Linux-Advocacy Digest #927, Volume #30 Sat, 16 Dec 00 08:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Woofbert)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:28:33 GMT
Tom Wilson writes:
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Tom Wilson writes:
>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>>>> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about
>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>> You didn't say so.
>>>>>> I shouldn't need to say so for those who understand context.
>>>>>>> (See I can be a pendantic pain too. Your game is fun.)
>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing a game, Steve.
>>>>> Tholen...
>>>>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
>>>>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>>>> .....Along the femoral artery. It's quicker that way.
>>> Desperate for attention, eh Tom?
> Nah, desparate for a recursive twit filter..
So it can ultimately work on you?
>> Goddamn, Tholen... somebody offers you clever and helpful advice,
>> and you insult him in return.
>>
>> What a fucking ingrate you are.
> And, to think I was going to add that he do it in a hot bath so as
> not to cause himself undue pain...
Desperate for attention, eh Tom?
> You wound me, Tholen.
Illogical, Tom.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:43:43 GMT
In article <AEA_5.5798$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> >
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Gullixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote on 13 Dec 2000 15:06:01 GMT <91838p$1i0e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >Chad Myers wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Ah, the fusion thing. It has been expected that cheep fusion power
> > > >will be available in a 10 to 20 year timeframe since at least the
> > > >late '50s.
> >
> > Yes, I recall that sometime in the '80s some government agency
> > scheduled
> > a major breakthrough in fusion technology for the year 2001.
>
> Well, the Tokomak in Japan has reached marginal success. I remember
> reading near the end of last year that they had managed to sustain a
> reaction for some definite amount of time which proved the theory
> realistic. A breakthrough next year wouldn't suprise me.
(http://www-jt60.naka.jaeri.go.jp/)
Nevertheless, it's foolish to schedule breakthroughs.
> > The 4 H => 1 He + E reaction requires amazing temperatures and
> > pressures. IIRC, it's not even the reaction that happens in stars.
I was mistaken in this assertion.
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/procyc.html#c1)
> Isn't this the reaction that the Tokomak uses? It uses a super-heated
> (several billion degrees, IIRC) to create a mass of plasma.
No. No planned fusion project uses it. The temperatures needed for the
D-T reaction are are 40 million Kelvins.
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fusion.html).
In fact, Princeton's Tokamak reactor uses the DT reaction.
(http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/heidbrink.html).
"Tokamak," by the way, is a Russian neologism made from the roots of the
words Toroidal, Chamber, and Magnetic. I learned this at a museum in Oak
Ridge, TN. (Also
http://library.thinkquest.org/20331/types/fusion/tokamak.html )
Tritium has a half-life of 10 years, so there isn't any in seawater. It
has to be made from Lithium.
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fusion.html#c5)
Google is really great. You should learn to use it.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, InfernoSoft Datadroid
http://www.infernosoft.com/company/techsupport.html
"Inside every Microsoft application, there are
several simple programs trying to get out."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:55:26 GMT
Les Mikesell writes:
>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't already written
>>>>>> something logical.
>>>>> No, you are incorrectly speculating that I am presupposing.
>>>> Incorrect, given that I have what you wrote, therefore I do not need to
>>>> speculate.
>>> On the contrary, I never wrote anything about presupposing.
>> You did presuppose that I haven't already written something logical.
> No, that was an observation, not a supposition, and certainly not
> a presupposition.
Incorrect, given that you couldn't have observed something that hasn't
occured, Les.
>>> For someone used to using hjkl, anything else would be less intuitive.
>> Incorrect, given that intuition doesn't apply to something you already
>> know. Intuition applies to new things.
> No, it applies to old knowledge.
How does that contradict my statement that it applies to new things?
>>> Personally I almost never care about the fact of moving
>>> the cursor one position at a time and instead use a command that more
>>> closely represents my intention. In fact it is difficult to talk about
>>> 'wanting' the cursor to move one position in some direction or other
>>> in a context that would invoke an intuitive action.
>> Irrelevant to the issue of intuition.
> Not really - if you have to reason about why you need a command or
> how to construct it, it cannot be intuitive.
Writing something cogent involves thinking. Using your argument,
nothing could be intuitive, because thinking is always involved.
