From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e4b2dce209393666
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>
Subject: Re: Business Week (12/6/99 issue) article on Software Quality
Date: 1999/12/09
Message-ID: <82ou7q$des$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 558513668
References: <B46A7702.169C%houseofcards@surfree.com>
 <m37liyerpj.fsf@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <82hk54$cbc$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net> <82lv4i$aso$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <004aa0e3.b7f5c816@usw-ex0102-011.remarq.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x34.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Dec 09 19:00:13 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDtedennison
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (WinNT; I)
Date: 1999-12-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <004aa0e3.b7f5c816@usw-ex0102-011.remarq.com>,
  jim_snead <basswoodNObaSPAM@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <82lv4i$aso$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison
> <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> > In article <82hk54$cbc$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> >   Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > a three level designation starting with "mistake/error", that
> produces
> > > a software
> > As a reader, you loose me right here. This kind of lingusitc
> revisionism
>
> -------------------^^^^^
>
> You can look it up, internet and email have revised the English
> language such that the term "loose" no longer means "not tight"
> but means the same as "lose" as in "lost".  Another
> common net term is the completely fabricated single word "alot"
> meaning "a lot" or "many".
> These terms are not typos but learned net behavior. The studies
> make for some interesting reading.

Yes, but those are instances of practicaly the opposite phenonomon: The
set of concepts we as a society use in communicating our ideas are
constantly changing. When a new concept evolves, we have to express it
somehow. So we either make up words, or shoehorn it into already
existing ones.

That's completely different than claiming that you can somehow manage to
change the underlying concept that society has agreed on simply by
changing the set of characters used to represent it. There have been
lots of attempts to do this, but not one success.

--
T.E.D.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.