info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Archive on four
77 views
Skip to first unread message
m
Nov 16, 2012, 7:00:42 PM11/16/12
to
I can't believe what I heard on BBC Radio this week. There was a
programme a couple of weeks ago that I have just got around to listening
to, in the "Archive on Four" series called "Tuning in" about the birth
of the BBC.
I admit I was listening on cans to a Freesat recording but have no
reason to suspect it was my problem.
They made the show in Stereo but it was totally false. There were
extracts from early programmes and words from Cpt Eckersley (the first
BBC Director of Engineering)and Jean Seaton who is the BBC archivist.
All the contributors and archive discs were panned fully left or right
for no apparent reason even though those still alive were individually
interviewed.
The presenter did quite few bits supposedly around London/Writtle but as
he spoke, his voice panned left and right as if he was using a VERY
directional stereo mic right in front of him and kept turning his head
far to the sides.
One could tell when he was about to do a bit as really loud
white/background noise faded up even when the previous speaker was doing
their bit.
All in all it must be the worst mixed show I have ever heard and
supposed to be celebrating the BBC.
Unfortunately it has gone off iPlayer but I may be able to upload a
snatch of it it anyone wants the worst bits!
There is another episode about Lord Reith still available until Saturday
evening so I must grab it quickly to see if that one is as bad.
The BBC page says it is a "Whistledown Production for BBC Radio 4" -
perhaps they got their company name from "Whistle down the wind" or some
such breezy noise generator.
The sadest thing is that this is a typical example of BBC technical
output nowadays. Bring back BBC training!
Mike
programme a couple of weeks ago that I have just got around to listening
to, in the "Archive on Four" series called "Tuning in" about the birth
of the BBC.
I admit I was listening on cans to a Freesat recording but have no
reason to suspect it was my problem.
They made the show in Stereo but it was totally false. There were
extracts from early programmes and words from Cpt Eckersley (the first
BBC Director of Engineering)and Jean Seaton who is the BBC archivist.
All the contributors and archive discs were panned fully left or right
for no apparent reason even though those still alive were individually
interviewed.
The presenter did quite few bits supposedly around London/Writtle but as
he spoke, his voice panned left and right as if he was using a VERY
directional stereo mic right in front of him and kept turning his head
far to the sides.
One could tell when he was about to do a bit as really loud
white/background noise faded up even when the previous speaker was doing
their bit.
All in all it must be the worst mixed show I have ever heard and
supposed to be celebrating the BBC.
Unfortunately it has gone off iPlayer but I may be able to upload a
snatch of it it anyone wants the worst bits!
There is another episode about Lord Reith still available until Saturday
evening so I must grab it quickly to see if that one is as bad.
The BBC page says it is a "Whistledown Production for BBC Radio 4" -
perhaps they got their company name from "Whistle down the wind" or some
such breezy noise generator.
The sadest thing is that this is a typical example of BBC technical
output nowadays. Bring back BBC training!
Mike
CJB
Nov 17, 2012, 9:30:20 AM11/17/12
to
CJB.
m
Nov 17, 2012, 1:24:44 PM11/17/12
to
CJB wrote:
>
>
> The prog. is not on iPlayer but is at TheBox.bz and RadioArchive.cc
>
> CJB.
Does it sound as grim there?
>
>
> The prog. is not on iPlayer but is at TheBox.bz and RadioArchive.cc
>
> CJB.
Mike
Norman Radox
Nov 17, 2012, 2:56:17 PM11/17/12
to
>The saddest thing is that this is a typical example of BBC technical output
best.
BUT, in saying that the training I had at BBC North recently wasn't
delivered very well and that I think it's an issue with the trainers both
internal & external to the BBC, quite possibly not being upto it now ?
I don't know if it's the way the course is arranged or paid for, but most of
the external trainers treated it like a sales event and perhaps spend a
quarter of the last day doing the engineering bits I wanted to know. To use
an example of a Snell trainer, training us on the 8000 router series, the
most heard phrase on the two day course was 'you don't need to know that
page as BNCS does it all' and then on the last day spends perhaps an hour
telling us it's redundancy capabilities and other important engineering
things.
