Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163666 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-13 17:28 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Beware the microsoft cloud? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-13 17:28 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-05-14 09:22 -0700
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2016-05-21 12:31 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-21 13:16 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-22 13:15 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 09:58 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-23 11:49 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-23 11:56 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-23 15:02 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 20:57 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-23 16:19 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 04:02 +1000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-24 10:59 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-23 14:30 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-23 14:04 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-23 23:23 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 04:40 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 12:48 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 07:47 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 17:43 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 14:13 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 12:38 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 17:55 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 20:25 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 15:02 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 20:51 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-24 19:24 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 14:38 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-23 23:28 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:03 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:28 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 12:52 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 12:33 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 17:17 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 17:23 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 07:47 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 11:55 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 17:16 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-24 21:31 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 07:37 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:24 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 13:57 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 07:36 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-05-25 06:53 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 19:56 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 12:42 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 12:28 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 21:57 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 11:55 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-22 16:42 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-23 11:49 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-23 15:01 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-24 13:33 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:00 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-24 14:16 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:04 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 16:28 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 16:15 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:31 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 17:12 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-24 21:27 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-23 16:04 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-23 17:15 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:00 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-23 16:25 -0300
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:04 +1000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-23 06:40 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-23 16:16 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 19:58 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-05-29 20:35 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 12:53 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:08 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 16:22 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-25 17:51 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-06-01 13:16 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-01 20:59 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:39 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-02 20:44 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:04 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 23:22 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-04 19:02 -0700
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 05:14 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:39 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 10:08 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 12:44 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 17:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-5BBD5F.17165824052016@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #163906 |
In article <1578976185.485797722.536067.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septembe r.org>, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > The 1600s is "long ago", for North America. That branch of the family > > only goes back to the early 1800s, though of course the family has always > > been here. > > Not so long ago, if you spend enough time buried in the past. I used to > think the American Revolution was "long ago", but now it seems the French > and Indian war was relatively recent. "In America 100 years is a long time; In Europe 100 is a long distance. There are quarrels in the mid-East based on what happened in the 1200's. -- To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world? Christopher Hitchens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 21:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dqjvh5Fl4m1U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163939 |
On 2016-05-24, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
[15 lines snipped]
> There are quarrels in the mid-East based on what happened in the 1200's.
The Middle East consists almost entirely of quarrels based on what happened
in the 1200's.
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 71st day of Discord in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 07:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8aqf1d-0u2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163943 |
In article <dqjvh5Fl4m1U2@mid.individual.net>, Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote: >On 2016-05-24, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: > >[15 lines snipped] > >> There are quarrels in the mid-East based on what happened in the 1200's. > >The Middle East consists almost entirely of quarrels based on what happened >in the 1200's. Except where they are based on quarrels based on what happened in the 700's. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 07:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b0a705329ce1d498a1d9@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163953 |
