When I did a Google search for "incentivize" (to make sure I was
spelling that word correctly) it found lots of results, but first
asked me if I meant "intenctivize." If I click on that, it says
it found no instances of "intenctivize" and asked me if I meant
"incentivize."

I've repeated the process, and sometime it does the same, sometimes it
instead asks me if I meant "inventivize," and sometimes works normally.

As for YouTube, /embed/ still works on my HP laptop. Some children's
videos require this hack, but not all of them.

On my Dell laptop, YouTube still works fine without this hack, even
though it too has Ubuntu, Firefox, and Adblocker Plus. Go figure.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 21:10:43 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> When I did a Google search for "incentivize" (to make sure I was
> spelling that word correctly) it found lots of results, but first asked
> me if I meant "intenctivize." If I click on that, it says it found no
> instances of "intenctivize" and asked me if I meant "incentivize."
>
> I've repeated the process, and sometime it does the same, sometimes it
> instead asks me if I meant "inventivize," and sometimes works normally.
>
> As for YouTube, /embed/ still works on my HP laptop. Some children's
> videos require this hack, but not all of them.
>
> On my Dell laptop, YouTube still works fine without this hack, even
> though it too has Ubuntu, Firefox, and Adblocker Plus. Go figure.

They must have been surveilling your attempts at "incentivize" and
fixed the problem just like that! It worked fine for me just now.
As for /embed/, could you be more specific on how to use it?
I did the substitution in a Youtube URL, plugged it into the browser's
address field and got a page-not-found error.

Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> Of course, it should be "incentivise". :-)

> (And yes, I know that technically, both spellings are OK in British
> English, but many people will insist that spelling it with a zed is
> an Americanism. I had a letter published in the Guardian about this
> this year.)

That's exactly why I was looking it up. I've read so much American,
British, Canadian, and Australian English that I often get them mixed
up. (I'm currently in the middle of reading Churchill's four-volume
_A History of the English Speaking People_.) And the built-in spell-
checker in Emacs didn't accept either spelling.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
>They must have been surveilling your attempts at "incentivize" and
>fixed the problem just like that! It worked fine for me just now.

Maybe they fixed it, or maybe you just happened to get a different
server. Google's mirror databases are inconsistent over the short
term because it would cost too much to always keep them consistent
with each other. And such consistency is only really necessary for
applications such as banking.

> As for /embed/, could you be more specific on how to use it? I did
> the substitution in a Youtube URL, plugged it into the browser's
> address field and got a page-not-found error.

Sorry, I described it in two recent posts here, so I didn't think I
needed to keep doing it. Replace "/watch?v=" with "/embed/" in each
YouTube URL (without the quotes). Simply click on a video as normal
and start playing it. When it freezes after a second or two and tells
you to disable your ad blocker, go to the URL in the URL bar and make
the above replacement. Unfortunately, you lose the ability to view
any comments. And you sometimes lose the use of j, k, and l to
control the playback. But you can still control the size, resolution,
speed, and volume as usual. And you can pause or move around with the
trackpad or mouse.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> Both spellings are in the Chambers Dictionary app I have on this
> computer (which seems to be the 2013 paper edition digitised).

I guess Emacs doesn't use that dictionary.

Anyhow, happy Guy Fawkes Day. It's a good think you currently have a
Charles, not a James, on the throne. He doesn't have to worry about
being blown up, but he might want to watch for sharp objects near
his neck. (Too soon?)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> When I were a lad, we never celebrated Guy Fawkes day on a Sunday.

Americans don't celebrate it at all. Most have never heard of it.
They may have seen Guy Fawkes masks, but typically have no idea who he
was, or whether he was real or was part of some movie franchise like
Freddy Krueger or Frankenstein's Monster.

Speaking of which, yesterday I said to my brother, with whom I often
watch movies on weekends:

Remember, remember, the fifth of November
I see no reason why we should not
watch a movie about the Gunpowder Plot.

We couldn't find a movie of reasonable length (rather than much too
long or much too short) that we could watch online for free, but we
did find a documentary, called The Real Story of Guy Fawkes, so we
watched that. (He and I are both fascinated by history.)

> This was more popular than Trick-or-treating, which was not
> something I remember doing.

