Conference thebay::joyoflex

    	Such a person is obviously a crutcheteer. The only person of that
    type I have known I called "Aunty Katie" and she only climbed 1000-foot
    mountains, but I thought that was not too bad at 85 years old.

    How about 
       "flings along the hallway"
       "moves like a greyhound"  (They bring both hind legs up between
    forelegs, touch down, and spring off from the hindlegs again, a very
    crutch-like movement)
    	"gallops on four legs, two of them cructhes"
    	"swings along..."
    	"moving with the accuracy and ease of a pendulum..."
    	
    feeling poetical today...
     

		To crutch
		To crutchet (esp. if [s]he is bad-tempered also)
		To crutchstace (like a crutchstacean, geddit?)
		To tripod
		To crutchsay (after sashay?)
		To armpit (as in "with legs up to his/her armpits")
		To onetwo

    Note .2 suggested "swings along".
    
    How about creating the compound word "swingalong" as either a noun or
    adjective for the motion.  It is reasonably descriptive and has a good
    sound and image to go with it.

    It's a shame that `strike out' (in American English) has the baseball
    connotation of failure. In Br English (American too?) `to strike out
    for somewhere' implies purposefulness, ease of movement, and confidence
    - all relevant to .0.
    
    b

    
    
    ala. Long John...

    Striding?
    
    

    From an old Dave Berry column:
    
    	Motate, motated, motating
    
    g.
    

    
    I think of scoot, scurry along, rock walk, canter (like a horse)
    
    Jeff

    Ok, another one.  
    
    Is there a correct term for a fortified building that contains 
    government offices but isn't normally used as a residence?  
    
    Fort seems to cover only the military aspects, and palace or castle
    implies a residence.  
    
    --bonnie

    Bunker

    Doesn't that imply that it's mostly underground?
    
    --bonnie

    Since they are now being used as prisons in Massachusetts....
    
    							Ann B.

    Bonnie -- 
    
    Why do you need to know all these? Are you writing a novel?
    
    Bruce

    Re: -.1 
    
    Good luck!

    re: .22
    
    You buy one, I'll autograph it for you.
    
    I have to get it published first, however.  And before that I have
    to get it written . . .
    
    --bonnie

  Hi Bonnie,

  In this day and age, "embassy" fits your definition but has the added 
  baggage of being the ambassador's office.  You could probably get your
  meaning across by choosing one of these suggestions and adding "compound."
  E.g., the Mayoral Office Compound smacks of barbed wire and guard
  towers.

  JP

    Garrison
    
    Presidio
    
    Bastion
    
    or, depending on context...
    
    Keep
    
    Complex
    
    					andrew

    I'm looking for something that connotes a building that was
    originally built to house minor government functions (a provincial
    legislature, in this case) but has been fortified to deal with the
    violence associated with a civil war.  Garrison and friends seem
    to emphasize the military aspects.
    
    I'm not familiar with _presidio_.  Spanish, from the sound of it?
    
    I like .24's suggestion of "compound"; the "Provincial Governor's
    compound" carries most of the connotations I'm after. 
    
    --bonnie

    How about stronghold?

    G'day,

    or domain, or domesne or fortress, battlement or bailliwick
    
    
    
    derek
    

How do like this one?

Wook

    
    
    
    Re Bonnie....
    
    	You too ?, mine's up to chapter 7 and contains 34,000 uses of the
    	word 'and' !
    
    	re your first request, I presume it's not to late for a subsitute,
    	there is an old scottish word used to describe the motion of 
    	a disabled person, 'to hirple', which seems to fit.
    
    	re your second how about 'lagger', the spelling does'nt look quite
    	rite somehow. To lagger is to draw ones wagon train into a circle
    	for the night, to make camp (defensive). Crossed into English
    	during the Boer war
    
    	Nigel.

  I need some words to describe, um, well, I don't really know what it 
  is that I want to describe.  I'll have to just try to describe it
  and let you folks make sense of it.

  Computers have enabled some "things" to operate much more
  efficiently.  They have made other "things" possible that were
  formerly impossible.  

  An example of the former is the internal combustion engine.  
  Control modules monitor the operation of an engine and make
  adjustments, e.g., to fuel and air.  This sort of thing is seen in
  both automobile engines and jet turbines.

  Examples of the latter involve the control of things that are
  inherently unstable.  The Grumman X-29 and the Space Shuttle come to
  mind.  The X-29 has forward-swept wings which, without "buffering"
  of control inputs by a computer, would be torn off by aerodynamic
  forces.  Similarly, the Shuttle is supposed to be impossible to land
  without such control buffering by the onboard computers (though
  astronaut John Young is alleged to have accomplished this feat on
  the shuttle simulator).

  The common theme is that computer-controlled adjustments occur very
  quickly, perhaps thousands of times per second.  The high frequency
  of the adjustments overcome the inherent inefficiency or instability 
  of the design.

  I want to propose that Digital adopt some of these concepts and
  generalize some of these approaches for  use in the way we make and
  sell software products.  But it is hard to do that without some
  words that provide a convenient handle. So, how would you describe
  this phenomenon?  Fast feedback?  Short-interval control?  Any help
  would be appreciated.

  JP

How about calling this what it really is and what the term should correctly
be used for (as opposed to the on-line computing it often is used for) ...

Real-time control

Stuart

    Well, it's real-time computer-driven dynamic stability, so how
    about "Compugenic Stability"?
    
    		-John Bishop

    Adaptive control?

  I guess it is time to let you folks in on the other end of this
  idea. The thing that I propose be "manufactured" in a new way is
  customized software (quotation marks because what it means to
  manufacture software is not at all obvious -- but that is another
  discussion).  I don't want to use the word "customized" because it
  tends to connote three things:  1) hand-made, 2) expensive, and 3)
  slow.

  I believe that the current approach often results in lowest common
  denominator producs, i.e., one size fits none very well.  I believe
  that the reason this happens is that we inadvertently build policies 
  into products, which requires that customers adopt (or contort to fit) 
  our   policies or go elsewhere.  What we need is software wherein policy
  and mechanism are strictly separated.  And wherein the policy parts
  are easily modified to match the way a particular customer does
  business.

  I've got a feeling that a process which allows the building of  such
  software would somehow be similar to the way in which computers
  enhance efficiency or enable things that were formerly impossible.
  (This is not an issue of whether computers would be involved in such
  a  process -- they are involved in the building of any software.) 

  It could also be that this connection I see is tenuous or
  nonexistent and that I'm suffering from a pressure loss in my
  brainpan.

  I do thank you for the suggestions thus far, though.  My reactions
  are:

   - Real-time control.  

   When wearing my techie hat, I agree with your term but I am not
   writing for techies.  Non-techies might rightfully wonder: 1) is it
   "real" time is as opposed to "unreal" time? or 2) doesn't an
   old-fashioned computerless carburetor also control engine operation
   in real time?  (I've never heard anyone call this "online
   computing," Stuart.  Perhaps you should hang around with a better
   class of computer nerds?)
  
   - Compugenic Stability

   Ooh.  At the very least, this one gets into the marketing documents
   and advertising copy.

