Microsoft keyboard F lock

[Gene E. Bloch]

I'm in the dark too. I have a horrible feeling that there's some
misunderstanding here and I should let it rest. But I'll try one piece
of Sherlock Holmes style investigation.
What does "the above" refer to in your "As you can see from the above"?
And I assure you I'm not trying to upstage anything; I'm merely trying
to sort out a genuine malentendu.

Ed

OK, time to clarify.

I purposely sent an empty reply in response to your remark about sending
e-mails in invisible ink, which I had assumed you meant as humor.

Then I rep[lied to the empty reply pretending not that it was empty, but
that my typing was invisible (white on white, I guess).

So by "the above", I meant my quoted first reply in which my typing was
supposedly invisible.

It comes pretty close to being a practical joke, now that I think about
it, and I happen to *hate* practical jokes, so please accept my apology.

And yes, it's an example of an overly opaque joke. It was meant in a
spirit of fun, so you have to laugh now

And I just read Roy Smith's response. Too bad I couldn't have thought of
that kind of clear and unambiguous response myself

 

[Ed Cryer]

Ha ha funny one Ed. Did you by chance sell the Emperor his new clothes?

No. I actually composed an email to a friend some years ago. He was a
programmer like myself, and I was simply testing him. It went something
like this.

Parts of this message
are missing.

Can you find them?

*********


And the missing parts had used same ink/paper settings.
He replied immediately; found them prontissimo.

Ed

 

[bj]

I've put little labels from my Brother labelmaker on several of my keys so I
can see them in less-than-bright light. It's not that big a job to make
labels (trim to fit key) & stick them on -- and the print is Big Enough To
See for older eyes. For the double-function F keys I put the labels just
above the key & outlined the F# with a blue marker & put a blue-marker label
on the F-shifter-key. (any color would do though)
bj

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message

"VanguardLH" wrote in message

Thank you. You're right. I am colorblind and I don't see blue with the
lock
on or off. The caption on my F lock key is in white letters.

Get someone with a steady hand to put white paint or something similar
on those key labels. Or it might even be possible to buy replacement
keytops, though a keyboard might be cheaper if it's not a laptop.

Even someone who isn't color blind can have a problem when they are old
enough that the lens of their eye yellows a bit and blocks blue light.

It's not the smartest design choice by the manufacturer :-(

 

[Ed Cryer]

On 20/07/2011 21:23, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:59:59 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 20/07/2011 20:18, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:17:25 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:11:33 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 19/07/2011 22:43, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:08:03 +0000 (UTC), Dominique wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch"<[email protected]> écrivait

<snip>

Even someone who isn't color blind can have a problem when they are old
enough that the lens of their eye yellows a bit and blocks blue light.

It's not the smartest design choice by the manufacturer :-(

I agree and programmers and webmasters should think about this too, I
can't recall how many times I saw WEB pages almost unreadable because of a
bad choice of letters colors against background colors.

OT, but it reminds me of an event around 1989. I was debugging a
program, and the text suddenly disappeared. Eventually I discovered that
I had (inadvertently!) changed the text from white on blue to blue on
blue.

Definitely a bad design choice


Good way to send emails in invisible ink, though!

Ed

You're right! As you can see from the above, it worked!

Thanks.


I doubt you could do it in plain text. You'd need HTML.
And don't try to argue that you had somehow embedded some words with
ink/paper same colour. I've looked at the message source.

Ed

I can't tell if you're upstaging my joke or not getting it

If the former: Geez, man, no matter how hard I try, I just can't fool
you...

If the latter, well, it wouldn't be the first time a joke of mine was
overly opaque...


I'm in the dark too. I have a horrible feeling that there's some
misunderstanding here and I should let it rest. But I'll try one piece
of Sherlock Holmes style investigation.
What does "the above" refer to in your "As you can see from the above"?
And I assure you I'm not trying to upstage anything; I'm merely trying
to sort out a genuine malentendu.

Ed

OK, time to clarify.

I purposely sent an empty reply in response to your remark about sending
e-mails in invisible ink, which I had assumed you meant as humor.

Then I rep[lied to the empty reply pretending not that it was empty, but
that my typing was invisible (white on white, I guess).

So by "the above", I meant my quoted first reply in which my typing was
supposedly invisible.

