Youngest-dying famous person?

[Keith F. Lynch]

Yesterday I suggested that at age 111 Zhou Youguang was probably
the oldest-dying famous person, not counting people famous only
for being very old.

That makes me wonder who was the youngest-ever famous person. I'm not
counting anyone who is famous only for their parentage or for their
manner of birth, death, or unusual medical condition or treatment.
I'm only interested in those who are famous for their accomplishments,
whether they're in science, sports, music, acting, crime, or anything
else. By "famous" I mean there's a Wikipedia article about them.

One possibility is Evariste Galois, a 19th century French
mathematician who died at age 20.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Kevrob]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 9:02:42 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Yesterday I suggested that at age 111 Zhou Youguang was probably
> the oldest-dying famous person, not counting people famous only
> for being very old.
>
> That makes me wonder who was the youngest-ever famous person. I'm not
> counting anyone who is famous only for their parentage or for their
> manner of birth, death, or unusual medical condition or treatment.
> I'm only interested in those who are famous for their accomplishments,
> whether they're in science, sports, music, acting, crime, or anything
> else. By "famous" I mean there's a Wikipedia article about them.
>
> One possibility is Evariste Galois, a 19th century French
> mathematician who died at age 20.

Heather O'Rourke, "Carol Ann" in the Poltergeist films, died at
age 12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_O%27Rourke

I assume Edward V of England is disqualified? He was "famous
for his parentage," right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_V_of_England

He and his brother Richard, age 9, "disappeared."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_Shrewsbury,_1st_Duke_of_York

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

Kevin R

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

[Gary McGath]

On 1/19/17 9:02 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Yesterday I suggested that at age 111 Zhou Youguang was probably
> the oldest-dying famous person, not counting people famous only
> for being very old.
>
> That makes me wonder who was the youngest-ever famous person. I'm not
> counting anyone who is famous only for their parentage or for their
> manner of birth, death, or unusual medical condition or treatment.
> I'm only interested in those who are famous for their accomplishments,
> whether they're in science, sports, music, acting, crime, or anything
> else. By "famous" I mean there's a Wikipedia article about them.
>
> One possibility is Evariste Galois, a 19th century French
> mathematician who died at age 20.

Joan of Arc was burned to death at age 19.


--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

[Keith F. Lynch]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Heather O'Rourke, "Carol Ann" in the Poltergeist films, died
> at age 12.

Okay, that's the new record, unless someone can find someone younger
who qualifies. (It's cheating to set a new record by killing a famous
young person.)

> I assume Edward V of England is disqualified? He was "famous for
> his parentage," right?

Right.

> He and his brother Richard, age 9, "disappeared."

Since they were contemporaries of Richard III, has anyone tried
searching parking lots for their remains?

[Kevrob]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:31:13 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Heather O'Rourke, "Carol Ann" in the Poltergeist films, died
> > at age 12.
>
> Okay, that's the new record, unless someone can find someone younger
> who qualifies. (It's cheating to set a new record by killing a famous
> young person.)

Good rule. You may have just save Alana "Honey Boo Boo"
Thompson's life. She won't be 12 until August, I find.

http://herecomeshoneybooboo.wikia.com/wiki/Alana_Thompson

> > I assume Edward V of England is disqualified? He was "famous for
> > his parentage," right?
>
> Right.
>
> > He and his brother Richard, age 9, "disappeared."
>
> Since they were contemporaries of Richard III, has anyone tried
> searching parking lots for their remains?
> --

Look for hovering ravens?

Kevin R

[Cryptoengineer]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in news:o5uh5g$lv6$1
@reader1.panix.com:

> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Heather O'Rourke, "Carol Ann" in the Poltergeist films, died
>> at age 12.
>
> Okay, that's the new record, unless someone can find someone younger
> who qualifies. (It's cheating to set a new record by killing a famous
> young person.)
>
>> I assume Edward V of England is disqualified? He was "famous for
>> his parentage," right?
>
> Right.
>
>> He and his brother Richard, age 9, "disappeared."
>
> Since they were contemporaries of Richard III, has anyone tried
> searching parking lots for their remains?

Time would be better spent checking the two pairs of small skeletons
which have been put forward as the victims - one found in the Tower
of London (where the princes disappeared), and one in Windsor Castle.

Royal Assent to opening the tombs where those skeletons now lie would
be required, and has not been forthcoming.

pt

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:03:54 -0000, Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Very curious/disturbing, cos Richard mkIII wasn't a relative, AFAICT




--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <op.yuk86...@dell3100.dlink.com>,

Good question, which somebody with enough time and records might
be able to find out.

Remember that when the graves of the last Tsar and his family were
opened, the DNA of some of them was verified by checking that of
Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, formerly a Greek Prince descended from
the sister of the Tsarina.

But there was so much intermarriage between the royal houses for
so many centuries that a DNA match isn't really necessary to
trace a distant kinship among people whose births and deaths are
all recorded.

(I've been told, and do in part believe it, that everybody of
European ancestry has Charlemagne as a distant ancestor.)

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[Keith F. Lynch]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> Kerr Mudd-John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> Very curious/disturbing, cos Richard mkIII wasn't a relative, AFAICT

> Good question, which somebody with enough time and records might be
> able to find out.

> Remember that when the graves of the last Tsar and his family were
> opened, the DNA of some of them was verified by checking that of
> Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, formerly a Greek Prince descended from
> the sister of the Tsarina.

And the rulers of the WWI powers, Britain, Russia, and Germany, were
all first cousins. The First World War was a family spat. Also,
"czar" and "kaiser" are cognates (as is "caesar").

Trivia: Who was the first ruler of Britain to be a direct descendent
of Charles II?

> But there was so much intermarriage between the royal houses for so
> many centuries that a DNA match isn't really necessary to trace a
> distant kinship among people whose births and deaths are all recorded.

Remember what Heinlein said about tracing family trees for more than a
few generations.

> (I've been told, and do in part believe it, that everybody of
> European ancestry has Charlemagne as a distant ancestor.)

Very few people alive today have him as a *recent* ancestor. :-)

If you go back more than a thousand years or so, almost everyone alive
at that time is either the ancestor of everyone of their race alive
today, or of nobody alive today. After all, everyone has two parents,
four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc.. Thirty generations
ago you had a billion ancestors. Since that's much more than the
world population a the time, it's obvious that everyone's family tree
has many duplicates in it.

