"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 12:09, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:23:15 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

The pretty well universal requirement for GCSE English Language should
ensure that students and workers can spell use grammar reasonably
correctly (if they make the effort) and should not be tested during
other exams.

Just as well, otherwise I would have been well screwed in every subject!

Likewise.

The thing is, 'some people' can just absorb this sort of (often) un
intuitive (eg, non phonetic) spelling whist others can't.

When I question our daughter (or the Mrs) *why* they can't remember
the route to somewhere they have been once, they ask me why I still
can't spell words I must have written thousands of times.

The reason I haven't 'remembered' is in many cases the same reason I
couldn't remember the mobile phone number I've had for ~15 years (till
very recently) it's because I didn't need to because there were often
ways of gleaning such that were more reliable (spell checkers, phone
books etc).

Spelling requires a set of cognitive pattern recognition skills that not
everyone has (including me!), however as with many things, if you have the
skills it can be difficult to comprehend why others might find it so
difficult.

The best comparison I have found that gives them a "feel" for the
complexity, is to point out that you asking me to learn the spelling of a
list of words, would be for me a task of similar complexity to me asking
you to remember a similar length list of phone numbers. I.e. something
that you would be forced to remember as a special case for each.

When I did English GCE, it was a split lit/lang course, where the lit
section was all essay based and done as course work (and at least 2 of
the essays had to be done under exam conditions). All the language parts
were in the final exams. Use of language and grammar were important in
all parts, but spelling was only marked in the language exam part.

I think I may have had similar in English 'O' level and whilst I
enjoyed the classes and got average marks, I would often be let down
by 'bad spelling'.

But what is bad spelling but an inability to remember a sequence of
letters, some of which don't follow any tools used to take away any
ambiguity?

When reading something (on a subject I have some knowledge of) I will
often spot anything that either doesn't make sense but may well
completely miss spelling mistakes on *some* words.

Yup, I find in many cases I can read through something generally badly
spelt and not even notice.

Although I will tend to notice poor grammar far more readily, even where
it's spelling related (say using there in place of their, or weather in
place of whether etc.

Yeah, I get the same effect. Weird, presumably there is an explanation for
that.

If I think that anyone else reading such might then question the
'professionalism' of the writer (say on their web / sales site) then I
might feed such back in case they might like to adjust what they had
written.

Indeed - and to be fair they have a point, but it's another case of one's
own abilities skewing perception. If they find it easy to proof read a
page and spot all the spelling errors, they they will tend to assume that
someone not correcting them is just being lazy / sloppy.

The last was the Odroid N2+ I bought as the host for my Home Assistant
where the advert suggested that it 'came with' a part in the 'bundle'
when it actually did not (well, not included in the price), making it
slightly misleading / confusing. I mentioned this in general pre sale
correspondence and they confirmed it wasn't as clear as it could be
and they would feed it back to the marketing / web boys (not that they
seem to have changed it yet). ;-)

https://www.odroid.co.uk/Home-Automa...roduct_id=1058

Yup I see what you mean - pricing the entry level at £135 including the
4GB device, and then offering upgrades to 32, 64, and 128GB devices at
extra cost would probably have been better.

On 12/04/2021 15:44, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:36:05 +0100, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 12/04/2021 12:03, Paul wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
charles wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

I have long thought it wrong to mark down for spelling and grammar,
except in languages.
In chemisty? Is ita sulphate or a sulphide?

Sulfide or sulfate according to IUPAC

could well be, I never learned chemisty

Any time you're having trouble reaching a reagent
on the shelf, you can stand on a copy of this to
make you taller :-) Mine is the 1973-1974 edition.

https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uplo.../12/crc600.png

I haven't seen the "Chemical Rubber Company" handbook in many a long
year. It was a remarkable source of chemical and physical information
50+ years ago!

AKA 'The Rubber Bible'. I have the 65th edition, 1985. Our company lab
library used to get a new edition every few years, and sold the
previous edition for a fiver. Irresistible, especially at the price.

I also have Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, Eighth Edition 1952 on my
bookshelf. I much prefer it!

Add Kempe's Engineering, and Machinery's Handbook if you is a engineer.

My "Rubber Bible" is 52nd edition, which my father had as a review copy
when he edited trade journals.