   - Adaptive control

   Very nice.  This one may make it to the the proposal in addition to
   the marketing/advertising stuff.

  Thanks again and please keep 'em coming.

  JP

    
    Computer Assisted Adaptive Control  ( CAAC - pronounced Sayced :-))
                                        ( For you Palindromists       )
    
    jc  

    G'day,
    
     My first (after .38) reaction was to suggest "Assets" ;-)
    
    
    
    Surely this software is 'configurable' to customer needs. or even
    adaptable.   Maybe the s/w is adaptable through a configurator?
    
    Would it do this  by self adaptation, through some learning process? Or
    would one have to tell some configuration process how to do it, based
    on parameters?
    
    Maybe there is a parameter driven auto-configuration process?
    
    
    derek
    

    _NASA Tech Briefs_, a technology-transfer magazine, tends to use
    "dynamic adjustment" for this kind of real-time feedback.  
    
    There are a couple of other terms, too, but I couldn't find them
    in the two issues I thumbed through last night.
    
    --b
    

  Derek,

  Well, software is no more configurable than it is designed to be.  E.g., 
  parameter-driven auto configuration is wonderful but if no parameter
  was created for the software aspect you want to munge, you're pretty
  much out of luck (and into the source code).

  Sure, self adaptation would be nice but there is some truth to the
  statement that AI programs are the software is the future -- and
  always will be.  Since we don't know how to do this yet by hand, I
  feel it is a bit early to automate the process.

  Would you buy something called DEChameleon?  I'd pay a couple of K just
  for the name...

  Ann,

  Yeah, dynamic is good as well as accurate but I fear it is pretty much 
  a worn-out word.  Mutable is wonderful (as long as there are no 
  pronunciation jokes about it being mootable).

  JP

Re: .43

The type of software you describe ("...wherein policy and mechanism
are strictly separated") has often been referred to as "Data Driven". 
This term was quite vogue about three years ago in discussions of
internal CAD and CAM systems, and may still be current.

It is a catchy phrase, as evidenced by the fact that is frequently
repeated by people who have no idea what it means.

Another vogue term comes from the computer-aided software engineering
(CASE) business.  The distinction is make between tools that automate
the administrative aspects of software engineering, which are called
lower-CASE tools; and the tools that automate the process of
converting concept/design into execution, which are called upper-CASE
tools.  The VAXset tools like CMS, MMS, and DTM are lower-CASE, while
code-generators are often classed as upper-CASE.  Upper-CASE is also
very catchy; people can't wait to spend money on it.  Your suggestion
sounds like an upper-CASE approach.

There's another concept mixed in here, which you refer to as "enabling
things that were formerly impossible".  It reminds me of an ontogeny
from college days:

	The priest changes the Unthinkable into the Unknowable
	The magician changes the Unknowable into the Impossible
	The philosopher changes the Impossible into the Unknown
	The scientist changes the Unknown into the Known
	The engineer changes the Known into the Possible
	The technician changes the Possible into the Real

At least that's as best as I can recall.  

A nonce product name: ontodynamicDEC. 

Re: .34 (back to the request for a general term)

The word "cybernetics" was coined by Norbert Weiner to mean "the
science of command and control in animals, plants and machines"  (as I
recall, this definition is the subtitle of Weiner's original book on
the subject, called "Cybernetics").  If you have not read the book,
and you are thinking about topics such as you have described, I
strongly suggest that you read at least Chapter 1.  It would stimulate
your imagination.

The present AHD definition of cybernetics is, "The theoretical study of
control processes in electronic, mechanical, and biological systems,
especially the mathematical analysis of the flow of information in
such systems."  My own interpretation of the adjective form (e.g. a
cybernetic system) would be a system which uses feedback to
dynamically readjust its interaction with its environment, toward the
attainment of an objective.  Computerized control systems, like those
that control aerodynamics or combustion, are always cybernetic.

The AHD definition of the verb "Cybernate" is precious: "To control
[an industrial process] automatically by computer. (-intr.) To become
so controlled."  I can think of a few people who come to work in the
morning in order to cybernate all day!

But if you're looking for a marketable name, 'cybernetics' might be a
bad root because of its history and connotation.  In the late 50's it
was frequently used in the context of robotics and automation, and
came to connote the replacement of people by machines.  (Surely, you
would never promote such an anti-social concept!)

The greek root of the term means either rudder or navigator; I don't
recall which, maybe it's both.  Could you take off from those points?

>	The priest changes the Unthinkable into the Unknowable
>	The magician changes the Unknowable into the Impossible
>	The philosopher changes the Impossible into the Unknown
>	The scientist changes the Unknown into the Known
>	The engineer changes the Known into the Possible
>	The technician changes the Possible into the Real
    
    Then who's responsible for limited nuclear warfare?

  Thank you Bonnie, David, and M. Diamond.

  David, I'll re-read your reply at leisure but for now I just want to 
  thank   you for "ontodynamicDEC"  (which should not be confused with 
  "onomatopoeDEC").

  Oh, and I think the Reagan administration gave us the concept of a 
  winnable limited nuclear war.  But in keeping with the rest of the verse,
  perhaps we should just refer to politicians.

  JP

Does anyone know the word that is used in the context of diplomacy
as a synonym for 'credentials?'  

When a new ambassador arrives at his assignment, he pays an
official visit to the head of state at which the ambassador "presents
his (______)."   Can you help me fill in the blank? 

    I was going to suggest portfolio as well, but Iit doesn't sound
    right now that I see it written down.
    
    --bonnie

    Re .50: That's the exact equivallent of the French term: Lettres de
    cr�ance.
    			Denis.

    In the UK it's either
    
    The Ambassador had an audience at the Court of St. James to present his
    (her) credentials.
    
    Or .... letters of accreditation.

    
     Looking for a verb to describe the action or 
                 a noun to describe the person who:
    
     sees another car on the highway with a radar detector and decides
     to use that car as the 'rabbit'. He/She adjusts his/her speed to that
     of the other car and assumes that when the other cars slows down 
     it indicates a possible radar trap and when then speed up, the coast
     is clear.
    
     It's about time we coined a word for this behaviour/action.
    
     All reasonable offers accepted. :-)

     jc

    We used to call a similar behavior "tailing".  It's a cousin of
    "drafting" (riding in another vehicle's draft to reduce the drag
    on your vehicle.  Not the same thing as tailgating.)

    The earlier form popular in the west was to find yourself an  an
    18-wheeler going the speed you wanted to travel and position your
    car about even with the front of the trailer.  Now you're
    completely radar blind -- if the radar's on the truck's side, the
    cop will never see you; if the radar's on your side, the truck's
    bounceback overwhelms yours.

    I'm told that newer radar guns compensate for this and can tell
    when there's a small object in front of a larger object. 

    --bonnie

    Well, if you're chasing a `rabbit', how about being a `courser'?
    
    							Ann B.

    I thought Ralph Nader got the Corsair taken off the market.
    
    If following a Rabbit makes you a courser, does following a Saab mean
    you're a kleenex?
    
    --bonnie

    Nader nailed the Corvair.
    
    The Black Sheep Squadron flew Corsairs.
    
    Following a Rabbit makes you a Greyhound.  Er, umm, No, that's a bust.
    
