Windows Live Mail

On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:35:33 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

[]
because I have been beta testing for over 30 years and I could
careless
what kind of machine you have because I know the bug is there and I
know
[]
Actually, I presume you mean you _couldn't_ care less. The "could
care less" variant is gaining currency, especially in leftpondia it
seems to me, but if you think about it, it means the opposite of what
you intend.

ISTM that on this (left) side of the pond, it supplanted the logical
form of the phrase decades ago :-)

We've probably also lost the battle against that ugly triple negative
"Cannot help but...", though it doesn't stop me hating that too.

Rod.

On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:35:33 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

On 3/09/2014, J. P. Gilliver (John) posted:
In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
because I have been beta testing for over 30 years and I could
careless
what kind of machine you have because I know the bug is there and I
know
[]
Actually, I presume you mean you _couldn't_ care less. The "could
care less" variant is gaining currency, especially in leftpondia it
seems to me, but if you think about it, it means the opposite of what
you intend.

ISTM that on this (left) side of the pond, it supplanted the logical
form of the phrase decades ago :-)


Yep! It bothers me, but that's the idiom.

On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 09:25:12 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/8/14 8:46 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:43:59 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/6/14 3:04 AM, Bob Henson wrote:

If any of the few people that have the problem find it really annoying,
switching to using plain text might be a workaround?

Maybe. But, that means you are moving back in time rather than forward.
Sort of like insisting on driving that 1989 car instead of a modern
vehicle. G

Just in case you're referring to Usenet, bear in mind that Usenet *is* plain
text.

Hi, Char,

No, I was referring to just email, not the Usenet. Although, I wish
more of the Usenet groups were binary, so if you want to refer to an
image file, attach a file, or something, you didn't have to use some
server somewhere to store that data, have an account, etc. and then post
a link to it.

There are plenty of binary newsgroups, and if a person wished to upload an
attachment they could simply upload it to one of the binary groups and
include a link in their text post here.

On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 09:28:28 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 08:49:00 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 00:22:31 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
That is because you don't try all of the features and your kind make
lousy testers. How do you know what the software can do if you never
test the limits?

You have no idea how I use the software, so stop making **** up. Though
if you didn't, you wouldn't have much to post...

LOL! A reply I almost never use, but I'll do it this time:

+1

Thank you for the support.

I see in _his_ reply to your above post, he is still making **** up. Says
I called myself "blind as a bat." False. Said he can "find it on my
machine in 30 seconds." That's false, too. He knows nothing about my
machine.

Every village has one, and you have met ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_idiot


LOL! And calling this newsgroup a village is a good metaphor.

Thanks. It seemed appropriate, given the range of characters here.

In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) typed:
In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
Yes indeed! Although do you really believe that Microsoft wants to
throw everything away with XP? There must be like millions of
business users and home users still using it. And you think
Microsoft is ok with ignoring all of them? Really?

Yes, probably; what benefit do they bring to Microsoft?

If you start to burn bridges as you go, you won't stay in business long.

40% that doesn't. And like always in the past, Microsoft will
announce by popular demand, they won't drop XP support totally.

They have already announced that they will: the only back-pedalling
has been that they'll update the files Microsoft Security Essentials
uses for a little while (though MSE itself may not continue to be
available, so get it while you can). [I'm not sure what MSE is - AV
software, I think.] Oh, and they'll continue to _support_ some
_paying_ customers until 2015 (I think) - but that's paid support.
There will be no further enhancements _or bugfixes_.

Maybe of us have gone without support or updates for many years now and
it doesn't seem to make any difference to some of us.

After all they tried to drop XP support before. Then the netbook
craze came in and they had to extend it. This is their second
attempt on killing XP. I know they wish it to happen, but if enough
pressure comes their way they just won't ignore it. Yes Microsoft
maybe many things,

Why - what harm would ignoring it do them?

Because in the future they will be wanting a new computer and OS. And if
you tick them off, it most likely won't be your product. People vote
with their wallet.

but one thing they are not is really stupid. At least not yet. ;-)

No, they're not (as a business) stupid. They're stopping support for
an ancient product, for which they're getting negligible income and
for which the support must be costing them money, in favour of new
versions that people have to buy: as a business, which they are,
that's not stupid.

