You are right they charge by the message not the letter. But alot of phones have a limit to the message size. On occasions you could compress the words to have a single message instead of two. Of coarse, I argue just to get the unlimited messaging plans. Or phones that don't have text buffer limits. "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote in message news:479e6215$0$14995$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...> Stephen Pelc wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:25:16 +0100, David Brown >> <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: >> >>> Could you summarise this "different view" for me? "An Anthropology of >>> Communication" does sound somewhat interesting, but my things-to-read >>> list is already long enough to last a lifetime... >> >> In some areas of the world, a mobile phone is an important >> acquisition, and early internet access will be through it. >> With the cost of mobile phone access, people learn to compress their >> costs by compressing the text. >> >> Hence, a side effect of SMS-speak appears on the internet. >> It's a bit like the days when we had 110 baud modems and >> minimal pocket money. >> >> Be nice to your global neighbours! >> >> Stephen >> >> > > I *am* nice to my global neighbours (I even gave him as good an answer as > possible, given the question) - as I am an ex-pat, I am well aware of the > difficulty of writing accurately in a second language. However, I don't > really buy your idea that SMS-speak is saving costs. You don't pay per > letter for SMS messages (at least, I've never heard of such a scheme) - > you pay per message. SMS abbreviations are nothing more than laziness. > That's fine for teenagers chatting together - it's not appropriate in a > newsgroup for professionals and serious amateurs. > > I'm quite happy to talk with non-native (or native!) English speakers > using "imaginative" grammar - but I expect people to use full words or > standard newsgroup abbreviations, I expect them to get capitalisation and > punctuation roughly correct, and I expect them to use a spell checker > (from any half-decent newsreader, or browser for Google groups) to get > most words correct. > > Thus I fairly politely ask posters to communicate in the language of this > newsgroup - it's in their interests to learn, since it will help them be > more professional, and they'll get answers from Grant Edwards!
regarding ISR
Started by ●January 28, 2008
Reply by ●January 28, 20082008-01-28
Reply by ●January 28, 20082008-01-28
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> writes:> Stephen Pelc wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:25:16 +0100, David Brown >> <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: >> >>> Could you summarise this "different view" for me? "An Anthropology >>> of Communication" does sound somewhat interesting, but my >>> things-to-read list is already long enough to last a lifetime... >> >> In some areas of the world, a mobile phone is an important >> acquisition, and early internet access will be through it. >> With the cost of mobile phone access, people learn to compress their >> costs by compressing the text. >> >> Hence, a side effect of SMS-speak appears on the internet. >> It's a bit like the days when we had 110 baud modems and >> minimal pocket money. >> >> Be nice to your global neighbours! >> >> Stephen >> >> > > I *am* nice to my global neighbours (I even gave him as good an answer > as possible, given the question) - as I am an ex-pat, I am well aware > of the difficulty of writing accurately in a second language. > However, I don't really buy your idea that SMS-speak is saving costs. > You don't pay per letter for SMS messages (at least, I've never heard > of such a scheme) - you pay per message. SMS abbreviations are > nothing more than laziness. That's fine for teenagers chatting > together - it's not appropriate in a newsgroup for professionals and > serious amateurs.[...] I think the root of the difference is that usenet is a "one to many" medium, whereas texting or chatrooms are one-one or one-few. In texts and chatrooms, it is generally good to be able to express something as quickly as possible, to make it like a face to face "real-time" conversation. It takes more effort to write a message than to read it, so you can argue it is not worth putting much work into the writing side, that would just slow things down. But with usenet, there are hundreds of readers reading the post. So it is worthwhile putting effort in to the writing side, since even a small increase in "readability" is multiplied by the number of readers. Also usenet is less of a "real-time" medium than texts and chatrooms are. -- John Devereux
Reply by ●January 28, 20082008-01-28
On 2008-01-29, Dwayne Dilbeck <ddilbeck@yahoo.com> wrote:> You are right they charge by the message not the letter. But alot of phones > have a limit to the message size.It's not the phone that limits the message size, it's the SMS messaging system itself that limits a message to 160 characters. From what I can tell, the abbreviations are mostly just to save keystrokes, since I don't think I've ever gotten an SMS message anywhere near the limit. Of course, I'm the wrong generation to get a lot of text messages -- almost all of mine are reminder messages from Google Calendar. :) -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I want a WESSON OIL at lease!! visi.com
Reply by ●January 28, 20082008-01-28
In article <b140416d-2767-40e2-b8f6-d3d8e91ea71f@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "aleemakhtar1@gmail.com" <aleemakhtar1@gmail.com> wrote:>can i allocate dynamic memory in ISR ??Yes, it's your CPU so you can do anything you want with it. You can can even disable IRQs or dynamic memory altogether if you really want to.> If yes wat shd be the >precautions i need to take care ??There are many, and this is by no means an exhaustive list but the first percautions that come to mind are correct handling of the following scenarios: - The allocation fails because there is no more dynamic memory available. - The allocation takes too long and causes a subsequent IRQ to be missed. - The IRQ occurs while the mainline is in the middle of allocating/freeing dynamic memory and your memory manager is non re-entrant. - A higher priority IRQ occurs and causes another ISR to start while this one is in the middle of allocating memory. Other percautions will depend on whether or not you are using a paged memory architecture, and whether pages are being swapped to secondary storage, etc. You also might want to search for "deferred procedure call" --Tom.
