Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #77629 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-02 08:01 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-06 13:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 158 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
unicode is a fail fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 08:01 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail me <self@example.org> - 2015-12-02 16:12 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 09:09 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 08:18 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 09:07 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 11:21 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 09:40 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 11:22 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 15:59 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 16:25 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 19:47 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-02 14:38 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 16:26 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-09 11:33 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-09 12:21 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 11:28 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 08:50 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 16:38 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 10:01 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-03 09:46 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 12:39 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 08:26 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-03 18:42 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 17:14 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 19:02 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-04 06:35 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 05:11 -0500
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 10:24 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-03 22:37 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-04 11:32 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 11:10 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 09:24 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 13:10 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 19:45 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 09:08 +1300
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 14:10 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 11:27 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 15:21 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 15:18 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 12:45 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 09:43 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 11:40 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 12:19 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-12-02 21:23 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 10:12 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 02:13 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 14:11 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 05:17 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 15:33 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 07:05 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 16:42 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 07:58 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 10:38 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 14:17 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 12:54 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-04 14:25 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-04 13:46 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 23:24 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 00:45 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 20:59 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 19:13 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 07:00 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-04 04:45 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 18:04 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-04 13:22 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-04 07:35 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 19:17 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-04 11:49 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 15:39 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-04 14:19 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-06 12:57 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-06 15:47 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 01:13 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-05 01:59 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-05 17:17 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 06:28 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-04 23:46 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 01:04 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 03:21 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-05 13:03 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-05 11:47 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 04:40 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-05 13:26 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-05 13:35 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-06 02:23 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 16:09 +0530
Re: unicode is a fail Xavier <zaz.colmant@free.fr> - 2015-12-05 15:45 +0100
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 07:42 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-05 16:32 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 18:11 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-06 02:19 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-06 13:09 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 18:38 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 01:55 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-06 19:14 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 13:53 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-07 06:31 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-07 21:22 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-07 15:34 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-07 16:36 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2015-12-08 11:40 -0500