It comes pretty close to being a practical joke, now that I think about
it, and I happen to *hate* practical jokes, so please accept my apology.

And yes, it's an example of an overly opaque joke. It was meant in a
spirit of fun, so you have to laugh now

And I just read Roy Smith's response. Too bad I couldn't have thought of
that kind of clear and unambiguous response myself

I've just thought of a great game for the intelligentsia. I call it
"Name that book".

Two examples.

1. , Romans ears.
not praise


2. versall knowledge a
wife.



Ed

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:45:15 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 20/07/2011 21:23, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:59:59 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 20/07/2011 20:18, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:17:25 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:11:33 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 19/07/2011 22:43, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:08:03 +0000 (UTC), Dominique wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch"<[email protected]> écrivait

<snip>

Even someone who isn't color blind can have a problem when they are old
enough that the lens of their eye yellows a bit and blocks blue light.

It's not the smartest design choice by the manufacturer :-(

I agree and programmers and webmasters should think about this too, I
can't recall how many times I saw WEB pages almost unreadable because of a
bad choice of letters colors against background colors.

OT, but it reminds me of an event around 1989. I was debugging a
program, and the text suddenly disappeared. Eventually I discovered that
I had (inadvertently!) changed the text from white on blue to blue on
blue.

Definitely a bad design choice


Good way to send emails in invisible ink, though!

Ed

You're right! As you can see from the above, it worked!

Thanks.


I doubt you could do it in plain text. You'd need HTML.
And don't try to argue that you had somehow embedded some words with
ink/paper same colour. I've looked at the message source.

Ed

I can't tell if you're upstaging my joke or not getting it

If the former: Geez, man, no matter how hard I try, I just can't fool
you...

If the latter, well, it wouldn't be the first time a joke of mine was
overly opaque...


I'm in the dark too. I have a horrible feeling that there's some
misunderstanding here and I should let it rest. But I'll try one piece
of Sherlock Holmes style investigation.
What does "the above" refer to in your "As you can see from the above"?
And I assure you I'm not trying to upstage anything; I'm merely trying
to sort out a genuine malentendu.

Ed

OK, time to clarify.

I purposely sent an empty reply in response to your remark about sending
e-mails in invisible ink, which I had assumed you meant as humor.

Then I rep[lied to the empty reply pretending not that it was empty, but
that my typing was invisible (white on white, I guess).

So by "the above", I meant my quoted first reply in which my typing was
supposedly invisible.

It comes pretty close to being a practical joke, now that I think about
it, and I happen to *hate* practical jokes, so please accept my apology.

And yes, it's an example of an overly opaque joke. It was meant in a
spirit of fun, so you have to laugh now

And I just read Roy Smith's response. Too bad I couldn't have thought of
that kind of clear and unambiguous response myself

I've just thought of a great game for the intelligentsia. I call it
"Name that book".

Two examples.

1. , Romans ears.
not praise

2. versall knowledge a
wife.

Ed

Coincidentally, I was just thinking about Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
yesterday, but I don't remember why. The second one I don't get.

My favorite quote from JC contains "You blocks, you stones, you worse
than senseless things!" (Act I, scene i, line 39), except I want to
spell the second word "Blochs" - which is why I like it.

 

[Roy Smith]

On 20/07/2011 21:23, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:59:59 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 20/07/2011 20:18, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:17:25 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:11:33 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 19/07/2011 22:43, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:08:03 +0000 (UTC), Dominique wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch"<[email protected]> écrivait

<snip>

Even someone who isn't color blind can have a problem when they are old
enough that the lens of their eye yellows a bit and blocks blue light.

It's not the smartest design choice by the manufacturer :-(

I agree and programmers and webmasters should think about this too, I
can't recall how many times I saw WEB pages almost unreadable because of a
bad choice of letters colors against background colors.

OT, but it reminds me of an event around 1989. I was debugging a
program, and the text suddenly disappeared. Eventually I discovered that
I had (inadvertently!) changed the text from white on blue to blue on
blue.

Definitely a bad design choice


Good way to send emails in invisible ink, though!

Ed

You're right! As you can see from the above, it worked!

Thanks.