[Cryptoengineer]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in news:o695kf$e17$1
@reader1.panix.com:

> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Kerr Mudd-John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>> Very curious/disturbing, cos Richard mkIII wasn't a relative, AFAICT
>
>> Good question, which somebody with enough time and records might be
>> able to find out.
>
>> Remember that when the graves of the last Tsar and his family were
>> opened, the DNA of some of them was verified by checking that of
>> Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, formerly a Greek Prince descended from
>> the sister of the Tsarina.
>
> And the rulers of the WWI powers, Britain, Russia, and Germany, were
> all first cousins. The First World War was a family spat. Also,
> "czar" and "kaiser" are cognates (as is "caesar").

I present the family "tree" of Charles II of Spain. This sad case
had two second cousin marriages, two first cousin marriages, and
three uncle/niece marriages in his immediate ancestry. He could barely
function.

https://learnearnandreturn.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/777px-
carlos_segundo801.png

> Trivia: Who was the first ruler of Britain to be a direct descendent
> of Charles II?

None, yet, unless by 'rule' you include a Prime Minister in the late
1700s.

Prince William is a direct descendant, via Diana, as are his kids. If
any of them survive Charles, they will meet the criteria.

pt

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA707ED4128...@216.166.97.131>,

Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in news:o695kf$e17$1
>@reader1.panix.com:
>
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> Kerr Mudd-John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>> Very curious/disturbing, cos Richard mkIII wasn't a relative, AFAICT
>>
>>> Good question, which somebody with enough time and records might be
>>> able to find out.
>>
>>> Remember that when the graves of the last Tsar and his family were
>>> opened, the DNA of some of them was verified by checking that of
>>> Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, formerly a Greek Prince descended from
>>> the sister of the Tsarina.
>>
>> And the rulers of the WWI powers, Britain, Russia, and Germany, were
>> all first cousins. The First World War was a family spat. Also,
>> "czar" and "kaiser" are cognates (as is "caesar").
>
>I present the family "tree" of Charles II of Spain. This sad case
>had two second cousin marriages, two first cousin marriages, and
>three uncle/niece marriages in his immediate ancestry. He could barely
>function.

Oh, lord, yes. Consider his sister, the Infanta Margarita, the
central figure of _Las Meninas_ and the subject of Ravel's "Pavane
for a Dead Princess," about which Ravel said something on the order
of "Well, it isn't that she died young or anything, just that she
died a long time ago."

And she did die young, at 21, worn out by continual pregnancies
and miscarriages.

The puurpose of her marriage (to her uncle), says Wikipedia, was
to strengthen the position of the Spanish and Austrian branches
of the House of Habsburg. But the Spanish line went extinct with
the abovementioned Charles.

(If I'd been Margarita I would've borrowed a servants' dress and
run off to a convent.)

[Tim Merrigan]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:21:51 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Kerr Mudd-John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>> Very curious/disturbing, cos Richard mkIII wasn't a relative, AFAICT
>
>> Good question, which somebody with enough time and records might be
>> able to find out.
>
>> Remember that when the graves of the last Tsar and his family were
>> opened, the DNA of some of them was verified by checking that of
>> Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, formerly a Greek Prince descended from
>> the sister of the Tsarina.
>
>And the rulers of the WWI powers, Britain, Russia, and Germany, were
>all first cousins. The First World War was a family spat. Also,
>"czar" and "kaiser" are cognates (as is "caesar").
>
>Trivia: Who was the first ruler of Britain to be a direct descendent
>of Charles II?

Which Charles II? (I don't have an answer in any case, but there were
several)

>
>> But there was so much intermarriage between the royal houses for so
>> many centuries that a DNA match isn't really necessary to trace a
>> distant kinship among people whose births and deaths are all recorded.
>
>Remember what Heinlein said about tracing family trees for more than a
>few generations.
>
>> (I've been told, and do in part believe it, that everybody of
>> European ancestry has Charlemagne as a distant ancestor.)
>
>Very few people alive today have him as a *recent* ancestor. :-)
>
>If you go back more than a thousand years or so, almost everyone alive
>at that time is either the ancestor of everyone of their race alive
>today, or of nobody alive today. After all, everyone has two parents,
>four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc.. Thirty generations
>ago you had a billion ancestors. Since that's much more than the
>world population a the time, it's obvious that everyone's family tree
>has many duplicates in it.

Everyone alive ever has two parents, allowing for in vitro. Past that
there are occasional overlaps, and more likely as one goes further
back.
--

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Tim Merrigan

[pete...@gmail.com]

There's at least one baby out there with 3 parents:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/three-parent-babies-explained
("These are the days of miracles and wonders...")

pt

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <8cgg8c5to22v1v7ag...@4ax.com>,

Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:21:51 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
><k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> Kerr Mudd-John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>> Very curious/disturbing, cos Richard mkIII wasn't a relative, AFAICT
>>
>>> Good question, which somebody with enough time and records might be
>>> able to find out.
>>
>>> Remember that when the graves of the last Tsar and his family were
>>> opened, the DNA of some of them was verified by checking that of
>>> Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, formerly a Greek Prince descended from
>>> the sister of the Tsarina.
>>
>>And the rulers of the WWI powers, Britain, Russia, and Germany, were
>>all first cousins. The First World War was a family spat. Also,
>>"czar" and "kaiser" are cognates (as is "caesar").
>>
>>Trivia: Who was the first ruler of Britain to be a direct descendent
>>of Charles II?

>Which Charles II? (I don't have an answer in any case, but there were
>several)

I assume Charles Stuart of Britain, the one who was restored in the
Restoration, and I don't know either.

>>
>>> But there was so much intermarriage between the royal houses for so
>>> many centuries that a DNA match isn't really necessary to trace a
>>> distant kinship among people whose births and deaths are all recorded.
>>
>>Remember what Heinlein said about tracing family trees for more than a
>>few generations.

No, I don't remember that one, please quote it. Something on the
order of "it isn't a tree, it's a briar patch"? Heinlein turned
a mean phrase in his day.

>>
>>> (I've been told, and do in part believe it, that everybody of
>>> European ancestry has Charlemagne as a distant ancestor.)
>>
>>Very few people alive today have him as a *recent* ancestor. :-)

Nobody has him as a *recent ancestor; he died in 814 CE. But
when he died he left three legitimate sons, I dunno how many
illegitimate ones, and several daughters whom, his biographer
said, he didn't allow to marry because he didn't want them
leaving home, but he didn't care if they took lovers. So lots of
bastards with Charlemagne's genes mixing into the gene pool.