    -d

    My 7-year-old son suggested that following a Rabbit means you're
    lost.
    
    --bonnie

Using standard word-association techniques, I've discovered how you're
an Alice if you follow a Rabbit.

Alice in Wonderland hummed a little song, and Alice Cooper is a singer.
(Take it as read, okay?)  Alice Cooper must, of course, use a car to
go from place to place.  Well, wouldn't he drive a Cooper?  And isn't
a Cooper Mini the ideal car to chase Rabbits in?  From Alice to chasing
Rabbits in one incredible stretch.  Q.E.D.

-d

    
    >     Looking for a verb to describe the action
    
    Passporting

    There is a similar situation in glider competitions in which some
    recognized expert who is thought likely to win is followed closely so
    that the follower will do as well as the expert. The follower is called
    a "leech".

    And there is another situation in sail boat racing in which the leader
    changes course every time the follower does so as to avoid the
    possibility of the follower getting a more favorable wind.  The leader
    "covers" the follower.  I've never heard a noun form for this practice.

But Alice, like most other people who go to Wonderland (a dog-racing track
in Revere, Mass.), watch greyhounds chase a "rabbit".  She usually gets
to Wonderland by car, usually following hundreds, maybe thousands of
other cars.

I think 'follower' is a good term.

Dave C.

But she does take the train once in a Blue Line ... err ... moon.

In bicycle racing, a close follower is said to be sucking the leader's
wheel.  The leader is said, quite seriously, to be breaking wind.

That's probably not the words you were looking for, huh?

-d

My first reaction was that this is some form of radar shadowing, but then I
realized that the point wasn't so much that you were using the other car to
hide your radar reflection, but rather to make use of their alleged radar 
capabilities, in effect stealing (or sharing) their radar detector.

If you do such a thing, then you are, of course, a K-bandit and the act is
blind busting.

Common usage might be as follows:

"I was blind busting behind a BMW on Highway 1 last month thinking I was one
bad K-bandit, but the state police pull me over anyways.  What kind of dweeb
drives a B-mer without a fuzz buster?"

Whaddaya think?

Wook

    I think Wook has learned the English language, as it's spoke, better
    than all the rest of us.

    Nah.  If he had, he'd know that the "state police" are the bears or
    Smokey.  Sorta like, "...but Smokey laid a buncha green stamps on me
    anyways."
    
    And them cars ain't B-mers, they're Bimmers.  My brother useta have one
    till he wised up and dumped it for a Legend.
    
    -d

    re .68:
    
    Following closely behind someone so as to take advantage of their wake
    is also called "drafting" -- or I suppose "draughting" if you're from
    the east side of the Pond.
    
    re .69 &c.:
    
    I think Wook's got it right. I've never heard "bimmer." I've heard
    "beemer" which must be the same as "B-mer," but this could be because
    Wook and I live in New England. Perhaps it's a regional difference.
    
    	Jon

Re: .72

Actually, around Boston you're likely to hear "beemah" though it's definitely
"beemer" for transplanted Michiganders like me.

Re: .71

FWIW, I considered using the term "bear", however my goal wasn't so much to 
capture the quintessence of the vernacular as it was to provide a plausible
setting for my neologisms.  I thought using "bear" or "Smokey" might distract
readers unnecessarily.  Otherwise it might have come out more like this:

"I was blind busting behind a f***ing B-mer last month thinking I was one bad
a$$ K-bandit, but a g**d*** Smokey done bust MY a$$ anyway. What kind of
m*****-f***ing, commie s***head drives a f***ing B-mer without a f***ing fuzz
buster?!?!"

Ah!  The very attar of American vernacular! :^) ;^) :^) ;^)

Re: .70

I owe my facility with American vernacular to too many hours of watching bad
TV in my youth.  Having lived in the U.S. of A. since age two, I have more of
a midwestern (well Michigander) accent than anything else.  My relatives have 
commented on several occassions about how bad my American accent is when I speak
Korean.  It's kind of embarrassing, actually.

Wook

    >>I owe my facility with American vernacular to too many hours of
    >>watching bad TV in my youth.
    
    Ah, so the Gilligan's Island theme song really *is* stuck in your head.
    
    :?)
    
    

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
  A tale of a fateful trip
That started from this tropic port
  Aboard a tiny ship.

The mate was mighty sailin' man,
  The skipper, brave and sure.
Five passengers set sail that day
  On a three hour tour.

A three hour tour....

The weather started getting rough.
  The tiny ship was tossed.
If not for the courage of the fearless crew,
  The Minnow would be lost.

The Minnow would be lost....

The ship's aground on the shore of this
  Uncharted desert isle
With Gilligan, the Skipper, too,
  The Millionare and his wife,
The Movie Star, 
  The Professor and Mary Ann,*
Here on Gilligan's Isle!

[A typically inane episode]

So this is the tale of our castaways.
  There here for a long, long time.
They'll have to make the best of things.
  It's an uphill climb.

No phone, no light, no motor cars,
  Not a single luxury.
Like Robinson Ca-rusoe,
  It's primitive as can be.

So join us here each week my friends.
  You're sure to get a smile
with seven stranded castaways
  Here on Gilligan's Isle!

* For the first season, substitute "And the rest, are" in place of this line.

re: .74
>   >>I owe my facility with American vernacular to too many hours of
>   >>watching bad TV in my youth.
    
>   Ah, so the Gilligan's Island theme song really *is* stuck in your head.
    
No, no, he said *bad* TV.  Your Gilligan's Island reference is to *great* TV.
Also, re: "Ah, so ...", as we just found out, Wook is from Korea, not Japan.
(politically incorrect grins here ...  :-) :-) :-) etc. )

re: .75
>The ship's aground on the shore of this
I remember it as "The ship set ground ...", although, looking at it now ...
"set ground"?  ... although "Gilligan" wasn't exactly the epitome ...
But, it was great TV!
(I vaguely recall seeing the lyrics posted elsewhere in JOYOFLEX.)

>* For the first season, substitute "And the rest, are" in place of this line.
Was that *only* the first season?

Which one did you fall for, Ginger or MaryAnn?

    Re .75
    
>  The Minnow would be lost.
    
    Does Mr. Minow know about this?  Does he read this conference?

>  There here for a long, long time.
    ----
    
    Boo!
    [Please imagine another hyphen under the T, to underline the entire
    "There."  Our latest, greatest version of Notes software won't let
    me put one there.]

Re: .72 et seq.  The word pronounced "Beemer" is spelled in the U.S.
automotive press B-i-m-m-e-r.  Dunno why, but them guys must know
*something*.

Re: .77

To set your left margin somewhere other than where it is, press the Do
key (or Gold-7) and enter the command "set left margin X" where X is
any integer in the range from 1 to the number of columns on your screen,
not to exceed the location of the right margin, which can be similarly
moved ad libitum.

-d

    Re: .-1
    
    I knew this notes conference was somehow educational, in spite of
    Gilligan's Island doggerel and how to spell and pronounce BMW.
    
    I had to look up "ad libitum" to find it is a musical term meaning
    "freely played".  I suppose one can freely play with the right margin.
    Perhaps some other dictionary has a meaning other than a musical one.

