Courts cannot travel through time
Nick
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8346651.stm
"The hearing is expected to end later."
That's quite a shock.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Bertel Lund Hansen
> "The hearing is expected to end later."
> That's quite a shock.
Are you also shocked if a friend says "See you later"?
--
Bertel, Denmark
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>From a BBC news report:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8346651.stm
>
>"The hearing is expected to end later."
>
That is the EnglishE "later" meaning "later today".
In NorthernIrelandE "later" means "again (sometime)", that is, "sometime
in the future".
It took me a while to adjust to that when I, an Englishman, came to live
in NI.
>That's quite a shock.
On that webpage is a list of Most Popular Stories, one of which is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8347164.stm
Woman passes 950th driving test
A South Korean woman is celebrating after passing the written exam
for a driving licence - on her 950th attempt.
After four years of trying, 68-year-old Cha Sa-soon finally managed
to secure the 60 out of 100 points needed to pass the test.
Now Mrs Cha, ... must pass the practical test to get on the road.
How many attempts will she need to pass the practical test?
Place your bets Ladies and Gentlemen...
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Nick
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:12:06 +0000, Nick
> <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>From a BBC news report:
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8346651.stm
>>
>>"The hearing is expected to end later."
>>
> That is the EnglishE "later" meaning "later today".
Do you think so? The usual thing there is "later this week", "next
month", "some time this century" (see, say, the Bloody Sunday enquiry).
I think you're absolutely right - as the page has now changed to say
that they have retired to consider their verdict (and intend to take
several weeks about it).
It still, even knowing that, feels very unnatural to me.
Mark Brader
As I was just saying in another newsgroup, since it's a multiple-choice
test the obvious question is what is the probability of scoring 60% by
chance. If there were four answers offered for each question, I make it
less than 1/6,000,000; if only three, it's about 1/10,000. But if some
questions had only two possible answers... *hmm*.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The time to make up your mind about people
m...@vex.net | is never." --The Philadelphia Story
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On that webpage is a list of Most Popular Stories, one of which is:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8347164.stm
>
> Woman passes 950th driving test
>
> A South Korean woman is celebrating after passing the written
> exam for a driving licence - on her 950th attempt.
>
> After four years of trying, 68-year-old Cha Sa-soon finally
> managed to secure the 60 out of 100 points needed to pass the
> test.
I'm fairly certain that when I got my license in Illinois, if you
failed any part of the test (written or behind-the wheel), you
couldn't try again for another week or two, and if you failed three
times, you had to wait a whole year before trying again.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robin Bignall
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:12:06 +0000, Nick
><3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>From a BBC news report:
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8346651.stm
>>
>>"The hearing is expected to end later."
>>
>That is the EnglishE "later" meaning "later today".
>
>In NorthernIrelandE "later" means "again (sometime)", that is, "sometime
>in the future".
>It took me a while to adjust to that when I, an Englishman, came to live
>in NI.
>
Your NI meaning is the standard one hereabouts in the south east, and
nearly everyone says it as an alternative to "au revoir" or "goodbye".
It can mean either. This puzzled me when I first moved south. Where
I grew up "see you later" always implied later today.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
It crossed my mind after pressing Send that I might have generalized
excessively with my reference to EnglishE.
Nick
> Peter Duncanson:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8347164.stm
>>
>> Woman passes 950th driving test
>
> As I was just saying in another newsgroup, since it's a multiple-choice
> test the obvious question is what is the probability of scoring 60% by
> chance. If there were four answers offered for each question, I make it
> less than 1/6,000,000; if only three, it's about 1/10,000. But if some
> questions had only two possible answers... *hmm*.
If there are hundred questions. Just because there are 100 points to
get, that doesn't mean that there aren't only 20 questions worth 5
points each.
Peter Moylan
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>> Peter Duncanson:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8347164.stm
>>>
>>> Woman passes 950th driving test
>> As I was just saying in another newsgroup, since it's a multiple-choice
>> test the obvious question is what is the probability of scoring 60% by
>> chance. If there were four answers offered for each question, I make it
>> less than 1/6,000,000; if only three, it's about 1/10,000. But if some
>> questions had only two possible answers... *hmm*.
>
> If there are hundred questions. Just because there are 100 points to
> get, that doesn't mean that there aren't only 20 questions worth 5
> points each.
In that case, if I haven't misread the back of my envelope, it's better
than one in 4096. So the chances of fluking in your first 950 attempts
... well, I haven't worked out that bit, but the chances seem pretty good.
When I was going for my driving test, many long years ago, someone else
was doing the theory test with the aid of an interpreter. "With the aid
of" is exactly the right description, because it was obvious that the
interpreter was supplying all the answers. Meanwhile, we poor buggers
who had to pass the practical test kept having to come back. I met
people who were there for their tenth test. I passed after three
attempts, which was considered pretty good; nobody could remember anyone
managing it in under three attempts.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Mark Brader
> > As I was just saying in another newsgroup, since it's a multiple-choice
> > test the obvious question is what is the probability of scoring 60% by
> > chance. If there were four answers offered for each question, I make it
> > less than 1/6,000,000; if only three, it's about 1/10,000. But if some
> > questions had only two possible answers... *hmm*.
> If there are hundred questions.
