Bob_Blaylock

I'm old enough to remember 1970s computer graphics. The original TRaSh-80 had 128x48 pixels, black&white only, mingled with text, while the Apple ][ had its “low resolution” graphics that were 40X48 at 16 colors, or “high resolution”at 280x192 at six colors.

Most of what you are saying, I do agree with. However I need to point out that many people DO in fact have full internet access on their phones and I regularly post on this forum from my phone while I am out and about. So basically that means I have the same limitations that you have with SMS with the exception of the character limit. So sometimes my grammar and spelling may seem a little "idiotic" when in fact it's due not having the convenience of a full keyboard in front of me and having to deal with the vibrations of a bus, for example, as I type. Not to mention when I go out in the sticks, signal levels fluctuate a lot causing me to sometimes lose messages, I'm less inclined to spell check my messages after having to type the whole thing out again on a phone keyboard On any rational basis, my peeve isn't really about people doing what they have to to work under serious limitations; it's about people who don't even try to do something right; who are willing to produce something of absolutely crappy quality, when an insignificant amount of additional effort could have produced something of much higher quality. When you type “U”, instead of “you”, on any QWERTY keyboard, you're not saving any useful amount of time or effort at all. The “Y” key is right next to the “U” key, and the “O” key is just two keys away from “U” on the other side. But the difference that those two keys makes is astounding. If you type out the whole word “you”, then it looks like you have at least a normal level of intelligence, while if you only type “U”, then it looks like you couldn't possibly have a higher IQ than the lower seventies or so. On a regular keyboard, it is surely worth those two keystrokes for that much improvement in how intelligence you will appear to whomever reads what you've written. Maybe not so much on a cell phone keypad that takes four strokes just to type a “Y” and three to type an “O”; perhaps to some people, it's worth coming across as stupid to be able to save those five keystrokes. In any event, if you are writing something that you intend me to read and understand, if you're not willing to spell it out, then just don't bother. If I see something written in “txtspk”, I will usually not parse the meaning of what the writer intended to communicate, all I see is “Look how stupid I am! Please make fun of me and insult me and treat me as the illiterate cretin that I obviously am.” It usually takes considerable extra effort for me to actually read and understand what was written in such a manner, and if the person writing it didn't think that it was worth the effort to write it clearly and properly in the first, then I usually will not even entertain the thought that it might possibly be worth that extra effort to try to read and understand it. Of course, posting to Internet forums from a cell phone creates the problem that someone who doesn't deserve to look stupid may be compelled to look stupid anyway. I suppose if there was some clear way to indicate that as being the case, then, if you catch me in a good mood, I might decide it's worth trying to read what you've posted rather than just assuming that you are illiterate and stupid. But writing something at the had of your posting such as “Please excuse the poor quality of this message; I'm posting it from my cell phone.” would, in itself, use up so much time and effort that it'd probably be less trouble — even on a cell phone keyboard — to simply write out the message properly. I guess, when you get down to it, anything posted on a site such as this one isn't just about the person writing it; it's about all the people who will subsequently try to read and understand it as well. It's not like you're just sending a text message to one person, who will read it, and then discard it. What you post here is going to become a permanent part of this site; and be read by dozens of people, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of people. Multiply that out by the amount of extra time and effort that each one of those readers has to waste trying to make sense of a badly-written post, and it seems to me that it very quickly works out to be very wasteful, even under adverse ergonomic conditions, to take inappropriate shortcuts when writing something to be posted here. However much time and effort you save in writing such a post, you're causing a lot of other people to waste a lot more than that in trying to read it, assuming that they bother trying to read it at all.

I'm no fan of sports in general, and particularly not of the more violent sorts; however, I'd pay to see Barbara Boxer go a round or two with Mike Tyson.

My big pet peeve is the “dumbed down” corruption of written English that is becoming increasingly common. When people write as if they are so stupid that they cannot even spell simple words, such as “people” or “you” or “are”, it annoys me. F u rite lik dis, then I will assume that you are stupid — or worse, lazy — that you cannot possibly have anything to say that is worth my trouble to try to read it; and that you are unworthy of any response from me other than scorn, ridicule, and insults. I understand — and grudgingly accept — the need for conserving characters in a medium such as SMS messaging, where you're operating under strict message-limit sizes, and with the ergonomic limitations of a cell phone keyboard; but the Internet is not your cell phone. When you're posting to a forum, such as this one, or to almost any other web site, or sending an email, you have a full keyboard under your hands, and more than enough room to clearly and properly express yourself; and I would hope that you have better than a second-grade-level of education. If you are really so stupid that you think the word “you” is spelled with only one letter, then you're not smart enough to have anything to say that is worth my reading it. If what you are trying to communicate is so unimportant that you don't think it's worth the time to type out the word “you” instead of just “u”, then it's not important enough to be worth my time to read it. The word “dumb” has two meanings, that may seem unrelated, but which, in fact, are very closely tied together. The better-known meaning refers to a lack of intelligence. The other, somewhat less-known meaning, refers to an inability to communicate usefully. Writing in “txtspk” anywhere but in SMS messaging, exemplifies both meanings of the word “dumb”. http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=252&stc=1&d=12473584537 http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=250&stc=1&d=1247358337

