 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006English changes?
Hi all, I have been living abroad for too long. During the last 20 years or so the English language has changed, but "my vocabulary" has become tainted with the local dialect and new terminology. So can someone please explain to me a couple of things? 1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in Scandinavia they say "Send me an SMS" (Send me a Short Message Service). But because SMS is an English initialism, it has no meaning in another language and is therfore gramatically correct. But what does the native Englishman say? "You can SMS me"? "Send me an SMS text message"? "text me"? 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". Could it simply be "Digital box"? Sorry for these seemingly trivial questions, but if you live away from the language then it sort of stagnates. Regards H Harry Lethall <oeieio@NOSPAAM.hotmail.com> had it: > Hi all, > > I have been living abroad for too long. During the last 20 years or so the > English language has changed, but "my vocabulary" has become tainted with > the local dialect and new terminology. So can someone please explain to me a > couple of things? Which variety of English would you like to be advised on? There are people here from all over the world and the answers to some of your questions are different in different regions.  SignatureDavid ===== Here in South Africa we almost exclusively use the word SMS (or its alternative MMS). SMS me, i sent you an SMS, SMS me. when peopl euse the word "text" in that context - they are usually from UK or US > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Regards H > > 1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in Scandinavia they > > say "Send me an SMS" (Send me a Short Message Service). But because SMS is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "Send me an SMS text message"? > > "text me"? > Here in South Africa we almost exclusively use the word SMS (or its > alternative MMS). SMS me, i sent you an SMS, SMS me. when peopl euse > the word "text" in that context - they are usually from UK or US That's VERY interesting. I was always taught that abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms were short-forms in order to speed up the exchange of information between experts. It that definition still remains, then I can understand that "native" English (UK & USA) cannot send a Short Message Service, but send "text", whereas others can indeed send the SMS abbreviation. This explains the phrase I heard on the BBC world service that sparked this whole thread, but I did not want to quote anything that could "colour" (or color) any response. Many thanks for takingt he time and trouble to respond. Regards H >> > 1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in Scandinavia >they [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >"native" English (UK & USA) cannot send a Short Message Service, but send >"text", whereas others can indeed send the SMS abbreviation. Regardless, when my phone notifies me I have received a text message it beeps "SMS" in Morse code. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Regardless, when my phone notifies me I have received a text > message it beeps "SMS" in Morse code. Does it send "SMS" as a single character? (...--...) or three seperate characters "S. M. S."? (with intermediate character spacing, a la ... -- ...) Harry Lethall wrote, in <eipa8t$jbi$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se> on Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:49:01 +0100: > > Regardless, when my phone notifies me I have received a text > > message it beeps "SMS" in Morse code. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > three seperate characters "S. M. S."? > (with intermediate character spacing, a la ... -- ...) Separate on my Nokia 6310. I wonder what the large percentage of the population who have never had contact with morse code think of that signal. I know a lot of people substitute something else. SignatureNick Spalding The Nick Spalding entity posted thusly: >Harry Lethall wrote, in <eipa8t$jbi$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se> > on Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:49:01 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >population who have never had contact with morse code think of that >signal. I know a lot of people substitute something else. The Cell Separator at VGH in Vancouver beeps SOS when it requires operator intervention. I don't speak Morse, so I sometimes wonder if there are examples of Morse Code signalling on other equipment. Nice to see there are. > Harry Lethall wrote, in <eipa8t$jbi$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se> on Tue, > 7 Nov 2006 07:49:01 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > population who have never had contact with morse code think of that > signal. I know a lot of people substitute something else. I've had contact with Morse code, and my immediate reaction the first time I heard the "SMS" code was to think that someone was in such serious trouble that they even miskeyed the call for help. It caused a temporary panic at the pub I was in, so presumably many people there had the same thought. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >> Regardless, when my phone notifies me I have received a text >> message it beeps "SMS" in Morse code. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >three seperate characters "S. M. S."? >(with intermediate character spacing, a la ... -- ...) I wish you hadn't asked ... ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "Send me an SMS text message"? > "text me"? (From BrE speaker living in the UK) The service is called "SMS", but in everyday conversation "text me" or "send me a text" are the most usual in my experience. > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". > But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to > the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". In the UK it is usually a "cash machine" or "cashpoint" (the latter originally being a Lloyds Bank trademark, I believe, but now genericised). I have never heard "Bankomart" - it is never used here to my knowledge. "Hole-in-the-wall" is used by some. > 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; > mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". Could > it simply be "Digital box"? There are various types of digital set-top box, generically popularly called a "digibox". To be specific you would need to say which box you mean (e.g. "Sky digibox" or "Freeview digibox"). If the digital tuner is integrated into the TV set itself (rather than being a separate unit) then, AFAIK, it would just be called a "digital TV". > Sorry for these seemingly trivial questions, but if you live away from the > language then it sort of stagnates. > > Regards H matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk skrev: >> 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". Actually, it's Bankomat, derived from bank automat. In Sweden, an "automat" is usually a vending machine. > > 1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in Scandinavia they > > say "Send me an SMS" (Send me a Short Message Service). But because SMS is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The service is called "SMS", but in everyday conversation "text me" or > "send me a text" are the most usual in my experience. Many thanks, comments most appreciated. > > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". > > But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > genericised). I have never heard "Bankomart" - it is never used here to > my knowledge. "Hole-in-the-wall" is used by some. I think then that "Bankomart" is the Scantinavian version of "Cashpoint", although "Bankomart" (White text on a blue background) is used by almost all the major banks over here. > > 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; > > mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". Could [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is integrated into the TV set itself (rather than being a separate > unit) then, AFAIK, it would just be called a "digital TV". Thank you, that was totally new to me. But please, what does AFAIK stand for? But at least I know that the (UK?) term is "digibox" for the blue thing that sits atop my telly. I really must get a Digital TV. Regards H >>> 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a >>> "Bankomart". But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think then that "Bankomart" is the Scantinavian version of > "Cashpoint" Scantinavians? Are they the guys who walk around in their underwear? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > Scantinavians? Are they the guys who walk around in their underwear? ... and make tipping errors. Harry Lethall skrev: > I think then that "Bankomart" is the Scantinavian version of "Cashpoint", > although "Bankomart" (White text on a blue background) is used by almost all > the major banks over here. Note that there is no "r" in "Bankomat" (bank automat). It's got nothing to do with "mart". <snip> > > > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a > "Bankomart". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > although "Bankomart" (White text on a blue background) is used by almost all > the major banks over here. And, as others have mentioned, another possibility that I forgot is "ATM" (Automated Teller Machine). This term is known in the UK, but tends to be used in bank literature rather than everyday speech. > > > 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; > > > mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for? But at least I know that the (UK?) term is "digibox" for the blue thing > that sits atop my telly. I really must get a Digital TV. AFAIK = as far as I know. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "ATM" (Automated Teller Machine). This term is known in the UK, but > tends to be used in bank literature rather than everyday speech. "ATM" seems to be common in conversational Australian, but what I hear more often is "bank machine". "Cashpoint" sounds technical, and I would misinterpret that as EFTPOS, which is how I obtain most of my cash anyway. SignatureRob Bannister > Hi all, > > I have been living abroad for too long. During the last 20 years or > so the English language has changed, but "my vocabulary" has become > tainted with the local dialect and new terminology. So can someone > please explain to me a couple of things? In UK English, since you didn't specify. > 1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in > Scandinavia they say "Send me an SMS" (Send me a Short Message [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Send me an SMS text message"? > "text me"? "Text me" works fine. > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a > "Bankomart". But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) > occasional trips to the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". "Hole in the wall" is what most of the people I know call it. > 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; > mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". > Could it simply be "Digital box"? I call digital TV "digital TV". I call the box either a "digibox" or "set-top box". Hope this helps. