[OT] Indian C programmers and "u"

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Joona I Palaste, Nov 25, 2003.

  1. Beginner. Check this out:

    http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/linkingverb.htm

    "Then you have a list of verbs with multiple personalities: appear,
    feel, grow, look, prove, remain, smell, sound, taste, and turn.
    Sometimes these verbs are linking verbs; sometimes they are action
    verbs. Their function in every individual sentence determines what you
    call them. "
     
    Christian Bau, Dec 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Keep trying Christian, you'll figure it out sooner or later.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. I've figured it out long time ago, but this one might help you:

    http://esl.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm

    It states quite clearly that "to look" is a linking verb, and it is
    followed by a reference to you:

    Verb type: Linking

    Explanation: A linking verb is followed by a noun or adjective which
    refers to the subject of the verb.

    Example: The meal looked wonderful. He felt embarrassed.

    Hope you don't feel too embarassed. As far as insults are concerned: I
    didn't show everyone that you are a fool, you did that very nicely
    yourself, without help from anyone.
     
    Christian Bau, Dec 6, 2003
  4. Fortunately, all meanings except the one you know (YKYHBPNHFTLW)
    are available in the online dictionaries
    <http://www.onelook.com/?w=TIMTOWTDI> I just added YKYHBPNHFTLW to
    AcronymFinder.com and STANDS4.com; thanks for the meaning.
     
    R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah, Dec 6, 2003
  5. Joona I Palaste

    Mark Gordon Guest

    Telegraphy is done (usually) by professionals in telegraphy on behalf of
    others, although I know that morse code is (or has been) also used by
    armatures who choose to use an encoded form of communication for various
    reasons. Usenet is used by the great unwashed masses who do not, in
    general, choose to use an encoded form of communication, therefor
    telegraphy is irrelevant.
    No, telegraphy is used by specialists in that form of communication,
    Usenet is not.
    To me, and a significant minority, Usenet IS speech because we have no
    other way of processing it.
    Telegraph operators are not the general public. Telegraph operators are
    paid to learn how to use telegraphs and the encoding used to save
    bandwidth or whatever other reasons they have for the encodings they
    use.
    If, in the days when telegraphs were sometimes sent be the general
    public, a telegraph was delivered with the abbreviations shown then I
    doubt that the person who paid to have the telegraph sent would be happy
    about it.
    The vast majority of the posts I see do not use anything like the
    examples shown of the compression used in telegraphy and similar forms
    of communication. Instead it shows a combination of the contractions
    used in general speech (which are not appropriate in many forms of
    writing) and a number of acronyms that have evolved. Apart from acronyms
    used to deliberately be obscure (normally used as a joke or to make a
    point) they are generally easy to derive, the contractions used in
    telegraphy, as shown by Mr Dovey, are all pervasive making it impossible
    to extract meaning from the text unless you can decode the majority of
    them, so you don't get the context to decode until you have already
    started the process.

    OK, I failed to point out that telegraph operators were a select group
    (often explicitly trained in telegraphy) just as is the case with those
    who use morse code and unlike those who use Usenet.
    I thought you would know that telegraph operators are a select group
    unlike Usenet users.
    I have now done so, therefor my points are valid and significant.
    I don't use the software, I just know that such software is used by
    members of at least two groups of people.
    At least some of the SW in the past would have said something like
    "letter u" so that the user would know it was not the word you. I don't
    know the current state of the art.
    A speech to text processor cannot do that, it has to try to handle the
    word without understanding the meaning of the sentence. I cannot do that
    quickly, and if multiple such contractions are used (If u, then why not
    wh, nt, pls and all the rest) then it takes a lot longer.

    Speech to text software would have to be explicitly programmed to handle
    a lot of this stuff, and since it is not common in general I somehow
    doubt this has been done thus placing a significant burden on whose who
    use it, just as it probably does on those who are not native English
    speakers.
    Which is why any post with a significant amount of contractions just
    gets skipped.
    So you agree that it is reasonable to ignore posts using a significant
    number of contractions. The logical inference from this is that if
    someone wants help (the main reason for newbies posting here) then they
    should avoid using contractions, which is what people have been saying.