Re: unicode is a fail Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-08 17:18 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-09 08:36 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-09 10:06 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-09 09:35 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-09 10:07 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-09 12:04 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-09 12:35 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-09 23:46 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-09 16:15 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-10 03:49 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-09 18:12 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-09 13:12 -0500
Re: unicode is a fail Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-09 12:12 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-10 20:48 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-09 23:44 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 01:13 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-10 10:39 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-10 03:33 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-10 06:07 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-10 08:21 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 00:59 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 14:33 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-06 22:45 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 12:38 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-07 13:55 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-07 21:14 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-07 16:50 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-07 02:38 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 07:34 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-06 00:24 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 19:49 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-05 21:32 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 13:50 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-05 22:15 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-05 17:27 -0500
Re: unicode is a fail Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-05 23:06 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-05 18:29 -0500
Re: unicode is a fail Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-05 23:50 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 06:38 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-06 13:33 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-05 16:51 -0500
Re: unicode is a fail Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-06 10:59 +1300
Re: unicode is a fail Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-06 11:00 +1300
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 06:31 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 17:48 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 01:20 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 02:02 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 09:43 -0600
Re: unicode is a fail raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 12:55 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 18:29 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-05 16:42 +0000
Re: unicode is a fail Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-05 10:06 +0000
OT: Usenet (Was: unicode is a fail) Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 20:41 +0000
Re: OT: Usenet (Was: unicode is a fail) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 13:18 -0800
Re: unicode is a fail Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 10:21 +0530
OT: Facebook (was Re: unicode is a fail) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-06 08:51 +0000
Re: OT: Facebook (was Re: unicode is a fail) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-06 13:45 +0000
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <566438e7.8204468@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #77943 |
Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 10:15:31PM +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > On 05/12/15 21:50, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > >On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 9:32:40 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > >>On 04/12/15 19:17, Steve Thompson wrote: > > >>>The West? Are you forgetting the Europe is also part of "the West"? > > >> > > >>Much of it isn't. > > >> > > >>Some of Spain, most of France, and all of Belgium, the Netherlands, > > >>Germany, Italy, and so on, are in the East. > Belgium will be so unhappy to learn they can never join the West. Oh, Belgium doesn't care about East and West - they're having too much fun bickering over whether they should be North or South. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 16:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56635C61.3020708@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #77919 |
On 12/05/2015 04:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 04/12/15 19:17, Steve Thompson wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:22:04PM +0000, BartC wrote: > > <snip> > >>> So that is something about Unicode I'm not comfortable with. Our nice >>> tidy little alphabet (perhaps one of the reasons the West has been ahead >>> technologically) is swamped by these huge character sets from around the >>> world, which still don't like being marshalled into neat little units. >> >> The West? Are you forgetting the Europe is also part of "the West"? > > Much of it isn't. > > Some of Spain, most of France, and all of Belgium, the Netherlands, > Germany, Italy, and so on, are in the East. See <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/West>. He's using meaning #1 on that page.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 10:59 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <dch51oF3951U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #77919 |
Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 04/12/15 19:17, Steve Thompson wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:22:04PM +0000, BartC wrote: > > <snip> > >>> So that is something about Unicode I'm not comfortable with. Our nice >>> tidy little alphabet (perhaps one of the reasons the West has been ahead >>> technologically) is swamped by these huge character sets from around the >>> world, which still don't like being marshalled into neat little units. >> >> The West? Are you forgetting the Europe is also part of "the West"? > > Much of it isn't. > > Some of Spain, most of France, and all of Belgium, the Netherlands, > Germany, Italy, and so on, are in the East. I guess that puts us here an NZ well into the East, or if you live in the Chatham's, well into the West... -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 11:00 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <dch54vFo5q0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #77922 |
