Pleasant@Rutgers (12/20/82)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 19 Dec 1982 Volume 5 : Issue 109
Today's Topics:
Queries - Productivity of Word-Processors &
Integer Programming,
Announcements - VDT Survey Result &
Virginia Computer Users Conference & Computers and Weaving,
Programming - UNIX (6 msgs),
Computers and People - TV Censorship (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 Dec 1982 1114-EST
From: KSPROUL at RUTGERS
Subject: Productivity of Word-Processors
Does anyone have or know of any reports or articles on the pros/cons
of having technical people using word-processors/text-editors and
such. We need to try to convince management that 'word-processing'
should NOT be restricted to just the secretaries. and that it IS
productive to let the scientist directly type stuff into the
computer.
Keith Sproul
Ksproul@Rutgers
------------------------------
Date: 13 Dec 1982 1030-PST
Subject: Integer Programming
From: BERTAPELLE at USC-ISIE
I am looking for information on programs that do integer programming
(a type of linear programming routine). The program will have to be
able to handle a large number of constraints (I'm not sure what
large means except a moderate to large number of constraints).
Thanks for the help,
Tony Bertapelle
------------------------------
Date: 5 December 1982 23:19-EST
From: V. Ellen Golden <ELLEN at MIT-MC>
Subject: VDT Survey Result
Blue Buttons, the Boston Globe "Chatter" who asked for a survey of
VDT users a while ago, has now responded with the results. As many
of you might have predicted, the results were not exactly
surprising. She decided in the end that a more scientific survey
was required. It is my suspicion that the responses of the Arpanet
community may have represented a majority of the "individual
responses" she mentions. This opens some interesting questions
about OTHER sorts of VDT using jobs. In any case, her reply is
available on MIT-MC as
ELLEN;VDT RESP
and may be FTP'd. And thank you from Blue Buttons to all of you who
took the time to reply.
------------------------------
Date: 10 December 1982 19:28 est
From: Jarrell.Advisor at M.PCO.LISD.HIS
Subject: Virginia Computer Users Conference
Reply-to: Jarrell.Advisor%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS
The thirteenth annual Virginia Computer Users Conference
is being held on April 15-16, 1983. The topics are: Ada, Human
Factors, and Graphics (as an art-form) If you desire to speak, or
just wish to attend, please contact Luanne Melown, or Paula Brimer
at:
VCUC 13
Department of Computer Science
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Va 24061
Please do not reply to any of the above lists, as I am not a member
of any of them.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 1982 1228-EST
From: Rachel Silber <SILBER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Computers and Weaving (yes, really!)
A magazine for weavers and spinners, Handwoven (Interweave Press,
$15/yr), has begun a new column called "Interface". This column is
to be about the uses of computers for weavers. They plan to cover
topics ranging from things that seem pretty standard (eg, using a
computer to plan your studio/small business finances) to
applications that really are off the beaten path. For example,
there is a program commercially available that can convert
threading and tie-down patterns (a compact representation of what
you're going to do to the loom) to a drawdown (a diagram of what the
resulting cloth will look like). This is a really time consuming
thing to figure out by hand and graph paper, and a good, creative
application for a home computer. (I may have my weaving terms a
little confused; I'm very new to this hobby.) If memory serves, the
authors of the column are Carol and Stewart Strickler.
I have been in one home with a loom in one room and a computer in
the other, and know at least 2 people who re proficient at using
both. But I admit that I was surprised to find this column proposed
as a regular feature. The interest that I think this has for
Human-nets readers is simply to see what varied fields are making
use of computers, for what varied reasons. The paranoia-inspiring
view of computers taking over the world gets dealt a resounding blow
by this instance of people taking over computers.
Rachel Silber
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 82 03:52:04 EST (Tue)
From: Tim Curry <tim.ucf-cs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: soft remove under unix
The potential hazard of accidental file loss under UNIX has
generated much debate in the past. Locally, our system programmer
came up with a reasonable solution to most complaints. Through some
aliasing and shell scripts, he redefined rm so that all files that
are removed during a session are actually just moved to a backup
directory. When you finally logout, it then really removes all
files under that backup directory. If you want to recover a
removed file, he had another script to restore the deleted file (as
long as the removed file was during your current session).
This entire process was quickly and easily implemented and is
selectably used by the user community (I personally don't use it but
I recognize its usefulness for those apprehensive of rm).
The point I wish to get across is that nearly every complaint (note
the qualifier and please don't flood me with exceptions!) that I
have heard people mention about UNIX's human interface (or UNIX in
general) can be quickly and easily altered to give the user what he
wants. UNIX is the only OS that I have used that I have been more
impressed with the better I get to know it. The human interface
takes on each user's personality to a degree. Of course (as with
any extensible system) it sometimes gets difficult to accomplish any
work on somebody elses account but my own account has been nicely
tuned to fit me. And it takes very little effort to get the account
tuned once the user gets slightly knowledgeable about the system.