Not a very useful definition. I suggest you find a new one.
> A more direct mapping of the desired action to the required command
> can make it more intuitive.
How do make something "more direct"?
>>> I 'want' to postition
>>> to some particular text, a particular line or page, or to move the
>>> screen window to bring something else into view, and the closer the
>>> command to make this happen is to describing the action the more
>>> intuitive it is.
>> Not if you already know the command.
> It is a new situation, and may be a new combination of comand
> components.
DO I=1,100,3
is a new combination compared to
DO I=1,100,1
but it is not an intuitive situation.
>>>>> Both accept an appropriate numeric count
>>>> Which has nothing to do with needing to use hjkl.
>>> Precisely - orthogonal combinations are the point.
>> Yet you claimed that you need to use hjkl. I've demonstrated that you
>> don't need to use hjkl.
> When did I say you need to use hjkl?
LM] Not true. What if you want to look for something ("Please find the
LM] word "goose" in this document")?
]
DT] You don't use hjkl.
]
LM] You do if you want to move the screen a line one way or the other
LM] after finding the match.
> I said you may not be able to position to the desired location
> with control-u/d.
My comment about ^U and ^D came *after* you claimed that you do use
hjkl to move the screen a line one way or the other.
>>>>>> I said they were not intuitive for cursor movement. Get it right.
>>>>> Do you mean in an absolute sense or compared to some other
>>>>> keyboard character?
Why did you remove text here?
>> On the contrary, there are my responses to you for you to remember.
> They do not answer the question.
What question? You removed the relevant text.
>>>> I just did it without hjkl. But more importantly, considering that
>>>> the discussion is about viewing a document, why would you want to move
>>>> just a line? Is your screen only one line tall?
>>> My window sizes vary, depending on what I am doing, but often the
>>> portion of a file I want to see at a particular time exactly fills the
>>> screen and thus might need to be moved one line to position it
>>> correctly.
>> So, you need to move the cursor to the top or bottom of the screen to
>> produce that one line of motion using hjkl. So much for the touted
>> speed.
> I didn't say you had to do it with hjkl.
LM] Not true. What if you want to look for something ("Please find the
LM] word "goose" in this document")?
]
DT] You don't use hjkl.
]
LM] You do if you want to move the screen a line one way or the other
LM] after finding the match.
> I said you could do it in one command with the optional numeric prefix
> to j or k.
So, you're going to count the lines first to find out how far to move
the cursor to move the screen by one line? So much for the touted
speed.
>>>>>>> Can you repeat that a little slower?
>>>>>> I r r e l e v a n t , g i v e n t h a t w h a t w a s
>>>>>> b r o u g h t u p w a s t h e v i e w i n g o f a
>>>>>> d o c u m e n t , n o t t h e g i v i n g o f
>>>>>> c o m m a n d s t o a d o c u m e n t v i e w e r .
>>>>> Oh, then you are just mistaken.
>>>> Non sequitur. You asked me to repeat is a little slower, which I
>>>> did. The content did not change.
>>> No, it follows perfectly.
>> Incorrect, as I just finished explaining to you.
Note: no response.
>>> Before, I thought you might be merely confused.
>> You thought wrong.
Note: no response.
>>> Now that you have made it plain I understand that you are wrong
>>> instead.
>> Another example of your pontification.
> I humbly submit that my pontification is insignificant compared to yours.
What alleged pontification of mine?
>>>>> The point of bringing up the viewer was to discuss the command set.
>>>> And I stand by my claim that you do not need to use hjkl.
>>> OK, I don't really have an argument with that.
>> You did before, until I demonstrated how your claim is wrong.
> No, I never opposed the claim that you do not need to use hjkl.
LM] Not true. What if you want to look for something ("Please find the
LM] word "goose" in this document")?
]
DT] You don't use hjkl.
]
LM] You do if you want to move the screen a line one way or the other
LM] after finding the match.
> I showed that your use of control-u or control-d might not be
> a suitable substitute.
My comment about ^U and ^D came *after* you claimed that you do use
hjkl to move the screen a line one way or the other.
>>> Use what best represents your intention.