    By the way, I also find abbreviations are often a hinderance and an
    annoyance and sometimes skip posts of parts of posts with a
    preponderance of abbreviations, but I don't complain about them because
    unlike the contractions this discussion is about such abbreviations are
    a long standing tradition on Usenet.
     
    Mark Gordon, Dec 6, 2003
  6. Your attempts at insults do not embarass me in the slightest.

    In fact, this has been quite enlightening. You *do* have a point
    as to that particular example, which the above links clarified
    quite well.

    They also proved my original point rather well too! The sentence
    that I originally used, "You do very good at ..." is shown just
    as clearly to be correct.

    Looks to me like we break even. I got one right and one wrong, you
    got one correct and acted incorrectly.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 6, 2003
  7. You've repeated the same basic statement several times in this
    article, and have used it as the basis for most of the
    interesting opinion that you provided. Unfortunately it is not
    correct, nor is it even close! Even if it were, I fail to see
    how that affects the correctness of the quoted statement it
    follows.

    The history of telegraphy is quite interesting, and while I
    won't go into detail, let me point out two or three things of
    significance to your statements.

    Between 1840 and perhaps 1920, personal use of telegraphy was
    very common, and many people learned morse code almost as a
    matter of course. Businessmen had a wire between their homes
    and their offices, for example, and did their own telegraphy.

    The advent of radio telegraphy in the early part of the last
    century changed that, and use of wire telegraphy slowly
    disappeared... to be taken up by radio telegraphy. The virtual
    disappearance of wire telegraphy was finalized by the invention
    of automatic mechanical telegraphy devices, such as Kleinsmidt
    and Teletype. Even at that, it remained (albeit only as the
    commercial telegraphy that you seem to be aware of) until well
    into the 1970's! (Sprint is today known as a national long
    distance company in the US, but began life as the communications
    arm of the Southern Pacific railroad... which was still using
    wire telegraphy and manual operators into the 1970's.)

    In the place of wire telegraph, beginning in the 1920, radio
    telegraphy was what the public began to use. I don't know the
    relative numbers, but today the *vast* majority of people who
    can send and receive morse code use International Morse and
    learned it either in the military or as Amateur Radio operators,
    and virtually all use today is in the last category. They are
    *not* professional and do usually use that form of
    communications on behalf of others.

    The evolution has continued... and radio telegraphy is much less
    in common use by the public (Amateur Radio) today than it was in
    the past. Most people familiar with it agree that the advent of
    The Internet has been the single most influential reason for the
    decline.
    But we are indeed using "an encoded" form of communications. We
    tend to rant and rave when anyone posts binaries, or even so
    much as includes HTML in a Usenet post. That is because all we
    will accept is ASCII encoded text.
    Not true, nor would it be relevant if it were.
    Look, you _convert_ it to speech. That is fine. But it, in
    itself, is written text just as much a telegraphy is.
    Telegraph operators are indeed the general public, or they are
    to the same extent that Usenet posters are. Of course the
    encoding is different. That is the whole point!

    The original statement was that there is no history for the use
    of 'u' to mean 'you', and that is not true. Now, whether that
    means it should be used on Usenet, or in opinions written by the
    Justices of the US Supreme Court is an entirely separate matter!

    We don't need to adopt the language of the courts here either...
    The *average* telegraph communications, over the history of wire
    and radio telegraph (which is not the entire history of
    telegraph either, because it existed *long* before wireline
    telegraph or Morse code was developed), has been received
    directly by the person it was intended for, abbreviations and
    all.
    So? Nobody has said that they are the same, or that what was good for
    one would be directly transplantable into the other.

    The only question was, has there ever been an acceptable common
    use of a dialect of written English which used "u" commonly to
    mean mean "you", and in fact there has been, and it has many
    commonalities with Usenet.
    I've just reviewed your entire post, and I cannot detect where it is
    that you've shown "where that would be different".
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 6, 2003
  8. Joona I Palaste

    CBFalconer Guest

    Similarly I almost invariably ignore posts that exceed 100 lines
    or so.
     
    CBFalconer, Dec 6, 2003
  9. Joona I Palaste

    Mark Gordon Guest

    The first electric telegraph line was constructed between Washington and
    Baltimore in 1844, and the highways of Europe and America were soon
    lined by poles and crossarms carrying wires through which the silent
    electric messages streamed in ever-increasing numbers.

