Re: Relationship between "textese" and history of USENET [Re: SYNCHRONIZING
problem]
adrian.bartholomew@gmail.com wrote:
but it is because they had not become a part of the culture yet. do u
believe that many laws were not cultural customs first?
life is built on laziness. muscle groups grow from weight training
BECAUSE they're lazy. they dont want to have to exert that kind of
work again, so they're ready the next time u assault them. they have
become stronger, thus bigger. u control this by using the dangling
carrot technique. thats how the body adapts and thats one of the ways
evolution works.
I disagree with this statement: when you work out, you are actually
killing a few of your muscle cells, so they regenerate more prolifically
as a sort of "safeguard" from future attacks -- natural selection. Most
laziness is actually counterproductive to evolution: our bodies place
high values on fat to improve our condition, and stagnation is now
killing our bodies a la obesity.
Also, just because you can be lazy doesn't mean you should. Imagine
driving half a mile to go to the grocery store to pick up, say, a
12-pack of soda. It is much more efficient to bike ride up to the store
and get said soda, it helps the environment and your body, saves you
money, but takes effort for most people. Don't say it can't be done --
I've held two 12-packs on my bike before.
evolution is not only physical, its also cultural.
maybe this is way off topic and i dont want to turn it into "that"
forum but this is where my heart surrounds the reasoning for my
innocent "shorthand".
though Gordon May is not necessarily agreeing with me, i love his
quote. thats the spirit of my argument.
this is a JAVA forum. this thread has become a forum for uptight
elitists many of whom do not even qualify. so why bother?
Patrick May TRIED to poke for eg., but in the end he had to add many
disclaimers to his attack, usually a sign that the "theory" is wrong.
I recall reading somewhere that posting your code opens you up to
assault on your design. I originally commented on your grammar and
spelling because it was detracting from the problem and made your point
less clear; solutions are a lot easier to obtain if someone can easily
read the problem.
Elsewhere you commented that the nature of computer languages sparked
shorthand. I disagree with you on this point: maybe assembly uses
shorthand (but it's generally more verbose overall), but most
programming conventions abhor shorthand unless there is precedent, e.g.
with URL as opposed to Uniform Resource Locater. Look at Java: except
for the common abbreviations (char for character, int for integer, and
common acronyms), everything is expanded into full-word form: even
'boolean' instead of C++'s 'bool'.