>nowadays. Bring back BBC training!
There is still BBC training and good olde Wood Norton is still doing it's
best.
BUT, in saying that the training I had at BBC North recently wasn't
delivered very well and that I think it's an issue with the trainers both
internal & external to the BBC, quite possibly not being upto it now ?
I don't know if it's the way the course is arranged or paid for, but most of
the external trainers treated it like a sales event and perhaps spend a
quarter of the last day doing the engineering bits I wanted to know. To use
an example of a Snell trainer, training us on the 8000 router series, the
most heard phrase on the two day course was 'you don't need to know that
page as BNCS does it all' and then on the last day spends perhaps an hour
telling us it's redundancy capabilities and other important engineering
things.
Mike Brown
Nov 17, 2012, 6:43:53 PM11/17/12
to
On 17/11/2012 00:00, m wrote:
> I can't believe what I heard on BBC Radio this week. There was a
> programme a couple of weeks ago that I have just got around to listening
> to, in the "Archive on Four" series called "Tuning in" about the birth
> of the BBC.
> I admit I was listening on cans to a Freesat recording but have no
> reason to suspect it was my problem.
>
> They made the show in Stereo but it was totally false. There were
> extracts from early programmes and words from Cpt Eckersley (the first
> BBC Director of Engineering)and Jean Seaton who is the BBC archivist.
> All the contributors and archive discs were panned fully left or right
> for no apparent reason even though those still alive were individually
> interviewed.
I'm listening to a downloaded version now. Nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
> I can't believe what I heard on BBC Radio this week. There was a
> programme a couple of weeks ago that I have just got around to listening
> to, in the "Archive on Four" series called "Tuning in" about the birth
> of the BBC.
> I admit I was listening on cans to a Freesat recording but have no
> reason to suspect it was my problem.
>
> They made the show in Stereo but it was totally false. There were
> extracts from early programmes and words from Cpt Eckersley (the first
> BBC Director of Engineering)and Jean Seaton who is the BBC archivist.
> All the contributors and archive discs were panned fully left or right
> for no apparent reason even though those still alive were individually
> interviewed.
Some excerpts were deliberately panned off-centre, but NOT fully left
and right. The apparently unapparent reason for this is to make it more
interesting. It might sound false on headphones but radio producers have
been doing this since they first starting working in stereo.
Many of the inserts were actually recorded in stereo so it's certainly
not totally false.
I'm enjoying the programme and appreciating the production's creativity;
it's certainly the most interesting element of the BBC's attempts to
celebrate radio's 90th birthday I've heard so far.
There is no rulebook anywhere which suggests that all mono contributions
to stereo programmes must be panned centrally.
--
mb
Vic
Nov 18, 2012, 12:00:58 PM11/18/12
to
"Mike Brown" <use...@mb21.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k897gh$mgi$1...@dont-email.me...
fine here and I actually quite like it - better than just boring old mono
and not at all annoying.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
m
Nov 18, 2012, 4:30:14 PM11/18/12
to
Mike Brown wrote:
>
>
> I'm listening to a downloaded version now. Nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
>
> Some excerpts were deliberately panned off-centre, but NOT fully left
> and right. The apparently unapparent reason for this is to make it more
> interesting. It might sound false on headphones but radio producers have
> been doing this since they first starting working in stereo.
> Many of the inserts were actually recorded in stereo so it's certainly
> not totally false.
>
> I'm enjoying the programme and appreciating the production's creativity;
> it's certainly the most interesting element of the BBC's attempts to
> celebrate radio's 90th birthday I've heard so far.
>
> There is no rulebook anywhere which suggests that all mono contributions
> to stereo programmes must be panned centrally.
>
Yes Mr SS Sir!!
>
>
> I'm listening to a downloaded version now. Nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
>
> Some excerpts were deliberately panned off-centre, but NOT fully left
> and right. The apparently unapparent reason for this is to make it more
> interesting. It might sound false on headphones but radio producers have
> been doing this since they first starting working in stereo.