In article <8aqf1d-0u2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid says... > > In article <dqjvh5Fl4m1U2@mid.individual.net>, > Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote: > >On 2016-05-24, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: > > > >[15 lines snipped] > > > >> There are quarrels in the mid-East based on what happened in the 1200's. > > > >The Middle East consists almost entirely of quarrels based on what happened > >in the 1200's. > > Except where they are based on quarrels based on what happened in the 700's. I think a more accurate description would be that the Middle East consists almost entirely of quarrels dating from the present back to prehistory. And now they have a quarrel with the US that they will probably still be fighting long after the US is gone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 13:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160526135758.bc088c32414db009d86f18dc@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164006 |
On Thu, 26 May 2016 07:24:41 -0400 "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <8aqf1d-0u2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, > first@last.name.invalid says... > > > > In article <dqjvh5Fl4m1U2@mid.individual.net>, > > Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote: > > >On 2016-05-24, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: > > > > > >[15 lines snipped] > > > > > >> There are quarrels in the mid-East based on what happened in the > > >> 1200's. > > > > > >The Middle East consists almost entirely of quarrels based on what > > >happened in the 1200's. > > > > Except where they are based on quarrels based on what happened in the > > 700's. > > I think a more accurate description would be that the Middle East > consists almost entirely of quarrels dating from the present back to > prehistory. And now they have a quarrel with the US that they will > probably still be fighting long after the US is gone. I forget which historian suggested that there will not be peace in the Middle East until shortly after the last two survivors finish fighting. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 07:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e7qf1d-0u2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163939 |
In article <proto-5BBD5F.17165824052016@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: >In article ><1578976185.485797722.536067.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septembe >r.org>, > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > The 1600s is "long ago", for North America. That branch of the family >> > only goes back to the early 1800s, though of course the family has always >> > been here. >> >> Not so long ago, if you spend enough time buried in the past. I used to >> think the American Revolution was "long ago", but now it seems the French >> and Indian war was relatively recent. > >"In America 100 years is a long time; In Europe 100 is a long distance. > >There are quarrels in the mid-East based on what happened in the 1200's. Not only there. We still have political divides that follow the geography of our civil war, which ended in 1172. The original no vote to the EU/EEC in 1972 follows those lines almost exactly. The periphery won, in both cases. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 06:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dqksviFqjklU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163906 |
in 665152 20160524 165541 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >Not so long ago, if you spend enough time buried in the past. I used to >think the American Revolution was "long ago" My grand-father was born in 1863
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 19:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni08lt$m3q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163864 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1605231351340.19252@darkstar.example.org... > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > > So the stuff was already salvaged long before the digital era, though I > have no idea if others collected it or if the family donated it somewhere > intact. > But Michael, historians like to see the *original* documents!!! :-) These are called "primary sources". -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005339533DC9806@aca423de.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163864 |
Michael Black wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote: > > >> Women in the knitting group I attend are using the cloud to store >> all of their family pictures. Historians and archaeologists aren't >> going to have much paper and things to mine. >> > Years ago, a cousin of my mother who was interested in genealogy did a > family tree on my father's side, and that was it. Then about 2009 I > started doing searches, and it's amazing how much is online. Not just the > family tree, but all kinds of history of it. I am sort of torn, on one > hand the family did have some role in "history", but at the same time, > they left a lot of paper around, so it's easier for people to study them. > > But most of what I've found, it was written up by various historical > societies decades ago, and that's what's been digitized. > > So I can't find online the letter where my great, great grandmother > Henrietta says in 1854 "I would rather not go to [eastern] Canada; > how would I an uneducated dark halfbreed look among the fair and > accomplished ladies". But I did find a paper that quoted that line, which > happens to be online. > > So the stuff was already salvaged long before the digital era, though I > have no idea if others collected it or if the family donated it somewhere > intact. The historian should have listed where s/he found the source as a footnote. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 12:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605241239430.20600@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #163892 |
