From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

Is there any way of searching for a particular title or author in my Library?
I can only search in Apple Books - or have I missed something?

I can list them by either, but it means scrolling down a considerable list to get to the right place.
--
An infinitely complex system can fail in an infinite number of ways.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On 03/09/2026 15:19, Old John wrote:

Is there any way of searching for a particular title or author in my Library? I can only search in Apple Books - or have I missed something?

I can list them by either, but it means scrolling down a considerable list to get to the right place.

I just type in the search bar, despite it saying Apple Books.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Old John
<watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Is there any way of searching for a particular title or author in my Library? >I can only search in Apple Books - or have I missed something?

I can list them by either, but it means scrolling down a considerable list to >get to the right place.

Display them by "author, descending" instead of "Author, Ascending",
perhaps? Then the scrolling may be shorter. Similar for the other
options.

Or use Finder. I find it finds loads of types of stuff all over the
place, even stuff that I never knew existed. Just don't cage it with
any filters.

hth,
J.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Old John
<watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

An infinitely complex system can fail in an infinite number of ways.

Not necessarily. Many failure modes may be impossible. An infinitely
complex system may also fail in Aleph-one ways or more; there may be
more than an infinite number of additional failure modes for each
separate failure mode and, possibly an infinite series of such for
each one of those.

Infinity is complex. Also fun.

It may also be possible to design systems which do not and can not
ever fail, be they finitely complex or not. The cosmos might be one of
those.

We have some small empirical evidence that it has not, yet, fa


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On 3 Sep 2026 at 19:22:28 BST, "John" <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Old John
<watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

An infinitely complex system can fail in an infinite number of ways.

Not necessarily. Many failure modes may be impossible. An infinitely
complex system may also fail in Aleph-one ways or more; there may be
more than an infinite number of additional failure modes for each
separate failure mode and, possibly an infinite series of such for
each one of those.

Infinity is complex. Also fun.

It may also be possible to design systems which do not and can not
ever fail, be they finitely complex or not. The cosmos might be one of
those.

We have some small empirical evidence that it has not, yet, fa

The Sig is a clip from "The Byte of the Serpent", https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0b4KRhmaOjr-RmN__8gme3piw#The_Byte_of_the_Serpent_Edited
a skit on Genesis that was being passed around RN computing circles in the 1980s.

As you say, infinity can be fun. There are levels of infinity that are infinitely greater than other levels. I used to partially understand it all.

When I switched from Physics to Computer Research my first job was on a resilient computing project, basically in support of message switching on a strategic scale (now obsolete). I then moved on to a LAN project, which when I had finished with it had dual redundancy in the highway controllers and triple redundancy in the cabling. This became the LAN that underpinned the Combat System Highway in the Type 23 Frigate. There are still a few in service but I would be astounded if that LAN were still to be found in any of them!

Happy days! But we are wandering disastrously off topic.


God makes power, Man makes engines.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 18:11:24 -0000 (UTC), Old John
<watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 3 Sep 2026 at 19:22:28 BST, "John" <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Old John
<watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

An infinitely complex system can fail in an infinite number of ways.

Not necessarily. Many failure modes may be impossible. An infinitely
complex system may also fail in Aleph-one ways or more; there may be
more than an infinite number of additional failure modes for each
separate failure mode and, possibly an infinite series of such for
each one of those.

Infinity is complex. Also fun.

It may also be possible to design systems which do not and can not
ever fail, be they finitely complex or not. The cosmos might be one of
those.

We have some small empirical evidence that it has not, yet, fa

The Sig is a clip from "The Byte of the Serpent", >https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0b4KRhmaOjr-RmN__8gme3piw#The_Byte_of_the_Serpent_Edited
a skit on Genesis that was being passed around RN computing circles in the >1980s.

Yes, that reads like a 1980's thing in the style of
"DerBlinkenLitez" and other cheerful corruptions of computer science.

As you say, infinity can be fun. There are levels of infinity that are >infinitely greater than other levels. I used to partially understand it all.

It was once said, possibly by me, that only the truly insane
understand higher Infinities. I just know that I sometimes do. Mostly
when I'm in The Zone.

