OT Where's my royalties?

[Rory]

Tim Hall <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 25 Jun 2004 05:07:48 -0700, [email protected] (Rory) wrote:
>
> >"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Yours truly is involved in this bizzare law suit!
> >>
> >> http://wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,63952,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3
> >
> >Top band, Wilco, but did they pay Alex Chilton for recording Big
> >Star's "Thirteen", or did Irdial record it off the the radio and sell
> >it to them?
>
>
> Is this the same Wilco that made an album or two with the Big Nosed
> Bard From Barking, putting tunes to Woodie Guthrie lyrics?

That's them: not the best stuff Wilco or Billy Bragg have done, IMHO.
The newer stuff is is excellent, moving on from the Uncle Tupelo
alt.country to a more interesting place (for reference, I'm into
Train, Doves, Replacements, Pixies, Mescaleros kinda stuff...)

 

[Rory]

Tim Hall <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 25 Jun 2004 05:07:48 -0700, [email protected] (Rory) wrote:
>
> >"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Yours truly is involved in this bizzare law suit!
> >>
> >> http://wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,63952,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3
> >
> >Top band, Wilco, but did they pay Alex Chilton for recording Big
> >Star's "Thirteen", or did Irdial record it off the the radio and sell
> >it to them?
>
>
> Is this the same Wilco that made an album or two with the Big Nosed
> Bard From Barking, putting tunes to Woodie Guthrie lyrics?

That's them: not the best stuff Wilco or Billy Bragg have done, IMHO.
The newer stuff is is excellent, moving on from the Uncle Tupelo
alt.country to a more interesting place (for reference, I'm into
Train, Doves, Replacements, Pixies, Mescaleros kinda stuff...)

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> At the risk of Ian's opprobrium I'll use the Concise Oxford which is to hand
> rather than fetch the Chambers ;-)
>
> PIN /pin/ n. personal identification number (as issued by a bank etc. to
> validate electronic transactions) [abbr.]
>
> So there you have it, PIN is a word in its own right.

<pedant> They list it as an abbreviation, not an acronym </pedant>. The
point is in its usage. As a word which means "personal identification
number".

Jon

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote:
> > So there you have it, PIN is a word in its own right.
>
> <pedant> They list it as an abbreviation, not an acronym </pedant>. The

But a google search reveals 322000 hits on ``pin number''. Which is
enough corpus evidence to say it's in widespread, common use.
Amusingly, the second hit is another pedant, whining.

ian

 

[Tony Raven]

Jon Senior wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> At the risk of Ian's opprobrium I'll use the Concise Oxford which is to
>> hand rather than fetch the Chambers ;-)
>>
>> PIN /pin/ n. personal identification number (as issued by a bank etc. to
>> validate electronic transactions) [abbr.]
>>
>> So there you have it, PIN is a word in its own right.
>
> <pedant> They list it as an abbreviation, not an acronym </pedant>. The
> point is in its usage. As a word which means "personal identification
> number".
>

<more pedantic>

The Concise Oxford doesn't list acronyms and initialisms separately but lumps
them under abbreviations. Their definitions though are:

"Initialisms are sequences of letters representing the initial letters of the
expression they stand for (e.g. USA, MP, OED). Sometimes initialisms are
pronounced as words (e.g. NATO, UNESCO), in which case they are called
acronyms. Abbreviations are shortened forms of longer words, which are used as
words in their own right (e.g. 'pic' for 'picture')."

Tony

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:00:55 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>"Initialisms are sequences of letters representing the initial letters of the
>expression they stand for (e.g. USA, MP, OED). Sometimes initialisms are
>pronounced as words (e.g. NATO, UNESCO), in which case they are called
>acronyms. Abbreviations are shortened forms of longer words, which are used as
>words in their own right (e.g. 'pic' for 'picture')."

The people at the OED think an acronym must be pronouncable, the ones
at Merriam-Webster don't. Which makes it, in their view, functionally
indistinguishable from an initialism, I guess.

I'm on record as being with the OED on this one:
<url:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A700912>

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Alan Braggins]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>The people at the OED think an acronym must be pronouncable, the ones
>at Merriam-Webster don't. Which makes it, in their view, functionally
>indistinguishable from an initialism, I guess.
>
>I'm on record as being with the OED on this one:
><url:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A700912>

So what's your position on INTERCAL (which stands for "Compiler Language
With No Pronounceable Acronym")?

 

[Jon Senior]

Ian G Batten [email protected] opined the following...
> But a google search reveals 322000 hits on ``pin number''. Which is
> enough corpus evidence to say it's in widespread, common use.
> Amusingly, the second hit is another pedant, whining.

Which would suggest that a significant number of people are aware of the
inherent redundancy in the phrase.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
> But for reasons that have no logic behind them they apply Occam's Razor to
> their efforts.

Because it works. In the real world, 99 times in 100 the simplest
explanation is the correct one.

And for what it's worth, science is based on the principle of disproving
hypotheses rather than the application of Occam's Razor.

> In fact for reasons that have no logic other than it seems to
> work, they describe the world with a tool called mathematics. Which is where
> the boundaries between science and religion start to blur.