Didn't check the numbers, did you? The article, or one of the articles
about this woman, said there were 50 questions, and my computation was
based on that.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological
m...@vex.net | reasons. I think ideology sucks." -- Torvalds
John Varela
<pe...@pmoylan.org.not.china> wrote:
> When I was going for my driving test, many long years ago, someone else
> was doing the theory test with the aid of an interpreter. "With the aid
> of" is exactly the right description, because it was obvious that the
> interpreter was supplying all the answers. Meanwhile, we poor buggers
> who had to pass the practical test kept having to come back. I met
> people who were there for their tenth test. I passed after three
> attempts, which was considered pretty good; nobody could remember anyone
> managing it in under three attempts.
True story:
In 1954, when I was not quite 19, I bought my first car from my
cousin, with the proviso that he was to help me get my driver's
license. After he gave me some time at the wheel (no learner's
permits in those days) he drove me down to the courthouse in the
French Quarter and dropped me off. He took the car to run some
errands while I took the written test.
I went in, got the test, filled in the answers, and handed it to the
clerk. Without looking at it, he wrote "100" at the top and tossed
it into a bin. Then he had me look at a couple of colored
rectangles on the wall and tell him which was red and which was
green.
That out of the way, another man took me out for the driving test.
We went down to curbside and waited for my cousin to return with the
car. It being August in New Orleans it was unbearably hot and
humid, and my cousin wasn't in sight, so after about five minutes of
that the tester asked me how to give a right turn hand signal. I
demonstrated. Then he had me demonstrate a left turn hand signal
and a stop hand signal. He wrote "100" on the test form and we went
back in and I was given my license.
They don't call it "the Big Easy" for nothing.
Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is where
I really learned to drive.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
tony cooper
wrote:
>Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is where
>I really learned to drive.
Yet, so many operators of vehicles on the streets of that city have
not done so.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Garrett Wollman
tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 8 Nov 2009 02:23:34 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is where
>>I really learned to drive.
>
>Yet, so many operators of vehicles on the streets of that city have
>not done so.
To the contrary, they are surprisingly successful at it.
Massachusetts the lowest motor-vehicle fatality rates in the
nation, both per capita and per VMT.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Roland Hutchinson
> In article <nvgcf5pdp4jqugej6...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On 8 Nov 2009 02:23:34 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is where I
>>>really learned to drive.
>>
>>Yet, so many operators of vehicles on the streets of that city have not
>>done so.
>
> To the contrary, they are surprisingly successful at it. Massachusetts
> the lowest motor-vehicle fatality rates in the nation, both per capita
> and per VMT.
That's because it's full of people from away who are smart enough to stay
off the roads when the Massachusetts drivers are out.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Nick
> Mark Brader:
>> > As I was just saying in another newsgroup, since it's a multiple-choice
>> > test the obvious question is what is the probability of scoring 60% by
>> > chance. If there were four answers offered for each question, I make it
>> > less than 1/6,000,000; if only three, it's about 1/10,000. But if some
>> > questions had only two possible answers... *hmm*.
>
> Nick Atty:
>> If there are hundred questions.
>
> Didn't check the numbers, did you? The article, or one of the articles
> about this woman, said there were 50 questions, and my computation was
> based on that.
No I didn't. So there!
It's an interesting thing to think about. If it is a multiple choice
there are going to be some (probably not that many) questions where the
answer is obvious, and a bigger number where one or two of the answers
are obviously wrong.
I have neither the stats, nor the energy, but I strikes me you could
work backwards to get some idea of how many like this there could be.
Of course, we also don't know how many people there are who have taken
the test that many, or even more, times and still failed. She should be
a one in 100 case herself.
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 8 Nov 2009 02:23:34 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is where
>>I really learned to drive.
>
>Yet, so many operators of vehicles on the streets of that city have
>not done so.
Are you joking me? Only excellent drivers can navigate its antiquated
roads, with their surprise exit signs, when there are signs at all,
without hitting something.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:06 -0500, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On 8 Nov 2009 02:23:34 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is
>>>where I really learned to drive.
>>
>>Yet, so many operators of vehicles on the streets of that city have
>>not done so.
>
> Are you joking me? Only excellent drivers can navigate its
> antiquated roads, with their surprise exit signs, when there are
> signs at all, without hitting something.
Yeah. Their driving is truly wondrous to behold. The last time I was
in Boston, a couple of years ago, our cab driver jumped the median and
drove nearly a block down the wrong side of the street before turning
into our hotel just before the oncoming traffic arrived.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"It makes you wonder if there is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |anything to astrology after all."
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |
|"Oh, there is," said Susan.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |"Delusion, wishful thinking and
(650)857-7572 |gullibility."
R H Draney
>
>m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>> Mark Brader:
>>> > As I was just saying in another newsgroup, since it's a multiple-choice
>>> > test the obvious question is what is the probability of scoring 60% by
>>> > chance. If there were four answers offered for each question, I make it
>>> > less than 1/6,000,000; if only three, it's about 1/10,000. But if some
>>> > questions had only two possible answers... *hmm*.
>>
>> Nick Atty:
>>> If there are hundred questions.
>>
>> Didn't check the numbers, did you? The article, or one of the articles
>> about this woman, said there were 50 questions, and my computation was
>> based on that.
>
>No I didn't. So there!
>
>It's an interesting thing to think about. If it is a multiple choice
>there are going to be some (probably not that many) questions where the
>answer is obvious, and a bigger number where one or two of the answers
>are obviously wrong.
>
>I have neither the stats, nor the energy, but I strikes me you could
>work backwards to get some idea of how many like this there could be.
Taking Mark's "by chance" in its strictest sense, the number where you could
eliminate one or more wrong answers before proceeding must be assumed to be
zero....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Roland Hutchinson
> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:06 -0500, tony cooper
>> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 8 Nov 2009 02:23:34 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is where I
>>>>really learned to drive.
