:00 m", alas).
>
>I agree, in the sense that most of us have a default convention in our
>heads as to the meaning of 12 am and 12 pm. (I, like Skitt, interpret
>both to mean "midnight".) On the other hand, I very much doubt that we
>all use the same convention.
>
>One confusing feature of the 12-hour notation is that the reset happens
>not at 11:59 but at 12:59. Logically, then, 12:59 should still be part
>of the morning cycle, with the afternoon not starting until the clock
>restarts at 1:00.
>
>> I do wish I could program the VCRs in 24-hour time though.
>
>You really have a VCR that uses a 12-hour clock? I don't think I've ever
>seen such a thing. If you program it to record something at 8:00, does
>it record twice, once in the morning and once in the evening? I'd find
>that mightily confusing.
I think he means his VCR, in addition to having the numbers 1
through 12, has an AM/PM indicator.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
the Omrud
Our microwave oven has a 12-hour clock and no AM/PM indicator. But
we've had it for about 15 years and this has never inconvenienced us.
--
David
=====
Home again, home again.
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
Peter Moylan <pe...@DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't think I know anyone who'd be confused as to which 12:00 is
>> midnight and which is noon using "am" and "pm" (though I do know
>> several who would scratch their heads at "12:00 m", alas).
>
>I agree, in the sense that most of us have a default convention in our
>heads as to the meaning of 12 am and 12 pm. (I, like Skitt, interpret
>both to mean "midnight".) On the other hand, I very much doubt that we
>all use the same convention.
There is, at least in the US and I suspect elsewhere, a _standard_
interpretation, in which "12:00 am" is synonymous with midnight
and "12:00 pm" is synonymous with noon, so if someone tries to
look it up they should be able to get a clear answer. This, however,
does not rebut your point that confusion is possible due to plenty
of people not having internalized that convention (or ever gotten
around to learning it in the first place), thus making both those
phrasings uncomfortably susceptible to misinterpretation. Your
comment about interpreting both as midnight shows that my not having
run into such people in a while did not mean they'd ceased to exist.
I can certainly see a good argument for your way: both "twelve hours
before 'm'" and "twelve hours after 'm'" would be midnight, yes.
But as far as I can tell, the conventional interpretation was based
less on treating "am" and "pm" as mathematical expressions and more
on wanting to only have to track two settings for the half-day flag
and not have to use 'm' and "midnight", so assigning which got "am"
and which got "pm" arbitrarily. In _that_ light, calling non "pm"
can be explained as wanting to call the whole 12:xx _hour_ "pm" but
that may well be merely justification-in-hindsight.
I'll certainly concede that the conventional interpretation is not
_obvious_ to anyone not already familiar with the convention. It's
just that these days most of the people I talk to appear to already
be aware of the standard interpretation.
>One confusing feature of the 12-hour notation is that the reset happens
>not at 11:59 but at 12:59. Logically, then, 12:59 should still be part
>of the morning cycle, with the afternoon not starting until the clock
>restarts at 1:00.
Hmm. If you want to label "the noon hour" as the last hour of the
morning, I can see that, but I think most of us see 12:15 as being
"a quarter hour _after_noon_." Again, it is not that I fail to see
how your suggestion makes sense as well, just that I can't think of
anyone else who thinks that way by default. (And I do think the
current notation, where 12:01 is "one minute post-meridiem" makes
a leetle bit more sense.)
For more casual meanings of "afternoon" than 'pm", such as the
rather subjective notion of which hours are " this afternoon", which
are "this evening", and which are "tonight", what you describe
seems somewhat less strange, but still a bit alien to me. Thing
is, if we were talking about which side of midnight changes from
"tonight" to "this morning", it wouldn't seem alien to me.
I'd still say that when being formal, or in any situation where
precise-on-the-first-communication is important, "am" starts
the moment after midnight and "pm" starts the moment after noon
and referring to "12:01" is a useful way of sidestepping confusion
over whether "12:00 pm" is noon or midnight.
