Linux-Advocacy Digest #799, Volume #30 Sun, 10 Dec 00 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:52:27 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine writes:
>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> Neato. Meanwhile us poor humans have fingers that don't bend that
>>>>> way. For us humans, to move the fingers 8 inches to the left
>>>>> requires that the *wrist* slides over, which means the the whole
>>>>> forearm is moving too, hinged at the elbow.
>>>> My keyboard has its cursor keys on the right, at about the same
>>>> distance from the home row as the Esc key.
>>> Then it doesn't look anything like any keyboard I've ever seen.
>> That's not my problem. You were the presumptumous one.
> He's right; the distance on my keyboard between the H and the
> T-cluster left arrow is the same as the distance between ESC and the
> J key. There may be a slight illusion involved, of course;
> the ESC key is at the topmost left and is relatively isolated
> (there's at least one "key cap" between ESC and tilde and F1),
> whereas the cursor keys are in a cluster near, but not at,
> the lower right (the numeric keypad's ENTER key is actually there),
> and are not quite as isolated, perhaps a third or a half of a "key cap"
> between right-CTRL on the left and 0/Insert on the right.
Not all keyboards are alike, especially when it comes to laptops.
> If one has a keyboard without the "T" cluster, of course (some
> older ones instead use the numeric keypad for cursor motion; this is
> when Num Lock becomes almost vital :-) ), then the ESC key is nearer,
> I think -- I don't have an older keyboard handy to check, and there
> may be other issues; this keyboard, like most modern AT-style 104+ -key
> keyboards, has the six-button grouping (Insert, Delete, Home, End,
> PageUp, PageDown) just above the T-arrow cluster; remove that, and
> the spacings might differ.
Some of the really old keyboards had Esc on the right.
> And then there are the laptops.... :-) Some of those can get
> downright weird.
Which is why Steve was being rather presumptuous.
>>> The Escape key is close and easily whackable without
>>> looking, and without looking you can get your fingers
>>> right back to the home row without even feeling for the
>>> keys, my kinestetic sense just knows where to go, because
>>> I don't have to move the hand more than about 1/2 an inch,
>>> and that's a stretch-forward motion rather than a swing-
>>> sideways motion.
>> The cursor keys are close and easily whackable without looking,
>> and without looking you can get your fingers right back to the
>> home row without even feeling for the keys, my kinestetic sense
>> just knows where to go, because I don't have to move the hand
>> more than about 1/2 an inch, and that's a stretch-backward motion
>> rather than a swing-sideways motion.
> Before all this gets even sillier, let me remind the peanut
> gallery that the design of vi's cursor motion keys predates
> the modern "T" configuration used on most PC keyboards today
> (and, indeed, on most other keyboards as well, for better or worse).
> If one was lucky, one had a cross-configuration on some keyboards
> with a central dead area. Some might have a straight-line.
> The older PC keyboards had the numeric keypad doing double-duty, IIRC.
Yes, vi did predate modern keyboards. Now, if vi's implementation
were so intuitive, why didn't it catch on?
> My memory is not good enough to remember all of the keyboard configs
> I had to deal with in the early 80's at school (we had a rather
> heterogeneous collection of 80 x 24 character terminals back then at
> my alma mater -- I have no idea what they have, now).
>
> I will also note that, given my powers of estimation (which aren't
> that great), the distance between the 'h' key and the rightmost
> arrow looks more like 6 inches.
>
> But you're both right.
Depending on the keyboard, something that Steve didn't seem to allow
for.
>>> (Which is why it's easy to find the home row - just relax the
>>> muscles and the hand goes back to where it came from.)
>> Ditto.
> Were I to relax my hand, it would probably fall off the keyboard. :-)
> There's also the occasional case of ,pvomg ,u fomgers pff tje
> jp,e leus amd tu[omg cp,[;ete gobberosj == erm, I mean moving my
> fingers off the home keys and typing complete gibberish. :-)
The keyboard I'm using at the moment has a short raised bar on the
f and j keys to provide tactile feedback about the location of the
home row.
>>>>>>> Not only that, but you use your LEFT hand, while the
>>>>>>> RIGHT stays by the hjkl keys.
>>>>>> Not if I want to type yuioopnm, for example.
>>>>> Huh?
>>>> Those letters aren't on the home row.
>>> Yeah, the 'huh' was wondering how this relates to what I'm
>>> talking about.
>> You were talking about staying by the hjkl keys.
>>> You hit 'escape' AFTER typing 'yuioopnm', so it doesn't matter.
>> It does matter, because it takes your fingers away from hjkl.
