JPEG patent threat

[Robert Newson]

Michael Gilbert wrote:

....

The AD thing was worked out by Dionysius Exiguus under the instructions
of a sixth century Pope. That's way past the development of the concept
of zero. He just fudged it, basically.

"Way past" as in way past going backwards? eg I was born way past someone
younger than I. (Or to put it another way, the first known usage of zero in
India was ~595AD, first use outside Hindus in 662AD, arrived in Europe
11-12th century (1000AD+). AD style dates being invented by Little Dennis
in the year 247 anno Diocletiani when he calculated that Christ was born
some 531 years earlier, becoming year 1 Anno Domini (another ~500 years
before 0 reached Europe); with the year starting on 25 March, 9 months
before 25 December, the "date" of Jesus' conception (the year start changing
to 1 Jan when the leap years were fixed [in England] in 1752). However, as
he was slightly out, the 3rd millennium AD actually started ~1997AD.)

 

[Rich Daley]

You neither say when you were at school, not when the Ladybird books
were published. billion DID used to represent 10^12 in the UK, and after
years of confusion with US English, the US term finally won out. (Well,
not sure that even now it has entirely in the UK)

Well let's put it this way: in 1974, my parents hadn't even met. And the
ladybird books were bought for me, so they should at least have had some
kind of editing by that point, if they were to be "educational".

~ Rich

 

[Rich Daley]

Which other people were you?

Bah. I deliberated for ages over that sentence. It would read OK as
"when I, and a lot of other people, were small" but not sure about what
form of the verb to use when the plural is introduced in a
bracketed-clause...

~ Rich

 

[Robert Newson]

Bah. I deliberated for ages over that sentence. It would read OK as
"when I, and a lot of other people, were small" but not sure about what
form of the verb to use when the plural is introduced in a
bracketed-clause...

How about using:

....when I was small (as were a lot of other people).

probably grammatically incorrect, but it still says nothing about the time
when you, and they, ceased to be small; and what that smallness was. As I
am clairvoyant (well I must be, my underpants say I'm a "Medium" which can't
refer to my size as I'm rather big), I can tell that it isn't in a personal
way...

 

[Bill Unruh]

]>> Someone should have told that to the authors of the Ladybird books I
]>> used to get my knowledge from when I was small (and a lot of other
]>> people).

]> Which other people were you?

]Bah. I deliberated for ages over that sentence. It would read OK as
]"when I, and a lot of other people, were small" but not sure about what
]form of the verb to use when the plural is introduced in a
]bracketed-clause...

The problem is using the bracketed clause at all. I do not think you
want to say that those other people were small but that you and they
got your info from the ladybird books. Ie,
....Ladybird books I and lots of other people used to get our knowledge from when we
were small.

Where the paranthetical remark is now is completely confused
gramatically. The nearest clause is small, suggesting that the lots of
other people is an addition to small ( as the poster commented on).
Alternatively It could be the whole phrase I was small to be replaced by
"and lots of other people" but that makes no gramatical sense. Or it
could be specifying the time "when" ie whan you and lots of other people
were small. But that is also not what you wanted to say I do not think.
It also cannot be an addition to the sentence, since "and lots of other
people " is not a whole phrase (has no verb).

 

[pbs]

calculated that Christ was born some 531 years earlier, becoming year 1
Anno Domini (another ~500 years before 0 reached Europe); with the year
starting on 25 March, 9 months before 25 December, the "date" of Jesus'

Which given the translation of Julian to Gregorian dates explains why
the UK tax year still starts on that date. Accountants are VERY
conservative people!

 

[Rich Daley]

The problem is using the bracketed clause at all. I do not think you
want to say that those other people were small but that you and they
got your info from the ladybird books. Ie,
...Ladybird books I and lots of other people used to get our knowledge from when we
were small.

Where the paranthetical remark is now is completely confused
gramatically. The nearest clause is small, suggesting that the lots of
other people is an addition to small ( as the poster commented on).
Alternatively It could be the whole phrase I was small to be replaced by
"and lots of other people" but that makes no gramatical sense. Or it
could be specifying the time "when" ie whan you and lots of other people
were small. But that is also not what you wanted to say I do not think.
It also cannot be an addition to the sentence, since "and lots of other
people " is not a whole phrase (has no verb).

D'oh! You're quite right. What time in the morning did I post my reply?
Too early probably. What I meant to say was the following (still
parenthesised, but now grammatically correct) phrase:

....Ladybird books I (and lots of other people) used to get our knowledge
from when we were small.

The only thing I think is wrong now is the "general politeness rule"
that the first person always goes last, but the sentence would lose its
'aside' feel if I wrote "...Ladybird books (lots of other people and) I
used to get our knowledge from" so I'll claim my poetic licence card
here please.