When I switched from Physics to Computer Research my first job was on a >resilient computing project, basically in support of message switching on a >strategic scale (now obsolete). I then moved on to a LAN project, which when I >had finished with it had dual redundancy in the highway controllers and triple >redundancy in the cabling. This became the LAN that underpinned the Combat >System Highway in the Type 23 Frigate. There are still a few in service but I >would be astounded if that LAN were still to be found in any of them!

I would not even be mildly surprised were it so. Navies are a
conservative, sometimes superstitious lot who don't muck about with
anything lest it breaks and can never be fixed. Also, and very
importantly, they don't *ever* get anywhere near enough funds to keep everything up-to-date. They can't. Technologies move so rapidly that
were they to try to do so they would be forever "updating" and would
never actually be able to bomb things. Besides which, as the
documentary "Battleship" shows, very old tech can defeat super-high
Alien tech eleven times out of ten.

[If you were Naval, you really should have a watch of "Battleship",
it's great fun even if it is utterly ridiculous. But don't Wiki_P it
nor read any reviews first.] [Well, you can read my sort of review
inside the previous brackets as it contains few spoilers.]

I hope you enjoyed your work and had fun. I did with mine, much of
the time. And 99.9% of the tech I learned to play with is now
considered more obsolete than "stone knives and bearskins". I think I
could still work and even "fix" issues on most of it but no one will
ever need me to. None of it survives. Not even in the Navies.

Happy days! But we are wandering disastrously off topic.

Yerp. That am what Usenet *does*!

"Thread Drift" is Usenet's greatest superpower. It is also where the
Good Guys teach us loads and loads of stuff we never imagined existed
before they popped up. For which I would like to deeply and strongly
thank each and every one of you.

I don't know you, I'll never meet you but you have collectively made
my life far, far better than it would otherwise have been.

Thank you.

God makes power, Man makes engines.

The *Cosmos* gives us power.
Man makes engines to direct it.
The Children Of Man inherit the stars.

:)

J.

p.s. Bonus points for recognising the "bearskins" mis-quote and naming
the character who spoke the line.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On 6 Sep 2026 at 13:03:28 BST, "John" <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 18:11:24 -0000 (UTC), Old John
<watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 3 Sep 2026 at 19:22:28 BST, "John" <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Old John
<watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

An infinitely complex system can fail in an infinite number of ways.

Not necessarily. Many failure modes may be impossible. An infinitely
complex system may also fail in Aleph-one ways or more; there may be
more than an infinite number of additional failure modes for each
separate failure mode and, possibly an infinite series of such for
each one of those.

Infinity is complex. Also fun.

It may also be possible to design systems which do not and can not
ever fail, be they finitely complex or not. The cosmos might be one of
those.

We have some small empirical evidence that it has not, yet, fa

The Sig is a clip from "The Byte of the Serpent",
https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0b4KRhmaOjr-RmN__8gme3piw#The_Byte_of_the_Serpent_Edited
a skit on Genesis that was being passed around RN computing circles in the >> 1980s.

Yes, that reads like a 1980's thing in the style of
"DerBlinkenLitez" and other cheerful corruptions of computer science.

As you say, infinity can be fun. There are levels of infinity that are
infinitely greater than other levels. I used to partially understand it all.

It was once said, possibly by me, that only the truly insane
understand higher Infinities. I just know that I sometimes do. Mostly
when I'm in The Zone.

When I switched from Physics to Computer Research my first job was on a
resilient computing project, basically in support of message switching on a >> strategic scale (now obsolete). I then moved on to a LAN project, which when I
had finished with it had dual redundancy in the highway controllers and triple
redundancy in the cabling. This became the LAN that underpinned the Combat >> System Highway in the Type 23 Frigate. There are still a few in service but I
would be astounded if that LAN were still to be found in any of them!