> Pedant point: ESC is hit by the left hand; the right hand
> needn't move. (Did you mean "asdf" instead?)
Home row is the relevant point. However, not all keyboards have
Esc on the left.
>>> Escape is for leaving insert mode,
>> Something I don't need to do with BRIEF to go back and fix an
>> error.
> Ditto with Notepad, Word, or (presumably) Word Perfect.
> I think Emacs (in non-VI emulation mode, anyway) also doesn't
> need ESC to "stop insertion". Vi is the only editor, for better
> or for worse, that is modal in this sense. (AFAIK, anyway;
> maybe Wordstar was also weird.)
>
> I'm not that familiar with BRIEF, although I've heard of it
> (Borland C++ has a BRIEF keybinding emulation mode in its
> IDE text editor).
Underware sold BRIEF to Borland, and Borland really did nothing
with it as a separate product. Such a shame.
>>> and as such you aren't going to be typing 'yuioopnm' right
>>> after hitting esc.
>> With BRIEF, I don't need to hit Esc.
>>>>> Yeah, I admit this confused me for about 30 seconds back when I first
>>>>> started using vi (which, incedentally was *after* I was already
>>>>> familiar with Emacs, Notepad, the IBM-designed "CUI" mappings popular
>>>>> in many old programming editors (Like Turbo Pascal), the Vax's 'edt',
>>>>> and so on, none of which were modal.) It's easy once you realize that
>>>>> the outer keys are left/right, and the inner keys are up/down, and
>>>>> don't think of them by their letters.)
>>>> It's easier with the "up" key above and the "down" key below.
>>> No, it isn't.
>> Speak for yourself.
> At the risk of veering wildly off-topic -- some games like to map
> "up and down" one way, whereas other games map it the other way.
> It's interesting at times to learn new flight simulators. :-)
Why should you be any different about veering off topic?
> However, the issue here appears to be "up down" versus "jk".
> I'm not sure which is "easier", although I can say that the arrow
> keys are more intuitive to the casual user, since most people
> know what an arrow is. :-) However, the "hjkl" might be slightly --
> and I do emphasize SLIGHTLY -- faster for touch typists; my main
> modus operandi appears to require more thinking than typing when correcting
> errors, which makes hand movement not all that relevant.
Intuitiveness is the issue, not speed. Aaron claims that nothing about
a computer is intuitive. I gather you also disagree with him.
> (Side note: some older games use "wasz" or "wasd" for
> cursor/spacecraft/character motions. Most modern games
> can use arbitrary keybindings, AFAIK.)
>>> It's faster to learn. But it isn't easier to *USE* once you've learned
>>> it.
>> Speak for yourself.
> I'm assuming you're arguing hjkl versus arrow keys; the answer
> is: vi currently supports both. If one doesn't like one, use the other.
> :-)
I've had problems with vi supporting the cursor keys. WHen moving a
long way, one might hold down the cursor key. I've seen vi move the
cursor a ways, and then suddenly you start seeing the codes being
generated by the cursor key, as if vi couldn't keep up and missed
something.
>>> Faster to learn != easier to use.
>> Irrelevant, given that I never stated otherwise.
>>> hjkl is the second-most minimal movement pattern you can have (right after
>>> 'jkl;').
>> Except that three letters only provide three motions. You need four
>> for a two-dimensional screen.
> Semicolon is also a movement command, although somewhat specialized;
> if one does fu, vi remembers the 'u' and a subsequent semicolon
> will find the next 'u'. Vi is not limited to letters for its
> keybindings.
A semicolon isn't any more intuitive.
> One could also get silly and assume an editor with a "flip-switch",
> not dissimilar to the change-sign key on many calculators.
> (I've yet to see such an editor, though.)
Ah, switch between "fast" mode and "intuitive" mode.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:54:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:00:19 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Russ Lyttle wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> All this "unintuitive" behavior of power switches is causing a major
>> problem in California. The issue of all these devices still drawing
>> power is keeping a load on the system that it wasn't designed to handle.
>> That coupled with lack of new power generation in California is putting
>> a strain on the system now, promising a major breakdown in the near
>> future. Relying to much on intuition and not enough on reason is going
>> to get a lot of people killed.
>
>Actually, the REAL problem is that the ECO-NUTS in California shut
>down practically every fission power project that came down the pike
>in the 1970's.
>
>If those plants had been built, a lot of oil-fired and coal-fired
>plants would have been taken off-line a long time ago AND Cali.
>would STILL have surplus capacity.
