 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:58 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
>> character", IIRC.
>
> Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.
Well, yeah, but each message used to be (and in some places/on some
plans, still is) billed by the message. That's what I was thinking. So
conserving space was/is an important consideration in that venue.
> Plus, of course, the fact that the less you have to type the better...
> At least if you don't have predictive text (T9 and friends).
Yep.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:35:41 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Also I can't believe somebody actually got insulted by this type of
> abbreviations,
I don't think that it's that anybody was insulted, Saul, I think that
it's that it's not part of the cultural norm of these newsgroups.
When communicating, it's important to take your audience into
consideration - whether spoken, written, or whatever.
Online communities develop their own personalities and cultural norms.
The use of SMS text abbreviations is pervasive through some, and not in
others.
This is one of the ones where it isn't as pervasive. Sure, some things
(like LOL) find their way into it. But when you are trying to get a
point across or discuss something, it's always best to take the listener/
reader into consideration.
I mean, I cood right yousing wired wurdz or 3v3n 1337-5p33k two tri- too
luk kewl. Buht t3ll m3 h0w d1ff1cu1t eye ahm 2 uhndrstahnd.
When you're reading along full tilt and then you have to stop to think
about what's been written, the end result often is that you stop reading
and go onto the next message.
Now, tell me you read the paragraph immediately proceeding this one and
the one before it at the same speed. I *wrote* it, and the first one
takes me longer, even though it's shorter.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:58 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
>>> character", IIRC.
>>
>> Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.
>
> Well, yeah, but each message used to be (and in some places/on some
> plans, still is) billed by the message. That's what I was thinking. So
> conserving space was/is an important consideration in that venue.
Yes, definitely.
I mean it was never charged per character. It was and is charged per
message, but their length is ridiculously limited :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-Dec-08 22:47, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:58 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
>>>> character", IIRC.
>>> Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.
>> Well, yeah, but each message used to be (and in some places/on some
>> plans, still is) billed by the message. That's what I was thinking. So
>> conserving space was/is an important consideration in that venue.
>
> Yes, definitely.
>
> I mean it was never charged per character. It was and is charged per
> message, but their length is ridiculously limited :)
>
IIRC the length was such that when the telephone switched to switched
packets this was what could fit in one packet. Added as a funny extra in
the protocol, never intended to be really used. D*mned internet, I can't
find that story, so it is probably not true :( One used to be able to
say such things and if they were not true you could at least have
started a meme.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> IIRC the length was such that when the telephone switched to switched
> packets this was what could fit in one packet.
Yes. It was intended for use by people actually installing the network. Then
they figured out they could charge five dollars a kilobyte or something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> IIRC the length was such that when the telephone switched to switched
>> packets this was what could fit in one packet.
>
> Yes. It was intended for use by people actually installing the network.
> Then they figured out they could charge five dollars a kilobyte or
> something.
And even then, it was marketed as a way for people to send a SMS home
saying "I'm stuck in traffic". Not for people to send a hundred messages
back and forth, making a long conversation they could have in a tenth of
the time by *talking* on the damn phone. But as soon as cellphone companies
noticed it was used for the latter... Well, the more money the better!
All the use I give to my cellphone is about one SMS a day. "Mom, I arrived"
basically :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:35:41 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Now, tell me you read the paragraph immediately proceeding this one and
> the one before it at the same speed. I *wrote* it, and the first one
> takes me longer, even though it's shorter.
Actually my reading flowed through till the part of 'kewl' and 'eye ahm'
since as I mentioned I read/wrote posts in this juvenile game forum, so
was almost no problem, so on that game forum I'd add those words to the
'vocabulary' and use them when necessary, but I see YOUR :) point now
and I understand better this community so is not only fair for YOU :)
all but also convenient since writing good English leaves no doubt what
one is trying to say is a harmonious common ground of understanding,
I'll try to write to YOU :) in the best English I know plus Mozilla
SeaMonkey's English spell check corrections :)
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Y dN't u gUyS jS dR0piT?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:494696ec@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> the rubbish that he types into his phone
>
> Almost understandable, given you're typing with a 10-key interface into a
> mechanism that gives you two lines of text per message.
But when I looked at a practice application form he did when he was in
school, he penned 'u' instead of 'you'.
~Steve~
>
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
> see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:31:46 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> but I see YOUR point now and
> I understand better this community so is not only fair for YOU all but
> also convenient since writing good English leaves no doubt what one is
> trying to say is a harmonious common ground of understanding, I'll try
> to write to YOU in the best English I know plus Mozilla SeaMonkey's
> English spell check corrections
I thank you for this. :-)
It's easy enough for me (can't speak for others) to deal with odd
sentence construction from those who don't speak English natively - I'm
extremely used to it myself because of experiences in other forums/
newsgroups.
And I'm certain that you have a far better command of English than I have
of your native language - so my hat's off to you for your adeptness at
communicating in a foreign language. I took Spanish myself in high
school, but I've forgotten most of it. I know about 6 words in Japanese
and Russian (and not the usual ones at that). :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