>>>
>>>Yet, so many operators of vehicles on the streets of that city have not
>>>done so.
>>
>> Are you joking me? Only excellent drivers can navigate its antiquated
>> roads, with their surprise exit signs, when there are signs at all,
>> without hitting something.
>
> Yeah. Their driving is truly wondrous to behold. The last time I was
> in Boston, a couple of years ago, our cab driver jumped the median and
> drove nearly a block down the wrong side of the street before turning
> into our hotel just before the oncoming traffic arrived.
The cabbies certainly rank among Boston's most creative drivers, in a
town known for creative driving.
Garrett Wollman
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>The cabbies certainly rank among Boston's most creative drivers, in a
>town known for creative driving.
That's because of the unwritten zeroth rule of traffic: "Taxicabs
always have the right of way."
Roland Hutchinson
> In article <hd70gm$tv0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Roland Hutchinson
> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>The cabbies certainly rank among Boston's most creative drivers, in a
>>town known for creative driving.
>
> That's because of the unwritten zeroth rule of traffic: "Taxicabs always
> have the right of way."
Unless you are driving a car that is sufficiently beat up that even the
taxicabs get out of its way. (We once had a beat-up Nissan sedan that
was purchased second-hand for $600. Manhattan cab drivers gave it
_extremely_ wide berth, figuring that it must be driven by a maniac and
that they had far more to lose than we did.)
John Varela
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:06 -0500, tony cooper
> > <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On 8 Nov 2009 02:23:34 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is
> >>>where I really learned to drive.
> >>
> >>Yet, so many operators of vehicles on the streets of that city have
> >>not done so.
> >
> > Are you joking me? Only excellent drivers can navigate its
> > antiquated roads, with their surprise exit signs, when there are
> > signs at all, without hitting something.
>
> Yeah. Their driving is truly wondrous to behold. The last time I was
> in Boston, a couple of years ago, our cab driver jumped the median and
> drove nearly a block down the wrong side of the street before turning
> into our hotel just before the oncoming traffic arrived.
My wife and I experienced something similar in Rome, the differences
being that it was raining at dusk and we were still far from our
hotel.
John Varela
wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:06 -0500, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On 8 Nov 2009 02:23:34 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is where
> >>I really learned to drive.
> >
> >Yet, so many operators of vehicles on the streets of that city have
> >not done so.
>
> Are you joking me? Only excellent drivers can navigate its antiquated
2> roads, with their surprise exit signs, when there are signs at
all,
> without hitting something.
Part of its old-world charm is that they never put up a street sign
that tells you the name of the street you're on. All the cross
streets, yes, but the main drag that you're on, no. At least,
that's how it was 50 years ago. I've only driven a few times in
Boston since we moved to Virginia in 1963.
What a blessing GPS navigators must be to drivers in Boston! Back
in the '50s I could find my way by ground-level streets from South
Station to Kenmore Square. I was quite proud of that.
Roland Hutchinson
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:11:34 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:06 -0500, tony cooper
>> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 8 Nov 2009 02:23:34 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is where
>> >>I really learned to drive.
>> >
>> >Yet, so many operators of vehicles on the streets of that city have
>> >not done so.
>>
>> Are you joking me? Only excellent drivers can navigate its antiquated
> 2> roads, with their surprise exit signs, when there are signs at all,
>> without hitting something.
>
> Part of its old-world charm is that they never put up a street sign that
> tells you the name of the street you're on. All the cross streets, yes,
> but the main drag that you're on, no. At least, that's how it was 50
> years ago. I've only driven a few times in Boston since we moved to
> Virginia in 1963.
That was originally done to confuse the Hessians, I suppose.
They put up signs on many of the main streets in time for the
Bicentennial festivities in 1976, having perhaps concluded that the
hostilities were safely over.
Chuck Riggs
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <hd70gm$tv0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>The cabbies certainly rank among Boston's most creative drivers, in a
>>town known for creative driving.
>
>That's because of the unwritten zeroth rule of traffic: "Taxicabs
>always have the right of way."
They are on the road so much that they don't wait around, like wimps,
for drivers to yield to them. When they see an opportunity to pass or
change lanes, they take it, as most good drivers do.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:11:34 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:06 -0500, tony cooper
>> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 8 Nov 2009 02:23:34 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Oh, and a week later I drove off to school in Boston, which is where
>> >>I really learned to drive.
>> >
>> >Yet, so many operators of vehicles on the streets of that city have
>> >not done so.
>>
>> Are you joking me? Only excellent drivers can navigate its antiquated
>2> roads, with their surprise exit signs, when there are signs at
>all,
>> without hitting something.
>
>Part of its old-world charm is that they never put up a street sign
>that tells you the name of the street you're on. All the cross
>streets, yes, but the main drag that you're on, no. At least,
>that's how it was 50 years ago. I've only driven a few times in
>Boston since we moved to Virginia in 1963.
>
>What a blessing GPS navigators must be to drivers in Boston! Back
>in the '50s I could find my way by ground-level streets from South
>Station to Kenmore Square. I was quite proud of that.
I've never used one, but could even a good driver in Boston's traffic
consult the screen of a GPS receiver and then react in time? I suspect
that instead of being a help, they'd be a hindrance to safe driving,
somewhat like using a mobile phone while driving a car. Something that
is illegal in many places.
John Varela
wrote:
> I've never used one, but could even a good driver in Boston's traffic
> consult the screen of a GPS receiver and then react in time? I suspect
> that instead of being a help, they'd be a hindrance to safe driving,
> somewhat like using a mobile phone while driving a car. Something that
> is illegal in many places.