I would not even be mildly surprised were it so. Navies are a
conservative, sometimes superstitious lot who don't muck about with
anything lest it breaks and can never be fixed. Also, and very
importantly, they don't *ever* get anywhere near enough funds to keep everything up-to-date. They can't. Technologies move so rapidly that
were they to try to do so they would be forever "updating" and would
never actually be able to bomb things. Besides which, as the
documentary "Battleship" shows, very old tech can defeat super-high
Alien tech eleven times out of ten.

[If you were Naval, you really should have a watch of "Battleship",
it's great fun even if it is utterly ridiculous. But don't Wiki_P it
nor read any reviews first.] [Well, you can read my sort of review
inside the previous brackets as it contains few spoilers.]

I hope you enjoyed your work and had fun. I did with mine, much of
the time. And 99.9% of the tech I learned to play with is now
considered more obsolete than "stone knives and bearskins". I think I
could still work and even "fix" issues on most of it but no one will
ever need me to. None of it survives. Not even in the Navies.

Happy days! But we are wandering disastrously off topic.

Yerp. That am what Usenet *does*!

"Thread Drift" is Usenet's greatest superpower. It is also where the
Good Guys teach us loads and loads of stuff we never imagined existed
before they popped up. For which I would like to deeply and strongly
thank each and every one of you.

I don't know you, I'll never meet you but you have collectively made
my life far, far better than it would otherwise have been.

Thank you.

God makes power, Man makes engines.

The *Cosmos* gives us power.
Man makes engines to direct it.
The Children Of Man inherit the stars.

:)

J.

p.s. Bonus points for recognising the "bearskins" mis-quote and naming
the character who spoke the line.

John,

[If you were Naval, you really should have a watch of "Battleship",
it's great fun even if it is utterly ridiculous.]

I was indeed Naval rCo and spent rather more years being so than I now care to count! :-)

I shall take your advice about Battleship, including the important bit about NOT reading Wikipedia first. I have somehow managed to avoid it until now.

Your comments about obsolete technology struck a chord. During my own time in the RN I watched equipment which had once seemed extraordinarily sophisticated become yesterday's technology remarkably quickly. Yet, as you say, the
Services have a rather good reason for being conservative about such things:
if it works, is understood, can be repaired and rCo most importantly rCo can still
do the job required of it, there is something to be said for leaving the
damned thing alone!

And when you are several hundred miles from the nearest convenient Apple
Store, "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" can assume rather greater significance. ;-)

["Thread Drift" is Usenet's greatest superpower.]

Absolutely!

Some of the most interesting things I have learned on Usenet have appeared in threads which, twenty postings earlier, were ostensibly discussing something entirely different. Long may it continue.

[And your next paragraph deserves rather more than a flippant response:

I don't know you, I'll never meet you but you have collectively made
my life far, far better than it would otherwise have been.]

That is a lovely thing to say, John.

I suspect quite a few of us could say much the same. We may occasionally
argue, wander off down extraordinary rabbit holes and disagree violently about matters of monumental importance rCo such as which computer, newsreader, operating system or text editor is obviously the One True Choice rCo but over the years I have learned an enormous amount from people I would otherwise
never have encountered.

So the thanks are reciprocated.

Finally...

p.s. Bonus points for recognising the "bearskins" mis-quote and naming
the character who spoke the line.

Spock!

"The City on the Edge of Forever."

Stone knives and bearskins.

Do I get the full bonus, or merely a small gold star? ;-)

David
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On 6 Sep 2026 at 13:03:28 BST, "John" <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

God makes power, Man makes engines.

The *Cosmos* gives us power.
Man makes engines to direct it.
The Children Of Man inherit the stars.

:)

J.

p.s. Bonus points for recognising the "bearskins" mis-quote and naming
the character who spoke the line.

What goes around, comes around.

My quote was spoken by Lord Peter Whimsey in "Busman's Honeymoon". Dorothy L Sayers, 1937. The book makes extensive use of quotations, so I assume that
this is a quotation too. So it must originate earlier.

The free ChatGPT originally got it wrong, but then acknowledged the source.
But it cannot find an older use. Maybe someone with a paid (and much more capable) could explore.
--
Classic computing: Computers do what you tell them to do,
not what you want them to do.
Modern computing: Computers do what they want to do,
no matter what you tell them to do.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On 07/09/2026 08:09, Old John wrote:

On 6 Sep 2026 at 13:03:28 BST, "John" <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

God makes power, Man makes engines.

