__/ [ Peter Hayes ] on Friday 06 October 2006 17:41 \__
> In <87k63dbuvx.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Friday 06 October 2006 08:29 \__
>>>
>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> Spyware threat is growing claims PCWB
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>| One in two UK businesses have been affected by spyware while 14
>>>>>| per cent admitted they were unaware of spyware and its effects,
>>>>>| according to research published today by PC World Business (PCWB).
>>>>>|
>>>>>| [...]
>>>>>|
>>>>>| "We're more worried about the 54 per cent of businesses that
>>>>>| report no affect." "The nature of spyware is that it is mostly
>>>>>| invisible and it
>>>>
>>>> effect, not affect ... don't these folk have an editor?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, a second pair of eyes could easily overlook this. And
>>> spellchecker won;t help. To be fair, all those isolated typos are no
>>> big deal and I have
>>
>> BWahahahahahahha.
>>
>> A spell checker won't help? How the hell would you know? You haven't
>> figured out how to use one yourself.
>>
>> That's going straight into my fortune files!
>
> I don't understand. A spellchecker isn't a grammar checker or a context
> checker. The misuse of "affect" and "effect" is very common but wouldn't
> occur if we had a decent education system that taught the basics.
In that one circumstances I must have been typing with my mind focused on
something else. I bet you know the feeling of thinking faster than you type;
then, you only have this voice in your head that dictates what you write. So
I had the word "affect" in my head, but I typed it down as it sounded. That
explains many other typos that I spot if I reread after posting (as I reread
this one message... a rare second pass... I found a "head"/"hand" typo) ...
words that sound the same (equivocal) or similar, but mean totally different
(or related) things.
I'm assuming studies were conducted to explain typos and which ones are the
result of negligence, lack of concentration or just misunderstanding,
perhaps ignorance. The latter type is the reason so many people
'paranoidically' proofread messages before sending them. It's about
credibility, but it does have a cost while there is so little to be gained.
Automated tools like spellcheckers can make better use of the time, but only
AI/comprehension (not only of grammar, but also of the concepts conveyed)
can replace human judgment.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz - serving the Web for 9^-1000 millenia
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.44 0.63 0.56 2/130 19832
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
|