I've had one for several years now. It takes some getting used to.
Speaking of labyrinthine streets, I was using a TomTom GPS in the
historic district of Segovia, Spain, last spring and the damned
thing literally took me in circles. "That's the third time we've
passed through this square!" They've closed off a lot of streets to
cars, and poor TomTom didn't know about all of the do-not-enters.
Skitt
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> I've never used one, but could even a good driver in Boston's traffic
>> consult the screen of a GPS receiver and then react in time? I
>> suspect that instead of being a help, they'd be a hindrance to safe
>> driving, somewhat like using a mobile phone while driving a car.
>> Something that is illegal in many places.
>
> I've had one for several years now. It takes some getting used to.
>
> Speaking of labyrinthine streets, I was using a TomTom GPS in the
> historic district of Segovia, Spain, last spring and the damned
> thing literally took me in circles. "That's the third time we've
> passed through this square!" They've closed off a lot of streets to
> cars, and poor TomTom didn't know about all of the do-not-enters.
I occasionally use our Garmin. It talks. You don't have to look at it at
all.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Talking computers are and always have been, IMO, RPITA. My new Kindle
has the feature, but I don't plan to waste any time trying it.
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> John Varela wrote:
>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>> I've never used one, but could even a good driver in Boston's
>>>> traffic consult the screen of a GPS receiver and then react in
>>>> time? I suspect that instead of being a help, they'd be a
>>>> hindrance to safe driving, somewhat like using a mobile phone
>>>> while driving a car. Something that is illegal in many places.
>>>
>>> I've had one for several years now. It takes some getting used to.
>>>
>>> Speaking of labyrinthine streets, I was using a TomTom GPS in the
>>> historic district of Segovia, Spain, last spring and the damned
>>> thing literally took me in circles. "That's the third time we've
>>> passed through this square!" They've closed off a lot of streets to
>>> cars, and poor TomTom didn't know about all of the do-not-enters.
>>
>> I occasionally use our Garmin. It talks. You don't have to look at
>> it at all.
>
> Talking computers are and always have been, IMO, RPITA. My new Kindle
> has the feature, but I don't plan to waste any time trying it.
There's a big difference between reading a book and using a GPS device. I
like to pay atttention to the road when I drive, not look at a small screen
to try to figure out where to go next and what the street name is.
Other than that, before going to a place I have never been to, I usually
check a map to see what to expect. That map, nowadays, is a Google map.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Frank ess
I have placed my Garmin on a sight line that is as direct as to the
central rear view mirror, and more direct than that to the
side-mounted mirror. Each of the mirrors offers a great deal of
information to be sorted through, and I have learned to do that
without undue distraction from the business of going down the road.
With a little practice I can now trundle along with an added source of
useful information in view. Plus which it /does/ talk, and says
something like, "Turn right 100 feet, Linda Vista Road ... merge I-805
South ... 256 miles Van Horn exit ... ", and shows a big purple vector
arrow when to change to which lane, /et cetera/.
The display shows speed limits for most highways; it was amazing to me
that even on such isolated roads as Texas 90 the speed limit shown on
the screen changed within yards of a roadside sign that made it
official.
--
Frank ess
Skitt
My Garmin usually sits on the dashboard near the left lower corner of the
windshield. It's very visible that way, but I still pay fairly little
attention to the screen. There is a bit of a problem reading the screen in
bright sunlight -- something we have a lot of around here.
My Garmin (N�vi 350) does not show speed limits, nor does it have lane
assist.
http://gpstracklog.typepad.com/gps_comparisons/garmin-nuvi-comparsion-chart.html
--
Skitt (AmE)
John Varela
wrote:
I have a Garmin 2610, which was the top of the line when I bought
it. Garmin has never ported the software to the Mac and no longer
supports Win Me, the only version of Windows in this house.
Consequently, I can't update the maps and the thing is slowly
turning into a brick. I will never buy another Garmin product.
The TomTom is a factory refurbished unit, A TomTom ONE 130, that
cost only $80. I bought it for that trip with the idea that if it
were lost or stolen I wouldn't care. It lacks many of the features
(most of which I never use) of the obsolescent five-year-old Garmin
that cost over 10 times as much, but it works much better and is
easier and more convenient to use. The only problems I had with it
were mapping errors. For example, at Ciudad Rodrigo it announced
that we had reached our destination, the Parador, which was nowhere
to be seen. The Parador was in the castle inside the city wall and
we were on the road on the other side of the wall.
John Varela
wrote:
> Other than that, before going to a place I have never been to, I usually
> check a map to see what to expect. That map, nowadays, is a Google map.
A GPS will almost always get you to your destination, but if you're
familiar with the area you can often pick a better route that avoids
traffic lights or congestion. I find that the best way to use the
GPS is to navigate myself to the general area of the destination,
using either local knowledge or a map, and then to let the GPS take
me the last mile or two.
John Varela
wrote:
> I have placed my Garmin on a sight line that is as direct as to the
> central rear view mirror, and more direct than that to the
> side-mounted mirror. Each of the mirrors offers a great deal of
> information to be sorted through, and I have learned to do that
> without undue distraction from the business of going down the road.
> With a little practice I can now trundle along with an added source of
> useful information in view. Plus which it /does/ talk, and says
> something like, "Turn right 100 feet, Linda Vista Road ... merge I-805
> South ... 256 miles Van Horn exit ... ", and shows a big purple vector
> arrow when to change to which lane, /et cetera/.
