unsubscribe
ken gompertz
----- Original Message -----
From: <gencmp-...@rootsweb.com>
To: <gen...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 6:00 PM
Subject: GENCMP Digest, Vol 4, Issue 228
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Historical research software, old and new (Steve Hayes)
2. Re: Historical research software, old and new (Joe Makowiec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:42:08 +0200
From: Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Historical research software, old and new
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <jq9kh51kgkeuft6b3...@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:03:42 +0000, Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> For my purpose, the published version is sufficient. In most history
>> books,
>> for example, printed sources are just listed with bibliographical
>> references
>> -- date, author, title, place, publisher. The repository or library is
>> not
>> normally mentioned, except perhaps in the case of very rare out-of-print
>> books.
>
>One thing I have in mind is the user who wishes to share information
>with other usesr, rather as GEDCOM is used (but better!). This is fine
>if you're dealing with a published book. If it's an original MS that's
>not going to help, you need to say where you got it. If it's a very old
>text existing only in hand-written copies you need to specify what copy.
>Also, if it's an original even if you give the repository detail that's
>no use to those who can't get there. Being able to export an image or a
>transcript would be the only thing of use.
>
>Bear in mind also that anything other than a program written for your
>own exclusive use will need to meet other people's purposes and not just
>your own. My own approach is to think what's the general requirement of
>which the present one is just a corner.
Indeed, and that's what I'm thinking of too.
Think, for example, of a biographer. Some sources may be original letters
written by, to, or about the subject of the biography. The writer may want
to
store complete scans of the letters written by the subject, transcripts of
those written to the subject, and extracts from those written about the
subject. Some of these things can be stored as BLOBs, but the BLOB is not
the
main and central item, and could be absent altogether (they consume a lot of
disk space).
As I see it, you are thinking primarily of a database to manage source
material, and I am thinking primarily of a database to interpret and order
material gathered from a variety of sources. So you start with the BLOB as
the
main thing with everything else built around it. I start with the event,
with
the BLOB (if present) as a twig
Event --> Event-Source link --> Source --> Repository
There could be a BLOB attached to the event-source link (reporduction of a
baptism certificate or register page), or it could be attached to the source
itself, if MS, but if a printed book it would simply give bibliographical
details.
Incidentally, I've now managed to download a recent version of TMG, which
seems to work on my computer (earlier versions caused it to crash).
Some people said that it could do the kind if thing I was looking for, but
it
seems to be only able to link two people to an event.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:54:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: Joe Makowiec <mako...@invalid.invalid>
Subject: Re: Historical research software, old and new
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <Xns9CD84632F9174ma...@85.214.113.135>
On 05 Dec 2009 in soc.genealogy.computing, Steve Hayes wrote:
> Some people said that it could do the kind if thing I was looking
> for, but it seems to be only able to link two people to an event.
It should be basically unlimited. For most events, there are
'Principals' (limited to two) and 'Witnesses' - TMG-speak for "A person
associated in some way with an event � not necessarily an
eyewitness" (which are unlimited). Some tags take only 'Witnesses'; the
History tag comes to mind. For reporting purposes, you can extensively
customize the sentence associated with a person/event.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
End of GENCMP Digest, Vol 4, Issue 228
**************************************
Ian Goddard
> unsubscribe
Ken,
This hasn't worked for you twice before so it isn't going to work for
you a third time and however many other times you try it it still isn't
going to work for you.
You're reading a newgroup through a mailing list. If you simply send a
message to the address from which you get the mail all that happens is
that you post a message to that newsgroup and mailing list.
Yes, that really happens even if the messages says "unsubscribe". And
it's *all* that happens.
If you want to unsubscribe do the following:
Go to http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/
Click on help
Enter the word unsubscribe in the search box
Click on the first option, "Unable to unsubscribe from a mailing list"
Follow the instructions under "List address error". Note that as you
seem to be receiving the digest you need to pay particular attention to
the comment about "D" addresses.
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>unsubscribe
You've said that three times now; it's getting boring.
Tom Perrett
>On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:24:06 +1000, "ken gompertz" <go...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>unsubscribe
all he has to do is read the note on the
bottom of EVERY Rootsweb list post
to see how to do it.
Ah, mailing list users, you gotta love
em.
Cheers,
Tom [Tom Perrett] <to...@st.net.au>
Robert Riches
Okay. Plonk!
