Re: RosAsm?[OT#2]

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 04/21/04 

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:27:15 +0100

Nathan C. Baker wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > [From "Bloomsbury Dictionary of Word Origins" (funny
pronounciation
> > accent marks on some of the word ommitted because of ASCII and UK
> > keyboard) ]
>
> I see you've learned to cite your reference.

Ah, wanna know the truth of the matter? If I leave out a reference
then it's probably because I've copied too close to being almost
"verbatim" or "xeroxed"...avoid the reference and no-one finds out I
really as smart as it looks...

For example, the stuff elsewhere about "Eliza"...the long story about
Weizenbaum and his secretary? Well, I'm reading it out of a really old
"how to write games" book that was published in 1983 ("Tim Hartnell's
Giant Book of Computer Games", Fontana, 1983)...it's all in the
introduction to the "artificial intelligence" section of the
book...just re-writing the story in my own words from the perspective
of the points I wanted to make...I mean, "mid '60s"? Wasn't even
born...of course I'm getting it out of books and stuff! :)

Oh, and the stuff about GUIs? Found a "GUI timeline" website...my own
points in the post but using the dates and stuff from the
website...and the problem here with citing a reference was that I
wasn't grabbing it directly in any way and it was more than one
website...I suppose, of course, I could start putting little numbers
next to specific facts and then put a "bibliography" at the bottom and
so forth...but, well, kind of getting complicated there, ain't it?
These aren't "formal published articles for the scientific
community"...they actually tend to just be me moaning about how crap
Microsoft really are over and over...

I suppose my point is: I'm not really expecting for things to be taken
quite so seriously for one in a thousand long ranting - often
pointless and off-topic - postings I make...you know, when you chat
with a friend, you'd have to be pretty "anally retentive" to end your
conversation with a "bibliography" of which "mad drunkard down the
pub" told you about "alien conspiracies", complete with dates...the
problem being that some posts are "somewhere in-between"...long and
"article-like" but I'm NOT proposing a new thesis on relativity or
whatever...I just ain't writing these things as articles but long
"streams of consciousness"...the old "number and bibliography" doesn't
fit into that...that kind of thing assumes a _plan_ and some "random
access"...nope, just one long stream of sequential ranting crap from
me is what's to be expected...

I _DO_ mostly have "references", mind you (granted, not
always...sometimes it just me ranting away from "memory" alone and,
oops, flawed recollection of the facts...or, ummm, didn't actually
understand the subject as well as I thought I did..._should_ have
checked it up...got arrogant that "ah, I know all about it", didn't
bother, wrote something real dumb and stupid ;)...books here, web
search there...I often double-check spelling by just throwing the word
as I think into Google and if the results make sense, I got the word
spelt right...if they don't - and Google has that automatic "did you
mean ___?" thing, which is handy for getting the correct spelling -
then the spelling's all wrong...BUT, again, not really intended to be
"articles"...often, not really thinking or even believing that
anyone's going to take me all that seriously anyway...adding a
"bibliography"? Well, unnatural to how I'm typing things out all in
one big "stream of consciousness"...and, well, kind of weird...I mean,
_NO-ONE_ I've seen around here provides "bibliographies" and marks
little numbers by specific facts to relate it all together...hey, if
this _were_ some kind of "thesis" or whatever then, yeah, I'd
bother...but it ain't, you know...the length may be giving a false
impression (e.g. "articles = long" doesn't actually mean "long =
articles", if you catch my drift ;)...

> BTW, just wondering, is there really any difference between UK and
US
> keyboards?

Yes; But not a vast amount of difference...I actually did supply some
of the information about the differences to the "OS for dummies"
website (it had US scancodes...Tim Robinson, I think it was, provided
UK scancodes...I spotted that, oops, one or two weren't actually right
and think one key was actually mislabelled - don't know if that was
Tim or it just got copied wrongly into the "ASCII chart" or a little
of both - so sent in an "amendment" about it...which I still think
doesn't really deserve the credit in the "contributors" section of the
website for just one or two "Tim's left out...the scancode is
actually..." comments and nothing more than that as my "great
contribution" there ;)...

Lost my bookmarks for that website now...although, it shouldn't be
hard to find...ah, here we go, found it! This is the best way, I
think, because it has the keyboard layout as a nice little ASCII
diagram and also supplies the "scancodes" (should you be in any way
interested in that, which you probably aren't ;)...

http://my.execpc.com/~geezer/osd/kbd/uk-1.txt

[ Actually, _ONE ADDITION_ that is not on the keyboard diagram but I
see before me (hmmm, one more "correction" to better deserve my credit
on the "contributors" page? ;) - left out because it's a relatively
"new" thing and the kind of thing you "overlook" - the numeric "4" key
on the main keyboard - that has the dollar sign in the SHIFTed
position - also has the new "Euro" currency symbol in the bottom-right
corner (accessed with CTRL + ALT + 4 :)...this addition, of course, is
"recent" because the Euro currency ain't been around all that
long...Britain isn't yet in the Euro (if it, indeed, ever will
be...that aspect of the "European Union" is one of those issues hotly
debated in the UK...should we or shouldn't we join the currency?) but
I suppose the idea of this key is because of trade with other European
countries that do and maybe even "preparing" for a possible future
Euro currency...although, it'll be interesting to see if the "pound"
and "Euro" symbols _switch places_, as that would actually make the
most sense if the currency switched...in fact, the "pound" symbol
would then just be a "legacy" symbol...would it really deserve a place
on the keyboard at all? ;) ]