>>
>>If you go back more than a thousand years or so, almost everyone alive
>>at that time is either the ancestor of everyone of their race alive
>>today, or of nobody alive today. After all, everyone has two parents,
>>four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc.. Thirty generations
>>ago you had a billion ancestors. Since that's much more than the
>>world population a the time, it's obvious that everyone's family tree
>>has many duplicates in it.

If you go far back enough, yes.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> Which Charles II? (I don't have an answer in any case, but there
>> were several)

> I assume Charles Stuart of Britain, the one who was restored in the
> Restoration, and I don't know either.

Right. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Whenever I mention royalty, assume
I mean British royalty unless it's clear from context that I don't.

>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Remember what Heinlein said about tracing family trees for more
>>> than a few generations.

> No, I don't remember that one, please quote it. Something on the
> order of "it isn't a tree, it's a briar patch"? Heinlein turned
> a mean phrase in his day.

I don't have the exact quote handy, but it was along the lines of
adultery being more likely than not if you go back more than two
or three generations. "Mother's Baby, Father's, Maybe."

>>> Very few people alive today have him as a *recent* ancestor. :-)

> Nobody has him as a *recent ancestor; he died in 814 CE.

That was my point. I was poking fun at the redundant word "distant."

[Keith F. Lynch]

Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> Everyone alive ever has two parents, allowing for in vitro. Past
> that there are occasional overlaps, and more likely as one goes
> further back.

Yes, that's what I just said.

Nitpick: A few people have three parents. Rarely, two sperm cells
simultaneously fertilize the same egg. Even more rarely, the result
is sometimes viable. Even more rarely, sometimes the two sperm cells
are from different men.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I present the family "tree" of Charles II of Spain. This sad case
>> had two second cousin marriages, two first cousin marriages, and
>> three uncle/niece marriages in his immediate ancestry. He could
>> barely function.

ObSF: I'm currently reading _Proxima_ by Stephen Baxter. A colony
intended to start with 14 people ends up with just 2. A (robot)
character informs them that they have sufficient genetic diversity
to populate the planet, especially since one of them is an
Australian aborigine and the other is not.

> Oh, lord, yes. Consider his sister, the Infanta Margarita, the
> central figure of _Las Meninas_ and the subject of Ravel's "Pavane
> for a Dead Princess," about which Ravel said something on the order
> of "Well, it isn't that she died young or anything, just that she
> died a long time ago."

Yes, I've heard that "dead" is a mistranslation, and that a better
word would be "extinct," meaning there haven't been people like that
for a long time. I've never heard that it's a reference to any
real person.

> (If I'd been Margarita I would've borrowed a servants' dress and run
> off to a convent.)

Apparently a common fantasy among women is that they're secretly a
princess, and will soon be restored to their throne. I like the way
Charlie Stross subverted this. In his Hidden Family series, a modern
American woman discovers that she is secretly a princess, and will
soon be restored to her throne, and she's horrified by the prospect.

Speaking of that series, a new book just came out in it. I look
forward to reading it once it appears in mass market paperback.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <o6bg3t$le4$1...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.

Lynch) wrote:

>
> > Oh, lord, yes. Consider his sister, the Infanta Margarita, the
> > central figure of _Las Meninas_ and the subject of Ravel's "Pavane
> > for a Dead Princess," about which Ravel said something on the
> > order
> > of "Well, it isn't that she died young or anything, just that she
> > died a long time ago."
>
> Yes, I've heard that "dead" is a mistranslation, and that a better
> word would be "extinct," meaning there haven't been people like that
> for a long time. I've never heard that it's a reference to any
> real person.

Although there is also the story about Ravel hearing a pianist play the
work far to slowly. "It's the princess who has died, not the Pavan."

And I've at least once seen the title translated as Pavan for a Dead
Child, which is wrong.

[T Guy]

On Thursday, 26 January 2017 00:03:36 UTC, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> > Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Which Charles II? (I don't have an answer in any case, but there
> >> were several)
>
> > I assume Charles Stuart of Britain, the one who was restored in the
> > Restoration, and I don't know either.
>
> Right. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Whenever I mention royalty, assume
> I mean British royalty unless it's clear from context that I don't.

Quite right, too.

> >> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >>> Remember what Heinlein said about tracing family trees for more
> >>> than a few generations.
>
> > No, I don't remember that one, please quote it. Something on the
> > order of "it isn't a tree, it's a briar patch"? Heinlein turned
> > a mean phrase in his day.
>
> I don't have the exact quote handy, but it was along the lines of
> adultery being more likely than not if you go back more than two
> or three generations. "Mother's Baby, Father's, Maybe."

ISTR also still true today.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <memo.2017012...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk>,

Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <o6bg3t$le4$1...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
>Lynch) wrote:
>
>>
>> > Oh, lord, yes. Consider his sister, the Infanta Margarita, the
>> > central figure of _Las Meninas_ and the subject of Ravel's "Pavane
>> > for a Dead Princess," about which Ravel said something on the
>> > order
>> > of "Well, it isn't that she died young or anything, just that she
>> > died a long time ago."
>>
>> Yes, I've heard that "dead" is a mistranslation, and that a better
>> word would be "extinct," meaning there haven't been people like that
>> for a long time. I've never heard that it's a reference to any
>> real person.

Well, the French is "defunte." Which is cognate with "defunct,"
but I don't know how the actual meaning of what was originally a
Latin word varies between French and English.

>
>Although there is also the story about Ravel hearing a pianist play the
>work far to slowly. "It's the princess who has died, not the Pavan."

Well, a pavane is actually a Renaissance dance with a strong
four-four beat, about one second to a beat. It may be that Ravel
didn't know that. The Pavane was written in 1599, just a little
bit before musicians started getting interested in Renaissance
music.

>
>And I've at least once seen the title translated as Pavan for a Dead
>Child, which is wrong.

Oh yeah; "Infanta" meant something like English "Princess Royal,"
that is, the king's eldest daughter.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

Yes.