>> Irrelevant, give that the issue was what you claimed you needed, not
>> what best represents your intention.
> Your intention determines what you need.
And does not your claim match your intention?
>> The definition of editing implies changes. If no changes were made,
>> then no editing was done.
> Editing is a decision making process. Deciding not to make changes
> is as valid as making them.
The former results in no editing being done.
>>>>> but I don't do it blindly - at least when using
>>>>> an interactive screen editor as we are discussing.
>>>> Does anybody edit blindly?
>>> There are non-interactive ways to edit which are very useful, but
>>> they don't relate to a discussion of sreen editor commands.
>> There is a difference between "blind" and "non-interactive".
> I didn't mean editing by someone literally blind. I meant that in
> the decision-making process of editing, I view the document and
> thus need the commands for viewing.
And you don't need the commands for editing.
> And having the same command set in a viewer allows reusing knowlege
> of the commands.
Which does not represent intuition.
>>>>>> With comparable things, not the same thing. Brushing your teeth in
>>>>>> the morning is no longer intuitive, if it ever was.
>>>>> Perhaps it isn't for you.
>>>> Is it for you?
>>> It has been at times.
>> How so?
> There have been times that I have reused the knowlege of brushing
> on new teeth without reasoning.
That's not intuition, Les. The times you put your pants on without
reasoning also weren't intuitive. You really need to develop a
better understanding of the term.
>>>>> Elvis, vim, vile, emacs in viper-mode, emacs in vip-mode.
>>>> Did you notice something all these names have in common?
>>> Yes, they give hints that the command set will be intuitive for
>>> vi users.
>> A command set that you already know does not mean that the command
>> set is intuitive.
> It means that using that command set in a new situation will be
> intuitive.
Not if the command set is the same, because you already learned it.
Something learned is not something intuitive.
>>>> Having identical behavior doesn't make something intuitive. All you
>>>> have to tell someone is that "this behaves the same way as vi", and
>>>> you don't need to rely on intuition.
>>> I disagree so I guess if you want to continue, you will have to explain
>>> what yout think does make something intuitive instead of enumerating
>>> the things you think aren't.
>> It is essential that the function represent something new. It is
>> essential that no reference materials need to be consulted. What
>> you're doing is reusing existing knowledge.
> Using viper-mode within emacs is something new compared to
> vi. Among other differences it does not have the file size or
> line length limits of the original vi.
Irrelevant to the degree of similarity of the command set.
> So, it is different, and if you know vi you can reuse that knowlege
> in this new situation.
The ability to handle a larger file has nothing to do with the
command set, therefore the difference you have identified is
irrelevant.
>>> For example I think that once you understand what a steering wheel
>>> does on one device you will intuitively try to use it the same way
>>> if you find one on another device.
>> The fact that it is another device makes the situation new, unless
>> that "another device" is the identical to the one you already
>> understand.
> Vi and emacs are as different as an automobile and a tractor. Controlling
> them with the same command set is like controlling the vehicles with
> a steering wheel.
Oh really? I didn't know that vi had only a single two-dimensional
control.
>>> I don't see how the 'intuitiveness' of this re-use of knowledge is
>>> affected by the degree to which the devices in question differ.
>> Why not?
> Intuitiveness is in the mind of the participant and relates to the
> nature of the operation, not the surrounding context.
Irrelevant, given that I said nothing about the surrounding context
in my question above.
>>>> And just look at how many other products decided to go with those
>>>> "innovations": not many. Clones like elvis exist because some vi
>>>> users didn't want to learn a new editor on a PC. They were shunning
>>>> the innovations of the separate cursor keypad, the mouse, and so on.
>>> As usual you are wrong when you speculate wildly about motives.
>> As usual you pontificate about me being wrong.
> Correctly so.
What makes it correct for you to pontificate, Les?
>>> Clones of the command set like the vip-mode and viper-mode macros
>>> for emacs exist solely to allow the users to re-use their knowledge
>>> of the vi commands.
>> Which doesn't involve intuition.
> New situation, existing knowledge = intuitive use.
Hardly a new situation if the command set is identical. Intuition
comes into play when you don't know the commands in a new situation.
