Re: VMs: semiotics & vms: homepage

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Gabriele,

> Actually, I don't understand what you're saying. An example for this model
> is the "Morse code", where there's a strict biunivocal correlation between
> "letters" and "impulses". If you input a plain text in a PC, it's really
> easy for the machine to convert it in morse code and viceversa.

Well, not quite: Morse code telegraphers also developed a culture of 
abbreviations (such as "R" for "ready", which - in a way Professor Eco 
would probably applaud - I believe turned into "Roger" in radio-speak). I 
guess most media are likely to have a similar culture spring up around them 
requiring "intervention" to be comprehended, so your "algorithm model" may 
be a slightly idealistic example.

> >It is quite easy to right an algorithm that reinserts vowels (or anything
> >left out for that matter). Ambiguous cases can be resolved resorting to
> >other algorithms, similar to syntax checkers. In fact, modern speech
> >recognition programs are perfect examples of such algorithms.
>
> Correct. Good point. :-)

...though I'd hesitate to call even state-of-the-art speech recognition 
programmes "perfect" just yet! :-)

> See above, there's a big difference between random and meaningless. One of
> the "Golden Rules" of communication is that "it's impossible not to
> communicate". Even a book containing absolutely random text has many
> meanings (for a semiotic point of view): its images, the layout...

Errm.... "has many *possible* meanings", surely? :-9

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling..... 


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list