[pete...@gmail.com]

Ravel's title is "Pavane pour une infante défunte" Someone unaware that
it refers to a *Spanish* princess (infanta) could easily make a mistranslation.

pt

[pete...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 9:00:10 AM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <memo.2017012...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk>,
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <o6bg3t$le4$1...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
> >Lynch) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > Oh, lord, yes. Consider his sister, the Infanta Margarita, the
> >> > central figure of _Las Meninas_ and the subject of Ravel's "Pavane
> >> > for a Dead Princess," about which Ravel said something on the
> >> > order
> >> > of "Well, it isn't that she died young or anything, just that she
> >> > died a long time ago."
> >>
> >> Yes, I've heard that "dead" is a mistranslation, and that a better
> >> word would be "extinct," meaning there haven't been people like that
> >> for a long time. I've never heard that it's a reference to any
> >> real person.
>
> Well, the French is "defunte." Which is cognate with "defunct,"
> but I don't know how the actual meaning of what was originally a
> Latin word varies between French and English.
> >
> >Although there is also the story about Ravel hearing a pianist play the
> >work far to slowly. "It's the princess who has died, not the Pavan."
>
> Well, a pavane is actually a Renaissance dance with a strong
> four-four beat, about one second to a beat. It may be that Ravel
> didn't know that. The Pavane was written in 1599, just a little

Typo alert: 1899, not 1599.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <6f13e3b9-ccaf-4a3e...@googlegroups.com>,

Proverb with long whiskers: It's a wise child that knows its
father.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <e430d669-d7ee-4a14...@googlegroups.com>,

<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 9:00:10 AM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> Well, a pavane is actually a Renaissance dance with a strong
>> four-four beat, about one second to a beat. It may be that Ravel
>> didn't know that. The Pavane was written in 1599, just a little
>
>Typo alert: 1899, not 1599.

Owwwww! Sorry. It's early morning here. Daughter is about to
leave for work and grandson still has to brush his teeth and
catch the school bus. (Son-in-law left the house at 5:00; he has
to take a ferry across the Bay.)

[pete...@gmail.com]

DON PEDRO
You embrace your charge too willingly. I think this
is your daughter.

LEONATO
Her mother hath many times told me so.

- Much Ado about Nothing

pt

[Paul Dormer]

In article <oKE3F...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>
> Well, a pavane is actually a Renaissance dance with a strong
> four-four beat, about one second to a beat. It may be that Ravel
> didn't know that. The Pavane was written in 1599, just a little
> bit before musicians started getting interested in Renaissance
> music.

I'm sure he did. Ravel was born in the Basque country, not far from the
Spanish border, and the dictionary tells me that the pavan (or pavane, it
gives both spellings) was originally a Spanish dance form.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <90350de9-629d-4000...@googlegroups.com>,

pete...@gmail.com () wrote:

>
> > And I've at least once seen the title translated as Pavan for a
> > Dead
> > Child, which is wrong.
>
> Ravel's title is "Pavane pour une infante défunte" Someone unaware that
> it refers to a *Spanish* princess (infanta) could easily make a
> mistranslation.

Indeed.

It was a review in the paper that I remember I saw it. The review of a
play, so a drama critic, not a music critic. The review said the play
ended with an actor playing "Ravel's Pavane for a dead child on the
piano." I wrote tot he paper to correct this and they published my
letter.

[pete...@gmail.com]

At this point, I think someone should mention that it's a utterly beautiful
piece of slow, somber music. Its one of my favorites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYeU_4iOKu8

pt

[Kevrob]

ObSF/Alt-His: Pavane by Keith Roberts

Kevin R

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <memo.2017012...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk>,
Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:

Also, his mother was Spanish. But that's not the point. By
Ravel's time the pavane had long-since ceased to be danced,
hardly ever played, an antique word for an officially dead thing.
And then people got interested in early music again, and
unearthed Thoinot Arbeau's _Orchesographie,_ and Bob was your
uncle. I danced pavannes and galliards, basse dances and
tourdions, in the SCA until I got too old and tired.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> It was a review in the paper that I remember I saw it. The review
> of a play, so a drama critic, not a music critic. The review said
> the play ended with an actor playing "Ravel's Pavane for a dead
> child on the piano." I wrote tot he paper to correct this and they
> published my letter.

I'd certainly like to think they would remove any dead child from the
piano before playing a pavane or anything else on it. :-)

I thought of you when listening to a Proms performance on YouTube.
I mostly just listen, not watch. But I noticed one singer who looked
like she (?) had just come from a concentration camp. See 45:07 of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBlsQnWpalw
Any idea what's going on with her? Thanks.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> Well, the French is "defunte." Which is cognate with "defunct," but
> I don't know how the actual meaning of what was originally a Latin
> word varies between French and English.

According to Wiktionary:

défunt m (feminine singular défunte, masculine plural défunts, feminine
plural défuntes)
1. (formal) (of a person) late, deceased
2. (formal) (of a place, era etc.) which is dead and gone, bygone
3. (literary) defunct

Are you familiar with Wiktionary? You can look up any word in any
language and get the definition in the same or any other language.
For instance here's the definition of "spam" in French:

spam \spam\ masculin
1. (Anglicisme informatique) (Internet) Messages électroniques envoyés en
masse à des personnes qui ne l'ont pas demandé dans un but publicitaire
ou commercial.
+ Également appelés spams, les pourriels sont, comme les publicités
qui encombrent nos boîtes aux lettres postales, des messages non
sollicités, envoyés en grand nombre. À l'origine, il s'agissait
d'une idée géniale de marketing, [...]. -- (Danièle Dromard &
Dominique Seret, Architecture des réseaux, Pearson Education
France, 2010, p.194)
+ Le spam, pourriel ou polluriel est une communication électronique
non sollicitée, via le courrier électronique. Il s'agit en général
d'envois en grande quantité effectués à des fins publicitaires.
-- (Patrick Beuzi, Tout sur ma tablette Google Nexus 7 et 10 :
Pour les Nuls, Éditions First-Gründ, 2013)

> Oh yeah; "Infanta" meant something like English "Princess Royal,"
> that is, the king's eldest daughter.

An important DC Metro station is L'Enfant Plaza. (It's the only station
on five of the six lines.)

[Keith F. Lynch]

T Guy <tim.b...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:

> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> I don't have the exact quote handy, but it was along the lines of
>> adultery being more likely than not if you go back more than two or
>> three generations. "Mother's Baby, Father's, Maybe."

> ISTR also still true today.

I don't think he was implying that it was getting less common, merely
that the odds add up over many generations, especially since you have
twice as many ancestors each generation back.

Given an analysis of the DNA of everyone alive today, I wonder how
many generations back an unambiguous family tree could be constructed.

Of course many of the names and nationalities would be unknown. For
instance it might be possible to discover that you and I had a common
female ancestor ten generations ago, but that wouldn't tell us her
name, or when or where she lived.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <o6e8bi$oj9$1...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.

Lynch) wrote:

> But I noticed one singer who looked
> like she (?) had just come from a concentration camp. See 45:07 of
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBlsQnWpalw
> Any idea what's going on with her? Thanks.