T i m wrote

Back on the words / spelling thing, I am reminded constantly
(TV and ITRW) how many people *say* 'anythinK' but I wonder
what percentage of them would write is like that?

Can't say I have ever noticed anyone spelling it like that even on social
media.

And when young my parents corrected me if I ever said 'we was' and why
it seems so strange that so many people also seem to get that wrong?

That's more of a class thing.

On 12/04/2021 10:19, nightjar wrote:
On 12/04/2021 10:03, Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/04/2021 09:44, wrote:
Â*From "The Week":
University tutors are being told not to mark down work for spelling
mistakes because insisting on correct English could be seen as
€œhomogenous north European, white, male, elite€�. The Times says
several institutions are adopting €œinclusive assessments€� and Hull
University says it will €œchallenge the status quo€� by dropping the
requirement for a high level of written and spoken English.

I have long thought it wrong to mark down for spelling and grammar,
except in languages. Exams/assessments are for candidates to
demonstrate a clear understanding and ability in their chosen
subjects, not to test their knowledge of a different subject. Why
should someone be marked down in Physics, for poor spelling, when they
are showing an excellent grasp of the subject?

The pretty well universal requirement for GCSE English Language should
ensure that students and workers can spell use grammar reasonably
correctly (if they make the effort) and should not be tested during
other exams.

When I went to university you couldn't get in without first having
passed the Use of English exam.

Many of us had to do a Latin unseen translation with the entrance
exam....I was told that Scientists didn't have to pass it.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 12 April 2021 at 14:19:03 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 13:36:15 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


But then I guess that the focus (on technical content) may distract
from 'checking' for spelling (if they don't pop out at you). A classic
one seen here is 'teh' instead of 'the'?

I wonder if that is down to the brain being faster than being able to
type.

It appears to be more about not very good eyesight or not caring about
typos.

Don;t forget that the keyboard is designed to slow typing down.

And while I'm here could you try the link below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0jcu9o06ph...41.23.png?dl=0

it was on facebook an image whose colour showns you whether you or right
brained or left brained.

Weird.

For me it was left brained,

Me too, but I forget what T I m claims about alleged left brainers.

Tho it is clear that he claims he is right brained.

IMO he is actually dog **** brained.

but also my computer was using it;s left processors as I ttried colour
picking
and that too was a green colour, maybe my right processors are missing :-0

anyway let me know what you see.

The other thing I noticed was the annoying "UR" usage guess that will
annoy you roo.

Back on the words / spelling thing, I am reminded constantly
(TV and ITRW) how many people *say* 'anythinK' but I wonder
what percentage of them would write is like that?

If I heard that I'd write it as anyfink.

True but I dont recall seeing that on social media either.

And when young my parents corrected me if I ever said 'we was' and why
it seems so strange that so many people also seem to get that wrong?

Yes that is weird.

T i m wrote:

I think I'd be more worried if they didn't know their left from right
(and another thing that does seem quite common)?

Cheers, T i m

I doubt they would use simple words like "left" and "right"
in documenting your case. There would be posterior and
anterior, superior and inferior, distal and proximal,
port and starboard, roll pitch yaw.

They always strive to use language you would not use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatom...ms_of_location

Paul

On 12/04/2021 18:31, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

But then I guess that the focus (on technical content) may distract
from 'checking' for spelling (if they don't pop out at you). A classic
one seen here is 'teh' instead of 'the'?

I wonder if that is down to the brain being faster than being able to type.

Possibly?

Don;t forget that the keyboard is designed to slow typing down.

The 'qwerty' keyboard you mean ... I thought it was more to balance
the speed out (and so make it faster)?

A disputed reason is so the hammers were less likely to interfere and
clash for high speed typing.

If you want a faster keyboard, then many records have been set with the
Dvorak keyboard.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:10:25 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 05:54:46 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

--
Senile Rodent about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID:

BRUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 05:23:58 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the attention-starved trolling senile asshole's latest troll****
unread

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

#Paul wrote:
NY wrote:
It was quite a shock to read something which was *so* illiterate from
someone who would have passed his A levels to get to university ...

When I went though secondary school, it was not uncommon for
pupils on the science/maths side of the distribution to have
dropped any subject that required them to write essays; just
as the other "humanities" group had dropped science and
maths subjects as soon as possible; naturally, this greatly
exacerbated the weaknesses of both groups.