--
Robert Riches
spamt...@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
Yo$$1960
> all he has to do is read the note on the bottom of EVERY Rootsweb list
> post
> to see how to do it.
Calls into question the OPs research abilities too, given that they seem
unable to read and follow simple instructions.
> Ah, mailing list users, you gotta love em.
I use 'em all the time, run a few, and have no problems. OTOH, some other
users do, I agree. Those that have trouble on any of the MLs I run (like
sending unsub messages to the list) get what they want - unsubscription.
*However*, if they ever try to join again, they get a curt message that,
essentially, says they're too stupid to rejoin, given that they failed to
unsub themselves previously.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
I must be hallucinating, watching angels celebrating
There Must Be An Angel (Playing With My Heart) - Eurythmics
Yo$$1960
> unsubscribe
We can't only *you* can. Read the instructions.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
You only see me for the clothes that I wear
Public Image - Public Image Ltd
Bob Melson
opined:
Y'gotta remember, though, that there are folks out there for whom computers
and everything associated with 'em verges on black magic. Remember
Clarke's 3d Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic.
I would go so far as to suggest there are things that you are not
completely conversant with and ask whether that makes you too stupid to be
allowed near them. This isn't to defend the OP, mind, but to suggest that
your attitude is a bit, ummmm, extreme.
Swell Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big
enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson
Ian Goddard
Fair enough, but two failures should be enough to give a hint that the
incantation's wrong.
Bob Melson
opined:
I did say, I think, that I wasn't defending the OP. If, after N failures,
he hasn't gotten the idea, then somebody needs to LART him. I do agree
that there are those who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a computer -
but, then, there are those who shouldn't be allowed in the neighborhood of
cars or VCRs or <name the device of your choice here>. But that doesn't
necessarily make them stupid, which is what I was suggesting in my earlier
posting.
Sorcerous Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
Yo$$1960
> Y'gotta remember, though, that there are folks out there for whom
> computers and everything associated with 'em verges on black magic.
> Remember Clarke's 3d Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is
> indistinguishable from magic.
True, but we *are* talking about people that have previously successfully
subscribed to a list. A list which, I might add, is almost impossible to
be subscribed to by a third party.
> I would go so far as to suggest there are things that you are not
> completely conversant with and ask whether that makes you too stupid to be
> allowed near them. This isn't to defend the OP, mind, but to suggest that
Quite probably. Internal combustion engines being a good example; I
know the theory, but I know I don't have the skill to perform the task of
servicing one. I stay well away. OTOH, it could be argued that that
makes me clever, not stupid. :-)
> your attitude is a bit, ummmm, extreme.
It is but if, like me, you see upwards of 200 incorrectly addressed
"unsub" requests in a month, you /might/ get miffed by it too. I have to
admit that my patience threshold is almost certainly somewhat lower than
yours. IOW, I'm intolerant of those that repeat tasks that have failed in
the hope that they'll work this time. Even my kids don't escape my ire
regarding that behaviour.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
We don't need no-one to tell us what's right or wrong
The Modern World - The Jam
Gene Y.
>
> It is but if, like me, you see upwards of 200 incorrectly addressed
> "unsub" requests in a month, you /might/ get miffed by it too. I have to
> admit that my patience threshold is almost certainly somewhat lower than
> yours. IOW, I'm intolerant of those that repeat tasks that have failed in
> the hope that they'll work this time.
To Quote Albert Einstein ;
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.
There is no reasoning with insanity, however there is PLONKING. <g>
--
Gene Y.
Ian Goddard
> Yo$$1960 wrote:
>
>>
>> It is but if, like me, you see upwards of 200 incorrectly addressed
>> "unsub" requests in a month, you /might/ get miffed by it too. I have to
>> admit that my patience threshold is almost certainly somewhat lower than
>> yours. IOW, I'm intolerant of those that repeat tasks that have
>> failed in
>> the hope that they'll work this time.
>
> To Quote Albert Einstein ;
>
> Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
> different results.
I wondered how long it would take for this to be posted. I've never
seen the context but suspect it was a dig at Heisenberg. In the macro
world there are plenty of contrary examples. For instance if you kept
rolling a die and got the /same/ result every time you'd quickly get
suspicious.