>> I do wish I could program the VCRs in 24-hour time though.
>
>You really have a VCR that uses a 12-hour clock? I don't think I've ever
>seen such a thing. If you program it to record something at 8:00, does
>it record twice, once in the morning and once in the evening? I'd find
>that mightily confusing.
No, no, no, I was unclear. It's a 24-hour clock (with a calendar
even!), but it uses 12-hour _notation_. That is, I'd like to be
able to tell it to record from 20:30 to 21:00 without having to
change those to "8:30 pm" and "9:00 pm" (or just "9:00" on the one
that doesn't allow you to specify am/pm for the stop-time).
Especially on the one that occasionally does something unexpected
when I ask it to record a show that crosses midnight (and that's
the one that _does_ let me specify am/pm on the stop-time!)
Robert Bannister
Not fair. My old one, about 20 years old, had 24-hour notation. It's my
brand-new one that's just got 12 hours with AM/PM.
--
Rob Bannister
Keith F. Lynch
That hour has never been the start time or end time of any transcript
I've had to proofread.
> ... a great many of us consider 2:00 AM to be part of the day before
> if we haven't been to sleep yet but possibly _either_ day if we're
> being woken up.
In my experience hours after midnight are always listed as being the
day before in anything that shuts down overnight later than midnight,
from bus schedules to TV schedules.
> When does your subjective day change dates during an all-nighter?
> Dawn?
When the number of people around me starts to increase.
> ... every time I've seen a news story about a law that takes effect
> at midnight on a particular day, they say it takes effect "at 12:01
> am", not "at midnight".
Laws generally take effect on a day, not an hour, and it's understood
that that means the beginning of that day.
> ... (yes, I do run into situations where "we're starting at eleven"
> really could mean 11:00 _or_ 23:00), ...
Once when I told someone that WSFA's picnic began at 12, she showed up
at midnight rather than noon. Fortunately, it hadn't yet ended.
> Actually, my own idiolect records the time for logging an event or
> for writing down a future appointment as YYYYMMDD.hhmm[ss], ...
I use a single digit for the month, 1 through 9, then A, B, and C.
> When ah'm feelin' all flowery, I write, "On this day, Sunday, 30
> July, two-thousand and six" ...
One of the rules at work is that years are always numerals, never
written out. (And, unlike other four digit numbers, don't have
commas. The issue of five-digit years isn't addressed.) Of course
our style guide isn't binding on anyone else.
Seth Breidbart
the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Our microwave oven has a 12-hour clock and no AM/PM indicator. But
>we've had it for about 15 years and this has never inconvenienced us.
How often would you want to program it more than 12 hours in advance?
Seth
Dorothy J Heydt
Oh, it's possible.
It's nine o'clock, you've eaten tonight's dinner and put together
the preliminary work on tomorrow's, and you want it to be done at
7 pm tomorrow.
Mind you, I don't program mine at all, I just push the button and
a few minutes later it's done, but that's because I don't do
complicated cookery at all, that's too much like work.
R H Draney
>
>D. Glenn Arthur Jr. <dgl...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, my own idiolect records the time for logging an event or
>> for writing down a future appointment as YYYYMMDD.hhmm[ss], ...
>
>I use a single digit for the month, 1 through 9, then A, B, and C.
Writing off any dealings with the EBCDIC market, then?...r
the Omrud
> Keith F. Lynch filted:
> >
> >D. Glenn Arthur Jr. <dgl...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, my own idiolect records the time for logging an event or
> >> for writing down a future appointment as YYYYMMDD.hhmm[ss], ...
> >
> >I use a single digit for the month, 1 through 9, then A, B, and C.
>
> Writing off any dealings with the EBCDIC market, then?...r
Oh, the excitement we felt as we approached 18th September 1989. For
non Hex speakers, this is 32786 days after 1/1/1900; the Hex
representation of 17/9/1989 is "7FFF" and of 18/9/1989 is "8000".