#Paul

But you know why this is.

It's not rocket science.

A humanities professor, by design, cannot give a mark
higher than C to a STEM student. The STEM students know
this.

Now, in my class, was the gentleman who made the highest
marks in the university, in the year we graduated. He
wasn't a talkative individual. I was relating to him one
day, my curriculum plan, and how I'd sworn an oath, not
to take any humanities while I was in university. Because
of the "C problem".

That elicited a smile. He said "that's what I did". And
it paid off for him, because in addition to his degree,
he was given the medal for the year. If he'd taken just
one English course, he would likely have been doomed.

If the humanities professors were straight shooters,
we wouldn't have to do these things.

Paul

On 12 Apr 2021 at 21:26:28 BST, "Paul" wrote:

#Paul wrote:
NY wrote:
It was quite a shock to read something which was *so* illiterate from
someone who would have passed his A levels to get to university ...

When I went though secondary school, it was not uncommon for
pupils on the science/maths side of the distribution to have
dropped any subject that required them to write essays; just
as the other "humanities" group had dropped science and
maths subjects as soon as possible; naturally, this greatly
exacerbated the weaknesses of both groups.

#Paul

But you know why this is.

It's not rocket science.

A humanities professor, by design, cannot give a mark
higher than C to a STEM student. The STEM students know
this.


IME, things have moved on, and grades in the 90s are not uncommon. I'm
expecting somebody to break the 100 barrier some time soon . . .


--
Cheers, Rob

On 12/04/2021 10:59, Andy Burns wrote:
charles wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

charles wrote:

In chemisty? Is ita sulphate or a sulphide?

Sulfide or sulfate according to IUPAC

could well be, I never learned chemisty

It only changed from the English to American spelling in 1990.

And what happened to sulphites?

I recall picking someone up on a newsgroup a while back who had confused
prescribe and proscribe...

Andy

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 10:54 am, charles wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
charles wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:

I have long thought it wrong to mark down for spelling and grammar,
except in languages.

In chemisty? Is ita sulphate or a sulphide?

Sulfide or sulfate according to IUPAC

could well be, I never learned chemisty

Learning chemistry also crucially includes learning how to spell the terms
used, many of which are only subtly different from each other.

But for some reason I have never had a problem with spelling
the different chemistry terms correctly, but always have had
with the spelling of the more complicated english words.

Same with the use of their, there etc, never had a problem with those
either.

But do have a problem with spelling obscessed, rabbitted, occassional etc.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

But then I guess that the focus (on technical content) may distract
from 'checking' for spelling (if they don't pop out at you). A classic
one seen here is 'teh' instead of 'the'?

I wonder if that is down to the brain being faster than being able to
type.

Possibly?

Don;t forget that the keyboard is designed to slow typing down.

The 'qwerty' keyboard you mean ... I thought it was more to balance
the speed out (and so make it faster)?

Nope, to stop the arms with the letters on them jamming
when those letters are used too close in time.

And while I'm here could you try the link below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0jcu9o06ph...41.23.png?dl=0

it was on facebook an image whose colour showns you whether you or right
brained or left brained.
For me it was left brained, but also my computer was using it;s left
processors as I ttried colour picking
and that too was a green colour, maybe my right processors are missing :-0

anyway let me know what you see.

A trainer? ;-) Do you know anyone who sees any pink?

The other thing I noticed was the annoying "UR" usage guess that will
annoy you roo.

Yeah, I've never really received that sort of thing. It's not wrong,
it's just an abbreviation, like m8 (I don't think I've ever sent that
either) and not really the same as 'we was' or 'anythink'.

Back on the words / spelling thing, I am reminded constantly (TV and
ITRW) how many people *say* 'anythinK' but I wonder what percentage of
them would write is like that?

If I heard that I'd write it as anyfink.

Only by those who might also say 'fink' and 'fought'. I've heard
several otherwise well-spoken people on the TV, presenters and the
like repeatedly saying 'anythink'. It's nearly as annoying as hearing
them say the letter H. ;-(


And when young my parents corrected me if I ever said 'we was' and why
it seems so strange that so many people also seem to get that wrong?

Yes that is weird.