>>> Clones of the code were were done in general because the original
>>> was not freely available (containing the regexp code probably from
>>> 'ed' and under AT&T copyright). The *bsd version remains exactly
>>> for that reason. Clones like vim and elvis where done in order to
>>> keep the original terse and useful command set but extend the program
>>> in different ways generally not involving editing. In the gvim
>>> variation, vim goes all the way to adding GUI menus and mouse
>>> operations.
>> Shocking! You need to move your hand off the home row!
> No, you may still use something intuitive instead, even in this
> brave new situation.
Like picking up the mouse and talking to it:
"Computer... Computer..."
--Montgomery Scott
>>> In the character mode version you have the option of letting it have the
>>> mouse when running in an xterm (but there are reasons to prefer leaving
>>> normal X cut-and-paste alone). So, far from shunning innovation,
>>> the purpose of these clones is to add it.
>> Adding mouse operations defeats the purpose of the "keep the hands on
>> the keyboard" style of vi.
> There is no accounting for taste.
So much for your argument.
> [...]
Figures.
>>>> Since when is "vi" the same as "view"? One lets me do things; the
>>>> other does not.
>>> On unix machines, many programs have hard links with different names
>>> and act differently depending on the name used to invoke them. Vi and
>>> view are in fact different names for the same program, thus they
>>> are identical.
>> One lets me do things; the other does not, thus they do not behave in
>> identical ways.
> No, it is one thing, always behaving according to your commands.
Incorrect. Suppose I given view the ZZ command. It does not write
the file to disk and exit like vi does.
>> Ever play Monty Python's "Matching Tie and Handkerchief"?
>> Identical side of the record. Two quite different results.
> No.
Too bad.
>>>>>> And I keep asking you how many other editors use hjkl for cursor
>>>>>> movement. If you answer "zero", then there wouldn't be previous
>>>>>> experience with those keys for cursor movement in an editor. If
>>>>>> you don't answer "zero", give me the name of the editor. So far,
>>>>>> nobody has done that.
>>>>> Nobody realized you were incapable of finding facts for yourself.
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing an incapability.
>>> No, I was erroneously presupposing some sensibility.
>> I see that you're going the Aaron Kulkis route. No logical argument,
>> so you start spewing invective.
> The logical argument was that a sensible, cabable person would find
> out for himself that there are a variety of editors and other things
> using the vi command set.
Ah, so you put the burden of proof for your claims on the other
person, and if they choose to stick to the usual practice of having
the person making the claim provide their substantiation, you label
them as not sensible and/or incapable. How convenient for you.
>>>>> The answer is not zero.
>>>> What is the answer? Don't try to count the likes of elvis.
>>> Beg your pardon? You want a list of editors that are like vi,
>> I want a list of non-vi editors that chose to implement cursor
>> movement using hjkl.
> ksh, bash, various emacs modes, various enhanced editors like elvis
> and vim that include full vi emulation, all programs that use the GNU
> readline library and most likely many more. Why is it important
> to you that someone else constructs such a list?
ksh and bash are not editors.
>>> but omit all the ones that are like vi?
>> Ones with identical command sets do not involve intuition,
>> because they are not new.
> You might make this point between the original vi and the
> current *bsd version. None of the others are identical.
Ah, so you're saying you have to learn variants to the command
set?
>> You simply apply existing knowledge.
>> Intuition did not apply to my use of RimStar, because I was able
>> to select BRIEF emulation, and the implementation was pretty
>> faithful, unlike some other editors that claimed to offer such
>> emulation.
> Then why was it not intuitive for you to operate this new editor?
Because I had already learned the commands previously.
>>> Yes, repeating the task happens the 2nd time you
>>> do the same set. Brushing new teeth the same
>>> way as the old is done intuitively by most people
>>> as they appear.
>> It's not intuition that is involved, Les.
> In your opinion.
No opinion of mine is involved, Les.
>>> Perhaps you didn't notice the sentence started with 'not'.
>> On the contrary, I did. Why do you think I responded the way
>> I did?
> I have no idea why you respond the way you do.
Then I suggest you spend more time thinking about it.
>>> People do not have instinctive behavior,
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> The lack of repeatable studies describing them.
What alleged lack, Les?