Dr. Brian Leverich
> Gene Y. wrote:
>> Yo$$1960 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is but if, like me, you see upwards of 200 incorrectly addressed
>>> "unsub" requests in a month, you /might/ get miffed by it too. I have to
>>> admit that my patience threshold is almost certainly somewhat lower than
>>> yours. IOW, I'm intolerant of those that repeat tasks that have
>>> failed in
>>> the hope that they'll work this time.
>>
>> To Quote Albert Einstein ;
>>
>> Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
>> different results.
>
> I wondered how long it would take for this to be posted. I've never
> seen the context but suspect it was a dig at Heisenberg. In the macro
> world there are plenty of contrary examples. For instance if you kept
> rolling a die and got the /same/ result every time you'd quickly get
> suspicious.
In point of fact, dice work precisely because people can't
do the same thing over and over again.
If you could do precisely the same cast every time, you
would get precisely the same result ...
Cheers, B.
Denis Beauregard
wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
>True, but we *are* talking about people that have previously successfully
>subscribed to a list. A list which, I might add, is almost impossible to
>be subscribed to by a third party.
Why do you say that ? To sub or unsunb someone to a rootsweb list,
you merely sand an email where the FROM address is that of that
someone, and the person will be added to/removed from the list of
subscribers.
Denis
Denis Beauregard
<leve...@linkpendium.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
>If you could do precisely the same cast every time, you
>would get precisely the same result ...
In genealogy, if 2 persons try to do the tree of someone,
they should get the same results. However, if you compare
the ancestry of some known popular people, you will find the
results are different.
So, a genealogy tree is less random than rolling dice for
a given person, but the results can be more random...
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - g�n�alogiste �m�rite (FQSG)
Les Fran�ais d'Am�rique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur c�d�rom � 1770 - On CD-ROM to 1770
Robert Riches
Wasn't part of that Mr. Heisenberg's point?
Not to start a flame ward about conflicting quotes, but a
recruiter I exchange email with uses this quote:
"The movers and shakers of tomorrow will be those who have the resolve
to write down an idea, despite its source, and to keep trying it,
despite any resistance they encounter" ~ Ira Hayes
When I see the two quotes next to each other, I wonder how one
might reconcile them.
Bob Melson
opined:
And, yet, all of us of a certain age had drummed into us as children the
adage "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again." There does come a
point, though, where even the densest or stubbornest among us should
comprehend that repeating a consistently failing behavior will most like
lead to yet another failure. If not, then right thinking members of the
community should be encouraged to apply an attitude adjustment tool to the
bony excrescence growing from his shoulders and keeping his ears from
slamming together.
Surly Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
ken gompertz
Subject: GENCMP Digest, Vol 4, Issue 231
Today's Topics:
1. Family Tree Maker (exntluser)
2. Try Lagacy Re: Family Tree Maker (Jack)
3. Re: unsubscribe (Yo$$1960)
4. Re: Family Tree Maker (Charlie Hoffpauir)
5. Re: Family Tree Maker (J. Hugh Sullivan)
6. Re: unsubscribe (Gene Y.)
7. Re: unsubscribe (Ian Goddard)
8. Re: unsubscribe (Dr. Brian Leverich)
9. Re: Family Tree Maker (Paul Blair)
10. Re: Family Tree Maker (Ron Lankshear in Sydney NSW)
11. PAF Companion 5 and Windows 7 (Ilya Zeldes)
12. Re: unsubscribe (Denis Beauregard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:04:25 -0000
From: "exntluser" <exnt...@ntl.gone>
Subject: Family Tree Maker
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <59sTm.51526$oB1....@newsfe07.ams2>
Hello,
For a few years now I have been using FTM software & at present I am
using V.10. My problem is that I've just changed operating systems from XP
Pro to Windows 7 Ultimate. which doesn't allow me to use V.10. does anybody
know which Version I would need to work with my new operating system? Or
failing that, do you have suggestions for other software I could use?
Many Thanks for any replies
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:15:04 +0200
From: "Jack" <no...@INVALIDmail.com>
Subject: Try Lagacy Re: Family Tree Maker
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <sjsTm.49415$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>
"exntluser" <exnt...@ntl.gone> wrote in message
news:59sTm.51526$oB1....@newsfe07.ams2...
> Hello,
> For a few years now I have been using FTM software & at present I am
> using V.10. My problem is that I've just changed operating systems from XP
> Pro to Windows 7 Ultimate. which doesn't allow me to use V.10. does
> anybody
> know which Version I would need to work with my new operating system? Or
> failing that, do you have suggestions for other software I could use?