> Many of the inserts were actually recorded in stereo so it's certainly
> not totally false.
>
> I'm enjoying the programme and appreciating the production's creativity;
> it's certainly the most interesting element of the BBC's attempts to
> celebrate radio's 90th birthday I've heard so far.
>
> There is no rulebook anywhere which suggests that all mono contributions
> to stereo programmes must be panned centrally.
>
I take your point but still feel a very hard left/right is overdoing it
a bit, especially when the presenter is central.
Did you hear the background noise on his inserts coming up well before
he spoke and his voice drifting a bit left/right when patently doing a
direct piece to "camera"
The later edition about Lord Reith was far nicer as it didn't have so
many interviews and the reading of his words was kept central and about
the only new interview was in proper stereo recording.
Did I mention that I have discs of Eckersley talking to the BBC
Engineering Society about early days of the BBC and they are all to be
found here:-
www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Tapes_index.html
Help yourself although they are each about 3M big even as MP3.
No-one at the BBC seems really interested in them.
Mike
Dave Liquorice
Nov 18, 2012, 5:11:48 PM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:30:14 +0000, m wrote:
> Did I mention that I have discs of Eckersley talking to the BBC
> Engineering Society about early days of the BBC and they are all to be
> found here:-
>
> www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Tapes_index.html
>
> Help yourself although they are each about 3M big even as MP3.
3M isn't very big these days but they all come back as "404 Not Found" as
> Did I mention that I have discs of Eckersley talking to the BBC
> Engineering Society about early days of the BBC and they are all to be
> found here:-
>
> www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Tapes_index.html
>
> Help yourself although they are each about 3M big even as MP3.
you have missed out the <underscores> in the file names for the links.
--
Cheers
Dave.
Mike Brown
Nov 19, 2012, 5:26:51 AM11/19/12
to
On 18/11/2012 21:30, m wrote:
> I take your point but still feel a very hard left/right is overdoing it
> a bit, especially when the presenter is central.
> Did you hear the background noise on his inserts coming up well before
> he spoke and his voice drifting a bit left/right when patently doing a
> direct piece to "camera"
Yes. It seemed like they had actually added some background noise in
> I take your point but still feel a very hard left/right is overdoing it
> a bit, especially when the presenter is central.
> Did you hear the background noise on his inserts coming up well before
> he spoke and his voice drifting a bit left/right when patently doing a
> direct piece to "camera"
places to soften the transitions, which worked for me. But as you say,
the imagery was movement on the stereo inserts.
> Did I mention that I have discs of Eckersley talking to the BBC
> Engineering Society about early days of the BBC and they are all to be
> found here:-
aren't quite right, the mp3 filkes also had underscores in the filenames:
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/40_years_of_BBC_Engineering.mp3
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/40_years_of_BBC_Engineering.jpg
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Early_days_of_Broadcasting_1.mp3
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Early_Days_of_Broadcasting_1.jpg
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Early_days_of_Broadcasting_2.mp3
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Early_Days_of_Broadcasting_2.jpg
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Early_days_of_Broadcasting_3.mp3
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Early_Days_of_Broadcasting_3.jpg
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Early_days_of_Broadcasting_4.mp3
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Early_Days_of_Broadcasting_4.jpg
--
SOUNDSCAPE -- acoustic, new-age, smooth jazz and instrumentals
Live on Saturdays from 2-4pm at http://www.redruthradio.co.uk/
Catch-up/podcasts at http://www.originalsound.co.uk/soundscape/
Soundscape Extra streaming 24/7 at http://soundscape.caster.fm/
m
Nov 21, 2012, 8:03:58 AM11/21/12
to
Of course it always worked for me as the links pointed back to my
original savings.
I always have to remember the underscore as some servers don't like spaces.
Not as confusing as those who have spaces in their e-mail addresses
which don't show up in a highlighted link. Speces should be banned in
e-mails!