--
David
=====
Graeme Thomas
<usenet...@gmail.com> writes
>Oh, the excitement we felt as we approached 18th September 1989. For
>non Hex speakers, this is 32786 days after 1/1/1900; the Hex
Oy!
>representation of 17/9/1989 is "7FFF" and of 18/9/1989 is "8000".
--
Graeme Thomas
the Omrud
I'm sorry, I'm still thinking in French (cross thread alert).
However, I'm impressed that anybody is reading with such diligence.
--
David
=====
Seth Breidbart
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
[programming a microwave more than 12 hours in advance]
>It's nine o'clock, you've eaten tonight's dinner and put together
>the preliminary work on tomorrow's, and you want it to be done at
>7 pm tomorrow.
And the stuff you're cooking doesn't want to be refrigerated for the
time in between, and it takes long enough to cook that you can't start
it when you get home? (I've never microwaved anything that took over
10 minutes, and my arrival time home is never predictable to that
degree of accuracy.)
Seth
Seth Breidbart
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>In my experience hours after midnight are always listed as being the
>day before in anything that shuts down overnight later than midnight,
>from bus schedules to TV schedules.
Not so much "as being" as "with". It does make sense that buses that
run until 2 AM show their night schedules with the 12:15 AM bus on the
line after the 11:35 PM bus 40 minutes earlier. But they do state
which day. (In fact, if you check online schedules for runs across
midnight, they tend to indicate "next day".)
I have a 12:30 AM flight home from Worldcon, I certainly hope the
airline means the same day I do by it.
Seth
Graeme Thomas
<usenet...@gmail.com> writes
>I'm sorry, I'm still thinking in French (cross thread alert).
>However, I'm impressed that anybody is reading with such diligence.
I'm far more numerate than I am literate, so the error leapt off the
screen. I apologize if that was mistaken for diligence.
--
Graeme Thomas
mike weber
Breidbart) wrote:
> (I've never microwaved anything that took over
>10 minutes, and my arrival time home is never predictable to that
>degree of accuracy.)
I've done a number of dishes in the microwave that took an hour or
more -- bouilliabase, for one -- but i can't imagine anything that i'd
cook in a microwave that i'd let sit at room temp all day.
Robert Bannister
As the timer on my oven doesn't work, I use the microwave a great deal
as a timer - probably a lot more often than I use it for cooking. I wish
it would do more than 99 minutes 99 seconds, as 2-3 hours would be very
useful. Of course, I don't need 24 hour time for that.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> As the timer on my oven doesn't work, I use the microwave a great deal
> as a timer - probably a lot more often than I use it for cooking. I wish
> it would do more than 99 minutes 99 seconds, as 2-3 hours would be very
> useful. Of course, I don't need 24 hour time for that.
I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident to
you:
http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
Do you generally take advantage of the principle involved?...r
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>As the timer on my oven doesn't work, I use the microwave a great deal
>>as a timer - probably a lot more often than I use it for cooking. I wish
>>it would do more than 99 minutes 99 seconds, as 2-3 hours would be very
>>useful. Of course, I don't need 24 hour time for that.
>
>
> I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident to
> you:
>
> http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
Well, it couldn't be temperature... Oh, if it were Fahrenheit, I suppose
it could, but it did sound like seconds in the microwave to me.
>
> Do you generally take advantage of the principle involved?...r
>
Not sure if I understand this question. Which principle did you mean?
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
Robert Bannister wrote:
> R H Draney wrote:
>
> > I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident to
> > you:
> >
> > http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
>
> Well, it couldn't be temperature... Oh, if it were Fahrenheit, I suppose
> it could, but it did sound like seconds in the microwave to me.
It *is* seconds in the microwave...to extract only the pertinent points
for those uninclined to follow the link:
Son: "Is 50 enough?" Father: "No"
Son: "Is 125 enough?" Father: "No, try 90"
On a digital-keypad microwave oven, "125" gets you one minute plus
twenty-five seconds..."90" gets you ninety seconds, or five seconds
more than that....
