Wildcards are my friends...

Looking back, it appears to me that I have yet to run across a document in which the section typically titled "List of Abbreviations" is anywhere near complete.

And that's when there actually is an attempt to compile such a section.

So right now, I've got some abbreviations that do not seem to appear at all in expanded form in the document before me.

One solution, of course, is to transliterate it and leave it alone, but this leaves an uncomfortable thorn in my side. This got me to thinking: why not try a wildcard approach?

Consider the situation where a document rambles on and on about something called СД, without actually telling you what it is. It is more than likely that the abbreviation represents two words, separated by a space, where the first word starts with... you get the idea.

So let's go look for the start of a word, followed by the first letter of the abbreviation, followed by one or more characters that are not a space, followed by a space, etc.:

<с[! ]@ д[! ]@>

Say, this works pretty well!

This approach will not catch what may be described as a "pathological" abbreviation, where spaces may be missing (e.g., ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, which is commonly abbreviated EDTA), or some other strangeness is extant, but it works fairly well for run-of-the-text stuff.

Cheers...

Now and again...

Somehow, I've managed to amass 1,335,071 searchable items on my Google Desktop (of which 1,187,864 are files on my laptop and associated external drives).

I think I passed the point of diminishing returns, because it's getting to the point where GD can't find stuff I know I have, which was the whole point of installing GD in the first place.

---

You-heard-it-here-first Department: I predict that within 5 years it will be a crime to take a photograph in public in most metropolitain areas of "developed countries." Exceptions will be made to allow photographs from specially designated areas near touristy sites, all others will more than likely be required to have a government license.

Why do I say this? Because it's too good an opportunity for security theater for most governments to pass up and it will help contain a disturbing trend of people taking pictures that officialdom might not approve of.

To the best of my knowledge, France is leading the way down this path, having made it illegal for anyone other than professional journalists to film or broadcast acts of violence (putatively to prevent "happy slapping," but also applicable to Rodney King types of scenarios), and police in London have apparently launched a "see something, say something" campaign aimed at "strange" people with cameras, ostensibly to interdict intelligence-gathering by terrorists (who, as everyone with a brain knows, are strange-looking people).

There are similar rumblings about people with cameras on this side of the pond, with several stories being posted recently about how filming police officers violating local ordinances contributes to the rise of global terrorism, or some such dishwater.

---

Apropos of taking pictures, there was a curious item reported, among other places, at the BBC about a bill on "extreme pornography," the possession of which is to become illegal in the UK when the bill becomes law next week. What caught my eye was a statement attributed to one Lord Wallace of Tankerness (an evocative name, don't you think?).

To wit: "Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me." Nor to me, if the analysis is accurate.

I am no fan of any kind of porn, but neither am I partial to statements by government officials that start by describing some activity and continue with "...has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated." There's too much of a temptation to give the appearance of taking the moral high ground in "doing something about it," and lending further legitimacy to the idea that government must assume ever greater control over our actions. (A similar chill runs down my spine when I hear talking heads on the tube solemnly inveigh that such-and-so activity "is unregulated," implying thereby that the balance of the Universe is somehow off-center.)

On a practical note, however, I imagine the existence of yet another pretext for neighbor to tattle on neighbor is probably not going to have any great impact on life in the UK, except for maybe the yellow press and the advancement of a stranglehold of bureaucrats.

---

My, this started as such a positive post, and look where we've ended up!

I feel like taking a shower.

Charlie Wilson's War was pretty much as advertised, and I thought it was worth watching.

I eventually did get roped into doing the edit for tomorrow, noon, and am about 40% of the way through the job, so as long as I start on it first thing, I ought to be able to finish it without straining. My usual gripes about clients who send 10 MB of "references" (a total of 6 documents) to be used for a 20-page edit apply.

Cheers...