what's wrong with lisps!!?
442373
NOTHING!!!\n\n\nI have one :-D\nAnd I think it sounds lovely....\nAnd other people think I sound cute and sweet.\n\n\nThe way I speak is part of my personality, and I wouldn't change that for anything!
310733
Why?\n\n\n\n\n--- ► λ ◄
373116
They have a keyboard with various "strokes."  Once entering the appropriate strokes for a symbol, it combines them into one.  I'm to understand it's a bit annoying to use.
170542
KLOIUJKILOKI**()!$@!*@^@*!(!&***!(*!HHHJKHJHJH>>>>>/
921902
I'm watching this on my old mac so it may just be my problem, but what I see looks a lot like what Japanese text turns into when the computer uses wrong language set or there's compatibility problem with unicode fonts -- in other words, garbage.
74568
Yes he does indeed have a lisp, at least when he sings. It's kind of a cute lisp, maybe it'll go away once he hits puberty.
387451
lol no y wuld ne1 do tat?//??!?\n\nHaha, just kidding. It's really sad that people can't take the time to make sure they're using proper spelling and grammar, and it makes them look terribly unintelligent.
226384
You mean bucal cancer?\nBreath cancer is a very unfortunate condition for women with lisps. I sincerely hope you have none of the three.
334178
IDK\n\n\n\n\n--- ► λ ◄
464356
I guess the cause is unknown.\n\nThis might help:\n\nA lisp is a Functional Speech Disorder (FSD). A functional speech disorder is a difficulty learning to make a specific speech sound, or a few specific speech sounds.  \n\nThe word 'functional'  means that the cause of the disorder is not known. Indeed, in some (recent)  literature FSDs are referred to as "speech delay of unknown origin" or "speech disorder of unknown origin".  \n\nFunctional speech disorders, or speech delays of unknown origin, may persist into adulthood. They can be treated successfully in motivated children and adults. ( http://members.tripod.com/Caroline_Bowen/lisping.htm )\n\nYou may already know this:\n\nFour types of lisp \n\n1. Interdental (frontal) lisp\nIn an interdental lisp (or frontal lisp) the tongue protrudes between the front teeth and the air-flow is directed forwards. The /s/ and /z/ sound like 'th'. \n\nChildren developing speech along typical lines may have interdental lisps until they are about 4½ - after which they disappear. If they don't 'disappear' an SLP assessment is indicated.\n\nInterdental /s/\nWords such as 'soup', 'missing' and 'pass', which all contain the voiceless alveolar fricative consonant /s/ are pronounced 'thoop', 'mithing' and 'path'. The voiceless 'th' sound that occurs in a word like 'thing' (or a sound very much like it) replaces the /s/. \n\nInterdental /z/\nWords like 'zoo', 'easy' and 'buzz' which all contain the voiced alveolar fricative consonant /z/ are pronounced 'thoo', 'eethee' and 'buth'. The voiced 'th' sound that occurs in a word like 'them' (or a sound very much like it) replaces the /z/. \n\n2. 'Dentalised lisp'\n'Dentalised lisp' is not an 'official' diagnostic term. It is an expression (like 'dentalised production') that SLPs use to describe the way an individual is producing certain sounds. The tongue rests on, or pushes against, the front teeth, the air-flow is directed forwards, producing a slightly muffled sound.\n\nTypically developing children (in terms of their speech) may produce dentalised variants of /s/ and /z/ until around 4½ years - and then grow out of it. If they don't grow out of it, an SLP assessment is indicated.\n\n3. Lateral lisp\nLateral lisps are not found in typical speech development. The tongue position for a lateral lisp is very close to the normal position for /l/ and the sound is made with the air-flow directed over the sides of the tongue. Because of the way it sounds, this sort of lisp is sometimes referred to as a 'slushy ess' or a 'slushy lisp'. A lateral lisp often sounds 'wet' or 'spitty'.\n\nUnlike interdental and dentalised lisps, lateral lisps are not characteristic of normal development. An SLP assessment is indicated for anyone with a lateral lisp.\n\n4. Palatal lisp\nPalatal lisps are not found in typical speech development. Here, the mid-section of the tongue comes in contact with the soft palate, quite far back. If you try to produce a /ç/ - or a 'h' closely followed by a 'y', and prolong it, you more or less have the sound. \n\nUnlike interdental and dentalised lisps, palatal lisps are not characteristic of normal development. An SLP assessment is indicated for anyone with a palatal lisp. \n\n'sh', 'zh', 'ch', 'j'\nSometimes children and adults who lisp when they attempt to say /s/ and /z/ also have tongue placement problems when they try to say 'sh' as in 'shoe', 'zh' as in measure, 'ch' as in 'chair', and 'j' as in 'jump'. \n\nThey may dentalise these sounds, or produce them interdentally, or produce them with lateral air escape, or with excessive palate to tongue contact. \n\n"...everything seems interden
799447
something is wrong with the sentence structure.