Well, I think it's a he, and it's not helped that it's appearing in the
wrong aspect ratio on Youtube - 4:3 not 16:9 - so everyone is looking
tall and thin.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <oKEM9...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J

Heydt) wrote:

> By
> Ravel's time the pavane had long-since ceased to be danced,
> hardly ever played, an antique word for an officially dead thing.

Well, a few years later, Ravel wrote Le Tombeau de Couperin, also based
on 17th dance forms. I get the impression he was interested in older
music. I remember reading that about this time his fellow French
composer D'Indy was re-discovering the music of Monteverdi.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <o6e9m4$2hq$1...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.

Lynch) wrote:

>
> An important DC Metro station is L'Enfant Plaza. (It's the only
> station on five of the six lines.)

That's part of the problem. The French for child is enfant, the French
for Infanta is infante.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:57:09 -0000, Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 11:58:26 AM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-5, Paul Dormer wrote:
>> > In article <90350de9-629d-4000...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > pete...@gmail.com () wrote:

[]

>> > > Ravel's title is "Pavane pour une infante défunte" Someone unaware

[]

>
> ObSF/Alt-His: Pavane by Keith Roberts
>

I'm sure we all knew /that/


(OK wikipedia helped out a bit!)



--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Gary McGath]

On 1/26/17 9:01 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> An important DC Metro station is L'Enfant Plaza. (It's the only station
> on five of the six lines.)

I suspect that's named for Pierre Charles L'Enfant, who was largely
responsible for DC's official architecture. George Washington reportedly
fired him for eminent domain abuse.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

[T Guy]

We've got one of them: https://www.google.co.uk/search?{google:acceptedSuggestion}oq=Elephant+and+Castle+&{google:instantFieldTrialGroupParameter}sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Elephant+and+Castle#q=Elephant%20and%20Castle&tbs=lf_od:-1,lf_oh:-1,lf_pqs:EAE,lf:1,lf_ui:4&rflfq=1&rlha=0&rllag=51493343,-15917,5881&tbm=lcl&rldimm=13505918802272408987

It's only on two lines, however (Northern and Bakerloo).

Wikipedia informs us'A girl born at the station in 1924 was the first baby to be born on the Underground network,' which I find delightfully appropriate.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <memo.2017012...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk>,
Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:

/sigh

Now if only that would work in RL, so that we could all look slim
and lissome without becoming unhealthy. :)

[Paul Dormer]

In article <oKG1C...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>

> >Well, I think it's a he, and it's not helped that it's appearing
> in the
> >wrong aspect ratio on Youtube - 4:3 not 16:9 - so everyone is
> looking
> >tall and thin.
>
> /sigh
>
> Now if only that would work in RL, so that we could all look slim
> and lissome without becoming unhealthy. :)

Conversely, the rest of my family seem to like watching old films on
their widescreen TVs stretched out, so everyone is short and fat.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <memo.2017012...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk>,
Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:

Okay, I guess. Either that or they just don't know how to fix
the aspect ratio.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>> p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
>>> Well, I think it's a he, and it's not helped that it's appearing
>>> in the wrong aspect ratio on Youtube - 4:3 not 16:9 - so everyone
>>> is looking tall and thin.

I think you're right. The singers seem to be segregated by gender,
and everyone in that section is obviously male, except for that person
and the person next to them, both of whom look ambiguous to me.

>> Now if only that would work in RL, so that we could all look slim
>> and lissome without becoming unhealthy. :)

You obviously didn't view the video. I've seen healthier looking
corpses. Everyone else in the video looks healthy, despite the
incorrect aspect ratio.

> Conversely, the rest of my family seem to like watching old films on
> their widescreen TVs stretched out, so everyone is short and fat.

I wish I had a nickel for every digital TV I've seen that was wildly
out of adjustment, with everything either stretched or squished, or
with black bars on all four sides.

ObSF (sort of): The 1961 movie _X-15_. It contains a fair amount of
stock footage, and the aspect ratio on the stock footage is *way* off,
by maybe a factor of 2. ObTopical: Mary Tyler Moore, who died this
week, was in it. She's so young she's hard to recognize.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> An important DC Metro station is L'Enfant Plaza. (It's the only
>> station on five of the six lines.)

> I suspect that's named for Pierre Charles L'Enfant, who was largely
> responsible for DC's official architecture.

Yes.

> George Washington reportedly fired him for eminent domain abuse.

I can confirm the firing, but not the reason.

I wonder how he got a name that meant "the child." I guess it's no
stranger than the early Spanish explorer of what's now the southeast
US, whose name meant "head of cow."

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 03:55:56 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> An important DC Metro station is L'Enfant Plaza. (It's the only
>>> station on five of the six lines.)
>
>> I suspect that's named for Pierre Charles L'Enfant, who was largely
>> responsible for DC's official architecture.
>
>Yes.
>
>> George Washington reportedly fired him for eminent domain abuse.
>
>I can confirm the firing, but not the reason.
>
>I wonder how he got a name that meant "the child." I guess it's no
>stranger than the early Spanish explorer of what's now the southeast
>US, whose name meant "head of cow."

Speculation, either there was another Pierre Charles who was a decade
or more older than him in his personal orbit so he became "L'Enfant"
and it stuck throughout his life, or there was a similar situation
with one of his paternal ancestors and it stuck as a family name.

Much as how El Greco got his name, after moving to Spain from Greece.
--

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Tim Merrigan

[Paul Dormer]

In article <oKGC3...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J

Heydt) wrote:

>
> >Conversely, the rest of my family seem to like watching old films on
> >their widescreen TVs stretched out, so everyone is short and fat.
>
> Okay, I guess. Either that or they just don't know how to fix
> the aspect ratio.

They get very annoyed when I fix it for them. Seems they don't like
vertical black bars down the side of the screen. They paid for a
widescreen TV, so they are going to use all the screen.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <o6h306$41q$1...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.

Lynch) wrote:

>
> ObSF (sort of): The 1961 movie _X-15_. It contains a fair amount of
> stock footage, and the aspect ratio on the stock footage is *way* off,
> by maybe a factor of 2. ObTopical: Mary Tyler Moore, who died this
> week, was in it. She's so young she's hard to recognize.

They had a similar problem with Babylon 5 when it was released on DVD, at
least in Europe.

Although it was originally shown in 4:3, it was actually shot in
widescreen. So when the DVDs were released, they released it in
widescreen. Trouble was, scenes with special effects had been done in
post production in 4:3, so they had cut top and bottom of those scenes.

However, there was one episode where something went wrong and some copies
of the had the images stretched instead. So, any time someone was shot
at, they'd turn short and fat.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> They get very annoyed when I fix it for them. Seems they don't like
> vertical black bars down the side of the screen. They paid for a
> widescreen TV, so they are going to use all the screen.