As a _user_, I'm going to stick with XP - with 7 as a backup - for as
long as I can (-:!

I see no reason to worry. :-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
No, they're not (as a business) stupid. They're stopping support for an
ancient product, for which they're getting negligible income and for
which the support must be costing them money, in favour of new versions
that people have to buy: as a business, which they are, that's not stupid.

They stand to lose some reputation cred if millions of Windows machines
get compromised.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...by_retiring_XP

--
Blue

On 3/09/2014, Roderick Stewart posted:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:35:33 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

[]
because I have been beta testing for over 30 years and I could
careless
what kind of machine you have because I know the bug is there and
I know
[]
Actually, I presume you mean you _couldn't_ care less. The "could
care less" variant is gaining currency, especially in leftpondia it
seems to me, but if you think about it, it means the opposite of
what you intend.

ISTM that on this (left) side of the pond, it supplanted the logical
form of the phrase decades ago :-)

We've probably also lost the battle against that ugly triple negative
"Cannot help but...", though it doesn't stop me hating that too.

Rod.

I only count one negative, so I cannot help but disagree with you :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:32:05 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

[]
because I have been beta testing for over 30 years and I could
careless
what kind of machine you have because I know the bug is there and
I know
[]
Actually, I presume you mean you _couldn't_ care less. The "could
care less" variant is gaining currency, especially in leftpondia it
seems to me, but if you think about it, it means the opposite of
what you intend.

ISTM that on this (left) side of the pond, it supplanted the logical
form of the phrase decades ago :-)

We've probably also lost the battle against that ugly triple negative
"Cannot help but...", though it doesn't stop me hating that too.

Rod.

I only count one negative, so I cannot help but disagree with you :-)

1. "cannot" = first negative.
2. "help" = "avoid" or "not do" = second negative.
3. "but" = "do other than" = third negative.

Mathematically, any odd number of negatives is equivalent to a single
one. "Cannot help..." or "Cannot but..." would mean that you cannot
avoid doing whatever it is, so you do it. "Cannot help but..." is
three negatives so equivalent to just saying "Cannot..." so you don't.

Rod.

On 3/10/2014, Roderick Stewart posted:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:32:05 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

[]
because I have been beta testing for over 30 years and I could
careless
what kind of machine you have because I know the bug is there
and I know
[]
Actually, I presume you mean you _couldn't_ care less. The "could
care less" variant is gaining currency, especially in leftpondia
it seems to me, but if you think about it, it means the opposite
of what you intend.

ISTM that on this (left) side of the pond, it supplanted the
logical form of the phrase decades ago :-)

We've probably also lost the battle against that ugly triple
negative "Cannot help but...", though it doesn't stop me hating
that too. Rod.

I only count one negative, so I cannot help but disagree with you
:-)

1. "cannot" = first negative.
2. "help" = "avoid" or "not do" = second negative.
3. "but" = "do other than" = third negative.

Mathematically, any odd number of negatives is equivalent to a single
one. "Cannot help..." or "Cannot but..." would mean that you cannot
avoid doing whatever it is, so you do it. "Cannot help but..." is
three negatives so equivalent to just saying "Cannot..." so you
don't.

Rod.

At last I see the truth of what you are saying.

Using your definitions 1,2, and 3, and your logic, since three
negatives equal one negative, and since it's well known that two
negatives equal one positive, we can drop any two negatives from the
phrase in question to get an equivalent phrase. From that it is easy to
see that, given the sample sentence,

"I can not help but pay the fine",

we can easily obtain these three derived sentences,

"I can not pay the fine"

"I can help pay the fine"

"I can but pay the fine".

And by application of your definitions and your logic, the three
derived sentences are equivalent to each other and to the sample
sentence.

Thank you for leading me to this clarification.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:49:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

[]
because I have been beta testing for over 30 years and I could
careless
what kind of machine you have because I know the bug is there
and I know
[]
Actually, I presume you mean you _couldn't_ care less. The "could
care less" variant is gaining currency, especially in leftpondia
it seems to me, but if you think about it, it means the opposite
of what you intend.