> > Do you generally take advantage of the principle involved?...r
> >
> Not sure if I understand this question. Which principle did you mean?
Since there are two ways to enter many time values on such a keypad,
it's often faster (and easier, given that you often have foodstuffs on
your hands when cooking) to key them with the smallest number of
presses; thus "90" instead of "1:30"....
I took this one step further when it occurred to me that ideal cooking
times are approximate anyway..."88" works about as well as "90", and on
some keypads there's an advantage to pressing twice in the same place
instead of moving to a different spot on the undifferentiated surface,
risking a miskey and subsequent cancel-and-reenter....r
Linz
Totally off-topic, OldBloke informs me that he is now seeing the start of
the Y2038 bug.
"Starting on May 12, 2006, many installations of the AOLServer web server
failed. [snip techy stuff]
It was then noted by a perceptive person that the servers all failed on or
before exactly one billion seconds before the end of the Unix epoch in 2038.
Many installations had very long database timeouts, which caused the
software to look ahead and see the End of Time."
Something else to look forward to!
Peter Duncanson
Yes. Isn't life exciting!
The bug is not limited to Unix. It affects many programs running on
PCs as well.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Bernard Peek
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:09:20 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth
> Breidbart) wrote:
>
> > (I've never microwaved anything that took over
> > 10 minutes, and my arrival time home is never predictable to that
> > degree of accuracy.)
>
>
> I've done a number of dishes in the microwave that took an hour or
> more -- bouilliabase, for one -- but i can't imagine anything that i'd
> cook in a microwave that i'd let sit at room temp all day.
I've left porridge to soak overnight, leaving the bowl in the
microwave. I could have used a timer to switch it on to cook. I could
use a master/slave distribution block to power-up the coffee machine
when the microwave kicked in.
--
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Seth Breidbart
R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>> As the timer on my oven doesn't work, I use the microwave a great deal
>> as a timer - probably a lot more often than I use it for cooking. I wish
>> it would do more than 99 minutes 99 seconds, as 2-3 hours would be very
>> useful. Of course, I don't need 24 hour time for that.
>
>I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident to
>you:
>
> http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
Yes, back when I invented it (or at least thought it up and posted to
rec.puzzles well before that).
>Do you generally take advantage of the principle involved?...r
Yes: the alarm on my Palm Pilot can be set for up to 99 minutes prior
to an event (or in hours or days, but sometimes I want 75 minutes).
Seth
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
> Since there are two ways to enter many time values on such a keypad,
> it's often faster (and easier, given that you often have foodstuffs on
> your hands when cooking) to key them with the smallest number of
> presses; thus "90" instead of "1:30"....
>
> I took this one step further when it occurred to me that ideal cooking
> times are approximate anyway..."88" works about as well as "90", and on
> some keypads there's an advantage to pressing twice in the same place
> instead of moving to a different spot on the undifferentiated surface,
> risking a miskey and subsequent cancel-and-reenter....r
>
Got you. Rather annoyingly, my brand-new microwave doesn't have minutes,
only seconds. It's not *that* annoying, once I stopped looking for the
minutes key, but definitely a step back from my older machine. I suppose
they didn't have room left after they'd included all those buttons I
never use which allegedly cook complete meals (so long as you follow
their recipes).
I did try a few of the simpler options, eg "rice", but it was completely
overcooked. My own guesswork method seems to work better, though I'm
having to adjust for the considerable increase in power. Apart from
rice, I don't really use the thing for cooking anyway; just for warming
up pre-cooked stuff at serving time.
--
Rob Bannister
David Goldfarb
>you:
>
> http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
Checking out this link, I found also this week's Puzzler...and is it
just me or is this week's Puzzler blindingly obvious?