Mike
Mike Brown
Nov 24, 2012, 3:28:54 PM11/24/12
to
On 21/11/2012 13:03, m wrote:
> Thanks for spotting this Mike. I have corrected the "Index" page.
> Of course it always worked for me as the links pointed back to my
> original savings.
> I always have to remember the underscore as some servers don't like spaces.
> Not as confusing as those who have spaces in their e-mail addresses
> which don't show up in a highlighted link. Speces should be banned in
> e-mails!
They are. No email addresses have spaces; it's the underscores which
> Thanks for spotting this Mike. I have corrected the "Index" page.
> Of course it always worked for me as the links pointed back to my
> original savings.
> I always have to remember the underscore as some servers don't like spaces.
> Not as confusing as those who have spaces in their e-mail addresses
> which don't show up in a highlighted link. Speces should be banned in
> e-mails!
don't show up if the hyperlinks are decorated with underline.
--
mb
Jim Lesurf
Nov 25, 2012, 4:47:22 AM11/25/12
to
In article <k8ran6$lnr$1...@dont-email.me>, Mike Brown <use...@mb21.co.uk>
wrote:
AIUI spaces are nominally 'legal' in web addresses simply because the
conventions for web addresses are an extension of the *nix ones for
filenames. In *nix any web address is just the location for something on a
device "http", or whatever. In *nix everything is a file.
However, nice as that is in theory, the problem in practice is, of course,
that many non-*nix systems don't support this. And even in *nix systems,
having spaces in names can be a PITA because it can confuse commands
unless you add delimiters to parse the command. Hence the convention of
either using '%' followed by a number to 'escape' the space, or simply
using an underscore instead, (or hardspaces, which can also cause
confusion). The other alternative being CamelCaseNames.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
wrote:
conventions for web addresses are an extension of the *nix ones for
filenames. In *nix any web address is just the location for something on a
device "http", or whatever. In *nix everything is a file.
However, nice as that is in theory, the problem in practice is, of course,
that many non-*nix systems don't support this. And even in *nix systems,
having spaces in names can be a PITA because it can confuse commands
unless you add delimiters to parse the command. Hence the convention of
either using '%' followed by a number to 'escape' the space, or simply
using an underscore instead, (or hardspaces, which can also cause
confusion). The other alternative being CamelCaseNames.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Richard Tobin
Nov 25, 2012, 7:13:24 AM11/25/12
to
In article <52f4187...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>AIUI spaces are nominally 'legal' in web addresses [...]
Spaces are not legal in URIs, which are the things that a web browser
sends to a web server. They have to be replaced with an escape
sequence, %20. However, what you type into the address field of a web
browser is not necessarily a URI; the browser will normally do any
necessary escaping to turn it into one. There is (as far as I know)
no standard specifying exactly what a web browser must handle, though
the W3C Note http://www.w3.org/TR/leiri describes an escaping
procedure used by some other standards.
>simply because the
>conventions for web addresses are an extension of the *nix ones for
>filenames. In *nix any web address is just the location for something on a
>device "http", or whatever. In *nix everything is a file.
Certainly the original definition of URLs was strongly based on unix
filenames.
>However, nice as that is in theory, the problem in practice is, of course,
>that many non-*nix systems don't support this. And even in *nix systems,
>having spaces in names can be a PITA because it can confuse commands
>unless you add delimiters to parse the command. Hence the convention of
>either using '%' followed by a number to 'escape' the space, or simply
>using an underscore instead, (or hardspaces, which can also cause
>confusion).
The escaping convention is part of the URI specification. %20 is
converted to a space character by the web server, and is gone by the
time the URI is mapped to a file name.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say many non-unix systems don't
support spaces in file names. The other OS widely used for web
serving is Windows, and it certainly does. No doubt there have been
many systems that didn't, but they don't really affect the usability
of spaces in web addresses.
[I have referred to URIs. The more commonly used term URL technically
refers to a subset of URIs. There are also IRIs, Internationalized
Resource Identifiers, which allow most non-delimiter Unicode
characters to appear directly rather than being escaped.]