>> No instinct for self preservation? No instinct to close your eyes in
>> response to a bright flash, or cover your ears in response to a loud
>> noise?
> Reflexes and learned behavior.
Instinctive reflexes. Where is the "learned behavior", Les?
>>> thus intuitive does not mean instinctive for people.
>> Irrelevant, given that I never suggested otherwise.
Note: no response.
>>>>>>> Is that the only way you can learn?
>>>>>> Consulting a reference, whether it be a written manual, a web site, a
>>>>>> summary card, or a system administrator, makes the task non
>>>>>> intuitive.
>>>>> What if someone tells you it is 'just like' some other task you
>>>>> have already mastered?
>>>> That someone acted as a reference.
>>> How does the action of someone else have any control over whether
>>> something is intuitive to you or not?
>> In the way I just described, Les.
> You did not describe a way to change the intuitiveness of something. If
> intuitiveness exists at all it will exist independently of someone else
> telling you things.
Incorrect, given that someone can find something intuitive that I
already know, and therefore intuition doesn't apply in my case.
For example, intuition leads the student to expect a big star to
live longer than a small star, just like a big log burns longer
than a small log. I know better.
>>>>>> Then exactly what have you been arguing about, if not that?
>>>>> That the reuse of the orthogonal commands within the preset
>>>>> pattern is intuitive.
>>>> Really? Is the use of a Fortran DO loop with a step size of 2
>>>> intuitive, having learned the form of the statement, and having
>>>> previously used only a step size of 1?
>> Note: no response.
> No relationship to anything previously discussed.
Incorrect, given that it has a relationship to intuition. Try
reading it for comprehension, Les.
>>>>> That is, the fact that the same commands
>>>>> are re-used within vi in ways that are indendent of the context
>>>>> makes them intuitive as you construct different combinations.
>>>> DO I=1,10,1
>>>> DO I=1,100,1
>>>>
>>>> For the second, I've constructed a different combination. Does
>>>> that make it intuitive?
>>> I think there is a less general term to describe the situation where
>>> one number can be substituted for another number in this sort of
>>> framework.
>> Your description of the vi command set didn't involve that "less
>> general" term.
> And it should not.
Why not?
>>>>> If you know what 'k' does and the nature of the pattern, you
>>>>> automatically know what 10k does, and as soon as you
>>>>> know what 'd' does, you know what 10dk does.
>>>> So, that makes:
>>>>
>>>> DO I=2,100,2
>>>>
>>>> intuitive? Note the nature of the pattern. Know what the first,
>>>> second, and third values do.
>>> If you can choose the numbers without reasoning, arranging
>>> them in the patten would be intuitive as you built new
>>> combinations. Programming normally involves reason, though.
>> Writing a DO statement involves filling out a known template.
>> In grade school, you did not learn how to add all possible
>> numbers by rote memorization. Rather, you learned to add the
>> various combinations of the ten digits by rote memorization,
>> and then you later learned a process that allowed you to handle
>> arbitrary numbers. Adding 1937 and 4621 for the first time
>> doesn't rely on intuition. It relies on knowledge of the process
>> of adding two arbitrary numbers.
> I'm not sure I see where you are headed with this. Are you
> trying to claim that nothing new is ever involved in writing
> a program loop?
I am trying to claim that intuition isn't involved, Les. What is
so difficult to understand about that?
> I also learned a template for constructing a sentence in the english
> language. Following your logic I should thus be able to
> construct all sentences in the language with nothing new involved
> once the words are memorized. Is that also correct?
Irrelevant, given that you didn't say anything about whether
intuition is involved. That is:
"No relationship to anything previously discussed."
--Les Mikesell
>> Similarly, filling out a template involves knowledge of a process.
>> Your vi command set involves the filling out of a template. It
>> does not involve intuition.
> The part that makes it differ from your program loop example is
> that the commands that describe motions when used in the
> 2nd position may also be used as the motion description for
> a command that affects a range.
How does make it differ, Les? Still a template.
>> Where intuition could come into play
>> would be if you didn't know the letter that corresponded to some
>> action, but you picked the correct one on the basis of a
>> mnemonic, for example, rather than consulting a manual or quick
>> reference card. But as I noted previously, 10d does not delete
>> 10 characters.