On Tue, 24 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote: > Michael Black wrote: >> On Mon, 23 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >> >>> Women in the knitting group I attend are using the cloud to store >>> all of their family pictures. Historians and archaeologists aren't >>> going to have much paper and things to mine. >>> >> Years ago, a cousin of my mother who was interested in genealogy did a >> family tree on my father's side, and that was it. Then about 2009 I >> started doing searches, and it's amazing how much is online. Not just the >> family tree, but all kinds of history of it. I am sort of torn, on one >> hand the family did have some role in "history", but at the same time, >> they left a lot of paper around, so it's easier for people to study them. >> >> But most of what I've found, it was written up by various historical >> societies decades ago, and that's what's been digitized. >> >> So I can't find online the letter where my great, great grandmother >> Henrietta says in 1854 "I would rather not go to [eastern] Canada; >> how would I an uneducated dark halfbreed look among the fair and >> accomplished ladies". But I did find a paper that quoted that line, which >> happens to be online. >> >> So the stuff was already salvaged long before the digital era, though I >> have no idea if others collected it or if the family donated it somewhere >> intact. > > The historian should have listed where s/he found the source as a > footnote. > I'm sure it was. The stuff has to be off in collections somewhere, I've seen some of it referenced. But since I've not found the raw stuff on the internet, I assume it's at some university or library in Winnipeg, a place I've only been two or maybe three times, one of which was only an hour stopover while taking the train back from Vancouver. It's really a mystery, my father never said anything, but he left when I was seven and died a decade later. I think the cousins knew about the family history. One year at Christmas I got a kit to make a Red River Cart, a symbol of Metis technology, so in retrospect I think they knew. I've seen headlines in the Winnipeg newspapers, via the internet, calling family members "metis". Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 12:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ue39kbdbsf8o78m2jf8mai78f6om3uk43f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163912 |
On Tue, 24 May 2016 12:42:54 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >On Tue, 24 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Michael Black wrote: >>> On Mon, 23 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Women in the knitting group I attend are using the cloud to store >>>> all of their family pictures. Historians and archaeologists aren't >>>> going to have much paper and things to mine. >>>> >>> Years ago, a cousin of my mother who was interested in genealogy did a >>> family tree on my father's side, and that was it. Then about 2009 I >>> started doing searches, and it's amazing how much is online. Not just the >>> family tree, but all kinds of history of it. I am sort of torn, on one >>> hand the family did have some role in "history", but at the same time, >>> they left a lot of paper around, so it's easier for people to study them. >>> >>> But most of what I've found, it was written up by various historical >>> societies decades ago, and that's what's been digitized. >>> >>> So I can't find online the letter where my great, great grandmother >>> Henrietta says in 1854 "I would rather not go to [eastern] Canada; >>> how would I an uneducated dark halfbreed look among the fair and >>> accomplished ladies". But I did find a paper that quoted that line, which >>> happens to be online. >>> >>> So the stuff was already salvaged long before the digital era, though I >>> have no idea if others collected it or if the family donated it somewhere >>> intact. >> >> The historian should have listed where s/he found the source as a >> footnote. >> >I'm sure it was. The stuff has to be off in collections somewhere, I've >seen some of it referenced. But since I've not found the raw stuff on the >internet, I assume it's at some university or library in Winnipeg, a place >I've only been two or maybe three times, one of which was only an hour >stopover while taking the train back from Vancouver. It's really a >mystery, my father never said anything, but he left when I was seven and >died a decade later. I think the cousins knew about the family history. >One year at Christmas I got a kit to make a Red River Cart, a symbol of >Metis technology, so in retrospect I think they knew. I've seen headlines >in the Winnipeg newspapers, via the internet, calling family members >"metis". > > Michael A Geneology book I bought, the author says that some 'purist' geneologists claim that a photocopy of an original document on the Internet is not a primary souce, if you never hands on the original. Seems odd to me, if its an unaltered photocopy, its an orignal even if its online. And my relatives denied we had Native American ancestry until I was 50 years old, and my siblings found out we are Native American. Well, thats the newest ancestry in the late 1800s, the European ancestry was early 1800s and before. Distant cousins email me about once a year and say they have found documentation, then they email me and say the uncle, etc. has destroyed the documents as apparently they want to deny the facts. We still look, but not much seems to be happening. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 21:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-05658A.21572224052016@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #163915 |
In article <ue39kbdbsf8o78m2jf8mai78f6om3uk43f@4ax.com>, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: > A Geneology book I bought, the author says that some 'purist' > geneologists claim that a photocopy of an original document on the > Internet is not a primary souce, if you never hands on the original. > Seems odd to me, if its an unaltered photocopy, its an orignal even if > its online. You're taking the word of the person certifying the document, which is not the same as seeing the original. The originals have a 3 dimensional existence which is lost in photocopies. -- To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world? Christopher Hitchens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 11:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <406830468.485797340.592432.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163864 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2016, jmfbahciv wrote: > > >> Women in the knitting group I attend are using the cloud to store >> all of their family pictures. Historians and archaeologists aren't >> going to have much paper and things to mine. >> > Years ago, a cousin of my mother who was interested in genealogy did a > family tree on my father's side, and that was it. Then about 2009 I > started doing searches, and it's amazing how much is online. Not just the > family tree, but all kinds of history of it. I am sort of torn, on one > hand the family did have some role in "history", but at the same time, > they left a lot of paper around, so it's easier for people to study them. > > But most of what I've found, it was written up by various historical > societies decades ago, and that's what's been digitized. > > So I can't find online the letter where my great, great grandmother > Henrietta says in 1854 "I would rather not go to [eastern] Canada; > how would I an uneducated dark halfbreed look among the fair and > accomplished ladies". But I did find a paper that quoted that line, which > happens to be online. > > So the stuff was already salvaged long before the digital era, though I > have no idea if others collected it or if the family donated it somewhere > intact. > Recently a relative found a letter from my great-uncle to my grandfather and grandmother talking about some of his experiences in the army in various parts of asia in the late 1800s. After scanning it so everyone interested got a copy she donated the original to a museum. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dqe5s9Fg5g2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163821 |
On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Huge wrote:
>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing?