> Many Thanks for any replies
>
Standard edition is free:
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/
If you like it and want to unlock all DeLuxe-features,
order(starting$29.95):
http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=1&Click=1192
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:32:16 +0000
From: Yo$$1960 <br...@yoss1960.ukfsn.org>
Subject: Re: unsubscribe
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID:
<pan.2009.12.08....@yoss1960.eternal-september.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:44:24 -0700, Bob Melson wrote:
> Y'gotta remember, though, that there are folks out there for whom
> computers and everything associated with 'em verges on black magic.
> Remember Clarke's 3d Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is
> indistinguishable from magic.
True, but we *are* talking about people that have previously successfully
subscribed to a list. A list which, I might add, is almost impossible to
be subscribed to by a third party.
> I would go so far as to suggest there are things that you are not
> completely conversant with and ask whether that makes you too stupid to be
> allowed near them. This isn't to defend the OP, mind, but to suggest that
Quite probably. Internal combustion engines being a good example; I
know the theory, but I know I don't have the skill to perform the task of
servicing one. I stay well away. OTOH, it could be argued that that
makes me clever, not stupid. :-)
> your attitude is a bit, ummmm, extreme.
It is but if, like me, you see upwards of 200 incorrectly addressed
"unsub" requests in a month, you /might/ get miffed by it too. I have to
admit that my patience threshold is almost certainly somewhat lower than
yours. IOW, I'm intolerant of those that repeat tasks that have failed in
the hope that they'll work this time. Even my kids don't escape my ire
regarding that behaviour.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
We don't need no-one to tell us what's right or wrong
The Modern World - The Jam
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:01:47 -0600
From: Charlie Hoffpauir <inv...@invalid.com>
Subject: Re: Family Tree Maker
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <odqsh5lj5f36gpkd0...@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:04:25 -0000, "exntluser" <exnt...@ntl.gone>
wrote:
>Hello,
> For a few years now I have been using FTM software & at present I am
>using V.10. My problem is that I've just changed operating systems from XP
>Pro to Windows 7 Ultimate. which doesn't allow me to use V.10. does anybody
>know which Version I would need to work with my new operating system? Or
>failing that, do you have suggestions for other software I could use?
>Many Thanks for any replies
>
If you really like FTM then just get the latest version. However, if
you're interested in changing to another program, then try the latest
version of RootsMagic (download free trial copy). It will load your
native FTM file (you don't need to use a GEDCOM) so you can try it out
with a copy of your own data.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:07:24 GMT
From: Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Family Tree Maker
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <4b1e6ab...@news.eternal-september.org>
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:04:25 -0000, "exntluser" <exnt...@ntl.gone>
wrote:
>Hello,
> For a few years now I have been using FTM software & at present I am
>using V.10. My problem is that I've just changed operating systems from XP
>Pro to Windows 7 Ultimate. which doesn't allow me to use V.10. does anybody
>know which Version I would need to work with my new operating system? Or
>failing that, do you have suggestions for other software I could use?
>Many Thanks for any replies
>
>
I am, at this moment, running Legacy, Roots Magic and Family Historian
on Windows 7 Ultimate.
One of the luckiest breaks you ever got might be not being able to run
FTM and wanting to look at other programs.
All opinions about genealogy programs are personal and biased -
including mine above.
Hugh
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:10:11 -0500
From: "Gene Y." <n2...@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: unsubscribe
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <4b1e9688$0$4941$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Yo$$1960 wrote:
>
> It is but if, like me, you see upwards of 200 incorrectly addressed
> "unsub" requests in a month, you /might/ get miffed by it too. I have to
> admit that my patience threshold is almost certainly somewhat lower than
> yours. IOW, I'm intolerant of those that repeat tasks that have failed in
> the hope that they'll work this time.
To Quote Albert Einstein ;
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.
There is no reasoning with insanity, however there is PLONKING. <g>
--
Gene Y.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:43:42 +0000
From: Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: Re: unsubscribe
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <hfm6ou$nq4$2...@news.eternal-september.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Gene Y. wrote:
> Yo$$1960 wrote:
>
>>
>> It is but if, like me, you see upwards of 200 incorrectly addressed
>> "unsub" requests in a month, you /might/ get miffed by it too. I have to
>> admit that my patience threshold is almost certainly somewhat lower than
>> yours. IOW, I'm intolerant of those that repeat tasks that have
>> failed in
>> the hope that they'll work this time.