ISTM that on this (left) side of the pond, it supplanted the
logical form of the phrase decades ago :-)

We've probably also lost the battle against that ugly triple
negative "Cannot help but...", though it doesn't stop me hating
that too. Rod.

I only count one negative, so I cannot help but disagree with you
:-)

1. "cannot" = first negative.
2. "help" = "avoid" or "not do" = second negative.
3. "but" = "do other than" = third negative.

Mathematically, any odd number of negatives is equivalent to a single
one. "Cannot help..." or "Cannot but..." would mean that you cannot
avoid doing whatever it is, so you do it. "Cannot help but..." is
three negatives so equivalent to just saying "Cannot..." so you
don't.

Rod.

At last I see the truth of what you are saying.

Using your definitions 1,2, and 3, and your logic, since three
negatives equal one negative, and since it's well known that two
negatives equal one positive, we can drop any two negatives from the
phrase in question to get an equivalent phrase. From that it is easy to
see that, given the sample sentence,

"I can not help but pay the fine",

we can easily obtain these three derived sentences,

"I can not pay the fine"

"I can help pay the fine"

"I can but pay the fine".

And by application of your definitions and your logic, the three
derived sentences are equivalent to each other and to the sample
sentence.

Thank you for leading me to this clarification.

Context is everything.

Rod.

In message , BillW50
writes:
In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) typed:
In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
Yes indeed! Although do you really believe that Microsoft wants to
throw everything away with XP? There must be like millions of
business users and home users still using it. And you think
Microsoft is ok with ignoring all of them? Really?

Yes, probably; what benefit do they bring to Microsoft?

If you start to burn bridges as you go, you won't stay in business long.

Nor will you, if you continue to maintain the bridges long after the
tolls have stopped being collected. (You might be seen as a
philanthropist and liked, but it's always hard to value that.)

40% that doesn't. And like always in the past, Microsoft will
announce by popular demand, they won't drop XP support totally.

They have already announced that they will: the only back-pedalling
has been that they'll update the files Microsoft Security Essentials
uses for a little while (though MSE itself may not continue to be
available, so get it while you can). [I'm not sure what MSE is - AV
software, I think.] Oh, and they'll continue to _support_ some
_paying_ customers until 2015 (I think) - but that's paid support.
There will be no further enhancements _or bugfixes_.

Maybe of us have gone without support or updates for many years now and
it doesn't seem to make any difference to some of us.

So your point is? At first you seemed to be suggesting that MS might not
want to "throw everything away with XP", from which one assumed that you
thought they might really be going to continue support; then when I say
"there's little in it for them to do so", you say you're not taking
updates anyway. So I'm a bit puzzled what you're saying ... (-:

After all they tried to drop XP support before. Then the netbook
craze came in and they had to extend it. This is their second

They extended it then, because these underpowered machines (well, some
of them) needed an OS that would run in/on what they'd got (which Vista
wouldn't), so they could actually _sell_ some more licences for XP (OK,
at a fairly low cost per unit, but it was almost free money for them -
they'd reclaimed XP's development cost by then).

attempt on killing XP. I know they wish it to happen, but if enough
pressure comes their way they just won't ignore it. Yes Microsoft
maybe many things,

Why - what harm would ignoring it do them?

Because in the future they will be wanting a new computer and OS. And if
you tick them off, it most likely won't be your product. People vote
with their wallet.

Yes and no. The ones who _now_ are still on XP haven't shown any sign of
intending to buy a new computer for some time: if they did, they'd have
got a Vista or 7 one. You can only support people on that basis for so
long! (Also, if such people _do_ decide eventually to buy a new
computer, they'll _probably_ want something that isn't _too_ different,
and can run Word. [Yes, I know you can get Word for Mac/Apple, but ...])

but one thing they are not is really stupid. At least not yet. ;-)

No, they're not (as a business) stupid. They're stopping support for
an ancient product, for which they're getting negligible income and
for which the support must be costing them money, in favour of new
versions that people have to buy: as a business, which they are,
that's not stupid.

As a _user_, I'm going to stick with XP - with 7 as a backup - for as
long as I can (-:!