My old Garmin and my bottom-of-the-line TomTom both speak but do not
name the streets. I've often wondered what a talking GPS would do
with a name like Tchoupitoulas Street in New Orleans. FYI:
chop-@-TOO-las. Would it use local pronunciations, like Terpsichore
pronounced TERP-si-core, and if not, would the locals understand it?
What would it do with the two Beauforts in the Carolinas?
Wood Avens
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:39:23 UTC, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net>
I've resisted getting any GPS device because I'd far rather commit a
map to memory and thus have a constant sense of where I am relative to
where I'm going, which I don't think I'd get if I were just following
instructions to turn left, drive for x miles, etc. But a friend
recently gave me the best reason I've heard for having one: he likes
to go for an aimless drive around the country lanes, following a whim
or an interesting view or a church spire in the distance, and when
he's had enough he simply presses "Home" on the GPS. Perfect.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
the Omrud
I've had one for about 10 years - I don't only follow the turn
instructions: I watch the map with the little moving spacecraft on it.
This gives me an excellent idea of where I am in relation to the rest
of the world.
--
David
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> "Skitt" wrote:
>>> John Varela wrote:
>>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>>>>> I've never used one, but could even a good driver in Boston's
>>>>> traffic consult the screen of a GPS receiver and then react in
>>>>> time? I suspect that instead of being a help, they'd be a
>>>>> hindrance to safe driving, somewhat like using a mobile phone
>>>>> while driving a car. Something that is illegal in many places.
>>>>
>>>> I've had one for several years now. It takes some getting used to.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of labyrinthine streets, I was using a TomTom GPS in the
>>>> historic district of Segovia, Spain, last spring and the damned
>>>> thing literally took me in circles. "That's the third time we've
>>>> passed through this square!" They've closed off a lot of streets to
>>>> cars, and poor TomTom didn't know about all of the do-not-enters.
>>>
>>> I occasionally use our Garmin. It talks. You don't have to look at
>>> it at all.
>>
>> Talking computers are and always have been, IMO, RPITA. My new Kindle
>> has the feature, but I don't plan to waste any time trying it.
>
>There's a big difference between reading a book and using a GPS device. I
>like to pay atttention to the road when I drive, not look at a small screen
>to try to figure out where to go next and what the street name is.
I see your point. In fact, I am amazed that most jurisdictions allow
drivers to use GPS receivers while driving, at all, now that I think
about it. In Ireland, there are stiff penalties if caught using your
mobile while driving. Does a phone conversation -- eyes on the road --
divert a driver's attention more than concentrating on a map? It would
have to be a pretty heated discussion to do so, I would think.
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> Other than that, before going to a place I have never been to, I
>> usually check a map to see what to expect. That map, nowadays, is a
>> Google map.
>
> A GPS will almost always get you to your destination, but if you're
> familiar with the area you can often pick a better route that avoids
> traffic lights or congestion. I find that the best way to use the
> GPS is to navigate myself to the general area of the destination,
> using either local knowledge or a map, and then to let the GPS take
> me the last mile or two.
Yes, I have done that quite often. There's no reason for me to be guided to
my nearest freeway, anyway. My GPS also wants to guide me there via a
fairly congested route, not the one that is a tad longer but quicker.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Robin Bignall
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:29:44 UTC, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com>
The one built into my Lexus talks and names streets. When in France,
naming towns and streets, the voice changes from an English contralto
into a higher-pitched French voice for whatever word it needs to
pronounce in French. I expect if I set it to speak French it'd do the
same for British places.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Robin Bignall
When mine has been through the filters for avoiding motorways and
private roads or including them, etc., and you've chosen your route
from the three alternatives it usually presents, you can at any time
zoom out on the map to see where you are relative to local towns.
Leslie Danks
So does the one built into my BMW. Up to now I have left the system set to
German. When I drove to England a few weeks ago, the same (female) voice
spoke the English town and street names with hardly any trace of German
accent. Although I crossed Belgium and France on the way, I didn't stray
from the motorway so I don't know whether she does Flemish and French as
well.
--
Les (BrE)
Mike Page
...>
> I see your point. In fact, I am amazed that most jurisdictions allow
> drivers to use GPS receivers while driving, at all, now that I think
> about it. In Ireland, there are stiff penalties if caught using your
> mobile while driving. Does a phone conversation -- eyes on the road --
> divert a driver's attention more than concentrating on a map? It would
> have to be a pretty heated discussion to do so, I would think.
Mobile phone use does seem to cause lapses of concentration when
driving. Before it was illegal, it was quite common to see cars driven
very badly when the driver was on the phone. I several times saw cars
weaving from lane to lane on the motorway and the driver oblivious to
other traffic. I can't see that hands free sets solve this problem. It
would be interesting to know if there are any statistics about accidents
that occur when the driver is legally using a hands free set.
--
Mike Page
Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email.
R H Draney
>
>Mobile phone use does seem to cause lapses of concentration when
>driving. Before it was illegal, it was quite common to see cars driven
>very badly when the driver was on the phone. I several times saw cars
>weaving from lane to lane on the motorway and the driver oblivious to
>other traffic. I can't see that hands free sets solve this problem. It
>would be interesting to know if there are any statistics about accidents
>that occur when the driver is legally using a hands free set.
I'd be interested in knowing if anybody has run the "clown on a unicycle" study
on drivers with handsfree phones....
For those who missed the story:
....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Peter Moylan
> I'd be interested in knowing if anybody has run the "clown on a unicycle" study
> on drivers with handsfree phones....
>
> For those who missed the story:
>
> http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/technology/article/723266--why-cellphone-users-should-watch-out-for-a-clown-on-a-unicycle
Social media is evolving?
