more about keyboards

Getting back to the theme that this page was started with, lets talk about keyboards. This time I would like to take a look at the PC's keyboard, but if you don't have a PC, read on, because there is more to it than that.

Back when IBM designed the PC, they also designed a keyboard for it. This was nothing unusual, because at the time there was no standard keyboard, and every type of computer had its own slightly different style. Of course, they were all QWERTY keyboards, the power of old standards had just as strong a hold then as it does now. However, the QWERTY design was old, and didn't specify where all those "newfangled" keys that IBM (and many other computer manufactures) wanted to put on their keyboards.

So IBM came up with it's keyboard, with it's own placement for the keys like Esc, or Print Screen. I suspect that the keyboard designers at IBM were over exuberant upon being given this "demanding" task, because they came up with 2 keys that are never used. The Print Screen key has written on its lower side the letters SysRq. This key had no purpose when the PC was released, and never has. Yet almost all PC keyboards still have it. I can't even imagine what they thought it was going to be used for when they put it there.

Even better is the Scroll Lock key. This is a real key, not just some writing on the side of some other key, and also didn't have any function on the IBM PC's. The first known app to ever use the key was MS Flight Simulator. It was also the last. However, I was able to put my Scroll Lock key to some use, when my B key started to fail, I swapped the switch with the one under the Scroll Lock key, thereby extending the life of my keyboard.

Ok, so the PC keyboard has 2 extra keys. Interesting, but not that much you say? Well it gets better! The PC was such a hit back when it was introduced, that the IBM keyboard layout has become a standard, and even non PC type computer have these keys. I have seen several MACs with the extra keys, and even some workstations with the unwanted keys! And on all, just like the on the PC, they have no function. Yet another standard that carried on for no reason, for years and years. We may never see the day when most keyboards don't come with the Scroll Lock and SysRq keys.

RIP: the gravis ultrasound

This post only makes sense in the context of being written in the late 90s...

If you have a PC, and don't have a wave-table synth built into your sound card, then you need to take a look at the UltraSound line of sound cards from Advanced Gravis.

They are not perfect sound cards, but in many ways they are the best out there. If price rates high on your list, then you will really like the UltraSound (aka GUS). I have seen the GUS-ACE for $80 mail order, and it is a kick ass card. Half a meg of ram, (can be upgraded to 1 meg) and a 6 meg patch set that can be changed and replaced as you like. The PnP has even better specs, but it is more expensive. However, the PnP (the Pro version, stay away from the standard version) supports up to 8 megs of ram on board! It also has a InterWave chipset, and can use a more advanced patch set.

Ok, so you don't understand what all that means? Then the UltraSound may not be the card for you. It can take just a little more understanding of computers than the average sound card, if you are a DOS user. But if all you use is Windows95 programs, then have at it, it's a great sound card for Windows.

But you still haven't talked about how it Really sounds! Ok, in short, it sounds great. Most of the instruments in the Gravis Patches sound great, and because of this the Midi is very nice. If you want to hear for yourself, check out the UltraSound Experience CD from Gravis. I don't know if it is free, or if they charge you shipping and handling, but if you still have an FM-Synth based card, you owe it too yourself to get this CD, and find out all that a wave-table sound card has to offer.

1-800

Have you ever been put on hold when you called a company? Should I even bother to ask? Of course you have been put on hold. In this day and age, you often spend more time on hold than you do talking to a live person.

Not that I am complaining, too much. With out the ability of being put on hold, you would have to keep on re-dialing the number, until a line became free. No, the on hold system is better than nothing at all.

I do have one big complaint, though. When ever you are on hold for a few minutes, a message comes on about how This call is very important to us, please stay on the line and somebody will get to you shortly. In the history of time, has this message ever made anybody stay on the line, because after hearing it, they know that somebody will get to them shortly? Hah! All it really serves to do is mess up speaker phone users. When played on speaker phones it often makes you run back to your phone because you think somebody has finally picked up!