Indeed; there is radioactivity in coal. I forget how much coal
would have to be burned to equal the radioactivity in a pound of solid
nuclear waste, but one important issue is that the radioactivity
in coal, if not scrubbed out, can be spewed into the air along with
the usual sulphur dioxide (SO2 + H2O = H2SO4, sulphuric acid, not exactly
something I'd want to breathe, thank you), carbon dioxide (harmless
except for "global warming", which is a problem), and heat. (I'm not
sure where the radioactivity comes from; if it's C-14, there's not much
we can do about it.)
Of course, if it is scrubbed out, someone's gotta change the filters
occasionally. But one advantage of nuclear waste, AFAIK, is that
it's solid. A highly radioactive and dangerous solid, to be sure
(for many many millennia) but solid nevertheless; solids are a
little easier to manage, especially if encased in glass and buried
somewhere in salt with a "DO NOT TOUCH UNDER PENALTY OF RADIOACTIVE DEATH"
sign on the door -- one hopes our progeny can read English.
One also wonders about the helium in toy baloons; helium is an
alpha particle with a couple of electrons. Now where did that
helium come from? (It's not dangerous, of course -- but there's
also radon gas. Presumably, the two are initially intermixed,
although radon is a lot heavier.) [*]
One big problem the nuclear program has is credibility -- and I'm not
sure if that's because of Three Mile Island (Chernobyl didn't help
either!), or what; the public is also apparently terrified of irradiated
food, despite the increased safety thereof from a bacteriological point
of view (quick, which is more dangerous, irradiated beef or beef
contaminated by E. coli or salmonella?). This is arguably stupid, but
it's going to take awhile to wash the metaphorical stain out. Certainly
there are dangers -- but there are dangers to driving a car, too.
We still do it.
Oregon decomissioned the Trojan nuclear power plant (no jokes, please)
some time ago; I know of no issues there, though I'd have to look.
(Anybody know?)
And, of course, the public appears enamored of Microsoft because it's
"easy to use" and "intuitive" and "has the industry-standard GUI".
Sigh.
[.sigsnip]
[*] Someone has made a case -- and it appears to be a pretty good one --
that the Hindenberg exploded because of the flammability of its
aluminium skin (and the poor static dissipation design thereof),
not because of the hydrogen. One spark and it went up like a torch
with an orange yellow flame -- hydrogen burns blue. A thought if we
ever run out of helium...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and I have to live in this crazy state
up 80 days, 15:43, running Linux.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:55:48 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe Malloy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Tholen tholes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whoa, this is the pot calling the kettle black! Pedantic to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of silliness, Tholen now turns around and uses pedanticism as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an attack. Great going, Tholen, you're really low on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency list now!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a reason why Tholen, in 12 years, has never budged from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TOP of my list as "GODDAMN STUPIDEST FUCKING IDIOT ON USENET"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has he really been at it for TWELVE YEARS?!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not, Marty. Aaron is simply another in a series of liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen nothing that leads me to agree with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've seen nothing that leads you to agree with Aaron.
>>>>>>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the lack of Aaron's evidence is precisely the
>>>>>>>>>> evidence that you've seen nothing that leads you to agree with
>>>>>>>>>> Aaron, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> Balderdash, Dave.
>>>>>>>> Oh really? Where's Aaron's evidence, allegedly?
>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>> Classic incorrect pontification.
>>>> How ironic.
>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>> MA] Classic incorrect pontification.
> Of what relevance is this quotation?
It's where the irony is, Marty. Don't you remember what you asked me?
>>>>>>>>> Truly amazing that you think you know more about what I've
>>>>>>>>> seen from Aaron than I do.
>>>>>>>> What's so amazing about knowing that Aaron hasn't presented any
>>>>>>>> evidence to anyone about when I allegedly started posting to
>>>>>>>> USENET, Marty?
>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>> Classic incorrect pontification.
>>>> How ironic.
>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>> MA] Classic incorrect pontification.
> Of what relevance is this quotation?
It's where the irony is, Marty. Don't you remember what you asked me?
>>>>>>>>> "Arrogance and stupidity in a single package. How efficient of you."
>>>>>>>>> --Londo Mollari
>>>>>>>> Applies to you, Marty. And Aaron.
>>>>>>> Applies to you, Dave.
>>>>>> What is allegedly arrogant or stupid about knowing when I started
>>>>>> posting to USENET, Marty?
>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>> Classic pontification.
>> How ironic.
> Where is the alleged irony?
MA] Classic pontification.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if you can find a USENET posting from me that dates back
>>>>>>>>>>>> to 1988, feel free to repost it. I know you can't. I know Aaron
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't.
>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't prove that no postings were made by you in that time period.
>>>>>>>>>> What would you consider as proof, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> That's not my problem, now is it?