Apparently, Trick-or-treating originated in Canada in the 20th
century, though there was something similar called "guising" in
Scotland earlier.

I don't know why the US doesn't have Guy Fawkes day. The plot
happened before there were any English colonies in what eventually
became the US. Though it was surprisingly close. Fawkes was executed
in January 1606 and the first colonists sailed for Virginia in
December of that year. (Not counting the earlier failed "Virginia"
colony in what's now North Carolina.)

I'm actually not sure whether January or December came first in 1606
in England. Was New Year's Day in January or in the spring?

Getting back to Google weirdness, I discovered an interesting YouTube
channel which is immune to the new adblocker blocker. It's called
"Violin MD."
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 02:53:04 -0000 (UTC),
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:

>> This was more popular than Trick-or-treating, which was not
>> something I remember doing.

We did have Halloween parties some years with apple-bobbing and
the like, but definitely no trick-or-treating.

> Apparently, Trick-or-treating originated in Canada in the 20th
> century, though there was something similar called "guising" in
> Scotland earlier.

Guising is a bit different as the idea is that the kid had to
do something - tell a joke, sing a song, recite a poem etc to get
their reward.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

On 11/6/23 9:53 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> I don't know why the US doesn't have Guy Fawkes day. The plot
> happened before there were any English colonies in what eventually
> became the US. Though it was surprisingly close. Fawkes was executed
> in January 1606 and the first colonists sailed for Virginia in
> December of that year. (Not counting the earlier failed "Virginia"
> colony in what's now North Carolina.)
>
> I'm actually not sure whether January or December came first in 1606
> in England. Was New Year's Day in January or in the spring?

It's a confusing question. I came upon this just now:

Since about 1600 most countries have used 1 January as the first day of
the year. Italy and England, however, did not make 1 January official
until around 1750.

In England (but not Scotland) three different years were used:

The historical year, which started on 1 January.

The liturgical year, which started on the first Sunday in advent.

The civil year, which

from the 7th to the 12th century started on 25 December,
from the 12th century until 1751 started on 25 March,
from 1752 started on 1 January.

https://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-history.html

As for why we don't have Guy Fawkes Day, the 4th of July seems to
satisfy the same need for fireworks.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 11:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:

>In article <slrnukk3mr.3g7tc.andyl@azaal.plus.com>, andyl@azaal.plus.com
>(Andy Leighton) wrote:
>
>>
>> We did have Halloween parties some years with apple-bobbing and
>> the like, but definitely no trick-or-treating.
>
>Yes, I rememberer one of those when I was in the scouts in the sixties.
>
>I also remember we made Halloween lanterns out of turnips or swedes.
>Pumpkins started appearing later.

I had to look up "swedes" (my initial reaction being, "didn't they
object to being made into lanterns?) Here they're called rutabagas.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 06:06:05 -0500, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
wrote:

>As for why we don't have Guy Fawkes Day, the 4th of July seems to
>satisfy the same need for fireworks.

Besides July 4th commemorates a revolution that succeeded.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> As for why we don't have Guy Fawkes Day, the 4th of July seems to
>> satisfy the same need for fireworks.

As you know, Bob^H^H^H Gary, we have them on New Year's too.

And Disneyland and Disneyworld have them every night.

> Besides July 4th commemorates a revolution that succeeded.

So? The British think it's good that the gunpowder plot failed, hence
worthy of celebration. If our revolution had failed, perhaps the
British would celebrate July 4th and Americans wouldn't.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 11/7/23 7:56 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>>> As for why we don't have Guy Fawkes Day, the 4th of July seems to
>>> satisfy the same need for fireworks.
>
> As you know, Bob^H^H^H Gary, we have them on New Year's too.
>
> And Disneyland and Disneyworld have them every night.
>
>> Besides July 4th commemorates a revolution that succeeded.
>
> So? The British think it's good that the gunpowder plot failed, hence
> worthy of celebration. If our revolution had failed, perhaps the
> British would celebrate July 4th and Americans wouldn't.

I'd put the alternate date of celebration at October 17. The scenario is
that instead of being decisively defeated at Saratoga, Burgoyne wins a
smashing victory, putting an end to the uprising. This could well have
happened if the French, prodded and financed by Auguste Caron de
Beaumarchais (author of The Barber of Seville and the Marriage of
Figaro), hadn't come through with the armaments that enabled the
colonists to win there.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> I see it's Diwali this weekend, another occasion for fireworks.