Ian Collins wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 04/12/15 19:17, Steve Thompson wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:22:04PM +0000, BartC wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> So that is something about Unicode I'm not comfortable with. Our nice >>>> tidy little alphabet (perhaps one of the reasons the West has been ahead >>>> technologically) is swamped by these huge character sets from around the >>>> world, which still don't like being marshalled into neat little units. >>> >>> The West? Are you forgetting the Europe is also part of "the West"? >> >> Much of it isn't. >> >> Some of Spain, most of France, and all of Belgium, the Netherlands, >> Germany, Italy, and so on, are in the East. > > I guess that puts us here an NZ well into the East, or if you live in > the Chatham's, well into the West... Chathams -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 06:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GeMffG.6UF.6Fm1T@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #77919 |
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 09:32:31PM +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 04/12/15 19:17, Steve Thompson wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:22:04PM +0000, BartC wrote: > > <snip> > > >>So that is something about Unicode I'm not comfortable with. Our nice > >>tidy little alphabet (perhaps one of the reasons the West has been ahead > >>technologically) is swamped by these huge character sets from around the > >>world, which still don't like being marshalled into neat little units. > > > >The West? Are you forgetting the Europe is also part of "the West"? > > Much of it isn't. > > Some of Spain, most of France, and all of Belgium, the Netherlands, > Germany, Italy, and so on, are in the East. Clever of you to find such a simple point to disagree on. You would hate my compass. Regards, Steve Thompson -- "If I had a nickel for every time some idiot called me about a computer problem that turned out to be user error, I would be able to retire and spend the rest of my days cultivating clues in my backyard hillside garden." -- MysteryDog in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 17:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <07b2b11a-ccba-4604-b6a8-7feb3c1162a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77682 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 grudnia 2015 01:23:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Steve Thompson napisał: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:01:52AM -0800, fir wrote: > > > Im personally still using asci in all my private apps and i shiver > > (a bit) to use unicode as i read from time to time text that says > > unicode is a pain (at least in some situations) > > > This directs me to think that unicode is in general a fail.. Unicode > > could go the way and become something maybe even simpler than ascii > > but gone a bit in a wrong way of making a lot additional mess > > I don't know what you mean by this. How could Unicode be made simpler > than ASCII? > potentially unicode could be simpler than ascii by conforming/fulfilling to more plain/simple rules than ascii conforms (it not neccessary is about content buy by the rules you know you can use whan you know that this thing is unicode content) it could also had better 'layout' of blocks of symbols than ascii etc... overal unicode could be designed much diferentthan it is right now.. for example one could reconsider use highest bite as a some 'family' number (i mean like 8 highest bit is a number of a family rest 24 bits are chars in that family, possibly also designed in some 'atlas' form - giving some unique value for common 'human' fonts, not zero but like 147 for example, allowing ease of disassembly, endian detection, automatic text detection and so on -- if the rest 24 bits would be also wisey designed it could allow for programmer skip some groups of fonts with simple codes atc - that could be wise thng.. instead that they gone in utf-8 weirdness) > > I thing then that maybe one possible recovery scenerio is to use damn > > utf-32 only, everywhere you coud and try to forget and deprecate the > > other part of the mess > > > what do ya think? > > In the long term, US-ASCII will be restricted to select niches, such > as extremely tiny embedded processors. Or simulators of legacy > hardware, etc. There is no reason to think that a text encoding > scheme that cannot represent arbitrary language symbols will survive > much into the future. > > I would like to see Usenet evolve to the point where client software > supports something like the open-document format currently used by > Openoffice. It makes sense to eventually transition to an article > format that supports a rich set of styles, etc. Something like > [Display] Postscript might be another good choice. As a > character-cell text-only medium Usenet has perhaps little future, > never mind the socio-politics and socio-economics pushing everything > to Web-2.0. > > Whether or not this is true, UTF8 is a compact encoding scheme with a > storage cost similar to that of ASCII. It is a natural successor, and > absent a competing coding scheme that proves itself to be vastly > superior, I would say it is here to stay. Currently I concern myself > with extended ASCII, but before long I will have to make the > transition in my code. To do otherwise is silly as it alienates > everyone who does not wish to use English. > > > > Regards, > > Steve Thompson > > -- > "If I had a nickel for every time some idiot called me about a > computer problem that turned out to be user error, I would be able to > retire and spend the rest of my days cultivating clues in my backyard > hillside garden." -- MysteryDog in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 01:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <054034e3-ea1c-49e2-8967-c6b09c8cec34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77695 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 grudnia 2015 02:48:25 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu czwartek, 3 grudnia 2015 01:23:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Steve Thompson napisał:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:01:52AM -0800, fir wrote:
> >
> > > Im personally still using asci in all my private apps and i shiver
> > > (a bit) to use unicode as i read from time to time text that says
> > > unicode is a pain (at least in some situations)
> >
> > > This directs me to think that unicode is in general a fail.. Unicode
> > > could go the way and become something maybe even simpler than ascii
> > > but gone a bit in a wrong way of making a lot additional mess
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by this. How could Unicode be made simpler
> > than ASCII?
> >
>
> potentially unicode could be simpler than ascii by conforming/fulfilling to more plain/simple rules than ascii conforms
> (it not neccessary is about content buy by the rules you know you can use whan you know that this thing is unicode content)
>
> it could also had better 'layout' of blocks of symbols than ascii etc...