This is specifically addressed in the scripture. See D&C 49:18-19. 18· And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; 19· For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. I've heard or read somewhere that it was a common belief in Joseph Smith's time that the best diet for humans was one that consisted almost entirely of meat. Grains and vegetables were eaten primarily because a meat-only diet was prohibitively expensive for many people; but if you could afford it, you were likely to eat mostly meat. Compared to that, most modern Americans do eat meat “sparingly”. I do not know for certain that this is true, but it does make sense. Somewhat more obvious is a characteristic of meat, with regard to the statement encouraging the use of meat “only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” Meat spoils easily, and can become quite toxic when it spoils. Before modern refrigeration and other modern preservative methods, it was safer and healthier to eat meat when the weather is cold than when it is hot.

I look like Bob Blaylock.

A similar idea was tried in the early days of DVD. It failed rather spectacularly..

Or government-based education systems, which are creating an increasingly-illiterate population. For example, we have more and more people who don't even know the difference between “your” and “you're”. It gets much, much worse than that, but this is the example that was staring me right in the face as this thought was forming.

Larry Hagman

I'm stuck. What's the smallest living thing that anyone can think of that starts with “J”? I can't think of anything smaller than a jackrabbit. Yes, I can. Jellyfish. Still too big. Can anyone think of anything smaller?

Insects http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=244&stc=1&d=1246172110 http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=245&stc=1&d=1246172110

Hypotrich http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=243&stc=1&d=1246171987

Gnat larva http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=242&stc=1&d=1246171917

Fungus http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=241&stc=1&d=1246171858

Embryonic peanut plant http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=240&stc=1&d=1246171784

Daphnia http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=239&stc=1&d=1246104671 Diatom http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=248&stc=1&d=1246173531

Cyanobacteria (used to be called “blue-green algae”) http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=238&stc=1&d=1246104514 Cyclops http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=246&stc=1&d=1246173325 Coleps http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=247&stc=1&d=1246173325

Bdelloid rotifer: http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=237&d=1246104000

How about microscopic life forms? Algae: http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=232&stc=1&d=1246103922 http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=233&stc=1&d=1246103922 http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=234&stc=1&d=1246103922 http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=235&stc=1&d=1246103922 http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=236&stc=1&d=1246103922

That was a company that was founded by Steve Jobs in 1985, after he was forced out of Apple Computer. They made a line of computers that, in my opinion, were years ahead of their time. Unfortunately, they didn't sell well. They then ported the operating system to run on IBM-PC-type hardware. That didn't sell very well either. I guess they sort of floundered around for a while after that, not ever getting anywhere useful. Eventually, Apple Computer bought up what was left of NeXT, and used the NeXTStep operating system as the basis for MacOS X. In the deal Steve Jobs is back as the head of Apple Computer.

There's no such thing as “ppl”. He did misuse images of actual people, without their consent. It'd be one thing if he created images of wholly fictional characters, not bearing any obvious resemblance to any actual people. But that's not what he did. He created what appears to be a nude image of Miley Cyrus, and similar images of two unfamous minor girls. Someone who sees these images, and knows the three girls involved, would recognize these images as nude images of these girls. That it was really different bodies, photoshopped to these girls' heads, really doesn't make a difference. It's the face that is recognizable, and which establishes the identity of the person in each image. Surely, none of these girls would have (nor legally could have, being minors) consented to having nude images produced of them. They have been exploited just the same as if he had somehow managed to photograph their actual nude bodies. I think the criminal charges are entirely appropriate.

The most stupid question of all is the one that you don't ask, because you're afraid you'll feel stupid for asking it.

Why are you asking us? You would certainly know, better than any of us what you did or did not hear. I do not know if it is true that you heard that tithing is tax deductible.

Of course you don't. There's no such thing as “N-ything”.

From a picture that I've already used, cropped in a bit tighter… http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=231&stc=1&d=1245913373