It's a Latin phrase meaning, literally, "at pleasure," and it is usually
abberviated "ad lib." or just "ad lib".

Used in music, it doesn't mean *exactly* freely played; the latter term
implies that there is something - a melody perhaps - that the player is
taking liberties with, whereas ad-libbing is usually taken to mean
playing extemporaneously something from one's imagination.

The term "ad lib" is also used on other entertainment milieux to mean
something out of the blue, such as a great one-liner.

One could suppose my usage corresponds with "as the chef desires."  One
would be right.  :-)

-d

    Re .78
    Thank you for the advice about "SET MARGIN".
    It wasn't necessary in our previous version of notes.  Actually, I
    was going to mention that the DCL command "SET LANGUAGE ENGLISH"
    doesn't have much effect, but I just tried "HELP" and NOTES' editor
    offered help in English (though the keymap is all screwed up).
    Usually NOTES only offers help in Japanese.
    
    Re .79 and .80
    Surely the Latin phrase for "at pleasure" would be "ad libido."

    Re: .81
    
    Sorry, but you provoked my teaching instincts.  Beware next time.  :-)
     _ _ _  _ _
    Libido/libidinis is a third-declension feminine noun whose meaning is
    primarily "desire" or "lust;" hence Freud's use of the term.  It also
    can, as you suggest, mean "pleasure," but read on.
        _    _       _
    Libeo/libere/libui/libitus is a second-conjugation verb meaning "to
    please."  The fourth form is the participle, meaning "having been
    pleased" or, in the neuter, by implication the state of same.  Common
    forms were "libet - it pleases" and "mihi libet - it pleases me."  This
    latter expression could of course be translated as "Oh, baby, what I
    *like*!"
    
    -d

Re: .77 "Boo!"

I confess.  You caught me.  And I tried so hard to proofread it first....

I still haven't heard any reaction to "K-Bandit" and "Blind Busting", though I
suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Wook

    
    
    Hi Wook, no chat, long time. ( I fortunately, did not watch Gilligan's )
    
    >>I  still haven't heard any reaction to "K-Bandit" and "Blind Busting",
    >>though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
     
    What the %$#@!$%#$% does that mean? Did you have a response time-table?
    Was I supposed to reply / delay = immediate? :-)  
    
    Thanks for all the ideas; I had no idea that each vehicle discipline   
    ( sailing, bicycling, etc ) had its own term for similar behaviour.
    
    Wook's interpretation was correct ( perhaps I should have been more
    explicit... ) 
    The action is sharing the K band and while the intention is to avoid a
    ticket for speeding, a side effect might be 'blind busting', though not
    necessarily.
    
    
    Replies to replies ( Alice not included... )
    
    .57 tailing and drafting mean that the other vehicle is doing the 
        brunt of the work and you are enjoying the fruits of that labor.
        The 'rabbit' in this case is doing no real work. Only setting 
        what you ( the other driver ) believe to be a non-enforceable
        speeding.
    
    .58 courser - a nice word ( a good pun word too! ) but doesn't quite
        fit this situation.
    
    .64 passporting - I liked this a lot. It suffers from the fact that it
        lacks genericity ( is it legal to invent words while we are
        inventing words? ).  Other ideas along these lines?
    
    .65 leech/covers - too negative a conotation. However, there is a 
        dimension of 'leeching' involved.
    
    .66 follower - is a by-product. But, you can follow anyone; in this
        case, however, you believe that the other car has a radar detector.
    
    .68 sucking the leader's wheel/breaking wind - I for one would never
        admit to doing those things! :-)  Again, this implies the work
        effort and a follower using that effort.
     
     Wook's 'K-bandit' was close. The 'bandit' portion implies stealing and
     that's not the case. Sharing is what's going on - albeit with (perhaps)  
     no knowledge on the part of the other driver. 
    
     K-pimping comes to mind. ( No pun intended. ) Can't be used in polite
     conversation. Sigh. 
    
     Other ideas or extensions to previous ideas are welcome. Work often
     prevents me from a quick return to Notes. ( Not to mention the net 
     problems we (our group/cluster/site )have had over the last three
     months - ah, but that's another story and in due time we may need to
     find a word to describe errant network behavior. :-))
    
     jc
     

    I'd say that if someone's too cheap to buy their own radar
    detector, and then goes out and tails someone else whom they think
    does have a radar detector, without the other driver's permission,
    then they are stealing the use of that other driver's detector.
    
    --bonnie

    But the radar-detecting driver may not object to a K-tailer, since the
    fuzz is almost as likely to pull over the second vehicle as the first
    (in the event that no radar is actually being used -- for instance an
    unmarked car). 
    
    The more, the merrier!

    >( Not to mention the net problems we (our group/cluster/site )have had
    >over the last three months - ah, but that's another story and in due
    >time we may need to find a word to describe errant network behavior.
    >:-))
    
    
    "DisconNETuity" ?

    
    re .85   bonnie, I suppose we'd need a definition here of "steal" to 
             reach clarity ( how's that for a euphemism? ) but in fact,
             the other driver is not "taking" anything from the first.
             He/she is merely imitating behavior based on the belief 
             that the other car has a radar detector. Perhaps K-mime? 
    
    re .87   Yes, that well describes it! ( We might even leave out the 
             'con' portion for "DisNETuity".  :-)
    
    jc
       

    .84> a word to describe errant network behavior
    
    How about "notwerk behavior"?

    	The remora hitches a free ride from sharks. How about "remorising"?

    Re .85
    
       As was pointed out it's not stealing.
    
       The act of stealing requires the "intent to permanently deprive 
       the owner of the property".
    
       So this is why there isn't an offence of stealing information by 
       reading.  It's also why vehicle joy-riders in the UK are charged 
       with "taking and driving away without the owners consent".
    
    Nick

    I thought there had been a recent change in th UK law in the matter of
    "taking and driving away without the owners consent". I heard on some
    news program not too long ago that as TDA was no longer an indictable
    offence joyriders were being charged with theft of a small quantity of
    petrol. The ingenuity of lawyers!
    
    Of course, in Northern Ireland the British Army have devised a
    different penalty for joyriding.
    
    b

    Though there might be a legal distinction, I don't see much moral
    or ethical  difference between ripping off someone's property and
    ripping off their services.  
    
    I suppose that's why so many otherwise honest people don't mind
    stealing phone and cable services -- it's not actually a "thing"
    you can "deprive" anyone of, even temporarily.  Unless it's so
    rampant that it brings down the system, it doesn't affect any
    other user. 
    
    I guess that also applies to a lot of copyright violation, where
    people don't intend to make money on it themselves.  They don't
    care that they're depriving the author of what s/he might have
    made had someone bought the work in question.
    
    --bonnie

Re: .84

Hi, jc.  Yeah, it has been a while hasn't it.  Notice how I subtlely redirected
the discussion back to the topic in question.  (Also notice how the discussion
has subsequently drifted down an ethics rathole. Sigh.)

I suggested "blind busting" because there is only an assumption that the car
being tailed has the requisite technology in operation.  The tailer is trying
to make use of a potentially nonexistant fuzz buster.  At any rate that person
is actually radar blind inspite of any delusions to the contrary.