> overal unicode could be designed much diferentthan it is right now.. for example one could reconsider use highest bite as a some 'family' number (i mean like 8 highest bit is a number of a family rest 24 bits are chars in that family, possibly also designed in some 'atlas' form - giving some unique value for common 'human' fonts, not zero but like 147 for example, allowing ease of disassembly, endian detection, automatic text detection and so on -- if the rest 24 bits would be also wisey designed it could
> allow for programmer skip some groups of fonts with simple codes atc - that could be wise thng.. instead that they gone in utf-8 weirdness)
>
this way a 32 bit number may be treated as a some kind of the tree or more to say 'public library' where coder would be conscious which areas of the library to support and which treated as a 'half-known' content which youre just treat in half automatic way
(by copying, reversing or something, passing to some library) and which one realy reckognize as full conscious code-sets
such 'character tree' would have binary aligned sets, for example imo digits 0123456789 could lay in one 0-aligned 'folder' (i mean '0' started at zero postion in this folder) the abcd..z in another folder ('a' starting as zero position)
ABC..Z in yet another common 'folder' ('A' starting as zero)
sorta like
earth characters (147) - common folders (66) - arabic digits (17) - 256 free entries
earth characters (147) - common folders (66) - latin base letters small (6) - 256 free entries
earth characters (147) - common folders (66) - latin base letters arge (8) - 256 free entries
earth characters (147) - common folders (66) - latin based extended national letters (13) - 256 free entries
and so on
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 02:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4d64b058-2234-495c-87f8-7e446f558803@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77716 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 grudnia 2015 10:20:58 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu czwartek, 3 grudnia 2015 02:48:25 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał:
> > W dniu czwartek, 3 grudnia 2015 01:23:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Steve Thompson napisał:
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:01:52AM -0800, fir wrote:
> > >
> > > > Im personally still using asci in all my private apps and i shiver
> > > > (a bit) to use unicode as i read from time to time text that says
> > > > unicode is a pain (at least in some situations)
> > >
> > > > This directs me to think that unicode is in general a fail.. Unicode
> > > > could go the way and become something maybe even simpler than ascii
> > > > but gone a bit in a wrong way of making a lot additional mess
> > >
> > > I don't know what you mean by this. How could Unicode be made simpler
> > > than ASCII?
> > >
> >
> > potentially unicode could be simpler than ascii by conforming/fulfilling to more plain/simple rules than ascii conforms
> > (it not neccessary is about content buy by the rules you know you can use whan you know that this thing is unicode content)
> >
> > it could also had better 'layout' of blocks of symbols than ascii etc...
> > overal unicode could be designed much diferentthan it is right now.. for example one could reconsider use highest bite as a some 'family' number (i mean like 8 highest bit is a number of a family rest 24 bits are chars in that family, possibly also designed in some 'atlas' form - giving some unique value for common 'human' fonts, not zero but like 147 for example, allowing ease of disassembly, endian detection, automatic text detection and so on -- if the rest 24 bits would be also wisey designed it could
> > allow for programmer skip some groups of fonts with simple codes atc - that could be wise thng.. instead that they gone in utf-8 weirdness)
> >
>
> this way a 32 bit number may be treated as a some kind of the tree or more to say 'public library' where coder would be conscious which areas of the library to support and which treated as a 'half-known' content which youre just treat in half automatic way
> (by copying, reversing or something, passing to some library) and which one realy reckognize as full conscious code-sets
>
> such 'character tree' would have binary aligned sets, for example imo digits 0123456789 could lay in one 0-aligned 'folder' (i mean '0' started at zero postion in this folder) the abcd..z in another folder ('a' starting as zero position)
> ABC..Z in yet another common 'folder' ('A' starting as zero)
>
> sorta like
> earth characters (147) - common folders (66) - arabic digits (17) - 256 free entries
>
> earth characters (147) - common folders (66) - latin base letters small (6) - 256 free entries
>
> earth characters (147) - common folders (66) - latin base letters arge (8) - 256 free entries
>
> earth characters (147) - common folders (66) - latin based extended national letters (13) - 256 free entries
>
> and so on
BTW note how big such library of letters is,
as int is potential atlat of 4Giga of letters and on a normal page of text in a book is like 2k letters this means that
such int sized atlas of chars is a book
large of 2M pages
(when in reality even im more international
environments it could be done in couple of small and clearly layed clearly writen and well grouped 0-based sets (20 most important or so),
this way it could be simpler than ascii as
ascii has no such binary elegantly layed