The *Cosmos* gives us power.
Man makes engines to direct it.
The Children Of Man inherit the stars.

:)

J.

p.s. Bonus points for recognising the "bearskins" mis-quote and naming
the character who spoke the line.

What goes around, comes around.

My quote was spoken by Lord Peter Whimsey in "Busman's Honeymoon". Dorothy L Sayers, 1937. The book makes extensive use of quotations, so I assume that this is a quotation too. So it must originate earlier.

The free ChatGPT originally got it wrong, but then acknowledged the source. But it cannot find an older use. Maybe someone with a paid (and much more capable) could explore.

As they say nowadays ..... I'm on it! ;-)
--
David
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On 07/09/2026 08:09, Old John wrote:

On 6 Sep 2026 at 13:03:28 BST, "John" <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

God makes power, Man makes engines.

The *Cosmos* gives us power.
Man makes engines to direct it.
The Children Of Man inherit the stars.

:)

J.

p.s. Bonus points for recognising the "bearskins" mis-quote and naming
the character who spoke the line.

What goes around, comes around.

My quote was spoken by Lord Peter Whimsey in "Busman's Honeymoon". Dorothy L Sayers, 1937. The book makes extensive use of quotations, so I assume that this is a quotation too. So it must originate earlier.

The free ChatGPT originally got it wrong, but then acknowledged the source. But it cannot find an older use. Maybe someone with a paid (and much more capable) could explore.

*A reply from ChatGPT, relayed by me*!

--
David



John,

David has asked me rCo ChatGPT (GPT-5.6 Sol, on his paid account) rCo to
take up your challenge and see whether I can get any further with:

```
"God makes power, Man makes engines."
```

You were quite right about the immediate source, apart from one tiny
spelling point: it is Lord Peter *Wimsey*, rather than Whimsey.

I have now checked the actual 1937 first-edition text of Dorothy L.
Sayers's "Busman's Honeymoon", rather than relying on quotations of it elsewhere.

Project Gutenberg Canada's transcription states specifically that its
base text is:

```
London: Victor Gollancz, 1937 (first edition)
```

In Chapter XX, "When You Know How, You Know Who", on p.396, Peter and
Bunter have reconstructed the mechanism by which the heavy cactus pot
could have been made to strike Noakes.

Harriet observes that the contrivance would not require the murderer
actually to be present when the blow was struck. Peter replies:

```
"Or anybody," said Peter, "who didn't happen to be there
at the time. Anyone with a cast-iron alibi. God makes
power, padre, and man makes engines."
```

So your identification of the speaker and book is certainly correct. ([Gutenberg Canada][1])

The more interesting question is whether Sayers was herself quoting
somebody.

I have searched for the exact words and a variety of earlier
formulations involving God, man, power, engines, machinery, steam and
the creation or use of power.

So far I have found NO securely dated pre-Sayers occurrence of the exact sentence "God makes power ... man makes engines."

That is an important distinction: failure to find an earlier occurrence
does not prove that none exists, but at present I cannot substantiate
the suggestion that Sayers was quoting an earlier author verbatim.

What I *have* found is a remarkably close ancestor of the IDEA.

On 27 July 1899 rCo thirty-eight years before the novel rCo the British religious periodical "The Present Truth", Vol. 15 No. 29, carried an
item entitled "Little Folks. Fire and Water", archived among the
writings of E. J. Waggoner.

It discusses heat turning water into steam and says explicitly that this
power is used:

```
"...to drive the engines which draw long train-loads
of people..."
```

It then asks whose power this really is and answers that it is God's,
adding:

```
"Man cannot create or make power, but can only use
the power which God is giving him..."
```

That seems to me a genuinely significant antecedent. We have, in a
single 1899 passage, God as the source of power, man unable to make
power himself, and man using that power to drive engines. ([E. G. White Writings][2])

The same 1899 article actually tells us where part of its theological formulation comes from. It quotes Psalm 62:11:

```
"...power belongeth unto God."
```

The King James Version has:

```
"God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this;
that power belongeth unto God." :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
```

The general distinction between divine power and human use of it goes
back farther still.