-- Richard
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>AIUI spaces are nominally 'legal' in web addresses [...]
Spaces are not legal in URIs, which are the things that a web browser
sends to a web server. They have to be replaced with an escape
sequence, %20. However, what you type into the address field of a web
browser is not necessarily a URI; the browser will normally do any
necessary escaping to turn it into one. There is (as far as I know)
no standard specifying exactly what a web browser must handle, though
the W3C Note http://www.w3.org/TR/leiri describes an escaping
procedure used by some other standards.
>simply because the
>conventions for web addresses are an extension of the *nix ones for
>filenames. In *nix any web address is just the location for something on a
>device "http", or whatever. In *nix everything is a file.
filenames.
>However, nice as that is in theory, the problem in practice is, of course,
>that many non-*nix systems don't support this. And even in *nix systems,
>having spaces in names can be a PITA because it can confuse commands
>unless you add delimiters to parse the command. Hence the convention of
>either using '%' followed by a number to 'escape' the space, or simply
>using an underscore instead, (or hardspaces, which can also cause
>confusion).
converted to a space character by the web server, and is gone by the
time the URI is mapped to a file name.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say many non-unix systems don't
support spaces in file names. The other OS widely used for web
serving is Windows, and it certainly does. No doubt there have been
many systems that didn't, but they don't really affect the usability
of spaces in web addresses.
[I have referred to URIs. The more commonly used term URL technically
refers to a subset of URIs. There are also IRIs, Internationalized
Resource Identifiers, which allow most non-delimiter Unicode
characters to appear directly rather than being escaped.]
-- Richard
Jim Lesurf
Nov 25, 2012, 7:31:02 AM11/25/12
to
In article <k8t214$8fg$1...@matchbox.inf.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
> >However, nice as that is in theory, the problem in practice is, of
> >course, that many non-*nix systems don't support this.
obvious example since I still use that (and Linux) a lot. However I've also
used older systems made by people like Cromemco, GEC or (IIRC) ICL, for
example, that didn't. In general allowing spaces can be a mechanism for
tripping up users given how they also tend to appear in command lines. How
many such machines/OS/filing systems still access the net, I have no idea,
though. Given the recent interest in RiPi and other ARM systems, it could
rise as not everyone will run just Linux on these.
<ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <52f4187...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >AIUI spaces are nominally 'legal' in web addresses [...]
> Spaces are not legal in URIs, which are the things that a web browser
> sends to a web server. They have to be replaced with an escape
> sequence, %20. However, what you type into the address field of a web
> browser is not necessarily a URI; the browser will normally do any
> necessary escaping to turn it into one.
Yes. Hence my "nominally".
> In article <52f4187...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >AIUI spaces are nominally 'legal' in web addresses [...]
> Spaces are not legal in URIs, which are the things that a web browser
> sends to a web server. They have to be replaced with an escape
> sequence, %20. However, what you type into the address field of a web
> browser is not necessarily a URI; the browser will normally do any
> necessary escaping to turn it into one.
> >However, nice as that is in theory, the problem in practice is, of
> >course, that many non-*nix systems don't support this.
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say many non-unix systems don't
> support spaces in file names.
I meant what I wrote. :-) I've used many systems that don't. RISC OS is the
> support spaces in file names.
obvious example since I still use that (and Linux) a lot. However I've also
used older systems made by people like Cromemco, GEC or (IIRC) ICL, for
example, that didn't. In general allowing spaces can be a mechanism for
tripping up users given how they also tend to appear in command lines. How
many such machines/OS/filing systems still access the net, I have no idea,
though. Given the recent interest in RiPi and other ARM systems, it could
rise as not everyone will run just Linux on these.
Richard Tobin
Nov 25, 2012, 1:24:57 PM11/25/12
to
In article <52f4277...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
were legal in theory but not in practice.
>> >However, nice as that is in theory, the problem in practice is, of
>> >course, that many non-*nix systems don't support this.