different sets (if digits woild be in one spearate bag, small leters in another big letters in another, punctuation marks in another, graphical symbols in another, command chars in another or throwed out at all it would be simpler than ascii)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 09:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3pnql$1rn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77682 |
On 02-Dec-15 17:24, Steve Thompson wrote: > I would like to see Usenet evolve to the point where client software > supports something like the open-document format currently used by > Openoffice. It makes sense to eventually transition to an article > format that supports a rich set of styles, etc. Something like > [Display] Postscript might be another good choice. As a > character-cell text-only medium Usenet has perhaps little future, > never mind the socio-politics and socio-economics pushing everything > to Web-2.0. Note that MIME, which allows HTML and other formats, has been unofficially available in NetNews since 1993 (RFC 1521/1522) and officially available since 2009 (RFC 5536/5537). Despite that, the clear consensus has been to not use MIME in NetNews except its system of marking the character encoding used. > Whether or not this is true, UTF8 is a compact encoding scheme with > a storage cost similar to that of ASCII. It is a natural successor, > and absent a competing coding scheme that proves itself to be vastly > superior, I would say it is here to stay. Indeed. It's hard to even imagine a scheme that can encode all of Unicode in a meaningfully different way than the existing options, which are pretty darned efficient, even if they're not perfect. > Currently I concern myself with extended ASCII, but before long I > will have to make the transition in my code. To do otherwise is > silly as it alienates everyone who does not wish to use English. Which, notably, is ~95% of the world population. The ~5% who prefer English have a disproportionate share of wealth, so it wasn't a bad strategy to focus on them in the past, but the rest of the world is developing quickly, and those who ignore that will be left behind. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 12:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56618d1a.9862593@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #77682 |
Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: > I would like to see Usenet evolve to the point where client software > supports something like the open-document format currently used by > Openoffice. *Brrrrrr* Get your evil Geocities ways away from our clean, useable Usenet. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 18:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bcMIW1.eJW.5f7EJ@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #77817 |
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 12:55:27PM +0000, Richard Bos wrote: > Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I would like to see Usenet evolve to the point where client software > > supports something like the open-document format currently used by > > Openoffice. > > *Brrrrrr* > > Get your evil Geocities ways away from our clean, useable Usenet. Do you honestly think ASCII-only Usenet is a viable long-term proposition? There's a whole ecosystem of userland software that has to get there first, but at some point the notion of a text-only "social media" medium will seem quaint at best. I hate HTML as much as anyone, but surely it is not impossible to suggest that the reading and composition of text in a back-and-forth discussion would be improved if it were possible to annotate included images, vector diagrams, etc. In a sense I am suggesting something which already exists in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles. That medium is a much (much) slower back-and-forth between interested parties and has many of the characteristics of Usenet discussion. Imagine how silly you would sound if you were to suggest that ASCII text was the only apropriate medium in that milieu? And note the historial proliferation of ASCII "art" developed to overcome the limitation of character-only displays. I understand the motive to protect Usenet from needless bloat or complexity, but the days of 80x25 character-cell terminals are all but gone, at least in so far as mainstream computing is concerned. Look at Reddit and weep; something is needed to avoid everything converging on "The Web" and its bastardization of all that is holy in client- server computing. Regards, Steve Thompson -- "If I had a nickel for every time some idiot called me about a computer problem that turned out to be user error, I would be able to retire and spend the rest of my days cultivating clues in my backyard hillside garden." -- MysteryDog in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn664ut.5q5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #77845 |