I feel that the human interface of the sophisticated user is often
overlooked in attempting to get a system that is easy for beginners
to use. After all, if a computer is purchased, you should expect a
learning time for all users but those users who are on the computer
with any frequency can eventually be hindered by the simplicity of a
system. Also, I would also argue that the "apropos" and "man"
commands should be sufficient to help the new user get going at the
terminal (after a degree of pre-terminal reading). I certainly
don't consider UNIX the last word in OS but until something better
comes along, I'll keep my "I __ __
/ `' \
\ /
\ / UNIX" button displayed. (:-})
\ /
\/
Tim Curry
USENET: ucf-cs!tim
ARPANET: tim.ucf-cs@udel-relay
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 1982 1015-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: UNIX and sloppy typing
Expecting the UNIX shell (or any other command interpreter)
to provide useful capabilities (such as *, for, etc.) and still
protect you from your mistakes is flat out silly. You cannot blame
the system if YOU enter a bad command that blows you away. You want
hand-holding, use a TOPS-20 system.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 82 08:13:26 EST (Tue)
From: Andrew Scott Beals <andrew.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: The trouble with Unix
it you want to turn the tab character off as a separator, just do
this:
$ IFS='<space>
<newline>'
$
and now only space and newline will be field (read word) separators,
newline being a bit different (it's only used as a word separator
when you need to close off a command or quote or ')' or whatever.).
simple.
a number of people i know (everyone at work except for me) use the
DEL key when they want to wipe a line of input. -- of course, this
is usually VERY close to RETURN. oh well. it's more of a trouble
with the keyboard.
-andy :-)
p.s. if you still aren't happy, use ^X as your linekill -- it's not
near anything too dangerous (unless you have VERY fat fingers).
------------------------------
Date: 1 Dec 1982 at 0923-PST
Subject: Re: The trouble with Unix
From: zaumen at SRI-TSC
The editors I use (emacs or emacs look-a-likes) use <DEL> to delete
the last character typed. I also use TOPS-20 occasionally, so its
nice to have ^U and ^C work similarly on both systems. Not using
tabs as a separator sounds like a nice idea. <DEL> is right above
<RETURN> on my H19, and really looses as an interrupt character,
especially if you switch between Unix and TOPS-20 several times a
day, as I was during the last few months.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: 1 Dec 82 23:07:13 EST (Wed)
From: Andrew Scott Beals <andrew.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: DEL vs ^H
frankly, i don't know *why* there is all this usage of DEL as the
erase character. (yeech!) why use DEL over ^H? ^H is on the home
row (both control and H on a good keyboard, that is), so it's MUCH
easier to type. WHY?
------------------------------
Date: 2 Dec 1982 at 1056-PST
Subject: Re: DEL vs ^H
From: zaumen at SRI-TSC
It seems to be a convention on many systems. When in Rome, ...
Besides, naive users find "delete" easier to remember.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Nov 1982 0229-PST
From: Henry W. Miller <Miller at SRI-NIC>
Subject: TV Censorship
I, too, am against censorship in all forms, unless it is for
the good of the population as a whole. (By that I mean facts that
really don't have to be known, as it would cause mass hysteria, etc.
But, this is the topic for another discussion...)
I grew up in the turbulent sixties. I don't know how many
times I saw the reply of the assassination of President Kennedy,
Senator Kennedy and Martin Luther King, likewise with the shooting
of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Remember the film clips from Vietnam? The riots in Watts
and Chicago and numerous other cities?
I think it taught me how valuable life is.
I grew up on a diet of the Three Stooges and Bugs Bunny.
The eye-gouging, face slapping, head bashing antics of the Howard
brothers and Larry Fine never encouraged me to try such tactics,
though I still roar with laughter when I see them in action. The
fact that Wyle E. Coyote got blown up, smashed, crushed many times
never made me imitate those actions. (Although, I remember the time
the stink bomb I was making literally blew up in my face, spewing
glass into me and throughout the kitchen. I never tried that stunt
again...)
I was severely disappointed by the way "Blazing Saddles" was
hacked when it was aired on national TV. It was cut so badly they
might as well not have shown it. Hell, if I want to watch a dozen
cowboys passing gas around the campfire, that's my right, isn't it?
One of my favorite movies, "Patton", faired better. The
first time on TV, they only cut 18 seconds from the movie . Only the
most offensive language and the shooting of the jackasses was taken
out. Still, I didn't appreciate it.
Anybody remember "Beany and Cecil?" For a "kids" show 20
years ago, it was light years ahead of its time. It made so many
adult references, like "No-Bikini Atoll". Even now, I still
remember, and just "get" certain of the punch lines. I haven't seen
the show in years. No one seems to be showing it.
Anybody seen "Hill Street Blues"? Whew!!! Some of the
references there are down right naughty.
And, in "Star Trek", remember how many times Kirk was shown
putting his boots back on after being with a young lady?
I happened to watch an old "I Love Lucy" a couple of days
back. Fred and Ethel were arguing again. Lucy told them to stop
it. Ethel said, "We can't, that's the way we make love." Yet, in
that same series, they couldn't say that Lucy was pregnant, but
merely "expectin'".
In the "Dick Van Dyke" show, as well as many others, the
couples were always shown as sleeping in separate beds. Why?
I guess I've covered both sides. It seems that censorship
has a double standard. What, or why, is still beyond me.
What I am getting at is that I don't feel that things should
be censored. If you don't like it, if it offends you, don't watch
it. Let the rest of us see what we want.
-HWM
------------------------------
Date: 5 December 1982 19:25-PST (Sunday)
From: Scott J. Kramer <Scott at SRI-AI>
Subject: Censoring?
I just read some of the comments concerning censorship of children's
TV watching and wanted to add something. It appears to me that many
young people are becoming nearsighted, more so than ever and that
this is partially due to their focusing for long periods on such
things as TV's, CRT's, books, blackboards, and other "close-in"
objects at an earlier age than in the past. This is something to
consider if you want to "censor" your child.
scott
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************