win10 software keeps XP from starting.

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Mon, 03 Sep 2018 00:38:05
-0400, Paul wrote:

micky wrote:

I will call the dealer and ask if there is a way to change these things,
and if he has a list of things I can change at the same time.

I wonder what their policy is on that.

You would think with the nifty feature set
available, there would be some demand for "tuning".
The headlight one sounds useful.

I called Toyota just now, and he said the charge for doing this is $75,
and they don't provide a list of possible changes, that the list is in
the owners manual. So I'm going to go look in my owners manual. I read
or skimmed all of it, I think, and don't remember something like this.

He said he couldn't remember if they could make the changes I told him
about, or not, on this year's car.

Paul

In article , R.Wieser
wrote:


Of course there are obsolete cars. Being driven from point A to point B
isn't part of the definition:

ob·so·lete

no longer produced or used; out of date.

You shot yourself in the foot I'm afraid. :-)

he didn't.

If I may take the "no longer produced or used" as meaning that if "its still
produced OR its still used" its not obsolete, and "being driven from point A
to point B" constitutes to being used, than a car being driven is, by your
quoted definition, not obsolete.

if you take it that way, you'd be wrong.

usage does not have to be completely zero to be considered obsolete,
nor does a single instance of use change its classification.

there are people who restore old vehicles and only drive them to car
shows (normally because that's all they can legally do), but that
doesn't mean they're not obsolete.

there are people who still listen to vinyl records and even 8-track
tapes, but that too is obsolete.

On 9/4/2018 11:36 AM, R.Wieser wrote: 123456789,

Of course there are obsolete cars. Being driven from point A to
point B isn't part of the definition:

ob·so·lete

no longer produced or used; out of date.

You shot yourself in the foot I'm afraid. :-)

I think you missed. No holes in my feet. Check yours... :-)

If I may take the "no longer produced or used" as meaning that if
"its still produced OR its still used" its not obsolete, and "being
driven from point A to point B" constitutes to being used, than a
car being driven is, by your quoted definition, not obsolete.

The quote I was responding to (snipped) was:

"There is no such thing as an "obsolete car""

Obviously there are many obsolete cars alive and well today. Though they
prefer to call them by the gentler term "antique". And many of those
quite obsolete antique cars, though they can be driven from point A to
point B, in a parade for example, are quite useless (obsolete) for use
on today's freeways. Not to mention where to find firewood for the
boiler...

As for the synonyms ? They all refer to something that determined by
consensus.

A word (language) is determined by consensus. And a dictionary
definition is the current scholarly agreement of what words and synonyms
mean. You are arguing with the dictionary, not me.

FYI: *anyone* trying to use "obsolete" as/in an argument gets
automatically red-flagged by me.

Next time you try to use your credit card and the cashier behind
the old antique mechanical cash register gives you a funny look, please
don't hurt her feelings by telling her the damn thing won't take your
credit card because it's OBSOLETE...

123456789,

"There is no such thing as an "obsolete car""

Which you wished to contradict, and I proved that thats actually true, using
your own quoted explanation of the word "obsolete".

Feel free to put a counter argument forward though (which, as of yet, you
haven't) - based on what you quoted ofcourse.

And many of those quite obsolete antique cars are quite useless (obsolete)
for use on today's freeways

True. But is that, for cars, the definition of obsolete ? Not being able
to cope with certain types of roads ?

Should I than also classify a just-bought, new city car as obsolete because
it cannot traverse mountain roads ? If not, why ?

You are arguing with the dictionary, not me.

:-) The old "its not me you should be talking to, its that big guy over
there" defence/deflection. Thats not going to fly I'm afraid.

*You* have chosen that definition (to use to win an argument over), so its
*you* who has to explain why you picked it (and not one of the other ones
that are nodoubtibly also out there).

Next time you try to use your credit card and the cashier behind the old
antique mechanical cash register gives you a funny look, please don't hurt
her feelings by telling her the damn thing won't take your credit card
because it's OBSOLETE...

