Good idea.

[Gene E. Bloch]

In message <[email protected]>, Wolf K

Some of them (us) like to think and/or claim that it's because they/we are
superior in some way; the more prosaic reason is that we _have_ to become so,
as it's a somewhat rightist world; little more to it than that.

I'll go with the superior hypothesis, if you'd like

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 13:32:44 -0700, Gene E. Bloch

On 02/04/2012 1:03 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[...]
Tip #2: I am left-handed. I use a mouse with my right hand. It
is convenient. I can make notes while viewing a Web page or other
mouse-controlled window. Why do right-handers use mousies with their
right hands?

Because they aren't as ambidextrous as lefties.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you have a word to look up. If I were ambidextrous, then
I would not be a left-hander.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition

Ambidextrous, adj.
1. Able to use both hands with equal dexterity

The obvious context is using this definition. I would not be a
lefty then.

Others might be southpaws who consider themselves to be at least a
little bit ambidextrous. Those people might be willing to see that the
term applies to them in some degree.

This is an undeserved compliment.

Perhaps for you, but maybe not for the majority of the people that Wolf
K was referring to. He seemed to be willing to compliment them.

This is an undeserved insult.

For whom? I was quoting a definition; I did not say to whom it applies.
And it is not the word "Dummy", which, as we know, is always an insult

 

[Robert Sudbury]

On 02/04/2012 1:03 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[...]

Tip #2: I am left-handed. I use a mouse with my right hand. It
is convenient. I can make notes while viewing a Web page or other
mouse-controlled window. Why do right-handers use mousies with their
right hands?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Because they aren't as ambidextrous as lefties.

Wolf K.

It may also have something to do with the QWERTY keyboard layout, which
was deliberately designed to favour the LEFT hand; to slow the fine
right-handed young ladies of the typing pool from out-typing the
mechanical typewriters.

 

[Wolf K]

It may also have something to do with the QWERTY keyboard layout, which
was deliberately designed to favour the LEFT hand; to slow the fine
right-handed young ladies of the typing pool from out-typing the
mechanical typewriters.

It was young gentlemen, originally.

Wolf K.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

I'll go with the superior hypothesis, if you'd like

Are you left-handed, too?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Ken Blake]

I did look in a dictionary before commenting. It wasn't there, but of
course that's not conclusive, since it wan't the OED.

So I went there (Compact Edition of OED1).

I found ambisinistrous, defined as ambilævous[1], which in turn is
defined as "left handed on both sides, as it were".

Geez - it's gotten hard to read the compact edition even with the
magnifying glass

Same here. I think we both need stronger magnifying glasses.

 

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 13:32:44 -0700, Gene E. Bloch


The obvious context is using this definition. I would not be a
lefty then.

The critical word in "Because they aren't as ambidextrous as lefties"
is "as." Nobody suggested that lefties were ambidextrous; rather the
word "as" suggests that lefties are usually closer to being
ambidextrous than righties.

 

[Wolf K]

The critical word in "Because they aren't as ambidextrous as lefties"
is "as." Nobody suggested that lefties were ambidextrous; rather the
word "as" suggests that lefties are usually closer to being
ambidextrous than righties.

Top marks for parsing.

Wolf K.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Top marks for parsing.

Wolf K.

+1

 

[Ken Blake]

+1

Thanks to both of you.

 

[Bob I]

Actually "qwerty" layout was developed in an attempt to prevent jamming
of the key linkages by putting physical distance between keys for pairs
of letters that are typically found adjacent in words.

 

[Ken Blake]

On 4/2/2012 8:48 PM, Wolf K wrote:

Actually "qwerty" layout was developed in an attempt to prevent jamming
of the key linkages by putting physical distance between keys for pairs
of letters that are typically found adjacent in words.

It's been so long since I've seen an old mechanical typewriter that I
can't remember--does the position of the keys necessarily correspond
with the positions of the "key linkages" (is that what they are
called? I can't remember that either)? If not, the keyboard layout
wouldn't matter.

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

It's been so long since I've seen an old mechanical typewriter that I
can't remember--does the position of the keys necessarily correspond
with the positions of the "key linkages" (is that what they are
called? I can't remember that either)? If not, the keyboard layout
wouldn't matter.

Yes. The linkage IS the key! Pressing the key physically causes a hammer
to strike the platen. Which key represents which character depends on
which font is attached to the corresponding hammer.

 

[Wolf K]

On 04/04/2012 10:39 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
[...]

It's been so long since I've seen an old mechanical typewriter that I
can't remember--does the position of the keys necessarily correspond
with the positions of the "key linkages" (is that what they are
called? I can't remember that either)? If not, the keyboard layout
wouldn't matter.

Yes, the linkage is completely mechanical. If you type really fast, then
it's possible to jam the keys by having one rise to strike the platen
before the other has dropped far enough out of the way. I've done it
many times.

But those mechanical typewriters are tough. I had an open frame
Remington, built no later than the 1910s. It was getting kinda sluggish
from accumulated dirt and oxidised oil, so I put it in the Hoover
washing machine (which had its impeller in the side wall). After it
dried out, a little judicious oiling brought it back to nearly new
condition. Because it was so well worn in, that was actually better than
new. ;-) I gave it to our local museum, which oddly enough didn't have one.