I doubt you could do it in plain text. You'd need HTML.
And don't try to argue that you had somehow embedded some words with
ink/paper same colour. I've looked at the message source.

Ed

I can't tell if you're upstaging my joke or not getting it

If the former: Geez, man, no matter how hard I try, I just can't fool
you...

If the latter, well, it wouldn't be the first time a joke of mine was
overly opaque...


I'm in the dark too. I have a horrible feeling that there's some
misunderstanding here and I should let it rest. But I'll try one piece
of Sherlock Holmes style investigation.
What does "the above" refer to in your "As you can see from the above"?
And I assure you I'm not trying to upstage anything; I'm merely trying
to sort out a genuine malentendu.

Ed

OK, time to clarify.

I purposely sent an empty reply in response to your remark about sending
e-mails in invisible ink, which I had assumed you meant as humor.

Then I rep[lied to the empty reply pretending not that it was empty, but
that my typing was invisible (white on white, I guess).

So by "the above", I meant my quoted first reply in which my typing was
supposedly invisible.

It comes pretty close to being a practical joke, now that I think about
it, and I happen to *hate* practical jokes, so please accept my apology.

And yes, it's an example of an overly opaque joke. It was meant in a
spirit of fun, so you have to laugh now

And I just read Roy Smith's response. Too bad I couldn't have thought of
that kind of clear and unambiguous response myself

Funny thing is that I had read H.C. Andersen's Fairy Tales earlier that
day and one of the stories was the Emperor's New Clothes.


--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Thunderbird 5.0
Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:42:31 PM

 

[Ed Cryer]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:18:13 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:45:15 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 20/07/2011 21:23, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:59:59 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 20/07/2011 20:18, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:17:25 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:11:33 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 19/07/2011 22:43, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:08:03 +0000 (UTC), Dominique wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch"<[email protected]> écrivait

<snip>

Even someone who isn't color blind can have a problem when they are old
enough that the lens of their eye yellows a bit and blocks blue light.

It's not the smartest design choice by the manufacturer :-(

I agree and programmers and webmasters should think about this too, I
can't recall how many times I saw WEB pages almost unreadable because of a
bad choice of letters colors against background colors.

OT, but it reminds me of an event around 1989. I was debugging a
program, and the text suddenly disappeared. Eventually I discovered that
I had (inadvertently!) changed the text from white on blue to blue on
blue.

Definitely a bad design choice


Good way to send emails in invisible ink, though!

Ed

You're right! As you can see from the above, it worked!

Thanks.


I doubt you could do it in plain text. You'd need HTML.
And don't try to argue that you had somehow embedded some words with
ink/paper same colour. I've looked at the message source.

Ed

I can't tell if you're upstaging my joke or not getting it

If the former: Geez, man, no matter how hard I try, I just can't fool
you...

If the latter, well, it wouldn't be the first time a joke of mine was
overly opaque...


I'm in the dark too. I have a horrible feeling that there's some
misunderstanding here and I should let it rest. But I'll try one piece
of Sherlock Holmes style investigation.
What does "the above" refer to in your "As you can see from the above"?
And I assure you I'm not trying to upstage anything; I'm merely trying
to sort out a genuine malentendu.

Ed

OK, time to clarify.

I purposely sent an empty reply in response to your remark about sending
e-mails in invisible ink, which I had assumed you meant as humor.

Then I rep[lied to the empty reply pretending not that it was empty, but
that my typing was invisible (white on white, I guess).

So by "the above", I meant my quoted first reply in which my typing was
supposedly invisible.

It comes pretty close to being a practical joke, now that I think about
it, and I happen to *hate* practical jokes, so please accept my apology.

And yes, it's an example of an overly opaque joke. It was meant in a
spirit of fun, so you have to laugh now

And I just read Roy Smith's response. Too bad I couldn't have thought of
that kind of clear and unambiguous response myself

I've just thought of a great game for the intelligentsia. I call it
"Name that book".

Two examples.

1. , Romans ears.
not praise

2. versall knowledge a
wife.

Ed

Coincidentally, I was just thinking about Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
yesterday, but I don't remember why. The second one I don't get.

My favorite quote from JC contains "You blocks, you stones, you worse
than senseless things!" (Act I, scene i, line 39), except I want to
spell the second word "Blochs" - which is why I like it.

