Reminder For Everyone

wrote in message
...
Joy wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


wrote:
jmcquown wrote:

I think we'd all know 00 meant 2000.

*We* would know. But computers wouldn't. They're not too smart that
way.

You've got that right! I had a doctor who used to dictate his notes
into
a voice recognition program, then provide the patient with a printout
of
the session. I'm still chuckling over his recommendation for a
"handicap
lacquer". (Had me visualizing someone painting a race-horse, all for
me!)
....And have you ever used one of the Internet's computer "translator"
sites?

That reminds me of something I read in the relatively early days of
computers. Supposedly, someone translated "The spirit is willing, but
the
flesh is weak" from English to Russian, then translated the translation
back
into English. It came out, "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten."
I
have no idea whether or not it's true, but it's a pretty good example of
why
direct translations can be unreliable.

I've heard that story, too. But I haven't been able to remember the exact
wording, so thanks for posting.

Actually, that translation makes a lot more sense than some things you
get when you translate text from English to whatever language and back
to English via Google translate.

--
Joyce

Yes, especially if you try to translate idioms.

Joy

That reminds me of something I read in the relatively early days of
computers. Supposedly, someone translated "The spirit is willing,
but the flesh is weak" from English to Russian, then translated the
translation back into English. It came out, "The vodka is good, but
the meat is rotten."
Actually, that translation makes a lot more sense than some things you
get when you translate text from English to whatever language and back
to English via Google translate.

Computer translation has improved a lot. I tried fairly recently with
a piece of truly appalling gobbledygook bureaucratese English that
somebody quoted on a discussion forum. I got Google to translate it
into Filipino, from that into Georgian, and back into English. It was
hardly any different from the original after the round trip. The
conclusion I came to was that bureaucratese is the true world language
of the human race.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 http://www.campin.me.uk Twitter: JackCampin

Winnie wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:44 am, wrote:
jmcquown wrote:

And it was a relief to me when nothing drastic happened to the east
coast of Australia when the clock struck midnight. By the time
California entered the 21st century, much of the world was already
there, and it was still standing.

Puleeeeze! Y2K was a joke. Nothing was going to happen. I've noticed
everyone got crazy about 4-digit years but most web sites still
only ask you for the last two digits if you have to enter a year.
What was the big deal?

Well, one important reason nothing happened was because a lot of
people fixed the problems before the new year. Sure, a lot of the
anxiety was exaggerated (end-of-the-world scenarios, etc), but we
probably would have had a lot more problems than we did if
programmers hadn't been working their butts off for months prior to
New Year's Eve.

I think we'd all know 00 meant 2000.

*We* would know. But computers wouldn't. They're not too smart that
way.

--
Joyce

The average, healthy, well-adjusted adult gets up at seven-thirty in
the morning feeling just terrible. -- Jean Kerr

Yes I remember being responsible for making sure the software my
department owned Y2K compliant. I had to make a fair amount of changes
in the software. Got a portable clock radio as a reward for my work.

We got "bugged" here at work. Suddenly, a whole bunch of data files from one
of the instruments here disappeared. it wasn't life threatening or anything,
but it seemed that the instrument was no longer capable of saving the data
after 2000.

Later we found out that it was saved just fine - but the machine (which had
been in use since the mid 80's) was sorting the data files in chronological
order, and those that were saved in "1900" were right at the top, and
therefore weren't showing up on the screen (which showed the most "recent"
20 or so files) unless you scrolled right up to the top (several thousand
entries).


Wasn't worth fixing - its an onconvenience rather than anything dangerous.
And now we have files from 1900-1911 all sitting up the top of the list.
Pain in the rear to retrieve them, but at least they are actually there.

Yowie

"Joy" wrote in message . ..

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


wrote:
jmcquown wrote:

I think we'd all know 00 meant 2000.

*We* would know. But computers wouldn't. They're not too smart that way.

You've got that right! I had a doctor who used to dictate his notes into
a voice recognition program, then provide the patient with a printout of
the session. I'm still chuckling over his recommendation for a "handicap
lacquer". (Had me visualizing someone painting a race-horse, all for me!)
....And have you ever used one of the Internet's computer "translator"
sites?

That reminds me of something I read in the relatively early days of
computers. Supposedly, someone translated "The spirit is willing, but the
flesh is weak" from English to Russian, then translated the translation back
into English. It came out, "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten." I
have no idea whether or not it's true, but it's a pretty good example of why
direct translations can be unreliable.

Joy

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Legend has it that Thomas Jefferson refused to read a translation. He read
and spoke several languages, and he insisted in reading whatever he could in
the original because he thought the translation might not be accurate.

--
MaryL

"MaryL" wrote in message
. ..


"Joy" wrote in message
. ..

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


wrote:
jmcquown wrote:

I think we'd all know 00 meant 2000.

*We* would know. But computers wouldn't. They're not too smart that way.

You've got that right! I had a doctor who used to dictate his notes into
a voice recognition program, then provide the patient with a printout of
the session. I'm still chuckling over his recommendation for a "handicap
lacquer". (Had me visualizing someone painting a race-horse, all for
me!) ....And have you ever used one of the Internet's computer
"translator" sites?

That reminds me of something I read in the relatively early days of
computers. Supposedly, someone translated "The spirit is willing, but the
flesh is weak" from English to Russian, then translated the translation
back
into English. It came out, "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten."
I
have no idea whether or not it's true, but it's a pretty good example of
why
direct translations can be unreliable.

Joy

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Legend has it that Thomas Jefferson refused to read a translation. He
read and spoke several languages, and he insisted in reading whatever he
could in the original because he thought the translation might not be
accurate.

--
MaryL

That makes sense. Some terms and phrases are difficult to translate. Also,
a translator might put his own slant into what he writes as a translation.

Joy

hopitus wrote:

*snip*

We get Australian football and sometimes rugby on tv channels, I just
never knew it till you were
describing the body types best suited for each. It's true, I got a
kick out of what you said right
there on the tv screen. I enjoyed both and will watch again. So
different from USA field games.

Wish I could take you to a live Aussie Rules game, Hop!

Especially if we can get some front row seats. Hubba hubba.

Yowie

Thank you.....!!!