[NTLK] Antireflective coating on a 120 touchscreen

[James Fraser]

Hello,

--- On Wed, 11/7/12, Frank Gruendel <newtontalk at pda-soft.de> wrote:

>> These will work fine in a 130, too, but you'd use the antireflective
>> coating.
 
> I shouldn't be writing E-Mail when I should be in bed. What
> I meant was that you would lose the antireflective coating. Sorry for 
> this stupid mistake.

If it helps matters any, the context in which you employed the word "use" made your full meaning* clear.

Perhaps my standards are not that high, but I think that as long as you don't catch yourself operating your mouse in this manner late at night:

http://tinyurl.com/aagzeer

...you are doing fine.


(With apologies to the folks at Nuance Communications and other firms who make speech recognition products that probably deserve to be taken seriously.)


Best,

James Fraser

*My own (-not- to be taken seriously) addlepated theory of how memory works is that memory is accessed sequentially (albeit a very *fast* sequential access ["the speed of thought" and all that]).  

When you get tired, the particular memory address you were trying to access is missed and, instead, you end up accessing an address near the one you were trying to get (e.g. the word "use" is a partial homophone of the word "lose," so you end up with the former rather than the latter).

This is a phenomenon that has, apparently, actually been given a name (I believe it is known as "phonemic paraphasia").  

My own guess is that this condition is caused by a lack of the "brain energy" (my own addlepated phrase) needed to make the correct connection, which is why people (not just Frank) can end up confusing words that form what is known as a "minimal pair" (i.e. two words that differ in only one sound [like, well, "use" and "lose."])

However, as near as I can gather, the exact cause of that sort of thing isn't entirely known yet.  Diagnosing a problem, alas, is not the same thing as solving it. : /

(NB: I Am Not A Neurologist.)