This makes a kind of sense if their eyesight is less than perfect
(since wider would then mean better resolution), or if they're looking
at the TV at an angle. But sitting closer and directly in front of it
would work better as a solution.

If the edges of the TV are black, keeping the room lights low would
make the black bars unnoticeable -- they'd just blend into the dark
background. (Are there any modern TVs where the edges *aren't* black?)

As I've said, what bugs me are black bars on all four sides. They
should be either on just the sides or just on the top and bottom,
not both. Similarly, when watching video on a computer, why isn't
"full screen" always the default? Who wants to watch a video that's
surrounded by distracting clutter, or that doesn't fill as much
of the screen as possible given the aspect ratio?

[Kevrob]

Some shows,usually news or other discussion shows, aren't much
more than "illustrated radio." I'll use a small screen for that,
and have another window open side-by-side. Not everything needs
100% attention. Also, if the video source is low-resolution,
it may look worse as full screen.

Kevin R

[Keith F. Lynch]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:

>> Similarly, when watching video on a computer, why isn't "full
>> screen" always the default? Who wants to watch a video that's
>> surrounded by distracting clutter, or that doesn't fill as much
>> of the screen as possible given the aspect ratio?

> Some shows,usually news or other discussion shows, aren't much more
> than "illustrated radio." I'll use a small screen for that, and
> have another window open side-by-side.

Fair enough. That's why I said "the default" -- something you can
override. Indeed, much of my YouTube usage is just for music. I drop
the resolution to 144, as low as it will go, and I don't have the tab
visible on the screen at all. I don't know why a resolution of zero,
i.e. audio only, isn't an option. Or are YouTube or the browser smart
enough not to waste bandwidth on video when it's not being displayed?

> Also, if the video source is low-resolution, it may look worse as
> full screen.

That's not my experience. But of course that's completely subjective.
Also, by eyesight isn't great. I can barely tell the difference
between 480 and 720 unless I'm so close to the screen that I need
peripheral vision to see the edges of the picture. For watching
online videos on this laptop it's just as well, since it, or perhaps
the bandwidth or the browser, can't keep up at 480, so I usually
watch at 240.

When I want to see fine detail (e.g. read something I can't quite make
out), I pause it and switch to 720, then switch back before resuming.
This is painfully slow, since it apparently insists on downloading
several seconds of 720 video, which may take a minute or more. I wish
it would let me view just one frame. On the other hand, that may be
impossible, since I think the way digital video works is by sending
full frames only once every few seconds or per scene change, and then
sending differences from the previous frame.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:26:38 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

I've noticed that some of the (presumably) low def repeater cable
channels seem to be intended to be watched in "cinema" or "zoom" mode,
in other modes they are as you describe with borders on all sides.

The main thing I notice when images are in the wrong aspect ratio is
that things that are supposed to be circles (e.g. the globe in the
Universal Pictures logos) are ovals.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <vt5q8c1bbv27o9b10...@4ax.com>,

Uh-huh. There was a time when widescreen movies had just come in
(we're talking 1950s) and Disney decided to re-release _Fantasia_
in widescreen. Ovals all over the place. It was painful. I
seem to remember they then tried making it widescreen by clipping
the top and bottom. Nowadays you can get it on DVD in the proper
ratio, and I haven't heard of any re-relase in theatres for the
longest time.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <o6iu2c$iel$1...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.

Lynch) wrote:

>
> As I've said, what bugs me are black bars on all four sides. They
> should be either on just the sides or just on the top and bottom,
> not both.

I bought myself a blu-ray player last year. (I attempted to buy a DVD
from Amazon and by mistake ordered the blu-ray instead, and blu-players
are so cheap these days it seemed easier to buy a player rather than send
the disc back.)

It seems to give a much better picture even when playing ordinary DVDs so
I've made it my default DVD player, too. (The only exception is DVDs
I've bought in the US, as it is more difficult to remove the region
coding from a blu-ray player.)

But I was watching an old DVD on it last year and that was coming up with
black bars on all four sides. No amount of changing the TV settings
cured the problem. What's more, I could get full screen on my other DVD
players. Finally, I discovered it was a setting in the player menu.
Most DVDs with content that is widescreen are in what is called
anamorphic widescreen. If you set the TV to 4:3 you get the tall thin
people effect mentioned upthread. However, some older DVDs have the
picture letterboxed. If you are watching in 4:3 mode, the proportions
are correct, and you get black bars above and below. OK if you are
watching on an old set. (Can you still get 4:3 TV sets today?)

But the *default* setting for the blu-ray player was to fit the image
into the middle of an anamorphic widescreen picture. So, with the TV in
16:9 mode, you got black bars all round. With the TV in 4:3 mode, you
got even bigger black bars down the sides and the picture squashed.

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:

> They get very annoyed when I fix it for them. Seems they don't like
> vertical black bars down the side of the screen. They paid for a
> widescreen TV, so they are going to use all the screen.

I'd say pan&scan would be the ideal mode for them. Personally I consider
cutting away parts of the picture barbaric, but sometimes you have to be
pragmatic.

My mother's old DVB-S/T settopbox has a "mixed" mode, which is something
between pan&scan and letterbox (for 16:9 picture to be displayed on 4:3
screen). It cuts away a bit from the sides, puts some small horizontal
black bars and the rest of the picture zoom seems to be anamorphic - the
centre is not distorted, the borders are slightly stretched, The result
is very pleasant, circles are only slightly squeezed at the corners, the
distortion is almost unnoticeable.
She does not care. She wants her picture big :-)

ObSF: in Tajemství hradu v Karpatech, Czech movie adaptation of Jules
Verne's Le Château des Carpathes, the TV screens constructed by the mad
scientist Orfanik are *hexagonal*.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

[Paul Dormer]

In article <o6o8nd$14eh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk () wrote:

>
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > They get very annoyed when I fix it for them. Seems they don't like
> > vertical black bars down the side of the screen. They paid for a
> > widescreen TV, so they are going to use all the screen.
>
> I'd say pan&scan would be the ideal mode for them. Personally I
consider
> cutting away parts of the picture barbaric, but sometimes you have
> to be pragmatic.

No, this is the other way round. Pan and scan is what you do to fit a
widescreen image on to a non-widescreen TV set. However, they were
watching a 4:3 image on a widescreen set, and stretching it to fill the
whole screen.