>
> To Quote Albert Einstein ;
>
> Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
> different results.
I wondered how long it would take for this to be posted. I've never
seen the context but suspect it was a dig at Heisenberg. In the macro
world there are plenty of contrary examples. For instance if you kept
rolling a die and got the /same/ result every time you'd quickly get
suspicious.
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:07:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Dr. Brian Leverich" <leve...@linkpendium.com>
Subject: Re: unsubscribe
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <slrnhht8uk....@askin-17.linkpendium.com>
On 2009-12-08, Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Gene Y. wrote:
>> Yo$$1960 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is but if, like me, you see upwards of 200 incorrectly addressed
>>> "unsub" requests in a month, you /might/ get miffed by it too. I have
>>> to
>>> admit that my patience threshold is almost certainly somewhat lower than
>>> yours. IOW, I'm intolerant of those that repeat tasks that have
>>> failed in
>>> the hope that they'll work this time.
>>
>> To Quote Albert Einstein ;
>>
>> Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
>> different results.
>
> I wondered how long it would take for this to be posted. I've never
> seen the context but suspect it was a dig at Heisenberg. In the macro
> world there are plenty of contrary examples. For instance if you kept
> rolling a die and got the /same/ result every time you'd quickly get
> suspicious.
In point of fact, dice work precisely because people can't
do the same thing over and over again.
If you could do precisely the same cast every time, you
would get precisely the same result ...
Cheers, B.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:19:58 +1100
From: Paul Blair <pbl...@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Re: Family Tree Maker
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <12603072...@chilli.pcug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
exntluser wrote:
> Hello,
> For a few years now I have been using FTM software & at present I am
> using V.10. My problem is that I've just changed operating systems from XP
> Pro to Windows 7 Ultimate. which doesn't allow me to use V.10. does
> anybody
> know which Version I would need to work with my new operating system? Or
> failing that, do you have suggestions for other software I could use?
> Many Thanks for any replies
>
>
I have a copy of FTM2005 (which, I think, is v12) that runs fine on Win
7 Ultimate. There are copies of FTM2005 to be had for a song, if you
don't want to use anything else
Paul
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:52:58 +1100
From: Ron Lankshear in Sydney NSW <ron...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Family Tree Maker
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <4B1ECABA...@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2009-12-09 2:01 AM, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
> you're interested in changing to another program, then try the latest
> version of RootsMagic (download free trial copy). It will load your
> native FTM file (you don't need to use a GEDCOM) so you can try it out
> with a copy of your own data.
Actually Rootsmagic only recently announced an
entirely Free version called Essentials - its not
really a trial - just doesn't have all the
features - there is a comparison on the site.
I loaded a Legacy file straight into
--
Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds
Bush/Chiswick)
try my links
http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:56:50 -0500
From: "Ilya Zeldes" <ily...@hotmail.com>
Subject: PAF Companion 5 and Windows 7
To: <GEN...@rootsweb.com>
Message-ID: <BLU141-DS4C499E11...@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I've been using PAF Companion for years on various versions of Windows
including XP. Recently, I moved to a Windows 7 x64 machine, installed a
brand new copy of PAF Companion 5.4.13 and run into a problem. The program
would print a report, but would not allow a preview of a report. Apparently,
the new version of PAF Companion misses a Progeny PDF printer, which was
available in the earlier versions. I attempted to install v. 2 from a CD,
but Windows 7 would not accept it...
Is there a workaround? I appreciate any suggestions.
Ilya Zeldes
Fort Myers, Florida
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:26:04 -0500
From: Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-f...@fr.invalid>
Subject: Re: unsubscribe
To: gen...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <ph2uh59oa1ed8pmdh...@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Denis
End of GENCMP Digest, Vol 4, Issue 231
**************************************
tim sewell
"ken gompertz" <go...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.848.12603...@rootsweb.com...
> unsubscribe
And so ad infinitum..?
--
Cheers, Tim S.
(please delete myfairlyobviousspamtrap if you wish to reply directly)
Gene Y.
> Gene Y. wrote:
>> Yo$$1960 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is but if, like me, you see upwards of 200 incorrectly addressed
>>> "unsub" requests in a month, you /might/ get miffed by it too. I
>>> have to
>>> admit that my patience threshold is almost certainly somewhat lower than
>>> yours. IOW, I'm intolerant of those that repeat tasks that have
>>> failed in
>>> the hope that they'll work this time.