Even better is when you hear the message while on hold on a 800 tech support number. Sure, this call is real important to them, they just love helping irate customers who have been on hold for half an hour (costing them big money in phone bills every second they have been hold).

NeXtStep and UNIX

Lets talk about Unix for a second. What is UNIX? UNIX is the first multitasking, multiuser OS. UNIX is getting very old now, but it is still one of the best OSes out there. Its biggest problem is that there are so many different types of UNIX. I have heard of each of the folowing: HP UNIX, IRIX, SUN OS, AIX, A/UX, NeXTSTEP, ULTRIX, OSF UNIX, SYSTEM V, LINUX, FREE BSD, BSD 386, XENIX, and many more. And they are all different in some way, sometimes big sometimes small. But, if you have used one, you have used them all.

So why do I like UNIX? Because it is a very powerful OS. It has a very rich batch language, and if that isn't good enough for you, almost every versoin comes with a C compiler! Plus, X windows is a very nice GUI in some ways, I thinks that all GUI designers should use it for a week to learn how neat and useful some of its querks are.

My current favorite UNIX is a toss up between NeXTSTEP, and IRIX. Both are pretty good, but nether are perfect. NeXTSTEP is a joy to use, and program, but there are no cool programs for it. IRIX is very nice, and as it runs on SGI computers its main strength is the software writen for it's powerful hardware. What I want: a SGI POWER CHALLENGE, running NeXTSTEP, with binary computability with IRIX! It will never happen.

Keyboards

Look at your keyboard. If it says QWERTY on a row of keys near the top it is laid out in a completely nonsensical way. Why is it laid out like that? For no good reason, that's why. It started out that way because that is how it made sense to lay out early mechanical typewriter keyboards. With the keys laid out in that order it took longer to type, and common key combos were farther apart, making typewriter much less likely to jam.

Almost all keyboards are set up this way, because it is harder to change a standard, than just use it forever. Just because 99% of keyboards are of the QWERTY type, doesn't mean that there aren't other types of keyboards out there. The type call Dvorak is the most popular of the nonstandard keyboards. It is laid out for typing speed, with letters that are most often used on the home row.

Just think, how often do you use the j and k keys? Not near as often as the e or o keys, yet your fingers have to move farther for these often used keys, than for those other little used keys.

Despite knowing how much better the Dvorak type keyboard is, I still use QWERTY keyboards exclusively. Why? Because I learned on QWERTY keyboards, and even if I changed every keyboard I own to a Dvorak keyboard everybody else's keyboard will still be in the QWERTY mode. What a nightmare to switch back and forth. It is hard enough to switch from MAC keyboards to PC keyboards and back, and the only difference is where the place keeper marks are.

I suspect that the QWERTY style keyboards will stay the most popular types of keyboards until something replaces the keyboard as the most used method of text input. Then, when learning keyboarding is optional I suspect that people that bother too will learn the Dvorak keyboard (or some relation).

What is a species

I took the safe route here, and didn't try out any non traditional ideas. As it stands, it is a nice intro to the definition of a species.

---

What is a species? This is not an easy question to answer to everybody's satisfaction, except in a very non-specific way. Generally speaking, species is a word that biologists have defined to refer to specific groups of populations, in which all the members of the group are closely related. Like most definitions, it loses much of its value when the people who use it can't agree on its exact definition.

Formally stated, the definition of a species that I like is a group of organisms that can, and do, interbreed to produce offspring that can continue to breed successfully with the rest of the group.

This definition is valuable because it is definite, and leaves less room for speculation than other definitions. However, not all biologists agree with this definition. Other popular ways to define a species are based on morphological aspects, likelihood of mating, and genetic traits.

What techniques can be used to distinguish between species? With a concept that is as broad as species, all organisms must be considered of the same species until proven otherwise. Sometimes it is easy to tell that organisms are of a different species due to great levels of differentiation between them, but this is not always the case. Simple tests related to appearance can be useful for drastically different animals, such as birds and fish, but quickly lose usefulness when comparing animals that are somewhat related. The same is true for plants, a tree is easily differentiated from a fern, but when comparing plants of similar types much more care must be taken.