    The above, or similar is quoted in many places, so it's use cannot have
    been common in 1840 before the first line was constructed.

    It's also amazing how little is written about ordinary people using the
    telegraph machines if it was as common as you suggest.

    In terms of what is presented to the user it is NOT encoded. At no point
    in any of these posts have I needed to know the ASCII code for "A" or
    how to correctly specify the MIME type for this post. I know these
    things, but most people who use Usenet do not, so from the users
    perspective it is NOT encoded.
    I've seen no evidence that it is not true, and I *have* searched for it.
    Ordinary people used it by going to company offices. Some businessmen
    may have been an exception, but since most houses did not have wires
    going to them until some time after the invention of the electric
    telephone and all references I can find refer to trained telegraph
    operators, I believe it to be true.

    Therefor Telegraphy and Usenet are different both in terms of Usenet not
    being encoded where presented to the user (the computer handles
    encoding/decoding) and in terms of access to actually operate the
    equipment ones self.
    However, if it cannot be pronounced because it is presented to me
    encoded then I (and a significant minority of other people) cannot do
    this translation.
    Not according to any reference I can find.
    Usenet is NOT encoded when presented to the user. It is plain text
    (possibly with bold etc applied) when presented to the user even if it
    is transmitted base64 encoded.
    I doubt that was exactly what was said since most people know it (and
    similar) is common on SMS. However, it has only been in use as far as I
    can see by small segments of the community (such as people who do a lot
    of SMSing and telegraph operators) and even then it was due to slow
    input mechanisms.

    It's not my fault you use the only news reader that forces you to enter
    posts in binary and presents the posts to you in binary. Although I'm
    sure the last time I looked at GNUS it had the ability to desplay
    messages as unencoded text and to accept normal typing as input.

    Since this is OT and you seem unable to understand the points made I'm
    dropping this hear.
     
    Mark Gordon, Dec 6, 2003
  10. I just as well could have said between 1800 and 1920, and it
    would *still* be correct. I did not say anything about what
    existed, or not, between 1840 and 1844.

    Regardless, several types of electric telegraph machines were
    demonstrated in Europe in the early thirties, which is how
    Samual F.B. Morse became interested in it. He demonstrated his
    telegraph machine on January 24, 1838 over a ten mile circuit at
    New York University.

    By 1840 both the London & Birmingham and Great Western Railroads
    in England where using electric telegraph.

    Morse also installed a submarine cable in New York, between
    Castle Garden and Governor's Island, in 1842.
    On the other hand, *most* electric telegraph in the US prior to
    1844 was in fact private, and not for hire.


    Whatever, you aren't interested.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Dec 6, 2003
  11. Joona I Palaste

    Alan Balmer Guest

    I don't even see them (except for the subject and author.). My usenet
    client is set to not download long messages. Occasionally, I'll
    consider the title and the author and decide to download the post on
    the next pass, but that's rare.
     
    Alan Balmer, Dec 8, 2003
  12. Joona I Palaste

    Alan Balmer Guest

    I suppose that's OK for those who collect such things as a hobby, but
    if I saw it in a message, it's very doubtful that I'd bother looking
    it up, because contributors who are worth reading don't use such
    things in serious posts.
     
    Alan Balmer, Dec 8, 2003
  13. You shouldn't use them in CLC but in some groups there are _some_ ETLAs
    that are part of the group language. In comp.lang.perl.misc you're kind of
    expected to know what TIMTOWTDI means "There Is More Than One Way To Do
    It" because it pretty much sums up the approach to programming in perl. In
    reg.games.rougelike.nethack YKYHBPNHFTLW "You Know You Have Been Playing
    Nethack For To Long When" is (was? it's a while since I read r.g.r.n) kind
    of a standing joke, a post with the acronym as the subject and a one liner
    as the body is (was?) the norm.
     