Actually, in one case it was worse. I was staying with my sister and her
partner one Christmas and she'd been given a DVD as a present, so they
decided to watch it. It looked decidedly odd to me, but the rest of the
family didn't complain. When I checked the next day, I discovered that
the DVD player had been set up as if it was connected to a non-widescreen
TV and it was letterboxing the widescreen image, which they were then
displaying stretched out on a widescreen TV, the worst of both worlds.

Mind you, I've just got the blu-rays of Abel Gance's classic silent film,
Napoleon, released with Carl Davis's score at last after many years.
Most of the film is 4:3 but the final 20 minutes is done as a triptych, 3
4:3 images side by side, an aspect ratio of 4:1. It looks very small on
my widescreen TV and found that I had to sit very close to the screen and
wear my reading glasses to get anything like a good view. Much better
when you see it on the full screen.

Talking of aspect ratios and pan and scan reminds me. Some years ago I
was watching a documentary on TV about censorship and what was permitted
to be seen on TV. They interviewed the maker of a documentary about the
director Derek Jarman. Jarman had directed a film called Sebastiane, all
about gay love in the Roman army, with lots of male nudity (and dialogue
all in Latin). The documentary had included a scene where Jarman was
being interviewed whilst the film was being screened behind him.

The maker of the documentary knew that Sebastiane had been shown on
British television, so he didn't think there'd be any problem with this
interview. What he hadn't realised was that the film had been shown in
4:3, pan and scan, so not everything in the original film was visible on
TV. Which was how an erect penis was shown on British television for the
first time.

[Keith F. Lynch]

<garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
> ObSF: in Tajemstv\303\255 hradu v Karpatech, Czech movie adaptation
> of Jules Verne's Le Ch\303\242teau des Carpathes, the TV screens

> constructed by the mad scientist Orfanik are *hexagonal*.

With digital TV, I suppose any shape will do. But with analog, so
long as the bandwidth and resolution remain the same for all parts
of the picture, only a rectangle will do. Of course parts of the
rectangle could be masked off, as TV's used to do with their rounded
corners, but that's wasteful.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <o6iu2c$iel$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Similarly, when watching video on a computer, why isn't
>"full screen" always the default? Who wants to watch a video that's
>surrounded by distracting clutter, or that doesn't fill as much
>of the screen as possible given the aspect ratio?

Keith, tell me again how observant and respectful you are of
diversity, how much you think about how people are different?
I'm having a little troubling remembering it just at the moment.

--
David Goldfarb |Seen on the marquee of a disused porn
goldf...@gmail.com |theatre in New York City:
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "What urge will save us now that sex won't?"

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> <garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
>> ObSF: in Tajemstv\303\255 hradu v Karpatech, Czech movie adaptation
>> of Jules Verne's Le Ch\303\242teau des Carpathes, the TV screens
>> constructed by the mad scientist Orfanik are *hexagonal*.
>
> With digital TV, I suppose any shape will do. But with analog, so
> long as the bandwidth and resolution remain the same for all parts
> of the picture, only a rectangle will do. Of course parts of the
> rectangle could be masked off, as TV's used to do with their rounded
> corners, but that's wasteful.

Well, it was designed by a *mad* scientist :-)
Anyway, with analogue TV, you could do non-uniform horizontal scanlines -
shorter at the top & bottom, wider in the middle. You'll save some
bandwidth and it's not like there is much information in the corners.
But TV stations would have to find another place to put their logos
into.

The circuitry would be probably prohibitively complicated, though.

Non-uniform resolution makes more sense and is easier - just squeeze the
picture at the left and right in the studio and stretch it in the
receiver. I wonder if it has been considered in the early days of TV
broadcasting.

[Jay E. Morris]

On 1/28/2017 02:14 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> As I've said, what bugs me are black bars on all four sides. They
> should be either on just the sides or just on the top and bottom,
> not both. Similarly, when watching video on a computer, why isn't
> "full screen" always the default? Who wants to watch a video that's
> surrounded by distracting clutter, or that doesn't fill as much
> of the screen as possible given the aspect ratio?

I don't have a problem with distracting clutter. All that's on the main
screen, the video goes up on the second monitor. Everyone has a second
monitor, right?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <o6svtb$tkm$1...@dont-email.me>,

Not on my machine, I don't.

Hal has about six computers on his desk and adjacent (mind you,
several are Raspberry Pis and other small fry), but only one
monitor; he has one heck of a switchbox.

[Keith F. Lynch]

<garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
> Non-uniform resolution makes more sense and is easier - just squeeze
> the picture at the left and right in the studio and stretch it in
> the receiver. I wonder if it has been considered in the early days
> of TV broadcasting.

The faster the dot moves, the dimmer the picture. So the brightness
would vary greatly over the image.

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Goldfarb <goldf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Similarly, when watching video on a computer, why isn't "full
>> screen" always the default? Who wants to watch a video that's
>> surrounded by distracting clutter, or that doesn't fill as much
>> of the screen as possible given the aspect ratio?

> Keith, tell me again how observant and respectful you are of
> diversity, how much you think about how people are different?
> I'm having a little troubling remembering it just at the moment.

Note that I said the *default*. People could change it if they wanted
to. Sure, some would want to, just as some people prefer the sound of
old 78 RPM records to the sound of high fidelity stereo digital audio.
Hence there are apps to make the latter sound like the former. But
those apps aren't on by default.

[Keith F. Lynch]

<garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>> They get very annoyed when I fix it for them. Seems they don't
>> like vertical black bars down the side of the screen. They paid
>> for a widescreen TV, so they are going to use all the screen.

> I'd say pan&scan would be the ideal mode for them. Personally I
> consider cutting away parts of the picture barbaric, but sometimes
> you have to be pragmatic.

You mean vertical pan & scan?

The ideal would be a borderless TV screen in two parts. A rectangular
section of the screen on one side could be detached and repositioned
to the top.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <o70l0p$s2n$1...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.

Lynch) wrote:

>
> > I'd say pan&scan would be the ideal mode for them. Personally I
> > consider cutting away parts of the picture barbaric, but sometimes
> > you have to be pragmatic.
>
> You mean vertical pan & scan?

Possibly what he means, I know realise, is what on my TV set is called
zoom mode. It takes a 4:3 picture and expands it uniformly so that the
width fits the widescreen. This leads to the loss of the top and bottom
of the picture, so people get decapitated.

Actually, in the early days of widescreen TV I recall that the Sky Arts
channel would show everything widescreen and once they showed the famous
sixties TV documentary Ken Russell made about Sir Edward Elgar. To get
it widescreen, they did exactly this, leading to many figures on screen
losing their heads. Which reminded me that Russell went on to direct The
Music Lovers, a biopic of Tchaikovsky, which included a scene of peoples
heads being blown off to the accompaniment of the 1812 Overture.