:-D You really have *no* idea of what "obsolete" really means, do you ?

If I put my creditcard into the electronic lock of my hotel room and it does
not work, which of the two is than obsolete ?

I myself do not really think that trying to force two incompatible
somethings to work together makes either obsolete. It just makes the person
trying it stupid (or very tired) - as in/with that example of yours (and
mine).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
Hint: how come an over 50 year-old road, generator (electricity plants),
water pump (irrigation), aren't regarded as being obsolete, but a 2 year
old, previous model iPhone (or 'puter) is ?

When you figure that out you'll understand how fickle the commonly-(ab)used
definition of "obsolete" is, and why I regard its usage red-flagging worthy.

In article , R.Wieser
wrote:


Next time you try to use your credit card and the cashier behind the old
antique mechanical cash register gives you a funny look, please don't hurt
her feelings by telling her the damn thing won't take your credit card
because it's OBSOLETE...

:-D You really have *no* idea of what "obsolete" really means, do you ?

If I put my creditcard into the electronic lock of my hotel room and it does
not work, which of the two is than obsolete ?

you're confusing incompatible with obsolete. why would anyone expect
that to work??

a mechanical cash register is obsolete because it can't handle modern
payment methods (credit/debit cards), plus it's slower than a newer
cash register, which reduces the merchant's revenue as well as annoy
customers. upgrading to something modern benefits the merchant.

older credit card terminals which do not support chipped cards are also
obsolete and if a merchant continues to use them, they are liable for
any fraudulent purchases. as above, upgrading to something modern
benefits the merchant.

and as for your hotel example, if the hotel offers digital keys, which
is becoming common at many properties, you can unlock the door with a
smartphone, the very same smartphone used for contactless credit/debit
card purchases. so yes, you *can* do both with the same device.

On 9/5/2018 2:46 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
123456789,

You are arguing with the dictionary, not me.

The old "its not me you should be talking to, its that big guy over
there" defence/deflection. Thats not going to fly I'm afraid.

If you're allowed to make up your own definition for a word sans
dictionary, then I am too. So I proclaim the word OBSOLETE to mean
BULL****. And therefore your arguments are all OBSOLETE...

I now return this channel to Windows programming. You can have the last
word.

123456789,

If you're allowed to make up your own definition for a word sans
dictionary, then I am too.

Ah, the old "I claim you did, so I have the full right to do it too".
Sorry, not going to fly either (and what are you, twelve or something ?).
At least not without a quote-and-thereby-prove where I did actually do that.
And *when* you do you will get my apologies for it. What you accuse me of
is simply not my style.

But be carefull: just pointing at a word and claiming that I did doesn't
score you any points - you really have to show where and how I did it.

And please, don't go quoting what I said about *how its used by* salesman
and other obnoxious persons. Thats not my (re)definition either.

So I proclaim the word OBSOLETE to mean BULL****.

Well, thats at least a definition (for its general use) with which I can
agree :-D

I now return this channel to Windows programming. You can have the last
word.

Thank you, I think I will:

This one https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolete has a
definition I can pretty much agree with:

"... no longer useful"

Which, to me, means that as long as you (can) use it (and I will throw in
"as intended" to be pedantic) its not obsolete.

This one https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...glish/obsolete is
also interresting, if only because English people seem to regard fashion
(which is a pretty personal) as important, while Americans do not seem to:

English: "not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and
better or more fashionable"

American: "no longer used or needed, usually because something newer and
better has replaced it"

It also shows you there isn't even a single definition of it. Than again,
thats what I already mentioned in my first response to you.

This one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolescence is also interresting, as
the first part is, effectivily, aimed at the "ooohh, new shiny!" people,
while the latter part references usability:

"Obsolescence is the state of being which occurs when an object, service, or
practice is no longer wanted even though it may still be in good working
order. Obsolescence frequently occurs because a replacement has become
available that has, in sum, more advantages compared to the disadvantages
incurred by maintaining or repairing the original"

Mind the "more advantages compared to the disadvantages" part.