--
David Goldfarb |"I'm married to a woman I met through the computer
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | on the Internet."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "How interesting! I'd love to meet her!"
|"So would I -- we're trying to arrange something
| now." -- Bizarro
the Omrud
> In article <1154567012.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident to
> >you:
> >
> > http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
>
> Checking out this link, I found also this week's Puzzler...and is it
> just me or is this week's Puzzler blindingly obvious?
You mean "The minister, the doctor, and the plumber"? It is, but it
doesn't work in the UK.
--
David
=====
Peter Moylan
> In article <1154567012.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, R
> H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident
>> to you:
>>
>> http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
>>
>
> Checking out this link, I found also this week's Puzzler...and is it
> just me or is this week's Puzzler blindingly obvious?
I can think of several answers that are blindingly obvious, but I'd have
to see the scene before deciding on one of them.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.
The optusnet address still has about 2 months of life left.
mike weber
<pe...@DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>David Goldfarb wrote:
>> In article <1154567012.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, R
>> H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident
>>> to you:
>>>
>>> http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
>>>
>>
>> Checking out this link, I found also this week's Puzzler...and is it
>> just me or is this week's Puzzler blindingly obvious?
>
>I can think of several answers that are blindingly obvious, but I'd have
>to see the scene before deciding on one of them.
It's radio.
the Omrud
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:54:06 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>
> >David Goldfarb wrote:
> >> In article <1154567012.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, R
> >> H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >>> I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident
> >>> to you:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
> >>>
> >>
> >> Checking out this link, I found also this week's Puzzler...and is it
> >> just me or is this week's Puzzler blindingly obvious?
> >
> >I can think of several answers that are blindingly obvious, but I'd have
> >to see the scene before deciding on one of them.
>
> It's radio.
You've not met BBC Radio 3 or 4, I presume.
--
David
=====
Mike Lyle
Anyhow, why is there a picture of George Galloway in the mirror?
--
Mike.
the Omrud
It's well known here that I don't read any national newspapers.
--
David
=====
the Omrud
>
The most likely explanation is that you are George Galloway. But I
thought it was Nigel Mansell.
--
David
=====
Roland Hutchinson
> David Goldfarb wrote:
>> In article <1154567012.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, R
>> H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident
>>> to you:
>>>
>>> http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
>>>
>>
>> Checking out this link, I found also this week's Puzzler...and is it
>> just me or is this week's Puzzler blindingly obvious?
>
> I can think of several answers that are blindingly obvious, but I'd have
> to see the scene before deciding on one of them.
Methinks they are looking for an answer that would be valid regardless of
what the scene looks like.
And, frankly, it _is_ blindingly obvious.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Oleg Lego
>In article <1154567012.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident to
>>you:
>>
>> http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
>
>Checking out this link, I found also this week's Puzzler...and is it
>just me or is this week's Puzzler blindingly obvious?
I must be thick today. If you are referring to the "common household
task" puzzler, I have no idea at all what it could be.
Kevin J. Maroney
<pe...@DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>David Goldfarb wrote:
>> In article <1154567012.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, R
>> H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident
>>> to you:
>>>
>>> http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
>>>
>>
>> Checking out this link, I found also this week's Puzzler...and is it
>> just me or is this week's Puzzler blindingly obvious?
>
>I can think of several answers that are blindingly obvious, but I'd have
>to see the scene before deciding on one of them.
The *blindingly* obvious answer is that the minister is kneeling over
the corpse pounding it with the gun shouting "Die, die, stay dead like
I killed you you bastard, die!"
This is one of the reasons I don't like "situational" puzzles.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com | www.maroney.org
Games are my entire waking life.
Seth Breidbart
>Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <e8927l$22$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>>Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>>>as writing "12:00 noon" instead of "12:00 p.m." I maintain that
>>>the latter is ambiguous, and the former is both correct and clear.
>>
>>The latter is wrong. Noon _is_ the meridian, it is neither ante nor
>>post. Therefore, it gets written as "12:00 m." which is misleading,
>>not ambiguous. I prefer "12 noon" as simple and clear.