>>
>> To Quote Albert Einstein ;
>>
>> Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
>> different results.
>
> I wondered how long it would take for this to be posted. I've never
> seen the context but suspect it was a dig at Heisenberg. In the macro
> world there are plenty of contrary examples. For instance if you kept
> rolling a die and got the /same/ result every time you'd quickly get
> suspicious.
>
--
Gene Y.
Gene Y.
they repeat the failing "method" to implement the idea. The insane
person who keeps hitting his thumb with a hammer in the hope that
eventually won't hurt is using the same "method" each time and is doomed
to disappointment. A subtle difference perhaps, but a difference
nonetheless.
--
Gene Y.
Yo$$1960
> Why do you say that ? To sub or unsunb someone to a rootsweb list, you
> merely sand an email where the FROM address is that of that someone, and
> the person will be added to/removed from the list of subscribers.
Challenge/Response.
I can try to sub you to any number of lists, using your email addy.
However, RootsWeb list software will send a message to that address (the
challenge) informing you that an attempt has been made to enrol you. You
are required to reply (the response) before the (un)subscription process
is completed. A failure to respond to the challenge results in no change
to current subscription status.
So, unless you blindly respond to emails (who would do such a thing?), you
won't get (un)subbed.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
It couldn't adapt so it couldn't survive
The Great British Mistake - The Adverts
Denis Beauregard
�crivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:
>On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:26:04 -0500, Denis Beauregard wrote:
>
>> Why do you say that ? To sub or unsunb someone to a rootsweb list, you
>> merely sand an email where the FROM address is that of that someone, and
>> the person will be added to/removed from the list of subscribers.
>
>Challenge/Response.
>
>I can try to sub you to any number of lists, using your email addy.
>However, RootsWeb list software will send a message to that address (the
>challenge) informing you that an attempt has been made to enrol you. You
>are required to reply (the response) before the (un)subscription process
>is completed. A failure to respond to the challenge results in no change
>to current subscription status.
>
>So, unless you blindly respond to emails (who would do such a thing?), you
>won't get (un)subbed.
If the mail robot does that, then it must be recent. I am the
list owner for some lists and I did that a few times to help someone
to unsub without using my list password.
singhals
Yeah, but if I throw 7 times and 7 times I get a 5,
something's /wrong/ with that die! (g)
And if nothing else, the thread created traffic on the list.
Cheryl
Mick
and actions then the result will differ, if it does the result will
repeat. A human grabbing a couple of dice and rolling them is *not* an
exact reproduction. so differing results are to be expected.
The exact same cast would mean all dice being in the exact same
orientation and position the cast being exactly the same force in
exactly the same direction etc. etc. etc.
MickG
Ian Goddard
It depends, however, on the perceptions of the doer. If the thrower of
the dice considers he has done "the same thing" then that is what we
need to judge his expectations against in order to decide is they were
sane in Einstein's terms. But again, I strongly suspect Einstein was
taking a dig at the way quantum theory had developed and not proposing a
psychological definition.
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
Yo$$1960
> If the mail robot does that, then it must be recent. I am the list owner
Depends on what you mean by "recent", I suppose. :-)
> for some lists and I did that a few times to help someone to unsub without
> using my list password.
I'm not fully conversant with Mailman's command set, but that may be
possible, depending on how it's set up.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
Bet you thought you knew what I was about
Problem - Sex Pistols
John Prentice
> In point of fact, dice work precisely because people can't
> do the same thing over and over again.
>
> If you could do precisely the same cast every time, you
> would get precisely the same result ...
Not true, strictly speaking. You could never recreate the exact starting
conditions because some of them are unknowable (Heisenberg), some are
unpredictable (Brownian motion), and some are unreproducible (wear and
tear from the first cast onto the same surface means the surface will
not be the same twice).
Even if you used a perfect robot to cast the same die in the exact same
direction on the exact same surface with the exact same amount of force
and spin, then provided the die tumbles at all, you still won't get a
fully predictable result!
John
--
Maintainer of the s.g.b FAQs, at http://www.genealogy-britain.org.uk/
Tracing London names LEE, BEDFORD, CLARK, SUTTON, KEEN, SPRING,
HARTLEY, WRIGHT, PETHERBRIDGE (Cornish), MOODY (Cornish/Devonian)
** LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD! **
To email me, please remove ".invalid" from the email address
Dr. Brian Leverich
> Dr. Brian Leverich wrote:
>> In point of fact, dice work precisely because people can't
>> do the same thing over and over again.
