[OT] Agent Ransack v2010 (762) 64bit

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
On 1/22/2014, Char Jackson posted:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:14:09 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

[]
Sorry, "almost always" does *not* mean "not always",

It is not usually the _intention_ of the speaker: when someone says
"almost always", s/he is stressing the positive side.

Sorry, I parse it differently. To me, "almost always" is less than
"always".

Indeed. If it was the same, the "almost" would be omitted.

Well, my background includes math and physics, so "almost always" is
less than *or equal to* "always".

If I told you something cost "almost 20 dollars", I think you'd be
surprised if it actually cost $20. It might cost $19.99, granted!

Suggestion (or de facto?): let each of us stick to his own opinion :-)

I think not. But to get back to what _was_ being talked about: I think a
better statement would be "new is _often_ better, though (in the case of
software including OSs) may sometimes require more resources and/or a
different way of thinking/use for its advantages to be realisable - and,
occasionally, it isn't better, either totally or because the changes
required outweigh the advantages". (That last is of course subjective.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Some people have defined loneliness as "havng plenty of people to do something
with, but nobody to do nothing with". - Esther Rantzen, RT 2013/9/23-29

On 1/25/2014, J. P. Gilliver (John) posted:
In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
On 1/22/2014, Char Jackson posted:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:14:09 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

[]
Sorry, "almost always" does *not* mean "not always",

It is not usually the _intention_ of the speaker: when someone says
"almost always", s/he is stressing the positive side.

Sorry, I parse it differently. To me, "almost always" is less than
"always".

Indeed. If it was the same, the "almost" would be omitted.

Well, my background includes math and physics, so "almost always" is
less than *or equal to* "always".

If I told you something cost "almost 20 dollars", I think you'd be
surprised if it actually cost $20. It might cost $19.99, granted!

If you were some stores I know of, I wouldn't be surprised if "almost
20 dollars" was $21.95 :-)

Suggestion (or de facto?): let each of us stick to his own opinion
:-)

I think not. But to get back to what _was_ being talked about: I
think a better statement would be "new is _often_ better, though (in
the case of software including OSs) may sometimes require more
resources and/or a different way of thinking/use for its advantages
to be realisable - and, occasionally, it isn't better, either totally
or because the changes required outweigh the advantages". (That last
is of course subjective.)

I'd find "new is *not always* better" more to my liking for the
intended meaning. It's rather explicit, like the mathematical term
"*proper* subset".

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)