Reply by ●January 29, 20082008-01-29
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:15:59 +0100, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:>However, I >don't really buy your idea that SMS-speak is saving costs. You don't >pay per letter for SMS messages (at least, I've never heard of such a >scheme) - you pay per message. SMS abbreviations are nothing more than >laziness.If someone is really posting questions using SMS messages, how is that person going to receive messages posted by other users ? If by SMS, that would imply that the sending a single message is very expensive but you can receive an unlimited amount SMS messages for free. Is there really such a service anywhere in the world ? Paul
Reply by ●January 29, 20082008-01-29
Paul Keinanen wrote:> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:15:59 +0100, David Brown > <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote: > >> However, I >> don't really buy your idea that SMS-speak is saving costs. You don't >> pay per letter for SMS messages (at least, I've never heard of such a >> scheme) - you pay per message. SMS abbreviations are nothing more than >> laziness. > > If someone is really posting questions using SMS messages, how is that > person going to receive messages posted by other users ? > > If by SMS, that would imply that the sending a single message is very > expensive but you can receive an unlimited amount SMS messages for > free. Is there really such a service anywhere in the world ? >I don't think anyone is actually posting to Usenet via SMS (I'm sure it's possible - after all, someone actually implemented RFC1149, although they did not bother trying out Usenet). Stephen was suggesting that a reason for people posting in SMS-speak is that they are used to using SMS, and simply carry the same "language" over to Usenet.
Reply by ●January 29, 20082008-01-29
John Devereux wrote:> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> writes:<snip>> I think the root of the difference is that usenet is a "one to many" > medium, whereas texting or chatrooms are one-one or one-few. > > In texts and chatrooms, it is generally good to be able to express > something as quickly as possible, to make it like a face to face > "real-time" conversation. It takes more effort to write a message than > to read it, so you can argue it is not worth putting much work into > the writing side, that would just slow things down. > > But with usenet, there are hundreds of readers reading the post. So it > is worthwhile putting effort in to the writing side, since even a > small increase in "readability" is multiplied by the number of > readers. Also usenet is less of a "real-time" medium than texts and > chatrooms are. >I think there is a lot in what you say here. People often don't seem to understand Usenet - they think in terms of posting a question and getting an answer, rather than having a discussion for the benefit of many. They also often fail to realise that newsgroup archives are an important resource for the future - when you've solved a problem, and post the answer here, it's available for others searching the archives.
Reply by ●January 29, 20082008-01-29
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:> John Devereux wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> writes: > <snip> >> I think the root of the difference is that usenet is a "one to many" >> medium, whereas texting or chatrooms are one-one or one-few. >> >> In texts and chatrooms, it is generally good to be able to express >> something as quickly as possible, to make it like a face to face >> "real-time" conversation. It takes more effort to write a message than >> to read it, so you can argue it is not worth putting much work into >> the writing side, that would just slow things down. >> >> But with usenet, there are hundreds of readers reading the post. So it >> is worthwhile putting effort in to the writing side, since even a >> small increase in "readability" is multiplied by the number of >> readers. Also usenet is less of a "real-time" medium than texts and >> chatrooms are. >> > > I think there is a lot in what you say here. People often don't seem > to understand Usenet - they think in terms of posting a question and > getting an answer, rather than having a discussion for the benefit of > many. They also often fail to realise that newsgroup archives are an > important resource for the future - when you've solved a problem, and > post the answer here, it's available for others searching the > archives.Good point about the archives - that's another factor I had intended to mention, too. The difference between writing a "txt" that will be deleted on reading, and a Usenet article that will likely remain archived and searchable until the end of time. -- John Devereux
Reply by ●January 29, 20082008-01-29
On 2008-01-29, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote:> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:15:59 +0100, David Brown ><david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote: > >>However, I >>don't really buy your idea that SMS-speak is saving costs. You don't >>pay per letter for SMS messages (at least, I've never heard of such a >>scheme) - you pay per message. SMS abbreviations are nothing more than >>laziness. > > If someone is really posting questions using SMS messages, how is that > person going to receive messages posted by other users ?Possibly via an SMS<->email gateway?> If by SMS, that would imply that the sending a single message > is very expensive but you can receive an unlimited amount SMS > messages for free. Is there really such a service anywhere in > the world ?Not for free, but for a fixed price. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Jesuit priests are at DATING CAREER DIPLOMATS!! visi.com
Reply by ●January 30, 20082008-01-30
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:26:54 -0500, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:>Stephen Pelc wrote: >> May I suggest, that for a different view, you read: >> The Cell Phone: An Anthropology of Communication >> By Heather A. Horst, Daniel Miller > >Let me point out that Usenet is NOT - repeat NOT - a Cell Phone.Let me point out I that I did not say that it was. I merely pointed out that the way one accesses Usenet may influence the content. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