Adam Clarke, in his commentary on Philippians 2:13, wrote:

```
"God gives power to act, and man acts through that power."
```

He develops the point explicitly: the power comes from God; what man
does with the power belongs to man. ([Sacred Texts][3])

So I think we can trace the *thought* underlying Peter's remark well
back into nineteenth-century religious writing, and ultimately into
Biblical language.

But I would NOT conclude from this that Dorothy Sayers copied Waggoner, Clarke, or any particular source.

The safest conclusion from the evidence I can find is:

1. The exact wording is certainly in Sayers's 1937 novel.

2. I have not found an earlier printed occurrence of the exact wording.

3. The concept behind it is considerably older.

4. By 1899, at the latest, the very close combination "God supplies the
power / man cannot make power / man uses it to drive engines" was
already in print.

There is one further wrinkle.

"Busman's Honeymoon" was a play BEFORE it was a novel. Sayers wrote the
stage version with Muriel St. Clare Byrne. The University of
Birmingham's theatre archive records its London opening at the Comedy
Theatre, Haymarket, on 16 December 1936. ([Calmview][4])

The Marion E. Wade Center at Wheaton College holds the surviving
manuscripts, including rough, second and final drafts of "Busman's
Honeymoon: A Detective Comedy in Three Acts", all dated circa 1936.
([Wheaton College][5])

What I have NOT been able to establish from the material available
online is whether Peter's "God makes power..." line occurs in that 1936
stage script.

That matters. If it does, the first verified Sayers/Byrne use would move
from the 1937 novel back to the 1936 play.

Until somebody examines the actual play text, therefore, I would phrase
the attribution as:

```
Dorothy L. Sayers, "Busman's Honeymoon", certainly
present in the 1937 novel and possibly originating in
the 1936 stage version written with Muriel St. Clare Byrne.
```

And I would slightly modify your original assumption that, because the
book contains extensive quotation, this particular sentence "must"
itself be a quotation.

My evidence suggests something rather more interesting:

```
It appears to be Sayers's own neat, epigrammatic
formulation of a much older idea.
```

Unless, of course, somebody can now produce an exact pre-1936 source.

In which case I shall cheerfully surrender the bonus points. :-)

--
ChatGPT
GPT-5.6 Sol
via David B.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On 7 Sep 2026 at 08:09:22 BST, Old John wrote:

On 6 Sep 2026 at 13:03:28 BST, "John" <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

God makes power, Man makes engines.

The *Cosmos* gives us power.
Man makes engines to direct it.
The Children Of Man inherit the stars.

:)

J.

p.s. Bonus points for recognising the "bearskins" mis-quote and naming
the character who spoke the line.

What goes around, comes around.

My quote was spoken by Lord Peter Whimsey in "Busman's Honeymoon". Dorothy L Sayers, 1937. The book makes extensive use of quotations, so I assume that this is a quotation too. So it must originate earlier.

The free ChatGPT originally got it wrong, but then acknowledged the source. But it cannot find an older use. Maybe someone with a paid (and much more capable) could explore.

I've been using Claude a fair bit. It really does need careful checking - regularly mixes up units of measurement, and context, for example. When
queried it produces a 'good catch' response and has another go, generally getting there in the end.
--
Cheers, Rob
Sheffield, UK
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 09:29:58 -0000 (UTC), RJH wrote:

[snip]

I've been using Claude a fair bit. It really does need careful checking
-
regularly mixes up units of measurement, and context, for example. When queried it produces a 'good catch' response and has another go,
generally getting there in the end.

I've found that results from using AI bots such as ChatGPT should be taken
as a guide rather than gospel. I asked ChatGPT to produce some GoLang code
for a little simple project I was working on. First of all it didn't
compile but from my meagre knowledge of Go I was able to correct the
coding. However it still didn't do what I wanted it to but I think, like
all projects, you need to get your requirements and specification spot on, especially when relying with non-human AI bot!
--
Cheers, Alan
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2