<= Weeks -- Comments

Daynote mail: Week of 15 - 21 February, 1999

©
This week:
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
 
Daynotes
 
Next week
Previous
 
Top

Daynote mail and replies -- Week 7

* Link to: last modified at 15:15 GMT+1, on 21.02.1999

Any quoted mail from reader feedback ends up here. This tends to reflect something of the ongoing discussions between myself and readers (and other web-daynote maintainers), provide tips, ask for help, and just be plain fun.

The sidebar "Daynotes"-link, beside each weekday, links to the corresponding day in the daynote file. The reverse linkage is also provided on the daynotes.

himself Mail your comments to: bo@leuf.comemail me

Anyone who wishes correspondence to remain private should say so up front.

Quoted mail may be shortened and is usually based on my reply quotes. There may be some minor overlap between what's on the daynote page and what is given here in order to give correct context.

(BTW, week numbering is according to the Swedish calendar, which this year started January in week 53. "Current" weekday is of course based on GMT+1.)

remote

©
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
 
Daynotes
 
Next week
Previous
 
Top

Monday 15.02

This from Bob Thompson:

Your web site says:

All original material copyright bo@leuf.com <mailto:bo@leuf.com>.

But I think you have to have the name of a person, corporation, or other legal entity as well as a date. I believe the Copyright symbol is optional if you have the word itself spelled out. That's why all my pages say:

Copyright © 1998, 1999 by Triad Technology Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I think the "All Rights Reserved." part is important, too, although I'm not sure why.

Thanks for the observation. As usual, one becomes a bit blind to one's own boilerplate and never really reads it properly. Anyway, since my name is in fact present in the email and domain, I didn't think to put anything more on these pages. Elsewhere, in site links to http://www.leuf.com/fc3/rights.html for example, I am a bit more specific, because I am there dealing with more formal papers.

I'll mull a bit about whether I should modify this or not. As implied, I am largely leaning on the "default" situation, where I strictly speaking need not state a thing.

Reflecting on it just now, however, I can note "copyright" ownership by the author is always present, whether one explicitly declares it or not. For it _not_ to apply to original writings, on the other hand, explicit declaration is required, along the lines of "this material is in the public domain".

Much copyright stamping formalia derives from how paper publishers have tried to cover all bases and uncertainties when copyright has by contract been transferred to the publisher. Hence also the "All rights reserved" part, because when ownership is not with the author, it is not by itself clear whether the transfer is in whole or part.

By default, all rights do fall to the original author. When you explicitly state TTG as the owner, then of course it may become more important to include the "all rights", if there should be any distinction between you and the legal entity of TTG -- say a formal copyright transfer situation.

The copyright symbol is, as you say, optional, and although an accepted representation for "copyright", as is (c), is not really suitable to use on its own.

Copyright date is informative, but optional, especially if the material itself has explicit dating.

Hmm, just putting down the details as I go. Excuse me if my thinking on keyboard gets too detailed or restatesthings you already know.

Bob's reply:

You're correct that it's probably not worth worrying about, but there are a couple of issues:

First, while you're correct that the author automatically holds copyright whether or not a copyright banner is displayed, I believe that displaying that banner entitles you to injunctive relief.

Interesting point.

Second, you're correct that I display the "All Rights Reserved." because TTG and I are separate legal entities.

Third, I'm not sure that (c) is an adequate substitute for the Copyright Symbol. There was discussion of this years back, when (c) was not a valid subsitute. I believe that it was ultimately decided that because many new technologies like the web made it difficult to display the legal symbol, the (c) construct could be used, but was valid only when used with the "Copyright" spelled out as well.

This is correct as I have understood it as well. (c) is only indicative of the correct symbol, and should really not be used without writing "Copyright" in full, and never if the correct © can be used instead.

Fourth, as far as the date, I believe you are correct that it is not required, but again is used when applying for injunctive relief to establish "date of first publication".

In the end, it doesn't much matter. No one is likely to steal our material in bulk. If they do, the copyright notice isn't going to help much if they can afford better lawyers than we can....

Hmm, and here I thought you were against copyright on principle. <grin>


©
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
 
Daynotes
 
Next week
Previous
 
Top

Tuesday 16.02

Some background exchanges about site (re)organization, but most of it seems posted on either Tom's or Bob's site. I will however here note part of my comment (at 1 AM) to Tom Syroid apropos his sudden renaming/relocating of pages...

.. Sunday, you wrote...