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >> 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a >> "Bankomart". But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) >> occasional trips to the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". > "Hole in the wall" is what most of the people I know call it. This was used more when these things were fairly new and were all of the "hole in the wall" format, rather than the freestanding machines, machines in shops etc you have now. People would now tend to call them "cash machines". Matthew Huntbach >>> 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a >>> "Bankomart". But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > machines, machines in shops etc you have now. People would now > tend to call them "cash machines". You know, I'd quite forgotten "cash machine". Which is silly, because it /is/ widely used. Just, erm, not by me, yesterday... SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary > > 1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in > > Scandinavia they say "Send me an SMS" (Send me a Short Message [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "Text me" works fine. Great info. I was particular thinking of the UK, but would also be interested to know how the term travelled acros the Atlantic :-) > > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a > > "Bankomart". But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) > > occasional trips to the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". > > "Hole in the wall" is what most of the people I know call it. It was in Rotherham last year that I used the term to effect. It is obviously more common "up North". > > 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; > > mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". > > Could it simply be "Digital box"? > > I call digital TV "digital TV". I call the box either a "digibox" or > "set-top box". "Digibox" is probably the term I was seeking. Hope it would be ubderstood in the USA. I know that "Boxer-box" is not! Many thanks for t'comments. Regards, H >> > 1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in >> > Scandinavia they say "Send me an SMS" (Send me a Short Message [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Great info. I was particular thinking of the UK, but would also be > interested to know how the term travelled acros the Atlantic :-) "Text me" is, I think, more common in the US. (I don't have a cell phone, and the people I know who do, don't sent text messages. But in ads for some porno hot lines the hot bodies wink and say things like "text 44156". >> > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a >> > "Bankomart". But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) >> > occasional trips to the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". >> >> "Hole in the wall" is what most of the people I know call it. There may be some regional variations, but I think most people say "ATM", which means Automated Teller Machines. Of course we frequently say "ATM machine". In my area, everyone also still understands the "TYME" (Take Your Money Everywhere) machine reference. >> > 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of >> > "boxer"; [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ubderstood in > the USA. I know that "Boxer-box" is not! Ever since I have had cable television (I now have Dish Antenna, and my neighbors have DirectTV), I have had a "cable box", or "converter". I suppose that I wouldn't need the box if I just had cable, now, as my TV is "cable ready", but since my cable and Dish services provide digital programming, then I need the "converter". They tell me that it will serve for HDTV programming, too, so I can delay buying the new TVs until the price goes down. Anyway, I think that is how the world works. Pat durkinpa at msn.com Wisconsin > "Text me" is, I think, more common in the US. (I don't have a cell > phone, and the people I know who do, don't sent text messages. But in > ads for some porno hot lines the hot bodies wink and say things like > "text 44156". Now THAT is interesting. Not the porno bit, but the regular use of the "Text 44165" instruction format. That is one of my motivations for this thread. As a writer of technical literature (with spelllchecker, I hastily addd) I have to document end-user instructions, and this technology came after my exposure to native English speakers. >> > 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of >> > "boxer"; mainly because there is a company with that name selling [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Digibox" is probably the term I was seeking. Hope it would be > ubderstood in the USA. Almost certainly not. If it's connected to a cable it's a "cable box". For satellite systems, it tends to be brand-specific, e.g., "DirecTV box". The generic, at least in the industry, is "set-top box", even though few of them live atop TV sets anymore, but I'm not sure that the general public is familiar with the term. "Digibox" wouldn't have any connection with TV in the minds of most Americans. (It doesn't for me.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the |channel on our televisions...... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus" (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> had it: > >> > 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of > >> > "boxer"; mainly because there is a company with that name selling [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > wouldn't have any connection with TV in the minds of most Americans. > (It doesn't for me.) The digibox is neither cable nor satellite. It is a receiver of terrestrial digital TV broadcasts, the provider of which in the UK is "Freeview", which is backed by the BBC. Freeview took over from an earlier, doomed incarnation named "ITV Digital" which paid too much for the rights to show soccer matches and went bust. Analogue TV broadcasts will be phased out across the UK starting in 2008, I think. The TV I bought three years ago has a digital tuner built in, as do Media Center (sic) PCs and other PVRs, so digiboxes will become unnecessary in a decade. Currently they are sold in the supermarket for £30. SignatureDavid ===== > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The digibox is neither cable nor satellite. What's a "Sky digibox" then? <matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk> had it: > > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > What's a "Sky digibox" then? I suppose it's a Sky STB. I may have misled the company because I don't have satellite. Is there a term to distinguish a Freeview digibox from a Sky digibox? IME, the cable box is known as a Set Top Box and not a digibox. SignatureDavid ===== > <matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > digibox from a Sky digibox? IME, the cable box is known as a Set Top > Box and not a digibox. I think that Freeview digiboxes are technically called "digital terrestrial receivers" (DTRs), which would seem to fairly clearly exclude satellite and cable decoders. According to Peter Duncanson's post to this thread (and also Wikipedia), "Digibox" was in fact originally a Sky trademark (I didn't know that). However, I think that in the UK the term has genericised and become more-or-less synonymous with "set-top box", as a general term for any gadget that decodes digital TV signals, whether terrestrial broadcast, satellite broadcast or (perhaps to a lesser extent) cable. > <matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >digibox from a Sky digibox? IME, the cable box is known as a Set Top >Box and not a digibox. I've found support for my assertion in another post that Digibox is specific to Sky (BSkyB): http://www.dtg.org.uk/publications/books/recorder_technology.pdf Glossary ... Digibox Trade name for Sky satellite receiver. However, the word is now used colloquially as a generic term for a digital STB -- satellite, terrestrial, and, possibly, cable. Sky appears to have ceased using the name. There is confusion about what the boxes are called. Different makers use different descriptions for the boxes that receive digital channels via a normal "rooftop" aerial (antenna). I have boxes of three different makes: 1. Daewoo "Free View Video Recorder". This is a VCR (VTR). It bears the logo of the international standard used in UK DTT transmission: DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting). 2. Pace Micro "Digital TV Adapter". 3. Goodmans "Free to View Digital Terrestrial Receiver". With the obvious exception of the VCR these are known colloquially as STBs or Freeview (Digital) Boxes. Some retailers call them Freeview boxes, Digital Television Receivers or Digital TV Adapters. Variations in manufacturers' and retailers' terminology can be seen at: Argos http://tinyurl.com/yz8rwq Currys http://tinyurl.com/wdhzw Some so-called "Freeview" boxes have a slot for a card to enable the decoding of subscription digital terrestrial channels in addition to receiving the Freeview channels. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >I've found support for my assertion in another post that Digibox is >specific to Sky (BSkyB): [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Sky appears to have ceased using the name. The word Digibox is a British and European RTM for computer hardware and software, owned by InterTrust Technologies Corporation of Santa Clara, Calif. I guess it's debatable whether a set-top box falls into that category. I think I'd be happy to argue that it does, though I might fail to convince - there's no restriction to 'general purpose computers' or the like, and compute it does, I'm sure. It's bound to include reprogrammable microprocessors responding to user commands. Ok: Pro bono publico, what is a computer, and is there one in a set-top box? SignaturePaul In bocca al Lupo! >The word Digibox is a British and European RTM for computer hardware and >software, owned by InterTrust Technologies Corporation of Santa Clara, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Ok: Pro bono publico, what is a computer, One of those things that computes. > and is there one in a set-top >box? No. A set top box *is* a computer with integral specialised input/output thingies. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > The digibox is neither cable nor satellite. It is a receiver of > terrestrial digital TV broadcasts, the provider of which in the UK is > "Freeview", which is backed by the BBC. Freeview took over from an > earlier, doomed incarnation named "ITV Digital" which paid too much > for the rights to show soccer matches and went bust. *coff* My digibox is Sky. >Hi all, > >I have been living abroad for too long. During the last 20 years or so the >English language has changed, but "my vocabulary" has become tainted with >the local dialect and new terminology. Tell me about it (18 years away in my case). >So can someone please explain to me a >couple of things? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Send me an SMS text message"? > "text me"? "Text me", although people seem to avoid using it in the past tense -- I seem to hear "she sent me a text" a lot more than "she texted me". >2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". >But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to >the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". Unless I'm not keeping up again, "cash machine" is still widely used. "ATM" is mostly American still, I think. I don't know whether "cashpoint" is still hanging in there. >3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; >mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". Could >it simply be "Digital box"? Do you mean those set-top decoder thingies? How about, er, "set-top decoder thingy"? SignatureRoss Howard > >Hi all, > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "ATM" is mostly American still, I think. I don't know whether > "cashpoint" is still hanging in there. Yes, I still say "cashpoint" here in London. > >3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; > >mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". Could > >it simply be "Digital box"? > > Do you mean those set-top decoder thingies? How about, er, "set-top > decoder thingy"? I say "set-top box" but tend to trip up over it, because it's a 3-word phrase, with equal stress on each word. And there is a "t" following a "t" in "set-top", then a "b-" following a "-p". Clumsy! Baboon. > >I have been living abroad for too long. During the last 20 years or so the > >English language has changed, but "my vocabulary" has become tainted with > >the local dialect and new terminology. > > Tell me about it (18 years away in my case). If I had a LOT of time to spare then I could tell you a few stories. In my films I get my English corrected by local "experts". Without much contact with "home" I sometimes doubt myself. A project manager, for example, did not understand the term "sound" as used in any other context than audio. As a result, my (verbal) script for the film was edited to read "... has arrived save and in one peice." > >2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". > >But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "ATM" is mostly American still, I think. I don't know whether > "cashpoint" is still hanging in there. When I was working in the Middle East, this new-fangled thingy was known in Arabic as an "ATM", but when I went home for a holiday (to England) no-one knew what I was talking about. > >3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; > >mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". Could > >it simply be "Digital box"? > > Do you mean those set-top decoder thingies? How about, er, "set-top > decoder thingy"? I think that "set-top decoder thingy" sounds about right. At least everyone will understand just what the heck it really is. Only in the Scandinavian countries can you ask for a "boxer-box" and not have to explain yourself. Best regards H > > >I have been living abroad for too long. During the last 20 years or so > the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If I had a LOT of time to spare then I could tell you a few stories. [...] It occurs to me to wonder if you've been away so long that "Tell me about it" is one of the changes you've missed. In case you have, it now generally means "You don't need to tell me about it, because I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt, knowymean?" But we'd enjoy the stories, innit. SignatureMike. > "Harry Lethall" wrought: >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you mean those set-top decoder thingies? How about, er, "set-top > decoder thingy"? Most tops of the newer TVs are not shaped for putting anything on them. Our cable boxes are on shelves below or above the sets. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ [...] > > Do you mean those set-top decoder thingies? How about, er, "set-top > > decoder thingy"? > > Most tops of the newer TVs are not shaped for putting anything on them. Our > cable boxes are on shelves below or above the sets. Most tops of laps, new and old alike, aren't shaped for laptops, either. SignatureMike. > Most tops of laps, new and old alike, aren't shaped for laptops, > either. Just for laptop dancing -- proof of ID at last! Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego >1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in Scandinavia they >say "Send me an SMS" (Send me a Short Message Service). But because SMS is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Send me an SMS text message"? > "text me"? Can't speak for native Englishmen. Here, the "early adopters" tended to use "SMS" (since this service was only available on GSM systems), but once the CDMA carriers got into the act, it very quickly became the ghastly "text", or even worse "TXT". >2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". >But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to >the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". It's an ATM or "cash machine". >3 - What do you call the new digital TV. We don't, really. You'll have to be more specific about which aspect of digital TV you are referring to: the overall concept, the stations, the cable and satellite services, the receivers, or what? -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "Send me an SMS text message"? > "text me"? I'm used to saying "text me" or "send me a text message". I've occasionally encountered people who say SMS, but it's easier to say "text (message)". > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a > "Bankomart". > But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to > the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". I say "ATM". I'm from West Coast USA. > > 1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in Scandinavia > > they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm used to saying "text me" or "send me a text message". I've occasionally > encountered people who say SMS, but it's easier to say "text (message)". Great! Nice to know that "text" is common to native English speakers (excluding NZ, Aus, and SA). > > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a > > "Bankomart". > > But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to > > the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". > > I say "ATM". Now that didn't work in the UK, albeit a few years ago, now. When I used ATM I was stared at like I had just landed from the planet Mars. But that was probably either dated, local to the North of England, or both. Regards H >>> 1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in >>> Scandinavia they [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Great! Nice to know that "text" is common to native English speakers > (excluding NZ, Aus, and SA). I've heard all of those in Australia, and also another one that I haven't yet seen mentioned: "message me". -- Regards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > >>> 1 - To send a text message vi my mobile telephone. Here in > >>> Scandinavia they [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I've heard all of those in Australia, and also another one that I > haven't yet seen mentioned: "message me". Now, I don't know what the general consensus is, if any, but I think of "message me" as being computer-to-computer conversation via programs like Yahoo Messenger. I assume all this SMS/text stuff is phone-to-phone. With maybe some overlap of capabilities. True? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> I've heard all of those in Australia, and also another one that I >> haven't yet seen mentioned: "message me". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > programs like Yahoo Messenger. I assume all this SMS/text stuff is > phone-to-phone. With maybe some overlap of capabilities. True? It seems to be understood which it means according to context, from what I've seen. The overlaps and convergences are increasing rapidly, too. -- Regards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au Many thanks to all who have responded. It was interesting to hear views from both the USA and UK. Perhaps my next holiday should be in the UK, instead of Spain? So now I know: > 1 - "text me" in UK or USA, but "SMS me" in places where they can't speak English (no offence intended ;-). > 2 - "Cash Machine" UK or "ATM" USA. > 3 - "Digibox" or "set-top decoder thingy" Regards Harry > But please, what does AFAIK stand > for? > Regards H It stands for "as far as I know". Others you might see are IIRC (if I remember / recall correctly) IANAL (I am not a lawyer) BTW (by the way) IMHO (In my humble opinion) and many many more. > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "Send me an SMS text message"? > "text me"? In the U.S. text is the usual term. > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". > But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to > the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". ATM in the U.S ."automated teller machine". > 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; > mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". Could > it simply be "Digital box"? Cable box in the U.S. 2006-11-06 <vsKdnbRfauLb_NLYnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a > "Bankomart". >> But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to >> the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". > > ATM in the U.S ."automated teller machine". Or ATM Machine - Automated Teller Machine Machine. > 2006-11-06 <vsKdnbRfauLb_NLYnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > >> 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Or ATM Machine - Automated Teller Machine Machine. Maybe where you live. >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> >Cable box in the U.S. In the UK it would be "Cable box" only if is connected to a cable service. Harry Lethall asked about "the new digital TV". In The UK and Europe that would mean DTTV (Digital Terrestrial TV). (This is sometimes abbreviated to DTV.) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTTV Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) is an implementation of digital technology to provide a greater number of channels (SDTV) and/or better quality of picture (EDTV, HDTV) --> and sound (AC3, Dolby Digital) *through a conventional antenna (or aerial) instead of a satellite dish or cable connection.* The technology used is ATSC in North America, ISDB-T in Japan, and DVB-T in Europe and Australia; the rest of the world remaining mostly undecided. ISDB-T is very similar to DVB-T and can share front-end receiver and demodulator components. [My *emphasis*] In the UK the generic term used is Set-Top Box (STB). The term "Freeview (set top) box" is also widely used. Freeview is the advertising name for the group of non-subscription services avaliable broadcast on DTV. Many DTV boxes have no facilities for receiving the small number of subscription channels that are(were?) transmitted. The UK analogue TV transmissions will be phased out over the next few years. Digital encoding permits 6 TV channels to be fitted into the bandwidth of a single analogue channel. The DTV service includes radio stations and text channels (news etc.) SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 06 Nov 2006, Peter Duncanson wrote >>> 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of >>> "boxer"; mainly because there is a company with that name >>> selling "TV boxers". >>> Could >>> it simply be "Digital box"? >> Cable box in the U.S. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Europe that would mean DTTV (Digital Terrestrial TV). (This is > sometimes abbreviated to DTV.) -snip- > In the UK the generic term used is Set-Top Box (STB). > > The term "Freeview (set top) box" is also widely used. "Digibox" is also in common use -- perhaps even more common than "set-top box" in resolutely non-tech circles. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 06 Nov 2006, Peter Duncanson wrote > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >"Digibox" is also in common use -- perhaps even more common than >"set-top box" in resolutely non-tech circles. I avoided mentioning that! Digibox is an example of the Hoover effect. It is a name owned by Sky TV (formally British Sky Broadcasting or BSkyB). It refers to digital decoder boxes sold by BSkyB for receiving their satellite services. It has escaped from IPR captivity and is clinging with its powerful little digits to any TV with "digital" in its description. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 06 Nov 2006, Peter Duncanson wrote >> "Digibox" is also in common use -- perhaps even more common than >> "set-top box" in resolutely non-tech circles. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > powerful little digits to any TV with "digital" in its > description. I think I knew that at one time, but had forgotten it. It's pretty well fully Hooverised now -- a lost cause as a proprietorial name in yer average pub discussion. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >> "Digibox" is also in common use -- perhaps even more common than >> "set-top box" in resolutely non-tech circles. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It has escaped from IPR captivity and is clinging with its powerful > little digits to any TV with "digital" in its description. Partly, I think, because people coined it for themselves without knowing about Sky's name. I didn't know about Sky's name for it, but when we got digital last year we called the thing the digital box for a couple of days and then shortened it to digibox. These days it's mostly just the box unless we need to disambiguate it from the (tv) box. > The UK analogue TV transmissions will be phased out over the next > few years. Now, here's a real dumb, basic question. TV signals have always been broadcast through the air, and could be picked up most places by an antenna -- even though many people now choose to get their TV through cable (as we do) or satellite dish. Does this coming trend of "You must have digital" mean that there will be no broadcast signal, and free reception through antennas will be a thing of the past? Or does it mean that some *different*, digital signal, will be broadcast in the atmosphere? I think I understand correctly that everyone (in the Netherlands, at least) will soon have to have a TV monitor capable of displaying digital signals -- I think we got that last year, when we changed TV monitors in order to use a Philips DVD hard-drive (equivalent to the US "Tivo"). There's been one not-very-clear announcement from the TV cable company implying that we should shop around and buy some sort of "digital box" in order to receive a larger packet of cable channels, but since that doesn't appeal to us, we haven't looked into it any further. Maybe we will have to. This is just the sort of issue where we fall into the cracks, technology-change wise, since we don't read Dutch newspapers and magazines on a regular basis. SignatureThanks - Donna Richoux Donna Richoux wrote, in <1hofm6u.be2r8ijnpfkN%trio@euronet.nl> on Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:32:19 +0100: > > The UK analogue TV transmissions will be phased out over the next > > few years. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that some *different*, digital signal, will be broadcast in the > atmosphere? The latter. It is available in the UK now, but not everywhere I think, and it was in The Irish Times today that a trial service is to start here in Ireland in the Dublin area next year. SignatureNick Spalding > Donna Richoux wrote, in <1hofm6u.be2r8ijnpfkN%trio@euronet.nl> > on Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:32:19 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > Nick Spalding Yes, currently in the UK terrestrial digital TV signals are broadcast alongside the old analogue signals. At some point in the future (they seem to keep putting it off) the analogue signals will be switched off, and everyone will have to have a set-top box or digital TV in order to continue watching terrestrial TV broadcasts. >> Donna Richoux wrote, in <1hofm6u.be2r8ijnpfkN%trio@euronet.nl> >> on Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:32:19 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > off, and everyone will have to have a set-top box or digital TV in > order to continue watching terrestrial TV broadcasts. They've pretty much fixed on the timetable now: http://www.dtg.org.uk/consumer/switchover_map.html So the first victims are Border in the second half of 2008. Should be fun. Most people have grasped the idea that digital TV requires different kit from analogue. The Gummint and its lackeys make much of the fact that 70% of homes now have "digital TV", without emphasising the fact that it usually means the main TV is now digital while subsidiary sets (bedrooms, kids' TVs etc) are still analogue and will become useless overnight unless add-on boxes are bought. News reports this week indicate that many people are *still* buying analogue sets, which seems pointless. What *isn't* pointed out is that digital TVs or set-top boxes on their own won't accommodate the great British pastime of watching one channel while recording another. Nor the idea of recording from two or more different channels while you're away. Nor the fact that analogue TV is still generally visible when reception is poor whereas digital is either fine or unviewable. Nor, indeed, the fact that the current standard models of Video and DVD recorders struggle to record digital at all. Lots of entertainment due when these and other unpalatable truths begin to sink in with the public at large. We don't go until 2011 around here so the problems should be well sorted by then. And they've wisely left London until almost the very end. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford <snip> > Nor, indeed, the fact that the current standard models of Video and DVD > recorders struggle to record digital at all. There shouldn't be any problem recording Freeview channels on a standard analogue VCR - certainly not from a set-top box anyway. The set-top box just pumps out an analogue signal, which you connect to your VCR. The VCR, like your old analogue TV, doesn't know or care that the signal was ever digital. Maybe you are referring to Sky, who deliberately inject some sort of signal into some of their broadcasts (such as pay-per-view) in order to confuse video recorders? > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > your VCR. The VCR, like your old analogue TV, doesn't know or care > that the signal was ever digital. I don't know about set top boxes. Not everyone will take that route anyway - indeed, as more and more TVs for sale and rent are digital, most will imagine that solves their problems without recourse to a set-top box. I was thinking particularly of digital TVs - which I have. My analogue VCR won't record digital channels on the timer. It will record them direct from the TV, but only if the TV is on or if I use the TV's own recording feature - which will not allow switching of channels without resetting the TV. My DVD recorder is the same. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >signal into some of their broadcasts (such as pay-per-view) in order to >confuse video recorders? No, I think John's right. I bought a DVD recorder (Samsung -- not a top of the range model but not all that cheap either) and soon regretted it, since the only TV signal I receive is digital cable via a set-top box, and the built-in tuner in the recorder refuses to tune any of the thing's channels except the one it happens to be set to at the time it does its sweep. As a result, I have to reprogramme the DVD recorder every time I use it (boring) and then I'm stuck with watching whatever channel I'm recording, which rather defeats the whole point of the exercise. What it is good for, though, is transferring all those old videos to DVD so I can finally through the clunky things out. SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) >I can finally through the clunky things out. Wough! SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) >The Gummint and its lackeys make much of the fact that 70% of >homes now have "digital TV", without emphasising the fact that it usually [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >News reports this week indicate that many people are *still* buying analogue >sets, which seems pointless. It is not quite as pointless as it might seem. An analogue TV can be used with a digital STB. Because of the continuing technical development of digital TV there is some sense in buying a separate box which can be replaced in a few years time rather than having a TV with built-in digital tuner that you are stuck with until the TV is ready for replacement. Over on uk.tech.digital-tv some of the knowledgeable posters will suggest *not* buying an integrated digital TV for that very reason. >What *isn't* pointed out is that digital TVs or set-top boxes on their own >won't accommodate the great British pastime of watching one channel while >recording another. Nor the idea of recording from two or more different >channels while you're away. It is perfectly possible to have a STB for each video recorder in the house. I have that arrangement in my bedroom. There are just two points to bear in mind: 1. The digital STBs in one room should be of different makes so that there one remote control does not operate two STBs at the same time. 2. Many people cannot handle the concepts involved in setting the recording timer on a VCR, selecting the channel (AV2, E2 or whatever) to which the STB is connected, and setting the timer in the STB to switch to the required programme(s) at the required times. There are now digital recorders with multiple tuners. These permit watching one programme while another is recorded to hard disk. The stuff on the hard disc can be can be played back later or copied to an internal or external DVD recorder. Some twin-tuner digital recorders can record two programmes simultaneously. I think we can expect further developments in this area, with an increase in the number of tuners in each recorder. In the UK these boxes are sold as PVR's (Personal Video Recorders). Sales of them should outstrip those of VCRs. > Nor the fact that analogue TV is still generally >visible when reception is poor whereas digital is either fine or unviewable. >Nor, indeed, the fact that the current standard models of Video and DVD >recorders struggle to record digital at all. At the moment the digital signals are transmitted at very low power to avoid interference with the existing analogue signals. (It is a technological miracle that any sort of reception is possible.) Once the analogue signals are switched off, the digital services will be moved on to the channels freed-up and will be transmitted at greatly increased power. For the current position in part of the London area see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_Transmitter The station carries the London regions of BBC One, BBC Two, ITV1 and Channel 4 in analogue, each with an effective radiated power of 1 MW, as well as all six digital terrestrial television multiplexes. These have an ERP of 20 kW, with considerable beam tilt to the south and east. Although DTT requires far less power to achieve the same coverage as analogue TV, this 17 dB difference is too large to ensure comparable coverage. The station therefore has a range of about 30 miles (50 km) for DTT, compared with about 60 miles (90 km) for analogue. Note 1 megawatt for analogue compared with 20 kilowatts for digital. >Lots of entertainment due when these and other unpalatable truths begin to >sink in with the public at large. We don't go until 2011 around here so the >problems should be well sorted by then. And they've wisely left London until >almost the very end. The transmission and reception problems will, in general, be sorted out at the time of switchover, not before. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >Note 1 megawatt for analogue compared with 20 kilowatts for digital. Apples and oranges. The amplitude of an analogue TV signal varies greatly over quite short time periods, so transmitter powers are always stated as peak power. This is not true for digital TV, so digital transmitter power is stated as average power. I don't know how it works out for DVB-T, but here in leftpondia, there's approximately a factor of five difference between the two. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>Note 1 megawatt for analogue compared with 20 kilowatts for digital. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >how it works out for DVB-T, but here in leftpondia, there's >approximately a factor of five difference between the two. The figures I quoted are both given as ERP (effective radiated power). I understand this to be peak power. As you say, the amplitude characteristics vary markedly between analogue and digital TV signals. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >The figures I quoted are both given as ERP (effective radiated >power). I understand this to be peak power. You understand incorrectly. ERP is independent of the choice of measurement method (peak, RMS, etc.). ERP is actual transmitter power output (measured however is standard for the technology in question) times antenna gain (relative to a half-wave dipole) minus system losses. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> had it: > > The UK analogue TV transmissions will be phased out over the next > > few years. Others have answered your actual questions, but: > Now, here's a real dumb, basic question. TV signals have always been > broadcast through the air, My grandparents might have disagreed. > and could be picked up most places by an > antenna UK use is "aerial" > -- even though many people now choose to get their TV through > cable (as we do) or satellite dish. That's far less common in the UK than in many other countries. Probably because broadcast UK TV carries the best programmes, and the broadcast quality is generally good across the country. > Does this coming trend of "You must > have digital" mean that there will be no broadcast signal, and free [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > signals -- I think we got that last year, when we changed TV monitors in > order to use a Philips DVD hard-drive (equivalent to the US "Tivo"). What about the UK Tivo (of which I've had one for about five years)? SignatureDavid ===== >> The UK analogue TV transmissions will be phased out over the next >> few years. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that some *different*, digital signal, will be broadcast in the >atmosphere? A different, digital signal is (in the UK, at least) already being broadcast. It can be picked up using the same aerial used to receive analogue signals (although an official report on the matter reckoned that about one third of aerials would need upgrading). Digital braodcasts work, in simple terms, by the signal only being relatively either strong or weak, which means that the tuner only needs to be able to tell the difference between string and weak to work. Analogue makes use of all the strengths in between as well, which means it needs a good-enough signal to carry the variations accurately. Analogue pictures will degrade as the signal gets weaker; digital will carry on giving a good picture right up to the point at which it starts to be unable to give a picture at all. And from the wider viewpoint, using digital signals it's possible to get far more channels into the same area of the broadcast spectrum at the same time. >I think I understand correctly that everyone (in the Netherlands, at >least) will soon have to have a TV monitor capable of displaying digital [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >doesn't appeal to us, we haven't looked into it any further. Maybe we >will have to. I already have a Sky satellite dish and tuner, feeding two of the three TVs in the house, but as chance would have it, I also bought a cheap set-top box at the weekend to connect to the third one (not least because I realised that I was going to have to take the plunge sooner or later anyway, if I wanted to carry on using that TV, and I thought I'd find out whether the aerial was up to the job). Everything worked fine, and the box found about 30 free-to-air digital TV channels and 50-odd radio ones. Clearly, I have no idea of what technical differences exist between the UK and the Netherlands, but I'd be amazed if the basics weren't pretty much identical. Cheers - Ian >A different, digital signal is (in the UK, at least) already being >broadcast. It can be picked up using the same aerial used to receive >analogue signals (although an official report on the matter reckoned >that about one third of aerials would need upgrading). In the past many aerials have been constructed to receive only the frequency band[1] used in a particular area of the country. People had, and still, have these narrowband aerials. The additional UHF channels used for digital signals will often be outside the designed frequency range for these aerials. A typical upgrade is to replace a narrowband with a wideband aerial. At the same time the cable will be replaced by higher quality low-loss cable. Masthead amplifiers and distribution boxes will often need to be replaced. [1] http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/tvfaq.html UK TV is transmitted in a UHF band between 21 and 68. TV aerials are designed to receive certain bands. The bands are: * Group A - Channels 21-37 * Group B - Channels 35-53 * Group C/D - Channels 48-68 * Group E - Channels 35-68 * Group K - Channels 21-48 * Group W - Channels 21-68 A Wideband aerial is optimised to receive TV channels anywhere in the UK TV band. In areas of weak signal, a wideband aerial may not be as effective as a high-gain aerial designed for the specific band you're trying to receive (a mast-head amplifier may be needed to help boost the signal). If you're looking to upgrade aerial, getting a good quality wideband aerial is usually the thing to do, so that if additional services (such as Freeview) appear elsewhere in the band, you'll be able to get them. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>A different, digital signal is (in the UK, at least) already being >>broadcast. It can be picked up using the same aerial used to receive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >UHF channels used for digital signals will often be outside the >designed frequency range for these aerials. Yes, but we're into the detailed technical stuff now. How many people know what they actually have? I suspect few to almost none. I know that I had no idea, but knew that I'd be buying a box at some point, come what may - hence my "suck it and see" approach. Cheers - Ian >>A different, digital signal is (in the UK, at least) already being >>broadcast. It can be picked up using the same aerial used to receive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >UHF channels used for digital signals will often be outside the >designed frequency range for these aerials. In the USA digital TV broadcasts are made on two adjacent UHF channels and it is unlikely that a UHF antenna's bandwidth will preclude them being used as long as at least one of the channels is within the nominal badwidth of the antenna. Sensitivity in antennas doesn't abruptly become zero at the edge of the band. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >In the USA digital TV broadcasts are made on two adjacent UHF >channels Not so. Many, but not all (probably not even most, but I'd have to fix my copy of the FCC database to be certain) UHF stations have digital companion channels on a first-adjacent. There are also many DTV stations on VHF, although not as many as UHF due to the relative scarcity of channels. (Most if not all of the DTV stations whose analog transmitter is in the VHF-high band have opted to move their digital there in 2009, due to the enormous cost of operating high-power UHF transmitters. When the transition is over, stations will have to vacate channels 53 to 69, which means some stations will get to keep neither of their current channels. The VHF-low band has proven to be a terrible place for DTV, and most stations will migrate off channels 2 to 6 for that reason, but some will have no choice.) >and it is unlikely that a UHF antenna's bandwidth will preclude them >being used as long as at least one of the channels is within the >nominal badwidth of the antenna. Since the U.S. does not have the sort of TV bandplan that Britain does, most UHF receiving antennas are broadband. (In heavily-urbanized areas where towers are difficult to build, UHF transmitting antennas are also frequrently broadband.) In many large cities, the only antennas people ever bothered to install were VHF-only; by the time UHF stations became commercially significant, most households already had access to cable. (My condo has a VHF antenna on the roof, although I have no idea where the download actually goes. We have three cable TV providers in our town, but many of my neighbors seem to prefer satellite.) Some industry watchers feel we are witnessing the death throes of broadcast television. The only reason over-the-air broadcasting still exists in large swathes of the country is because such stations have "must-carry" rights on cable and satellite. With cable penetration hovering around 70-75% and satellite taking another 10-20% of households, the remaining households would not be worth serving if the decision were purely economic. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> had it: > Since the U.S. does not have the sort of TV bandplan that Britain > does, most UHF receiving antennas are broadband. (In [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > actually goes. We have three cable TV providers in our town, but many > of my neighbors seem to prefer satellite.) Just as a point of interest, the UK's cable companies bought each other up over the years, and there is now only one. SignatureDavid ===== >Just as a point of interest, the UK's cable companies bought each >other up over the years, and there is now only one. Not entirely surprising, considering how late the UK was to that particular game. By contrast, U.S. cable systems in most areas were already on their second or third network rebuilds before the first DTH Ku-band (small dish) satellite services launched in 1994. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>Just as a point of interest, the UK's cable companies bought each >>other up over the years, and there is now only one. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > already on their second or third network rebuilds before the first DTH > Ku-band (small dish) satellite services launched in 1994. If I remember correctly, cable TV (it might have been radio, but I think it was TV) was available at least in the 50s in England, but it was a characteristic of some cheap housing estates. I'm pretty certain one of my aunts had it. Quite different from what we think of as cable TV nowadays. SignatureRob Bannister > >>Just as a point of interest, the UK's cable companies bought each > >>other up over the years, and there is now only one. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > characteristic of some cheap housing estates. I'm pretty certain one of > my aunts had it. Quite different from what we think of as cable TV nowadays. No real difference, AFAICS: Rediffusion. I believe its network may even originally have been laid down for radio before TV resumed after the war; when commercial TV came along they became a production company as well as a transmitter. There was at least one other UK cable company I remember in the '70s: I think they ran a movie channel. Plus local networks, such as Swindon. SignatureMike. >>>>Just as a point of interest, the UK's cable companies bought each >>>>other up over the years, and there is now only one. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > remember in the '70s: I think they ran a movie channel. Plus local > networks, such as Swindon. Right. I'd forgotten that Rediffusion name. Still can't think of the other one. SignatureRob Bannister Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk> had it: > > >>Just as a point of interest, the UK's cable companies bought each > > >>other up over the years, and there is now only one. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > remember in the '70s: I think they ran a movie channel. Plus local > networks, such as Swindon. York was cabled long before the likes of Nynex came along, but I can't remember why. I went for an interview at York University in 1973 and was astonished to see that somebody was watching Welsh TV, which I discovered came in over the cable. I think that was Redeffusion. A but like Hull, perhaps, with its private telephone company. SignatureDavid ===== >>>Just as a point of interest, the UK's cable companies bought each >>>other up over the years, and there is now only one. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >characteristic of some cheap housing estates. I'm pretty certain one of >my aunts had it. Quite different from what we think of as cable TV nowadays. Similarly in the USA, where it was called CATV, Community Antenna Television. A community would put up a single sophisticated antenna and feed it to everyone who subscribed. This was especially done in towns in deep valleys where off-the-air TV was almost impossible, so an antenna would be erected up on a mountain. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [...] > >If I remember correctly, cable TV (it might have been radio, but I think > >it was TV) was available at least in the 50s in England, but it was a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > almost impossible, so an antenna would be erected up on a > mountain. No, I don't think so, though that was around too, on a small scale, in a few difficult places. I'm pretty sure the early UK cable systems such as Rediffusion were real cable networks in the current sense; but I'll bow, as ever, to other people's technical knowledge. SignatureMike. >[...] >> >If I remember correctly, cable TV (it might have been radio, but I think [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >as Rediffusion were real cable networks in the current sense; but I'll >bow, as ever, to other people's technical knowledge. There is a brief history of Rediffusion at: http://www.transdiffusion.org/tvh/history/history.htm Rediffusion's history begins in the 19th century, with a company of quite a different name – and quite a different business. 