On Fri, 2015-12-04, Steve Thompson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 12:55:27PM +0000, Richard Bos wrote: >> Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I would like to see Usenet evolve to the point where client software >> > supports something like the open-document format currently used by >> > Openoffice. >> >> *Brrrrrr* >> >> Get your evil Geocities ways away from our clean, useable Usenet. Since Bos seems to have the same position as I had in <slrnn65dpp.5q5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid>, I'll butt in here ... > Do you honestly think ASCII-only Usenet is a viable long-term > proposition? Well, it's more or less UTF-8 today. > There's a whole ecosystem of userland software that has > to get there first, but at some point the notion of a text-only "social > media" medium will seem quaint at best. It might be unfashionable right now, but I don't think it's realistic to expect anything more fancy to succeed. Look at Google Groups' failure to integrate with Usenet; look at the failure of non-text email; look at the failure of HTML (as originally envisioned) for web pages. The fancy things which have been successful are controlled by corporations which prey upon their users. (And they don't usually allow a lot of rich content either: Facebook lets you write plaintext (not even with /emphasis/) and attach pictures, videos and links; Instagram lets you write 160 characters, or something. Why aren't we calling /that/ quaint?) > I hate HTML as much as anyone, but surely it is not impossible to > suggest that the reading and composition of text in a back-and-forth > discussion would be improved if it were possible to annotate included > images, vector diagrams, etc. That would sometimes be useful, yes. > In a sense I am suggesting something which already exists in the form > of peer-reviewed journal articles. That medium is a much (much) > slower back-and-forth between interested parties and has many of the > characteristics of Usenet discussion. Imagine how silly you would > sound if you were to suggest that ASCII text was the only apropriate > medium in that milieu? And note the historial proliferation of ASCII > "art" developed to overcome the limitation of character-only displays. ASCII art is still a useful tool. I use it a lot in email at work, because it's so much faster to create than with some GUI editor, and I can cut & paste it anywhere, as long as I can make the reader see it in a constant width font. > I understand the motive to protect Usenet from needless bloat or > complexity, but the days of 80x25 character-cell terminals are all but > gone, at least in so far as mainstream computing is concerned. Yes; my terminals are 80x90. > Look > at Reddit and weep; something is needed to avoid everything converging > on "The Web" and its bastardization of all that is holy in client- > server computing. That last part is something I agree with fully. But I'm pessimistic. It's as if people don't /want/ freedom from oppression, or choice. On a more positive note, wikis and IRC seem to be in good health. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 10:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn65dpp.5q5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #77682 |
On Wed, 2015-12-02, Steve Thompson wrote: ... > I would like to see Usenet evolve to the point where client software > supports something like the open-document format currently used by > Openoffice. It makes sense to eventually transition to an article > format that supports a rich set of styles, etc. Something like > [Display] Postscript might be another good choice. That would be a serious mistake, IMO. There's a lot of power in the simplicity of pure text, hard line breaks and fixed-width fonts (so you can show simple tables and diagrams). Look at how badly HTML mail works. Sending /one/ mail works fine, but it's impossible IME to keep a conversation with proper quoting that way. There are also the opportunities for privacy violations and scams. > As a character-cell text-only medium Usenet has perhaps little future, > never mind the socio-politics and socio-economics pushing everything > to Web-2.0. Yeah, there is that. Sometimes it seems people in general are not interested in communicating well. They seem fine with the idea that Facebook decides what they should see, and so on. I don't know what can be done about that. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 20:41 +0000 |
| Subject | OT: Usenet (Was: unicode is a fail) |
| Message-ID | <dqK1J9.1yz.6udoW@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #77877 |
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 10:06:51AM +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > On Wed, 2015-12-02, Steve Thompson wrote: > ... > > I would like to see Usenet evolve to the point where client software > > supports something like the open-document format currently used by > > Openoffice. It makes sense to eventually transition to an article > > format that supports a rich set of styles, etc. Something like > > [Display] Postscript might be another good choice. > > That would be a serious mistake, IMO. There's a lot of power in the > simplicity of pure text, hard line breaks and fixed-width fonts (so > you can show simple tables and diagrams). I do not disagree with the notion that pure text has considerable power; this is obviously the reason standard English is so successful. However, humans also communicate with diagrams and pictures. > Look at how badly HTML mail works. Sending /one/ mail works fine, but > it's impossible IME to keep a conversation with proper quoting that > way. There are also the opportunities for privacy violations and > scams. I doubt there would ever be a restriction such that a Postscript-like format became the lowest common denominator for messages. Plain text should always be an option, and we can safely speculate that even in the far off future bandwidth considerations will still figure into the logistics of communications. Chances are