>>
>> If you could do precisely the same cast every time, you
>> would get precisely the same result ...
>
> Not true, strictly speaking. You could never recreate the exact starting
> conditions because some of them are unknowable (Heisenberg), some are
> unpredictable (Brownian motion), and some are unreproducible (wear and
> tear from the first cast onto the same surface means the surface will
> not be the same twice).
>
> Even if you used a perfect robot to cast the same die in the exact same
> direction on the exact same surface with the exact same amount of force
> and spin, then provided the die tumbles at all, you still won't get a
> fully predictable result!
>
> John
Hi John!
Strictly speaking you're right, but the effects of Heisenberg are
pretty much completely negligible on something as "big" as a die
and Brownian affects are gonna be way small, too.
The wear-and-tear thing violates the "same cast" constraint; if you
change the physical setup, of course you may get different results.
If you did your robot right and the physical setup otherwise remains
unchanged, you're gonna get reproducible results 99999999... outa
100000000... tosses.
You need to have a sense of scale to know what's going on here. There's
a reason why Newtonian mechanics appeared to be a complete explanation
of the physical world for so long. Quantum (and relativistic) mechanics
only were developed when we started studying the behavior of very, very
small (or fast, or large) objects.
Cheers, B.
John Prentice
> You need to have a sense of scale to know what's going on here. There's
> a reason why Newtonian mechanics appeared to be a complete explanation
> of the physical world for so long. Quantum (and relativistic) mechanics
> only were developed when we started studying the behavior of very, very
> small (or fast, or large) objects.
That's right, but quantum effects do have macrophysical consequences,
both "butterfly effect" and deliberate. Modern computers depend upon
them, for instance.
In this case, there's a macrophysical expression of the butterfly
effect. To determine the -exact- tumble, you do need to know the
locations and energy states of the interacting molecules and their
components. Because you can't know that precisely, there's a randomising
effect in the tumble pattern that could be amplified to a perceptible level.
Dr. Brian Leverich
>> You need to have a sense of scale to know what's going on here. There's
>> a reason why Newtonian mechanics appeared to be a complete explanation
>> of the physical world for so long. Quantum (and relativistic) mechanics
>> only were developed when we started studying the behavior of very, very
>> small (or fast, or large) objects.
>
> That's right, but quantum effects do have macrophysical consequences,
> both "butterfly effect" and deliberate. Modern computers depend upon
> them, for instance.
If you're talking about tunneling and such, that's down at
electron scale.
> In this case, there's a macrophysical expression of the butterfly
> effect. To determine the -exact- tumble, you do need to know the
> locations and energy states of the interacting molecules and their
> components. Because you can't know that precisely, there's a randomising
> effect in the tumble pattern that could be amplified to a perceptible level.
>
> John
OK, enough of this.
People don't witness quantum effects in macroscopic objects on a
daily basis or, pretty much, ever at all.
When was the last time you saw a teacup suddenly materialize a
foot above its former resting place on a table and come smashing
down?
Rather than go on like this, since you're making a case for
something none of us have ever seen, why don't you take it
mathematical and show us the probabilities?
I can follow you. I'm an applied mathematician and physicist,
and quantum chemistry was one of my specialties. ;)
Cheers, B.
Robert Riches
A physics professor told me that if a billiards cue ball had
about 15 collisions (my memory might not have the exact number,
but it's not very far off) with other balls on the table,
Heisenberg uncertainty would make it impossible to predict
ANYTHING about what direction the original cue ball was going. A
die rolling on a table wouldn't seem to be that much different in
scale.
Dr. Brian Leverich
You're talking to someone who can pass as a physics professor,
the kind trained at Harvard and Stanford, though I've been out
of field for many years.
Look at the second shot on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7lYxi5Ddo
Now with most commercial-grade tables and balls there are enough
physical imperfections that eventually it's impossible to sensibly
predict where the next ball goes, but Heisenberg just isn't playing.
Electrons and other critters where quantum mechanicsy stuff gets
interesting are *vastly* smaller than billiard balls, like by a
factor of 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
There's a reason why we existed as a species for more than a million
years before we had a reason to recognize quantum-level effects.
Cheers, B.