'British Electric Traction' (BET) provided the cables over which power ran to the trams that had become common in the major conurbations of the UK at the end of the Victorian era. They also manufactured tram motors, thus 'Traction'. From this base, BET expanded into making, and even operating, tram systems in the UK and 'the Dominions' as were. ... When broadcasting first began in earnest in the UK in 1922, BET soon realised that they had a complete wired network of cables that passed a significant number of homes in the larger industrial towns. Those home that they didn't pass by were very close and easy to reach. And radio reception – thanks to very low-power broadcasts and crystal-based, home-made 'cat's whisker' radio sets – was a touch and go business. If a company were to pick up, off-air but with large, well-tuned and expertly directed aerials, the signals from the then British Broadcasting Company, and provide them directly to a loudspeaker in the front room of a well-off household, they could easily replace the headphones-and-drifting-tuning that bedevilled early radio. If that company already had a complete electricity distribution system to hand, they could run additional 'cable radio' wires between the same poles in the street as the overhead wires for the trams used, and even, ultimately, carry the radio signals via AC (Alternating Current) through the same cables as the DC (Direct Current) power to the trams was supplied. They could access a ready-made market of potential listeners-in who wanted radio entertainment – if only it were affordable and non-technical. That company could then charge a few shillings a month (or less), and, with little capital expenditure, make a fortune from the public’s interest in the new medium. BET was the company to do it, and while they initially called their offspring, formed in March 1928, Broadcast Relay Service Ltd, it soon became known as "Rediffusion" – literally meaning 'broadcasting again'. Rediffusion was almost immediately profitable. The company soon branched out from simply 're-diffusing' radio, into the manufacture of radio sets. From there, the sale and hire of sets in the High Street followed. As broadcasting opened up in the Dominions, Rediffusion was hot on its heels, using the tram wires, or bespoke 'pipe radio' systems, to provide the new Dominion broadcasting stations to the cities, as well as the new BBC Empire Service (now BBC World Service Radio). When the BBC began the first regularly scheduled high-definition[1] television service in the world in the mid-1930s, Rediffusion was again well-placed to provide television sets for sale and rent, plus a 'pipe-TV' service to those not well-placed for broadcasts from Alexandra Palace, or reluctant to have such a gauche symbol as a VHF TV aerial on their roofs. During WWII television was clo=sed down in the UK and throughout the Empire. Rediffusion was heavily involved in war activities. To this day, several elements of what Rediffusion did during the war are held under the Hundred Years Rule (that means it will be late 2045 before we know exactly what they were). So even today, we don't know exactly what Rediffusion did in the war against Fascism – though we can probably guess. When commercial TV started in the UK Rediffusion formed a broacast compnay with Associated Newspapers named Associated-Redifussion. This was a financial disaster from Day One, but the company survived and was later merged into other companies. [1] "High-definition" meaning 405 lines rather than the previous 30-line and 180 and 200-line test transmissions. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Garrett Wollman: > > We have three cable TV providers in our town, but many > > of my neighbors seem to prefer satellite. "David": > Just as a point of interest, the UK's cable companies bought each > other up over the years, and there is now only one. And in Canada, provision of cable TV in any particular location is a licensed monopoly. I remember when there were three cable companies in Toronto, but each served its specific parts of the city. (Then Rogers bought Maclean-Hunter, and I think some or all of the former Shaw territory is now Rogers too.) SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Ever wonder why they call the screen msb@vex.net a vacuum tube?" -- Kent Paul Dolan >And in Canada, provision of cable TV in any particular location is a >licensed monopoly. Well, cable competition here is quite the new thing, and has not proven financially successful yet. Exclusive franchises were outlawed in 1996, so anyone is theoretically free to start a new cable system on the same terms as the incumbent (former monopoly) cableco. One company actually did that around here, and in a few other markets, but they did it mostly with Other People's Money, bouyed by the boom of the late 1990s, and still barely escaped bankruptcy. The third player is the incumbent (former monopoly) telco, which can afford to take losses for a decade if necessary to establish a beachhead. This last operator has been begging Congress to nationalize cable^Wvideo licensing, claiming that it is too much of an imposition to negotiate a franchise with each local jurisdiction as their predecessors did. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Just as a point of interest, the UK's cable companies bought each >other up over the years, and there is now only one. To return faintly to English Usage, the current arrangement and use in the UK is that many people receive "terrestrial" television through the air, and "sky" television through buried wires. This amuses me. SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon Nick Atty <1-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> had it: > >Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the UK is that many people receive "terrestrial" television through the > air, and "sky" television through buried wires. This amuses me. You may confuse our cousins by this analysis. We don't get Sky TV through wires. We get Sky TV via parabolic antennas pointing at satellites. There is, to be sure, a "cable and satellite only" channel named "Sky One", but that's just a brand name. SignatureDavid ===== >You may confuse our cousins by this analysis. We don't get Sky TV >through wires. We get Sky TV via parabolic antennas pointing at >satellites. > >There is, to be sure, a "cable and satellite only" channel named "Sky >One", but that's just a brand name. It's more than that - there are whole packages of channels branded as, and sold as, Sky. People *do* say "I've got Sky" to mean that they have a package of Sky delivered over cable. I've heard them do it. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone[1] ever replied to "do you have Sky?" with "No, I have cable". [1] - any normal person - not the sort of person who posts to newsgroups, obviously. SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon [...] > Some industry watchers feel we are witnessing the death throes of > broadcast television. The only reason over-the-air broadcasting still [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > households, the remaining households would not be worth serving if the > decision were purely economic. Perhaps this is another argument for the superficially apparently idiosyncratic licence-fee system used by several countries. If everybody's forced to pay a contribution, then it would be unjust to raise the cost of the receiving equipment _and_ make portable sets a thing of the past. I suppose the BBC and the others could go over to all-satellite transmission; am I right in guessing it would be cheaper to run? All those masts must be pretty expensive. SignatureMike. > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". > But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to > the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". I call it the YFSS -- the Yuppie Food Stamp Source (place to get 20s). Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego >> 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". >> But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to >> the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". > >I call it the YFSS -- the Yuppie Food Stamp Source (place to get 20s). In Belfast, Northern Ireland, there are two ATMs set into a wall side by side between the entrance and exit of a hotel which has several bars, there are two or three other bars within a few seconds staggering distance, and some other bars are a few minutes away. The bank brands its ATM service as Banklink, and its machines are labelled accordingly. Those particular ATMs have been nicknamed Drinklink machines. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 06 Nov 2006, Peter Duncanson wrote >>> 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a >>> "Bankomart". But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Those particular ATMs have been nicknamed Drinklink machines. Charlie Brooker, writing in the Guardian today, noted that Barclays have re-signed their ATMs as "Hole in the Wall" -- undoubtedly in order to come across as all friendly and one o' da guyz. (Article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1940584,00.html) He clearly doesn't like this sort of corporate attempt to ingratiate the bankers, and suggested we all start calling them the "coinshitter" so that the marketing types will have think twice about co-opting popular names. (I like the idea, but would have to insist on "noteshitter", myself...) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van [snip] > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1940584,00.html) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (I like the idea, but would have to insist on "noteshitter", > myself...) [snip] "Pukebox?" (Play it again, Sam, that song of sixpence or some other oldie.) Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego HVS filted: >He clearly doesn't like this sort of corporate attempt to >ingratiate the bankers, and suggested we all start calling them the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(I like the idea, but would have to insist on "noteshitter", >myself...) Leftpondially, "billshitter".... I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the original questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the "set-top digital television converter" and "text messaging" wouldn't have needed terms as recently as five years ago...another suddenly ubiquitous device is the tiny USB storage device...when first I mentioned one here, I called it a "jump drive" (based on the brand name of mine) and triggered a brief discussion on terminology, and I don't think things have entirely settled down yet...I have at least half a dozen of the things now, of various brands, and I'd have to think long and hard before casually saying "I have that song on my Firefly".... My first encounter with people using regional brand-names for the corresponding items elsewhere concerned convenience stores...moving from southern California to the shores of Lake Washington, I was amused that my new neighbors would refer to picking something up at the "Handy Pantry"...oh, we knew they meant the "Stop-N-Go" a few blocks away (which we called by yet another name that wasn't on the sign)...the confusion continued even when we later moved to New Mexico, where a "Stop-N-Go" was called a "Snappy Mart", even when it was a "7-Eleven" or a "Circle K".... (I have some resultant sympathy for the woman I heard in a Disney store asking where she could find the "Anastasia" video)....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. >I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the original >questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the "set-top digital television >converter" and "text messaging" wouldn't have needed terms as recently as five >years ago Am I the only one in this group who has never 1) sent or received a text message, and, 2) used an ATM, and 3) owned or listened to an iPod or similar device? Not "or", but "and". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the >> original questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > text message, and, 2) used an ATM, and 3) owned or listened to an iPod > or similar device? Not "or", but "and". Rats! So close ... but I have used an ATM. <hangs head> SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the >>> original questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Rats! So close ... but I have used an ATM. <hangs head> I'm with Coop on 1) and 3), but the only way I know to get cash in the UK is to use an ATM or a debit card with cashback in a supermarket. SignatureRobin Herts, England Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> had it: > >>> I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the > >>> original questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm with Coop on 1) and 3), but the only way I know to get cash in the > UK is to use an ATM or a debit card with cashback in a supermarket. I'm sure you can still go into a bank with your cheque book. SignatureDavid ===== > Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> had it: [...] > > I'm with Coop on 1) and 3), but the only way I know to get cash in the > > UK is to use an ATM or a debit card with cashback in a supermarket. > > I'm sure you can still go into a bank with your cheque book. Not to mention the Post Office: most POs will cash cheques from certain banks, free of charge. SignatureMike. >> Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> had it: >[...] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Not to mention the Post Office: most POs will cash cheques from certain >banks, free of charge. I guess that I should have accentuated the "I". All of the local banks and the main post office are in the centre of the pedestrianised town, and after the closure of a large council car park and its sale to developers in May last year I can no longer park anywhere within my walking distance because the other few car parks are permanently full from early morning. Also during that month, the local council took over parking enforcement from the police. Their attitude is "stick a ticket on it and if they don't like it let them appeal". Even for blue badge users. I doubt that there are even as many as 20 council-owned disabled spaces in the whole town centre. SignatureRobin Herts, England > Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'm sure you can still go into a bank with your cheque book. I have frequently cashed cheques on a UK Lloyds' Bank account, for which I don't have an ATM card. I had no problem - in fact, I think it was much easier than it used to be, when you had to make special arrangements to cash a cheque away from the branch where your account was held. Fran Frances Kemmish <fkemmish@optonline.net> had it: > > I'm sure you can still go into a bank with your cheque book. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > arrangements to cash a cheque away from the branch where your account > was held. Gosh, did you leave the UK before the introduction of the "cheque guarantee card"? I think I got my first one in 1974. This allows you to cash cheques in any bank, up to the limit of the card, once per day (there's a form in the back for the bank to mark). Early cards were good for £30. The standard limit was raised to £50 perhaps 20 years ago, but certain, er, privileged customers have higher limits (mine is £250). SignatureDavid ===== >Frances Kemmish <fkemmish@optonline.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >perhaps 20 years ago, but certain, er, privileged customers have >higher limits (mine is £250). According to APACS: http://www.apacs.org.uk/payment_options/plastic_cards_7.html The first cheque card was introduced in October 1965, guaranteeing payment of cheques up to £30. This value was replaced in August 1977 by £50 and subsequently two further limits of £100 and £250 were introduced in 1989. The UK Domestic Cheque Guarantee Card Scheme commenced in July 1969 with the objective of creating common, easily identifiable design features to simplify acceptance procedures at point-of-sale. Since 1 October 1990, the common theme has been William Shakespeare and all cards with cheque guarantee functionality depict his image in various ways, eg within the cheque guarantee hologram or logo. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) [...] > Gosh, did you leave the UK before the introduction of the "cheque > guarantee card"? I think I got my first one in 1974. This allows [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > perhaps 20 years ago, but certain, er, privileged customers have > higher limits (mine is £250). I think that may be out of date, as I have the same limit, and I doubt if I'm an, er, privileged customer! SignatureMike. Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk> had it: > [...] > > Gosh, did you leave the UK before the introduction of the "cheque [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think that may be out of date, as I have the same limit, and I doubt > if I'm an, er, privileged customer! You probably are. Our children have cheque cards but they are students so they have the £50 cards. SignatureDavid ===== >Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >You probably are. Our children have cheque cards but they are >students so they have the £50 cards. How much do they guarantee each cheque for these days? SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) Millicent Tendency <gguiri@yahoo.com> had it: > >Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk> had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How much do they guarantee each cheque for these days? <bewildered>. Isn't that what I explained above? There are currently three guarantee levels - £50, £100 and £250, depending no how much the bank trusts you. SignatureDavid ===== >Millicent Tendency <gguiri@yahoo.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >currently three guarantee levels - £50, £100 and £250, depending no >how much the bank trusts you. It probably is what you explained above, but I obviously need more coffee to read with comprehension. I thought you were talking about how much you can get a cheque cashed for, not the maximum amount per cheque if you pay for stuff by cheque. If that's the case, isn't it a bit stingy? I had a 50-quid limit on mine the last time I had one -- in 1988 -- and I was anything but a privileged customer. What about people who don't/can't have credit cards? Do they have to write four or five cheques to cover the cost when buying something worth a couple of hundred? SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) Millicent Tendency <gguiri@yahoo.com> had it: > >Millicent Tendency <gguiri@yahoo.com> had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > how much you can get a cheque cashed for, not the maximum amount per > cheque if you pay for stuff by cheque. Ah, I didn't understand. The *guaranteed* limits are the same. You can write a cheque for any amount you like, of course. > If that's the case, isn't it a bit stingy? I had a 50-quid limit on > mine the last time I had one -- in 1988 -- and I was anything but a > privileged customer. What about people who don't/can't have credit > cards? Do they have to write four or five cheques to cover the cost > when buying something worth a couple of hundred? Yes, although I'm not sure how far that falls within the rules. Cheques have been largely replaced by Debit Cards, which are normally checked online by the retailer. You can only spend what you have in your account as otherwise the transaction will be bounced before it's completed. Children, who have no access to credit, get a special debit card which can only be used in this way. Many supermarkets and petrol stations have recently stopped taking cheques. SignatureDavid ===== >Millicent Tendency <gguiri@yahoo.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >Yes, although I'm not sure how far that falls within the rules. It falls completely outside the rules -- only one cheque per transaction. I think I have read that some retailers have insurance to cover the risk of accepting a cheque for a value above the guaranteed level. Presumably the customer has to provide some form of personal ID. >Cheques have been largely replaced by Debit Cards, which are normally >checked online by the retailer. You can only spend what you have in >your account as otherwise the transaction will be bounced before it's >completed. Children, who have no access to credit, get a special >debit card which can only be used in this way. Just to stress the point: when a Debit Card is used the money is deducted from the customer's bank account at the time of the transaction. >Many supermarkets and petrol stations have recently stopped taking >cheques. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > If that's the case, isn't it a bit stingy? I had a 50-quid limit on > mine the last time I had one -- in 1988 -- and I was anything but a > privileged customer. What about people who don't/can't have credit > cards? Do they have to write four or five cheques to cover the cost > when buying something worth a couple of hundred? The retailer is not supposed to accept multiple cheques for one transaction: that invalidates the guarantee. There were always other ways to deal with paying larger amounts: a retailer could hold whatever you were buying until your cheque cleared, or could telephone your bank to ensure that you had the funds to cover the cheque; you could get a money order from a bank; or you could pay cash. Fran > Frances Kemmish <fkemmish@optonline.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > perhaps 20 years ago, but certain, er, privileged customers have > higher limits (mine is £250). Since I can obtain up to $A400 (it may be $500) at any large supermarket checkout, I cannot see any point in using cheques in this day and age. I pay all my bills over the net or by direct debit. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> had it: > > Frances Kemmish <fkemmish@optonline.net> had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > checkout, I cannot see any point in using cheques in this day and age. I > pay all my bills over the net or by direct debit. I completely agree. I write about five cheques a year. But that wasn't the question - if Francis cashes cheques in UK banks then I'm surprised she hasn't got a cheque guarantee card. SignatureDavid ===== > I completely agree. I write about five cheques a year. But that > wasn't the question - if Francis cashes cheques in UK banks then I'm > surprised she hasn't got a cheque guarantee card. The bank is quite happy to cash a cheque for me without a cheque guarantee card, so I don't need one; and I don't cash cheques there often enough for it to be worthwhile to get one. Fran > Frances Kemmish <fkemmish@optonline.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > perhaps 20 years ago, but certain, er, privileged customers have > higher limits (mine is £250). No; we moved to the US in 1985. I used to have a cheque guarantee card. When the last one I had expired, there was some logistical difficulty about supplying me with a new one in the US, so I never got around to replacing it, or the Cashpoint card. But I can remember the time before there were cheque guarantee cards. My husband always kept his current account in Brighton, until we moved to the US, and he used to have an arrangement with the local branch of Lloyds to cash cheques. I don't think that he found that necessary after the arrival of "Cashpoint". It was all a long time ago, anyway. Fran > I'm sure you can still go into a bank with your cheque book. Good heavens. Do those things still exist? SignatureRob Bannister Robin Bignall: > > I'm with Coop on 1) and 3), but the only way I know to get cash in the > > UK is to use an ATM or a debit card with cashback in a supermarket. "David": > I'm sure you can still go into a bank with your cheque book. This one always surprises me. To me, checks are instructions you write to have your bank pay money to someone *else*. If I wanted to go into a bank branch and get cash, what I would do until a few months ago was to take a *withdrawal slip* from the rack in the branch, fill it out with my account number and the amount, sign it, and take it to the teller (along with my bank card or other ID, now that my signature is no longer considered sufficient). In the new procedure, I'm expected to just go to the teller (with my bank card, etc.) and *say* how much money I want and which of my accounts it's to come from. At least twice, to make sure I'm heard correctly. Bleagh. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "This is, I am told, progress. msb@vex.net But I beg leave to doubt it." --Frimbo My text in this article is in the public domain. > Robin Bignall: >>> I'm with Coop on 1) and 3), but the only way I know to get cash in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and take it to the teller (along with my bank card or other ID, now > that my signature is no longer considered sufficient). I can do that too, but it's easier to write a cheque to cash. Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> had it: > Robin Bignall: > > > I'm with Coop on 1) and 3), but the only way I know to get cash in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and take it to the teller (along with my bank card or other ID, now > that my signature is no longer considered sufficient). But that can only work if you go into a branch of your own bank. You can write a cheque to cash in any UK bank. This is effectively an instruction to your bank to pay the amount to the other bank, who give you the cash for it. > In the new procedure, I'm expected to just go to the teller (with my > bank card, etc.) and *say* how much money I want and which of my > accounts it's to come from. At least twice, to make sure I'm heard > correctly. Bleagh. Same again - that can only work in a branch of your own bank. SignatureDavid ===== "David": >>> I'm sure you can still go into a bank with your cheque book. Mark Brader: >> This one always surprises me. To me, checks are instructions you >> write to have your bank pay money to someone *else*... "David": > You can write a cheque to cash in any UK bank. This is effectively > an instruction to your bank to pay the amount to the other bank, who > give you the cash for it. Ah, fair enough. The situation has never arisen where I would want to obtain cash at some other bank by using a check. SignatureMark Brader "If the right people don't have power... Toronto the wrong people get it... ordinary voters!" msb@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER >>I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the original >>questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the "set-top digital television [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > text message, and, 2) used an ATM, and 3) owned or listened to an iPod > or similar device? Not "or", but "and". 1. and 3., but I do use ATMs. SignatureRob Bannister >>> I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the >>> original questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > 1. and 3., but I do use ATMs. 2. and 3. 1. only because my ancient voice mobile telephone (two years) will text into Mexico while the talk doesn't even connect. SignatureFrank ess > 1. and 3., but I do use ATMs. Ditto. I find YFSS's especially helpful in foreign countries, where I get local currency at an optimally favorable exchange rate using a debit/check card (a credit card would involve more fees). Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego tinwhistler wrote, in <1162860001.726382.323740@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on 6 Nov 2006 16:40:01 -0800: > > 1. and 3., but I do use ATMs. > > Ditto. I find YFSS's especially helpful in foreign countries, where I > get local currency at an optimally favorable exchange rate using a > debit/check card (a credit card would involve more fees). When I go overseas I put my CC account in credit before going and incur no fees at the ATMs. Mastercard pay me interest on the credit amount too. SignatureNick Spalding >>>I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the original >>>questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the "set-top digital television [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >1. and 3., but I do use ATMs. Ditto. But "Two Out Of Three Aint Bad". (My sympathies to anyone now suffering from Meatloaf-induced STS.) SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> Am I the only one in this group who has never 1) sent or received >>> a text message, and, 2) used an ATM, and 3) owned or listened to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > (My sympathies to anyone now suffering from Meatloaf-induced STS.) I think he knew where to put the apostrophe. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take |something and not pay for it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> Am I the only one in this group who has never 1) sent or received >>>> a text message, and, 2) used an ATM, and 3) owned or listened to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I think he knew where to put the apostrophe. Indeed. It was a cut-and-paste job -- my mistake for not noticing the omission. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) 2006-11-06 <7ifvk2tf3rplivj559nqrnak9j6l2l602l@4ax.com>, >>I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the original >>questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the "set-top digital television [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > text message, and, 2) used an ATM, and 3) owned or listened to an iPod > or similar device? Not "or", but "and". If you've done none of the above, "or" would have been more appropriate. "never ... and ..." can imply you've done all but one. Jordan Abel filted: >2006-11-06 <7ifvk2tf3rplivj559nqrnak9j6l2l602l@4ax.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If you've done none of the above, "or" would have been more appropriate. >"never ... and ..." can imply you've done all but one. "I have never A, B, and C" can mean: (1) "I have never A, I have never B, and I have never C." which appears to be Coop's intended meaning.... (2) "I have never A, or I have never B, or I have never C." (the DeMorgan principle applied to a negative existential).... (3) "I have never simultaneously performed A, B and C." I've done all three of the things to which Tony refers, at different times, and with suitably broad interpretations of the technology involved...I was forced to carry a pager at one time that was capable of receiving alphanumeric messages, and my current cellphone gets periodic text messages from the service provider encouraging me to sign up for ancillary services...my PDA has rudimentary audio capabilities that might qualify it as an "iPod or similar device"....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. >2006-11-06 <7ifvk2tf3rplivj559nqrnak9j6l2l602l@4ax.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >If you've done none of the above, "or" would have been more appropriate. >"never ... and ..." can imply you've done all but one. It's a Trifecta, Jordan. You have to win race 1 and race 2 and race 3 to cash the ticket. Try cashing the ticket with "or" in the sentence. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> Am I the only one in this group who has never 1) sent or received >>> a text message, and, 2) used an ATM, and 3) owned or listened to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 3 to cash the ticket. Try cashing the ticket with "or" in the > sentence. De Morgan's law: not (A and B) = (not A) or (not B). If you had asked Am I the only one in this group who has 1) never sent or received a text message, and, 2) never used an ATM, and 3) never owned or listened to an iPod or similar device? it would, I suspect, have been more unambiguously what you meant. I understood it, but I did have a flash that the sentence was going to end "all at the same time". And I *have* seen people doing all three at the same time. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English grammar is not taught in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |primary or secondary schools in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |United States. Sometimes some |mythology is taught under that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually (650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous. | John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the original >>questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the "set-top digital television [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >text message, and, 2) used an ATM, and 3) owned or listened to an iPod >or similar device? Not "or", but "and". I've often 1'd and 2'd, but never 3'd. SignatureCharles Riggs >>> I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the >>> original questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I've often 1'd and 2'd, but never 3'd. Me: Never 1's, frequently 2's, never 3's. (I've put this in the present tense, but I don't know why.) SignatureMaria > I've been reading this thread with some interest...note that the original > questions all concern fairly recent inventions; the "set-top digital television [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the things now, of various brands, and I'd have to think long and hard before > casually saying "I have that song on my Firefly".... My first experience of regional misinterpretations occured in about 1978, soon after I first began working abroad permanently. I stayed in Saudi Arabia, where my employer provided "houseboys" to do the cooking and cleaning for us engineers. One of my colleagues, also from the North of England asked for **red sauce - loads of it** on a prawn sandwich packed lunch. Later that day he was a little unhappy as he rushed to the bathroom with a mouthfull of chilly sauce. In the North of England there is **red sauce** and **brown sauce**: tomato ketchup and HP sauce. Regards H > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "You can SMS me"? > "Send me an SMS text message"? "Text Message" or 'Text' is what I hear in the US. > "text me"? > > 2 - The hole in the wall where you get cash. Over here it is a "Bankomart". > But is it a bankomart in the UK, or USA? On my (very) occasional trips to > the UK I have used "hole-in-the-wall". ATM = Automated Teller Machine or ATM Machine (yeah, it's redundant, just as is "PIN number"). > 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of "boxer"; > mainly because there is a company with that name selling "TV boxers". Could > it simply be "Digital box"? HDTV > Sorry for these seemingly trivial questions, but if you live away from the > language then it sort of stagnates. > > Regards H >> 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of >> "boxer"; mainly because there is a company with that name selling >> "TV boxers". Could it simply be "Digital box"? > > HDTV HDTV is something completely different. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary On 07 Nov 2006, Amethyst Deceiver wrote >>> 3 - What do you call the new digital TV. Over here we talk of >>> "boxer"; mainly because there is a company with that name selling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > HDTV is something completely different. Cue "Liberty Bell". SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Regards H I'm deliberately answering this without reading others responses first, as this is going to be very localised, and possibly even vary by individual, I suspect. To me (UK, early 50s, currently in Hampshire in the UK) the answers would be 1) "Text" (as both verb and noun); "SMS" as a noun. 2) "Cash machine", "cash point" or "hole in the wall" (or "ATM" - "automatic teller machine" - but I have a feeling that's an American usage I've picked up because I work for a US company with business interests in the technology). 3) The whole thing is "digital TV" or just "digital". Some of the components are the "sky box" (a.k.a. the "satellite box") and the "set-top box" (a.k.a. "digibox"). Cheers - Ian |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.