My first widescreen TV set, a rental CRT model, actually had a superzoom
mode, which would stretch the edges of a 4:3 image to fill the screen, so
the centre of the picture would be less distorted. I rarely used it and
my current set doesn't have that mode.

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:

> You mean vertical pan & scan?

Yes. In the meantime I've found out (via wikipedia) that it's called
tilt & scan. As far as we can trust wikipedia.

> The ideal would be a borderless TV screen in two parts. A rectangular
> section of the screen on one side could be detached and repositioned
> to the top.

That's an excellent idea, perhaps we can start a startup :-)

But we can do better: instead of a mechanical construction, we could
implement it in software. The physical screen will be slightly better,
and there will be a virtual detachable visible bar that will be attached
either vertically or horizontally, depending on the format. Or even
better, for reasons of symmetry, there would be two bars - left&right or
top&bottom.

ObSF: softscreens in Baxter's Manifold novels.

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:

> <garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
>> Non-uniform resolution makes more sense and is easier - just squeeze
>> the picture at the left and right in the studio and stretch it in
>> the receiver. I wonder if it has been considered in the early days
>> of TV broadcasting.
>
> The faster the dot moves, the dimmer the picture. So the brightness
> would vary greatly over the image.

For the value of "greatly" equal to the amount of stretching
implemented. That would be easily compensated by varying the brightness
with the same value as the stretching.
It would decrease the available brightness range, though.

[Scott Dorsey]

<garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
>Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>> <garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
>>> Non-uniform resolution makes more sense and is easier - just squeeze
>>> the picture at the left and right in the studio and stretch it in
>>> the receiver. I wonder if it has been considered in the early days
>>> of TV broadcasting.
>>
>> The faster the dot moves, the dimmer the picture. So the brightness
>> would vary greatly over the image.
>
>For the value of "greatly" equal to the amount of stretching
>implemented. That would be easily compensated by varying the brightness
>with the same value as the stretching.
>It would decrease the available brightness range, though.

Right. An arrangement like this was developed in the 1970s by the Japanese
because the newer 110-degree CRTs had relatively flat screens and short
throws, so the distance the beam travelled was several inches shorter at
the center of the screen than the edges. Consequently both the total beam
intensity and the focus voltage (which adjusts the distance at which the
beam converges to a point) would have to be varied with sweep.

Adjusting the beam intensity with the first derivative of the sweep is
effectively just adding an additional two stages to that existing circuit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Keith F. Lynch]

<garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>> The faster the dot moves, the dimmer the picture. So the
>> brightness would vary greatly over the image.

> For the value of "greatly" equal to the amount of stretching
> implemented.

We're still talking about regular hexagons, right? So the ratio would
be the square root of 3, about 1.732.

> That would be easily compensated by varying the brightness with the
> same value as the stretching.

We're still talking about analog circuits, right? Such complexity is
possible, but it gets expensive and failure-prone. Especially since
you'd want to make the brightness ratios linear.

It's not just the brightness, but also the resolution, that varies.

Decades ago I came up with the idea of a circular TV using a spiral
scan, but I quickly realized it would have varying brightness and
resolution.

On the other hand, phonograph records always had the analogous
problem, but people used them anyway. CDs and DVDs dropped the
constant angular velocity of phonograph records and used a constant
linear velocity instead, as tape players always did.

[Keith F. Lynch]

<garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>> The ideal would be a borderless TV screen in two parts. A
>> rectangular section of the screen on one side could be detached
>> and repositioned to the top.

> That's an excellent idea, perhaps we can start a startup :-)

Maybe. I still haven't worked out the exact geometry. We obviously
want the separable section to be the right size for both the side and
the top of the screen. Maybe something to do with the golden ratio?
Too bad that's not one of the several popular aspect ratios.

I recall that there's a simple arrangement of a small number of shapes
that can be assembled into either a square or an equilateral triangle.
Too bad neither shape is popular for TVs.

> But we can do better: instead of a mechanical construction, we
> could implement it in software. The physical screen will be
> slightly better, and there will be a virtual detachable visible bar
> that will be attached either vertically or horizontally, depending
> on the format. Or even better, for reasons of symmetry, there would
> be two bars - left&right or top&bottom.

No good. Remember, the goal is to keep people who want to use *all*
of their physical screen happy.

> ObSF: softscreens in Baxter's Manifold novels.

I'm currently reading his _Ultima_. I want to pull the plug on the
AI/upload "Earthshine." I'm less than halfway through the novel, and
that AI has already destroyed two human-inhabited solar systems.

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> <garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>>> The faster the dot moves, the dimmer the picture. So the
>>> brightness would vary greatly over the image.
>
>> For the value of "greatly" equal to the amount of stretching
>> implemented.
>
> We're still talking about regular hexagons, right? So the ratio would
> be the square root of 3, about 1.732.

I was thinking about rectangles (and using stretching as a primitive
form of compression), but hexagons work too. 1.7 does not strike me as
excessive.

>
>> That would be easily compensated by varying the brightness with the
>> same value as the stretching.
>
> We're still talking about analog circuits, right? Such complexity is
> possible, but it gets expensive and failure-prone. Especially since
> you'd want to make the brightness ratios linear.

They needn't be necessarily linear. But yes, it will be more complex,
especially if we are thinking about vacuum tube technology.

But... the brightness can be varied by varying the thickness of
phosphor-coating at the CRT tube (or pasting a mask with varying
transparency, but that's wasteful). That's easy.

>
> It's not just the brightness, but also the resolution, that varies.

That's the point - human eye does not need the same resolution at the
borders of the screen.

> Decades ago I came up with the idea of a circular TV using a spiral
> scan, but I quickly realized it would have varying brightness and
> resolution.

That would not necessarily be detrimental, the circular pattern might
be. Especially aliasing, if you do not get the spiral right.
I assume your design used constant angular velocity, not constant
linear speed along the spiral.

I wonder if vertical scanlines would be more disturbing (again, in
traditional early TV) than the usual horizontal ones. It's just a
convention, after all.

>
> On the other hand, phonograph records always had the analogous
> problem, but people used them anyway. CDs and DVDs dropped the
> constant angular velocity of phonograph records and used a constant
> linear velocity instead, as tape players always did.

_My_ tape player (used mainly as a data storage for my 8-bit computer)
gradually developed varying speed, especially towards the end of the
cassettes :-)