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Leslie Danks
> Mike Page filted:
>>
>>Mobile phone use does seem to cause lapses of concentration when
>>driving. Before it was illegal, it was quite common to see cars driven
>>very badly when the driver was on the phone. I several times saw cars
>>weaving from lane to lane on the motorway and the driver oblivious to
>>other traffic. I can't see that hands free sets solve this problem. It
>>would be interesting to know if there are any statistics about accidents
>>that occur when the driver is legally using a hands free set.
>
> I'd be interested in knowing if anybody has run the "clown on a
> unicycle" study on drivers with handsfree phones....
>
> For those who missed the story:
>
>
http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/technology/article/723266--why-cellphone-users-should-watch-out-for-a-clown-on-a-unicycle
There are many similar examples, discussed in the Daily Telegraph article
here:
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3322642/Did-you-see-the-gorilla.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/mlsuuc>
of which the gorilla episode is probably the most well-known. Here's the
video:
<http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php>
and here's a link to the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of
Illinois:
<http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/media/dailytelegraph.html>
Similar mental processes are probably also responsible for disagreements
between supporters of rival football clubs as to who fouled whom.
--
Les (BrE)
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>
>>I'd be interested in knowing if anybody has run the "clown on a unicycle" study
>> on drivers with handsfree phones....
>>
>> For those who missed the story:
>>
>>http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/technology/article/723266--why-cellphone-users-should-watch-out-for-a-clown-on-a-unicycle
>
>Social media is evolving?
What, you mean they isn't?...r
Hatunen
<mike...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Mobile phone use does seem to cause lapses of concentration when
>driving. Before it was illegal, it was quite common to see cars driven
>very badly when the driver was on the phone. I several times saw cars
>weaving from lane to lane on the motorway and the driver oblivious to
>other traffic. I can't see that hands free sets solve this problem.
I don't see how the use of a hands-free is any different than
carrying on a conversation with a passenger.
>It
>would be interesting to know if there are any statistics about accidents
>that occur when the driver is legally using a hands free set.
And a comparison to having a passenger or two. Or worse, a back
seat full of seven-year olds.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Skitt
> Mike Page wrote:
>> Mobile phone use does seem to cause lapses of concentration when
>> driving. Before it was illegal, it was quite common to see cars
>> driven very badly when the driver was on the phone. I several times
>> saw cars weaving from lane to lane on the motorway and the driver
>> oblivious to other traffic. I can't see that hands free sets solve
>> this problem.
>
> I don't see how the use of a hands-free is any different than
> carrying on a conversation with a passenger.
Right -- carrying on a conversation with a passenger can be quite
distracting. I have missed a freeway turn-off or two when my spouse has
suddenly asked me a question at an inopportune time.
>> It
>> would be interesting to know if there are any statistics about
>> accidents that occur when the driver is legally using a hands free
>> set.
>
> And a comparison to having a passenger or two. Or worse, a back
> seat full of seven-year olds.
Oh, boy. I'm sure that there have been accidents caused by the latter
situation.
Then again, there was that one time, back in the early 'sixties, when I
drove home from Sunnyvale to Santa Clara, drunk enough to remember only that
I was on El Camino Real. Automatic mode, you know. Upon arrival, I passed
out on my bed and threw up (yes, in that order, my wife later told me).
--
Skitt (AmE)
R H Draney
>
>Hatunen wrote:
>> Mike Page wrote:
>
>>> It
>>> would be interesting to know if there are any statistics about
>>> accidents that occur when the driver is legally using a hands free
>>> set.
>>
>> And a comparison to having a passenger or two. Or worse, a back
>> seat full of seven-year olds.
>
>Oh, boy. I'm sure that there have been accidents caused by the latter
>situation.
That's the real reason for those "Baby on Board" signs back in the 80s...not to
announce some innocent precious cargo in the vehicle, but to warn other drivers
that the vehicle thus marked was apt to behave erratically....
>Then again, there was that one time, back in the early 'sixties, when I
>drove home from Sunnyvale to Santa Clara, drunk enough to remember only that
>I was on El Camino Real. Automatic mode, you know. Upon arrival, I passed
>out on my bed and threw up (yes, in that order, my wife later told me).
Be thankful that this was in the Time Before YouTube....r
Skitt
> Skitt filted:
>> Then again, there was that one time, back in the early 'sixties,
>> when I drove home from Sunnyvale to Santa Clara, drunk enough to
>> remember only that I was on El Camino Real. Automatic mode, you
>> know. Upon arrival, I passed out on my bed and threw up (yes, in
>> that order, my wife later told me).
>
> Be thankful that this was in the Time Before YouTube....r
Yeah, my wife didn't speak to me for days. A video posting on YouTube would
have been a very likely revenge, had that been possible then.
--
Skitt (AmE)
shudders at the thought
John Varela
> I don't see how the use of a hands-free is any different than
> carrying on a conversation with a passenger.
If you start to get into a driving situation that requires your
entire attention, your passenger can see out the window too, and
also will see your move to alertness. Your passenger will then join
you in interrupting the conversation. Your telephone companion,
however, will go right on chattering and distracting you.
Skitt
> Hatunen wrote:
>> I don't see how the use of a hands-free is any different than
>> carrying on a conversation with a passenger.
>
> If you start to get into a driving situation that requires your
> entire attention, your passenger can see out the window too, and
> also will see your move to alertness. Your passenger will then join
> you in interrupting the conversation. Your telephone companion,
> however, will go right on chattering and distracting you.