And it's so commonly used in conversation so comes up pretty
frequently.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:54:28 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the senile cretin's latest troll**** unread


--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:57:32 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


The 'qwerty' keyboard you mean ... I thought it was more to balance
the speed out (and so make it faster)?

Nope, to stop the arms with the letters on them jamming
when those letters are used too close in time.

Someone provided that answer already, you trolling piece of senile ****!
What in hell makes you believe any answer will only be valid when you senile
trolling asshole confirm it?

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:12:54 -0400, Paul
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I think I'd be more worried if they didn't know their left from right
(and another thing that does seem quite common)?

I doubt they would use simple words like "left" and "right"
in documenting your case.

What else is either side of the lateral plane?

There would be posterior and
anterior, superior and inferior, distal and proximal,
port and starboard, roll pitch yaw.

Right and left ... and I don't think dextra ac sinistra would help
much (if you didn't know your a dextra ad sinistram). ;-)

Why do you think they generally check (with the patient) and often
several times before carrying out a procedure on something on the left
or right ... and even mark it up with a Sharpie. ;-)

They always strive to use language you would not use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatom...ms_of_location

And used to write it in a scrawl that I'm not sure even they could
read back the next day. ;-)

Luckily computerisation of most surgeries mean that it's in a real
font these days. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Davidm wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:44:08 +0100, wrote:

From "The Week":
University tutors are being told not to mark down work for spelling
mistakes because insisting on correct English could be seen as
“homogenous north European, white, male, elite”. The Times says several
institutions are adopting “inclusive assessments” and Hull University
says it will “challenge the status quo” by dropping the requirement for
a high level of written and spoken English.
If they can't write a decent CV they won't even get a job interview to
show how smart they might be, (by decent I mean not full of
grammatical or spelling errors).

At interview they will also be judged on their ability to communicate
effectively, which means a decent standard of spoken english (or other
language relevant to the county they are in).

Modern companies accept electronic submissions
of resumes.

Computers sort through the resumes.

A smart submitter, lards up the resume with
keywords, raising the weighting of the resume.

"Know Powerpoint, Excel, MSWord"

The resume then no longer follows a humanities
professors idea of a good time. It looks like
a sporge web page on the Internet.

There will have to be some other examination, to
determine literacy.

IBM was ahead of its time, when it instituted
"entrance exams" for prospective employees. Not
trusting a transcript, that's what you do. Make
a separate filtering step. The few former IBM people
I've run into, will not tell you what goes on
in that exam.

Paul

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/04/2021 09:44, wrote:
From "The Week":
University tutors are being told not to mark down work for spelling
mistakes because insisting on correct English could be seen as
"homogenous north European, white, male, elite.. The Times says
several
institutions are adopting "inclusive assessments. and Hull
University
says it will "challenge the status quo. by dropping the requirement
for
a high level of written and spoken English.

I have long thought it wrong to mark down for spelling and grammar,
except in languages. Exams/assessments are for candidates to
demonstrate
a clear understanding and ability in their chosen subjects, not to
test
their knowledge of a different subject. Why should someone be marked
down in Physics, for poor spelling, when they are showing an excellent
grasp of the subject?

In chemisty? Is ita sulphate or a sulphide?

The pretty well universal requirement for GCSE English Language should
ensure that students and workers can spell use grammar reasonably
correctly (if they make the effort) and should not be tested during
other exams.

MW or mW. It matters

But color or colour doesn't.

those two both mean the same thing

Precisely so it makes no sense to lose points for using the wrong one.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 18:31, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

But then I guess that the focus (on technical content) may distract
from 'checking' for spelling (if they don't pop out at you). A classic
one seen here is 'teh' instead of 'the'?

I wonder if that is down to the brain being faster than being able to
type.

Possibly?

Don;t forget that the keyboard is designed to slow typing down.

The 'qwerty' keyboard you mean ... I thought it was more to balance
the speed out (and so make it faster)?

A disputed reason is so the hammers were less likely to interfere and
clash for high speed typing.

It isnt disputed by anyone with even half a clue.

If you want a faster keyboard, then many records have been set with the
Dvorak keyboard.

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote

Yes but I also feel that in any customer facing job any applicant has to
be able to make themselves understood and not offend people by bad accents
or clumsy use of English. That is patently not the case at the moment
when I speak to customer services of companies on the phone and many
healthcare professionals. Its so easy to fix with some training, after
all.