~ Rich

 

[Chris Croughton]

D'oh! You're quite right. What time in the morning did I post my reply?
Too early probably. What I meant to say was the following (still
parenthesised, but now grammatically correct) phrase:

...Ladybird books I (and lots of other people) used to get our knowledge
from when we were small.

The only thing I think is wrong now is the "general politeness rule"
that the first person always goes last, but the sentence would lose its
'aside' feel if I wrote "...Ladybird books (lots of other people and) I
used to get our knowledge from" so I'll claim my poetic licence card
here please.

It also breaks the rule that you should be able to read a sentence
without the parenthesised parts and it should still be correct. In this
case you get back to the number error:

...Ladybird books I ... used to get our knowledge from when we were
small.

(Unless you happen to be the Queen, of course, and can use the royal
'we'.)

It also implies, as do most of the other variants tried, that you and
the others were all 'small' at the same time, which might not be true
(but might be what you intended, it's ambiguous enough to be uncertain
either way).

Assuming that you mean (or don't mind)the implication that you and the
other people were all 'small' together, the following works tolerably:

... Ladybird books from which I (and other people), when small, used
to get knowledge.

Moving the location of 'small' attaches it to the subject without
needing the clarification of "we were" (and thus avoiding the number
problem). The use of 'our' can also be dropped, since it is implicit
that the knowledge was yours (plural or formal singular).

Possibly better and less pejorative would be to replace 'small' with
'young', but I leave that as an exercise for the reader...

(Yes, I have also removed the dangling preposition. We hatesss them, my
preciousss <g>...)

Chris C

 

[John Cartmell]

Rich Daley <rich@DELETE_THISowl.me.uk> writes:

]pbs <[email protected]> writes:

]> In 1974, the government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced that
]> henceforth "billion" would mean 10^9 and not 10^12 in official British
]> reports and statistics http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/large.html

]Someone should have told that to the authors of the Ladybird books I
]used to get my knowledge from when I was small (and a lot of other
]people). I was at university before I realised that "£5bn" in a British
]newspaper meant 5x10^9 not 5x10^12 as my Ladybird book had so reliably
]informed me was the case for the UK. Grr.

You neither say when you were at school, not when the Ladybird books
were published. billion DID used to represent 10^12 in the UK, and after
years of confusion with US English, the US term finally won out. (Well,
not sure that even now it has entirely in the UK)

I thank Harold for the Open University but I still ignore his ruling on
billions. ;-)

 

[Robert Newson]

Which given the translation of Julian to Gregorian dates explains why
the UK tax year still starts on that date. Accountants are VERY
conservative people!

The UK tax year runs April 6/5 doesn't it? Tax pay day was March 25, but in
March 1753 people objected to having to pay for 11 days they didn't have,
and so delayed their payments until 5 April 1753

 

[C A Upsdell]

pbs wrote:
The UK tax year runs April 6/5 doesn't it? Tax pay day was March 25, but in
March 1753 people objected to having to pay for 11 days they didn't have,
and so delayed their payments until 5 April 1753

I wish tax day were Feb 29.

 

[Jonathan Buzzard]

The UK tax year runs April 6/5 doesn't it? Tax pay day was March 25, but in
March 1753 people objected to having to pay for 11 days they didn't have,
and so delayed their payments until 5 April 1753

Nearly right, it was the chancellor who moved the tax date, because he did
not want to loose 11 days revenue. Also the stuff about peasants demanding
their 11 days back and being a bit stupid is uninformed rubbish. The
problem was they paid their rents annually, and where having to pay
the same rent for 354 days instead of 365, and where not happy bunnies.
What they wanted was their 11 days of rent back.

JAB.

 

[Chris Croughton]

You neither say when you were at school, not when the Ladybird books
were published. billion DID used to represent 10^12 in the UK, and after
years of confusion with US English, the US term finally won out. (Well,
not sure that even now it has entirely in the UK)

It hasn't. I still use billion to mean a million squared (a trillion is
a million cubed, etc., which is why it's bi-llion, tri-llion etc.). And
I use 'milliard' for 1000 million (as does German, I found).

I wouldn't mind if the Americans used 'billion' for 1000 squared,
'trillion' fot 1000 cubed etc., at least it would still make some sense
(and a 'million' would be 1000, from the French 'mille'). But no, they
multiply it all by an extra thousand thus making no sense at all...

Chris C

 

[richard.watson]

In message <[email protected]>

In message <pan.2004.04.25.12.47.12.156395@I-love-linux>


This isn't exactly new News. They've been trying for several years now.
Thank goodness that JPEG patent runs out in 2006.

It was to me, so's the bit about the patent running out. It may not
be earth shattering to some, but nonetheless both are useful bits
of info, and just the sort of thing I read misc to get to know about.

Richard