258833
(defun flatten (lst)\n (cond\n  ((null lst) nil)\n  ((atom lst) (list lst))\n  ('t (append (flatten (car lst)) (flatten (cdr lst))))))
172557
See if you can unscramble these words. You can read words with all the letters mixed up except for the first and last. Got an email like this not long ago.
752305
Find the error. It's impossible!\nCapital "F" and capital "I" and a "." or an"!".\nThe alphabet is just "a red herring"
446168
Are there languages which allow a keyword to be\naccepted as an identifier.\n\nYes, most of the old (incomprehensible) languages did that (like PL/1) i think but i'm not sure, i'm not very used to obsolete languages)....\n\nAh, so modern languages like C are "comprehensible"? Perhaps you should spend some time looking at the submissions to the Obfuscated C contests.\n\nEveryone loves to give PL/I examples like:\n\nIF IF = THEN THEN THEN = ELSE ELSE ELSE = END END\n\n[Actually IF IF = THEN THEN = ELSE; ELSE ELSE = END; END -John]\n\n(which I think is valid PL/I - it's been years, but it's at least close) but that simply proves that you *can* write incomprehensible code in PL/I. So? Show me a language in which you *can't* write incomprehen-sible code.\n\nWhat gets forgotten in all this is the *reason* PL/I didn't reserve its keywords. The PL/I designers knew they were designing what was, for its time, a very large language, which was intended to be useful to very different groups of programmers. History lesson: PL/I and the 360 series were developed at the same time. Originally, PL/I was intended\nto be *the* programming language for the 360. Before the 360, IBM and others in the business had two lines of machines, one for business (for IBM, the 1400 series), one for scientific work (the 709x). Business machines often did decimal arithmetic, had instructions for string manipulation, BCD support, and such, and were programmed in languages like COBOL. Scientific machines usually used binary arithmetic, supported floating point, and were programmed in languages like FORTRAN (US) and Algol (Europe). One fundamental idea in the development 360\nwas to have one line of machines to serve both markets. PL/I was similarly intended to replace both COBOL and PL/I. One of the great comments of the era was that a committee of COBOL and FORTRAN experts sat down to design PL/I - and came up with a language that looked more like Algol than either. \n\nSince PL/I was large and served disparate markets, it was likely that most programmers would only be familiar with a subset of the language. Experience with COBOL - which had a long list of keywords, all reserved  - showed that avoiding all the keywords was a headache. It would be even more so if you had to avoid keywords that only applied to parts of\nthe language you didn't know. So the PL/I designers made the deliberate decision to avoid reserved keywords. Rather than criticizing as incomprehensible a language you know nothing about, take a look at it and find places where the language was made ugly or artificial to avoid reserving keywords. I'll bet you have a lot of trouble doing so.\n\nLest you think that long lists of (reserved) keywords is a feature only of obsolete languages, I suggest you look at the list for C++. I believe C++ reserves more keywords than PL/I had - and perhaps as many as COBOL at its worst did. (Certainly, modern C++ is a larger language the PL/I ever was.)\n\nOver the years, another cost of reserved keywords has become apparent: It becomes difficult to extend the language. You're faced with the Hobson's choice of adding a new readable keyword, thus breaking existing correct code; adding an unreadable keyword that's unlikely to conflict\nwith existing code; or reusing some existing keyword for a new purpose. There's often a bias toward the last of these -and you can see the results in languages like C and C++, where keywords like static and virtual have a variety of only very loosely related meanings.\n\nI suspect the main reason people have generally reserved keywords is two-fold: Language "style" has become fixed, and people want to use lexers and parser generators. Language "style" is hard to pin down, but it's clear that, whatever C "style" is, it's been a big winner - C and\nJava both have C "style". However, C "style" isn't compatible with non- r
702462
I would have to see the code.\n\nMove the fopen before the while and the fprintf before the curly braces.  Leave the fclose after the curly braces.\n\nFopen\nwhile {\n\nfprintf ;\n}\nfclose
803253
there has been alot of work done in A.I. in LISP, but outside of AI the language doesn't see much use. For versatility, some version of C++ would probably be the best. For ease of use, I understand that python is a pretty good choice at this point, but I don't have any personal experience with it.\n\nIf your planning on doing such a program over the web, PHP/MySQL would be a good choice, and it's free as well.