Nicholas Bodley wrote:

>
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:34:43 -0500, Peter T. Daniels
> <grammatim@...> wrote:
>
> > Richard Sproat's review of WWS criticized the last chapter for not going
> > into how computers work. He had no answer for what value such a
> > discussion written in 1993 would have even by the time the book was
> > published in 1996.

Actually, as the footnote points out, it's a talk presented in Princeton
in 1988. Ephraim Isaac asked me specifically to talk about computers and
writing. (I got him to invite me to the other session of his conference
to talk about the origins of writing, too.)

> Well, I could write enough about how computers work for WWS readers, and
> it would be concise enough to post here on Qalam. It would also be
> understandable, provided one were willing to accept some unfamiliar ideas.
> Computers are not great mysteries; their underlying principles are not
> hard to understand, but unfamiliar to many. What distinguishes computers
> is that they are exceedingly versatile, their basic principles of
> operation are remarkably clever, and technological progress in both
> reliability* and performance has been conservatively described as
> phenomenal. We really do possess magic boxes. *Not excellence in writing
> software, necessarily!
>
> I doubt that WWS should have any general explanations of how computers
> work. Mr. Sproat was wrong, if he implied that. However, I believe we are
> referring to Section 74, "Analog and Digital Writing".
>
> Naturally, I was extremely interested in reading that Section. To put it
> not too gently, the author didn't understand the esssential basics of his
> topic. It might have been written by an art critic.

Thank you! That's basically what I was aiming for.

> (I have personal
> experience of the disasters created by hiring a Ph. D. in English to edit
> technical writing, written by technicians who understood their topics, so
> I know whereof I speak. I have been a technical writer (BMEWS) and an
> editor (Electronic Design magazine).)
>
> Mr. Daniels, while I have great respect for the work you have done, I'm
> sorry to say, you should not have written that section. You were not
> qualified.
>
> I make no pretensions about my knowledge or ability about what Qalam is
> concerned with; I'm a dilettante and amateur who greatly appreciates the
> opportunity to communicate with world experts; Qalam is very democratic!
>
> This matter, Section 74, has been bothering me, significantly, for some
> time, and I thought that I might never bring it up.
>
> As to time scale, concerning the topic of that Section, without pondering
> the matter too deeply, I would say that one might consider developments
> roughly every five years.
>
> =
>
> For now, because I think it's too far off-topic, I won't go into such
> matters as the practical, real-world philosophy of analog and digital,
> and their implications. However, I found that I'd made some quick notes on
> factual matters. Disclaimer: I did not, just now, re-read the Section.
>
> Offset (lithographic) printing is significantly different from mimeograph.
> I know enough about both technologies to be confident of stating that.

I'm, once again, not interested in the technology. In the context of
"analog" vs. "digital," as understood in that essay, they are the same:
they are images made from a master plate, not assembled from separate
pieces.

> Fine point, but Ditto is a tradmark for a spirit duplicator ("spirit"
> seems to be primarily British usage, referring to alcohol).
>
> Type metal is not made of lead, alone. It is a lead alloy, which includes
> antimony to make it much harder. Pure lead (I have played with it, in past
> years) is quite soft.

The common term is "lead type." It's not "lead-alloy type."

> "Sholes" was misspelled.
>
> The Selectric typewriter is not electronically controlled. Technically, it
> is quite remarkable. It has an electric motor to operate it. If the speed
> were right, it could be powered by a foot treadle, like sewing machines.

How does it know which of the 80-odd facets to apply to the paper?

What about the next generation, the typesetting machine, with variable
spacing, automatic justification, columns, etc.?

> The rest of it is totally mechanical -- machinery. What's remarkable is
> that the machinery uses principles much more typical of electronic
> devices; a good part of the mechanism is binary, and it contains two
> digital-to-analog converter mechanisms, although they are not called that.
> Those two position the ball.
>
> Phototypesetters used (precisely-timed) flash lamps. (I want to see why I
> noted that...)

The one I used (Varityper 6400) used a CRT, not flash lamps.

> There was not much said about inkjet printers, although omitting that
> might be OK, if this were written in 1993. I think it might have required
> a specialist to predict their popularity and success. In truth, my
> recollection of inkjet technology isn't especially solid. Canon and H-P
> developed practical, modern inkjet printers, and back then, other types
> were commonplace, as nearly as I can recall.
> (One thought: On a topic subject to rapid change, it might have been wise
> to set aside the text as requiring review late in the production process.)

It was definitely the last bit that went into the book.

> Bit-mapped versus scaleable fonts? Gosh. Really-important topic. I no
> longer recall to what extent that topic was treated, but seems to me I
> recall short shrift. By 1993, it was a significant matter; I recall Amiga
> owners begging, without success, for scaleable fonts, back in 1987.
>
> (Perhaps too detailed, but a concise description of "character-cell"
> (inherently monospaced) text-display screens vs. graphic display probably
> should have been included. I wrote something on that for Qalam recently.
> Going further off-topic -- sometimes, to be concise, I presume that
> readers know what, for instance, Windows-1252 or MacRoman are, but I also
> realize that not everyone reading what I write does know those. I do try
> to avoid being too specialist; I wouldn't discuss dynamic (color)
> convergence in color monitors, for instance. Recent and wondrous,
> delighful messages concerning Thai and Khmer specifics were mostly 'way
> beyond me, which is perfectly OK.)
>
> A PostScript printer connection is digital.
>
> WP (Word Perfect? Word processors in general?) can save drafts -- That
> note now puzzles me.