I see no reason to worry. :-)

Me neither (-:! (I actually bought a W7 machine - just to have a more
powerful machine, and to support my blind friends who have just gone 7 -
in December; I was Skyping away last Monday, and it suddenly died on me!
Fortunately just within guarantee [it wasn't a new one]; I'm waiting for
them [local firm] to finish assembling a replacement for me now.
Meanwhile, this XP netbook just keeps on going ... [as does the '98
laptop ...])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She [Helen Mirren] was born Ilyena Lydia Vasilievna Mironov, granddaughter of
a Russian aristocrat

In message , Blue
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
No, they're not (as a business) stupid. They're stopping support for an
ancient product, for which they're getting negligible income and for
which the support must be costing them money, in favour of new versions
that people have to buy: as a business, which they are, that's not stupid.

They stand to lose some reputation cred if millions of Windows machines
get compromised.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic..._Microsoft_ris
ks_security_reputation_ruin_by_retiring_XP

Well, they've been warning users for long enough that I don't see why
the world should blame Microsoft when/if that happens.

Really; I'm an XP user of the "cold dead hands" variety, but I don't
expect MS to continue support for it indefinitely. I'd _like_ them to,
but I don't _expect_ them to, in today's world.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She [Helen Mirren] was born Ilyena Lydia Vasilievna Mironov, granddaughter of
a Russian aristocrat

On 3/12/2014, Roderick Stewart posted:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:49:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

[]
because I have been beta testing for over 30 years and I could
careless
what kind of machine you have because I know the bug is there
and I know
[]
Actually, I presume you mean you _couldn't_ care less. The
"could care less" variant is gaining currency, especially in
leftpondia it seems to me, but if you think about it, it
means the opposite of what you intend.

ISTM that on this (left) side of the pond, it supplanted the
logical form of the phrase decades ago :-)
We've probably also lost the battle against that ugly triple
negative "Cannot help but...", though it doesn't stop me hating
that too. Rod.

I only count one negative, so I cannot help but disagree with you
:-)

1. "cannot" = first negative.
2. "help" = "avoid" or "not do" = second negative.
3. "but" = "do other than" = third negative.
Mathematically, any odd number of negatives is equivalent to a
single one. "Cannot help..." or "Cannot but..." would mean that you
cannot avoid doing whatever it is, so you do it. "Cannot help
but..." is three negatives so equivalent to just saying "Cannot..."
so you don't.

Rod.

At last I see the truth of what you are saying.

Using your definitions 1,2, and 3, and your logic, since three
negatives equal one negative, and since it's well known that two
negatives equal one positive, we can drop any two negatives from the
phrase in question to get an equivalent phrase. From that it is easy
to see that, given the sample sentence,

"I can not help but pay the fine",

we can easily obtain these three derived sentences,

"I can not pay the fine"

"I can help pay the fine"

"I can but pay the fine".

And by application of your definitions and your logic, the three
derived sentences are equivalent to each other and to the sample
sentence.

Thank you for leading me to this clarification.

Context is everything.

Rod.

I'm surprised by the phrasing you chose, but not by your rejection of
the above argument :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 3/12/2014 3:36 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , BillW50 writes:
In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) typed:
In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
Yes indeed! Although do you really believe that Microsoft wants to
throw everything away with XP? There must be like millions of
business users and home users still using it. And you think
Microsoft is ok with ignoring all of them? Really?

Yes, probably; what benefit do they bring to Microsoft?

If you start to burn bridges as you go, you won't stay in business long.

Nor will you, if you continue to maintain the bridges long after the
tolls have stopped being collected. (You might be seen as a
philanthropist and liked, but it's always hard to value that.)

Yes, but I have a totally different view of security patches. As I
believe that Microsoft and some of us knows that patching the OS to
maintain security is the hopeless way to do so. As the best way is to
use an antivirus real time scanner to scan anything coming in on any
port. This is far better than plugging security holes.

I think Microsoft only offers security patches to give users that warm
and fuzzy feeling. I don't know how much it costs Microsoft to maintain
the team to create security patches, but it must be a very small part of
the budget. I am sure Microsoft's bank of lawyers are far more costly to
maintain.

40% that doesn't. And like always in the past, Microsoft will
announce by popular demand, they won't drop XP support totally.