I think "bandit" is quite appropriate and not only for the reason Bonnie gives
in .85. Remember that stealing also means to move stealthily in order to avoid
detection which is the whole point here.

My office edition of the albeit yucky American Heritage Dictionary lists the
following definitions of the verb "to steal":

	1. To take away without right or permission. 
		[this would seem to include joy-riding - WL]

	2. To get or effect secretly or artfully.

	3. To move, happen, or elapse stealthily or unobtrusively.

	4. Baseball. To advance (a base) by running during the delivery of a 
		pitch.

Depending on your sense of ethics, the first three definitions seem to apply to
the act of blind-busting.  (The challenge for my fellow JoyOfLexers is to make
the fourth definition fit. :-)

It occurs to me that a whole group of blind-busting vehicles could be a 
K-band convoy.

This of course brings to mind the phenomenon of en-masse speeding which may or 
may not be related to the presence of radar detectors.  This is more like the 
herd instinct translated to the highway environment i.e., safety in numbers.

A Highway Herd?  A Freeway Flock?

Wook

    Re: .91
    
    > The act of stealing requires the "intent to permanently deprive
    > the owner of the property".
    
    So if I take someone's car without his permission and intend to
    return it in a week, that's not stealing.  Seems like a poor definition
    to me.  Stealing is the _unauthorized_ use of property.  It makes no
    difference whether the thief intends to return it someday.  Books,
    films, songs, and the like are regarded as intellectural property and
    they can be stolen (used without permission) as effectively as material
    property.
    
    Bernie  
   

> 4. Baseball. To advance (a base) by running during the delivery of a pitch.
    

The highway herd will speedily advance when they see Smokey pre-occupied
with another vehicle, delivering his pitch, "so where's the fire?". 

If Smokey is unable to deliver, it is called a balk.

    Re: .95

    >> So if I take someone's car without his permission and intend
    >> to return it in a week, that's not stealing.

    Legally correct in many jurisdictions, regardless of your or my
    opinion. The problem, of course, is to persuade the DA (or the judge or
    the jury) you actually intended to bring it back.  If your car died,
    and you had to rush your pregnant wife to the hospital, you might
    succeed.  If you were a 17 year-old male and had dropped out of school,
    and you "borrowed" a car in the middle of the night, you probably
    wouldn't succeed.

    In Canada, Japan, at least parts of the U.S.A., and who knows where else:
    
    If you use CPU cycles on a computer without paying for them (or without
    the owner's permission to use them free), that is considered stealing
    and is legally punishable.
    
    If you use a human's time to write programs and "forget" to pay the
    person, that is not considered stealing and is not legally punishable.
    (Though in some cases civil, not criminal, proceedings may recover a
    portion of the money owing.)
    
    Yes indeed, computers have more rights than humans.
    
    The U.S.A. cannot make English its official language because then so
    many laws which are written in legalese would have to be rewritten in
    English.  (Hmm, why doesn't Canada have to do this ... twice over ....)

    	There was a fairly well publicised case in Britain some years ago,
    where a car owner delivered his car to a garage for a routine service.
    The garage owner, instead of servicing it, decided to go off on holiday 
    with it touring round Wales, and sold his garage.
    
    	The police explained to the car owner that while they would be
    happy to inform him of known sightings of his car, it was not
    technically stolen, so they could do nothing. It would only become
    technically stolen if he asked the (ex)garage owner for its return, and was
    refused. The car owner spent several weeks travelling round Wales
    himself before he managed to achieve this.

    The other one on the lines of the garage owner involved a photocopier 
    company and an employee (ex-employee).
    
    The employee had a company car.  He set off to install some software 
    at each of four European sites of his employer, but failed to show up 
    anywhere.
    
    The employer asked the police for help in recovering the company car.  
    The police attitude was:
    
    1  You supplied him with a car;
    2  It was supplied with permission for him to use it for private as 
       well as business use;
    3  We can only help in the recovery if you can prove that he intends 
       to deprive you of the car permanently;
    4  As you've supplied him the car, proving the intent will be 
       difficult;
    5  Until you do prove the intent, we're unable to act.
    
    Getting proof of intent to permanently deprive the owner is why in 
    the UK joyriders are never charged with stealing, always with 'taking 
    and driving away' and/or criminal damage.  They're not charged with 
    the theft of the fuel, as they can always say "but I was going to put 
    some fuel in it".
    
    Again in the UK, people who make phone calls with 'black boxes' etc. 
    are charged with theft of electricity, not with theft of service.
    
    Isn't the law wonderful !! ??
    
    Nick

	4. Baseball. To advance (a base) by running during the delivery of a 
		pitch.

Depending on your sense of ethics, the first three definitions seem to apply to
the act of blind-busting.  (The challenge for my fellow JoyOfLexers is to make
the fourth definition fit. :-)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Logging trucks deliver pitch, so therefore if you are blind-busting
    behind a logger you are clearly advancing during the delivery of pitch.
    
    

Re: .97



>> So if I take someone's car without his permission and intend

>> to return it in a week, that's not stealing.



> Legally correct in many jurisdictions, regardless of your or my

> opinion.  The problem, of course, is to persuade the DA (or the

> judge, or the jury) you actually intended to bring it back.  If

> your car died, and you had to rush your pregnant wife to the

> hospital, you might succeed.  If you were a 17 year-old male and

> had dropped out of school, and you "borrowed" a car in the middle

> of the night, you probably wouldn't succeed.



You are quite right; in the attempt to apply laws and legal apparatus to the

concept of stealing, many such anomalies occur.  The concept of stealing,

however, is a clear one and it entails the use of property without the owners

permission (tempered, I suppose, with the constraint that the  use is

intentional and not inadvertent), even if the thief intends someday to return

the property.





Re: .98, .99, .100



The reason we are dismayed and outraged by such inconsistencies and injustices

is that we do have a clear concept of stealing and we understand that the Law

has failed adequately to deal with it.



Bernie

>> ...  The problem, of course, is to persuade the DA (or the
>> judge, or the jury) you actually intended to bring it back.
>>... If you were a 17 year-old male and had dropped out of school,
                                ----
>> and you "borrowed" a car in the middle of the night, you probably
>> wouldn't succeed.
    
>You are quite right; in the attempt to apply laws and legal apparatus to the
>concept of stealing, many such anomalies occur.
    
    Yeah, including the illegal sexist discrimination, right?

Re: .94 et seq.

Many landscape firms install sod, so if you're blind-busting on a
sod lorry whose destination is a football stadium you are clearly
advancing during the delivery of a pitch.

More the the point, however, is the fact that a base runner who steals
is moving into a position where he is more likely to score; he is
therefore wilfully attempting to deprive the opposing team of the
benefit it might eventually gain from one of the runs it has scored.
Looks like theft to me, or at the very least attempted theft.

re: stealing

	In order to 'steal', you must first deprive a victim of the use of 
	some tangible (i.e. a car, CPU cycles, etc.).

	U.K./U.S. legal interpretations aside, what is a 'blind-buster'
	stealing? 

	A 'blind-buster' simply selects his driving speed according to the 
	speed of another car -- and exercises some care in choosing the proper
	car.


	my 2 cents worth...