I see some of our Daynote companions are busy re-organizing their sites for tomorrow morning. For once, I will smile and nod from a distance. I’ve thought several times about changing the file naming convention for all my insights pages (both putting all the pages into a separate directory and renaming to YYYYMMDD to achieve a proper chronological sort of the DIR listing), but the effort is not worth the net-sum-gain just at the moment.

That resolve didn't last long, did it? <grin>

The abrupt switch of URLs had me flailing a bit, as my rapid sequence of emails on the subject no doubt indicated. Web space is not like local HD space, and one of the "rules" is that breaking links by removing URLs is kinda rude. Convention is that posted URLs should respond "indefinitely" with something meaningful, either content, or referral. See the old URLs for some pages I moved into directories, e.g. http://www.leuf.org/sff.htm, which URLs are now referrals to the new location.

Obviously, this is not a hard rule, but more of a courtesy. ...


©
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
 
Daynotes
 
Next week
Previous
 
Top

Wednesday 17.02

Tom Syroid expressed among other things this sentiment apropos my daynotes driving adventure...

... your Daynotes page (2/15/99) left me in stitches for hours . I have developed an uncanny sense of direction and location over the years, and I found your experiences humorous from this perspective in itself, but your presentation was EXTRAORDINARY and really hit the mark. Very well done. I have this clear mental picture of you wandering around in the fog, squinting and looking generally lost, mumbling about space and time and quantum physics. Heh-heh-heh. We should think about having a Daynote Oscar for the single best presentation of a given day, given once a year at a gala event ...

Last week was very ungood on a whole lot of calendars besides just mine. You provided an incredible, witty little bit of prose for us, which gave us all a good chuckle, which in turn prompted us to dutifully pluck our head out of our ass and laugh at ourselves as well. You gave the Daynotes Gang world something very special yesterday ...

I also really liked your wordmanship on money. I was laughing so hard at your driving diatribe, though, I forgot to say anything further. ... your theories here brought a chuckle to my lips on a topic that I don’t often chuckle much about.

I thank you all for journeying with me, to go where no-one has gone before...


©
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
 
Daynotes
 
Next week
Previous
 
Top

Thursday 18.02

Had some more email "letterbombs" from Tom Syroid this morning. Some speculation from Tom about the cause:

... I think I know now what is doing it. It's not the attachment, it's an attachment sent to your mail program bound by an HTML document. No one else I've written to has had such bombs. Or at least been alive to curse me for it... [Second cup of coffee -- no brain response yet]

Interesting effect. Now if we could just have it occur in junk email before it is opened, or even sent for that matter :)

Just to summarize the effect: an email sent with Outlook with MIME attachment arrives, body is (usually?) multipart text+html. First view in Pegasus Mail looks fine, but once that initial view is closed or the attachment is saved, the mail literally "blows up". The content is "empty", or sometimes the mail header vanishes completely from the in-tray. On occasion, the program crashed. Otherwise, in-tray consistency tests ok, but the mail is as if it had never been. Very weird.

(later) The solution may lie in a new version of Pegasus Mail.

A large mail exchange took place concerning Kodachrome resolution with Bob Thompson. Since he has posted all of it verbatum on his site, I'll just refer you thereremote (Thursday).


©
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
 
Daynotes
 
Next week
Previous
 
Top

Friday 19.02

I sent the following to Bob Thompson about his explanation to another reader of the slang term "dusie/doozy":

From Thursday...

  • No, actually that slang term originated with the Dusenberg automobile and was originally spelled "Dusie." But you're right that "doozie" is now the more common spelling.

Intriguing notion, and possible, although none of the large (to very large and usually quite authoritative) dictionaries I consulted would admit anything more than 20th C slang, origin uncertain (douse, daisy, ...). Actually, none even took up "Dusenberg", and they seem to prefer "doozy - doozies" as far as that goes.

I would more easily believe attribution to the Italian actress Eleonora Duse (doo'zay), 1859-1924, who first rose to fame in Italy and then toured all the great cities with great acclaim around the turn of the last century. She died in Pittsburgh, after a brief return to the stage in 1921. Given the correct pronunciation of her name, and the allusion of doozy to something exceptional, admirable, I find this a better match, and also explains the alternate Dusie spelling.

