 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:39:06 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Y dN't u gUyS jS dR0piT?
It'd land on my foot, and that hurts like a sonofa...... ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Last post I promise:
Thank you for the complements :)
Well here in Bolivia, because English is the International language is
taught as a second language, on some schools better than others and some
not at all, plus also in the University you get technical English for
your career. Also I like technology and computer so I get to read about
it on the Internet and is mostly in English which is good for me to
practice it and a language I can read fairly good.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:35:41 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>OK, I'm answering everyone in this post:
>I may sound juvenile because I wrote a lot in a juvenile game forum and
>Stephen what I was quoting was from the article u offered a link to, so
>I don't see why it sounded juvenile.
I did not realise it was a quote. I thought that it was your own words, so that
is why I thought that it was a juvenile retort.
As to the quote, I hardly think that someone who is described as a "slang
lexicographer" is unbiased. :) <--? (SMS icon)
There is a whole debate going on (in the UK, at least) about what is acceptable
in written English not including the acceptability of non British English.
>Also I can't believe somebody actually got insulted by this type of
>abbreviations, I actually don't see the logic of the "insult".
I did not feel insulted I did not like the implications of what I obviously
misread when you said "but here most ppl presume of making intellectual
milestones writing or discovering intellectual interesting stuff and mostly as a
show-off of their mental capacity". To me it read as if you were complaining
that some people were using big words to show off. But that is a reason to write
properly so that what you want to say is understood the way that you want it to
be. IMO
>Was my
>post saying: you are dumb because you who have fought dyslexia can't
>read it? If so, I never even got close to mention dyslexia people,
No it wasn't. I just take a lot of care that when I post I generally check the
context and spelling. I envy people who can write directly without needing to
check first.
>since I assume smart people don't have a problem with
>this kind Internet slang, let alone knowing some people here had a won
>battle against dyslexia. I apology for the mistake.
Apology accepted and lets not make too much of it, please.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:19:03 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>Last post I promise:
>
>Thank you for the complements :)
>
I concur with Jim, your language skills are better than mine and I salute you
for them. If you hang around here you might even pick up some Scots, ye ken ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