    >In order to 'steal', you must first deprive a victim of the use of
    >some tangible (i.e. a car, CPU cycles, etc.).
    
    This is the first time I've seen CPU cycles called tangible.
    
    OK, new lectological question here, what does "tangible" mean?

    My American Heritage dictionary (not the best) says the legal
    definition of "tangible" is, "Capable of being valued monetarily, as
    land or securities: tangible property".
    
    CPU cycles can be valued monetarily, so I suppose they can fit the
    definition.

    Webster's New World Dictionary says:
    
    adj. [LL _tangibilis_ < L. _tangere_, to touch] 1. that can be touched 
    or felt by touch; having actual form and substance  2. corporeal and 
    able to be appraised for value [tangible assets]  3. that can be 
    understood; definite; objective.
    n.pl. property that can be appraised for value; assets having real
    substance; material things.
    
    The third adjectival definition would seem to include CPU cycles as
    tangible entities.  My guess is that 'tangible' originally applied 
    only to material or substantive entities, but that popular usage has 
    expanded is meaning to include the non-material.  I'll see whether 
    the OED can verify this.
    
    Bernie
    

    Getting a definition from a legal dictionary sounds more useful for the
    purposes of this discussion than even the OED.

    Both a legal dictionary and the OED are likely to tell us something
    interesting.  The legal dictionary will tell us what the law regards as
    tangible property or tangible assets (which in the case of the Common
    Law is likely to agree with the OED).  The OED will tell us whether its
    meaning as changed over time to include non-material property.
    
    Personally, I am interested in what both have to say and I think they
    will be of equal import the the discussion.
    
    Bernie

    	I regard waste or theft of my time as much more serious than the
    equivalent for a computer since I regard myself as superior to most
    computers.
    
    	If the principle can be established then I predict that a lot more
    advertisers will be prosecuted than hackers.
    
    	And the advertiser saying "but you left yourself open to it by
    switching on the television and connecting an aerial" would be no more 
    a defense than the equivalent hacker argument.

    The OED offers four uses of 'tangible.'
    
    1. Capable of being touched; affecting the sense of touch, touchable.
    
    2. That may be discerned or discriminated by the sense of touch; as a
       tangible property or form.
    
    3. _fig._ That can be laid hold of or grasped by the mind, or dealt
       with as a fact; that can be realized or shown to have substance;
       palpable.
    
    4. Capable of being touched or affected emotionally.
    
    The first two uses date back to the 17th century, the third dates to
    the early 18th, although it is said to be a figurative use only.  The
    fourth is a new sense to me and seems not to be widely used.
    
    So the primary application of 'tangible' is to material objects, but
    there is also a well-established figurative use.  Except for the
    latter, we can exercise some precision by confining 'tangible' to
    material entities and 'intangilble' to the non-material.  It would be
    foolish, however, to expect precision of lawyers, so has anyone access
    to a law dictionary?  Are exotic beasts like CPU cycles now regarded as
    tangile property?
    
    Bernie

    Re: .111
    
    What is the hacker argument?
    
    Bernie

    Re: .113

  >    What is the hacker argument?

  The hacker argument is that because your computer was not capable of
  keeping me out, it was OK for me to break into it.  The flap surrounding
  this argument is what caused the recent change in requirements for
  SYS$ANNOUNCE messages.  I.e., it was argued that "Welcome to VAX/VMS..."
  is an invitation to break in.

  Of course if one finds that argument convincing, one must also believe that
  a welcome mat and an unlocked front door is an invitation for someone to
  walk away with one's furniture.  And perhaps it is in a sense but that
  doesn't make the theft lawful.

  JP

    If one believes the cracker argument, then even a welcome mat with
    a LOCKED door is an invitation to break in.  I understand that a
    cracker was actually acquitted in a court case because of a welcome
    message, and the change in the welcome message is based on tangible
    evidence.
    
    There is another argument, which I think does not depend on either
    crackers or hackers, about a different case.  If a computer is capable
    of keeping people out, but is wilfully designed not to do so (for
    example, not prompting for passwords or with no password assigned, or
    using the C function gets() or other irresponsible practices), then it
    is OK to enter.  Actually this corresponds to the legal precedent that
    entering a house without the use of force (presumably due to not being
    locked) does not constitute BREAKING-and-entering, but for some reason
    I haven't read of this precedent being applied to computer cases.  I
    think it should be.  Although I do not condone cracking, I do think
    that a customer who buys an operating system that was never intended
    to be secure (among other things that it was never intended to be),
    and remains insecure, then the customer is asking for it.

  I think the acquital story may be one of those urban legends, since
  I've never been able to track it down.

  I do not believe that the other arguments for it being "OK to enter"
  hold water (but of course the validity of an argument may have nothing
  to do with whether a lawyer makes that argument).  There is a difference
  between breaking and entering but trespassing is still a crime.  And
  breaking and entering is not always a crime -- some states allow 
  a hunter to break into a cabin for shelter as long as they pay the
  damages.

  The list of "never intended to be secure" systems includes almost all
  single-user systems (e.g., PCs and RT-11 systems), and you must also 
  consider whether vendor-supplied security mechanisms are actually used 
  by the system owner (i.e., whether the vendor-supplied locks were set).
  Further, if a knowledgeable person has physical access to almost _any_ 
  computer system, that system can be hacked.
    
  JP

    Whether morally this is theft is another issue, but the hacker
    argument has more legal merit than it looks at first glance. 
    
    Trespassing is not always a crime; among other things, a property
    owner is required to allow other people to cross his/her property
    to get to publicly owned land, and in some places you're allowed
    to cross anybody's property if you're trying to get from one place
    to another.  Often the owner is required to provide an access path
    through the property -- then you have to stay on the official
    path, but the owner still retains all the rights to the property.
    
    There's also the issue of semipublic property -- if you own a
    building that has a door that faces the street on each side, can
    you keep people from cutting through the building to get to the
    other street?  No, not if you allow some people to enter the
    building.  If you allow any public access, you have to let anybody
    in.  So Rockefeller Plaza with its shops and offices is open to
    anyone who wants to come in and look around.  
    
    There's a question as to whether computer networks are private
    property.  The physical hardware, wires, and systems themselves,
    yes.  Standalone systems that aren't hooked into anything, yes. 
    Networked computers, however, make use of public communications
    facilities such as telephone lines and microwave channels that are
    by law accessible to the public, and it's legally very vague
    whether the cycles inside the computer are then part of the
    network, something that you are allowed to cross and use to get to
    what you're doing.  
    
    It's not even clear whether reading something that was left in the
    system is any more a crime than reading a book that someone left
    on a bench in the lobby of the Rockefeller Center while you're
    waiting to meet someone for shopping.  
    
    --bonnie

    	Trespassing is not a crime in British law. I assume from the
    previous replies that it is in U.S. law.
    
    	If you trespass in Britain the owner of the property can ask you to
    leave whenever he finds you (and take action if you refuse to leave) and 
    if it is repeated he can get a court order that you must not do it again. If
    you are prosecuted it is not for trespass, but for contempt of court in
    ignoring the court order.
    