No its not with accents.

Also the clueless way these people approach disability as if its a problem
when its only a problem of their companies making in not considering
accessibility in the first place. Take for instance the lateral flow covid
test. Blind people cannot see the result yet it has been proved with
pregnancy tests that a tactile version is easy to make and produce for no
extra cost.

Can't say I have much experience with pregnancy tests.

I find it hard to believe that there is no extra cost
and don’t see why everyone should be paying more
for the tiny number who are blind.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 09:44, wrote:
From "The Week":
University tutors are being told not to mark down work for spelling
mistakes because insisting on correct English could be seen as
"homogenous north European, white, male, elite". The Times says several
institutions are adopting "inclusive assessments" and Hull University
says it will "challenge the status quo" by dropping the requirement for
a high level of written and spoken English.

I have long thought it wrong to mark down for spelling and grammar,
except in languages. Exams/assessments are for candidates to demonstrate
a clear understanding and ability in their chosen subjects, not to test
their knowledge of a different subject. Why should someone be marked down
in Physics, for poor spelling, when they are showing an excellent grasp
of the subject?

The pretty well universal requirement for GCSE English Language should
ensure that students and workers can spell use grammar reasonably
correctly (if they make the effort) and should not be tested during other
exams.

Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote

This was how American English had all the differences it has, though I
have to say, not all are bad.

Yeah, I prefer most of them and even you poms have come
to accept stuff like OK, TV and even "my bad"etc at times.

Reversing the or and e in centre is more sensible for a start.

Yep. Same with fiber optic.

Incidentally, we Blind want to claim back the word to mean merely without
sight, not as its being used at the moment to mean ignorant which
undermines blind people.

I heard a politician the other day say we were blind to the details of the
problem until recently, which translates to we were ignorant of the
details until recently,

Nope, blind in the sense of not seeing the problem.

Blind people are not ignorant, well no more than the rest of the public at
any rate.

Those blind from birth are ignorant about how colors look.

Blind drunk implies blind people stagger about as if drunk,

Nope.

well not to my knowledge we don't.


wrote in message
...
From "The Week":
University tutors are being told not to mark down work for spelling
mistakes because insisting on correct English could be seen as
"homogenous north European, white, male, elite". The Times says several
institutions are adopting "inclusive assessments" and Hull University
says it will "challenge the status quo" by dropping the requirement for a
high level of written and spoken English.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:43:26 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:49:12 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
his particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On 12/04/2021 22:19, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 18:31, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

But then I guess that the focus (on technical content) may distract
from 'checking' for spelling (if they don't pop out at you). A classic
one seen here is 'teh' instead of 'the'?

I wonder if that is down to the brain being faster than being able
to type.

Possibly?

Don;t forget that the keyboard is designed to slow typing down.

The 'qwerty' keyboard you mean ... I thought it was more to balance
the speed out (and so make it faster)?

A disputed reason is so the hammers were less likely to interfere and
clash for high speed typing.

It isnt disputed by anyone with even half a clue.

There are a number of links to the history of the Query keyboard than
debunk the idea.

Just one of these with a greater 'clue':

https://www.newscientist.com/article...erty-keyboard/

Quote:
One often-repeated explanation is that it was designed to €œslow the
typist down€� in order to stop the mechanism from jamming, a bug that
dogged earlier designs. This was supposedly achieved by keeping common
letter pairs apart.

But that cannot be true. E and R, the second most common letter pair in
English, are next to one another. T and H, the most common of all, are
near neighbours. A statistical analysis in 1949 found that a QWERTY
keyboard actually has more close pairs than a keyboard arranged at random.

Another urban myth is that it enabled salesmen to impress customers by
rapidly typing €œTYPE WRITER QUOTE€� from the top row. Its a nice idea €“
and it does seem unlikely that these letters would appear together by
chance €“ but there is no historical evidence for it.

Perhaps a more convincing though prosaic reason is that the keyboard is
simply a semi-random rearrangement of the original piano-style keyboard.

Well probably never know. A century after Sholes finalised the
keyboard, historian Jan Noyes of Loughborough University published a
lengthy analysis concluding: €œThere appears €¦ to be no obvious reason
for the placement of letters in the QWERTY layout.

