From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Feeling lost without tabs Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:02:48 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: <87zjg1njav.fsf@debian.uxu> References: <874myab9vm.fsf@debian.uxu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1406066760 17329 80.91.229.3 (22 Jul 2014 22:06:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:06:00 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 23 00:05:52 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X9iBz-0003yd-V6 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:05:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41569 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X9iBz-0002Wt-Ed for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:05:51 -0400 Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 130 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: SIvZRMPqRkkTHAHL6NkRuw.user.speranza.aioe.org Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:hFGikCpu6p/hMhCEt7jFkapC3Wg= Mail-Copies-To: never Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:206637 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:98911 Archived-At: Bob Proulx writes: > If anyone does this please post a photo! :-) I got the idea from this music video from the 90's, the German Eurodisco band Sash. Of course, having the keyboards hang in chains are optional... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEsMhxDVVOk > Yes. But at some point the brain can become > overloaded. I have some ham radios that have had > feature creep to the point that they are no longer > possible to be operated without the manual open > beside them. That is bad. Was it left function, > right function, then action button? Or was it push > and hold left function 1s until beep, then action > button? Or right function hold 1s, left function, > then action? I have truly awful "computerized" radio > like that. Others with less features are more usable > because sometimes you don't have the manual in front > of you. Fatigue is of course a big source of such "biomechanical" mistakes. At that point you should probably have a break. At the same time if you have too much material in your brain you might think fumbling and stumbling is OK just so the thing gets done, then the break will be all the more enjoyable as you can feel good and let all that dissappear completely. > Actually no. I am a general aviation pilot (not a > fighter pilot, I fly taildragges) but the concept for > fighters is HOTAS. Hands On Throttle-And-Stick. Put > the switches you need on either the throttle or stick > so they can be reached without removing hands from > the flight controls. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTAS > > Mostly when you do need to manipulate a switch not on > either throttle or stick you keep one hand on the > control stick, leave the throttle in the friction > lock to hold it in place, and use the throttle hand > to flip switches. And especially with radios there > is always a lot of fumbling. So is there something we text-editor users can learn from the pilots? >> I remember a flight simulator for the Mac, F/A-18 >> Hornet. It took up almost the entire keyboard. > > Because the keyboard is a general purpose interface for > human text it doesn't really make a good match to an > airplane cockpit. Meaning that it will be more > complicated because there is a mapping from one to > another. The keys are binary. Most flight controls > are analog. The stick and throttle are, I take it the movements are recoded digitally at some point? What about the data that are read by the pilots? Are they typically analog or spelled out with letters and digits? I think I would prefer analog, more smooth and relaxed. In a text editor though I can't think of anything that could be purposely expressed the "analog" way? > More and less. When you are centered in the cockpit > you can turn your head and look around and everything > makes sense around you. But in a game display this > is difficult to achieve. Plus the real aircraft > includes feeling the movement in your seat which also > gives you clues. Perhaps it is more like flying an > RC aircraft. Interesting. This reminds my of an article I read in the magazine "High Score". There was a Formula 1 game, one of the first games for Windows 95, and for this reason it got some attention. The game was nothing out of the ordinary, I think. But anyway there was a profession race car guy they had testing the game. He said just like you the biggest difference was you get zero information from your body. He said he didn't have an advantage playing the game from being a professional race car driver. In another article in that magazine, but I think in another issue, they did the same with a sailboat simulator. They showed it to some Captain Haddock old fart and asked if you could learn anything from it, and he said absolutely not, you should do that in a real boat. Well of course... problem is, kids don't sit around boats all day as they do computers. If two kids were to learn it I absolutely think the kid with the experience from the simulator would have an advantage - he would know the terminology, how to process the instruments, he would have something to relate (compare) to, and his brain would just have a head start. Also, a simulator can run different scenarios. Don't pilots train in simulators all the time? Why shouldn't aspiring Haddocks do as well? All said and done, nothing beats the real deal... >> They say programmers often take to flying when they >> get rich... (E.g., Woz, speaking of the accursed >> Apple world.) > > When I get rich I will let you know. Until then > flying is one of the things keeping me poor. But I > wouldn't give up flying for money. It is the other > way around. Configuring Emacs all they long and having the shell tools and everything behave exactly as you like, and then do the same to the place you are in while doing it, tweaking everything, I think computing can be physically and even more so mentally enjoyable - and it is a huge difference from a busy office with crap software and stressed out people running all over the place - still, compared to what is instinctively and immediately a joy for almost anyone who ever does it - I'm not an aviator but to some degree I can imagine - I don't think it will ever come to that... Mission Impossible. -- underground experts united