Good. Maybe that will cut down on the vast number of scam phone calls
from India. Does Britain get them too? Or just the US?

I was never prejudiced before, but I certainly am now. I was unable
to watch a math lecture where the speaker had that accent which I now
associate entirely with scammers, crooks, and liars, since 99% of the
time I hear it it's someone trying to cheat me.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 02:29:52 -0000 (UTC),
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>> I see it's Diwali this weekend, another occasion for fireworks.
>
> Good. Maybe that will cut down on the vast number of scam phone calls
> from India. Does Britain get them too? Or just the US?

Yep we get them. Depending on how busy I am I tend to keep them
on the line for a bit - my keyboard with no key between ctrl and
alt (or command) throws them a bit. Then the fact I am not running
a GUI (well I do on some machines - but I don't tell them that) really
throws them. At other times they hang up as soon as I say "Is that
right?" - I must have perfected the right tone that they don't even
bother.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 12:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:

> In article <uihg70$7pf$3@reader2.panix.com>, kfl@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
> Lynch) wrote:
>
> >
> > Good. Maybe that will cut down on the vast number of scam phone calls
> > from India. Does Britain get them too? Or just the US?
>
> I bought a new landline phone earlier this year and you can set up an
> allowed callers list. If the caller is not on the list, the phone
> doesn't ring and the caller can leave a message. So far, no one has.

I looked at changing broadband provider recently - lots of new! fibre!
deals come without a landline - it's a UK gvmnt thing to do away with
landlines by 2025? soon, anyhow. Hope your phone is OK after that date.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
>> I bought a new landline phone earlier this year and you can set up
>> an allowed callers list. If the caller is not on the list, the
>> phone doesn't ring and the caller can leave a message. So far, no
>> one has.

That's not practical for people who need to be accessible to people
from any number.

A friend of mine got a well-paying job that required her to be
available via phone on the night shift. She was warned that maybe
there would sometimes be emergencies requiring that she be reachable
during the day, when she was asleep. But that this would be at most
two or three times per year. These calls might be from any number.
She agreed to that.

She had to quit that job, due to scam calls from India waking her up
multiple times per hour. This loss has cost her hundreds of thousands
of dollars. So I'm not surprised that she harbors very un-feminine
ideas on what to do about it. Ideas that involve drone bombing of
known call-center sites on the subcontinent. I've tried to convince
her that sanctions, and pulling the plug on India's international
cables, should be tried first.

> I looked at changing broadband provider recently - lots of new!
> fibre! deals come without a landline - it's a UK gvmnt thing to do
> away with landlines by 2025? soon, anyhow. Hope your phone is OK
> after that date.

There are VOIP providers in the US, i.e. bring your own broadband
provider, physical landline phone, and power outlet, and they provide
a small device that links them and provides phone service. I've used
such a service for nine years. To move my phone line when I moved
house this summer, I just put the small device in my shirt pocket. It
costs a lot less than traditional landline service, and it includes
unlimited (domestic) long distance calls.

Of course phasing out landlines would screw anyone without broadband
or a cell phone. I was surprised when I heard that after Superstorm
Sandy wrecked lots of telephone infrastructure 11 years ago, that
instead of fixing it the phone companies in the affected areas
provided fixed-location cell service that charged by the minute and
that dialup modems wouldn't work with. (Traditional landlines in the
US give unlimited local service rather than charging by the minute.
And plenty of people at the time, including me, still used dialup
rather than broadband to access the Internet.)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Maybe that will cut down on the vast number of scam phone calls
>> from India. Does Britain get them too? Or just the US?

> Yep we get them. Depending on how busy I am I tend to keep them on
> the line for a bit -

Me too. So that may be partly my fault. One of my suggestions to
them is that they harass British rather than Americans, since *we*
never colonized or oppressed them.

But then I also think that if India was still part of the Empire, that
the King would lock up the scammers in the Tower of London. (He may
need to enlarge that building first.)

> my keyboard with no key between ctrl and alt (or command) throws
> them a bit. Then the fact I am not running a GUI (well I do on
> some machines - but I don't tell them that) really throws them.