And than you have this one
http://www.businessdictionary.com/de.../obsolete.html

"No longer appropriate for the purpose it was obtained due either to the
availability of better alternatives or change in user requirements."

Which is again a OR-ing of usability and "ohhh, new shiny!".

And as a closer, some etmology: https://www.etymonline.com/word/obsolete

"from Latin obsoletus 'grown old, worn-out,' "

.... which, as far as I can tell says something *only* about usability.

It shows you that not even reputable sources agree on what "obsolete"
exactly means, *and* that it has two rather different definitions thrown
together (usefulness versus "not a new shiny"), which can easily clash.

And hereby I end my class for today.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Wolf,

Reminder: the word has several meanings. Which meaning(s), and how
modified, the speaker/writer intends depends on context.

True, but I tried to keep my conversation with our numeric guy as simple as
possible, as he had problems enough with dealing with my "you shot yourself
in the foot" conclusion.

Dictionary definitions are obsolete as soon as they're printed (or
uploaded).

There you go, I didn't even think of that area of usage.

Though language is a "living" thing (always changing), and dictionaries, by
definition, are always trailing the facts. In other words, a dictonary
describes "yesteryears" words, while the populous has (presumably) already
progressed to a just-a-bit-different interpretation of it.

In that light the definition of "obsolete" as in "(by choice) not in use
anymore" is again rather fitting, don't you think ?


The biggest problem I have with the definition of "obsolete" is when people
try to equate the presence of a newer product* as automatically meaning the
old one is - in the sense that its suddenly worth nothing anymore and should
be shunned like the plague.

*even when the "old" one is still in production.

My authority for this claim? I am/was an English teacher, and taught the
History of the English Language among other courses.

While that, for me, almost automatically gives your interpretation of the
problem more value (credibility?), I would have no problem with looking at a
definition as could have brought forward by our numeric guy. Both would
get a fair deal of critical attention (sorry 'bout that :-) ).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 11:23:13 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

Though language is a "living" thing (always changing), and
dictionaries, by definition, are always trailing the facts. In
other words, a dictonary describes "yesteryears" words, while the
populous has (presumably) already progressed to a
just-a-bit-different interpretation of it.

But to how many words would this scenario apply? There are tens if
not hundreds of thousands of words in the OED, how many are obsolete
and how many are current? This generation of kids will happily
redefine words to suit their purposes but their vocabulary is
counted in a few hundred words only.

In message , nospam
writes:
In article , R.Wieser
wrote:


Of course there are obsolete cars. Being driven from point A to point B
isn't part of the definition:

ob·so·lete

no longer produced or used; out of date.

You shot yourself in the foot I'm afraid. :-)

he didn't.

If I may take the "no longer produced or used" as meaning that if "its still
produced OR its still used" its not obsolete, and "being driven from point A
to point B" constitutes to being used, than a car being driven is, by your
quoted definition, not obsolete.

if you take it that way, you'd be wrong.

usage does not have to be completely zero to be considered obsolete,
nor does a single instance of use change its classification.
[]
That may or may not be true. However, just taking the *definition* that
*you* provided, of "obsolete" as "no longer produced or used", that is
not the same as "no longer produced or MUCH used": in other words, if
something is used _at all_, then _by that definition_, it is not
obsolete. He was just saying that the definition _you_ provided does
_not_ prove what you thought it did. (As others have said, [a] language
is fluid anyway [so dictionary definitions aren't _totally_ useful in
this debate], and [b] obsolete/obsolescence is _in practice_ a matter of
personal opinion.)