>
>"12:00 noon" is correct and unambiguous.
>
>"12:00 m" is correct, and unambiguous to folks familiar with
>the meaning of 'm' in "am" and "pm" or who already happen to
>know what "m" stands for on its own in this context.
That's what I said: it's _misleading_, not ambiguous.
>I don't think I know anyone who'd be confused as to which 12:00
>is midnight and which is noon using "am" and "pm"
Dunno about confused, but I'd ask.
> (though I do
>know several who would scratch their heads at "12:00 m", alas).
That one _is_ ambiguous. (Yes, it has only one *correct* meaning.
You can be a year late for a hell of a big party, too.)
>The 'gotcha' really is midnight:
To the extent that a lot of contracts are written to start at 12:01
AM, just to make it absolutely clear which day.
>I'm guessing this is the reason that every time I've seen a news
>story about a law that takes effect at midnight on a particular
>day, they say it takes effect "at 12:01 am", not "at midnight".
That's because the law generally does take effect at 12:01 AM. (If
it's always used, it would have made an interesting exception in
.mn.us: somebody would have been legally able to drink for one minute,
the day the law not letting you start drinking until noon on your 21st
birthday took effect.)
Seth
R H Draney
Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
> That's because the law generally does take effect at 12:01 AM. (If
> it's always used, it would have made an interesting exception in
> .mn.us: somebody would have been legally able to drink for one minute,
> the day the law not letting you start drinking until noon on your 21st
> birthday took effect.)
I had something like that before the laws were regularized...I turned
18 in New Mexico when the state allowed drinking at that age, but moved
to Arizona (with a drinking age of 21) when I was twenty...the result,
if I had had any inclination to drink in the first place, was that I
lost, for nine months, legal permission that I'd already had for over
two years....r
the Omrud
>
I was working in Pennsylvania when I was 19 and 20 and the local
drinking age was 21. But we merely had to cross the river to New
York where the drinking age was 18.
And my cousin had the reverse - the age of majority in the UK was
changed from 21 to 18 when he was 19 and a bit, so he immediately
became an adult on the day the law changed.
--
David
=====
David Goldfarb
No, it's the "minister, doctor, and plumber" puzzler. Still up
at <http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/>.
--
David Goldfarb |"Sunset over Houma. The rains have stopped.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | Clouds like plugs of bloodied cotton wool dab
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | ineffectually at the slashed wrists of the sky."
| -- Alan Moore
Peter Moylan
My daughter got her driver's licence a day or two before she left for
Europe for a year. She's not allowed to drive in Europe, so the only
legal driving she's done so far has been with "L" plates. Hmm, now that
I think of it she's going to have to renew that licence while she's
still out of the country. That could be tricky in the case of a
probationary licence. It's possible she'll hit the long snake.
Oleg Lego
>In article <gld8d292mi5jrpis3...@4ax.com>,
>Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat..com> wrote:
>>The David Goldfarb entity posted thusly:
>>
>>>In article <1154567012.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>>I assume the answer to this Car Talk Puzzler is immediately evident to
>>>>you:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/199901/index.html
>>>
>>>Checking out this link, I found also this week's Puzzler...and is it
>>>just me or is this week's Puzzler blindingly obvious?
>>
>>I must be thick today. If you are referring to the "common household
>>task" puzzler, I have no idea at all what it could be.
>
>No, it's the "minister, doctor, and plumber" puzzler. Still up
>at <http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/>.
Ahh. That one wasn't any more obvious to me than the "common household
task" one. I guess I'm still thick.
Unless you mean something like "The minister was still holding the
gun." or that the doctor and plumber were both dead.
Father Ignatius
"Peter Moylan" <pe...@DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org>,
in <44d6a229$0$24357$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, a écrit:
> It's possible she'll hit the long snake.
No Google hits for "hit the long snake" nor any entry at the Urban
Dictionary. You may dilate.