>> I'm not sure what you mean when you say many non-unix systems don't
>> support spaces in file names.
>I meant what I wrote. :-) I've used many systems that don't.
No doubt, but they are hardly common enough to amount to "the problem
in practice". I'd say that while unix and other common systems allow
spaces in file names, the problem in practice is that those very same
systems use space as a delimiter. The result is that innumerable
programs (especially shell scripts) break when given a filename
containing a space. This can be avoided by careful programming, but
often isn't.
>RISC OS is the
>obvious example since I still use that (and Linux) a lot. However I've also
>used older systems made by people like Cromemco, GEC or (IIRC) ICL, for
>example, that didn't. In general allowing spaces can be a mechanism for
>tripping up users given how they also tend to appear in command lines.
Exactly - the practical problem is not with the systems that disallow
spaces, but with the ones that allow them!
-- Richard
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> >AIUI spaces are nominally 'legal' in web addresses [...]
>> Spaces are not legal in URIs, which are the things that a web browser
>> sends to a web server. They have to be replaced with an escape
>> sequence, %20. However, what you type into the address field of a web
>> browser is not necessarily a URI; the browser will normally do any
>> necessary escaping to turn it into one.
>Yes. Hence my "nominally".
Oh. I took your "nominally" to mean the opposite of that - that they
>> >AIUI spaces are nominally 'legal' in web addresses [...]
>> Spaces are not legal in URIs, which are the things that a web browser
>> sends to a web server. They have to be replaced with an escape
>> sequence, %20. However, what you type into the address field of a web
>> browser is not necessarily a URI; the browser will normally do any
>> necessary escaping to turn it into one.
>Yes. Hence my "nominally".
were legal in theory but not in practice.
>> >However, nice as that is in theory, the problem in practice is, of
>> >course, that many non-*nix systems don't support this.
>> I'm not sure what you mean when you say many non-unix systems don't
>> support spaces in file names.
>I meant what I wrote. :-) I've used many systems that don't.
in practice". I'd say that while unix and other common systems allow
spaces in file names, the problem in practice is that those very same
systems use space as a delimiter. The result is that innumerable
programs (especially shell scripts) break when given a filename
containing a space. This can be avoided by careful programming, but
often isn't.
>RISC OS is the
>obvious example since I still use that (and Linux) a lot. However I've also
>used older systems made by people like Cromemco, GEC or (IIRC) ICL, for
>example, that didn't. In general allowing spaces can be a mechanism for
>tripping up users given how they also tend to appear in command lines.
spaces, but with the ones that allow them!
-- Richard
Mike Brown
Nov 25, 2012, 2:18:48 PM11/25/12
to
On 25/11/2012 09:47, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> They are. No email addresses have spaces; it's the underscores which
>> don't show up if the hyperlinks are decorated with underline.
>
> AIUI spaces are nominally 'legal' in web addresses
I was merely pointing out that EMAIL addresses don't have spaces, but
>> They are. No email addresses have spaces; it's the underscores which
>> don't show up if the hyperlinks are decorated with underline.
>
> AIUI spaces are nominally 'legal' in web addresses
carry on, I don't want to spoil a bit of irrelevant Usenet spattery. :-)
--
mb
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Nov 25, 2012, 9:38:57 PM11/25/12
to
In message <52f4187...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> writes:
[]
name came from?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Eastenders" is like being punched repeatedly in the face for half an hour. -
Stephen Mangan, in Radio Times 5-11 May 2012
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> writes:
[]
>confusion). The other alternative being CamelCaseNames.
>
>Slainte,
>
>Jim
>
I haven't heard it called that before: do you happen to know where the
>
>Slainte,
>
>Jim
>
name came from?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Eastenders" is like being punched repeatedly in the face for half an hour. -
Stephen Mangan, in Radio Times 5-11 May 2012
Richard Tobin
Nov 26, 2012, 3:58:23 AM11/26/12
to
In article <q+D6iDKB...@soft255.demon.co.uk>,
-- Richard
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>confusion). The other alternative being CamelCaseNames.