text/plain is not going to become obsolete anytime soon. I have a beef with both the ASCII-only camp as well as those who want produce HTML format articles. The former group mostly ignores the fact that diagrams and such are rather useful, while the second group apparently wants to make your newsreader produce gobs of metadata as it gathers all the inline images and such from remote servers. I have used Postscript as an example because it is a well-established document format, and as it is based on Forth allows the potential to fashion interactive gadgets which run in VM, or "on the page" as it were. Before you go all "security!" on me note that there should be no reason to give access to the network or local file system to a virtual piece of paper, or article. The direction of HTML on the Web has been different, and it seems that marketing has become much of the motive force behind related formal/informal standardization activity. I do not think that the spectacle of Web-mail is necessarily indicative of flaws which should automatically disqualify related approaches to improving the repertoire of article content in terms of its representation. I hold the hope that the Web in its current form is something of an artifact of these early years of the Internet, and that it will be superseded generally by more refined standards and protocols. For Usenet then the requirement is client software which understands how to interpret and compose a rich document format. This implies that the distinction between text editors and word processors may blur, even if the text editor qua text editor does not disappear (vi, emacs, etc.) as it is unlikely to do. It is possibly useful to note here that while it is possible to communicate with text, text is not a requirement for human communication, and that electronic mail and Usenet articles should reflect this basic fact in some fashion. Nominal storage and bandwidth considerations may easily make the inclusion of embedded video sequences entirely practical on some networks, and if so why not? The same logic holds for annotated diagrams. > > As a character-cell text-only medium Usenet has perhaps little future, > > never mind the socio-politics and socio-economics pushing everything > > to Web-2.0. > > Yeah, there is that. Sometimes it seems people in general are not > interested in communicating well. They seem fine with the idea that > Facebook decides what they should see, and so on. I don't know what > can be done about that. One of the problems is the cognitive bias people have regarding their own language skills. I have met any number of people who see nothing wrong with being barely literate (and perhaps barely sentient), even as they are surrounded by the products of literate groups. Notions of class figure in to this, but also the human tendency to rationalize one's own character traits as positive absolutes. Among other things this leads to anti-intellectualism among those for whom intellectualism is a restricted area. Culturally in the West there is a widespread false belief in the validity of relativism where one value system is thought to be no better and no worse than another. In practice this belief is restricted to pop-culture value systems which may not even exist except in the minds of teenagers. I presume this is mainly the result of education/propaganda by those who consciously self-identify with one of the better Estates. In the context of Facebark, much of the attraction must be the feedback from one's peers. And if many people (kids) never acquire a sense of what they are missing by giving up the paragraph as the basic unit of human communication, how will they know? The proposition that language is thought appears to be attached to some controversy, but in my mind it is blindingly obvious that it is true. I do not know what to do about that either, but at the least it should be possible to make alternatives available even if they compete at a disadvantage to the instant gratification reward pathways intrinsic to such systems. Regards, Steve Thompson -- "If I had a nickel for every time some idiot called me about a computer problem that turned out to be user error, I would be able to retire and spend the rest of my days cultivating clues in my backyard hillside garden." -- MysteryDog in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 13:18 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Usenet (Was: unicode is a fail) |
| Message-ID | <17ef441b-1613-4351-83bf-388e662bc214@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77916 |
On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 8:55:51 PM UTC, Steve Thompson wrote: > > I have a beef with both the ASCII-only camp as well as those who want > produce HTML format articles. The former group mostly ignores the > fact that diagrams and such are rather useful, while the second group > apparently wants to make your newsreader produce gobs of metadata as > it gathers all the inline images and such from remote servers. > > For Usenet then the requirement is client software which understands > how to interpret and compose a rich document format. This implies > that the distinction between text editors and word processors may > blur, even if the text editor qua text editor does not disappear (vi, > emacs, etc.) as it is unlikely to do. It is possibly useful to note > here that while it is possible to communicate with text, text is not a > requirement for human communication, and that electronic mail and > Usenet articles should reflect this basic fact in some fashion. > Nominal storage and bandwidth considerations may easily make the > inclusion of embedded video sequences entirely practical on some > networks, and if so why not? The same logic holds for annotated > diagrams. > HTML has now blurred the distinction between a document and a program.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 10:21 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <87poykw55o.fsf@rudiments.goosenet.in> |