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession
of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."
(Pride and Prejudice, opening sentence)

You Americans haven't had a woman president yet. God help you when you
do. Be it Ms Palin or Mrs H Clinton, one day you'll wake up and have
changed from being an alpha male, top-of-the-food-chain, gifted with the
ability to hold mentally a complete representation of time and space;
into an ovary-fertilisation mechanism.

That's what happened to us.
And Jane Austin changed over night from being a provincial, small-town
mind overly concerned with getting women married off while totally
ignoring the battle against Napoleon and the problem of
industrialisation; into a genius of feminism.

Ed

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:45:15 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 20/07/2011 21:23, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:59:59 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 20/07/2011 20:18, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:17:25 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:11:33 +0100, Ed Cryer wrote:

On 19/07/2011 22:43, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:08:03 +0000 (UTC), Dominique wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch"<[email protected]> écrivait

<snip>

Even someone who isn't color blind can have a problem when they are old
enough that the lens of their eye yellows a bit and blocks blue light.

It's not the smartest design choice by the manufacturer :-(

I agree and programmers and webmasters should think about this too, I
can't recall how many times I saw WEB pages almost unreadable because of a
bad choice of letters colors against background colors.

OT, but it reminds me of an event around 1989. I was debugging a
program, and the text suddenly disappeared. Eventually I discovered that
I had (inadvertently!) changed the text from white on blue to blue on
blue.

Definitely a bad design choice


Good way to send emails in invisible ink, though!

Ed

You're right! As you can see from the above, it worked!

Thanks.


I doubt you could do it in plain text. You'd need HTML.
And don't try to argue that you had somehow embedded some words with
ink/paper same colour. I've looked at the message source.

Ed

I can't tell if you're upstaging my joke or not getting it

If the former: Geez, man, no matter how hard I try, I just can't fool
you...

If the latter, well, it wouldn't be the first time a joke of mine was
overly opaque...


I'm in the dark too. I have a horrible feeling that there's some
misunderstanding here and I should let it rest. But I'll try one piece
of Sherlock Holmes style investigation.
What does "the above" refer to in your "As you can see from the above"?
And I assure you I'm not trying to upstage anything; I'm merely trying
to sort out a genuine malentendu.

Ed

OK, time to clarify.

I purposely sent an empty reply in response to your remark about sending
e-mails in invisible ink, which I had assumed you meant as humor.

Then I rep[lied to the empty reply pretending not that it was empty, but
that my typing was invisible (white on white, I guess).

So by "the above", I meant my quoted first reply in which my typing was
supposedly invisible.

It comes pretty close to being a practical joke, now that I think about
it, and I happen to *hate* practical jokes, so please accept my apology.

And yes, it's an example of an overly opaque joke. It was meant in a
spirit of fun, so you have to laugh now

And I just read Roy Smith's response. Too bad I couldn't have thought of
that kind of clear and unambiguous response myself

Funny thing is that I had read H.C. Andersen's Fairy Tales earlier that
day and one of the stories was the Emperor's New Clothes.

This thread is going OT, and so it happens to be getting to be fun (if I
dare say that).

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession
of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."
(Pride and Prejudice, opening sentence)

Amazing what I can forget in the 57 years or so since I read it

Although it does get quoted occasionally. Oh well...

You Americans haven't had a woman president yet. God help you when you
do. Be it Ms Palin or Mrs H Clinton, one day you'll wake up and have
changed from being an alpha male, top-of-the-food-chain, gifted with the
ability to hold mentally a complete representation of time and space;
into an ovary-fertilisation mechanism.

That's what happened to us.
And Jane Austin changed over night from being a provincial, small-town
mind overly concerned with getting women married off while totally
ignoring the battle against Napoleon and the problem of
industrialisation; into a genius of feminism.

Ed

Sorry, I like women.

 

[Ed Cryer]

Amazing what I can forget in the 57 years or so since I read it

Although it does get quoted occasionally. Oh well...


Sorry, I like women.

Hey, you crass, old goat, this is a forum for open discussion; not one
for you to practise your tomfoolery and trolling.

Ed

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Hey, you crass, old goat, this is a forum for open discussion; not one
for you to practise your tomfoolery and trolling.

Ed

Baaaah, humbug!