From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 4567
Date: 2005-03-27
>Actually, as the footnote points out, it's a talk presented in Princeton
> 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.
> Well, I could write enough about how computers work for WWS readers, andThank you! That's basically what I was aiming for.
> 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.
> (I have personalI'm, once again, not interested in the technology. In the context of
> 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.
> Fine point, but Ditto is a tradmark for a spirit duplicator ("spirit"The common term is "lead type." It's not "lead-alloy type."
> 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.
> "Sholes" was misspelled.How does it know which of the 80-odd facets to apply to the paper?
>
> 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.
> The rest of it is totally mechanical -- machinery. What's remarkable isThe one I used (Varityper 6400) used a CRT, not flash lamps.
> 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...)
> There was not much said about inkjet printers, although omitting thatIt was definitely the last bit that went into the book.
> 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.)
> Bit-mapped versus scaleable fonts? Gosh. Really-important topic. I noI noted that people _don't_ save drafts. They just do their revisions in
> 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.
> Probably a very minor point, but afaik, the documents (RFCs --Requests ForI don't need to know how they work, just that if I want an accented
> 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?
> If you were using a keyboard layout for another language, you'd want toThe keys have labels on them.
> know about the corresponding variety of key?
> Surely, for instance, you do know how to use a floppy disk, and it's veryWhat does that have to do with knowing how a computer works? That's like
> 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.
> You most likely know how to use the Mac key with the four-leafThe Command key has no use of its own at all. It's there to add
> outline (I understand it's nicknamed "splat" by the irreverent :) ),
> U+2318.
> Otoh, there's no point whatsoever for you to know anything about theI have (having created some of them) all the fonts used in WWS. I don't
> 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.
> Please keep in mind that computers are still too hard, but not impossible,All you do is look at the typewriter's keyboard, and you know all there
> 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.
> The above could stand editing, but this is not going to be bound into aSee C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures. Written quite a long time ago.
> 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.
> Several Qalamites who have recetly posted have the sort of working, users'_Something_ is coming up in my front yard, but I hadn't seen my house a
> 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.