I do tend to agree with whoever (I'm getting tangled) in this discussion
said that "obsolete" does often get (mis)used, especially by sellers, to
justify replacement. (Especially when, as someone else or maybe the same
someone said, the original is still in production.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If even one person" arguments allow the perfect to become the enemy of the
good, and thus they tend to cause more harm than good.
- Jimmy Akins quoted by Scott Adams, 2015-5-5

In message , nospam
writes:
[]
a mechanical cash register is obsolete because it can't handle modern
payment methods (credit/debit cards), plus it's slower than a newer
cash register, which reduces the merchant's revenue as well as annoy
customers. upgrading to something modern benefits the merchant.
[]
"... a newer cash register, which reduces the merchant's revenue ..."

(-:

[Smiley, though in fact that _is_ how I interpreted the sentence on
first reading.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If even one person" arguments allow the perfect to become the enemy of the
good, and thus they tend to cause more harm than good.
- Jimmy Akins quoted by Scott Adams, 2015-5-5

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
[]
This one https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...glish/obsolete is
also interresting, if only because

*it _implies_ that*

English people seem to regard fashion
(which is a pretty personal) as important, while Americans do not seem to:

English: "not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and
better or more fashionable"

American: "no longer used or needed, usually because something newer and
better has replaced it"

(I don't agree with the implication; I'd say both sides of the pond have
plenty of people who are worried by "fashion" [whatever that is], as
well as plenty [like you and me?] who aren't.)
[]
Isn't language fun! (My brother's in the trade - works for [almost
longest-serving now] the OED, and was at one point responsible for the
three or four longest entries [the longest being for "run", though I
think has been superseded], and his ten-years-in-the-writing history of
the OED ["The Making of the Oxford English Dictionary"] is I think now
out in paperback. [Still I suspect priced only for serious users though.
I think there's a Kindle version too.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If even one person" arguments allow the perfect to become the enemy of the
good, and thus they tend to cause more harm than good.
- Jimmy Akins quoted by Scott Adams, 2015-5-5

mechanic

But to how many words would this scenario apply?

All of them. Thats the effect of languages being alive.

Though if you want to put forward that some words are changing rather slowly
(or do not actually seem to change *that you are aware of*) than yes, that
certainly happens.

This generation of kids will happily redefine words to
suit their purposes but their vocabulary is counted in
a few hundred words only.

Well, thats a sick burn if I ever came across one ...

Thats nonwithstanding that what you said can neither become sick, nor burn.
:-)

And lets not talk about "coming across" something that does not even have a
physical existence. :-D

But no. Gradual redefinition of words happens regardles of education
level. Though, due to the youth going thru a phase that they will
experiment with about everything (inter-personal relationships, jobs,
mind-altering substances, language) you will ofcourse see most of the change
coming from there.

And don't forget that the popping-up (again, whats in a word ...) of new
knowledge or product areas causes existing words to be tagged with new
meanings, which sometimes push the old one outof use.

Though make no mistake: people in this thread are currently involved in
adjusting/redefining the word "obsolete" - simply by talking about it. And
I don't know about you, but I'm closer to EOL than I am to my birth. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

John,

if only because

*it _implies_ that*

English people seem to regard fashion
(which is a pretty personal) as important

Thats what I tried to convey with my "seems to" (as opposed to "do").

I don't agree with the implication; I'd say both sides of the pond have
plenty of people who are worried by "fashion" [whatever that is], as well
as plenty [like you and me?] who aren't.

I do not have the information to be able to agree or disagree with what the
website said I'm afraid. I just took it as a reflection of the stance of
the majority in either country.

Isn't language fun!

Yup. And I'm not even active in the field. :-o

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:

a mechanical cash register is obsolete because it can't handle modern
payment methods (credit/debit cards), plus it's slower than a newer
cash register, which reduces the merchant's revenue as well as annoy
customers. upgrading to something modern benefits the merchant.
[]
"... a newer cash register, which reduces the merchant's revenue ..."

(-:

[Smiley, though in fact that _is_ how I interpreted the sentence on
first reading.]

it could have been clearer.

old mechanical registers can't process as many customers as a new
modern cash register, resulting in lower overall revenue.