Bob replied at length:

My dictionaries provide about the same information yours do, although my Collins British dictionary gives the pronunciation of Eleonora Duse's name as doozie. Most give the origin of doosie (in various spellings) as source unknown, but dating to circa 1930. But I'll stick by my derivation, because it is based on contemporaneous sources. I read mysteries by the ton, and years ago I read one form the 30's in which one of the characters in the presence of a Dusenberg says something like, "Now that *is* a real Dusie." I'd never thought about the derivation of the term until I read that. In the sycnronicity that seems to crop up in my reading, not more than a week or two later, I read another 30's mystery (by a different author) that also made reference to a Dusie in similar circumstances. And the dictionaries that suggest derivation from a daisy seem to be missing the point. There's nothing particularly extraordinary about a daisy, or about Miss Duse come to that. But a Dusenberg was the height of extraordinary. If you've ever seen a Dusenberg, you'll understand what I mean. People who drove Rolls-Royces back then did so because they couldn't afford a Dusenberg. The things were huge, powerful, and refined. They were and are the most extraordinary automobiles ever built. And, as it happens, they were (and still are) commonly referred to as "Dusies."

Further delving...

I found an attribution of doozy linked to Edwin Abbott 1838-1926 (Shakespearean scholar). A further variant "doozer" found. Also "doozandazzy", early 1900s (pre-1920?), for "a (remarkable) gadget".

The "Duesenberg" series of cars, extra "e" there, was built between 1928 and 1937, which puts the car later than the Abbott attribution. I don't doubt that "doozy" was an apt description for the car, but the word was used before the first one was built.

Some car pictures on this site: www.duesenbergmotors.com who offer to hand-built replicas. (If one had some money...)

Also, perhaps you do not give Eleanora Duse her due credit...

"19th-century Italian actress famous for her Shakespearean performances. Along with Sarah Bernhardt and Helena Modjeska, she was regarded as one of the three great classical actresses of the day."

Interestingly, I find this evening that most of my research is confirmed from another source, including the earlier date for "doozy": see www.greenapple.com/~words1/back-r.html, where it is clearly noted that "doozy appeared in American slang several years before the Duesenberg car even existed", 1903 is suggested. It is however also remarked that the subsequent link to the extraordinary car probably ensured the word's survival into modern times. This I would agree with.

Turns out that an ultimate origin from "daisy" is not so unlikely either, its use for "excellent" or "superior" going back to the 1700s, and that the connection to Eleanora Duse may have been a natural connection of an already current slang word to an outstanding actress. Especially likely if it was applied by a Shakespearean scholar, i.e. Mr Abbott.

Fun...

More from Bob...

Okay, I give up. Actually, there's a word for this--similar or identical sounding words that describe the same thing but arose from completely different sources--but I can't recall right now what that word is.

As far as the spelling of Dusenberg, I suspect that the name was originally spelled Düsenberg, with the umlaut. Umlauts have always given Americans a problem, originally I suspect because American typesetters had no umlauts in their type cases. Even now, I had to go to "Insert Symbol" to find one. So, some of us drop the umlaut and use a following "e" to indicate the diacritical, while others simply use the unaccented vowel by itself. A quick search of the Internet shows all three usages, including examples of each from seemingly authoritative sources, e.g. collectors' clubs. Although I've seen these cars at shows, I don't recall how (or if) the name appeared on the car itself.

Maybe, though not necessarily. The non-umlaut spelling is a common one in Germany as well. I found this short history, except given below, and it is clear that both the family and the company spelled Duesenberg with the e, although others would from time to time forget it.

European keyboards at least have "deadkeys" with various umlaut and accent signs, so such characters can be made on the fly. Windows supports it, if only the keys are implemented.

Interesting to note that more than 75% of all Duesenberg cars still exist today and 55% are still operable. Some references put the founding of the company as early as 1917, but although the brothers built racing cars even then, the company probably did not formally exist yet.

Learned a fair amount today. Thanks for the diversion from my translations.

As far as Eleanora Duse, I must confess that her name was not familiar to me before this thread started. I suspect if you did a poll, you'd find close to 100% of those polled would at least recognize Sarah Bernhardt's name, perhaps 5% would recognize Helena Modjeska (as I did), and very few would recognize Eleanora Duse. Perhaps that's more a measure of their ability to promote themselves than of their talent.

The history I quoted ran as follows:

... These successes were the rewards of brothers Fred Duesenberg (1876-1932) and August Duesenberg (1879-1955), two native talents and mechanical masterminds who taught themselves the principles of transportation engineering. Born in Germany and raised among the large Duesenberg family that had emigrated to Iowa, the boys found favor in building and racing bicycles. Their own bicycle shop evolved into a career of constructing and piloting racing cars.

After a period of government service, building World War I aviation and marine engines in New Jersey, the brothers came to Indianapolis, where the Duesenberg Automobile and Motors Company was established in 1920. Production soon began on Duesenberg's first passenger car, the Model A, a costly prestige car. The expensive Model A, though it pioneered the use of straight eight-cylinder engines and four-wheel hydraulic brakes, had disappointing sales and was discontinued in 1926.