>>>>>>>> Sure it is, Marty, given that you're the one who wants prove that I
>>>>>>>> didn't post anything in that time period.
>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I want to prove that you didn't post
>>>>>>> anything in that time period.
>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "That doesn't prove that no postings were made by you in that
>>>>>> time period."
>>>>>> --Marty Amodeo
>>>>> And where is the quote that's supposed to show that I want to prove that you
>>>>> didn't post anything in that time period?
>>>> "That doesn't prove that no postings were made by you in that
>>>> time period."
>>>> --Marty Amodeo
>>> Repeating the same inappropriate quotation doesn't make it more appropriate,
>>> Dave.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that the quotation is inappropriate, Marty.
> Not at all, Dave.
Classic pontification.
>>>>>>> I'm content to believe what Aaron said.
>>>>>> Why are you content with a lie, Marty?
>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>> Classic pontification.
>> How ironic.
> Where is the alleged irony?
MA] Classic pontification.
>>>>>>>>>> Truly amazing that both you and Aaron think you know more about when
>>>>>>>>>> I started posting to USENET than I do.
>>>>>>>>> I don't "think I know" anything about when you started posting. I
>>>>>>>>> simply take Aaron's word over yours,
>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that he doesn't know what he's talking about, Marty.
>>>>>>> I don't accept this weak and unsupported premise.
>>>>>> Why don't you accept the truth, Marty?
>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>> Yet another example of your pontification.
>> How ironic.
> Where is the alleged irony?
MA] Yet another example of your pontification.
>>>>>>>>> since neither of you can present evidence.
>>>>>>>> Above you considered it truly amazing that I think I know more about
>>>>>>>> what you've seen from Aaron, Marty,
>>>>>>> Very good, Dave.
>>>>>> What is very good about your inconsistency, Marty?
>>>>> Another non sequitur.
>>>> Another incorrect statement.
>>> Still another example of your pontification.
>> How ironic.
> Where is the alleged irony?
MA] Still another example of your pontification.
>>>>>>>> but here you just confirmed what I said about Aaron.
>>>>>>> I did no such thing.
>>>>>> Reread what you wrote, Marty.
>>>>> Unnecessary.
>>>> Then why did you say "I did no such thing", Marty?
>>> Because I've done no such thing, Dave.
>> Yet you found it necessary to say so.
> Would you prefer that I allow you to mislead the readers by suggesting that I
> have done such a thing?
On what basis do you claim that I would be misleading the readers, Marty?
>>>>>>>> Typical inconsistency.
>>>>>>> Typical illogical conclusion.
>>>>>> Balderdash, Marty.
>>>>> Oh really? What is allegedly logical about jumping to a conclusion?
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I jumped to a conclusion, Marty.
>>> Not at all.
>> Balderdash, Marty.
> Oh really? How is it erroneous to presuppose something which has already
> occurred?
By erroneously presupposing that something has already occurred, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>> "Arrogance and stupidity in a single package. How efficient of you."
>>>>>>>>>> --Londo Mollari
>>>>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>>>>> Where's the alleged irony, Marty?
>>>>>>> See my usage of said quote.
>>>>>> I already saw your inappropriate usage, Marty.
>>>>> Impossible, given that there was no such inappropriate usage.
>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>> Classic pontification.
>> How ironic.
> Where is the alleged irony?
MA] Classic pontification.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:57:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 10 Dec 2000 03:56:26 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
>> Of course, this is exactly the situation which the radical left
>> was hoping for....a general degradation of life in the US...it's
>> part of their overall strategy of trying to cause internal collapse
>> within the United States so that a power-vacuum will occur, allowing
>> them to sweep into power and install a Communist state.
>
>Will the radical left be sharing power with the
>Grays, or will they eventually begin stabbing each
>other in the back? Those little guys can be vicious
>in a knife fight.
>
>But what I'd really like to know is, will Elvis
>be appointed President?
No no...it's the Grays that have the black helicopters.
(Don't ask me why they don't have gray ones. They'd
probably have to kill *me* if I told you...)
Elvis left long ago, but he's still alive, somewhere.
There will be a Second Coming....
:-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- get your tinfoil hats here, only $19.99 plus T&S&H
up 80 days, 16:38, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 01:05:01 GMT
<snip>
> Ahh, Linux is kicking Microsofts ass out of every continent and country
> with the exeption is the U.S.A and Canada as we speak.
>
> Those are the facts.
>
> Charlie
I agree that Linux is kicking ass outside Canada and USA, Linux is like
the metric system, whilst the rest of the world moves forward using
Metres, Centimetres, Degree's Celcius, kilometres and other metric
terms, there are still countries unwilling to catchup.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