Oh, I don't know. My wife has an uncanny knack for leaning forward or
otherwise obscuring the passenger-side window just when I need to look
through it. It usually happens when we are leaving our house and she is
checking out her appearance, but there are several residential cross-streets
I have to negotiate before we hit the nearest thoroughfare.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Evan Kirshenbaum
I've often thought that what we need (and what will probably develop)
is a conversational marker that essentially means "You need to stop
talking now so that I can pay attention to what's going on around
me. I'll let you know when it's safe to talk again, and I'll explain
what was going on when that happens". It's somewhat surprising that
it hasn't come about yet.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It's like grasping the difference
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |between what one usually considers
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a 'difficult' problem, and what
|*is* a difficult problem. The day
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |one understands *why* counting all
(650)857-7572 |the molecules in the Universe isn't
|difficult...there's the leap.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tina Marie Holmboe
R H Draney
>
>My wife has an uncanny knack for leaning forward or
>otherwise obscuring the passenger-side window just when I need to look
>through it. It usually happens when we are leaving our house and she is
>checking out her appearance, but there are several residential cross-streets
>I have to negotiate before we hit the nearest thoroughfare.
Have you tried standing hard on the brake when she does it?...r
Mark Brader
> I've often thought that what we need (and what will probably develop)
> is a conversational marker that essentially means "You need to stop
> talking now so that I can pay attention to what's going on around
> me. I'll let you know when it's safe to talk again, and I'll explain
> what was going on when that happens". It's somewhat surprising that
> it hasn't come about yet.
Of course it has: it's in the Jargon File. "Control-S".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto It's all Henry's fault.
m...@vex.net -- Geoff Collyer
Roland Hutchinson
> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>> I've often thought that what we need (and what will probably develop)
>> is a conversational marker that essentially means "You need to stop
>> talking now so that I can pay attention to what's going on around me.
>> I'll let you know when it's safe to talk again, and I'll explain what
>> was going on when that happens". It's somewhat surprising that it
>> hasn't come about yet.
>
> Of course it has: it's in the Jargon File. "Control-S".
Even better, it has an unofficial but pronounceable name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XON/XOFF
(Pity that XON sounds like Exxon, though.)
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Mark Brader
>>> I've often thought that what we need (and what will probably develop)
>>> is a conversational marker that essentially means "You need to stop
>>> talking now so that I can pay attention to what's going on around me.
>>> I'll let you know when it's safe to talk again, and I'll explain what
>>> was going on when that happens". It's somewhat surprising that it
>>> hasn't come about yet.
Mark Brader:
>> Of course it has: it's in the Jargon File. "Control-S".
Roland Hutchinson:
> Even better, it has an unofficial but pronounceable name:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XON/XOFF
No, XOFF is the unofficial but pronounceable name of a control-S.
"Control-S" is the conversational marker Evan described.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | In the affairs of this world men are saved,
m...@vex.net | not by faith, but by the want of it. --Franklin
Roland Hutchinson
> Evan Kirshenbaum:
>>>> I've often thought that what we need (and what will probably develop)
>>>> is a conversational marker that essentially means "You need to stop
>>>> talking now so that I can pay attention to what's going on around me.
>>>> I'll let you know when it's safe to talk again, and I'll explain what
>>>> was going on when that happens". It's somewhat surprising that it
>>>> hasn't come about yet.
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> Of course it has: it's in the Jargon File. "Control-S".
>
> Roland Hutchinson:
>> Even better, it has an unofficial but pronounceable name:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XON/XOFF
>
> No, XOFF is the unofficial but pronounceable name of a control-S.
> "Control-S" is the conversational marker Evan described.
I may need to stop talking here and ponder this fine philosophical
distinction, or even meditate on what its pronounceable name is called.
FWIW, the TNHD redaction by GLS and subsequent (and perhaps some earlier)
versions of the Jargon File offer the following:
control-S
“Stop talking for a second.” From the ASCII DC3 or XOFF character (the
pronunciation /X-of/ is therefore also used). Control-S differs from
control-O in that the person is asked to stop talking (perhaps because
you are on the phone) but will be allowed to continue when you're ready
to listen to him — as opposed to control-O, which has more of the meaning
of “Shut up.” Considered silly.
Mark Brader
> FWIW, the TNHD redaction by GLS and subsequent (and perhaps some earlier)
FWIW, the TNHD redaction was is by ERS. The THD redaction was by GLS,
who was also one of the main contributors earlier. IEU. :-)
--
Mark Brader | "This website offers to conjugate your French verb.
Toronto | Trust the French to come up with something kinky
m...@vex.net | like that." --Al Kriman
John Varela
wrote:
> John Varela wrote:
> > Hatunen wrote:
>
> >> I don't see how the use of a hands-free is any different than
> >> carrying on a conversation with a passenger.
> >
> > If you start to get into a driving situation that requires your
> > entire attention, your passenger can see out the window too, and
> > also will see your move to alertness. Your passenger will then join
> > you in interrupting the conversation. Your telephone companion,
> > however, will go right on chattering and distracting you.
>
> Oh, I don't know. My wife has an uncanny knack for leaning forward or
> otherwise obscuring the passenger-side window just when I need to look
> through ihttp://www.istumbler.net/t. It usually happens when we are leaving our house and she is
> checking out her appearance, but there are several residential cross-streets
> I have to negotiate before we hit the nearest thoroughfare.
Or we set out on a trip and she opens the morning newspaper wide so
it blocks the view from the side window and half of the windshield.
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> John Varela wrote:
>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>> I don't see how the use of a hands-free is any different than
>>>> carrying on a conversation with a passenger.