>>>>
>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will
>>>> they start charging heftily for it?
>>>
>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future
>>> exit costs from their supplier.
>>
>> Among about a zillion other things.
>
> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing
> operations to doing one's own again.
Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for
41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about
3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year
cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I
suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 69th day of Discord in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 11:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005338109FE2928@aca46cd0.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163833 |
Huge wrote: > On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Huge wrote: >>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>>> >>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>>> >>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>>> exit costs from their supplier. >>> >>> Among about a zillion other things. >> >> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >> operations to doing one's own again. > > Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for > 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about > 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year > cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I > suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dqgka0FileU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163847 |
On 2016-05-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Huge wrote:
>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Huge wrote:
>>>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will
>>>>>> they start charging heftily for it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future
>>>>> exit costs from their supplier.
>>>>
>>>> Among about a zillion other things.
>>>
>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing
>>> operations to doing one's own again.
>>
>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for
>> 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about
>> 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year
>> cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I
>> suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years.
>
> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles
> can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right?
> So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"?
Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last time
have retired or died.
--
Today is Pungenday, the 70th day of Discord in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000533952B52D95B@aca423de.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163853 |
Huge wrote: > On 2016-05-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Huge wrote: >>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> Huge wrote: >>>>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>>>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>>>>> exit costs from their supplier. >>>>> >>>>> Among about a zillion other things. >>>> >>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >>>> operations to doing one's own again. >>> >>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for >>> 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about >>> 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year >>> cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I >>> suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. >> >> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles >> can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? >> So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? > > Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last time > have retired or died. 14 years doesn't make them retired nor dead; it makes them middle management. Wouldn't it? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 13:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160524133351.93806aa7210ab95035f8063e@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163895 |
On 24 May 2016 12:11:37 GMT jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Huge wrote: > > On 2016-05-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> Huge wrote: > >>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>>> Huge wrote: > >>>>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, > >>>>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > >>>>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will > >>>>>>> they start charging heftily for it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future > >>>>>> exit costs from their supplier. > >>>>> > >>>>> Among about a zillion other things. > >>>> > >>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing > >>>> operations to doing one's own again. > >>> > >>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) > >>> for 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past > >>> about 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about > >>> 14 year cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, > >>> want", so I suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 > >>> years. > >> > >> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The > >> cycles can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. > >> right? So it must be the mid-management side of a business which > >> "forgets"? > > > > Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last > > time have retired or died. > > 14 years doesn't make them retired nor dead; it makes them middle > management. Wouldn't it? More likely elsewhere, having left in disgust when the shambles occurred. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni24si32fbd@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #163899 |
On 2016-05-24, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 24 May 2016 12:11:37 GMT > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> Huge wrote: >> >>> On 2016-05-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Huge wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >> >>>> operations to doing one's own again. >>>>> >>>>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) >>>>> for 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past >>>>> about 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about >>>>> 14 year cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, >>>>> want", so I suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 >>>>> years. >>>> >>>> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The >>>> cycles can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. >>>> right? So it must be the mid-management side of a business which >>>> "forgets"? >>> >>> Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last >>> time have retired or died. >> >> 14 years doesn't make them retired nor dead; it makes them middle >> management. Wouldn't it? > > More likely elsewhere, having left in disgust when the shambles > occurred. Or driven out by the new regime in favour of bright shiny new minds who aren't yet tarnished by the experience that would tell them why the grandiose new plans won't work. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 14:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HbCdnTugcMkzztnKnZ2dnUU78bOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #163895 |
On 24/05/2016 13:11, jmfbahciv wrote: > Huge wrote: >> On 2016-05-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> Huge wrote: >>>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> Huge wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>>>>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>>>>>> exit costs from their supplier. >>>>>> >>>>>> Among about a zillion other things. >>>>> >>>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >>>>> operations to doing one's own again. >>>> >>>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for >>>> 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about >>>> 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year >>>> cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I >>>> suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. >>> >>> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles >>> can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? >>> So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? >> >> Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last time >> have retired or died. > > 14 years doesn't make them retired nor dead; it makes them middle management. > Wouldn't it? > > /BAH > DEC and IBM may keep their people for years but most firms downsize programmers at the end of the project. So the people may be middle management but at a different firm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web