There's been a lot of argument about replacing the qwerty keyboard, but
any other layout would be most efficient for only one language at a
time. The qwerty is equally "good enough" for most languages.

Wolf K.

 

[Ken Blake]

On 04/04/2012 10:39 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
[...]

It's been so long since I've seen an old mechanical typewriter that I
can't remember--does the position of the keys necessarily correspond
with the positions of the "key linkages" (is that what they are
called? I can't remember that either)? If not, the keyboard layout
wouldn't matter.

Yes, the linkage is completely mechanical.

Yes, I understand that. What I was asking about was their position. Is
the Q just to the left of the W and the E just to its right, and so
on?

If you type really fast, then
it's possible to jam the keys by having one rise to strike the platen
before the other has dropped far enough out of the way. I've done it
many times.

Yes, even though I was, and still am, a slow typist, I remember that
happening.

But those mechanical typewriters are tough. I had an open frame
Remington, built no later than the 1910s. It was getting kinda sluggish
from accumulated dirt and oxidised oil, so I put it in the Hoover
washing machine (which had its impeller in the side wall). After it
dried out, a little judicious oiling brought it back to nearly new
condition. Because it was so well worn in, that was actually better than
new. ;-) I gave it to our local museum, which oddly enough didn't have one.

There's been a lot of argument about replacing the qwerty keyboard, but
any other layout would be most efficient for only one language at a
time. The qwerty is equally "good enough" for most languages.

But that keyboard is *not* used in some languages. In France, for
example, their keyboard is very different, and it once drove me crazy
in an Internet cafe in Nice.

 

[Wolf K]

On 04/04/2012 10:39 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
[...]
It's been so long since I've seen an old mechanical typewriter that I
can't remember--does the position of the keys necessarily correspond
with the positions of the "key linkages" (is that what they are
called? I can't remember that either)? If not, the keyboard layout
wouldn't matter.

Yes, the linkage is completely mechanical.

Yes, I understand that. What I was asking about was their position. Is
the Q just to the left of the W and the E just to its right, and so
on?

Not exactly. The rows are offset, so there's room for the lower row
linkages. next to the upper row ones. I.e., it's q-a-z-w-s-x and so on.
Even on a modern, electronic keyboard the w key is slightly to the left
of the z key, though that offset is no longer needed. Key placement is a
design fossil, like the unnecessary buttons on a jacket sleeve.

Wolf K.

 

[Rodney Pont]

Yes, I understand that. What I was asking about was their position. Is
the Q just to the left of the W and the E just to its right, and so
on?

No, the linkages work down the rows, it's 1QA2YWS3XED4C etc. At least
in the image in this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Keyboard_on_a_typewriter.jpg

Note that Y and Z have swapped places these days.

 

[John Williamson]

On 04/04/2012 10:39 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
[...]

It's been so long since I've seen an old mechanical typewriter that I
can't remember--does the position of the keys necessarily correspond
with the positions of the "key linkages" (is that what they are
called? I can't remember that either)? If not, the keyboard layout
wouldn't matter.

Yes, the linkage is completely mechanical. If you type really fast, then
it's possible to jam the keys by having one rise to strike the platen
before the other has dropped far enough out of the way. I've done it
many times.

But those mechanical typewriters are tough. I had an open frame
Remington, built no later than the 1910s. It was getting kinda sluggish
from accumulated dirt and oxidised oil, so I put it in the Hoover
washing machine (which had its impeller in the side wall). After it
dried out, a little judicious oiling brought it back to nearly new
condition. Because it was so well worn in, that was actually better than
new. ;-) I gave it to our local museum, which oddly enough didn't have one.

There's been a lot of argument about replacing the qwerty keyboard, but
any other layout would be most efficient for only one language at a
time. The qwerty is equally "good enough" for most languages.

Except that the French have always had AZERTYUIOP on the top row of
letters, the Germans have QWERTZUIOP, and so on...

Even the UK and USA have always had minor differences in shifted key
allocations. That's before you take into account things like portable
typewriters, which use the lower case l instead of having a numerical
key for 1.

 

[Ken Blake]

On 04/04/2012 10:39 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
[...]
It's been so long since I've seen an old mechanical typewriter that I
can't remember--does the position of the keys necessarily correspond
with the positions of the "key linkages" (is that what they are
called? I can't remember that either)? If not, the keyboard layout
wouldn't matter.

Yes, the linkage is completely mechanical.

Yes, I understand that. What I was asking about was their position. Is
the Q just to the left of the W and the E just to its right, and so
on?

Not exactly. The rows are offset, so there's room for the lower row
linkages. next to the upper row ones. I.e., it's q-a-z-w-s-x and so on.
Even on a modern, electronic keyboard the w key is slightly to the left
of the z key, though that offset is no longer needed. Key placement is a
design fossil, like the unnecessary buttons on a jacket sleeve.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

No, the linkages work down the rows, it's 1QA2YWS3XED4C etc. At least
in the image in this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Keyboard_on_a_typewriter.jpg

Note that Y and Z have swapped places these days.

No, the Z was always there - on a German typewriter, which that one is
(you can tell by the presence of the Ä Ö Ü and ß keys; on a British, and
probably American, typewriter, the umlaut, if present at all [on my
Dad's you used the "], had to be used with the aAoOuU key in two
strikes).