>>>
>>> If you start to get into a driving situation that requires your
>>> entire attention, your passenger can see out the window too, and
>>> also will see your move to alertness. Your passenger will then join
>>> you in interrupting the conversation. Your telephone companion,
>>> however, will go right on chattering and distracting you.
>>
>> Oh, I don't know. My wife has an uncanny knack for leaning forward
>> or otherwise obscuring the passenger-side window just when I need
>> to look through it. It usually happens when we are leaving our
>> house and she is checking out her appearance, but there are several
>> residential cross-streets I have to negotiate before we hit the
>> nearest thoroughfare.
>
> Or we set out on a trip and she opens the morning newspaper wide so
> it blocks the view from the side window and half of the windshield.
Ah, what I didn't mention are the various maneuvers my wife executes with a
piece of cardboard to prevent any sunshine from hitting her face. They,
quite often, get in the way of where I should look.
On the other hand, my wife's complexion is great -- not a wrinkle there.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Roland Hutchinson
> Roland Hutchinson:
>> FWIW, the TNHD redaction by GLS and subsequent (and perhaps some
>> earlier) versions of the Jargon File offer ...
>
> FWIW, the TNHD redaction was is by ESR.
IFYPFY. (You typed "ERS".)
> The THD redaction was by GLS,
> who was also one of the main contributors earlier.
Right you are. I knew that.
Nobody ought to confuse GLS with ESR!
Nobody in their right mind ought to be able to!!!
You will find a long-obsolete e-mail address of mine in the
acknowledgements of TNHD. I think I got "dots" into it as a
pronunciation for ":" (as used in the MIT LOGO group). That is probably
the most significant contribution I have made to date in the field of
computation.
> IEU. :-)
???
Peter Moylan
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:45:38 -0600, Mark Brader wrote:
>
>
> ???
You missed your cue. You were supposed to reply "Comments?"
Roland Hutchinson
> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:45:38 -0600, Mark Brader wrote:
>>
>>> IEU. :-)
>>
>> ???
>
> You missed your cue. You were supposed to reply "Comments?"
DUH.
I am slow on the uptake tonight.
Mark Brader
>>> FWIW, the TNHD redaction by GLS and subsequent (and perhaps some
>>> earlier) versions of the Jargon File offer ...
Mark Brader:
>> FWIW, the TNHD redaction was is by ESR.
Roland Hutchinson:
> IFYPFY.
That one I had to google. Thanks.
> (You typed "ERS".)
Er, Skitt's Law?
> Nobody ought to confuse GLS with ESR!
Their two main weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency!
> You will find a long-obsolete e-mail address of mine in the
> acknowledgements of TNHD.
You will find my name in there a bit more prominently.
>> IEU. :-)
>
> ???
In English Usage.
--
Mark Brader | Many "business-oriented" packagings of these
Toronto | [UNIXes] ... omit the games section. Those
m...@vex.net | responsible will doubtless be reincarnated
| as worker insects of some sort. -- "J. E. Lapin"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Roland Hutchinson
> Roland Hutchinson:
>>>> FWIW, the TNHD redaction by GLS and subsequent (and perhaps some
>>>> earlier) versions of the Jargon File offer ...
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> FWIW, the TNHD redaction was is by ESR.
>
> Roland Hutchinson:
>> IFYPFY.
>
> That one I had to google. Thanks.
>
>> (You typed "ERS".)
>
> Er, Skitt's Law?
>
>> Nobody ought to confuse GLS with ESR!
>
> Their two main weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency!
Except possibly for Eric, whose main weapons are -- weapons.
>> You will find a long-obsolete e-mail address of mine in the
>> acknowledgements of TNHD.
>
> You will find my name in there a bit more prominently.
Yes, I am aware of that.
>>> IEU. :-)
>>
>> ???
>
> In English Usage.
Of course. Never send a Bun to do a Sandwich's job, or something.
Peter Moylan
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:51:28 -0600, Mark Brader wrote:
>>>> IEU. :-)
>>> ???
>> In English Usage.
>
> Of course. Never send a Bun to do a Sandwich's job, or something.
Now you're on a roll.
Roland Hutchinson
> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:51:28 -0600, Mark Brader wrote:
>
>>>>> IEU. :-)
>>>> ???
>>> In English Usage.
>>
>> Of course. Never send a Bun to do a Sandwich's job, or something.
>
> Now you're on a roll.
Someone's going to be along presently to correct that to "in a roll".
Mark Brader
>>>>> ???
>>>> In English Usage.
>>> Of course. Never send a Bun to do a Sandwich's job, or something.
>> Now you're on a roll.
> Someone's going to be along presently to correct that to "in a roll".
If we're not careful this thread will get wecked.
--
Mark Brader "Just because the standard provides a cliff in
Toronto front of you, you are not necessarily required
m...@vex.net to jump off it." -- Norman Diamond
Roland Hutchinson
>>>>>>> IEU. :-)
>>>>>> ???
>>>>> In English Usage.
>>>> Of course. Never send a Bun to do a Sandwich's job, or something.
>>> Now you're on a roll.
>> Someone's going to be along presently to correct that to "in a roll".
>
> If we're not careful this thread will get wecked.
What's your beef?
Garrett Wollman
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> IEU. :-)
>>>>>> ???
>>>>> In English Usage.
>>>> Of course. Never send a Bun to do a Sandwich's job, or something.
>>> Now you're on a roll.
>> Someone's going to be along presently to correct that to "in a roll".
>
>If we're not careful this thread will get wecked.
Could I have a medium loganberry with that?
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993