Seth Breidbart
Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat..com> wrote:
>The David Goldfarb entity posted thusly:
>>No, it's the "minister, doctor, and plumber" puzzler. Still up
>>at <http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/>.
>
>Ahh. That one wasn't any more obvious to me than the "common household
>task" one. I guess I'm still thick.
>
>Unless you mean something like "The minister was still holding the
>gun." or that the doctor and plumber were both dead.
I did give the answer away two days ago (albeit in rot-13, and by
trashing it; but the latter is standard for this newsfroup anyway).
Seth
John Holmes
Not go up a ladder?
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Nick Spalding
on Mon, 7 Aug 2006 07:11:16 +0200:
Did you never play 'Snakes and Ladders'?
--
Nick Spalding
Donna Richoux
It was "Chutes and Ladders" in the 1960s, US.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Skitt
> Nick Spalding wrote:
>> Father Ignatius wrote:
>>>> It's possible she'll hit the long snake.
>>>
>>> No Google hits for "hit the long snake" nor any entry at the Urban
>>> Dictionary. You may dilate.
>>
>> Did you never play 'Snakes and Ladders'?
>
> It was "Chutes and Ladders" in the 1960s, US.
Never heard of it.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
Donna Richoux
> Donna Richoux wrote:
> > Nick Spalding wrote:
> >> Father Ignatius wrote:
> >>> "Peter Moylan" a écrit:
>
> >>>> It's possible she'll hit the long snake.
> >>>
> >>> No Google hits for "hit the long snake" nor any entry at the Urban
> >>> Dictionary. You may dilate.
> >>
> >> Did you never play 'Snakes and Ladders'?
> >
> > It was "Chutes and Ladders" in the 1960s, US.
>
> Never heard of it.
Game board for "Chutes and Ladders" here.
http://vip.cs.utsa.edu/classes/cs4773s2000/notes/chutesladders/chuteslad
ders.gif
If your turn ended on the bottom of a ladder, you'd go up it; at the top
of a chute, you'd go down it.
I believe some attempt was made to tie "Back to square one" to this
game. However, although there is a square marked "1," no chute would
return you to it, not on this gameboard anyway.
Skitt
Ah, thanks. I had not seen that game before.
Karl Johanson
> I've done a number of dishes in the microwave that took an hour or
> more -- bouilliabase, for one -- but i can't imagine anything that i'd
> cook in a microwave that i'd let sit at room temp all day.
Potatoes?
Karl Johanson
mike weber
Nope. Wouldn't cook potatoes in a microwave.
David Goldfarb
Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat..com> wrote:
>The David Goldfarb entity posted thusly:
>>at <http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/>.
>
>Ahh. That one wasn't any more obvious to me than the "common household
>task" one. I guess I'm still thick.
>
>Unless you mean something like "The minister was still holding the
>gun." or that the doctor and plumber were both dead.
Okay, here's a simpler but related puzzle -- one you may have heard.
A father and son were driving, and had an accident. The father was
killed; the son, still alive but in critical condition, was rushed to
the hospital. In the operating room, the surgeon was heard to exclaim:
"I can't operate on this patient! He's my son!" How could this be?
--
David Goldfarb |"Obviously proud of knowing a word I didn't know,
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |Horace carefully repeated, 'Meretricious!'.
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |Whereupon I replied, 'And a happy new year to you.'"
| -- Isaac Asimov
David Goldfarb
David Goldfarb <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>A father and son were driving, and had an accident. The father was
>killed; the son, still alive but in critical condition, was rushed to
>the hospital. In the operating room, the surgeon was heard to exclaim:
>"I can't operate on this patient! He's my son!" How could this be?
It occurs to me in fact that while there is a canonical answer to this
one, nowadays there are multiple alternative possibilities.
--
David Goldfarb |"Atheists view their theist friends with
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | much the same feeling as nonsmokers do
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | their smoking friends."
| -- David R. Henry, on rec.arts.comics.xbooks