| In reply to | #77877 |
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes: > On Wed, 2015-12-02, Steve Thompson wrote: >> As a character-cell text-only medium Usenet has perhaps little >> future, never mind the socio-politics and socio-economics pushing >> everything to Web-2.0. > > Yeah, there is that. Sometimes it seems people in general are not > interested in communicating well. They seem fine with the idea that > Facebook decides what they should see, and so on. I don't know what > can be done about that. Although I have never myself had a Facebook account, (nor a Twitter one, nor a whathaveyou one) I have seen the effects of having it on those persons I know. The tendency seems to be towards highly memetic, less deeply thought about things. Something about the entire experience entails the need to check up on things continually. I am unsure, however, of the long term effects of this. I think that the general view is that the pendulum has swung towards the end that focuses more on form than content or function. As the resources available to any one person are finite, Websites created today usually spend more effort on looking good than on making information useful. But I could be horribly misinformed. > /Jorgen -- Udyant Wig
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 08:51 +0000 |
| Subject | OT: Facebook (was Re: unicode is a fail) |
| Message-ID | <slrnn67to5.5q5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #77940 |
On Sun, 2015-12-06, Udyant Wig wrote: > Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes: >> On Wed, 2015-12-02, Steve Thompson wrote: >>> As a character-cell text-only medium Usenet has perhaps little >>> future, never mind the socio-politics and socio-economics pushing >>> everything to Web-2.0. >> >> Yeah, there is that. Sometimes it seems people in general are not >> interested in communicating well. They seem fine with the idea that >> Facebook decides what they should see, and so on. I don't know what >> can be done about that. > > Although I have never myself had a Facebook account, (nor a Twitter > one, nor a whathaveyou one) I have seen the effects of having it on > those persons I know. The tendency seems to be towards highly > memetic, less deeply thought about things. Something about the entire > experience entails the need to check up on things continually. I am > unsure, however, of the long term effects of this. Facebook is (naturally) optimized for pleasantness and addictiveness. Compared to Usenet, it's more about having constant (and pleasant) contact with your friends, and not about discussions (which it's bad at). Sometimes people post something longer which they have put an effort into, but it's a volatile medium: you read it once and then it gets lost in history. Then there's also the fact that you're not in full control over what you see. > I think that the general view is that the pendulum has swung towards > the end that focuses more on form than content or function. As the > resources available to any one person are finite, Websites created > today usually spend more effort on looking good than on making > information useful. > > But I could be horribly misinformed. More about shallow and volatile social contact than about information, in this case. It would be an interesting exercise to take the lessons learned from Facebook and other supervised social media, plus the lessons from Usenet going downhill, and rework the Usenet protocol (and client user interfaces) based on that. Is it possible to have the good parts of Usenet as we know it, raise the S/N ratio, and attract normal people? /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 13:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Facebook (was Re: unicode is a fail) |
| Message-ID | <56643b60.8836921@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #77949 |
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > On Sun, 2015-12-06, Udyant Wig wrote: > > Although I have never myself had a Facebook account, (nor a Twitter > > one, nor a whathaveyou one) I have seen the effects of having it on > > those persons I know. The tendency seems to be towards highly > > memetic, less deeply thought about things. Something about the entire > > experience entails the need to check up on things continually. I am > > unsure, however, of the long term effects of this. > > Facebook is (naturally) optimized for pleasantness and addictiveness. > Compared to Usenet, it's more about having constant (and pleasant) > contact with your friends, and not about discussions (which it's bad > at). For addictiveness, yes, but not for pleasure. Rather, for triggering. It's more in line with Pavlov and Skinner than with Bentham and Mill. > Is it possible to have the good parts of Usenet as we know it, raise > the S/N ratio, and attract normal people? No; nor would you want to. "Normal" people enjoy <Wherever>'s Got Talent, and Neighbours. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web