>>confusion). The other alternative being CamelCaseNames.
>I haven't heard it called that before: do you happen to know where the
>name came from?
The capitals are like humps.
>name came from?
-- Richard
Jim Lesurf
Nov 26, 2012, 4:41:05 AM11/26/12
to
In article <q+D6iDKB...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <52f4187...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> writes: []
> >confusion). The other alternative being CamelCaseNames.
> >
> >Slainte,
> >
> >Jim
> >
> I haven't heard it called that before: do you happen to know where the
> name came from?
Afraid not. I've just picked the term up from others. Maybe the practice
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> writes: []
> >confusion). The other alternative being CamelCaseNames.
> >
> >Slainte,
> >
> >Jim
> >
> I haven't heard it called that before: do you happen to know where the
> name came from?
gives some people the hump. :-)
CJB
Nov 26, 2012, 5:31:03 AM11/26/12
to
On Nov 17, 12:00 am, m <mi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Beeb.?
You mention above another episode with Lord Reith.
How many programmes were in the Tuning In series?
Thanks - CJB.
CJB
Nov 26, 2012, 5:42:57 AM11/26/12
to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nnw8t - Tuning In
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nsyxq - Who's Reithian Now?
Both have gone from iPlayer
CJB.
Roderick Stewart
Nov 26, 2012, 7:01:58 AM11/26/12
to
In article <k8vavf$1ade$1...@matchbox.inf.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>confusion). The other alternative being CamelCaseNames.
>
> >I haven't heard it called that before: do you happen to know where the
> >name came from?
>
> The capitals are like humps.
Wikipedia seems to agree with this, as their first known instance of a
> >>confusion). The other alternative being CamelCaseNames.
>
> >I haven't heard it called that before: do you happen to know where the
> >name came from?
>
> The capitals are like humps.
colloquial term for it (i.e. not Latin-based) was apparently by a
programmer who first called it "humptycase".
Previous to about five minutes ago, I not only wasn't aware that this
practice actually had a name, but had never encountered a situation in
which I felt the need for one. I guess you're never too old to learn
something new every day.
Rod.
--
Jim Lesurf
Nov 26, 2012, 7:10:47 AM11/26/12
to
In article <VA.00000e0...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk>,
use seemed to become more intense when Java came on the scene. The people
at Sun seemed rather keen on it.
Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Wikipedia seems to agree with this, as their first known instance of a
> colloquial term for it (i.e. not Latin-based) was apparently by a
> programmer who first called it "humptycase".
> Previous to about five minutes ago, I not only wasn't aware that this
> practice actually had a name, but had never encountered a situation in
> which I felt the need for one. I guess you're never too old to learn
> something new every day.
I've seen it increasingly used over the years. My experience was that the
> Wikipedia seems to agree with this, as their first known instance of a
> colloquial term for it (i.e. not Latin-based) was apparently by a
> programmer who first called it "humptycase".
> Previous to about five minutes ago, I not only wasn't aware that this
> practice actually had a name, but had never encountered a situation in
> which I felt the need for one. I guess you're never too old to learn
> something new every day.
use seemed to become more intense when Java came on the scene. The people
at Sun seemed rather keen on it.
CJB
Nov 26, 2012, 12:36:01 PM11/26/12
to
On Nov 18, 10:13 pm, "Dave Liquorice" <allsortsnotthis...@howhill.com>
wrote:
The index link for those using Google Groups is
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Tapes_index.html
CJB.
wrote:
http://www.bmanor.co.uk/Audio/Tapes_index.html
CJB.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Nov 26, 2012, 5:03:18 PM11/26/12
to
In message <k8vavf$1ade$1...@matchbox.inf.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
Ah, I guessed it might be that. Thanks.
make-up all the time. Especially the radio presenters. - Eddie Mair, in Radio
Times 25-31 August 2012
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
TV and radio presenters are just like many people, except they tend to wear
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
make-up all the time. Especially the radio presenters. - Eddie Mair, in Radio
Times 25-31 August 2012
0 new messages