From that I gather that they all claim to be Microsoft. I've gotten
that, but I've also gotten dozens of other scams. They often pretend
to be from various parts of the US government, or to be from "your
TV services" or "your power company." One claimed to live here in
Vienna, Virginia, while mispronouncing both "Vienna" and "Virginia."
Solar installers. My car insurance company. (I've never had a car.)
Something diabetes-related. (I've never had diabetes.) Most of them
are very skittish and hang up the instant I go off script -- which
doesn't keep them from calling back. But some are willing to argue,
insisting they're not scammers and are not in India. Often they curse
at me. Occasionally they accuse me of wasting their time.

> At other times they hang up as soon as I say "Is that right?" - I
> must have perfected the right tone that they don't even bother.

I've got you beat -- sometimes they hang up as soon as I say "Hello."
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 01:48:53 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Maybe that will cut down on the vast number of scam phone calls
>>> from India. Does Britain get them too? Or just the US?
>
>> Yep we get them. Depending on how busy I am I tend to keep them on
>> the line for a bit -
>
> Me too. So that may be partly my fault. One of my suggestions to
> them is that they harass British rather than Americans, since *we*
> never colonized or oppressed them.
>
> But then I also think that if India was still part of the Empire, that
> the King would lock up the scammers in the Tower of London. (He may
> need to enlarge that building first.)
>
>> my keyboard with no key between ctrl and alt (or command) throws
>> them a bit. Then the fact I am not running a GUI (well I do on
>> some machines - but I don't tell them that) really throws them.
>
> From that I gather that they all claim to be Microsoft. I've gotten
> that, but I've also gotten dozens of other scams.

Very often, at others they pretend to be from BT (and also talk
about a fault on my internet). I guess they just want me to download
and run a remote control software package. I haven't got enough time
to setup a disposable VM and play with them although I have seen
videos of people doing that.

> to be from various parts of the US government, or to be from "your
> TV services" or "your power company." One claimed to live here in
> Vienna, Virginia, while mispronouncing both "Vienna" and "Virginia."
> Solar installers. My car insurance company. (I've never had a car.)
> Something diabetes-related. (I've never had diabetes.)

I don't get any of those any more. I have in the distant past had
someone phone about "a car accident I had" (like you I am a non-driver).
Even argued that it could have been when I was a passenger when I said
I didn't drive.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 01:48:53 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>But then I also think that if India was still part of the Empire, that
>the King would lock up the scammers in the Tower of London. (He may
>need to enlarge that building first.)

Actually, I suspect that if India (et al) were still part of the
empire, the owners of the boiler rooms the operators work in would be
Anglo-Indians.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> Very often, at others they pretend to be from BT (and also talk
> about a fault on my internet).

The ones I get seldom name a legitimate company. Usually it's "your
TV service," "your telephone service," "your power company," or "your
insurance company." Obviously they have no idea what companies I do
business with. I've never heard of a legitimate business that doesn't
use its name, and only says "we're your power company" (or whatever)
if I express puzzlement as to what that company does.

I don't know how anyone falls for such blatant scams. Indeed, by this
point I find it difficult to believe *anything* said by someone with
that accent, regardless of context.

> I guess they just want me to download and run a remote control
> software package. I haven't got enough time to setup a disposable VM
> and play with them although I have seen videos of people doing that.

I've also seen videos of people hacking into *their* computer, showing
knowledge of their scam's org chart, chatting with them in their
native language, phoning the people they recently scammed to warn
them, etc. I hope those videos are all real.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 11:41:46 AM UTC-5, Paul Dormer wrote:
> In article <ui6c0j$l5e$1...@reader2.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
> Lynch) wrote:
>
> > If I click on that, it says
> > it found no instances of "intenctivize" and asked me if I meant
> > "incentivize."
> Of course, it should be "incentivise". :-)
>
> (And yes, I know that technically, both spellings are OK in British
> English, but many people will insist that spelling it with a zed is an
> Americanism. I had a letter published in the Guardian about this this
> year.)

I'm partial to the back-formation, "incent."

[quote]

The Oxford English Dictionary‘s first citation for the word appears in an
1840 issue of the Rover, a New York literary weekly:

[/quote]

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2008/06/to-incent-and-incense.html

--
Kevin R