I noted that people _don't_ save drafts. They just do their revisions in
the files.

> Probably a very minor point, but afaik, the documents (RFCs --Requests For
> Comment) that define e-mail provide ways to cancel messages after they
> have been sent. In practice, systems are rarely, if ever set up to do that.
>
> I mean no malice.
>
> Peace.
>
> > There's enough for me to know about writing systems, that I have no
> > interest in knowing about computers as well.
>
> Well, that depends upon what *kind* of knowledge! That "no interest" is,
> de facto, very provocative.
>
> Surely, if you were using a typewriter for another language, you'd want to
> know about "dead" (technically, non-escaping) keys?

I don't need to know how they work, just that if I want an accented
letter, I type that key first.

> If you were using a keyboard layout for another language, you'd want to
> know about the corresponding variety of key?

The keys have labels on them.

Around 1977, I went with my mother to Tytell Typewriter to see their
stock of foreign-language typewriters. While chatting with Peter Tytell,
I showed him the keyboard of the Assyrian Dictionary's custom
typewriters and the changes I'd make to turn it into a Semitic/general
linguistics typewriter -- and my mother told them to make me a custom
Olympia. I still have it, of course, but I doubt the ribbons are
manufactured any more.

> Surely, for instance, you do know how to use a floppy disk, and it's very
> likely you know how to set a floppy to prevent (or enable) adding or
> replacing data on it. Mac made using floppies even easier, from the
> beginning.

What does that have to do with knowing how a computer works? That's like
(as you analogize below) knowing that I need to depress the clutch pedal
before turning the key on my Saturn.

> You most likely know how to use the Mac key with the four-leaf
> outline (I understand it's nicknamed "splat" by the irreverent :) ),
> U+2318.

The Command key has no use of its own at all. It's there to add
functionality to the other keys. And you didn't mention the Option key.
(And some programs even use the Control key.)

> Otoh, there's no point whatsoever for you to know anything about the
> differences among various CPU chips. PowerPC chips are Good Things; a G5
> is newer and better than a G4. That's the total scope you might like/need
> to know. Differences between Intel and AMD are utterly irrelevant for
> you, as are out-of-order execution/instruction reordering, and branch
> prediction.
>
> What we are pestering you about is matters that *any* Mac user, no matter
> how apart from the technological world he or she may be, needs to know and
> be aware of. We made it rather plain that somebody whose field is writing
> systems should have quite a good idea of what his computer can accept and
> render as to character repertoire, as well as the ways of organizing
> those. Said person should know how, to the extent practically possible, to
> make his/her computer do what's wanted.

I have (having created some of them) all the fonts used in WWS. I don't
know that having Unicode makes the exotics any easier to use -- I just
select the font I need from the Fonts menu. I then either select Lloyd
Anderson's specific keyboard, or I go to PopChar to select characters by
shape. (His Syllabaries keyboard is a work of genius.)

> Please keep in mind that computers are still too hard, but not impossible,
> to use. In the long run, I doubt that we've reached the counterpart of the
> Model T Ford. (The Canon Cat was amazing, but horribly mis-marketed; was
> as easy to use as a typewriter.)
>
> In pre-computer days, a purchaser of a foreign-language typewriter would
> surely be interested in knowing the exact char. repertoire provided, as
> well as technical details such as "dead" keys. Of course, modern computer
> typography offers enormous repertoire, comparatively.

All you do is look at the typewriter's keyboard, and you know all there
is to know about using it.

> The above could stand editing, but this is not going to be bound into a
> book. The ability to easily insert text anywhere has its down side.
>
> ===
>
> There's a strange and very distressing imbalance between the primarily
> tech/sci/math community and the "esthetic/cultural" community. The t/s/m
> community seems prepared to hang its collective head in shame for not
> having developed enough ability and awareness of the "e/c" side of life.
> However, the "e/c" community seems, not rarely, to be actually proud of
> its ignorance! Both are unbalanced, but that pride can be really galling.
> Nobody should take pride in being ignorant. Nobody. For no reason.

See C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures. Written quite a long time ago.

> Several Qalamites who have recetly posted have the sort of working, users'
> knowledge of computers that makes sense. They don't need to know what
> double-data-rate RAM is, nor why it's called "RAM" and not "Read-Write
> Memory". (Concisely: History) However, it seems to me that these Qalamites
> know a decent amount about the "t/s/m" realm.
>
> [nb:]
> >> I liked what Barry said. Indeed, let's be peaceful, and try not to
> >> upset others.
> >>
> >> As Dave Garroway used to say when "signing off",
> >>
> >> Peace!
>
> Gee... My apologies. I'm just *much* too concerned to stay silent. I'll
> get over it. Maybe take the topic off-list? I think many wouldn't mind. I
> suspect that many are either deleting messages in this/these threads or
> leaving them unread.
>
> Better to spruce up (homonym, there), have brunch, go out, and see whether
> the crocuses are up yet in the yard.

_Something_ is coming up in my front yard, but I hadn't seen my house a
year ago, so I don't know what they're about to be.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...