On 12/04/2021 23:05, Tim Streater wrote:
On 12 Apr 2021 at 23:03:37 BST, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/04/2021 22:19, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 18:31, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

But then I guess that the focus (on technical content) may distract
from 'checking' for spelling (if they don't pop out at you). A classic
one seen here is 'teh' instead of 'the'?

I wonder if that is down to the brain being faster than being able
to type.

Possibly?

Don;t forget that the keyboard is designed to slow typing down.

The 'qwerty' keyboard you mean ... I thought it was more to balance
the speed out (and so make it faster)?

A disputed reason is so the hammers were less likely to interfere and
clash for high speed typing.

It isnt disputed by anyone with even half a clue.

There are a number of links to the history of the Query keyboard than
debunk the idea.

Just one of these with a greater 'clue':

https://www.newscientist.com/article...erty-keyboard/

Quote:
One often-repeated explanation is that it was designed to €œslow the
typist down€� in order to stop the mechanism from jamming, a bug that
dogged earlier designs. This was supposedly achieved by keeping common
letter pairs apart.

But that cannot be true. E and R, the second most common letter pair in
English, are next to one another. T and H, the most common of all, are
near neighbours. A statistical analysis in 1949 found that a QWERTY
keyboard actually has more close pairs than a keyboard arranged at random.

Another urban myth is that it enabled salesmen to impress customers by
rapidly typing €œTYPE WRITER QUOTE€� from the top row. Its a nice idea €“
and it does seem unlikely that these letters would appear together by
chance €“ but there is no historical evidence for it.

Perhaps a more convincing though prosaic reason is that the keyboard is
simply a semi-random rearrangement of the original piano-style keyboard.

Well probably never know. A century after Sholes finalised the
keyboard, historian Jan Noyes of Loughborough University published a
lengthy analysis concluding: €œThere appears €¦ to be no obvious reason
for the placement of letters in the QWERTY layout.

And, equally, there is no reason to change it.

There is if you want efficiency, but the investment would be huge, in
terms of hardware and the human side of relearning a skill.

It is said you could get more than a 10% increase in typing rate for a
fast touch typist if you had a more efficient layout.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:26:28 -0400, Paul wrote:

#Paul wrote:
NY wrote:
It was quite a shock to read something which was *so* illiterate from
someone who would have passed his A levels to get to university ...

When I went though secondary school, it was not uncommon for pupils on
the science/maths side of the distribution to have dropped any subject
that required them to write essays; just as the other "humanities"
group had dropped science and maths subjects as soon as possible;
naturally, this greatly exacerbated the weaknesses of both groups.

#Paul

But you know why this is.

It's not rocket science.

A humanities professor, by design, cannot give a mark higher than C to a
STEM student. The STEM students know this.

In my case, it was the way the school worked. They had the old fashioned
notion that 'arts' and 'science' were so different that no-ne could do
both.

There were different sixth form groups afor arts and sciences. And they
were timetabled against each other.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 22:19, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 18:31, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

But then I guess that the focus (on technical content) may distract
from 'checking' for spelling (if they don't pop out at you). A
classic
one seen here is 'teh' instead of 'the'?

I wonder if that is down to the brain being faster than being able to
type.

Possibly?

Don;t forget that the keyboard is designed to slow typing down.

The 'qwerty' keyboard you mean ... I thought it was more to balance
the speed out (and so make it faster)?

A disputed reason is so the hammers were less likely to interfere and
clash for high speed typing.

It isnt disputed by anyone with even half a clue.

There are a number of links to the history of the Query keyboard than
debunk the idea.

None that explain why that weird layout was chosen.

Just one of these with a greater 'clue':

https://www.newscientist.com/article...erty-keyboard/

Those are the clowns that were actually stupid enough to
believe that spontaneous human combustion is possible.

Quote:
One often-repeated explanation is that it was designed to €œslow the typist
down€� in order to stop the mechanism from jamming, a bug that dogged
earlier designs. This was supposedly achieved by keeping common letter
pairs apart.

That wasnt the reason, it was to avoid the arms the letters are
on the end of from jamming together in the close to the paper
position.

But that cannot be true. E and R, the second most common letter pair in
English, are next to one another. T and H, the most common of all, are
near neighbours. A statistical analysis in 1949 found that a QWERTY
keyboard actually has more close pairs than a keyboard arranged at random.