    Nils Petter Vaskinn, Dec 9, 2003
  14. Joona I Palaste

    John Smith Guest

    Please explain why American lives should have been sacrificed to
    save the lives of Japanese. Do you recall that the Japanese
    started the war against the Americans with a treacherous sneak
    attack while peace negotioations were underway? Do you recall
    that years earlier the Japanese began a war of agression against
    their Asian neighbors and prosecuted it with the worst kind of
    atrocious brutality against helpless non-combatants and
    prisoners? Do you recall that by 1945 they had become responsible
    for the deaths of many more civilians than were killed in the
    atom bomb attacks? They got what they deserved. As bad as it was,
    it could have been much worse had the Americans selected more
    strategic (e.g. Tokyo) targets.

    What is most sad is apologies for the Japanese as the victims of
    the war -- usually by the very young and very naive.
     
    John Smith, Dec 18, 2003
  15. Principle.

    The moment we start to accept that civilians are legitimate targets in a
    war we lose the right to call a lot of other things wrong.

    If you think it is acceptable to kill japanese (the attacker) civilians,
    then you must by extension also think it acceptable to kill israeli (the
    attacker/occupant) civilians by blowing up school busses.

    Question1: Is it acceptable for the attacker to be killing civilians?
    Question2: Do you have to be a country to be allowed to kill civilians?
    Question3: Is the geneva convention Protocol I (addition to the geneva
    convention 1977) Article 57 point 2aIII wrong. Or was bombing of civilians
    only wrong after 1977?
    Yes. Has I ever said the japanses were right to do so?
    Yes: Has I ever said that it was acceptable?
    Oh, so youre with the two wrongs make a right crowd.
    Who, those japanese civilans, they were _civilians_ which means that by
    definition they didn't take part in the fighting. So unless you can tell
    me that each individual was somehow responsible for the war your argument
    doesn't hold.
    You'r right on that.
    Did I ever say the japanese wasn't to blame too? They were wrong to start
    the war, but that doesn't make the bombing less wrong.
    Young perhaps, depending on where you draw the line between young and old
    but I don't think myself naive.

    This is a question about what is right and what is wrong, and I personally
    think that bombing civilians is wrong, no matter why.

    Now beeing more cynical than you give me credit for I know that when
    it comes to a making decision of "us" against "them" principle goes out
    the window. Had I been part of the decision makers at the time's it's not
    unlikely that I had participated in nuking japan, but I wouldn't delude
    myself afterwards into believing it was right to do so.
     
    Nils Petter Vaskinn, Dec 19, 2003
  16. Joona I Palaste

    Les Cargill Guest

    All Japanese were pressed into service as war industry workers ( even
    children! ) so the lines were even further blurred.

    If the bombings were sloppy and hit areas adjacent to military
    targets, them's breaks. That this cheat was exploited mercilessly
    in that war is pretty well known.

    The nice thing about total war like that is that it is so ugly
    that it makes it harder to justify doing it again.
    Tokyo was next, had a surrender not been effected.

    In total war, there are no civilians. This is a paraphrase of
    one of Sherman's letters.
    Of course it does. s/principle/plaudible deniablity/ and you
    got the mechanism.
    It probably saved Japan as a nation and culture, though. Amphibious
    invasions are ugly, uglier even than atomic bombs.
     
    Les Cargill, Dec 19, 2003
  17. I think it was in one of the footnotes to one of the dicworld books that
    this rallying call was explained:

    "Remember <name of last battle we lost>"

    The real full meaning beeing:

    "Remember the atrocities that were comitted against us last time, to
    justify the atrocities we're going to commit this time"

    (quote from memory so probably not accurate)
     
    Nils Petter Vaskinn, Dec 19, 2003
  18. Joona I Palaste

    Ken Asbury Guest


    http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/Hist427/texts/wwiicasualty.htm
    Probably not accurate either, but a starting point for a
    history lesson.
     
    Ken Asbury, Dec 19, 2003
  19. Joona I Palaste

    John Smith Guest

    The naive never do. Perhaps unfortunately, your views and
    "principles" will change as you live longer in the real world.

    Trust me.

    Best regards,
    JS
     
    John Smith, Dec 19, 2003
  20. It will *never* happen if you live in a "real world" that has
    "humanbeings"; but it will happen __only__ if you live in a place/city
    which you think (or want it to be) "super-power" (aka, Jingoism)
     
    R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah, Dec 20, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.