    	The analogy with computer crime is that (under British law) if you
    find an unlocked door to a house, walk in and read books from a
    bookcase, and leave peaceably if the owner finds you and asks you to
    leave, then you have committed no crime. Patent and/or copyright law
    may protect him against you misusing the information that you have
    acquired, and he can get a court injunction against you using his
    library even if he leaves his door permanently open, but that is all.
    
    	Crackers have argued (and I believe in some cases successfuly) that
    electronic access to information should be treated identically to
    physical access to the information. Your protection against him using
    your computer cycles would be about as much as your protection against
    him breathing the air in your garden, and the information would be
    protected (where relevant) by copyright and patents.

    >Trespassing is not a crime in British law. I assume from the
    >previous replies that it is in U.S. law.
    
    In some states, under some circumstances.  I believe that in
    general the situation is pretty analogous to the British
    situation.  But in many states, actually entering a private
    dwelling is more protected than entering a public building or
    sitting on somebody's lawn watching the sunset. 
    
    The issue of "confidential corporate information" is related to
    this whole concept -- one of the reasons we're supposed to pay
    attention to "Company confidential" and so on is that if Digital
    as a company doesn't make any attempt to keep such information a
    secret, it isn't a crime for IBM or Honeywell to take and make use
    of the information. 
    
    --bonnie     

Re .116

>  I think the acquital story may be one of those urban legends, since
>  I've never been able to track it down.

I think I read it in a real newspaper, not Usenet.  Of course, this
doesn't help track it down....

>  Further, if a knowledgeable person has physical access to almost _any_ 
>  computer system, that system can be hacked.

Yes, but walking in where there's no wall is different from picking a lock.
(Maybe not different legally though....)

    Re: several
    
    In most of the US, the charge for walking into somebody's house through
    an unlocked door is "illegal entry", not "breaking and entering".
    Massachusetts has those, plus "breaking and entering in the night time"
    which is a still more serious offense.

    Trespass in Massachusetts.  You are not trespassing unless the owner
    has ordered you off.  He can do this by signs, by an oral order, by a
    letter (preferably return receipt requested), or by court order.  If
    you fail to leave when ordered, or you do it again, then you are
    trespassing, and trepassing is a (low degree) criminal offense.
    Trespass laws vary somewhat from state to state.

    Crossing somebody's property to get to your own, for example, will be
    trespass if you have been ordered not to do so.  The normal way this
    problem is handled is with a deeded access right (an "easement") for
    you to cross the property.  Then there cannot be trespass even though
    you are walking on another's property.

    I had a long argument in human:: (now humane::) digital about reading
    files that were set world readable.  Since VMS and other modern OSs do
    provide mechanisms (usually by standard default) to keep casual
    browsers out, my personal belief is that it is OK to read files which
    allow it (but trying to guess passwords is not OK).  I received a lot
    of flack for that opinion (and let's not re-argue it here). I simply
    don't believe that the data-in-a-computer situation is analogous to
    somebody physically entering my home. It simply doesn't feel the same
    to me, regardless of what the law actually says.  But it is clear that
    many DECcies feel the trepass analogy does fit.

    	I would normally have made hints about this getting beyond the
    scope of the conference, but it seems there is a significant difference
    between English and American in that under British law trespass is
    never a crime in itself. British hackers like the trespass analogy for
    this reason, but unfortunately for them there is now an explicit law
    which would supercede any common law analogy.
    
    	Under British law there are roughly three categories of visitors to
    your land. Certain have a statutory right to enter, even if they have
    to cause damage to do so. This would include (for example) gas supply
    people investigating a leak. Others are in some sense "invited" such as
    explicit guests or normal tradespeople. They have a right to be
    protected while on your property. The third category, trespassers, only
    have the right that *you* are only permitted to do the minimum
    neccessary to remove them from your premises; if a polite request will
    suffice you are not permitted to throw a bucket of water at them.
    Burglars, even where there was no doubt about their intentions have
    been able to claim large amounts of compensation when injured by traps.

    >Burglars, even where there was no doubt about their intentions
    >have been able to claim large amounts of compensation when injured
    >by traps.
    
    This is true in the US as well, though I think it's related to
    unreasonable force more than to property laws.
    
    Unfortunately, legislative bodies in the US are not, on the whole,
    taking this issue seriously and they're leaving it to judicial
    bodies to try to find precedents for concepts never imagined in
    1750's disputes over the location of a stone fence.  It's the same
    as with contract childrearing.  People are doing it, but the
    legislatures are all looking the other way.
    
    --bonnie

Here's one I needed for a proposal I was writing:

If you have an array of computers all working to solve a single problem, one
of the considerations that comes up is how to break the problem down into a
group of parallel tasks and maintain synchronization between the tasks.  There
are compilers which will do this for you automatically with varying degrees of
cleverness.  What is a good adjective to describe such a compiler? 

I have seen "decomposing" which really rots, and "parallelizing" which leads 
me into a state of parallelysis (see 325.66 et seq).

I've seen a more felicitous word, but I'll be damned if I can remember it.

Larry

    If you don't like "decompose" (which is the standard term), how
    about "distribute"?  It's more often used for coarser-grain
    parallelism, but covers the same area.
    
    		-John Bishop

    Decomposition is a general term for breaking up a problem.
    However, for the purpose of parallelization, parallelization
    is usually the word.  Actually I think there is a synonym for
    parallelization that is often used for a single loop in a
    program, but I can't remember that either.

    Having heard rumors of an un-published 10th symphony, scholars decided
    to exhume Beethoven's body, hoping the manuscript had been buried with
    him.  On opening the coffin, they found Ludwig busily erasing a score. 
    "Herr Beethoven!" they exclaimed, "What are you doing?"

    "I'm decomposing."

    
    Segmentation?  Modularization?  Both these words have or had other
    meanings.  But the computer biz is a place where everyone expected
    to subscribe to the Humpty Dumpty School of Lexicography ("A word
    means just what I choose it to mean, no more and no less.").
    
    JP
    

    Fond as I am of "decomposing"...
    
    ;-)
    
    ...I can see why some might not like it. Other negative-sounding terms,
    like "disassemble" or "deconstruct," might have similar image problems.
    Would it be out of line to reuse a more rigorously defined term like
    "factor" or "normalize"? ["Activate the Normalizer, Herman." "Yes, Mr.
    Peabody!"]
    
    Or call it the Componentizer and watch people wince...
    
    -b

re .129:

Mr. Peabody's pet boy was named Sherman, not Herman.

re composing vs. decomposing:

Here's a bit of doggerel:

Mozart was a great composer
  He spent his time composing.
Now that he is dead and gone
  He spends it decomposing.

	autoparallelisynchronicity -- but I just use a24y myself

    If you need a noun, is "decomposition" a little more appetizing? If a
    verb, keep it transitive ("decompose the application") -- organic
    matter decomposes intransitively.

    The term "decomposition", outside this particular context, has a more
    general meaning than the specific meaning here of decomposition into
    independent operations that can be performed simultaneously.
    