In the fall of that year, transportation industrialist E.L. Cord, president of the Auburn Automobile Company, purchased Duesenberg, with a vision of making luxury cars on a larger program. In October, 1926, E.L. Cord told the Indianapolis Star, "The purchase of the Duesenberg factory is the culmination of my plans to be able to offer the world an automobile of undisputed rank. In fact, the finest thing on four wheels. Duesenberg cars will be strictly custom built, the owners selecting their own body styles, their own body makers and selecting their own colors. The price probably will be $18,000, no matter what model, from racer to limousine. We will give the buyer 120 mile-an-hour speed if desired. Naturally, the production of this type of automobile, which carries awarranty of fifteen years, will be limited and we are now taking orders..."

E.L. Cord commissioned Fred Duesenberg, newly installed as vice- president of engineering, to develop the ultimate motorcar that would outclass all other American makes. The result was the unsurpassed Model J, introduced at the New York Automobile Salon for the 1929 model year. Its brutish Lycoming straight eight engine, developing 265 horsepower (the next largest car on the market was the Pierce-Arrow, with a horsepower of 125),.attained speeds exceeding 115 miles per hour. By 1932, supercharged engines of 320 horsepower were part of the line.

... and so on...

Closing comments by Bob...

$18,000! And this at a time when the average worker was probably grossing less than $1,000/year, if he was lucky enough to have a job. And since an original Dusie now sells in the million dollar range, they've held their value pretty well. Actually, 75% exiting and 55% operable doesn't sound very high to me, given the original cost and exclusivity of the product. I'd guess that Rolls-Royce motorcars of that vintage have considerably higher rates. Of course, they also have a company that still exists to support them. My great-uncle owned several Cords. I wish even one had stayed in the family for me to inherit.

As usual, your persistence amazes me. Actually, Barbara (ever the librarian) wanted to research the whole doozie/Dusenberg issue when I mentioned it to her yesterday morning. I finally convinced her that we all probably had better things to be doing. But you're right. It is fascinating.

It was a pleasant diversion at odd moments between our exchanges. ...

I got interested mainly because almost the first thing I happened to run across was a short bio on Eleanora Duse, and this was sufficently different from the usual etymology that I was roused to dig a bit further. As our exchange continued, I kept on looking things up when taking pauses from writing. Good research practice as it were.


©
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
 
Daynotes
 
Next week
Previous
 
Top

Saturday 20.02

Bob Thompson remarks...

I never could understand why you and Tom avoided posting stuff that had been posted on others' sites. I mean, for someone who visits both sites, it's easy enough to skip past the stuff that you've read already. But for someone who visits only one or the other, they're missing out on a lot of the conversation.

Well, sometimes it's a question of how much material to include in one's own site. I'm not paranoid about duplication, but sometimes it seems unnecessary. For my own part, it's easy enough to simply post a link-to-closest-anchor, as I have done several times, to another site, such as yours, where the material is posted. That way it's easy to either find or skip as the case may be.

Okay, that makes sense I guess.


©
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
 
Daynotes
 
Next week
Previous
 
Top

Sunday 21.02

* I've been a bit slow about updating some of the follow-ups the past few days, so they may seem to have come in retroactively, see above.

Mail flow is markedly down this past week, apart from the ever-intense inter-DaynoteGang exchanges. So, too, site hits, down thirthy three and a third points on the BNFHI (bottom-95 hits index <grin>). Statistical blips in the night... SMTP doeth serve, and mail having POP'd, mine host moveth on.


Bob Thompson writes apropos automated phone systems...

And my personal favorite, which I had been expecting and finally encountered a couple of years back, "If you do not have a touch-tone telephone, please hang up now and call back from a modern telephone..."

And a lot of people would be truly outraged if they knew how Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems are programmed. Like most people, I'd encountered many ACD systems in the past, and had sometimes been disconnected after a lengthy period spent moving around menus and on hold.

It wasn't until my former company got an ACD system and I had to program it that I found that "Disconnect the caller" is actually a programmable option. That's outrageous.

So the next time you're sitting on hold and get disconnected, you probably hit a time-out value in the ACD system. It used to make my blood boil when I thought this was happening accidentally. Now that I know it's intentional (or may be so), I want to throttle the people who designed the system.


©
Week list

All original material Copyright 1999 Bo Leuf.
Comments and discussion welcome (bo@leuf.com).


Back to top -- Week list