Although I do agree that may people follow science as a religion, the
principle difference between the two is that science is predictive. With
the exception of the Bible Code (A more dubious application of maths is
hard to find), religion can not and does not predict.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Alan Braggins [email protected] opined the following...
> Presumably you mean "Presumably Jon also objects to the modern use of ...".
> I don't object to the modern use of computer, or calculator, or printer,
> or laser, or lase, or grovel.
> (Ok, the back formation of grovel from groveling isn't really "modern",
> being 16th C, but presumably Jon finds it equally objectionable if he's being
> consistent.)

Will you all please stop trying to decide what I think, and actually
read what I say!

My issue was over the incorrect use of "phonetic" in the case of the
"NATO phonetic alphabet". I was under the impression that "lasing" had
been conjured up with no roots. I was wrong. I have admitted that.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
> As has been pointed out, all the logic in the world will not help with
> intrinisically indeterminate situations. That's the basis of both chaos
> theory and quantum theory.

Really? What is an "intrinsically indeterminate situation"?

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
> Back to the (now) topic of this thread, one of the proposed tests of
> artificial intelligence was whether the sentence "Time flies like an arrow,
> fruit flies like a banana" was understood.

Not a test of AI so much as a test of lexical analysis. The problem
comes in recognising the compound noun in the second half of the
sentence. In terms of formal (non-fuzzy) programming styles a check for
possible compound nouns could be included which could be broken by the
inclusion of a sentence which reads correctly (And sensibly) with both a
compound noun, and a separate noun and verb. (That should keep you
occupied during the long winter evenings ;-) )

Jon

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Jon Senior wrote:

> Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
>> As has been pointed out, all the logic in the world will not help with
>> intrinisically indeterminate situations. That's the basis of both chaos
>> theory and quantum theory.
>
> Really? What is an "intrinsically indeterminate situation"?

IIRC, cats are involved.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"The future's so dull I've got to sing torch songs"

 

[Jon Senior]

Ian G Batten [email protected] opined the following...
> > The people who use them tend to.
>
> They don't. Some, with excessive zeal for imposing order, do. They end
> up in the Simplified English Society, or banging on about Esperanto.
> The rest of us like our language rich and chewy, filled with ambiguity
> and complexity.

You appear confused. Try considering the differences between "Queen's
English" and spoken English, or even those differences between local
dialects. Up here in bonny Scotland the phrase "That's something that
needs done" Appears a lot. The continuous form has been dropped in this
example. This is a simplification. It's not some zealot "banging on
about Esperanto", it is (as you are so fond of pointing out) common
usage, which often leads to simplicity.

I am very fond of the complexity of English, and my interest in Russian
stems from its greater complexity.

> > Your words: "the leading historical dictionary".
>
> Exactly. So its relevance to English as it's spoken today is pretty
> low. Certainly, an adult learner of English as a foreign language would
> do well to go elsewhere if they want to (a) be understood and (b)
> understand what's said to them.

Despite your numerous calls to the case of the common man, you seem to
misunderstand what a dictionary is for. Ask someone what they'd do if
they came across a word that they didn't understand. Most would suggest
a dictionary.

> Common usage and (therefore) corpus evidence. That's all that's
> needed. If people who speak English say something, that _is_ English.

....or a dialect of English.

Incidentally... your last sentence is a perfect example of circular
reasoning (Or having no loose ends as Scott Adams would have it).

Jon

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:18:01 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

> What is an "intrinsically indeterminate situation"?

How could I possibly know?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Jon Senior]

Keith Willoughby [email protected] opined the following...
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
> > Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
> >> As has been pointed out, all the logic in the world will not help with
> >> intrinisically indeterminate situations. That's the basis of both chaos
> >> theory and quantum theory.
> >
> > Really? What is an "intrinsically indeterminate situation"?
>
> IIRC, cats are involved.

IIRC Shrodinger <sp?> proposed his "example" as a demonstration to one
of his students. The problem being that having proposed it he came to
the conclusion that it was all b*ll*cks!

Jon

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Jon Senior wrote:

> Keith Willoughby [email protected] opined the following...
>> Jon Senior wrote:
>>
>> > Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
>> >> As has been pointed out, all the logic in the world will not help with
>> >> intrinisically indeterminate situations. That's the basis of both chaos
>> >> theory and quantum theory.
>> >
>> > Really? What is an "intrinsically indeterminate situation"?
>>
>> IIRC, cats are involved.
>
> IIRC Shrodinger <sp?> proposed his "example" as a demonstration to one
> of his students. The problem being that having proposed it he came to
> the conclusion that it was all b*ll*cks!

So is the cat dead, or not?

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Monmore, hare's running

 

[Jon Senior]

Keith Willoughby [email protected] opined the following...
> So is the cat dead, or not?

That depends on whether the atom decayed...

Jon

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Jon Senior wrote:

> Keith Willoughby [email protected] opined the following...
>> So is the cat dead, or not?
>
> That depends on whether the atom decayed...

And did it?

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"You are the real un-Americans and you should be ashamed of yourselves."
- Paul Robeson to the HUAC

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Keith Willoughby wrote:
>
>So is the cat dead, or not?

Yes.