    I don't know what's especially wrong with "parallelize" that couldn't
    also be said about "serialize", which is a perfectly respectable word.
    However, if you insist, the verb form of parallel is
    parallel/paralled/paralleling. So it would be a "paralleling compiler",
    defined by Webster's New World (and accepted by the Concise Oxford) as
    "a) to make one thing parallel to another, b) to make parallel to each
    other".
    
    -Tom

    All these variations are interesting, as is usual for this conference,
    but if you use anything other than "decompose" or some very close form,
    you will confuse people, because that's the term already in use.

    So you get to decide: do you want to use a standard technical term and
    be understood, or do you want to pick something you can justify on
    euphony and etymology?

    This month's IEEE Computer magazine, which has some articles on
    parallel processing, uses the term "parallelization" in several places
    to describe the process of structuring an algorithm or compiling code
    into parallel-executable fragments.
    
    -Tom

 I know it's neither technical nor precise, but no one has come up with these:

   How about "cooperating" or "collaborating"?

 They sound a lot nicer than "decomposing" or "rotting".

    	I am trying to help my daughter with her homework. She is writing a
    police mystery. She obviously has the plot worked out, but since she
    thinks mainly in French she is having occasional difficulties with
    words. The murder victim has been found with his dead parrot beside
    him.
    
    	"Daddy, 'The autopsy showed the parrot died from stranglement'
    doesn't sound right".
    
    	"Try 'strangulation'".
    
    	"And after it was strangulated it was 'assomm�'; how do you say
    that in English"?
    
    	Now I would normally translate "assomm�" as "knocked unconcious",
    but that didn't quite seem to fit for an already dead parrot, so I
    asked her how she would translate it. "Bonked on the head" was the
    answer. At this point memories of Monty Python took over and I was
    unable to produce anything coherent.
    
    	Can anyone produce a translation of "assomm�" that would fit both
    the story context and the context of being marked by a teacher with an
    English public school accent?

    "And after someone strangled it, they seem to have coshed it too."
    
    or this...
    
    "But look!  He's not only been strangulated, but someone's bashed his
    poor head in with a sap."
    
    Both "cosh" and "sap" were instruments of battery that I didn't
    encounter till I took up Ian Fleming, and they were a welcome change
    from the lead pipes & "blackjacks" of my youth with Dashiell Hamett.  
    And a breath of fresh air they were, too.  And since I can't find
    either word or definition in my Americanese dictionary, I think their
    provenance as Britishisms is yet a bit more secure.
    
    HTH, Dan
    

    "Assomm�" means "pining for the fjords".

    Seriously, though, a parrot that has died from "strangulation" was
    "strangled". "Strangulated" is only used in the context of restricting
    circulation (like an artery). And then "it was struck on the head", "it
    was clubbed for good measure", "they smashed its head in", "they
    bludgeoned it to boot", "they gave it a knock up side the head",...
    
    Has your daughter been watching American TV? :-)
    
    -Tom

    	We can't receive any English language television here (unless I
    save up for a satellite dish). Even Perry Mason is dubbed into French
    rather than subtitled. This may account for her sometimes idiosyncratic
    English. Thanks for the suggestions.

    
    Please excuse the following attempts at substantive editing (when a
    story is being written, everyone wants to get into the act!).
    
    The method of choice for killing birds is wringing their necks, not
    strangling them.  If the plot really calls for strangulation, then
    perhaps "asphyxiation" might do?
    
    I just happen to have another story about a parrot and a dead body.  It
    seems a gentleman rented a 5th-floor walk-up apartment and kept a
    parrot for companionship.  He taught the parrot to say "Who is it?"
    whenever it heard a knock on the door.
    
    One day the gentleman was absent when the landlord sent a plumber to
    the apartment to deal with a long-standing complaint about a leaky
    faucet.  The plumber hauled his toolbox up five flights of stairs and
    was quite out of breath as he knocked on the door.
    
    "Who is it?" asked the parrot.
    
    "It's the plumber."
    
    "Who is it?" asked the parrot.
    
    "It's the plumber!"
    
    "Who is it?" asked the parrot.
    
    "I SAID IT'S THE PLUMBER!  WHAT'S THE MATTER, ARE YOU DEAF?"
    
    "Who is it?" asked the parrot.
    
    At this point the plumber became so upset and angry that he keeled over,
    dead of apoplexy.
    
    When the gentleman returned he noticed the dead body just as he opened
    the apartment door.  "Who on earth is this!?!" he exclaimed.
    
    "It was the plumber," said the parrot.

    Good point about wringing necks. The other good thing - from the
    translator and English teacher's point of view - is that `wringing'
    is English, and not a Romano-Gallicism.
    
    Someone's wrung its neck and smashed its head in
    
    ?
    
    
    b

    Good point about wringing necks. The other good thing - from the
    translator and English teacher's point of view - is that `wringing' is
    honest-to-goodness English, and not a hi-falutin' Romano-Gallicism.
    
    Someone's wrung its neck and smashed its head in
    
    ? The alternation of parts of the body appeals to me.
    
    
    b

    Dashiell Hammett certainly DID know the verb "sap"!
    
    But let's go back to the bird.  By all means, sir, let us talk about
    the bird.  Wouldn't "coldcock" do?
    
    Ray

    Hey Ray, *I* never said that "sap" and "cosh" were VERBS -- I implied
    in .138 that they were nouns!
    
    No doubt Hammet knew "sap" as a verb as in "The constant battering had
    managed to sap his strength..."
    
    ... or as noun as in "I ain't takin' the rap for that dumb sap..." 
    
    But I challenge anyone's recollection or crime library to come up with
    a Hammett use of "sap" as in "cosh."  
    
    BTW Ray I love your P_N!!  :-)
    
    PS -- would SOMEBODY pleeyuze carry on from 396.13457 -- I can't STAND
    the suspense!?! :-)

    .145>     BTW Ray I love your P_N!!  :-)
    
    Me too
    
    But I'm a kittycat, know any nice pogo sticks?   ]:K  :-}
    
    Yesrie

    K., I meant verb "sap" as in verb "cosh" as in "Someone's sapped it,
    too!"  I'll have to check my handy dandy Black Mask Concordance
    tonight, but I thought Hammett used the word, master of blunt
    instruments that he was. 
    
    Ray Davis, narrow of eye

Just thought I'd add a dime or two to the discussion which seems to have died
without resolution.  Here are some terms that haven't been suggested yet:

Partitioning Compiler
Partitive Compiler

Of course, if it's new words you want, how about this:

Multicursive Compiler - A compiler that creates code that runs in multiple flows.


Wook

    I'm not in the mood to reread the old replies, but have a feeling that
    the word "vectorize" might have been omitted due to a very large block
    that was operating in parallel on all of our mental processors.....

    My younger daughter is looking for a word that she is certain exists,
    but can't retrieve.  Neither can any others of us...
    
    It's a fancy word for "swan song" and somewhat like "valedictory" in
    that it's your last big thing before death, especially if you're an
    artis or performer.  
    
    Help?
    

    G'day,
    
    
    the thesaurus here suggests thanatopsis or even Gotterdammerung (all
    Sp?)
    
    or how about willuntestymunt.
    
    as in last willuntestymunt?
    
    
    derek

    I found it in my valet-dictionary
    
    Kik

    Last Hurrah?