The basic differences are to do with moving the keys around a small
amount...things like: We don't use dollars, we use "pounds"...it has a
different symbol ("£", Hoping that this symbol transfers properly...it
should do but it is outside the usual ASCII range that you can't
always be sure...it does sometimes "disappear" during transfers over
the 'Net ;)...hence, the "pound" sign goes above "3" on the main
keyboard...the dollar sign is above "4"...putting this here means that
the "@" sign has to go elsewhere...it goes down to where the single
apostrophe is...and this means the quotation marks has to go
elsewhere...so, this goes up as a SHIFTed "2" on the main
keyboard...which moves another symbol...and so on and so
forth...there's also some movement just to "balance" the keyboard (the
"| \" key moves down so that "forward slash" and "backslash" are now
on the same line opposing each other :)...

In short, there's more or less all the same symbols as the US keyboard
but they are "shuffled around" a little...also, one major difference,
I suppose, worth a mention is that we've got an extra key! In the "101
or 102 keyboard" phrase, we're the latter...mind you, that said,
_some_ keyboards don't bother with a slightly minor layout
difference...these keyboards, though, are rare...actually, they
probably don't make them anymore...but there was once a "UK layout #1"
and "UK layout #2" with and without the "extra key"...

What's funny is that most UK typists from the DOS days do - at least
subconsciously - have a rough idea of the US layout (turn the "switch"
in the brain and I can jump into using the US layout via a UK
keyboard...I've rarely actually _seen_ the US layout, mind you...just
once or twice...but, subconsciously, I do kind of know it...that is,
the second I type SHIFT + 2 but get an "@" sign rather than the
quotation marks, the brain "adjusts" to tapping at the UK layout,
accounting for the US symbols actually appearing :)...the reason being
that, often, under DOS, the "UK keyboard map" wasn't loaded in and
you'd type with the US equivalents appearing (for obvious reasons,
software made by US companies like Microsoft "defaults" to presuming a
US layout unless "otherwise advised" ;)...and, playing around with
"installing the UK key map" and that kind of thing was troublesome
that many UK typists simply "get used" to typing with a UK keyboard
but a US keyboard mapping in effect...most of the keys are the same,
anyway...just a case of some "minor modifications" with things like
quotation marks and "@" signs :)...

Also, some computer games also simply "presume" the US mapping...you
know, the game checks the "installed language"...sees "English" as the
"main language" but doesn't bother to check the "sub-language
identifier" that it's "UK" and not "US"...in other words, pesky
American programmers presuming the UK is the same automatically...or
know different but couldn't be bothered...mind you, that said, I
presume the Aussie layout might be different again (or is it just US
layout? As Oz uses dollars too, I can see that you could "get away"
with having the same layout probably...hutch! You reading this? What
kind of keyboard you got over there? ;)...don't know, never
check...hence, if it _is_ different then I'm going and doing exactly
the same "sin" as those American coders who don't bother checking
about whether the UK is different and needs an "exception" thrown into
the coding to account for it...ah, nevermind...as you may guess from
the amount and speed I type, I'm one of those people who just "knows"
where all the keys are...never actually look at the keyboard itself
that it really doesn't matter what symbols are printed on the tops of
the keys...just one quick subconscious glance at the keyboard when
I've moved my fingers away to make sure I've put them back in the
right place to carry on...hence, it's all "on automatic" with me,
anyway...so, like I say, when the US mapping is in effect, my brain
just switches "mapping" and after a little "adjusting", I'm typing
just as fluidly...due to my time in Germany, I can actually do much
the same with German layout too ("Y" and "Z" are reversed!! In
addition to all the "umlaut" keys on the right for the special
accented characters :)...

I'm actually NOT a "touch typist"...never learnt to do it the
"official" way...though, I can reach much the same speeds and it's
real similar in the basic "strategy" because that really is the
fastest way to type quickly (you know, "hover" the hands above two
main spots then just extend the fingers ;)...so, in fact, learning the
German layout was actually quite easy...don't quite know how I did it
because it's all "subconscious"...but it really did only take a short
while to "adjust"...I guess already having two "key maps" in my head -
UK and US - meant that adding one more was something my brain didn't
find too difficult...one thing about not following the "official" way
is that I never get RSI or aching hands...plus, I often smoke or drink
a can of Coke or something while typing...and it's all "automatic" and
"subconscious" that I just switch to one hand typing, smoke the
cigarette and then switch back to two hand...the lack of RSI or aching
hands is because, if they start getting tired, then I have a whole
bunch of "alternatives"...yeah, I can type in different ways
too...that whole RSI thing comes about from not enough movement and
the same movements again and again...but if my hands get tired then I
can switch to typing one hand and give the other a stretch...or
delibrately take the slower "move your hands all over the place" way
of typing but which doesn't tax the wrists as much...

That's one of the things with taking "shortcuts"...you know, rather
than learn to type by just _typing_ an awful lot (like I have ;), you
go on some "course" about "official touch typing" and so on...yeah,
you probably got "up to speed" quicker with that "course" than I
originally did years ago (they take you _directly_ to the "fastest way
to type" while I "discovered" it by just _doing_ :)...but you only
know _one_ way...the "official" way...no deviation...no
"improvision"...yeah, I'm just a "natural born typist"...don't mess
with me!! hehehe ;)...

Beth :)