Another urban myth is that it enabled salesmen to impress customers by
rapidly typing €œTYPE WRITER QUOTE€� from the top row. Its a nice idea €“
and it does seem unlikely that these letters would appear together by
chance €“ but there is no historical evidence for it.

Perhaps a more convincing though prosaic reason is that the keyboard is
simply a semi-random rearrangement of the original piano-style keyboard.

The much more convincing reason is to stop the
raised arms with the letters on them from jamming.

Well probably never know. A century after Sholes finalised the keyboard,
historian Jan Noyes of Loughborough University published a lengthy
analysis concluding: €œThere appears €¦ to be no obvious reason for the
placement of letters in the QWERTY layout.

Just because one fool is too stupid to work it out...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:26:28 -0400, Paul wrote:

#Paul wrote:
NY wrote:
It was quite a shock to read something which was *so* illiterate from
someone who would have passed his A levels to get to university ...

When I went though secondary school, it was not uncommon for pupils on
the science/maths side of the distribution to have dropped any subject
that required them to write essays; just as the other "humanities"
group had dropped science and maths subjects as soon as possible;
naturally, this greatly exacerbated the weaknesses of both groups.

#Paul

But you know why this is.

It's not rocket science.

A humanities professor, by design, cannot give a mark higher than C to a
STEM student. The STEM students know this.

In my case, it was the way the school worked. They had the old fashioned
notion that 'arts' and 'science' were so different that no-ne could do
both.

There were different sixth form groups afor arts and sciences. And they
were timetabled against each other.

Ours had two groups, one for the smarter kids and the
other for the stupids who werent going to uni and who
would end up with mundane jobs like shop keepers etc.

English was compulsory for both and involved crap like Shakespeare.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 22:19, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 18:31, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

But then I guess that the focus (on technical content) may distract
from 'checking' for spelling (if they don't pop out at you). A
classic
one seen here is 'teh' instead of 'the'?

I wonder if that is down to the brain being faster than being able to
type.

Possibly?

Don;t forget that the keyboard is designed to slow typing down.

The 'qwerty' keyboard you mean ... I thought it was more to balance
the speed out (and so make it faster)?

A disputed reason is so the hammers were less likely to interfere and
clash for high speed typing.

It isnt disputed by anyone with even half a clue.

There are a number of links to the history of the Query keyboard than
debunk the idea.

None that explain why that weird layout was chosen.

Just one of these with a greater 'clue':

https://www.newscientist.com/article...erty-keyboard/

Those are the clowns that were actually stupid enough to
believe that spontaneous human combustion is possible.

Quote:
One often-repeated explanation is that it was designed to €œslow the
typist down€� in order to stop the mechanism from jamming, a bug that
dogged earlier designs. This was supposedly achieved by keeping common
letter pairs apart.

That wasnt the reason, it was to avoid the arms the letters are on the
end of from jamming together in the close to the paper position.

In fact those clowns got that backwards. The letter pairs that are
commonly seen together in words are placed adjacent on the
keyboard so that a touch typist doesnt press them both at
the same time because the same finger is used for both, so
the arms wont both be raised at the same time.

But that cannot be true. E and R, the second most common letter pair in
English, are next to one another. T and H, the most common of all, are
near neighbours.

For the reason I have now spelt out. Same with I and o and a and s.

A statistical analysis in 1949 found that a QWERTY keyboard actually has
more close pairs than a keyboard arranged at random.

For the reason I just spelt out. The fool that
wrote that bit hasnt got a ****ing clue.

Another urban myth is that it enabled salesmen to impress customers by
rapidly typing €œTYPE WRITER QUOTE€� from the top row. Its a nice idea €“
and it does seem unlikely that these letters would appear together by
chance €“ but there is no historical evidence for it.

Perhaps a more convincing though prosaic reason is that the keyboard is
simply a semi-random rearrangement of the original piano-style keyboard.

In fact its nothing even remotely like semi random at all.

The much more convincing reason is to stop the
raised arms with the letters on them from jamming.

Well probably never know. A century after Sholes finalised the keyboard,
historian Jan Noyes of Loughborough University published a lengthy
analysis concluding: €œThere appears €¦ to be no obvious reason for the
placement of letters in the QWERTY layout.