It must be remembered that not all samples of a population are a good representation of that population. When comparing a pituitary dwarf to a human with gigantism, it would be easy to think that you had two species, based on physical dimensions alone. It is also important to compare your organisms when they are of the same age, since many animals, and even a few plants, can be found in drastically different physical and behavior stages over their lifetime. Clearly, the numerically larger your sample (and the more diverse), the better your results.

Even with a large sample, physical appearance can fail to identify different species. Evolutionary pressures of an environment can shape two different species in a common environment so that they look and act alike, while still being separate species. In another example of evolution muddying the waters, distinctive markings of some wasps are mimicked by other insects that can't sting. By sight alone they look closely related, and possibly of the same species.

A more time consuming method, but a generally more successful one, is attempting to interbreed the organisms, to see if they produce successful offspring. (An unsuccessful offspring can be defined as not being able to successfully reproduce with the same groups of organisms that created it.) If the organisms are of different species, they must not interbreed when they are both placed in the same environment, or when they do, not produce successful offspring. The reason for inability to interbreed can be diverse for animals, such as different breeding seasons, different methods of attracting a mate, or on a simpler scale, inability to breed due to different physical anatomy. For plants, common reasons for not interbreeding are mostly related to types of pollinators being different between plants.

It is the simplicity, and the fact that the outcome is fairly easy to judge, that makes me choose interbreeding as the basis for my definition of species. By this definition, there are no murky issues related to different species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. If they can interbreed, with success, then they really are all part of the same species.

Labeling People

was only 16 when I wrote this, and while I still think the thesis is correct, I would word it slightly differently now. But perhaps it has more value (at least to me) as a record of how I thought and wrote at that age.

---

When you label somebody you are setting up a schema with which you will try to process (and understand) their actions. This can be a very useful tool, letting you make decisions about somebody quicker, and with less info. Consider judging advice on a subject that you know little about. If you have labeled a person as generally knowing what they are talking about, you would pay more attention to what they say. You would most likely pay less attention to somebody whom you have decided always claims to have some sort of answer, whether they know what they are talking about or not. Labels are also easier to store in your memory than a copy of somebody's complete personality. Once you have labeled them, you can store that label for future use, and probably be able to recall that label with ease next time you meet them.

Like all useful tools of the mind, labels can be over used. The biggest danger with labels arises when you incorrectly label somebody. Whether the label is incorrect from the start, or if the person changes, making your label incorrect, you will most likely make more wrong decisions regarding that person than if you had never labeled them. This is a bad thing, but it isn't so bad if you have no power over the person that you are labeling, and are only hurting yourself. The real problem arises when you have any level of control over these peoples' lives. Slavery was a good example, and to a lesser extent, racism is a continuation of this.

Labeling has another downfall. Because labels make it easier to make decisions with less info, when you don't understand somebody/something, there is a strong need to label them, so that the little information that you do have will seem to be sufficient.

A person can be labeled in many ways, ways that we don't automatically think about, such as man/woman, boy/girl, old/young, strong/weak, and so on. Most of the time labels such as these are applied correctly, but not always. I have an example of this based upon myself.

When I was a middle-school aged kid, I was labeled as a kid that went to middle school by many people when they first saw me. They would see me in the supermarket and other places, during times that school should have been in session, label me as a truant, and would ask me why I wasn't in school. The answer was that I was home schooled, so, in a way, the whole world was my school. This really wasn't a problem for me most of the time, because none of these people had any real power over me.

I can remember one time someone did have power over me, and was able to cause some trouble. I was running, for exercise, with my parents one day, and since I was young, I couldn't keep up with them near the end, and was alone on the road when a police car came along. The policeman pulled over and started asking me questions about why I wasn't in school. I don't know if he believed my answer, but he slowed me down for such a long period asking me questions that my parents finished running, became worried, and came back looking for me.

Labeling can be useful, but its downfall is when the label is attached to somebody incorrectly. Because of this we should try not to permanently label anybody until we really know them, and even then we should review our labels every now and then.