> No, here you are describing concidence. The game goes like
> this: pick a letter, then I think of a word and you think of a word.
> If they happen to be the same it is coincidence even if you
> think it is fun to call the hits intuition and ignore the misses.
An inappropriate analogy, given that you're hypothesizing two
random processes, whereas in the situation at hand, the action
to be performed is not a random process.
>>>> As I said before, you have a peculiar notion of what is intuitive.
>>> One of us does.
>> Namely you.
> No, I don't confuse it with coincidence.
Neither do I, Les.
>>>>> If you were in front of a keyboard controlling a nuclear missile
>>>>> and wanted to start a document with the letter 'h', would you
>>>>> hit the 'h' key without knowing anything else?
>>>> I would first find out how to start a document. My intuition does
>>>> not tell me that one can start a document by typing 'h'. I might
>>>> try typing 'edit' to start a document, however.
>>> And mine does not tell me that I can insert into a document
>>> simply as a side effect of having started one.
>> Wouldn't you find it a little odd if a computer let you start a
>> document, but wouldn't let you put anything in it?
> I find it odd when an editing program immediately enters a
> mode where characters are inserted.
What's allegedly so odd about that?
> Editing is a decision making process often requiring many
> positioning or search commands to be issued before an informed
> decision can be made about inserting any more characters.
If no more characeters were inserted, then no editing was performed.
>>>>> Not at all. People do not have an instinctive nature,
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>>> The inability of anyone to reproducably demonstrate any.
>> Demonstrate any what? I can reproducably demonstrate people
>> blinking in response to flashbulbs.
> That is a reflex, not an instinct.
An instinctive reflex, Les.
>>>>> so intuitive things are re-use of previously learned knowledge.
>>>> But if the previously learned knowledge is a template, then simply
>>>> replacing the variables with constants is not an example of
>>>> intuition.
>>> Yes it is.
>> Are you gearing up to reproduce Monty Python's "Argument Clinic"?
>>
>> "No, it isn't."
>> "It's a connected series of statements intended to establish a
>> proposition."
>>
>> Your turn.
> Reusing the knowlege of the template with a new pattern that produces
> a new action is intuitive.
"No, it isn't."
>>>> If, for
>>>> example, you know that 10l moves the cursor 10 columns to the right,
>>>> and you want to delete the next 10 characters, but you don't yet
>>>> know the magic letter to trigger the deletion, your intuition might
>>>> lead you to try 10d.
>>> Is there a requirement for intuition to be correct?
>> If your attempt fails, then it must not have been very intuitive,
>> right?
> I asked the question first. Your turn to answer. Is there any
> requirement in the definition of intuitive that the command
> set chosen by one person as something expected to be intuitive
> to others actually be equally intuitive to everyone.
Apparently you still haven't understood my remarks about intuition
not being an absolute. That's your problem.
> Could it be intuitive to one person but not another?
Apparently you still haven't understood my remarks about intuition
not being an absolute. That's your problem.
> If so we are back to coincidence.
Incorrect; we're back to relative versus absolute.
>>> You might also have been taught that the correct command to delete
>>> is x, yet type d in this situation.
>> Then you're not involving intuition.
> My intuition without prior knowledge would have said d
> is for dump or down or draw, but in fact it does mean delete
Doesn't mean delete character.
> but you have to understand the pattern and supply the motion/range
> to delete.
The pattern is [count] [command]. 10x works. 10l works. 10d does not.
> That is, knowing 10l as you mentioned, if you understood
> the pattern and guessed d as delete, you would have constructed
> 10dl correctly.
A two-letter command, where the single letter x does the job?
Not intuitive.
>>>> If that happened to work, then you could
>>>> claim that the command was intuitive. Unfortunately, it doesn't
>>>> work. What you wanted was 10x. Not intuitive in this example.
> But it was.
What was? Once again you removed the relevant text.
>>>> But if you already knew that x was the command to delete a character,
>>>> then using 10x to delete 10 characters is not relying on intuition
>>>> at all. It's relying on filling out the template.
"But it was."
Touche, Les. I'll respond to the rest when you grow up.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