Just because one fool is too stupid to work it out...

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:15:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:09:17 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 12/04/2021 22:06, Paul wrote:
.... snipped

IBM was ahead of its time, when it instituted
"entrance exams" for prospective employees. Not
trusting a transcript, that's what you do. Make
a separate filtering step. The few former IBM people
I've run into, will not tell you what goes on
in that exam.

** Paul
I'm an ex-IBMer who started at the Hursley lab as a so-called
"experienced grad" in 1982; there were several interviews but no
entrance exam.

On 12/04/2021 21:30, RJH wrote:
On 12 Apr 2021 at 21:26:28 BST, "Paul" wrote:

#Paul wrote:
NY wrote:
It was quite a shock to read something which was *so* illiterate from
someone who would have passed his A levels to get to university ...

When I went though secondary school, it was not uncommon for
pupils on the science/maths side of the distribution to have
dropped any subject that required them to write essays; just
as the other "humanities" group had dropped science and
maths subjects as soon as possible; naturally, this greatly
exacerbated the weaknesses of both groups.

#Paul

But you know why this is.

It's not rocket science.

A humanities professor, by design, cannot give a mark
higher than C to a STEM student. The STEM students know
this.


IME, things have moved on, and grades in the 90s are not uncommon. I'm
expecting somebody to break the 100 barrier some time soon . . .

Back in the days of 'O'-level maths, the exam (JMB) consisted of two 3
hour papers, each marked out of 113. Pupils were not expected to get
above 100 and the numbers were used directly as percentages. So 90/113
on one paper and 80/113 on the other, got you 85% - yes, a very odd
idea, but that was how it worked.

In the mocks, a classmate scored something like 108/113 and 98/113, but
was only given 99% ... because "You are not allowed to score more than
100% on a single paper"

On 13 Apr 2021 07:08:43 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip troll ****e

It is said you could get more than a 10% increase in typing rate for a
fast touch typist if you had a more efficient layout.

Gosh, 10%, eh? That'll *really* get 'em going.

Don't forget, for *that* type of troll that hypothetical 10% would be
*way* more than enough to get into a one sided debate about.

Cheers, T i m

On 12/04/2021 20:55, newshound wrote:
On 12/04/2021 10:19, nightjar wrote:
On 12/04/2021 10:03, Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/04/2021 09:44, wrote:
Â*From "The Week":
University tutors are being told not to mark down work for spelling
mistakes because insisting on correct English could be seen as
€œhomogenous north European, white, male, elite€�. The Times says
several institutions are adopting €œinclusive assessments€� and Hull
University says it will €œchallenge the status quo€� by dropping the
requirement for a high level of written and spoken English.

I have long thought it wrong to mark down for spelling and grammar,
except in languages. Exams/assessments are for candidates to
demonstrate a clear understanding and ability in their chosen
subjects, not to test their knowledge of a different subject. Why
should someone be marked down in Physics, for poor spelling, when
they are showing an excellent grasp of the subject?

The pretty well universal requirement for GCSE English Language
should ensure that students and workers can spell use grammar
reasonably correctly (if they make the effort) and should not be
tested during other exams.

When I went to university you couldn't get in without first having
passed the Use of English exam.

Many of us had to do a Latin unseen translation with the entrance
exam....I was told that Scientists didn't have to pass it.

That seems likely. However, the Use of English exam was for everybody.
In fact, in my school the highest mark - 98% - went to somebody in the
science stream.

--
Colin Bignell

On 12/04/2021 15:18, wrote:
On 12/04/2021 14:57, Davidm wrote:
(or other
language relevant to the *county* they are in).

Err, would that be Geordie, Yorkshire, Cornish ... ?
-sorry, I couldn't resist ;-)

Back in the day - and its still slightly true today - everyone had
English they spoke at home and English they were taught at school.

Standard RP 'upper middle class' English, which, though mocked, was
*universally understood*.

And there is a world of difference between a different lilt (Welsh
people speaking English), different pronunciation - Mancunians saying
'uz' instead of 'us' - or a different language altogether, like
Glaswegian....

(I remember my Norfolk grandfather refused to accept the French invaders
pronunciation. The car lived in the 'garridge', not a poncey 'garage')...

--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".