They have already announced that they will: the only back-pedalling
has been that they'll update the files Microsoft Security Essentials
uses for a little while (though MSE itself may not continue to be
available, so get it while you can). [I'm not sure what MSE is - AV
software, I think.] Oh, and they'll continue to _support_ some
_paying_ customers until 2015 (I think) - but that's paid support.
There will be no further enhancements _or bugfixes_.

Maybe of us have gone without support or updates for many years now and
it doesn't seem to make any difference to some of us.

So your point is? At first you seemed to be suggesting that MS might not
want to "throw everything away with XP", from which one assumed that you
thought they might really be going to continue support; then when I say
"there's little in it for them to do so", you say you're not taking
updates anyway. So I'm a bit puzzled what you're saying ... (-:

Hehehe... well like I just mentioned above, I don't think security
patches is a big priority for Microsoft and I don't think it is very
costly for Microsoft to maintain either. After all, hackers can use a
security hole on average for 10 months before they are made known to the
public. And in one case, hackers could have used one hole for almost 7
years before Microsoft finally patched it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_attack

And when I say supporting it, I don't mean security updates per se
(although I could see why some would think that way). What I mainly mean
is for Microsoft to not go out of their way to kill it. By creating
applications, software languages, etc that purposely are meant to not
run on XP. They have already done this to older Windows versions before,
but the user base was very small anyway and they can get away with it.
But XP users are just too big and that would be a big mistake if they did.

After all they tried to drop XP support before. Then the netbook
craze came in and they had to extend it. This is their second

They extended it then, because these underpowered machines (well, some
of them) needed an OS that would run in/on what they'd got (which Vista
wouldn't), so they could actually _sell_ some more licences for XP (OK,
at a fairly low cost per unit, but it was almost free money for them -
they'd reclaimed XP's development cost by then).

So you think it is ok for Microsoft to sell licenses for an old OS and
then in a short time later say we don't support it? Why sell licenses
and take people's money if you are not going to support them?

attempt on killing XP. I know they wish it to happen, but if enough
pressure comes their way they just won't ignore it. Yes Microsoft
maybe many things,

Why - what harm would ignoring it do them?

Because in the future they will be wanting a new computer and OS. And if
you tick them off, it most likely won't be your product. People vote
with their wallet.

Yes and no. The ones who _now_ are still on XP haven't shown any sign of
intending to buy a new computer for some time: if they did, they'd have
got a Vista or 7 one. You can only support people on that basis for so
long! (Also, if such people _do_ decide eventually to buy a new
computer, they'll _probably_ want something that isn't _too_ different,
and can run Word. [Yes, I know you can get Word for Mac/Apple, but ...])

Ah... but if you abandon support, it becomes abandonware. That means the
door is opened for anybody to come along and support it. Now this third
party will be cashing in on the money Microsoft would have gained.

but one thing they are not is really stupid. At least not yet. ;-)

No, they're not (as a business) stupid. They're stopping support for
an ancient product, for which they're getting negligible income and
for which the support must be costing them money, in favour of new
versions that people have to buy: as a business, which they are,
that's not stupid.

As a _user_, I'm going to stick with XP - with 7 as a backup - for as
long as I can (-:!

I see no reason to worry. :-)

Me neither (-:! (I actually bought a W7 machine - just to have a more
powerful machine, and to support my blind friends who have just gone 7 -
in December; I was Skyping away last Monday, and it suddenly died on me!
Fortunately just within guarantee [it wasn't a new one]; I'm waiting for
them [local firm] to finish assembling a replacement for me now.
Meanwhile, this XP netbook just keeps on going ... [as does the '98
laptop ...])

Oh I don't mind the latest and greatest, but XP is still one of my
favorites out of all of the Windows versions. If I had to pick just one
to use 100% of the time, XP would be it. Even if Microsoft abandons it
or not. grin

--
Bill
Dell Latitude Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('12 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Pro

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

BillW50 writes:

If you start to burn bridges as you go, you won't stay in business long.

Nor will you, if you continue to maintain the bridges long after the
tolls have stopped being collected.

I doubt Microsoft will ever make the "mistake" of supporting any future
O/S for the same length of time they've supported XP.